Its funny how one discusses something and proves that some facts that were mentioned were false yet a couple of weeks later the same facts are used. I'm not really interested in discussing this topic any further but since you use false information to further your arguments I will have to call you out.
that Hezbollah keeping it's own private army, which it has in the past used to kill and intimidate its Lebanese political rivals
The fact is Hizb-Allah keeps a private army because of the aggressions of Israel against Lebanon you cannot separate the two. The Lebanese Army is too weak to do anything against israel and the group has been successful in defending Lebanon against Israeli aggression. Can you provide me with information on the political rivals they have killed? I believe the only group they have intimidated was a small Shiite group that was more moderate. That group tried to run for elections in the south but failed miserably. But besides the fact that there may have been some intimidation, it didn't amount to much because the group ran and lost, mainly because Shiites in the south actually support Hizb-Allah (as my own experience and the numbers prove). If you are referring to May 7th the opposition led by Hizb-Allah (this included Amal-Shiites and Aoun-Christians) retaliated against laws the majority Government was trying to implement that would affect their position in the government. Surely the retaliation was over the top and they should have been punished for it but the situation was not intimidation.
Hezbollah holds a minority of government seats (I cannot recall how many, exactly, but the proportion is small), but my understanding is that Hezbollah ministers have de facto veto power when it comes to government decisions. This makes non-Hezbollah Lebanese rather uncomfortable, given the pull Iran and Syria have over this group. Hezbollah is supported around 97% of the Shi'ite population, but only around 20% of the Christians and 2% of Sunnis!
No Hizb-Allah do not have de facto veto power, the opposition does mainly because they have the numbers in the government. The opposition is made up of Aoun (Christians), Hizb-Allah (Shiites), Amal (Shiites), and a couple of other minority orthodox Christian and Muslim groups.
Hezbollah has a history of attacking minority groups such as the Druze, while the Lebanese military proper stands by and watches.
Are you talking about the civil war? Everyone attacked everyone so you cannot single out Hizb-Allah. Other than that I'm not sure what you are getting at since there are Druze groups in the opposition that is led by Hizb-Allah.
Some have argued that Hezbollah gave up terrorism in the 1990s ... I'll concede that the group does a lot more than carry out attacks, but I'd also note that firing rockets into civilian areas during 2006 does not support the notion that this group has completely stopped using terrorist tactics.
Do you want to go back to the numbers in those terror tactics? How the israelis out did the group by far when it came to terror tactics? Hizb-Allah cannot by definition launch a full-scale offensive attack into israel so the only way of retaliation is to send their dodgy rockets from Lebanon and to defend inside Lebanon. They defended within Lebanon a lot more than they did launch rockets as the israeli military deaths vs. civilian deaths point towards. The idea of sending rockets into a country is not purely to terrorise but its an offensive strategy which every country does in times of war. This is shown by the fact that a lot of these rockets actually landed on military and infrastructure targets. But obviously you are a hypocrite when it comes to these issues because you believe Arabs do these things to terrorise but Westerners and israelis do it out of defense and the "ugliness of war".
As argued to death in another thread, Hezbollah provoked Israel into executing an invasion plan and the Lebanese civilian population suffered for it.
Provoked? Of course you're only going to start at the kidnapping of the soldiers because that fits well with your argument but you obviously fail to sight the daily provocations israel does to Lebanon by crossing the border or assembling out posts in the green zone, or airspace incursions, all which have been documented by the UN. By the way, have you ever thought of how the soldiers got kidnapped in the first place? and what their position would have to have been in order for them to be easily kidnapped by Hizb-Allah members?
I do envision a scenario in which Hezbollah takes over the Lebanese government entirely, at which point they will need to be managed at a political level.
Hahahaha seriously? Where do you get this nonsense? If they wanted to do this they could a long time ago when they had numbers among Shiites, Sunnis and Christians. Maybe through birth rates after 100 years the Shiites will have majority in Lebanon compared to Christians and Sunnis and perhaps then Hizb-Allah itself might have majority stakes in the government. Until then, good luck. As much as you would like to believe that EVERY Arab country is run by dictators and terrorists, Lebanon is actually pure democracy even more than israel as in shown by the ability of any group to get elected. Good luck to israeli arabs getting elected ay!
And Byrnzie, I'd be interested in knowing why you have yet to respond to my contention that Hezbollah keeping it's own private army, which it has in the past used to kill and intimidate its Lebanese political rivals, is not problematic. This is an issue that has nothing to do with Israel, and I expect you to discuss it as such.
