Adam CR wrote:Best Newbie

Dunno, but not those Israeli guys who turned up for one single thread and then left again.

Just thought I'd let you in on a little secret -
I did not leave the board. I just use a different name.
Seemed like the safer thing to do...

Cheers.

In fact, The Geneva Declaration on Terrorism states: “As repeatedly recognised by the United Nations General Assembly, peoples who are fighting against colonial domination and alien occupation and against racist regimes in the exercise of their right of self-determination have the right to use ...

Truesoul, I think it's important to point out the proportionality being talked about and brought up by every country opposed to Israel's invasion of the Lebanon, relates to a legally agreed article of the Geneva Convention--it's certainly not a debatable point of moral ambiguity i.e. it's not up ...

As negligent as you're being by seemingly ignoring the fact that your lucky missles have killed many times more uninvolved civilians than "Lebanon" has? As negligent as you're being by talking about "the potential" in general, when your country has a huge potential to kill folks, with your ...

Rocket attacks on civilians from Lebanon, May 2000-July 12, 2006[a]

date number result responsibility
31 March 2002 -3 -no damage or casualties mentioned -probably launched by Palestinians
2 April 2002 -at least 1 -no damage or casualties mentioned -unknown elements
6 April 2002 -4 -5 civilians ...

You are leading to saying that when someone is murdered, it is the police who are culpable, rather than the murderer. This argument is moronic because it remove a key aggressor - Israel - from the argument. "Hey, we do it because we can ."


This is your own inference.
To use your analogy, what ...

I'm baffled as to the relevance of this line of 'argument'. It is clearly not currently in Lebanon's interests for it's army to fight Israel, or Hezbollah for reasons that I already stated.

Shame you do not see the relevance. Let me spell it out again:

1. You cannot cry "Help" for the whole ...

I would suggest that galvanising the Lebanese army against Israel would obviously give Israel carte blanche (certainly as far as the US is concerned) to further level Lebanon.


Then I ask you again - why are they keeping an army then in the first place? What is the purpose of having an army ...

Forgive my presumptiousness as I butt in.

I think jinquin is basically saying that Israel has a right to kill as many Lebanese civilians as they wish until the Lebanese army go into a bloody confrontation with Hezbollah (which they will probably lose).

Put it like that, we see this is terrorism ...

Why then is Israel still firing on civilians?

Why then isn't the Lebanese army doing something to protect their civilians?

Such as?

Two options seem glaringly obvious:
1. Fight Israel
2. Fight Hezbollah

It's no secret which one I'd rather they take, but this hollier than thou act of ...