• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Lebanese flotilla organizers found to have Hezbollah ties

:confused:
Did you just write a sentence that doesn't make sense because your English is bad or is this your little way of admitting to your propaganda machine?
Neither, it went right over your head.
I didn't call it propaganda. Now your just making things up. I said it was an unreliable source.
Denying the obvious may only act against you.
You replied to the OP where I've asked if anyone's surprised with "Considering the source you linked, no. It was an expected conclusion.".
That's funny. I could have sworn you where doing the same with Al-Jazeera not far back. :roll:
I like many consider al-Jazeera biased due to its past reporting.
What decalres a source biased is the pattern that is exposed during its publishments.
Were I to state that al-Jazeera is a biased, propagandist source merely because it's Arab/Muslim and not because of its actual bias, I'd be like you.
OK. Evidence number 1:

Unfounded article with no sources. Done.
The only thing that was done with that statement is your credibility.
If that's the way you declare a source biased then no **** you'd see YNET as biased.
You see, this article is a YNET article, not a BBC or CNN or Reuters article.
That's why YNET is your source here.
The YNET news report is based here on findings by its journalists and workers, not by those of the BBC and not by those of Reuters.

They were claiming that the organizer of the ship, a Palestinian businessman named Yasser Kashlak, has sent a letter in the 19th of August 2009 where he has expressed his support for Hassan Nasrallah and his Hezbollah organization.
They actually give you details. If that was not true they wouldn't make that statement, risking years of irrefutable credibility.

I'm still laughing however at how you've just declared a leftist independent newspaper to be biased towards Israel.
 
Last edited:
Neither, it went right over your head.

Just admit to it. It's low and sad.

Denying the obvious may only act against you.
You replied to the OP where I've asked if anyone's surprised with "Considering the source you linked, no. It was an expected conclusion.".

I didn't say propaganda. And it was expected. So far, its only been YNET who have managed to link the Irish, Turkish, Lebanese and every over flotilla boat to a terrorist organization.

I like many consider al-Jazeera biased due to its past reporting.

That's your opinion, but that is somehow ok.

What decalres a source biased is the pattern that is exposed during its publishments.
Were I to state that al-Jazeera is a biased, propagandist source merely because it's Arab/Muslim and not because of its actual bias, I'd be like you.

I didn't say YNET was biased because its Israeli.
On that note, would you rely on a Palestinian newspaper to report on Israel with neutrality? Try being honest.

The only thing that was done with that statement is your credibility.
If that's the way you declare a source biased then no **** you'd see YNET as biased.
You see, this article is a YNET article, not a BBC or CNN or Reuters article.
That's why YNET is your source here.

No, because this wouldn't be the first time YNET has managed to establish a link and foreign ones have failed to do so.

They were claiming that the organizer of the ship, a Palestinian businessman named Yasser Kashlak, has sent a letter in the 19th of August 2009 where he has expressed his support for Hassan Nasrallah and his Hezbollah organization.
They actually give you details. If that was not true they wouldn't make that statement.

Could you post the part he expressed support for Hezbollah? I only saw the part where he thanked Hassan Nasrallah. Did YNET base this "scientific" link on this letter alone? Oh boy! I was expecting some substantial "behind-the-scenes" intel at the very least.
 
Last edited:
Just admit to it. It's low and sad.
A great description of your incapability to understand the meaning of my words to you.
I didn't say propaganda.
You wanna play PC? It was quite clear you were implying that YNET is promoting propaganda, I could just as well say that you've never used the words "unreliable" as you claimed you've used earlier, it's the same thing.
So far, its only been YNET who have managed to link the Irish, Turkish, Lebanese and every over flotilla boat to a terrorist organization.
What the hell are you talking about?
YNET was not the one behind the exposing of the IHH as a terrorist-related organization. The Danish insitutution has done it years ago in 1996, and Israel and the US have officially made that connection before too.
Your attempts to discredit a newspaper with years of credibility behind it are desperate and hopeless, you're not bringing up any real arguments.
I didn't say YNET was biased because its Israeli.
You've simply stated that it's biased without forming any supportive arguments or claiming why it is biased, leaving no room for doubt as to what was the meaning of your words.
On that note, would you rely on a Palestinian newspaper to report on Israel with neutrality? Try being honest.
Ignoring for a moment the fact that the Palestinians do not have a free press, if that newspaper was independent and has had no bias in its past and a lot of credibility behind it then sure I don't see why not.
No, because this wouldn't be the first time YNET has managed to establish a link and foreign ones have failed to do so.
Others haven't failed to do so, others have simply not researched the issue.
Every newspaper once in a while launches a research and publishes its results.
The New York Times, BBC and others do it all the time, and YNET doesn't fall behind them in the credibility of such researches.
Could you post the part he expressed support for Hezbollah? I only saw the part where he thanked Hassan Nasrallah.
He thanked Nasrallah for his support for his business, and in another occasion as stated that Nasrallah should be supported more by the Arab nations. It pretty much means that this man has supportive opinions towards Nasrallah.
Did YNET base this "scientific" link on this letter alone?
No, no it didn't, and you've just declared that you haven't even read the article. Game over.
 
Terrorism is the unlawful use of force by a subnational or non-state actor, not wearing a uniform during combat operations is the unlawful use of force and Hezbollah is a subnational actor.

Not wearing a certain article of clothing is in no way unlawful and certainly isn't the use of force.

Yes and dressing as a civilian while conducting military operations is feigning the appearance of a civilian.

How is it feigning the appearance of a civilian if you're toting an Ak-47 or operation an anti-air craft battery and firing at the first sign of the enemy? You apparently think anyone who wants to get involved in a war has to get jerseys.

It is the enemy that has used the populated cities as cover, international law is quite clear that the use of populated sectors as cover is the war crime and that it does not make them immune from counterattack.

I can hardly believe you are this blind to the realities of war. The reality is if you want to survive you go where there is the most cover, meaning structures that can conceal your position. Cities have plentiful cover in the way of buildings. In the case of Hezbollah countless reports note that they operated from abandoned structures, meaning there were no civilians in them. There might be civilians living in a structure nearby, but that is not the same thing. Also, buildings provide shelter and rest for troops while open fields do not.

