Turn on thread page Beta
    Offline

    10
    ReputationRep:
    Well, surprise surprise, this thread went fifty miles off topic in less than a dozen posts. zOMG.

    As to the original topic, if I might interrupt another +/-Israel wrangling session for just a minuta, I honestly don't see what the point of these ceasefires is. The concept of a ceasefire becomes meaningless if it lasts for such a short time, so it would be simpler not to have them at all. In addition, Israel is constantly reminding the world that Hizbullah are devious, untrustworthy and do not play by the rules.

    Israel clearly do not trust Hizbullah, and the whole underlying point of this campaign can be seen in Ehud Olmert's "enough is enough" rhetoric in the preceding days and weeks. So if Israel's patience and willingness to trust Hizbullah have finally run out, then why are they agreeing to ceasefires and suspensions of activity?

    Serious inconsistencies here. Unless, just maybe, Israel are only pretending to trust Hizbullah so that they can then use Hizbullah's treachery as an excuse/justification for further operations.

    However, given that Israel usually doesn't give a damn for international opinion when its own defence is at stake, AND given that in this case international opinion is more on their side than it sometimes is, that doesn't make sense either. Why go to such lengths to justify their actions to the international community? Half of it will condemn Israel automatically every day out of habit, between brushing its teeth and washing its face, while the other half wants Hizbullah out (nearly) as much as Israel does.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Carl)
    Supplying weapons to a terrorist group is completely different to supplying weapons to a democratic, sovereign nation.
    Weapons do the same damage whoever holds them...in fact, it would appear Israel do far more :p:.
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by _incorporated_)
    when both Iran and the US approve arms transfers, they have no control over what will be done with them, and they are fully aware in each case that the organisation they are sending arms to has, whether deliberately or not, killed civilians on frequent recent occasions.
    Any army who fights will cause civilian casualties, it's unavoidable. If you stop supplying arms to countries who cause civilian casualties, then you could only sell arms to countries who aren't fighting. Which doesn't seem useful. And the US sells arms legally to a democratic State for legitimate military operations. Iran illegally transfers weapons to a terrorist entity for illegal terror operations.

    (Original post by _incorporated_)
    US - although they are supplying to Israel, who do in fact have legitimate military aims, I take issue with the facts that there is no necessity for them to be involved in this.
    It's not direct involvement. They sell Israel arms in general - they may expedite shipments when needed, but they had already sold them.

    (Original post by _incorporated_)
    and I don't believe the US gvt has the right to make a decision which will result in the loss of innocent lives, since they have an obvious option to stay out of the whole thing
    The US didn't make some new decision - it speeded up a deal already made. And secondly, precision American weaponry is not necessairly going to kill more people. Indeed, Israel would have hit the same targets with or without the bombs they wanted from the US - and if they hadn't got the arms they probably would've used less accurate weaponry that caused more collateral.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by JonathanH)
    Why do people seem to see some sort of equivalence between a government legally obtaining weaponry from another country - lawful under any system of law you care to name and between undemocratic regimes such as Syria and Iran smuggling weapons to a known terrorist organisation - unlawful under virtually any system of law you care to name. It is no defence of hideous Iranian and Syrian conduct to go "well, Israel gets weapons from other people, too!"
    ^^Most biased post read so far.
    undemocratic regimes such as Syria and Iran smuggling weapons to a known terrorist organisation
    Why does a country have to be democratic to sell weapons:confused:


    BTW what weapons were the jews using to kill British soilders when the British occupied palestine??(ie when the jews were terrorists)
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by 789654123)
    Their excuse was to disrupt the movement of weapons from Iran and Syria.