Keeping a private army in order to defend the populace from an aggressive Israeli army seems perfectly o.k to me. Self-defense against outside aggression is a right underwritten in international law.
As for killing and intimidating opponents maybe you should provide some evidence of this?
As for this issue having nothing to do with Israel, this is of course utter nonsense, and I won't play according to your rules, as I've already said.
This is an issue that has nothing to do with Israel, and I expect you to discuss it as such.
Hezbollah has everything to do with Israel and cannot be discussed without. You said you were a historian (or studying history or rubbing shoulders with historians - whatever..) - well.. check out your history.
And Byrnzie, I'd be interested in knowing why you have yet to respond to my contention that Hezbollah keeping it's own private army, which it has in the past used to kill and intimidate its Lebanese political rivals, is not problematic. This is an issue that has nothing to do with Israel, and I expect you to discuss it as such.
Keeping a private army in order to defend the populace from an aggressive Israeli army seems perfectly o.k to me. Self-defense against outside aggression is a right underwritten in international law.
As for killing and intimidating opponents maybe you should provide some evidence of this?
As for this issue having nothing to do with Israel, this is of course utter nonsense, and I won't play according to your rules, as I've already said.
So one country can drop white phosphorus and drop "bunker busters" but the other country can't fire rockets? Why because one countrys full of fucken "Arabs" while the others full of Semites??? Oh, ok, that sounds fair to me. Fuck those Arabs cuz they're ALL terrorists...it's the truth cuz the media said so... :roll:
Again, this thread is not about Israel. If that is what you want to talk about please go to one of the thousands of other threads devoted to the subject.
I'm shocked, though, at how utterly shameless you all are. Regardless of what you think about Israel you should be able to recognize the faults in a group like Hezbollah. The fact that you all refuse to do so speaks volumes.
of course there is fault with any state or organisation who uses terror or extreme violence as a means to an end is at fault. and that includes the IDF, hezbollah and hamas.
i think what you have to take on board yosi is that neither hamas nor hezbollah have acted in a vacuum. i under your rationale but which came first, the chicken or the egg. in this case that isnt even an issue as far as im concerned. you want us to belive that both hamas and hezbollah are 'evil' and have acted without justice cause. well what the hell is just cause in this case?
dont treat us as if were myopic in our views. we get it.
hear my name
take a good look
this could be the day
hold my hand
lie beside me
i just need to say
Its funny how one discusses something and proves that some facts that were mentioned were false yet a couple of weeks later the same facts are used. I'm not really interested in discussing this topic any further but since you use false information to further your arguments I will have to call you out.
Have fun discussing..
Nothing I said was false, and I am not going to debate the issues any further, because I am tired of ignorant statements to the effect that I am a "hypocrite". I thought you said you had better things to do than post here. Feel free to follow through on said statement. Suffice to say that I have nothing against Lebanon or its people. You're a bit of a dick, but there's probably many other people from the area who can calmly discuss the issues without casting aspirations on other people's character.
Again, this thread is not about Israel. If that is what you want to talk about please go to one of the thousands of other threads devoted to the subject.
I'm shocked, though, at how utterly shameless you all are. Regardless of what you think about Israel you should be able to recognize the faults in a group like Hezbollah. The fact that you all refuse to do so speaks volumes.
of course there is fault with any state or organisation who uses terror or extreme violence as a means to an end is at fault. and that includes the IDF, hezbollah and hamas.
i think what you have to take on board yosi is that neither hamas nor hezbollah have acted in a vacuum. i under your rationale but which came first, the chicken or the egg. in this case that isnt even an issue as far as im concerned. you want us to belive that both hamas and hezbollah are 'evil' and have acted without justice cause. well what the hell is just cause in this case?
dont treat us as if were myopic in our views. we get it.
Unfortunately not everyone does get it. I applaud you for not being myopic in your views, but clearly there are many people on this thread who would rather see no evil, hear no evil, etc. Saying that it's ok for a group that has used terror tactics to maintain its own army seperate from the regular army of the sovereign state it operates in because Israel may act aggressively towards Lebanon is like saying that it would be ok for Al Qaida to maintain a standing army in Pakistan because India might act aggressively towards them. If the goal is to deter Israel than why not simply have Hezbollah give up its arms and have their fighters join the regular Lebanese army. Clearly the fact that Hezbollah refuses to do this has much more to do with their desire to maintain their political power in Lebanon rather than with their desire to protect the country from Israel.
you couldn't swing if you were hangin' from a palm tree in a hurricane
Unfortunately not everyone does get it. I applaud you for not being myopic in your views, but clearly there are many people on this thread who would rather see no evil, hear no evil, etc. Saying that it's ok for a group that has used terror tactics to maintain its own army seperate from the regular army of the sovereign state it operates in because Israel may act aggressively towards Lebanon is like saying that it would be ok for Al Qaida to maintain a standing army in Pakistan because India might act aggressively towards them. If the goal is to deter Israel than why not simply have Hezbollah give up its arms and have their fighters join the regular Lebanese army. Clearly the fact that Hezbollah refuses to do this has much more to do with their desire to maintain their political power in Lebanon rather than with their desire to protect the country from Israel.