And Katusha rockets are can not discriminate which means that their use is an act of terrorism and a war crime.

No weapon can discriminate between combatants and non-combatants. They only discriminate between what is in the way and what isn't.

I have already posted several videos in which Hezbollah can be seen clearly using population centers to station their rocket batteries and even firing off rockets.

No, you have posted videos with buildings in them and some Hezbollah forces. You have proved exactly nothing. You have not proven that those areas were populated at the time by non-combatants or that if there are non-combatants that they are not staying their of their own accord fully aware of the risk.

If it did not have a limited scope then Israel would have completely depleted Lebanon's capacity to wage warfare. Their entire country would be in ruins, there would have been nothing left, they would have been wiped off the map. You do not even know what total war even means.

Look at a map of the world and I assure you that you will see Japan and Germany on there. You will also find on maps of those countries cities like Tokyo, Dresden, and of course, Hiroshima and Nagasaki. Also, you will note that not all parts of the country received that treatment, because it was not considered necessary for those parts.
 
A great description of your incapability to understand the meaning of my words to you.

Quit dancing around and admit it.

You wanna play PC? It was quite clear you were implying that YNET is promoting propaganda, I could just as well say that you've never used the words "unreliable" as you claimed you've used earlier, it's the same thing.

There we go again, Apoc. Doing what your self righteous self does best. Put words into other peoples mouth. I never said propaganda, and never implied it. YNET has a habit of linking everything to terrorist organzations, hence was not surprised this accusation came from them.

What the hell are you talking about?
YNET was not the one behind the exposing of the IHH as a terrorist-related organization. The Danish insitutution has done it years ago in 1996, and Israel and the US have officially made that connection before too.
Your attempts to discredit a newspaper with years of credibility behind it are desperate and hopeless, you're not bringing up any real arguments.

Actually, in the case of the IHH, your quiet right. You claim my attempts to "discredit" this newspaper is quiet amusing. You yourself have admitted this link is based on nothing but wild conspiracy theories.

You've simply stated that it's biased without forming any supportive arguments or claiming why it is biased, leaving no room for doubt as to what was the meaning of your words.

I have, it just didnt suit you hence why you never heard.
Read the article. Tell me the sources they listed and the evidence they used to conclude it is linked with a terror organization. And then come back to me. Apparently, they used one letter expressing gratitude to Hasan Nasrallah for his support of their business as "evidence". How pathetic you should fool yourself into believe everything YNET says.

Ignoring for a moment the fact that the Palestinians do not have a free press, if that newspaper was independent and has had no bias in its past and a lot of credibility behind it then sure I don't see why not.

So your saying YNET has had no bias in its past?
Others haven't failed to do so, others have simply not researched the issue.
Every newspaper once in a while launches a research and publishes its results.
The New York Times, BBC and others do it all the time, and YNET doesn't fall behind them in the credibility of such researches.

Or because no such terror links exist that the BBC (for example) can formally call valid accusations, with exception to the IHH obviously.

He thanked Nasrallah for his support for his business, and in another occasion as stated that Nasrallah should be supported more by the Arab nations. It pretty much means that this man has supportive opinions towards Nasrallah.

Does it? Or does it mean he is thankful for Nasrallah's gratitude towards his business and everything he has sacrificed?

No, no it didn't, and you've just declared that you haven't even read the article. Game over.

I have read the article. Stop using childish bait.
And thanks for putting your ego aside and admitting the established link was based on nothing but BS, or at least anything substantial enough to draw a conclusion. Which makes me wonder why you posted this.
 
Last edited:
Quit dancing around and admit it.
Keep repeating yourself, maybe it'll make up for the fact that you were incapable of understanding the sentence.
There we go again, Apoc. Doing what your self righteous self does best. Put words into other peoples mouth. I never said propaganda, and never implied it.
So you do wanna play PC, alright. FYI you didn't say the word "unreliable" as well, even though two posts ago you said that this is what you've said, so basically you've lied, aye?
YNET has a habit of linking everything to terrorist organzations
Prove it.
hence was not surprised this accusation came from them.
And since the basis-argument is wrong, this supportive argument supports a false statement and is hence false as well.
Actually, in the case of the IHH, your quiet right.
You were saying that it was this newspaper that has linked the IHH to terrorist organizations.
You've therefore lost every credibility and are making false statements with the intent of discrediting the newspaper.
You claim my attempts to "discredit" this newspaper is quiet amusing. You yourself have admitted this link is based on nothing but wild conspiracy theories.
Never have I admitted such things. I've said the opposite, the link is based on details that are given to the readers. They are able to make their own minds since the details are there, and the details are very convincing.
I have, it just didnt suit you hence why you never heard.
Bull****, you've said "Considering the source you linked, no. It was an expected conclusion.", that was your entire post, no supportive arguments."
Again, denying the obvious is only playing against you.
Read the article. Tell me the sources they listed and the evidence they used to conclude it is linked with a terror organization. And then come back to me. Apparently, they used one letter expressing gratitude to Hasan Nasrallah for his support of their business as "evidence". How pathetic you should fool yourself into believe everything YNET says.
The only one who's fooling himself here is you.
If YNET has an agenda it's an anti-government agenda. It's a center-left newspaper. Even then, YNET has 100% credibility, never in its past did it actually give false information.

