It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

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

Thank you.


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


Breaking News - Lebanon-based militants fires rocket into Israel

page: 7
<< 4  5  6   >>

log in


posted on Oct, 29 2009 @ 02:45 AM

Originally posted by IAF101

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.

Sorry, you've added 2 and 2 to get 5, but I suspect it's because one of my 2s looks a bit like a 3.

The modern state of Israel does have problems which stem from their very existance in the middle east. The modern state of Israel was carved out after the second World War and this has unceasingly caused tensions.

It doesn't matter which side you find yourself on, or if you're impartial, the current hostilities from both sides involve Israel's existance. Whether it's Israel ghettoizing Palestine, or Hamas firing rockets in to populated areas.

If you think I was implying that Israel existance should be in any way questioned, you're wrong, but I can see that a better choice of words may have avoid this reading.

posted on Oct, 29 2009 @ 06:39 AM

Lebanon: Israel arranged Katyusha fire to keep tensions high

Lebanese President Michel Suleiman on Thursday suggested that Israel had arranged for collaborators in his country to fire Katyusha rockets at the Galilee earlier this week, in a bid to keep tensions high in the area.

According to the Lebanese newspaper A-Sapir, Israel's declarations that it would not cease its intelligence activities on Lebanese territories validate Suleiman's accusations.

A panel of inquiry established by the Lebanese Army found that the rockets, fired from Houla in southern Lebanon on Tuesday, were launched from the home of the village's mayor.
The mayor was not present in his home, according to the panel, and has no connection to the rocket fire.

Lebanese troops found and dismantled four rockets ready for launching in a building under construction near the border with Israel on Wednesday, said a senior Lebanese army official.

Three of the four Katyusha rockets found were ready to be fired, said the official.

The discovery came one day after the Katyusha fired, the first such incident since last month.

The attack on Tuesday drew a rapid response from Israeli artillery in a brief flare-up across the border that caused no casualties.

posted on Oct, 29 2009 @ 06:57 AM

Originally posted by The Revanchist
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.

Yeah J-post has taken it down for rewriting history as per usual.

posted on Oct, 29 2009 @ 11:25 AM
reply to post by dooper

We seem to have moved quite a way from the point of this thread, but I started it, so I guess you're only being true to yourself and following your instinct (?) to fight back when attacked. Luckily, I am quite aware of whom I'm debating and so there have been no nasty surprises, although it is slightly concerning that you fashion a wooden club and call it a laser-gun.

I hope you don't think I'm being rude of me to say that while I can't doubt your zealousness to prove your military intellect, I'm not convinced of its relevance to my post, particularly on those points I've taking you task on, so please accept my apologies for not responding on this.

So, 1. I have no problem with your ideology 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."
I think it is a noble ideal and I wish more people followed it. What I did show was that when this is infringed upon, it can, and has, descended in to the "tit for tat" that you describe. Sometimes you have to be the person to say "enough, let's stop", but your, apparent, inflexibility on this, doesn't allow for this path to be taken.

What I did take exception to was you suggesting you'd kill innocent family members who may be completely ignorant to, or vehemently opposed to, the actions of the transgressor. From their point of view, you are the aggressor and they should be expected (by you) to retaliate against your family. And where does that end up? Exactly, tit for tat.


Rules of conflict only benefit cowards and unjust people.
Well existence is conflict, the laws we enact are there to dissuade us (in your terms the cost/benefit principle) and limit the damage we can do to others. Laws are merely the extension of this basic individualism. Thus, how do we know what should be tolerated on an international scale if we don't codify it? We state our expectations and (while I can understand and accept as rational your belief that they should be less prohibitive) once agreed, it is not acceptable to break, nor condone the breaking of, these laws with the justification that 'they did it first'.

The actions a country takes are nearly always those of it leaders, but your jingoism is aimed squarely at the people of that country and you'd have to be a fool not to realise that this will radicalise those people against you. And here we are again, tit for tat.

3. Your analogy with vipers doesn't work (quite aside from the fact that their actions would be defensive and so technically, you or your family would be the aggressor). If this Aesopian viper, conscious of the morality of its actions, were to bite you, you suggest you'd wipe out the entire nest, to prevent another one biting someone else. If I asked your advice after having had a starving man rob me of my wallet, threatening me with a gun, you'd tell me what you'd do in that situation. Now say that the person turned out to be a member of your family, do you think it fair on you, to carry out this demonstration of the cost/benefit principle?

Say you survived my attempt; it'd be your turn, wouldn't it? And back we go to the tit for tat.

Finally, 4. Your critique of psychiatry is laughable. They just say that 'Nothing is our own fault'. You don't actually appear to have even a basic understanding of what psychology is. I'm not sure this is thread to get involved in this, but you clearly ascribe to the power of psychology as you talk about winning half the battle by instilling fear. We'll psychiatry taps in to these fears and tries to help people, particularly those with irrational fears, understand those fears. In your case it would be to help you understand what informs your hateful ideology of killing innocent people for the crimes of another, so you can moderate or control these urges.

posted on Oct, 29 2009 @ 03:18 PM
reply to post by Woland

I hope the Mods will permit a bit of leeway, permitting me to respond to the four points that were made in the post.

