It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Israel Attacks South Beirut

page: 4
7
<< 1  2  3    5  6 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jul, 18 2006 @ 04:44 AM
link   
It doesn't matter which way we choose to look at it, which books are studied, or which side is believed. The blatant truth is that at the core of the stink of death is the belief and love of a particular God, usually found in a religious text. So the love of God brings the blood of children to flow on the streets. All other arguments are a consequence. Perhaps we are made in Gods image. Perhaps God loves to kill. Personally, nothing we can do will stop the drive to war in those countries. The hate of the enemy is taught at a yound age, not love. A bush fire is often necessary in nature for the survival of the landscape. If the countries burn, I hope something of higher intelligence sprouts.




posted on Jul, 18 2006 @ 04:50 AM
link   
I don't see why the UN hasn't called for a ceasefire? I mean a few countries have vocally condemned Israel for its actions, but why don't they do anything about it? If this sort of situation involved European countries, surely a ceasefire would have been demanded long ago?



posted on Jul, 18 2006 @ 04:57 AM
link   
the whole situation is confusing as all hell. dont know who to believe... i just know that you don't screw with the jews.


history defines this for us.



posted on Jul, 18 2006 @ 05:58 AM
link   
Condoleezza Rice states that "a traditional ceasfire wont help".


Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice says that a traditional cease-fire won't help; the U.S. wants a "cessation of violence," by which it means disarming Hizballah in line with the previous U.N. Security Council Resolution 1559.

www.time.com/time/world/article/0,8599,1215417,00.html?cnn=yes



I agree. In this instance, like Iraq, the insurgents dont wear a common uniform and have active defined battlefronts like in WW2.

The enemy hides among the people which makes it much more difficult to identify targets & engage. They simply slip back into the gen-pop.

Here is another exerpt from that site:


Henry Kissinger famously observed, at the height of the Vietnam era, that "the guerrilla wins if he does not lose. The conventional army loses if it does not win." The same applies to Israel and Hizballah. If Hizballah lives to fight another day, it will have won the day, not only in the eyes of its own supporters, who will cheer its prowess in withstanding the Israeli onslaught, but also in the eyes of the Israeli military command. Israel will therefore escalate its operations before it stands down.

...British Prime Minister Tony Blair and U.N. Secretary General Kofi Annan have called for the deployment of an international security force to prevent Hizballah from attacking Israel, which would then allow Israel to withdraw. But with the U.S. and allied armed forces already burdened by Iraq and Afghanistan, there may not be many takers for a mission that could require going after one of the world's most accomplished guerrilla armies. And the Israelis have made clear that they envisage such a force being deployed only after Israel has cleared Hizballah out of its forward positions.



Please visit the link provided for the complete story.


This will be a long battle, thats for sure.



posted on Jul, 18 2006 @ 12:32 PM
link   
This will be a long war as long as the US replaces all the munitions Isreal is using-up--for free.



posted on Jul, 18 2006 @ 12:54 PM
link   
Yeah...Condi Rice is the most ineffectual sec. of state we have had in a long time. I cannot even think of a single thing that she has actually accomplished.

The tabloids, which I do not read (but you can't avoid at checkout either) claim that she and Bush are lovers. I really could care less but I tend to beieve them. Why:

Because (and this is a matter of record, will try and find the story) she was at a Washington function a couple years ago and let slip..."I was telling my husband just the other..." and she caught herself and said..."I was telling the president..." some slip huh? She has never been married. She is his lapdog though and has a dark soul.



posted on Jul, 18 2006 @ 01:02 PM
link   
Grover, maybe I’m missing something here but WTF does that have to do with this situation? The first two lines you probably could have gotten away with but then you felt the need to add on BS for no reason whatsoever. Honestly, how hard can it be to not add pointless comments about the president to your post?



posted on Jul, 18 2006 @ 01:26 PM
link   

Originally posted by grover
Yeah...Condi Rice is the most ineffectual sec. of state we have had in a long time. I cannot even think of a single thing that she has actually accomplished.

The tabloids, which I do not read (but you can't avoid at checkout either) claim that she and Bush are lovers. I really could care less but I tend to beieve them. Why:

Because (and this is a matter of record, will try and find the story) she was at a Washington function a couple years ago and let slip..."I was telling my husband just the other..." and she caught herself and said..."I was telling the president..." some slip huh? She has never been married. She is his lapdog though and has a dark soul.