Now besides that, they have given the letter, the posts in the blog, and the wife of the Lebanese military officer that was involved in Hariri's murder.
So your saying YNET has had no bias in its past?
No, I'm not saying that - facts say that, and you simply decide you go against the facts and against reality without even giving a convincing argument. It's pathetic.
You're simply claiming that "it's a biased newspaper" because it's Israeli, nothing more and nothing less, and that is a very bigoted and disgusting attitude.
Or because no such terror links exist that the BBC (for example) can formally call valid accusations, with exception to the IHH obviously.
No, there's no "because" there, the BBC didn't even cover it and I fail to see its interest to cover it, a bit less than I fail in seeing your point here though.
Does it? Or does it mean he is thankful for Nasrallah's gratitude towards his business and everything he has sacrificed?
It obviously and undoubtedly means he has supportive opinions of Nasrallah, I don't see a room for an argument here.
You're saying that a person who thanks Nasrallah for supporting his business and says in his blog that Arab countries should be more supportive of Nasrallah and his organization has no supportive opinons of Nasrallah, and that's just ridiculously false.
I have read the article. Stop using childish bait.
Your claim that the letter was the only evidence being presented has exposed the fact that you didn't read the article, and that Kaya is a game over.
And thanks for putting your ego aside and admitting the established link was based on nothing but BS
Never done that, that is an equally infantile and desperate attempt as the "just admit it" rant.
 
Keep repeating yourself, maybe it'll make up for the fact that you were incapable of understanding the sentence.
So you do wanna play PC, alright. FYI you didn't say the word "unreliable" as well, even though two posts ago you said that this is what you've said, so basically you've lied, aye?
Prove it.
And since the basis-argument is wrong, this supportive argument supports a false statement and is hence false as well.
You were saying that it was this newspaper that has linked the IHH to terrorist organizations.
You've therefore lost every credibility and are making false statements with the intent of discrediting the newspaper.
Never have I admitted such things. I've said the opposite, the link is based on details that are given to the readers. They are able to make their own minds since the details are there, and the details are very convincing.
Bull****, you've said "Considering the source you linked, no. It was an expected conclusion.", that was your entire post, no supportive arguments."
Again, denying the obvious is only playing against you.
The only one who's fooling himself here is you.
If YNET has an agenda it's an anti-government agenda. It's a center-left newspaper. Even then, YNET has 100% credibility, never in its past did it actually give false information.

Now besides that, they have given the letter, the posts in the blog, and the wife of the Lebanese military officer that was involved in Hariri's murder.
No, I'm not saying that - facts say that, and you simply decide you go against the facts and against reality without even giving a convincing argument. It's pathetic.
You're simply claiming that "it's a biased newspaper" because it's Israeli, nothing more and nothing less, and that is a very bigoted and disgusting attitude.

No, there's no "because" there, the BBC didn't even cover it and I fail to see its interest to cover it, a bit less than I fail in seeing your point here though.
It obviously and undoubtedly means he has supportive opinions of Nasrallah, I don't see a room for an argument here.
You're saying that a person who thanks Nasrallah for supporting his business and says in his blog that Arab countries should be more supportive of Nasrallah and his organization has no supportive opinons of Nasrallah, and that's just ridiculously false.
Your claim that the letter was the only evidence being presented has exposed the fact that you didn't read the article, and that Kaya is a game over.
Never done that, that is an equally infantile and desperate attempt as the "just admit it" rant.

You know what. Your making pathetic claims that i haven't read the article. You COMPLETELY avoided answering anything to do with Al Jazeera, and your being a totally immature child. Your putting words in my mouth and your twisting, to no avail, everything i say.
You have embarrassed yourself and i wish not to consort with the likes of you.

Thanks for playing.
 
You know what. Your making pathetic claims that i haven't read the article.
You've exposed that fact by claiming that the only evidence the article has used was the letter by the flotilla's organizer.
That was like saying "I didn't read the article".
You COMPLETELY avoided answering anything to do with Al Jazeera
I have no idea what you're talking about, I've done everything within my abilities to answer each and every of your questions and/or claims.
You have embarrassed yourself and i wish not to consort with the likes of you.
Spare me the headache then.
You've attempted to claim that the article is biased and hence not valid.
I've confronted you with the claim that you didn't back it up.
You've then decided to try and back it up by saying that the only evidence is the letter.
I've exposed that as a false claim, and you as someone who argues for the sake of argument.
Any further words given by either me or you after the words "game over" in this thread, are hence practically irrelevant.
Now you may choose to either react in the infantile, twelve years old way and say "you're acting like an immature child, you were embarrassed" etc etc, or decide to be full with yourself and with reality and carry on.
I think you've already made your choice and hence that is irrelevant as well, you may now say whatever you wish to, I've already ended that "discussion" in post #54.
 
Sure, Apoco, whatever helps you sleep at night. :roll:

Dont you have some propaganda to spread?
 
Not wearing a certain article of clothing is in no way unlawful and certainly isn't the use of force.

Hezbollah doesn't wear uniforms when engaged in actual defense and attack that is the unlawful use of force.

How is it feigning the appearance of a civilian if you're toting an Ak-47 or operation an anti-air craft battery and firing at the first sign of the enemy?

How does dressing as a civilian feigning the appearance of a civilian? Are you really this obtuse? It helps them blend in with civlians and puts civlians at greater risk.

You apparently think anyone who wants to get involved in a war has to get jerseys.

Not wearing a fixed insignia visible at a distance is a war crime.


I can hardly believe you are this blind to the realities of war. The reality is if you want to survive you go where there is the most cover, meaning structures that can conceal your position. Cities have plentiful cover in the way of buildings. In the case of Hezbollah countless reports note that they operated from abandoned structures, meaning there were no civilians in them. There might be civilians living in a structure nearby, but that is not the same thing. Also, buildings provide shelter and rest for troops while open fields do not.

I understand you seem to think the war crime of sheltering oneself in densly populated civilian sectors is acceptable behavior during war time. FYI it's a ****ing war crime and puts civilians in danger.


No weapon can discriminate between combatants and non-combatants. They only discriminate between what is in the way and what isn't.

WTF? Do you just make this **** up as you go along to justify murdering civilians? Seriously WTF is wrong with you? A gun can discriminate between a civilian and a non-civilian, a guided rocket or bomb can discriminate between a military factory and a school house, even the strategic bombing campaigins during WW2 used visual systems to attempt to accurately hit military rather than civilian targets. Hezbollah on the other hand targets entire cities, towns, and villages, that is a ****ing war crime and an act of terrorism.