    Sigh...
    The Resolution clearly states:

    -- no sales or supply of arms and related materiel to Lebanon except as authorized by its government;

    Thus Hezbollah violated the ceasefire and Israel had the right to act defensively , that is to say, to prevent the supply of arms, to uphold the Resolution.
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Thud)
    what

    a

    surprise

    #zomg#
    :ditto:
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Vienna)
    The Resolution clearly states:

    -- no sales or supply of arms and related materiel to Lebanon except as authorized by its government;

    Thus Hezbollah violated the ceasefire and Israel had the right to act defensively , that is to say, to prevent the supply of arms, to uphold the Resolution.
    Stilll waiting for proof of this arms deal+will the USA now cease sending weapons to isreal?????like it has done since 1948(along with billions of dollars)
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by happybob)
    will the USA now cease sending weapons to isreal????
    Why should it? There's nothing in the Resolution about that...
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by happybob)
    Stilll waiting for proof of this arms deal+will the USA now cease sending weapons to isreal?????like it has done since 1948(along with billions of dollars)
    i) Do all terrorists keep there accounting details transparent, making deals such as this easily verifiable with the pin striped suit brigade back in Paris? Back on planet earth, anyone thats read the UN resolution, yourself excluded, will recognise that it allows Israel to act defensively. That is to say, to prevent attacks against Israel or Israeli interests, including intelligence gathering and to respond to breaches in the Resolution while there is no UN force capable of upholding its objectives. A commando raid to prevent a suspected or real transfer of weapons to Hezbollah is legitimate under UNSCR 1701.

    ii) Why would one democratic sovereign nation with interests in defeating totalitarian Islamic terrorism and preventing a second holocaust, cease to provide another democratic sovereign nation with support? Why would you see no difference between genocidal terrorism and sovereign military action? Even the UN, the lowest of the low where morality is concerned, recognised the inherent difference by prohibiting the transfer of arms to a terrorist group, while putting no such restrictions on Israel. I thought you were meant to be a nationalist of sorts?
    Offline

    13
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by happybob)
    Stilll waiting for proof of this arms deal+will the USA now cease sending weapons to isreal?????like it has done since 1948(along with billions of dollars)
    Best sign that someone is completely ignorant on this topic: assuming that the US always supported Israel. FYI, the US wasn't Israel's main arms supplier until the late '60s.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Vienna)
    i) Do all terrorists keep there accounting details transparent, making deals such as this easily verifiable with the pin striped suit brigade back in Paris? Back on planet earth, anyone thats read the UN resolution, yourself excluded, will recognise that it allows Israel to act defensively. That is to say, to prevent attacks against Israel or Israeli interests, including intelligence gathering and to respond to breaches in the Resolution while there is no UN force capable of upholding its objectives. A commando raid to prevent a suspected or real transfer of weapons to Hezbollah is legitimate under UNSCR 1701.