What the hell has this to do with the topic?



posted on Jul, 18 2006 @ 01:27 PM
link   
The fact that she is ineffectual and keeps her job nonetheless is due to something....are they lovers? I doubt it and you are right it is illrelevant BUT she is ineffectual and does have sway over the president for some reason.



posted on Jul, 18 2006 @ 01:30 PM
link   
Understand I was not saying she is or is not...but what has she accomplished? nothing! so why is she kept around? THAT is why I brought it up. She will do in this crisis like she has in every other crisis, nothing...yet she keeps her job. Go figure. Henry Kissinger, or even James Baker she's not.



posted on Jul, 18 2006 @ 02:22 PM
link   

Originally posted by grover
Well ya know it was precisely the world's indifference to the Palestinian plight that caused them to resort to violence in the first place in late 60's and early 70's. Generally speaking I guess it was felt that they didn't have anything to lose. Terrorism is how poor people without much of a chance, fight wars.


I don't want to undermine the plight of the Palestinian people, and I hate to use my own home country as an example for the thrid time in two days (I don't want to sound like I'm pushing it), but the rest of Europe ignored our plight as well. No one stepped in to stop "Magyarization" as they called it. We had to fend for ourselves, and on one unfortunate occasion we even had to rely on Nazi Germany to keep Hungary and Poland from invading us yet again. Only reason Nazi Germany offered protection from Hungary and Poland was so that Hitler could come in and take the Jews. Of course that agreement was forced. It was a lose lose situation either way when it came to bloodshed. Either one group goes, or everybody goes.
Anyway,... my point is that we were poor people too (probably not to the extent that Palestinias were/are, though it would be difficult for me to judge something like that, because I have never visited Palestine myself. I'm talking poor farmers here), but we did not engage in terrorist activity even in later years, because we knew we were outnumbered, and inciting the anger of more powerful nations would spell doom for us. We knew violence wasn't going to work for us. Violence, in this case, will not work for the Palestinians either in my opinion. I just don't see it happening. They are needlessly losing their lives over something they can't win back,....at least not in this way. Israel is militarily far too powerful to be intimidated by a few rockets. It hurts them, but not enough to give way. In fact this probably makes them even more determined to keep that land! They've been bullied and slaughtered enough throughout history to let themselves be pushed around again, especially by this terrorist organization.

The point I'm trying to make is that their terrorist activity against Israel (in my opinion) has little to do with their economic status. I could be wrong, but in my opinion their terrorist activity has a lot to do with their culture/upbringing, and it has also to do with many of their religious leaders who have effectively learned to use their religion as a tool to recruit fighters. It almost seems like a form of the Crusades, when the Pope offered absolution and heaven to those who were willing to go kill the infidels. As long as these extremist religious leaders continue to use religion this way, many extremists from the Muslim world will continue to terrorize the Israeli people, and many innocents will continue to die on both sides. They simply want Israel to disappear completely. They don't want some of their land back, they want ALL of it back.

It is very sad that both Israel and Palestine cannot respect each other equally. They are both hard-headed/full of pride, and it is not enough that one nation agrees to peace. They both must agree to peace, and start putting the past behind them. I realize not many people are capable of forgetting the past for the sake of peace, but if this were a dream world, and such things were possible, it certainly would be nice.
Wait a minute,.... it IS possible! Slovak people may not be the most innovative or most intellectual people in the world, but if they have one thing to offer to the rest of the world, it is hope for peaceful resolutions between enemies: Peace can indeed be achieved without Violence.

Some nations/cultures need to learn the limit of their capabilities. They need to explore other ways to solve problems. If my home country can do it without terrorism, so can the Palestinians. To think otherwise would be to insult their intelligence. Just my opinion of course.

Just a note,..... I'm no expert on the subject by FAR. I probably know as much or as little as the next person. I'm trying to understand the situation from all points of view. If I'm wrong, I don't mind anyone filling me in on a very important aspect that I might have missed.

My apologies to the Author of this Thread if I have gone too far off topic.



posted on Jul, 19 2006 @ 04:50 AM
link   
And the Genocide goes on...


News BBC

Israeli forces have been bombing targets in Lebanon for an eighth day, with at least 40 civilian deaths reported in the south and east.

Residents said an air strike killed 20 people in the southern village of Srifa, near Tyre. Police said at least 20 people died in other air raids.

At least 270 Lebanese - mostly civilians - have died in the conflict.