No, you have posted videos with buildings in them and some Hezbollah forces. You have proved exactly nothing. You have not proven that those areas were populated at the time by non-combatants or that if there are non-combatants that they are not staying their of their own accord fully aware of the risk.

Your own god damn article says they used populated areas as cover.

Look at a map of the world and I assure you that you will see Japan and Germany on there. You will also find on maps of those countries cities like Tokyo, Dresden, and of course, Hiroshima and Nagasaki. Also, you will note that not all parts of the country received that treatment, because it was not considered necessary for those parts.

A total war is one which is limitless in scope and one in which all of a countries resources have been mobilized for the war effort. Israel is not engaged in total war they are engaged in a low intensity limited war. You don't even know the definitions of the terms you use so I'm done with your bull****.
 
Hezbollah doesn't wear uniforms when engaged in actual defense and attack that is the unlawful use of force.

Now you're blending unrelated things together. That line about them wearing Israeli uniforms when in defense and attack, not them wearing no uniforms. Them not all wearing uniforms is what you said determine whether they can be considered prisoners of war and it never actually mentions them having to wear a uniform.

How does dressing as a civilian feigning the appearance of a civilian? Are you really this obtuse? It helps them blend in with civlians and puts civlians at greater risk.

The issue is whether they were pretending to be civilians in order to lull enemy forces into a false sense of security and it is obvious they weren't.

Not wearing a fixed insignia visible at a distance is a war crime.

It does not say this is a war crime only that it is required in order to be considered a prisoner of war.

I understand you seem to think the war crime of sheltering oneself in densly populated civilian sectors is acceptable behavior during war time. FYI it's a ****ing war crime and puts civilians in danger.

What I think is that in war you do not stop to ask if there are civilians in a building before you seek shelter in or behind it. I also think any military will have forces in the cities for a number of reasons not the least of which is that it is critical territory to retain. You apparently think military forces being in a civilian area is a war crime, yet seem unaware that this would make Israel guilty of war crimes as well as pretty much every military in war time since the beginning of mankind.

You have yet to show any proof that there are actually civilians in any of the videos you mention. If the city is largely abandoned there is no reasonable expectation of using civilians as shield from military action and as such it is not a war crime to operate from there.

WTF? Do you just make this **** up as you go along to justify murdering civilians? Seriously WTF is wrong with you? A gun can discriminate between a civilian and a non-civilian, a guided rocket or bomb can discriminate between a military factory and a school house, even the strategic bombing campaigins during WW2 used visual systems to attempt to accurately hit military rather than civilian targets.

Really? A guided rocket that for one reason or another is heading towards a school is going to think "Oh hey, that's a school! I can't hit that. I gotta get out of the way!" and promptly nudge over until it hits a military target? Even our smart bombs can hit civilian targets by mistake. Looking through the various instances it seems many Hezbollah attacks where civilians died were intended for military targets or strategic infrastructure and they simply missed. Hezbollah doesn't have many if any guided weapons so they have to work with what they've got.

Your own god damn article says they used populated areas as cover.

I keep pointing out how it actually says these areas had been abandoned by most civilians with the remainder likely supporting Hezbollah, meaning Hezbollah was not using them as shields, but you continue to ignore it.

A total war is one which is limitless in scope and one in which all of a countries resources have been mobilized for the war effort.

It is not an absolute term. If it was than total war has essentially never taken place. For instance, Israel did not mobilize all its resources because it didn't need to mobilize all its resources to carry out the campaign that it did. The campaign Israel carried out was clearly not just directed at the belligerent Hezbollah, but was instead aimed at using such excessive and destructive force that it would break the will of Lebanon's government and its people in hopes that they would turn on Hezbollah. This included attacking infrastructure that had no legitimate connection to the war effort.
 
Now you're blending unrelated things together. That line about them wearing Israeli uniforms when in defense and attack, not them wearing no uniforms. Them not all wearing uniforms is what you said determine whether they can be considered prisoners of war and it never actually mentions them having to wear a uniform.

Wearing uniforms is mandated by the Geneva Conventions to be considered a lawful enemy combatant, if you are engaged in hostilities and not wearing a uniform then you are an unlawful enemy combatant and can be tried for war crimes, since Hezbollah is a subnational organization rather than a state actor they are not only war criminals but terrorists.


The issue is whether they were pretending to be civilians in order to lull enemy forces into a false sense of security and it is obvious they weren't.

You have to wear a uniform in order to be considered a lawful enemy combatant. It's in the 4th Geneva Conventions Article 4 section 2 in plain ****ing English.

It does not say this is a war crime only that it is required in order to be considered a prisoner of war.

Any lawful combatant is entitlted to POW status, if you are not entitled to POW status that means you are 1) a non-combatant or 2) an unlawful combatant.

What I think is that in war you do not stop to ask if there are civilians in a building before you seek shelter in or behind it. I also think any military will have forces in the cities for a number of reasons not the least of which is that it is critical territory to retain. You apparently think military forces being in a civilian area is a war crime, yet seem unaware that this would make Israel guilty of war crimes as well as pretty much every military in war time since the beginning of mankind.

Article 58. Precautions against the effects of attacks

The Parties to the conflict shall, to the maximum extent feasible:

(a) without prejudice to Article 49 of the Fourth Convention, endeavour to remove the civilian population, individual civilians and civilian objects under their control from the vicinity of military objectives;

(b) avoid locating military objectives within or near densely populated areas;

(c) take the other necessary precautions to protect the civilian population, individual civilians and civilian objects under their control against the dangers resulting from military operations.

By stationing rocket batteries and weapons caches in or near civilian dwellings they are guilty of a war crime.

You have yet to show any proof that there are actually civilians in any of the videos you mention. If the city is largely abandoned there is no reasonable expectation of using civilians as shield from military action and as such it is not a war crime to operate from there.

Your own article states that they used populated areas as cover. We have video evidence of Hezbollah stationing rocket batteries in civilian sectors and we have eyewitness testimony from numerous sources that they were mixing with the civilian population.