I am just done with the allegations of hypocrisy. I post a fairly non-objectable list of facts about Hezbollah that I culled from various sources, not including my own arse, and apparently this is a huge problem. People are only happy if Israel is deemed to be 100% the problem, and since I do not agree with this position, no common ground is possible and debate is a waste of everyone's time.
I am just done with the allegations of hypocrisy. I post a fairly non-objectable list of facts about Hezbollah that I culled from various sources, not including my own arse, and apparently this is a huge problem. People are only happy if Israel is deemed to be 100% the problem, and since I do not agree with this position, no common ground is possible and debate is a waste of everyone's time.
aah see RF theres your problem.. you should have pulled something out of your arse. tis always interesting what people find there. :P
well there really isnt much to this deabte when you get down to it. there are those who believe that its up to israel to pull their horns in and give some major concessions to the plaestinian people and there are those who believe `the palestinians should show good faith. now it is my belief that as a sovereign state israel, which has the major majority of power should be the first to act. there are actions it is partaking in that should be stopped. but theyre not doing that. theyre squeezing the palestinian people which makes targets out of their own people(and yes i realise the same can be said on the other side) and in doing so are treating them as if they are not equal in humanity or rights. and whilst they continue this oppression they justify it may saying what a threat HAMAS and HEZBOLLAH are. im sorry if the israeli people feel threatened but what if the positions were reversed and it was the israelis who were living in gaza and the west bank. then theyd be screaming for liberty and equality jusy as the palestinian people are. there is no right or wrong here but there must be justice. and i believe that the onus is on israel.
hear my name
take a good look
this could be the day
hold my hand
lie beside me
i just need to say
Very fairly said. I would say that the onus should be, and more importantly from a pragmatic perspective must be on both sides. But that is a detail. Other than that I agree.
you couldn't swing if you were hangin' from a palm tree in a hurricane
Very fairly said. I would say that the onus should be, and more importantly from a pragmatic perspective must be on both sides. But that is a detail. Other than that I agree.
onus cant come from both sides. someone has to take the responsibility of that first gesture. it must be a sincere gesture and imo it must come from israel. as i said they have the power. and they have the means. i cant imagine what its like to have to trust the word of a sworn enemy but it takes just as much to reach out as it does to take that hand. in fact quite often it takes more.
hear my name
take a good look
this could be the day
hold my hand
lie beside me
i just need to say
Its funny how one discusses something and proves that some facts that were mentioned were false yet a couple of weeks later the same facts are used. I'm not really interested in discussing this topic any further but since you use false information to further your arguments I will have to call you out.
Have fun discussing..
Nothing I said was false, and I am not going to debate the issues any further, because I am tired of ignorant statements to the effect that I am a "hypocrite". I thought you said you had better things to do than post here. Feel free to follow through on said statement. Suffice to say that I have nothing against Lebanon or its people. You're a bit of a dick, but there's probably many other people from the area who can calmly discuss the issues without casting aspirations on other people's character.
Well if you do not post lies then I would not have to come here and rip each one of your statements. So was this all you have to reply? Great debating skills. Besides you admitted the hypocrisy yourself in a previous thread regarding exaggeration and its application towards an argument or did you forget already? So do not cry to me about it now.
Very fairly said. I would say that the onus should be, and more importantly from a pragmatic perspective must be on both sides. But that is a detail. Other than that I agree.
How is this for pragmatism:
When you call israel's acts in Lebanon state-sponsored terrorism then we can call hizballah's acts in israel terrorism.
Well if you do not post lies then I would not have to come here and rip each one of your statements. So was this all you have to reply? Great debating skills. Besides you admitted the hypocrisy yourself in a previous thread regarding exaggeration and its application towards an argument or did you forget already? So do not cry to me about it now.
I may be a dick but you are still a hypocrite.
My apologies, but I don't care what you think of my debating skills one way or the other. I will debate when I feel like doing so, and when I feel like someone is actually interested in learning something. Your view of good debating skills is moral absolutism, with a dash of "my personal experiences mean I am entitled to act like a dick". Sorry, it doesn't work that way. Suffice to say, I don't knowingly post lies on here, and if it makes you feel good to be the undisputed master of all things Hezbollah, fine, I concede the title. No one post anything about Hezbollah without running it by NoK first, lest he call you a lying hypocrite.