At least nine Palestinians have been killed in fresh Israeli operations in Gaza and the West Bank.

And no End in Sight...



posted on Jul, 19 2006 @ 05:02 AM
link   

Originally posted by KhieuSamphan
Seeing as how this is a conspiracy site, can I play devil's advocate?

Could the presence of 160,000 US troops in the neighbourhood have anything to do with the current Israeli offensive? Furthermore, could it be part of a larger 'plan', the outcome of which is, as of yet, unclear?


I believe that you, my friend, have nailed the truth right on the head with that statement. There's no other reason for the US to be there than to help in the transition of the Arab states into something else. What that is, I haven't a clue.

On topic though, I think we're doing Israel a disservice by condemning their actions when we ourselves aren't there. Not to mention we're doing the very same thing in Iraq/Afghanistan at this very moment. Would you willingly allow someone to lob bombs over your border for 6 years without some sort of retaliation? I mean look at the history here, Israel left Lebanon in 2000 out of good faith that they would cease attacking Israel. Did they? NO!! Instead, they ramped up production of rockets, and started bombing the Northern portions of Israel. To me, this sounds like a terrorist regime gone wild because Israel let them.

In cases like this, an iron-hand approach is needed I think; one that tells the terrorists that no one will tolerate such actions from them, no matter who or where they reside. Israel was gracious on giving that land back to Lebanon in 2000, but it looks like they should have kept it in hindsight. Too bad no one saw this coming. Oh wait, they did...

TheBorg



posted on Jul, 19 2006 @ 03:02 PM
link   

Originally posted by TheBorg

I mean look at the history here, Israel left Lebanon in 2000 out of good faith that they would cease attacking Israel. Did they? NO!! Instead, they ramped up production of rockets, and started bombing the Northern portions of Israel. To me, this sounds like a terrorist regime gone wild because Israel let them.
TheBorg


I could be wrong, but this sounds to me like Hezbollah will take credit for more than they deserve. It sounds to me like even if Israel agrees to cease fire, Hezbollah will see that as a victory they earned by 'intimidating' the Israelis to stop. It seems this would only fuel their purpose, because after all, they're 'winning', and they must keep going. This is a difficult situation to be in.



posted on Jul, 20 2006 @ 12:57 AM
link   

Originally posted by 2manyquestions
I could be wrong, but this sounds to me like Hezbollah will take credit for more than they deserve. It sounds to me like even if Israel agrees to cease fire, Hezbollah will see that as a victory they earned by 'intimidating' the Israelis to stop. It seems this would only fuel their purpose, because after all, they're 'winning', and they must keep going. This is a difficult situation to be in.


Honestly, I don't see how this could possibly have been blown up into the big cloudy mess that it has been. The simple fact is that Hezbollah has been committing terrorist acts for the past decade that have gone relatively unpunished. Now that Israel wants to take a stand and stop the fighting, everyone starts screaming. Too bad. No one else has to deal with the bombs falling on their houses everyday like the Israelis do.

If we look at this closely enough, we can see that Hezbollah is just trying to throw the Israelis off kilter long enough for them to regroup and attack again. Thay have been screaming about diplomatic solutions ever since the bombing started. Well, in all seriousness, kidnapping people is not the best way to start negotiations with anyone, now is it? I'm in complete favor of Israel pushing Hezbollah out to sea, unless they can learn to conform to the standards that the world has set for any civilized nation.

I liken their behaviour to that of children on a playground. They get angry when, after they steal a ball from a kid, the kid kicks them square in the nads. To me, this is no different a situation. They kidnapped Israelis to try to "barter" for the release of their prisoners being held by Israel. If I was Israel, I'd start bombing them too.

TheBorg

P.S. It appears that I'm a little too enraged by the lack of cognitive reasoning by Hezbollah in this recent conflict. They have shown no logical thinking whatsoever. They lack the simplest concepts of civility, not to mention how to behave in a modern world.

But, they're a terrorist state right? Maybe they're supposed to behave like this?? Just a thought.



posted on Jul, 20 2006 @ 06:23 AM
link   
If they were actually attacking Hezbollah, I'm not sure anyone would object.
But this is clearly a war against Lebanon in general - so far only a tiny minority of those killed have been associated with Hezbollah.

Those who say "it was time for Israel to act at last" ignore the fact that Israel does this on a regular basis, each time claiming that they are doing it "to end the threat once and for all". Each time they fail, and the cycle begins again.