Really? A guided rocket that for one reason or another is heading towards a school is going to think "Oh hey, that's a school! I can't hit that. I gotta get out of the way!" and promptly nudge over until it hits a military target? Even our smart bombs can hit civilian targets by mistake. Looking through the various instances it seems many Hezbollah attacks where civilians died were intended for military targets or strategic infrastructure and they simply missed. Hezbollah doesn't have many if any guided weapons so they have to work with what they've got.

Hezbollah intentionally targets civilians by intentionally targetting cities, villages, and towns, you honestly don't see the difference between intentionally targeting a city, village, or town and targeting a military objective and having a malfunction?


I keep pointing out how it actually says these areas had been abandoned by most civilians with the remainder likely supporting Hezbollah, meaning Hezbollah was not using them as shields, but you continue to ignore it.

And by abandoned you mean "populated".

It is not an absolute term. If it was than total war has essentially never taken place. For instance, Israel did not mobilize all its resources because it didn't need to mobilize all its resources to carry out the campaign that it did. The campaign Israel carried out was clearly not just directed at the belligerent Hezbollah, but was instead aimed at using such excessive and destructive force that it would break the will of Lebanon's government and its people in hopes that they would turn on Hezbollah. This included attacking infrastructure that had no legitimate connection to the war effort.

Making up the definitions for terms now. Once again total war is unrestricted warfare which is limitless in scope and in which the nation engaged mobilizes all resources available for the war effort. Israel did not mobilize all of the resources at its disposal for the war effort and it did not engage in a war with limitless scope. Israel has nuclear weapons, had they wished they could have annihilated every single Lebanese man, woman, and child completely rendering Hezbollah and Lebanons ability to retaliate non-existent, I suggest you actually learn the definitions of terms before you use them.
 
Both are very true, as hezbollah has conducted numerous suicide bombings as well as fired indiscriminate rocket fire into israeli towns and villages. It has also turned its weapons on fellow lebanese a few years back to further consolidate its power, while it creates just like the PLO did in the 70s/80s, a mini-separate state inside lebanon.

I cannot wait for the fascist dictatorship of thugs and murderers that is iran to be wiped from the map, and is hanged at the Hague for War Crimes and Crimes Against Humanity. We can then all enjoy watching the diseased branches from the iranian tree of terrorism known as hezbollah and hamas wither and die...

Sevreal things are very wrong with your rant. Yes they did fire rockets into israeli towns and villages but did you ever considered what israel did first? Lets just say the rubble is still being removed and many people in the small lebanese villages dotted around the israeli-lebanese border still have to worry about attack dogs coming and killing them. Hezbollah did not create a ministate and more as a political party. Also there is no proof that they led any sucide bombings and the only reason i belive they were blamed for is beacause it was just convient enough. Also before this "regime" of thugs and murders Iran the goverment was supported by the U.S.A goverment which was made up of 10% of the population and were extremly while the otehr 90% of the poor population was neglected and had no say in the goverment, and so when the 90% rebelled agaisnt the 10% wealthy population that controlled the gov. and won they were considered just then a dictatorship and evil.
 
Many things in this one post are actualy being overlooked. So here you are defending israel saying its not okay to kill israel citizens but it is 100% okay to murder thousands of lebanesse citizens for no reason what so ever or just beacause one israel soldier died or one farmers crop got destroyed. While every one here is saying hte bad things the supposed "terrorist" organaization attacking the stae of israel while israel is building more and more advance weapons created to maximize human casulaties.
For example most lebanesse citizens take refuge in a bomb shelter that can survive the bombs that are droped. The israeli citizens have the same comfort. Israeli citizens only have to deal with regularmissles that most defiantly will never kill them in there shelter. Well in lebanon the people in the bomb shelters must deal with missles that pentrate the ground into anything below it and BUNKER BUSTERS. Why on earth would a military state need to use a weapon desighned for takeing out military bunkers on civilan shelters or a bunch of scared people in there basement with no hope of survival.
 
Sevreal things are very wrong with your rant. Yes they did fire rockets into israeli towns and villages but did you ever considered what israel did first?

Um no Hezbollah was firing rockets into Israel prior to their entry into Lebaonon, in fact their entry into Lebanon was prompted by a Hezbollah boarder raid in which Israeli soldiers were killed and kidnapped and which Hezbollah used a diversionary rocket attack against an Israeli village.

Lets just say the rubble is still being removed and many people in the small lebanese villages dotted around the israeli-lebanese border still have to worry about attack dogs coming and killing them. Hezbollah did not create a ministate and more as a political party.

A political party with guns which staged a coup and occupation of Beiruit when the dually elected governments took measures against them and which prompted military intervention on behalf of the government.

Also there is no proof that they led any sucide bombings and the only reason i belive they were blamed for is beacause it was just convient enough. Also before this "regime" of thugs and murders Iran the goverment was supported by the U.S.A goverment which was made up of 10% of the population and were extremly while the otehr 90% of the poor population was neglected and had no say in the goverment, and so when the 90% rebelled agaisnt the 10% wealthy population that controlled the gov. and won they were considered just then a dictatorship and evil.

lol Iran was far far far more prosperous and liberal under the Shah than it is under the current regime and the individual citizens enjoyed a far higher standard of living which was indeed one of the best in the Muslim world. FYI the Iranian revolution had nothing to do with increasing liberty rather the clericial class were pissed that the Shah gave women the vote and took the educational institutions out of the hands of the Islamists. The actual governmental stucture was more liberal and democratic as well under the Constitutional monarchy than it is under the current theocracy.
 
Last edited:
Um no Hezbollah was firing rockets into Israel prior to their entry into Lebaonon, in fact their entry into Lebanon was prompted by a Hezbollah boarder raid in which Israeli soldiers were killed and kidnapped and which Hezbollah used a diversionary rocket attack against an Israeli village.



