Breaking News - Lebanon-based militants fires rocket into Israel

reply to post by Lavey2


There was no incursion into West Bank. There was no blockade of West Bank.

Your knowledge about the Middle East is about as comprehensive as your geography.

If you're here to learn, I can suggest some good books for you if you want. And here's a good website:

http:/maps.google.com

But I suspect you're just interested in fanning hatred and don't care much for the facts.

Originally posted by mattpryor
reply to post by Lavey2

 

There was no incursion into West Bank. There was no blockade of West Bank.

Your knowledge about the Middle East is about as comprehensive as your geography.

If you're here to learn, I can suggest some good books for you if you want. And here's a good website:

http:/maps.google.com

But I suspect you're just interested in fanning hatred and don't care much for the facts.

Listen, I have no idea where your getting YOUR information, but I would ask you to study the british mandate of palestine and non-AIPAC articles on the web.

You dear sir are ignorant.

By the way it also happened to Gaza as well... same thing over and over.

Its the method of how the Israeli government want a reaction.

reply to post by Lavey2


By non-APAIC websites I presume you mean Palestinian propaganda Jew-bating history revisionist websites like rense.com or whatreallyhappened.com?

No thanks, you can keep those. I'll stick to good old history books, newspaper archives, that kind of thing.

PS welcome to ATS. Don't hold back sharing your opinions.

[edit on 28-10-2009 by mattpryor]

Originally posted by dooper
reply to post by die_another_day

 

Either you were just fell off the turnip truck, or you have a very limited, very selective memory.

You're quite right to say this, it was a stupid post, although your habit on picking on the poorest argument in a thread to argue against the general trend is quite disappointing considering as you generally never waver from your personal ideology, so while an exhange of ideas may be pointless with you, at least it's robust.

That said, when one tries to consolidate your arguments in to an ideology, the contradictions are too large and your arguments prove hypocritical. Ultimately, it seems to me that this is a type of modern tribalism, but the pitfalls of this are easily found, to wit:

I guarantee. Someone shoots at me, even if they miss, I'll hunt them down and kill them.

They take a shot at my family, I'll hunt them down, kill them, and then go after their family and friends.

This is to provide a clear demonstration of the cost/benefit principle.

Like the Albanian blood feud, the Ouroborus, the Möbius band, an eye for an eye, your actions, if widely held among your victims (or turned to), are circular, without end.

When the family of the friends of the person that took a shot at your family come looking for you, your family, your friends, your family's friends and their friends and family, it'd be your turn to be taught a clear demonstration of the cost/benefit principle.

You decry the actions of those Israel sees as a threat and an enemy, but your ideology often endorses these very actions. If a Muslim country were to attack Israel and Israel fights back, then you should have no problem with all Muslims countries teaching Israel this cost/benefit principle.

The conflict in the middle East is far more complex than you allow and the actions of Israel in Palestine do, often, disregard international law. Equally, Hamas and Hizballah do commit terroristic actions and should be condemned, too.

ATS would be a much healthy place if people condemned the actions that should be condemned and not be blinkered by their partisanship, particularly when the human cost can prove so high.

[edit on 28-10-2009 by Woland]

There are now reports saying the rocket did not come from Lebanon and it was fired within Israel, can someone confirm this?

reply to post by Lavey2


Here's an article from the Jerusalem Post. It's funny how you can't find this story anywhere else I did a quick google search to find out what you guys were talking about and I couldn't find it any where.

www.jpost.com...

When the police are investig a fight they usually ask who threw the first punce, think this situation speak for itself, tired of people trying to take sides in conflit. Why was a rocket fired from Lebanon in the first place and Isreal will most certainly reply with excess force and we have a whole new war at hand.

reply to post by Woland


Ya'll can blame my retardedness on the US school system and ATS.

Originally posted by groingrinder
So it came from Lebanese territory. But do we know that Lebanon fired it? Perhaps it was Hamas that fired it.

Let's recall some of the quotes of Areil Sharon.

I am more likely to believe that the Mossad was behind this as it hit no one. I also suspect that there will be a few more and then "Israeli" troops will open up with everything and while we are watching the fireworks the "other" part of the Mossad will be exterminating what is left of the Palestinians.

Sound about right anyone?

Originally posted by Woland
You're quite right to say this, it was a stupid post, although your habit on picking on the poorest argument in a thread to argue against the general trend is quite disappointing considering as you generally never waver from your personal ideology, so while an exhange of ideas may be pointless with you, at least it's robust.