    ii) Why would one democratic sovereign nation with interests in defeating totalitarian Islamic terrorism and preventing a second holocaust, cease to provide another democratic sovereign nation with support? Why would you see no difference between genocidal terrorism and sovereign military action? Even the UN, the lowest of the low where morality is concerned, recognised the inherent difference by prohibiting the transfer of arms to a terrorist group, while putting no such restrictions on Israel. I thought you were meant to be a nationalist of sorts?
    Do all terrorists keep there accounting details transparent, making deals such as this easily verifiable with the pin striped suit brigade back in Paris?
    Do the people that jews class as "terrorists" even have that choice??
    Back on planet earth
    Hello
    anyone thats read the UN resolution, yourself excluded, will recognise that it allows Israel to act defensively. That is to say, to prevent attacks against Israel or Israeli interests, including intelligence gathering and to respond to breaches in the Resolution while there is no UN force capable of upholding its objectives. A commando raid to prevent a suspected or real transfer of weapons to Hezbollah is legitimate under UNSCR 1701.
    Can Hezbollah act defensivley agaist Isreal if they start getting more weapons from the USA??
    Why would one democratic sovereign nation with interests in defeating totalitarian Islamic terrorism and preventing a second holocaust, cease to provide another democratic sovereign nation with support?
    It only seems fair if Hezbollah are (for some reason)not allowed support from Iran and Syria that Isreal should not get support from the USA. I fail to see why being democratic makes weapons trading any worse or better.
    Why would you see no difference between genocidal terrorism and sovereign military action?
    I think the morals of Hezbollah and Isreal are very low
    -I hate Hezbollah because they hide their weapons in the genral population(sick)
    -I hate Isreal because they kidnap every anti-zionist muslim politician they can get their hands on(by calling them "terrorists" of course) and putting them in jail without trial, yet start wars and kill vast amounts of people when 2 jews get kidnapped. Plus as far as "genocidal" goes, Isreal are closer to it than Hezbollah(although that because they have not had the chance)
    Even the UN, the lowest of the low where morality is concerned, recognised the inherent difference by prohibiting the transfer of arms to a terrorist group, while putting no such restrictions on Israel
    Yeah really fair
    BTW:Remember when the British were running palestine and the jews were hanging British soilders with pianno wire and bombing British buildings??? Were they terrorists??? Because Irgun were the group that took power in Isreal, so basically Isreal was founded on terrorism and they were just as bad as Hezbollah.I see both Hezbollah and Isreal as a bunch of terrorists.
    I thought you were meant to be a nationalist of sorts?
    A British Nationalist yes, as far as im concerned the jews and muslims can go on fighting till the end of days, as long as British Gentiles don't join in on EITHER side.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by happybob)
    Can Hezbollah act defensivley agaist Isreal if they start getting more weapons from the USA??
    i) Not under this UN Resolution, that much is clear.
    ii) Again, Hezbollah is a terrorist group. Its totally illegitimate. Its totally incomparable to a nation state. As a nationalist, why would you even have to ask this question?

    It only seems fair if Hezbollah are (for some reason)not allowed support from Iran and Syria that Isreal should not get support from the USA. I fail to see why being democratic makes weapons trading any worse or better.
    Again, you claim to be a nationalist but you dont even recognise the inherent difference between nation states and terrorist groups.

    I think the morals of Hezbollah and Isreal are very low
    -I hate Hezbollah because they hide their weapons in the genral population(sick)
    -I hate Isreal because they kidnap every anti-zionist muslim politician they can get their hands on(by calling them "terrorists" of course) and putting them in jail without trial, yet start wars and kill vast amounts of people when 2 jews get kidnapped. Plus as far as "genocidal" goes, Isreal are closer to it than Hezbollah(although that because they have not had the chance)
    By which logic Hitler would not have been a genocidal maniac if we had prevented him from murdering quite as many people.


    A British Nationalist yes, as far as im concerned the jews and muslims can go on fighting till the end of days, as long as British Gentiles don't join in on EITHER side.
    So you're a nationalist but you cant differentiate between a nation state and a terrorist group. No sorry, thats unfair. If this was Britain, and not Israel, fighting Islamic terrorism there would be simply no doubt in your mind. Whats the difference? Ah yes, "Remember when the British were running palestine and the jews...."
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Vienna)
    i) Not under this UN Resolution, that much is clear.
    ii) Again, Hezbollah is a terrorist group. Its totally illegitimate. Its totally incomparable to a nation state. As a nationalist, why would you even have to ask this question?


    Again, you claim to be a nationalist but you dont even recognise the inherent difference between nation states and terrorist groups.


    By which logic Hitler would not have been a genocidal maniac if we had prevented him from murdering quite as many people.




    So you're a nationalist but you cant differentiate between a nation state and a terrorist group. No sorry, thats unfair. If this was Britain, and not Israel, fighting Islamic terrorism there would be simply no doubt in your mind. Whats the difference? Ah yes, "Remember when the British were running palestine and the jews...."
    (Original post by Vienna)
    i) Not under this UN Resolution, that much is clear.
    ii) Again, Hezbollah is a terrorist group. Its totally illegitimate. Its totally incomparable to a nation state. As a nationalist, why would you even have to ask this question?


    Again, you claim to be a nationalist but you dont even recognise the inherent difference between nation states and terrorist groups.