This does in part address Israeli response to rocket attacks across the border.

Your POINT #1 assumes - assumes - the family has no knowledge of another family member's beliefs and actions. Prudence withstanding, I'll not be that generous in my assumptions.

Besides, the point is to make a point. You see, the neighbors are watching.

Your POINT #2 assumes a steady-state environment. In truth, these international "laws" and "rules" are a contract of sorts between nations. Very explicit. Very clearly defined.

The moment on party violates any term of the contract, then contract is void, and the second party is no longer bound by the agreement.

Your POINT #3 that a threat addressed is in fact aggressiveness - is incorrect. A threat is a threat. I don't wait until someone actually gets shot before I take action against the shooter.

Since the most miserable of human conditions is one of uncertainty - threat elimination as manifested is a prudent stance.

You're really, really stretching with the "homeless" man to make a point. If one of my family pulls a gun on someone in the process of breaking the law - he deserves what he gets. He started it - he wasn't up to it - end of story.

Your POINT #4 flies in the face of the trend. Copernicus shocks us into the realization that we aren't the center of the universe, Galileo rips us even further by demonstrating that we aren't even unique in the Solar System, Darwin slams the door by pointing out we are just evolved animals, and then Freud comes along and tells us we aren't even responsible for our own actions.

The id and ego have no morality, and now aberrant behavior is being touted as "normal." Nothing is entirely our fault.

I don't have a hateful ideology. I have lived in the real world where practical applications best solve impractical problems.

Finality of solution. Practical application.

That's me.

If Israel wants peace, the next time it is attacked, it needs to respond with such authority and force that no one will ever again wish to contest their resolve.

Simple concept.

Simple solution.

posted on Oct, 29 2009 @ 06:32 PM
reply to post by Woland

reply to post by dooper

I see both your points. If either of you read my response at the bottom of page two, you know that my worldview leans towards Dooper's.

You've both made excellent points, and I'd even hazard a guess that the two of you might be more alike than different. My sense of things is that Woland is attempting to dissect the behavior and psychology of the situation, and in doing so, maybe, just maybe have a clue as to how a country might truncate the ever-escalating back-and-forth that has defined the Middle East. I think that's an admirable point-of-view -- that of the problem solver, the person to step outside their current paradigm to seek to educate, to help change perceptions to usher in a better way of conflict resolution.

Yes, Israel is at the nexus of most conflict. For the last two years, I've seen an increase in the villification of Israel. I personally think that they've had a hard row to hoe, and just happen to occupy perhaps the most culturally important real estate in the world.

Dooper is pragmatic. His view resonates strongly with me, as it is the view of the peaceful warrior, the person who would go the extra distance to help someone who was deserving of it. I think Dooper recognizes that he doesn't posess the skills or faith in the better side of humanity to want to negotiate a better place. Neither do I. I admire those that do. What I want is what I believe most people want. I want not to be shot at. I want to be left to my own devices, as long as those dreams and ideals don't injure others. If attacked without provocation -- and I'm not talking about a fist-fight, but an attempt at killing -- I am so inclined to respond with brutal force. It's not a machismo thing. I would derive no pleasure from it; it is purely a response that has proven effective at preserving my own life as well as that of my loved ones.

It makes me feel sad. To some extent, societal endeavors are supported by the warriors, the gladiators of our time, to keep them safe. I read people on here rallying...... asking when was the last time a soldier gave his or her life for "freedom". I am a dinosaur, and most likely an ancient herbivore.

People should not have to defend their right to ........ defending themselves. I spit on some celestial scorecard which calls for a measured response to lethal aggression. As I've said before, this latest conflict, in my very humble opinion, is about INTENT. Did the persons firing the rocket intend for it to land in an unpopulated area, or did they just not care?

I have no mercy for the person who stands next to the person firing a rocket. Don't come crying to the UN that your neighborhood was blown up.

thanks for the space, my apologies for the novella. You both have made valiant points and you have my respect, for what that's worth.

posted on Oct, 31 2009 @ 07:19 AM
Qaeda-linked group claims rocket attack on Israel

BEIRUT (AP) - A Lebanon-based Al Qaeda-linked group claimed responsibility Thursday for a rocket attack against Israel this week, saying it was in retaliation for the Jewish state's crackdown on protesters at a Jerusalem shrine.
The claim from a group calling itself the Battalions of Ziad Jarrah came two days after a rocket was fired from Lebanon into northern Israel, causing no casualties. Lebanese troops subsequently found and dismantled four rockets in the village of Houla near the border with Israel.

The claim of responsibility, made on a Web site often used by Islamic militants,

posted on Nov, 2 2009 @ 09:14 PM
OMG- hasnt anyone put two and two together?


they have always been one..

their services are to the highest bidder, in this case Israel,

If Hezbollah wanted war it would have been on by now.....

Al Queda seem to always work towards Israeli intrests, and during the Dubai attack funnily enough the gunmen came from the Israeli government section of the Marriot hotel.