Why that's one of the nicest backhand slap/compliments I have every seen here. It gave me a laugh.

reply to post by mattpryor


Oh so one can no longer weigh up the facts and form his own oppinions he must now have facts SHOVED down his throat or be told to read a specific book that's like me saying "the WTC was an inside job here read this book that says so" history is written by the winners simple as that.

reply to post by Woland

You're mistaken that my attitude is conceptual, and can be compared to tribalism or blood feuds. No conceptual to it.

Those who've shot at me died by my hand. No conceptualization.

The same thing would hold true if someone took a shot at my family. The reason for going to your opponent's family first is to convince him his attack was stupid, that their blood is on his head, and to ensure he will come himself to me.

I want him to feel rage. It inhibits thinking, rational approach, and one is more reckless. All planned and accounted for.

Your view is more simplistic and two-dimensional. Like checkers. I think more in terms of three-dimensional chess.

Your suggestion of a Middle Eastern country teaching Israel a lesson is kind of funny. Actually, it is. That's funny.

Three coalitions of neighbors have attacked, and three coalitions have had their collective asses kicked.

First one: Lebanon, Syria, Transjordan, Iraq, Saudi Arabia, and Egypt.

Second one: Syria, Jordan, Egypt.

Third one: Syria and Egypt.

Who do you propose to teach Israel a lesson? The UAE? Kuwait?

Another lesson: When you are attacked, your response is not required to be symmetrical.

There is no international law that requires striking back in kind.

So if Israel is attacked and responds in an assymetrical manner, there is no violation of international law.

White Phosphorous is allowed to use under international law, and if you don't like it being used over your heads for illumination or marking, then don't attack those who have White Phosphorous.

Simple solution.

Maybe it was fired by Hamas because they are not letting that much water into Pakistan, or whoever was behind it,
I feel really sorry for the them over there, WAR, WAR, WAR, can you imagine living in a war zone all your life, You dont know if you are even going to make to your 20th b-day. Kinda like our gang life here in the U.S. except they are voluntary joining, nope take that back, yes they are some of them.

All these wars that going on is creating a lot of negative energy for Mother Earth.

"Fox confirms....."

Thats where I stop reading..

reply to post by dooper


I did set out my stall as to how you’d reply in my opening paragraph, so I shouldn’t really be complaining, but, fool that I am, I’ll try again.

If your actions can’t be explained in a compatible way, then your beliefs are contradictory. There’s not really a third option, except for the Cartman mantra of ‘I do what I want’. Unfortunately, that results in nothing else but a complete and utter failure; a break down of everything that we call civilisation. But I‘m conceptualising, sorry.

Hang on, I presume you’re being conceptual when you say ‘to convince him [that his family’s] blood is on his head’ upon killing a man’s family for his mistakes, else, you are probably the most inhumane person on this forum and I’d hope that, given your predilection for killing innocent people to prove a point to someone else you’re wanting to kill, you perhaps shouldn’t really be walking free and certainly shouldn’t be permitted any sort of firearm. I’d also suggest taking some professional advice. Hopefully, you’re being conceptual, because it’s nice to have you around.

Don’t suppose you could explain how my view is two-dimensional, given that I allow the possibility of neither side being right and there being alternatives to just killing one another, but that you think in terms of three-dimension chess, given that your rule appears to be if you’re going to kill someone, do it, and kill their family too, that’ll learn ‘em, otherwise, they’ll come back to get you.

And since when is the blood feud conceptual? Thousands of people have died because of this barbaric custom. You embody the blood feud. An eye for an eye. Actual, yours seems more like, a lot of bodies for an eye. You can’t say ‘No[thing] conceptual to it’ and follow that up with ‘If…’ that’s conceptualising!

Finally, you move on to your views on the Middle East. You say “Your suggestion of a Middle Eastern country teaching Israel a lesson is kind of funny’. I didn’t suggest anything of the sort, I was saying how your viewpoint, your beliefs, on how one should respond to an attack by another, supports both sides in this infernal conflict.

I don’t suggest anyone teach anyone else a lesson and certainly did not suggest that wars should be symmetrical, but I don’t believe you can condemn one country for breaking international law and then tolerate another because it’s in retaliation.

The problems involving Israel’s existence in the Middle East affects us all, but your continual prancing around a subject, one for which you interest seems to be limited to some partisan chest-beating, is unhelpful and is condescending to all those who have lost their lives and to those whose lives remain in danger.

reply to post by Woland


This isn't a blood feud, it's one organization or government, against Israel. They have a right to be there in the land that was given to them, by the british, and they have a right to defend it. Whether or not the jews ever returned to Israel. I am convinced that the people living there would have been pissed off at someone, because that is the nature of fundamental islam, anger.
In order for Islam to survive it has to be angry at something or a group of people or even a single person. I am just thankful that they are pissed off at each other enough causing them so much infighting. If the muslim world is ever unified we're screwed. Or at least europe is.