I don't think the Israelis are stupid enough to think they can destroy a guerilla organization with airstrikes against bridges and farm equipment. It seems to me their strategy is to destabilize Lebanon and the democratic government there, in order to reignite the country's civil war - the theory being if Hezbollah is busy fighting a civil war they won't be in a position to threaten Israel. That's why we're seeing a large scale attack against Lebanon proper instead of a limited campaign against Hezbollah in the South.


Dae

posted on Jul, 20 2006 @ 07:37 AM
link   

Originally posted by KhieuSamphan
Seeing as how this is a conspiracy site, can I play devil's advocate?


It certainly is a conspiracy site, so Im going to join in.

Many people find the Hazwho attacks as insane because we all know Israel will attack back with more power and precision.

So... wait for it... What IF Mossad has inflitrated Palastine and the kidnapping of the Israeli soldiers is just another 'perl harbour/9/11' scenario. Its very easy to say they are terrorists who have some stoneage mindset. So it is also easy to say that this is a staged event.

So if we work this as being true, what does it mean? Why would the powers that be want Palastine/Israel conflict so bloody and violent? My mind boggles. Is it the same reason for most wars? Profits and land grabs? Or some 'special' reason, one of which we will find out soon.



posted on Jul, 20 2006 @ 08:50 AM
link   

Originally posted by xmotex
If they were actually attacking Hezbollah, I'm not sure anyone would object.
But this is clearly a war against Lebanon in general - so far only a tiny minority of those killed have been associated with Hezbollah.


That is not necessarily true, according to an NPR interview I heard yesterday. I am very sorry that I don't have a link, but my radio didn't provide one.

According to the man being interviewed (I think he was an NPR reporter stationed in Lebanon, because he kept talking about how nice the Hezbollah TV station was compared to NPR's), there is a very clear reason for the bulk of the civilian casualties.

According to him, the reason is not Israeli indifference or Israeli targeting of civilian populations. Instead, it is through the deliberate planning of Hezbollah.

Some examples he gave were the following:

  1. Instead of storing its munitions in armories outside of population centers, Hezbollah stores them in suburbs—often in people’s homes—knowing that any attack on those missiles/rockets/bullets/explosives/etc. will necessarily mean an attack on a suburb. This is a despicable but excellent strategy for Hezbollah. Think about what it means. It dissuades Israel from attacking their munitions, and then when they finally do, it ensures civilian casualties, which can then be blamed on a “callous, disproportionate response from Israel.” A PR victory for Hezbollah for sure.

  2. According to the reporter, Hezbollah is known to lease office space on the first few floors of civilian apartment buildings. Why? See Example 1. It is for the exact same reason. It guarantees that if Israel ever strikes a Hezbollah office, while Hezbollah will lose some people and an office, they will gain a massive PR victory from all those people who love to jump up and down and rend their clothes whenever a civilian gets killed in an attack.

One would think that these same people would be the first to cry foul over Hezbollah’s tactics. One would think they would jump up and down and rend their clothes over Hezbollah’s despicable use of civilian shields for its weapons and offices.

One last thought that tends to reinforce this argument it this: Why, if Israel is indiscriminately killing civilians—as a matter of policy, and not as a freak accident from time to time—have they bothered to warn the population in advance of their attacks? Seems counterintuitive to me. If you want to kill civilians or if you don’t care about them, just kill them. Don’t warn them first.

There have been numerous reports of Israel dropping leaflets, and just this morning, I heard a report of what essentially amounts to telemarketing by the Israelis. They apparently had an automated system call thousands of homes and play a recorded message in Arabic warning folks to leave the area for a safe place just north of some river.

It is difficult to explain the actions in the context of a bloodthirsty, civilian-hating Israel. It doesn’t add up. Unless, of course, Israel actually is attacking military targets (Hezbollah offices, Hezbollah ammo stores, Iranian missiles) that Hezbollah has thoughtfully surrounded with civilians.



posted on Jul, 20 2006 @ 09:33 AM
link   


One would think that these same people would be the first to cry foul over Hezbollah’s tactics.


One would, if they were more than Israeli propaganda anyway.

And yes, the Israelis are dropping leaflets - politically civilian casualties are not in Israel's interest - or rather the appearance that they are indiscriminately targeting civilians is not. "Stay away from Hezbollah targets" means little if the people in the area don't know where those targets are. Hezbollah, being a guerilla organization under threat of attack, is unlikely to be advertising where they store small arms, rockets, etc. In other words the leaflets are l;ittle more than a CYA tactic by the Israelis, who know they are screwed if they lose too much public support in the US.