A political party with guns which staged a coup and occupation of Beiruit when the dually elected governments took measures against them and which prompted military intervention on behalf of the government.



lol Iran was far far far more prosperous and liberal under the Shah than it is under the current regime and the individual citizens enjoyed a far higher standard of living which was indeed one of the best in the Muslim world. FYI the Iranian revolution had nothing to do with increasing liberty rather the clericial class were pissed that the Shah gave women the vote and took the educational institutions out of the hands of the Islamists. The actual governmental stucture was more liberal as well under the Constitutional monarchy than it is under the current theocracy.

Okay first yes the Iran was soo much more productive when only 10% of the entire country had any say in the goverment adn were wealthy. I also like the very other fact that 90% of the country was in poverty that definatly shows how well the goverment was organised. aLso i take that you didnt read my last post. Before the 06 war and the kidnapping of 3 soldiers did you ever consider what happened BEFORE that one event. Being lebeanese my self I HAVE NO KNOWLEDGE waht so ever of them stageing a coup agaisnt the goverment. The worst thing involving them thats happen was a bunch of you men had a little to much to drinka nd started throwing rocks at each other. You have proved almost nothing in my book.
 
Okay first yes the Iran was soo much more productive when only 10% of the entire country had any say in the goverment adn were wealthy.

Um the Shah introduced universal suffrage, they were a Constitutional monarchy albeit an authoritarian one but it was far more liberal than the current theocratic system.

I also like the very other fact that 90% of the country was in poverty that definatly shows how well the goverment was organised.

Prove it. The Shah improved the standard of living for the average Iranian citizen exponentially through the White revolution, the current regime has destroyed the progress that was made.

aLso i take that you didnt read my last post. Before the 06 war and the kidnapping of 3 soldiers did you ever consider what happened BEFORE that one event.

Israel completely withdrew from Lebanon in accordance with UNSC resolution 425 and Hezbollah still refused to disarm in accordance with UNSC resolution 1559?

Being lebeanese my self I HAVE NO KNOWLEDGE waht so ever of them stageing a coup agaisnt the goverment.

2008 conflict in Lebanon - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

The worst thing involving them thats happen was a bunch of you men had a little to much to drinka nd started throwing rocks at each other. You have proved almost nothing in my book.

FTW???
 
Yes they did fire rockets into israeli towns and villages but did you ever considered what israel did first?

Such as? Especially since hez initiated the 2006 war by firing artillery into n israel as cover for yet another kidnapping attempt.

Lets just say the rubble is still being removed and many people in the small lebanese villages dotted around the israeli-lebanese border still have to worry about attack dogs coming and killing them.

What dogs are you talking about?

Hezbollah did not create a ministate

Hez has instated its own communications network, and is controlling the villages of southern lebanon.

Also there is no proof that they led any sucide bombings

The 1983 Beirut US Marine and French paratrooper barracks, along with the US embassy bombings, and the bombings in argentina in 1992 and 1994 were conducted by hez.

and the only reason i belive they were blamed for is beacause it was just convient enough.

Iran has named streets after the drivers of the truck bombs, and Argentina provided enough evidence to obtain INTERPOL arrest warrants.

Also before this "regime" of thugs and murders Iran the goverment was supported by the U.S.A goverment .

The same options exist today in most of the ME; prop up a friendly dictator, or let the islamist party take over. If I was president and was rational, I'd go with the malleable dictator as well.
 
. Being lebeanese my self I HAVE NO KNOWLEDGE waht so ever of them stageing a coup agaisnt the goverment.

You claim to be lebanese and are unaware of these events? Personally, I think you are as lebanese as i am martian, and honestly, I think you are lying when you claim to be lebanese:

Hezbollah fighters seize areas of Beirut - World news - Mideast/N. Africa - msnbc.com

"Hezbollah gunmen seize large areas of Beirut" - Scenes reminiscent of civil war as fighters roam streets of Lebanese capital

Gun battles break out in Beirut - CNN.com

"He explained that Hezbollah's unmonitored telecommunications system..."

"The government believes that Hezbollah was using the equipment to keep tabs on anti-Syrian government officials, possibly funneling the information to Syria. Syria has been accused of carrying out assassinations on anti-Syrian Lebanese politicians, a charge it vehemently denies."
 
Last edited:
The Parties to the conflict shall, to the maximum extent feasible:

Feasible being the key word there. You would have to be an idiot to not have troops in your cities to defend it from invasion. Indeed you have provided exactly no evidence that Hezbollah did anything other than what was feasible to prevent Lebanese civilians from being harmed.

By stationing rocket batteries and weapons caches in or near civilian dwellings they are guilty of a war crime.

Only if there is a civilian dwelling in those dwellings and it is not by choice. The source I provided that you keep selectively quoting states rather clearly that civilians either weren't present or were looking to help Hezbollah.

Your own article states that they used populated areas as cover.

Actually what it says is they launched attacks from areas that, if populated by civilians, were populated by civilians who were supporting Hezbollah. You take the first part and ignore the rest.

Hezbollah intentionally targets civilians by intentionally targetting cities, villages, and towns, you honestly don't see the difference between intentionally targeting a city, village, or town and targeting a military objective and having a malfunction?

It is not a matter of a malfunction. Smart bombs are only so accurate. Hezbollah's weapons are far less accurate and many cases of civilian deaths as a result of Hezbollah attacks were apparently in attempts to hit strategic infrastructure or military positions.

And by abandoned you mean "populated".

By abandoned I mean abandoned. The Israeli soldier explicitly says most civilians left and any remaing there were likely helping Hezbollah. He also explicitly says that they always saw Hezbollah forces operating from abandoned structures.

Once again total war is unrestricted warfare which is limitless in scope and in which the nation engaged mobilizes all resources available for the war effort.

Like I said if you regard that definition as absolute you render it effectively meaningless because it cannot be used to describe any war. Israel targeted agriculture, telecommunications, power stations, water and sewage treatment, entire neighborhoods, convoys of any nature, and countless more targets that would have no clear impact on Hezbollah. Could Israel have done worse? They most certainly could have, but there are few if any events in history when you can find a country at war that did the worst it could to its enemy.
 
Feasible being the key word there. You would have to be an idiot to not have troops in your cities to defend it from invasion. Indeed you have provided exactly no evidence that Hezbollah did anything other than what was feasible to prevent Lebanese civilians from being harmed.