I mean come on people.

posted on Nov, 3 2009 @ 08:48 AM
i live in lebanon.
first of all we don't have al-qaeda in lebanon. its a very small country and everyone knows everybody. however when they want to blame someone they put it on Al-Qaeda. and they know that we know they are BSing!!

second, the south is operated by hizballah, Lebanese army and the UNIFIL forces. and let me tell u this: if u carry a small empty gun shell in ur pocket and went to the south, all three mentioned above will know about it. so most probably it was a deal between both sides to create tension.

third, the rockets were fired on an empty land, and israel fired back on an empty land also (which is rare). this incident was not a big deal as the media put it. it was made on purpose to pressure the leb government to form (they knew the foreign media would make a big deal out of it and through that they can have more attention on the mid-east process).

fourth, War between hizballah and israel is not in the near future. that's because it's gonna be a bloodbath and both sides will lose. if in the future u hear that there is tension on either sides, just be sure its done on purpose to send a particular msg.

posted on Nov, 4 2009 @ 05:49 AM
reply to post by kepler

Cool to hear from someone that actually lives there, thanks for the insight

I'm very interested to hear more. For example how much power do Hezbollah actually have in the South? Do you think they're a positive force or a negative one?

What do you think about the UNIFIL troops?

Do you worry about what will happen if the power vacuum isn't filled soon by a new government? How do you feel about Syrian / Israeli involvement in Lebanese affairs?

Sorry if I've asked too many questions, I'm just curious

[edit on 4-11-2009 by mattpryor]

posted on Nov, 4 2009 @ 07:25 AM
reply to post by mattpryor

since the last war in 2006 with Israel, Hizballah was forced to withdraw from the south and replaced by the lebanese army and the UNIFIL. But this doesn't mean they no longer have power there. instead they grew much stronger. that's because hizballah is not an amry but a militia. meaning they don't have bases and wear specific clothes. 70% of the southern villages are Islamic shia (hizballah). their secret organization is very powerful and they still have full control of the south despite the resolution which forced them to move. Ur question whether they're a positive or negative force is debatable. If you're pro Iranian\syrian or a leftist most probably you will see them as positive force since these groups believe Israel is the Devil and America is Satan (the Big devil as they say it). If you're pro west (america, europe, KSA & egypt) then u see them as a negative force since they are a government inside a government, they have the decision for war\peace (a decision which they only can make), they're getting stronger and stronger (they're already 100 times stronger than the lebanese army) which worries the Christians and islamic sunna.

The UNIFIL troops are just a cover-up. we all know that they can do nothing. they never did. if a war breaks up all they're gonna do is pack and leave. its just to show the world that the UN is actaully working on the peace process.

Power vacuum.. its all the same. government or no government. we still eat, go to work, party... same # different day. if you go back thru the leb history u'll find out that the lebs never actually took decisions themselves. Our wars are driven by the external powers. Today, its a war between Iran\syria (thru hizballah (shia) and a chirstian leader) and the west\KSA (thru the sunna and the other christian half).

posted on Nov, 4 2009 @ 11:09 AM
reply to post by kepler

Thank you for the reply, very informative, and very diplomatic

posted on Dec, 14 2009 @ 05:52 PM

Originally posted by kepler
i live in lebanon.
first of all we don't have al-qaeda in lebanon. its a very small country and everyone knows everybody.

It looks like those al qaeda that don't exist in Lebanon - just got busted - in Lebanon.

posted on Dec, 15 2009 @ 01:28 AM
If Israel retaliates then that 100% garuntees that there will be a war with Iran. Because the 2 countries are good friends. Then Hamas will get involved and just wait until Hamas wins in Palestine next year.

posted on Dec, 15 2009 @ 05:26 AM
reply to post by Misoir

I don't think that's likely. Support for Hamas in the West Bank AKA Judea / Samaria is said to be very low (~5%). You're also assuming Abbas has the guts to call an election, which is unlikely to happen while Fatah and Hamas are still at each others' throats. Can't see that situation changing within a year.

posted on Dec, 23 2009 @ 03:13 PM

Originally posted by Emerald The Paradigm
reply to post by dooper

You miss one BIG point.

Israel has been blockading Gaza, spying on Lebanon, spying on the U.S., causing assassinations in Iran, etc.

Stop trying to make excuses for the Zionists that changed their names from Nazi about several decades ago.

See the bigger picture.

Israel blocks and imprisons 1.5 million people, so do the math, of course they are going to have millions of people hating them.

People in Gaza can get all their needed supplies through the Egyptian border instead of relying on Israel. I don't see why people can't comprehend this information...

posted on Dec, 24 2009 @ 04:30 AM
reply to post by DJAghetto

This is what I don't get either.

Gaza has independence from Israel. Gaza has its own government. Gaza's government has declared war on Israel. Gaza's government is still at war with Israel.

Where do people get this idea that it is somehow Israel's responsibility to support Gazans? Let Arab countries support them, if they want to.

Oh wait, they don't want to. Why is that?

new topics

<< 4  5  6   >>

log in