WWIII -?

Talk about everything else besides Stratovarius here in English. Please try to put more serious topics here, and silly topics in the Spam section.
User avatar
miditek
Sr. Member
Posts: 2045
Joined: Thu Feb 02, 2006 4:59 am

WWIII -?

Post by miditek » Sat Jul 15, 2006 5:00 pm

It seems that the Venezuelan President is now blaming the widening war in the Middle East on the United States. WWIII, perhaps?

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,203729,00.html

A quote from Venezuelan President Chavez:

"The U.S. empire's desire to dominate has no limits and that could take this world to a real Holocaust. May God save us."


Hmmm, I wonder what he would do if Iranian Revolutionary Guards and Hezbollah were hurling Katyusha rockets across his border, or sneaking in and kidnapping his troops?

In my opinion, the international community's failure to rein in Hamas, Hezbollah, Syria, and Iran are the root cause of the latest escalation. French President Chirac calls Israel's response "disproportionate", yet he has done very little, if anything, to address the root causes that have been brewing for a long time.

Syria won't risk a direct confrontation with Israel (the last time they did in 1983 over the Golan, the score was Israeli Air Force 82, vs. Syrian air force 0), so it agitates Hamas and Hezbollah to do its dirty work. Israel now has the opportunity to do what the UN would not- and that is the elimination of Hezbollah as well as Hamas. They are now reaping what they have sown.

The spectre of Armageddon is looming...indeed.

Stratofanius
Sr. Member
Posts: 3235
Joined: Sat Jan 22, 2005 12:37 pm

Re: WWIII -?

Post by Stratofanius » Sat Jul 15, 2006 5:52 pm

Yes, it's possible that there will be some bigger war in near future :?

User avatar
NeonVomit
Sr. Member
Posts: 4628
Joined: Thu Feb 20, 2003 5:36 pm
Location: London, UK

Re: WWIII -?

Post by NeonVomit » Sat Jul 15, 2006 6:06 pm

We should just stop using oil, and just let those idiots kill each other. It's all they've wanted to do for the last 3000 years anyway.

Of course, the 'stop using oil' bit is perhaps easier said than done. If we didn't, I'm pretty sure the middle eastern problem would sort itself out after they got tired of killing each other.

Also, perhaps the real root of the problem was founding the state of Israel in 1948... and throwing everyone who happened to already live there off their land and expecting them not to be upset about it. Clever move, UN. How were they expected to react? Just accept it?

There's roots within roots within roots. They reach back into the mists of time.

Which is why both sides need to let go of the past and move forewards.

Which, of course, will not happen.

On with WWIII!
"Beneath the freezing sky arrives Winter's Verge..."

http://www.wintersverge.com


I'm going to hell, and loving the ride!

User avatar
Mormegil
Sr. Member
Posts: 4327
Joined: Fri Apr 25, 2003 2:31 pm
Location: United States of Europe, FI, Pori
Contact:

Re: WWIII -?

Post by Mormegil » Sat Jul 15, 2006 6:09 pm

Just leave Finland/me out of it and I have no problem with people being stupid enough to start killing each others. :P

User avatar
Shurik
Sr. Member
Posts: 3774
Joined: Mon Mar 04, 2002 12:17 am
Location: Satellite Of Love
Contact:

Re: WWIII -?

Post by Shurik » Sat Jul 15, 2006 6:28 pm

Syria won't risk a direct confrontation with Israel (the last time they did in 1983 over the Golan, the score was Israeli Air Force 82, vs. Syrian air force 0), so it agitates Hamas and Hezbollah to do its dirty work. Israel now has the opportunity to do what the UN would not- and that is the elimination of Hezbollah as well as Hamas. They are now reaping what they have sown.
It was 1973 (Yom Kippur War).

What's happening here now is that Iran through Syria through Hizballa and Hamas wants to draw attention from their nuclear plans issue. All the orders come from Iran to Syria and Syria tells those organizations to act. Also, Lebanese government can't do anything to Hizballa, they are simply afraid to deal with them.

There's also other thing - Hasan Nasralla, leader of Hizballa, is a very arrogant and confident in himself man, he thinks that he caused IDF to flee from Lebanon in 2000 and thinks himself above lebanese government and army. Judging from his past experience, he thought that right after the kidnapping Israelis will beg him to start the negotiations and will start to release terrorists from the prisons, but he never thought that Israel will show him the middle finger and will bomb Lebanon back to stone age. So Nasralla just overestimated his abilities a bit and he's paying now, together with Lebanese government and population who were stupid enough to give the Hizballa the whole southern Lebanon and just doesn't intervene in what was going on there ...