My apologies, but I don't care what you think of my debating skills one way or the other. I will debate when I feel like doing so, and when I feel like someone is actually interested in learning something. Your view of good debating skills is moral absolutism, with a dash of "my personal experiences mean I am entitled to act like a dick". Sorry, it doesn't work that way. Suffice to say, I don't knowingly post lies on here, and if it makes you feel good to be the undisputed master of all things Hezbollah, fine, I concede the title. No one post anything about Hezbollah without running it by NoK first, lest he call you a lying hypocrite.
Actually its your fabrications and lies that make me act this way towards your posts, with a dash of "your hypocrisy regarding arabs" and not my personal experiences. I'm sorry if "information that I have gathered from sources" does not cut it in a debate especially when I know otherwise having lived in the fucking country. Good luck to you when you do decide to contribute seriously to an actual debate.
Actually its your fabrications and lies that make me act this way towards your posts, with a dash of "your hypocrisy regarding arabs" and not my personal experiences. I'm sorry if "information that I have gathered from sources" does not cut it in a debate especially when I know otherwise having lived in the fucking country. Good luck to you when you do decide to contribute seriously to an actual debate.
Basic reading comprehension skills should suggest that I have made more than my fair share of contributions on the Train, so fuck off. I have nothing to prove to you or anyone else.
Basic reading comprehension skills should suggest that I have made more than my fair share of contributions on the Train, so fuck off. I have nothing to prove to you or anyone else.
Basic reading comprehension skills should suggest that I have made more than my fair share of contributions on the Train, so fuck off. I have nothing to prove to you or anyone else.
That is very subjective.
PS. I'm still here.
Good for you. What, local Hezbollah chapter doesn't meet tonight?
Basic reading comprehension skills should suggest that I have made more than my fair share of contributions on the Train, so fuck off. I have nothing to prove to you or anyone else.
That is very subjective.
PS. I'm still here.
Good for you. What, local Hezbollah chapter doesn't meet tonight?
Its still morning over here. What about you? Your local "I'm pro-israel even if they called for my castration" group didn't have a meeting today?
That's NEXT week ... Tonight my cabal is working on a new ritual to sow further death in Arab lands.
Sounds promising! You'd better be more specific with that though, the gods might get confused when it comes to israel and arab lands considering they stole most of it from them.
That's NEXT week ... Tonight my cabal is working on a new ritual to sow further death in Arab lands.
Sounds promising! You'd better be more specific with that though, the gods might get confused when it comes to israel and arab lands considering they stole most of it from them.
By the way, if you are indeed serious about debating this issue, I'll go ahead and ask ... Is it true or is it not true that in 2008, Hezbollah forces attacked Druze villages without provocation (only to be repulsed)? This article describes the incident: http://ipsnews.net/news.asp?idnews=42450
I am not clear on how this was a lie. The Druze themselves seem unsure about exactly why the attacks happened, although they speculate that they were motivated by religious expansionism.
Secondly, I did indeed claim that Hezbollah was a bona fide terrorist group at one time, and that I wasn't sure that the designation does not apply now. Again, how is this statement a lie? The group has been linked to suicide bombings and kidnappings in the 1980s and early 90s, and sorry, but calling the rocket attacks on Israeli towns in 2006 "terrorism" fits the definition, at least if one wishes to call Israeli aircraft bombing Lebanese towns the same thing. A common response to accusations of Palestinian terrorism is "what about Israel killing civilians"? OK, fair enough, but the logic must work in the other direction too.
Third, I claimed that Hezbollah provoked Israel in 2006. Again, how is this a lie? At worst, this is an interpretation, and one based on more than a little common sense. It is not clear to me how exactly the 2006 invasion of Lebanon would have occured without a rationale in the form of an attack on Israeli troops. The Israelis had drawn up plans for a possible invasion of Lebanon, and presumably chose to enact said plans when the opportunity arouse. How can Hezbollah be held completely blameless in this scenario? Rightfully or wrongfully, an armed group backed by Iran and Syria right on Israel's doorstep is going to be perceived as a threat, and in this case, said group is not even the Lebanese army proper. And then this group, already perceived as a problem, basically confirms the view by attacking the IDF directly? How is that NOT going to lead to a response? I am not arguing that Hezbollah is directly responsible for the deaths of Lebanese civilians. That is on the Israelis. My problem is with the view that they are somehow completely blameless, even though they started the 2006 war itself. Israel chose a heavy-handed and immoral response to provocation, but the provocation was there, in this case.