But the fact that Israel attacking purely civilian infrastructure targets like bridges, roads, and gas stations belies the fiction that this is some sort of limited campaign aimed strictly targeted at Hezbollah, taking great care to avoid targeting civilians. They don't want to kill lots of civilians, or at least don't want it on the news here on the US. But they're not going to let the deaths of Arab civilians deter them from accomplishing their aims.

This seems to be a popular way for states fighting terrorists (or claiming they are) to duck the issue of killing civilians - they claim "we're not targeting civilians" even when they target locations where they know there will be plenty of civilians.

IE: "we weren't targeting civilians when we blew up that bridge, just the bridge" ignores the fact that civilians were likely to be on the bridge. The aim wasn't to kill the civilians, they just happened to be on the bridge. That's like Al Quaeda saying they didn't mean to kill civilians when they blew up the WTC, they just wanted to knock down the buildings...they couldn't help the fact that civilians were there. In other words, a cutesy evasion to make themselves look civilized. And the US plays the same game in Iraq.

[edit on 7/20/06 by xmotex]



posted on Jul, 20 2006 @ 10:08 AM
link   

Originally posted by xmotex
IE: "we weren't targeting civilians when we blew up that bridge, just the bridge" ignores the fact that civilians were likely to be on the bridge. The aim wasn't to kill the civilians, they just happened to be on the bridge. That's like Al Qaeda saying they didn't mean to kill civilians when they blew up the WTC, they just wanted to knock down the buildings...they couldn't help the fact that civilians were there. In other words, a cutesy evasion to make themselves look civilized. And the US plays the same game in Iraq.


To that I have to say, in truest, black-hearted fashion, "tough luck, and that it would be like Al Qaeda saying that…except that Al Qaeda isn’t saying that. Their stated goals are clear, as are Hezbollah’s

It is not an evasion to say, “hey, that house is full of missiles that Hezbollah might shoot at us, so we blew it up after warning civilians to get out.” I’m not going to sit here and write that any number of civilian casualties is “acceptable” or “okay.” They suck. Period. But, they are sometimes unavoidable, and contrary to the popular view in this forum, it seems like Israel has done quite a lot to prevent them.

You know, posts like your last tend to call into question your objectivity (the same way you would suggest that what I’ve written is Israeli propaganda). It is indicative of a mentality that doesn’t support war, for any reason, ever. That’s fine with me if that’s how you feel; I’m not mad at you for it. It’s your business, I just disagree. And, I think if that is the case, we should have that clear up front, because if it is the case, it taints your responses and your objectivity tremendously.

Thus, no amount of warning, no amount of limited engagement of targets, and no intelligent use of weaponry will ever be enough for you if even one civilian is killed. No military action will ever be justified, or reasonable, or "proportionate." That is why we should be clear. If that is how you feel, then no matter what Israel (or anyone else) does, you will automatically condemn them, particularly if a civilian gets killed.

To my mind, that is absurd. Until we live in a completely different world, with completely harmonious people, fighting is going to be ever-present. If the enemy gets their weapons supply from some major roads or fills up their bomb-laden pickups at a particular gas station, that road and its bridges and that gas station are legitimate, strategic targets.

If that is not your mindset, I’m sorry to have pigeon-holed you. Just riddle me this:

  1. If a group attacks another from behind a wall made of innocent civilians, how long should they take it before retaliating, knowing that in doing so, civilians will be killed?
  2. How many civilians dead equals too many? What is the exact number?
  3. Is someone who has a supply of Hezbollah arms in their house or lives upstairs from a Hezbollah office a “civilian”?
  4. Beyond dropping leaflets, and literally calling thousands of individual civilians on the phone to warn them, what else can Israel do, knowing that Hezbollah keeps their weapons in the suburbs and their offices in apartment buildings?

Perhaps the Israelis should just give up? Perhaps they should just leave? Maybe those pesky Christians in Darfur should just get out too. And same with the Muslims being killed by the Tamil Tigers. Probably the Irish should get out of Northern Ireland also.

Of course, that’s stupid, and most of us know that. So—last question for you—what is your solution?



new topics

top topics



 
7
<< 1  2  3    5  6 >>

log in

join