    By which logic Hitler would not have been a genocidal maniac if we had prevented him from murdering quite as many people.




    So you're a nationalist but you cant differentiate between a nation state and a terrorist group. No sorry, thats unfair. If this was Britain, and not Israel, fighting Islamic terrorism there would be simply no doubt in your mind. Whats the difference? Ah yes, "Remember when the British were running palestine and the jews...."
    Not under this UN Resolution, that much is clear.
    ii) Again, Hezbollah is a terrorist group. Its totally illegitimate. Its totally incomparable to a nation state. As a nationalist, why would you even have to ask this question?
    Who decides what is illegitimate?? The west????
    Again, you claim to be a nationalist but you dont even recognise the inherent difference between nation states and terrorist groups
    I do see the difference, but if the terrorists won(like the jewish terrorists did) and Hezbollah took over Isreal, would they magically become legitimate?? And jewish resistance become illegitimate???
    By which logic Hitler would not have been a genocidal maniac if we had prevented him from murdering quite as many people
    No he would not have been a "genocidal maniac" if he had not commited genocide, just a plain maniac.
    So you're a nationalist but you cant differentiate between a nation state and a terrorist group
    I do see the difference, the jews have their own state but Hezbollah don't.
    No sorry, thats unfair. If this was Britain, and not Israel, fighting Islamic terrorism there would be simply no doubt in your mind
    Actually I was totally against the Iraq war. As for terrorists in Britain, I would not bomb half of Birmingham if they kidnapped 2 British soilders.
    Whats the difference? Ah yes, "Remember when the British were running palestine and the jews...."
    ............were a bunch of terrorists
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Bismarck)
    Except the anti-tank rockets were state-of-the-art, and Russia had sold them to only a handful of countries (and certainly no weapons dealers). Why are you arguing on a topic you have no clue about? There isn't a single analyst who seriously doubts that Hezbollah gets almost all of its weapons from Iran and Syria.
    I'm quite sure that my knowledge of arms dealership is equal to your own. Or is this yet another area of your personal expertise?

    Jesus Christ, I didn't say the Russians sold direct to arms dealers did I? Can you not read any more?

    I'm tired of your grandstanding and and absurdly pompous "know it all" opinions. So hush your mouth.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by happybob)
    Who decides what is illegitimate?? The west????
    Anyone that recognises a sovereign state as having legitimate rights to wage military conflict in order to maintain that sovereignity and to protect the population of that state thereafter. So thats the overwhelming majority of nations, supra national institutions aswell as international law. I of course, as a believer in sovereign governments, also take violence committed by a group of individuals, upholding no rules of military engagement, against the citizen population of a nation, to be illegitimate. Hezbollah may disagree. I couldnt care less. What does a British nationalist believe?

    I do see the difference, but if the terrorists won(like the jewish terrorists did) and Hezbollah took over Isreal, would they magically become legitimate?? And jewish resistance become illegitimate???
    If you see the difference you should know the answer.

    No he would not have been a "genocidal maniac" if he had not commited genocide, just a plain maniac.
    I generally judge people by their beliefs and intent. If he planned on wiping out millions of people and set about to implement that policy I think its fair to say his lunacy was of a "genocidal" nature.

    I do see the difference, the jews have their own state but Hezbollah don't.
    Indeed. Like the British people have a state but Al-Qaeda dont.

    Actually I was totally against the Iraq war. As for terrorists in Britain, I would not bomb half of Birmingham if they kidnapped 2 British soilders.
    Which wasnt really the point. The context was your apparent inability to understand why Israel is allowed to bear arms and defend itself, and a terrorist group is denied such rights. How would you answer these questions:

    Can the 7/7 bombers act defensivley agaist Britain if they start getting more weapons from the USA??
    Who decides if the 7/7 bombers were illegitimate?? The west????
    Britain disarmed 23 terrorists who were suspected of a terrorist plot against British civilians. Will the USA now cease sending weapons to Britain????