A while ago I posted some survey results that suggest that Hezbollah enjoys widespread support only amongst Shi'ites in Lebanon, and that perceptions of the group are decidedly mixed in the Arab world. _outlaw questioned the source of the data, and OK, I concede he does have a point, one should question any source. Its still not clear to me why respondants to this particular survey would lie, nor is it clear to me why so-called right wingers would deliberately falsify such results ... Its not such a stretch to believe that people in the Middle East have varying opinions of Hezbollah. Not everyone views them as a helpful group of freedom fighters. The aforementioned Druze appear to view them as dangerous fanatics, even though the Druze themselves have also fought against Israel. Christians and Sunnis in Lebanon largely do not support Hezbollah. Yes, I am basing these arguments on data from external sources and not on living in the country itself. If the latter is some necessary precursor to participating in these discussions, fine. That's means only two or three people are allowed to post, though.
Along a different vein, Hezbollah has denounced some attacks on civilians, and in 2006 (I think), Nasrallah decried attacks on American civilians. Apparently some hardcore Al Qaida types actually consider Hezbollah apostate. Hezbollah runs various social services, and although some of these are to care for families of Hezbollah fighters killed in battle (and thus not really selfless), there's an element of taking care of their own (Shi'ites) that one can understand and perhaps admire.
Do you want to go back to the numbers in those terror tactics? How the israelis out did the group by far when it came to terror tactics? Hizb-Allah cannot by definition launch a full-scale offensive attack into israel so the only way of retaliation is to send their dodgy rockets from Lebanon and to defend inside Lebanon. They defended within Lebanon a lot more than they did launch rockets as the israeli military deaths vs. civilian deaths point towards. The idea of sending rockets into a country is not purely to terrorise but its an offensive strategy which every country does in times of war. This is shown by the fact that a lot of these rockets actually landed on military and infrastructure targets. But obviously you are a hypocrite when it comes to these issues because you believe Arabs do these things to terrorise but Westerners and israelis do it out of defense and the "ugliness of war".
On this specific point: First of all, you are correct in that a fair chunk of the IDF military deaths resulted from rocket attacks on military bases (I cannot recall the exact figure, but I think around 10-15 IDF troops died not in direct battle with Hez but when a rocket struck a staging area, and that 10-15 is a fairly big chunk of the total). And if you wish to argue that firing rockets into another country (including civilian areas) is not terrorism but instead an act of war, fine. Maybe so. Were the direct bombings of civilian areas during WW-II (for instance) terrorism, or a manifestation of "total war"? Hard to say, I'd argue. In all honestly, I MIGHT lean towards labeling these acts as a particularly reprehensible act of war rather than terrorism per se. If this is the argument, however, the Israeli bombings of Lebanon fall under the exact same category as the Hez rocket attacks (i.e., they were not terrorism). Like you said, such attacks are an offensive strategy that every country does in times of war, and many of the Israeli strikes landed on military and infrastructure targets. My point is that these actions are not radically different in terms of motive, whether one dubs them terrorism or acts of war. Either way, many people die and its horrible. The Israelis killed way more people because they have more and better weapons. But again, its either terrorism or act of war, and "effectiveness" has nothing to do with the motive or morals behind the action.
Provoked? Of course you're only going to start at the kidnapping of the soldiers because that fits well with your argument but you obviously fail to sight the daily provocations israel does to Lebanon by crossing the border or assembling out posts in the green zone, or airspace incursions, all which have been documented by the UN. By the way, have you ever thought of how the soldiers got kidnapped in the first place? and what their position would have to have been in order for them to be easily kidnapped by Hizb-Allah members?
They were on the Israeli side of the border fence. I recognize that exactly who owns what land in this part of the world remains an open question, but the Israeli troops were on their own side of the so-called Blue Line, which was not determined solely by Israel but also by Lebanese surveyers and UN personnel. In addition, Hezbollah launched rocket attacks on the town of Sholmi and on Israeli military positions as a diversion. And yes, I am aware of the history of cross-border raids. Israeli paratroopers lauched an attack near the Shebaa Farms (Lebanese territory) in 2005, and in the same year four Hezbollah were killed attacking the IDF near Ghajar. There were also two or three other unsuccessful attempts on the part of Hezbollah to capture IDF troops. At risk of sounding facile, might it be easier if both sides kept on their respective sides of the fence?