I don't think that this whole ordeal will escalate into WWIII, no one needs it and no one wants it. It will not be a smart move for Iran or Syria to start a war with Israel, when US army can reach both in a matter of days from Iraq ...

P.S. Venezuelan president is a communist idiot.
Chemistry is physics without a thought
Mathematics is physics without a purpose

User avatar
stratohawk
Sr. Member
Posts: 3067
Joined: Thu Jan 09, 2003 5:35 pm
Location: Germany

Re: WWIII -?

Post by stratohawk » Sat Jul 15, 2006 7:58 pm

It's so unbelievable... It's simply unbelievable that there are so many people - responsible ones, those with power - that don't understand or don't care that their acting costs and ruins the lifes of thousand helpless and innocent civilians. WHY? WHY? WHY? Why can't you fucking politicians sit together and find solutions for your problems?

All the blood that's been shed... It's a vicious circle, seems like it will never end.

User avatar
MetalAngel
Sr. Member
Posts: 4355
Joined: Sat May 14, 2005 4:23 pm
Contact:

Re: WWIII -?

Post by MetalAngel » Sat Jul 15, 2006 9:31 pm

stratohawk wrote:Why can't you fucking politicians sit together and find solutions for your problems?
Simply because those politicians don't want it. To sit around a table and discuss peacefully about the world and the situation it has to face to isn't their interest. All what they want is to make money on people desperation, misery and death. That's all.
Toutes choses étant égales, par ailleurs, la solution la plus simple est toujours la meilleure.

Spirit Of Metal Webzine : http://www.spirit-of-metal.com

www.myspace.com/metalangelmusic

User avatar
Maniac
Sr. Member
Posts: 484
Joined: Thu Dec 22, 2005 1:43 am
Location: Greece
Contact:

Re: WWIII -?

Post by Maniac » Sat Jul 15, 2006 11:37 pm

MetalAngel wrote:
stratohawk wrote:Why can't you fucking politicians sit together and find solutions for your problems?
Simply because those politicians don't want it. To sit around a table and discuss peacefully about the world and the situation it has to face to isn't their interest. All what they want is to make money on people desperation, misery and death. That's all.
I agree absolutely with you!!

User avatar
Equinox
Sr. Member
Posts: 3418
Joined: Mon Aug 23, 2004 7:26 am
Location: Denver USA

Re: WWIII -?

Post by Equinox » Sun Jul 16, 2006 5:01 am

Shurik wrote:Venezuelan president is a communist
Not everybody thinks that.

A WW3 would not be a cute thing, a regional war wouldn't be nice, and this war btw these 2 countries ain't pretty either.

But I just think Israel is ODing on the misiles.

And a regional war with the US would not be good for anyone, not even for the ppl living here in the US, this war on Irak is already too much.

Hundreds of mothers would not take it.

So carry on...

"Simply because those politicians don't want it. To sit around a table and discuss peacefully about the world and the situation it has to face to isn't their interest. All what they want is to make money on people desperation, misery and death. That's all."

Yes, that's why "politicians can't sit together and find solutions for your problems?"
"Insanity: A Perfect Rational Adjustment To An Insane World"

User avatar
stratohawk
Sr. Member
Posts: 3067
Joined: Thu Jan 09, 2003 5:35 pm
Location: Germany

Re: WWIII -?

Post by stratohawk » Sun Jul 16, 2006 10:27 am

miditek wrote: In my opinion, the international community's failure to rein in Hamas, Hezbollah, Syria, and Iran are the root cause of the latest escalation. French President Chirac calls Israel's response "disproportionate", yet he has done very little, if anything, to address the root causes that have been brewing for a long time.
That's one reason, but not the only one. Both sides are deeply involved and carry responsibility on their shoulders for what is happening. I have a cousin that visited the West Jordan land one year ago. He said, it was like the apocalypse. How the Palestinians have to live there, is undescribable... their towns and cities are kind of provisoric ghettos. They have no chance, they have no perspective, and the only thing they see is Israel, a rich country, supported by "Big Satan" USA, that took away "their" land sixty years ago. Palestinians live on the edge of existence there, the Israelic Army can march in anytime it wants and destroy their houses. Now what does that lead to? Terrorism is the result of frustration.

The Palestinians need to have the will to live in peace - it's the only way to start a life with perspectives. And the Israeli have to treat the Palestinians like people, and not like animals. I mean, also what they are doing now: They are bombing a country and accepting "collateral damages" among civilians... All these actions will only strengthen the picture that every Arabic country has of Israel as aggressor. And the power of Iran's fucking president grows and grows.