    ............were a bunch of terrorists[/QUOTE]
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    the simple fact is that israel violated the ceasefire and there should be some sort of punishment or warning or something. However this will not happen. And as some people have noticed that Hezbollah have rejected and broken the ceasefire too may i remind them that it is a Terrorist organisation in the eyes of many and is not controlled by the Lebanese government!
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Weird and Wonderful)
    the simple fact is that israel violated the ceasefire and there should be some sort of punishment or warning or something. However this will not happen. And as some people have noticed that Hezbollah have rejected and broken the ceasefire too may i remind them that it is a Terrorist organisation in the eyes of many and is not controlled by the Lebanese government!
    Lets look at the UN Resolution text,

    OP1. Calls for a full cessation of hostilities based upon, in particular, the immediate cessation by Hezbollah of all attacks and the immediate cessation by Israel of all offensive military operations;

    OP8. Calls for Israel and Lebanon to support a permanent ceasefire and a long-term solution based on the following principles and elements:

    - full implementation of the relevant provisions of the Taif Accords, and of resolutions 1559 (2004) and 1680 (2006), that require the disarmament of all armed groups in Lebanon, so that, pursuant to the Lebanese cabinet decision of July 27, 2006, there will be no weapons or authority in Lebanon other than that of the Lebanese state;
    -- no foreign forces in Lebanon without the consent of its government;
    -- no sales or supply of arms and related materiel to Lebanon except as authorized by its government


    Now clearly there are armed terrorist groups operating in Lebanon, we also know that Iranians were found in Lebanon supporting Hezbollah and that Hezbollah was suspected or had indeed smuggled weapons into Lebanon from Iran and/or Syria. All that is considered a violation. Israel acting to prevent that supply of weapons, upholding the resolution and thus the basis of the ceasefire, is considered a defensive measure which is not prohibited by this text.

    It should also be clear that some posts have been removed. They were removed because they were considered off topic.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    Israel acting to prevent that supply of weapons, upholding the resolution and thus the basis of the ceasfire, is considered a defensive

    defensive...well arguably this entire war, and every military operation carried out by Israel over the past month or so has been defensive...This entire arguement over the violation of the ceasefire is nothing more than an issue of semantics...Hezbollah is perceived(by the US), and thus named a terrorist organization, and therefore cannot have weapons shipped to them by Syria and Iran...Israel is named a sovereign nation, and therefore can receive as many bombs as they like to kill as many children as they want from the United States. But lets look at the actions of both party, in particular this most recent violation of the ceasefire, by Israel partaking in a military offensive...both parties have been just as bad as the other...so realistically both groups could be considered terroritsts... but of course as long as you are recognized by the US, as terrorist or "sovereign, democratic nation" then it don't matter now does it....genius construct...btw, according to them war is also peace and freedom is also slavery.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by tumtum)
    Israel acting to prevent that supply of weapons, upholding the resolution and thus the basis of the ceasfire, is considered a defensive

    defensive...well arguably this entire war, and every military operation carried out by Israel over the past month or so has been defensive..
    Oh, I agree which is why calls for Israel to cease its operations are baseless both legally and historically, but lets play along with this Resolution until it fails.

    .This entire arguement over the violation of the ceasefire is nothing more than an issue of semantics...Hezbollah is perceived(by the US), and thus named a terrorist organization, and therefore cannot have weapons shipped to them by Syria and Iran...Israel is named a sovereign nation, and therefore can receive as many bombs as they like to kill as many children as they want from the United States.
    Er no. Israel cannot kill children on a whim, as your reference to "defensive" measures makes clear. And I'm sorry you believe the difference between the authority and legitimacy of a national military such as the Lebanese army, and a terrorist group, is a "question of semantics". You clearly disagree with the UN Resolutions 1559 and 1701 that call for the disarmament of Hezbollah and the absolute authority of the Lebanese government.