Comments
The fact is Hizb-Allah keeps a private army because of the aggressions of Israel against Lebanon you cannot separate the two. The Lebanese Army is too weak to do anything against israel and the group has been successful in defending Lebanon against Israeli aggression. Can you provide me with information on the political rivals they have killed? I believe the only group they have intimidated was a small Shiite group that was more moderate. That group tried to run for elections in the south but failed miserably. But besides the fact that there may have been some intimidation, it didn't amount to much because the group ran and lost, mainly because Shiites in the south actually support Hizb-Allah (as my own experience and the numbers prove). If you are referring to May 7th the opposition led by Hizb-Allah (this included Amal-Shiites and Aoun-Christians) retaliated against laws the majority Government was trying to implement that would affect their position in the government. Surely the retaliation was over the top and they should have been punished for it but the situation was not intimidation.
No Hizb-Allah do not have de facto veto power, the opposition does mainly because they have the numbers in the government. The opposition is made up of Aoun (Christians), Hizb-Allah (Shiites), Amal (Shiites), and a couple of other minority orthodox Christian and Muslim groups.
Are you talking about the civil war? Everyone attacked everyone so you cannot single out Hizb-Allah. Other than that I'm not sure what you are getting at since there are Druze groups in the opposition that is led by Hizb-Allah.
Do you want to go back to the numbers in those terror tactics? How the israelis out did the group by far when it came to terror tactics? Hizb-Allah cannot by definition launch a full-scale offensive attack into israel so the only way of retaliation is to send their dodgy rockets from Lebanon and to defend inside Lebanon. They defended within Lebanon a lot more than they did launch rockets as the israeli military deaths vs. civilian deaths point towards. The idea of sending rockets into a country is not purely to terrorise but its an offensive strategy which every country does in times of war. This is shown by the fact that a lot of these rockets actually landed on military and infrastructure targets. But obviously you are a hypocrite when it comes to these issues because you believe Arabs do these things to terrorise but Westerners and israelis do it out of defense and the "ugliness of war".
Provoked? Of course you're only going to start at the kidnapping of the soldiers because that fits well with your argument but you obviously fail to sight the daily provocations israel does to Lebanon by crossing the border or assembling out posts in the green zone, or airspace incursions, all which have been documented by the UN. By the way, have you ever thought of how the soldiers got kidnapped in the first place? and what their position would have to have been in order for them to be easily kidnapped by Hizb-Allah members?
Hahahaha seriously? Where do you get this nonsense? If they wanted to do this they could a long time ago when they had numbers among Shiites, Sunnis and Christians. Maybe through birth rates after 100 years the Shiites will have majority in Lebanon compared to Christians and Sunnis and perhaps then Hizb-Allah itself might have majority stakes in the government. Until then, good luck. As much as you would like to believe that EVERY Arab country is run by dictators and terrorists, Lebanon is actually pure democracy even more than israel as in shown by the ability of any group to get elected. Good luck to israeli arabs getting elected ay!
Have fun discussing..
Keeping a private army in order to defend the populace from an aggressive Israeli army seems perfectly o.k to me. Self-defense against outside aggression is a right underwritten in international law.
As for killing and intimidating opponents maybe you should provide some evidence of this?
As for this issue having nothing to do with Israel, this is of course utter nonsense, and I won't play according to your rules, as I've already said.
Hezbollah has everything to do with Israel and cannot be discussed without. You said you were a historian (or studying history or rubbing shoulders with historians - whatever..) - well.. check out your history.
kind of like what the Mossad do ey??????
of course there is fault with any state or organisation who uses terror or extreme violence as a means to an end is at fault. and that includes the IDF, hezbollah and hamas.
i think what you have to take on board yosi is that neither hamas nor hezbollah have acted in a vacuum. i under your rationale but which came first, the chicken or the egg. in this case that isnt even an issue as far as im concerned. you want us to belive that both hamas and hezbollah are 'evil' and have acted without justice cause. well what the hell is just cause in this case?
dont treat us as if were myopic in our views. we get it.
take a good look
this could be the day
hold my hand
lie beside me
i just need to say
Nothing I said was false, and I am not going to debate the issues any further, because I am tired of ignorant statements to the effect that I am a "hypocrite". I thought you said you had better things to do than post here. Feel free to follow through on said statement. Suffice to say that I have nothing against Lebanon or its people. You're a bit of a dick, but there's probably many other people from the area who can calmly discuss the issues without casting aspirations on other people's character.
It appears to me that you still have a lot of maturing to do.