And the UN are needless cuz the fucking US politicians always block the security council whenever they want to. They say Israel has its right to defend itself. Okay. But is it still defence to attack a whole country because a Miliz kidnapped two soldiers?
I know, Libanon should get rid of the Hisbollah, and they didn't. But do you know why? Not because they support them. Libanon simply has no own military power to remove the Hisbollah. They are afraid to get into a civil war again. And why does Libanon has not it's own army? Because it was completely destroyed by Israel, and they had absolutely no chance to regain their strength.

It's complicated. One cannot say, this or that side is responsible. They all are. And they are all unwilling to stop violence. It's the easiest way for them. They don't care about suffering civilians.

User avatar
Shurik
Sr. Member
Posts: 3774
Joined: Mon Mar 04, 2002 12:17 am
Location: Satellite Of Love
Contact:

Re: WWIII -?

Post by Shurik » Sun Jul 16, 2006 11:20 am

You know, Palestinians got billions of dollars since the Oslo agreements, but all the money was invested in weapons or simply was stolen by Arafat and his clique. The reason is as you said - fighting is much easier than building schools, hospitals and factories.
I mean, also what they are doing now: They are bombing a country and accepting "collateral damages" among civilians...
I know what you mean. But the concensus among the Israelis is that we have to deal with Hizballa, even at the cost of half a country being bombed, so that Hizballa will not be able to attack anyone again ... This is real war, I'm in the front-line, but I agree with this concensus ...
Chemistry is physics without a thought
Mathematics is physics without a purpose

User avatar
stratohawk
Sr. Member
Posts: 3067
Joined: Thu Jan 09, 2003 5:35 pm
Location: Germany

Re: WWIII -?

Post by stratohawk » Sun Jul 16, 2006 11:53 am

Shurik wrote: I know what you mean. But the concensus among the Israelis is that we have to deal with Hizballa, even at the cost of half a country being bombed, so that Hizballa will not be able to attack anyone again ... This is real war, I'm in the front-line, but I agree with this concensus ...
yes, I won't argue with you about it. You live there and face violence every day. It's easy for us in Europe to judge about a situation where we are not directly involved. A shame... But what you say, this concensus, to accept that a country is ruined... That expresses the whole problem there in one sentence. If both sides think so, it will lead to nothing.

User avatar
Shurik
Sr. Member
Posts: 3774
Joined: Mon Mar 04, 2002 12:17 am
Location: Satellite Of Love
Contact:

Re: WWIII -?

Post by Shurik » Sun Jul 16, 2006 12:20 pm

Look, it's either we do it now, at current cost, or we will live constantly under the threat of Hizballa rockets which now can reach Tel-Aviv and beyond.
Chemistry is physics without a thought
Mathematics is physics without a purpose

User avatar
stratohawk
Sr. Member
Posts: 3067
Joined: Thu Jan 09, 2003 5:35 pm
Location: Germany

Re: WWIII -?

Post by stratohawk » Sun Jul 16, 2006 12:25 pm

wouldn't it be better to support the government of Libanon to get rid of the hisbolla? After they forced the Syrian troops out, I would say that they are willing to. Harafi, or what's his name... He seems to be quite reasonable.

User avatar
NeonVomit
Sr. Member
Posts: 4628
Joined: Thu Feb 20, 2003 5:36 pm
Location: London, UK

Re: WWIII -?

Post by NeonVomit » Sun Jul 16, 2006 3:31 pm

stratohawk wrote:wouldn't it be better to support the government of Libanon to get rid of the hisbolla? After they forced the Syrian troops out, I would say that they are willing to. Harafi, or what's his name... He seems to be quite reasonable.
Considering Lebanon is UNABLE to get rid of Hizbollah, perhaps blowing them up is not the best solution? How many civilians have been killed in Lebanon so far? How much more hatred is needed to be created?

I can't believe this. This has spun totally out of control.
"Beneath the freezing sky arrives Winter's Verge..."

http://www.wintersverge.com


I'm going to hell, and loving the ride!

Patricia
Sr. Member
Posts: 1515
Joined: Sun May 30, 2004 4:56 pm
Location: France
Contact:

Re: WWIII -?

Post by Patricia » Sun Jul 16, 2006 9:04 pm

Maniac wrote:
MetalAngel wrote:
stratohawk wrote:Why can't you fucking politicians sit together and find solutions for your problems?
Simply because those politicians don't want it. To sit around a table and discuss peacefully about the world and the situation it has to face to isn't their interest. All what they want is to make money on people desperation, misery and death. That's all.
I agree absolutely with you!!
I second that!
And hopefully that politicians will find a good solution against all that, even if it seems to be a dream for most of people.