    But lets look at the actions of both party, in particular this most recent violation of the ceasefire
    So you dont believe Hezbollah have violated the conditions of the ceasefire then?

    by Israel partaking in a military offensive...both parties have been just as bad as the other...so realistically both groups could be considered terroritsts
    I dont know what English dictionary has terrorism defined as "both as bad as one another". The definition of terrorism is clear and Israel does not meet it.

    ... but of course as long as you are recognized by the US, as terrorist or "sovereign, democratic nation" then it don't matter now does it....genius construct...btw, according to them war is also peace and freedom is also slavery.
    Why do you insist on highlighting the US, when the UN as a multi national institution voted for Resolution 1559 and 1701, drawing clear and distinct differences between Hezbollah as an illegitimate group while giving Israel the right to respond as a legitimate nation state. You dont recognise such differences. Your problem isnt with the US but with the UN, UK, France, China, Kofi Annan, Australia, Japan, Jordan, Egypt, Saudi Arabia, the EU and the list could go on.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Vienna)
    Oh, I agree which is why calls for Israel to cease its operations are baseless both legally and historically, but lets play along with this Resolution until it fails.


    Er no. Israel cannot kill children on a whim, as your reference to "defensive" measures makes clear. And I'm sorry you believe the difference between the authority and legitimacy of a national military such as the Lebanese army, and a terrorist group, is a "question of semantics". You clearly disagree with the UN Resolutions 1559 and 1701 that call for the disarmament of Hezbollah and the absolute authority of the Lebanese government.


    So you dont believe Hezbollah have violated the conditions of the ceasefire then?


    I dont know what English dictionary has terrorism defined as "both as bad as one another". The definition of terrorism is clear and Israel does not meet it.


    Why do you insist on highlighting the US, when the UN as multi national institution voted for Resolution 1559 and 1701, drawing clear and distinct differences between Hezbollah as an illegitimate group while giving Israel the right to respond as a legitimate nation state. You dont recognise such differences. Your problem isnt with the US but with the UN, UK, France, China, Kofi Annan, Australia, Japan, Jordan, Egypt, Saudi Arabia, the EU and the list could go on.
    Er no. Israel cannot kill children on a whim, as your reference to "defensive" measures makes clear. And I'm sorry you believe the difference between the authority and legitimacy of a national military such as the Lebanese army, and a terrorist group, is a "question of semantics". You clearly disagree with the UN Resolutions 1559 and 1701 that call for the disarmament of Hezbollah and the absolute authority of the Lebanese government
    To be honest if I were in Hezbollahs situation I would never give up my gun, I just dont trust isreal and their mossad.
    So you dont believe Hezbollah have violated the conditions of the ceasefire then?
    Have you got proof that they were trading weapons??? I have yet to see any.
    I dont know what English dictionary has terrorism defined as "both as bad as one another". The definition of terrorism is clear and Israel does not meet it.
    Agreed, but do you agree that Isreal was founded via terrorism??
    Why do you insist on highlighting the US, when the UN as multi national institution voted for Resolution 1559 and 1701, drawing clear and distinct differences between Hezbollah as an illegitimate group while giving Israel the right to respond as a legitimate nation state. You dont recognise such differences. Your problem isnt with the US but with the UN, UK, France, China, Kofi Annan, Australia, Japan, Jordan, Egypt, Saudi Arabia, the EU and the list could go on
    Most of which have either
    1.A powerfull Zionist lobby group
    2.Get vast amounts of money from the USA.
 
 
 
Poll
Were you ever put in isolation at school?
Useful resources

Groups associated with this forum:

View associated groups

The Student Room, Get Revising and Marked by Teachers are trading names of The Student Room Group Ltd.

Register Number: 04666380 (England and Wales), VAT No. 806 8067 22 Registered Office: International House, Queens Road, Brighton, BN1 3XE

Write a reply...
Reply
Hide
Reputation gems: You get these gems as you gain rep from other members for making good contributions and giving helpful advice.