Originally posted by poedxsoldiervet
reply to post by groingrinder

 

Hamas operates in the West Bank/Gaza, Hezbollah operates in Lebanon.

And it was mostly likey Hezbollah, who is backed by Iran, but the Lebanese miltary is supposed be blocking these actions.

Was about ready to post this same exact statement. Kept reading Hamas this and Hamas that. How serious can you take someone's talk who doesn't even know the teams in play?

Originally posted by Woland
The problems involving Israel’s existence in the Middle East affects us all,,,,,,

"problems involving Israel's existence" ??

Israel has no problem existing. It existed before "allah" and Mohamad and will continue to exists; despite the Arabs and their terrorist brethren.

reply to post by Woland

You're not undertanding, thus your confusion. It isn't a matter of "I'll do what I want." It's a matter of "Leave me and mine in peace - or not - but upon your attack, I'll take measures to ensure you and yours will never again attack me or mine. Of that I'll make certain."

Does this effort constitute a "breakdown of everything you call civilization?"

Which part? The part where I was attacked? Or the part where I make certain that another attack from these attackers will never happen again?

What is so uncivilized about minding your own business, and then if attacked, turn and destroy those who designed to destroy you? A strong sense of right and wrong isn't wrong.

Bad news. This thing you call civilization? It's really a very shoddy framework laminated with an extremely thin veneer on which is hung contrived rules which instead of improving civilizaton, actually encourages and promotes barbarism and destruction at every turn.

Permissivity, tolerance, "rights," conflict avoidance, and aversion to force increases the fragility of this thing daily that you call civilization. Rules of conflict only benefit cowards and unjust people who fear that they will be called to task for their own sorry-assed aggressions and wrong-doings.

Now days, many attackers and initiators of violence are crying when they are retaliated against, and whine about the assymetrical responses of those they attacked.

Symmetry may be critical inart, but asymmetry is critical in conflict.

I'm inhumane? Nothing but misunderstood terminology. That professional help you're suggesting? Hey - it's their pseudo-science that is based on the principle that we aren't really responsible for our responses. Nothing is our own fault. You keep your professional help for yourself. It's really working well.

If I suddenly find my home and thus my family and friends threatened by an increasing number of vipers, I won't just kill the ones that end up in my yard. I'll not take a chance on my children being bitten unawares, or my friends being struck in the dark.

I'll go to lengths to locate the viper's nest and destroy every single one. This is inhumane? Again. Terminology.

Three-dimensional planning is to anticipate your foe. My part is to inflict such terror in his heart that he and his want no part of me or mine. No one likes violent surprises. Especially ruthless, violent surprises. Once that fear is accomplished in the heart of your foe, the battle is already half-won, and you haven't really engaged yet.

Had I been left alone to enjoy my own peace, none of this would have even come up. None of this would be necessary. Thus, my statement that the blood of my attackers and theirs be on their own heads.

Where is the barbarity here? It was their initial attack. It was their mistake. They had become so accustomed to successfully attacking others and picking fights - but this time they picked the wrong victim.

That's the problem with starting **** with other folks. You never know for sure who you're dealing with. Your mistake.

Everything breeds like kind. Thus the action described in the Book of Joshua 8:25-26. And in Numbers 31:7.

You'll note that these were not half-assed measures. They were effective. And final.

It worked.

A blood feud is two-dimensional. Tit for tat.

But to completely destroy and undo those who have attacked you, it takes planning, thinking, preparation, skill, and all efforts should be conducted to carefully steer your opponent to your flexible, planned destruction. Conflict intuition is critical in these matters, which comes with experience.

If you don't know when and where the fight will take place, how will you possibly prevail? Thus, you always take the required steps to ensure that you determine the time and the place. You never, ever, afford to your enemy the time, place, or space.

Everyone has fears and cultural abominations - weapons to use to throw your foe off-balance, infuriating him, frustrating him, and creating dread in his heart - causing him to make critical mistakes.

All the while, you've placed yourself in a position to never be defeated.

This is not madness. It's an art that has been determined over the millennia. You do it right, and you can never be defeated.

It's all about lines of approach.

Anticipate those lines of approach, and he'll come straight to you.

Every single time.