Weapons should not exist, and oil should be restitued to the mother earth simply because it belongs to her. Human beings indeed, exploit it only for money, and their own interests. They prefer to kill their fellows than to think evoluate towards some more better things.
Olen tyytyväinen...Onpa kiva tavata...

User avatar
Heiserich
Sr. Member
Posts: 314
Joined: Fri Jul 09, 2004 2:42 pm
Location: Duisburg, Germany

Re: WWIII -?

Post by Heiserich » Sun Jul 16, 2006 11:45 pm

Shurik wrote:Look, it's either we do it now, at current cost, or we will live constantly under the threat of Hizballa rockets which now can reach Tel-Aviv and beyond.
I can't really believe that military violence will bring the problem to a solution. Violence could not stop terror yet and I think it never will. At least not as long as it isn't combined with reason and the sincere will to negotiate in order to get to a consensus every side can live with. My impression is, that the israeli government is not interested in negotiating a consensus; they just rely on their superior military power and want to get as much out of the situation as possible (border wall with Palestine and so on).
In my opinion, this is the wrong way; a state that leaves the palestinians in a fragmented territory without the chance to get on their own feet will perpetuate the hatred and the terror. Without getting to the root of the problem, there will never be peace in the region.
In the current situation with Lebanon, again it seems to me that Israel is overreacting - and damages it's own interests in the long term. Bombing Lebanon back for 50 years, as Dan Halutz said? Poor neighbours easily become violent neighbours...
Life can only be understood in reverse
But must be lived forwards...
I'm losing my senses, I'm losing my senses

D. Mustaine

User avatar
NeonVomit
Sr. Member
Posts: 4628
Joined: Thu Feb 20, 2003 5:36 pm
Location: London, UK

Re: WWIII -?

Post by NeonVomit » Mon Jul 17, 2006 12:12 am

It must be heartbreaking for the Lebanese people, after all those years of rebuilding after the lengthy civil war, to see their infrastructure being destroyed again. Will it turn them against Hizbollah? No, it'll just make them hate Israel even more and want Hizbollah to cause Israel even more damage. Which causes Israel to attack Lebanon even more.

A pure, simple, viscious circle.
"Beneath the freezing sky arrives Winter's Verge..."

http://www.wintersverge.com


I'm going to hell, and loving the ride!

User avatar
miditek
Sr. Member
Posts: 2045
Joined: Thu Feb 02, 2006 4:59 am

Re: WWIII -?

Post by miditek » Mon Jul 17, 2006 2:02 am

Heiserich wrote:
Shurik wrote:Look, it's either we do it now, at current cost, or we will live constantly under the threat of Hizballa rockets which now can reach Tel-Aviv and beyond.
Heiserich wrote:I can't really believe that military violence will bring the problem to a solution. Violence could not stop terror yet and I think it never will.
Germany, (read: nor *any* other nation) would not tolerate its soldiers being kidnapped, nor rockets or missiles being fired across its borders. The citizens of any country would demand that its citizens be defended.

That is clearly a military problem, and an appropriate military response is perfectly acceptable under international law. Hezbollah is an outlaw organization, and must be either disarmed and imprisoned, or destroyed.

Heiserich wrote:At least not as long as it isn't combined with reason and the sincere will to negotiate in order to get to a consensus every side can live with.

Heiserich wrote:My impression is, that the israeli government is not interested in negotiating a consensus; they just rely on their superior military power and want to get as much out of the situation as possible (border wall with Palestine and so on).
Would Merkel, Chirac, or Blair negotiate with Hezbollah? I don't think so. What leads you to believe that it is Tel Aviv that refuses to negotiate? Article Thirteen of the Hamas Charter specficially forbids negotiations with the so-called "Zionist Entity"- as they refuse to even acknowledge Israel as a sovereign state.

Israel's request has been simple; they have asked for the return of the kidnapped soldiers, and a cessation of the firing of rockets.

I don't think that is an unreasonable request; of course, if Hamas and Hezbollah prefer war to those two simple requests, I would daresay that they are not to be denied all the war that they could possibly imagine.
Heiserich wrote:In my opinion, this is the wrong way; a state that leaves the palestinians in a fragmented territory without the chance to get on their own feet will perpetuate the hatred and the terror. Without getting to the root of the problem, there will never be peace in the region.
An abscence of a "Palestinian" state is not the root of the problem. From both the Arab, as well as Persian, viewpoint, the mere existence of Israel is the heart of the issue here. Please note that for the sake of historical accuracy, there has never been a Palestinian state ever in the middle east. Moreover, the Arab League rejected a two-state proposal in 1948 , and there has been trouble ever since.