It's not feasible to not station rocket batteries and weapons caches in civilian sectors in, near, and on top of civilian homes? Hezbollah did absolutely nothing to prevent civilian casualties in fact they greatly increased the risk to civilians by setting up headquarters within civilian sectors and dressing in civilian clothing.

Only if there is a civilian dwelling in those dwellings and it is not by choice. The source I provided that you keep selectively quoting states rather clearly that civilians either weren't present or were looking to help Hezbollah.

I guess "populated areas as cover" means "unpopulated areas as cover" in your mind. :roll: The entire premise of the article you yourself presented is that Hezbollah not Israel were responsible for civilian casualties.


Actually what it says is they launched attacks from areas that, if populated by civilians, were populated by civilians who were supporting Hezbollah. You take the first part and ignore the rest.

So your premise is that Israel didn't kill any civilians? Good to know.

It is not a matter of a malfunction. Smart bombs are only so accurate. Hezbollah's weapons are far less accurate and many cases of civilian deaths as a result of Hezbollah attacks were apparently in attempts to hit strategic infrastructure or military positions.

Hezbollah's weapons are so inaccurate that they can only be used to target entire cities, towns, and villages, whereas, smartbombs can be used to target buildings. One is indiscriminate and its use is a war crime the other discriminates between military and civilian targets.

By abandoned I mean abandoned. The Israeli soldier explicitly says most civilians left and any remaing there were likely helping Hezbollah.

So then Israel killed no civilians? Are you now asserting that upon a future invasion of Southern Lebanon that Israel can engage in a free fire zone without it being a war crime? Oh and fyi if what you are saying is true these weren't civilians they were members of Hezbollah dressed a civilians engaging in a war crime.


. He also explicitly says that they always saw Hezbollah forces operating from abandoned structures.

(a) without prejudice to Article 49 of the Fourth Convention, endeavour to remove the civilian population, individual civilians and civilian objects under their control from the vicinity of military objectives;

(b) avoid locating military objectives within or near densely populated areas;

(c) take the other necessary precautions to protect the civilian population, individual civilians and civilian objects under their control against the dangers resulting from military operations.



Like I said if you regard that definition as absolute you render it effectively meaningless because it cannot be used to describe any war.

No Japan, Germany, the U.K., and the Soviet Union all mobilized all available resources for the war fighting effort and the the scope was not limited.

Israel targeted agriculture,

Prove that Israel targeted farms that weren't being used by Hezbollah at the time.

telecommunications,

lol you mean the same telecommunications which Hezbollah staged the coup over in 2008? Those telecommunications? Ya wouldn't directly effect Hezbollah in the slightest. :roll:

power stations, water and sewage treatment, entire neighborhoods, convoys of any nature, and countless more targets that would have no clear impact on Hezbollah.

lol, "The government review shows that Israel has largely avoided some types of targets: major power plants, water treatment facilities, telephone systems, central government buildings and most factories. The bombing has focused on Shiite areas of southern Lebanon and the Beirut suburbs." -- Report from Lebanon's Council for Development and Reconstruction

Lebanon's Renewal Is Dashed in Weeks - Los Angeles Times

Could Israel have done worse? They most certainly could have, but there are few if any events in history when you can find a country at war that did the worst it could to its enemy.

Total war only justifies the indiscriminate targeting of non-combatants because the country engaged in total war has utilized all citizens; men, women, children, and the elderly into their ranks either through direct combat or through putting them to work in the factories to produce war materials. Israel has not even come close to doing this.
 
It's not feasible to not station rocket batteries and weapons caches in civilian sectors in, near, and on top of civilian homes?

I am saying it is not feasible to expect Hezbollah to base everything out in fields or mountains where Israel can more easily find and destroy their equipment and kill their soldiers. A largely abandoned city or town provides far more cover and protection.

I guess "populated areas as cover" means "unpopulated areas as cover" in your mind. :roll: The entire premise of the article you yourself presented is that Hezbollah not Israel were responsible for civilian casualties.

How many times have I explained to you what the Israeli soldier was saying? You take one of his comments out of context and when I note the whole context you ignore it. He called them populated areas, but then quickly clarified that these areas were actually largely abandoned with those few remaining probably supporting Hezbollah.

So your premise is that Israel didn't kill any civilians? Good to know.

My premise is that in the areas Hezbollah launched attacks from there were either no civilians or civilians who probably chose to stay to help Hezbollah. This only applies to Southern Lebanon not places like Beirut.

Hezbollah's weapons are so inaccurate that they can only be used to target entire cities, towns, and villages, whereas, smartbombs can be used to target buildings. One is indiscriminate and its use is a war crime the other discriminates between military and civilian targets.

Hezbollah's weapons have no electronic guidance system, but the individuals who fire them can still reasonably aim for a target. Artillery was used by Israel, but it has no smart guidance system. Hitting the target depends on getting it lined up before firing. The only weapons Hezbollah has capable of hitting targets at long-range are those that have no smart guidance system and are thus less accurate. You are in essence saying Israel can target Hezbollah's forces anywhere they are, but Hezbollah cannot do the same to Israel's forces.

Are you now asserting that upon a future invasion of Southern Lebanon that Israel can engage in a free fire zone without it being a war crime?

No, that is not what I am asserting. I think, like in all crises, some civilians might stay simply because they don't want to leave. Knowing the civilians that are just stubborn from ones that are helping Hezbollah would not be possible so blindly attacking everything would be a war crime.

Also of some interest: Hizbollah 'did not use civilians as cover' - Middle East, World - The Independent

Oh and fyi if what you are saying is true these weren't civilians they were members of Hezbollah dressed a civilians engaging in a war crime.

Are you serious? Helping Hezbollah does not mean they are members of Hezbollah, though that mentality is probably why Israel's estimate of Hezbollah casualties is so much higher than Hezbollah's own count. Indeed, I think Israeli leaders even said anyone staying after being warned to leave would be considered a terrorist.