Unfortunately not everyone does get it. I applaud you for not being myopic in your views, but clearly there are many people on this thread who would rather see no evil, hear no evil, etc. Saying that it's ok for a group that has used terror tactics to maintain its own army seperate from the regular army of the sovereign state it operates in because Israel may act aggressively towards Lebanon is like saying that it would be ok for Al Qaida to maintain a standing army in Pakistan because India might act aggressively towards them. If the goal is to deter Israel than why not simply have Hezbollah give up its arms and have their fighters join the regular Lebanese army. Clearly the fact that Hezbollah refuses to do this has much more to do with their desire to maintain their political power in Lebanon rather than with their desire to protect the country from Israel.
I am just done with the allegations of hypocrisy. I post a fairly non-objectable list of facts about Hezbollah that I culled from various sources, not including my own arse, and apparently this is a huge problem. People are only happy if Israel is deemed to be 100% the problem, and since I do not agree with this position, no common ground is possible and debate is a waste of everyone's time.
aah see RF theres your problem.. you should have pulled something out of your arse. tis always interesting what people find there.
well there really isnt much to this deabte when you get down to it. there are those who believe that its up to israel to pull their horns in and give some major concessions to the plaestinian people and there are those who believe `the palestinians should show good faith. now it is my belief that as a sovereign state israel, which has the major majority of power should be the first to act. there are actions it is partaking in that should be stopped. but theyre not doing that. theyre squeezing the palestinian people which makes targets out of their own people(and yes i realise the same can be said on the other side) and in doing so are treating them as if they are not equal in humanity or rights. and whilst they continue this oppression they justify it may saying what a threat HAMAS and HEZBOLLAH are. im sorry if the israeli people feel threatened but what if the positions were reversed and it was the israelis who were living in gaza and the west bank. then theyd be screaming for liberty and equality jusy as the palestinian people are. there is no right or wrong here but there must be justice. and i believe that the onus is on israel.
take a good look
this could be the day
hold my hand
lie beside me
i just need to say
onus cant come from both sides. someone has to take the responsibility of that first gesture. it must be a sincere gesture and imo it must come from israel. as i said they have the power. and they have the means. i cant imagine what its like to have to trust the word of a sworn enemy but it takes just as much to reach out as it does to take that hand. in fact quite often it takes more.
take a good look
this could be the day
hold my hand
lie beside me
i just need to say
Well if you do not post lies then I would not have to come here and rip each one of your statements. So was this all you have to reply? Great debating skills. Besides you admitted the hypocrisy yourself in a previous thread regarding exaggeration and its application towards an argument or did you forget already? So do not cry to me about it now.
I may be a dick but you are still a hypocrite.
How is this for pragmatism:
When you call israel's acts in Lebanon state-sponsored terrorism then we can call hizballah's acts in israel terrorism.
My apologies, but I don't care what you think of my debating skills one way or the other. I will debate when I feel like doing so, and when I feel like someone is actually interested in learning something. Your view of good debating skills is moral absolutism, with a dash of "my personal experiences mean I am entitled to act like a dick". Sorry, it doesn't work that way. Suffice to say, I don't knowingly post lies on here, and if it makes you feel good to be the undisputed master of all things Hezbollah, fine, I concede the title. No one post anything about Hezbollah without running it by NoK first, lest he call you a lying hypocrite.
Actually its your fabrications and lies that make me act this way towards your posts, with a dash of "your hypocrisy regarding arabs" and not my personal experiences. I'm sorry if "information that I have gathered from sources" does not cut it in a debate especially when I know otherwise having lived in the fucking country. Good luck to you when you do decide to contribute seriously to an actual debate.
Basic reading comprehension skills should suggest that I have made more than my fair share of contributions on the Train, so fuck off. I have nothing to prove to you or anyone else.
That is very subjective.
PS. I'm still here.
Good for you. What, local Hezbollah chapter doesn't meet tonight?
Its still morning over here. What about you? Your local "I'm pro-israel even if they called for my castration" group didn't have a meeting today?
That's NEXT week ... Tonight my cabal is working on a new ritual to sow further death in Arab lands.
Sounds promising! You'd better be more specific with that though, the gods might get confused when it comes to israel and arab lands considering they stole most of it from them.
Did you say gods? Heathen!
take a good look
this could be the day
hold my hand
lie beside me
i just need to say
I didn't want to single any one of them out. I'd be afraid their feelings might get hurt.
I am not clear on how this was a lie. The Druze themselves seem unsure about exactly why the attacks happened, although they speculate that they were motivated by religious expansionism.