(a) without prejudice to Article 49 of the Fourth Convention, endeavour to remove the civilian population, individual civilians and civilian objects under their control from the vicinity of military objectives;

(b) avoid locating military objectives within or near densely populated areas;

(c) take the other necessary precautions to protect the civilian population, individual civilians and civilian objects under their control against the dangers resulting from military operations.

Civilian objects under their control as in objects under civilian control, meaning an abandoned object does not count. It would seem to me this is referring to civilian structures where there are civilians residing at the time.

lol, "The government review shows that Israel has largely avoided some types of targets: major power plants, water treatment facilities, telephone systems, central government buildings and most factories. The bombing has focused on Shiite areas of southern Lebanon and the Beirut suburbs." -- Report from Lebanon's Council for Development and Reconstruction

Read your own source. That only goes up to August 1st and does not include Southern Lebanon or the Bekaa valley. Also if you read further you'll find Israel's actions would have had the same effect as bombing this infrastructure without actually having to bomb the infrastructure. Lebanon was completely isolated as a result of Israel's actions. It is a good thing the war did not keep going for much longer.

Prove that Israel targeted farms that weren't being used by Hezbollah at the time.

Here's an idea, how about you prove the farms they targeted were being used by Hezbollah? Since you are so convinced Israel's strikes were only directed at Hezbollah then I am sure you have some compelling evidence.

Total war only justifies the indiscriminate targeting of non-combatants because the country engaged in total war has utilized all citizens; men, women, children, and the elderly into their ranks either through direct combat or through putting them to work in the factories to produce war materials. Israel has not even come close to doing this.

Israel did not need to is the key thing. However, their indiscriminate use of force in Southern Lebanon and parts of Beirut is typical of total war, not limited warfare. They did not bomb all of Lebanon, but they did not need to either. Not all of Lebanon was Hezbollah.
 
I am saying it is not feasible to expect Hezbollah to base everything out in fields or mountains where Israel can more easily find and destroy their equipment and kill their soldiers. A largely abandoned city or town provides far more cover and protection.

Understood, you support the war crime of placing rocket batteries and weapons caches in and near civilian structures.

How many times have I explained to you what the Israeli soldier was saying? You take one of his comments out of context and when I note the whole context you ignore it. He called them populated areas, but then quickly clarified that these areas were actually largely abandoned with those few remaining probably supporting Hezbollah.

So then everyone left within these areas was a legitimate target and Israel didn't kill any civilians. Good to know.

My premise is that in the areas Hezbollah launched attacks from there were either no civilians or civilians who probably chose to stay to help Hezbollah.

If they chose to "stay and help Hezbollah," then they were not civilians they were unlawful combatants and legitimate military targets.

This only applies to Southern Lebanon not places like Beirut.

LMFAO, that picture I provided showing Hezbollah stationed in a civilian sector wearing civilians clothes was in Wadi Chahrour a Christian suburb of southern Beiruit.

Hezbollah's weapons have no electronic guidance system, but the individuals who fire them can still reasonably aim for a target.

If that target is a city, a town, or a village.

Artillery was used by Israel, but it has no smart guidance system.

The two are not even comparable, Artillery is exponentially more accurate than Katusha's, moreoever, it is your assertion that there were no civilians in Southern Lebanon where the artillery was used.

Hitting the target depends on getting it lined up before firing. The only weapons Hezbollah has capable of hitting targets at long-range are those that have no smart guidance system and are thus less accurate. You are in essence saying Israel can target Hezbollah's forces anywhere they are, but Hezbollah cannot do the same to Israel's forces.

No what I am saying is that targeting cities, towns, and villages is a war crime.

No, that is not what I am asserting. I think, like in all crises, some civilians might stay simply because they don't want to leave. Knowing the civilians that are just stubborn from ones that are helping Hezbollah would not be possible so blindly attacking everything would be a war crime.

O.K. I gotcha, there weren't civilians in the area so it's o.k. for Hezbollah to use the area for military purposes but there are civilians in the area so it's not o.k. for Israel to set up a free fire zone in the area. :roll: You're just ridiculous.


Really? Is that what HRW said? HRW admitted that Hezbollah stored weapons caches in and near civilian homes.

Are you serious? Helping Hezbollah does not mean they are members of Hezbollah, though that mentality is probably why Israel's estimate of Hezbollah casualties is so much higher than Hezbollah's own count. Indeed, I think Israeli leaders even said anyone staying after being warned to leave would be considered a terrorist.

lol, a non-combatant is defined as those "taking no active parts in hostilities" if they were taking active part in hostilities by helping Hezbollah then they are combatants and what's more if they did so without wearing a fixed insignia visible at a distance then they were unlawful combatants. :roll:

Civilian objects under their control as in objects under civilian control, meaning an abandoned object does not count. It would seem to me this is referring to civilian structures where there are civilians residing at the time.

Wow you are ridiculous, "civilian objects...under their control" are civilian objects under the control of combatants, "their" is combatants, learn some reading comprehension.

Read your own source. That only goes up to August 1st and does not include Southern Lebanon or the Bekaa valley. Also if you read further you'll find Israel's actions would have had the same effect as bombing this infrastructure without actually having to bomb the infrastructure. Lebanon was completely isolated as a result of Israel's actions. It is a good thing the war did not keep going for much longer.

lol, o.k. so now not specifically avoiding the things that you said they were targeting somehow = targeting those things. :roll: Wow.

Here's an idea, how about you prove the farms they targeted were being used by Hezbollah? Since you are so convinced Israel's strikes were only directed at Hezbollah then I am sure you have some compelling evidence.

Here's an idea how about you prove that they targeted Lebanese agriculture to begin with.


Israel did not need to is the key thing. However, their indiscriminate use of force in Southern Lebanon and parts of Beirut is typical of total war, not limited warfare. They did not bomb all of Lebanon, but they did not need to either. Not all of Lebanon was Hezbollah.

Holy **** they engaged in a limited war and even avoided legitimate targets; such as, power plants and they did not mobilize all of their resources, that is the exact opposite of total war.
 
Back
Top Bottom