Secondly, I did indeed claim that Hezbollah was a bona fide terrorist group at one time, and that I wasn't sure that the designation does not apply now. Again, how is this statement a lie? The group has been linked to suicide bombings and kidnappings in the 1980s and early 90s, and sorry, but calling the rocket attacks on Israeli towns in 2006 "terrorism" fits the definition, at least if one wishes to call Israeli aircraft bombing Lebanese towns the same thing. A common response to accusations of Palestinian terrorism is "what about Israel killing civilians"? OK, fair enough, but the logic must work in the other direction too.
Third, I claimed that Hezbollah provoked Israel in 2006. Again, how is this a lie? At worst, this is an interpretation, and one based on more than a little common sense. It is not clear to me how exactly the 2006 invasion of Lebanon would have occured without a rationale in the form of an attack on Israeli troops. The Israelis had drawn up plans for a possible invasion of Lebanon, and presumably chose to enact said plans when the opportunity arouse. How can Hezbollah be held completely blameless in this scenario? Rightfully or wrongfully, an armed group backed by Iran and Syria right on Israel's doorstep is going to be perceived as a threat, and in this case, said group is not even the Lebanese army proper. And then this group, already perceived as a problem, basically confirms the view by attacking the IDF directly? How is that NOT going to lead to a response? I am not arguing that Hezbollah is directly responsible for the deaths of Lebanese civilians. That is on the Israelis. My problem is with the view that they are somehow completely blameless, even though they started the 2006 war itself. Israel chose a heavy-handed and immoral response to provocation, but the provocation was there, in this case.
A while ago I posted some survey results that suggest that Hezbollah enjoys widespread support only amongst Shi'ites in Lebanon, and that perceptions of the group are decidedly mixed in the Arab world. _outlaw questioned the source of the data, and OK, I concede he does have a point, one should question any source. Its still not clear to me why respondants to this particular survey would lie, nor is it clear to me why so-called right wingers would deliberately falsify such results ... Its not such a stretch to believe that people in the Middle East have varying opinions of Hezbollah. Not everyone views them as a helpful group of freedom fighters. The aforementioned Druze appear to view them as dangerous fanatics, even though the Druze themselves have also fought against Israel. Christians and Sunnis in Lebanon largely do not support Hezbollah. Yes, I am basing these arguments on data from external sources and not on living in the country itself. If the latter is some necessary precursor to participating in these discussions, fine. That's means only two or three people are allowed to post, though.
Along a different vein, Hezbollah has denounced some attacks on civilians, and in 2006 (I think), Nasrallah decried attacks on American civilians. Apparently some hardcore Al Qaida types actually consider Hezbollah apostate. Hezbollah runs various social services, and although some of these are to care for families of Hezbollah fighters killed in battle (and thus not really selfless), there's an element of taking care of their own (Shi'ites) that one can understand and perhaps admire.
Guilty as charged. But he started it! :P
On this specific point: First of all, you are correct in that a fair chunk of the IDF military deaths resulted from rocket attacks on military bases (I cannot recall the exact figure, but I think around 10-15 IDF troops died not in direct battle with Hez but when a rocket struck a staging area, and that 10-15 is a fairly big chunk of the total). And if you wish to argue that firing rockets into another country (including civilian areas) is not terrorism but instead an act of war, fine. Maybe so. Were the direct bombings of civilian areas during WW-II (for instance) terrorism, or a manifestation of "total war"? Hard to say, I'd argue. In all honestly, I MIGHT lean towards labeling these acts as a particularly reprehensible act of war rather than terrorism per se. If this is the argument, however, the Israeli bombings of Lebanon fall under the exact same category as the Hez rocket attacks (i.e., they were not terrorism). Like you said, such attacks are an offensive strategy that every country does in times of war, and many of the Israeli strikes landed on military and infrastructure targets. My point is that these actions are not radically different in terms of motive, whether one dubs them terrorism or acts of war. Either way, many people die and its horrible. The Israelis killed way more people because they have more and better weapons. But again, its either terrorism or act of war, and "effectiveness" has nothing to do with the motive or morals behind the action.
They were on the Israeli side of the border fence. I recognize that exactly who owns what land in this part of the world remains an open question, but the Israeli troops were on their own side of the so-called Blue Line, which was not determined solely by Israel but also by Lebanese surveyers and UN personnel. In addition, Hezbollah launched rocket attacks on the town of Sholmi and on Israeli military positions as a diversion. And yes, I am aware of the history of cross-border raids. Israeli paratroopers lauched an attack near the Shebaa Farms (Lebanese territory) in 2005, and in the same year four Hezbollah were killed attacking the IDF near Ghajar. There were also two or three other unsuccessful attempts on the part of Hezbollah to capture IDF troops. At risk of sounding facile, might it be easier if both sides kept on their respective sides of the fence?