Heiserich wrote:In the current situation with Lebanon, again it seems to me that Israel is overreacting - and damages it's own interests in the long term. Bombing Lebanon back for 50 years, as Dan Halutz said? Poor neighbours easily become violent neighbours...
The EU and UN are hypocritical for criticizing Israel for defending itself, and yet, they have allowed this problem to fester with little more than a yawn, and now attempt, as is their usual practice, to condemn Israel, and have as of yet to offer any real assistance or statemanship. I am sure that the EU and UN are also blaming the United States as well, as opposed to looking at the real culprit, which is the violence of Hamas and Hezbollah.

You won't see Spainards defending the Basques, French defending the Corsicans (or Algerians or Morrocans), Russians defending the Chechens, Romanians defending Gypsies, or Turks defending Kurds, for separatist violence, terrorist, or otherwise criminal activities.

All the so-called "Palestinians" are, is the cause celebre' for anti-Israeli activity throughout the Islamic world. They love to parade their dead around, and cry about the squalor that they are "forced" to live in. Billions of dollars in western aid has been siphoned off from these people, and waging a state of perpetual guerilla and terrorist wars with Israel also is not good for a fledgling country's infrastructure.

Israel takes no pleasure in the reports of civilian casualties and suffering, however, all of South Lebanon has essentially been an armed camp for Hamas for decades. It is also important to remember that Israel itself has also had civilian causualties, but there seems to be less sympathy for them in the media than the Lebanese civilian casualties.

It is easy to say that the Lebanese army is unable or unwilling to dislodge them, but it is worth noting that a military solution, along with diplomatic efforts, from the international community (UN, NATO, etc.) would have been sufficient to get Hezbollah out of Lebanon.

Since the UN has failed to successfully implement Security Council resolution # 1559, which included a ban on all "militias" in Southern Lebanon, one can hardly blame Israel for saying, "enough is enough", as it were.

If Hamas and Hezbollah want things to quiet down, they should honor Israel's request and return the soldiers, stop the kidnappings, and stop firing rockets. Israel had pulled out of Gaza last year, then rockets started coming across the border, and soon started kidnapping. (By the way, Gaza has traditionally be an Egpytian territory, but now it seems to be a "Palestinian" one. The West Bank, also a so-called Palestinian territory, was once part of Jordan. )

Then Hezbollah started trouble of its own to the north. It seems that the two week timing between these events is not a coincidence.

User avatar
Shurik
Sr. Member
Posts: 3774
Joined: Mon Mar 04, 2002 12:17 am
Location: Satellite Of Love
Contact:

Re: WWIII -?

Post by Shurik » Mon Jul 17, 2006 3:22 am

In the current situation with Lebanon, again it seems to me that Israel is overreacting - and damages it's own interests in the long term. Bombing Lebanon back for 50 years, as Dan Halutz said? Poor neighbours easily become violent neighbours...
This is not an overreaction. We were attacked from the territory of other sovereign state - this is casus beli. Neither we nor Lebanon should be a hostage of islamic extremists, but Lebanon can't or doesn't want to deal with them. Either way the result is the same - lots of trouble for everyone.

There can be no negotiations with Hizballa and the likes, they should be either imprisoned or dead (preferably the last) ...

As to Lebanon - I don't like seeing this country being bombed back to stone age, but this is the price they pay for not dealing with our mutual problem - Hizballa. If you give cover to criminals, expect to get hurt when someone comes to arrest them.
Chemistry is physics without a thought
Mathematics is physics without a purpose

User avatar
stratohawk
Sr. Member
Posts: 3067
Joined: Thu Jan 09, 2003 5:35 pm
Location: Germany

Re: WWIII -?

Post by stratohawk » Mon Jul 17, 2006 7:08 am

miditek wrote:
Would Merkel, Chirac, or Blair negotiate with Hezbollah? I don't think so. What leads you to believe that it is Tel Aviv that refuses to negotiate? Article Thirteen of the Hamas Charter specficially forbids negotiations with the so-called "Zionist Entity"- as they refuse to even acknowledge Israel as a sovereign state.
What everyone forgets now, is that only one or two days BEFORE Israel started to attack and march in the Gaza again, there were first signs that the Hamas wants to acknowledge Israel as a sovereign state. It would have been the first and fucking important step to peace. Now we are so far away from a solution again, that nobody's even considering it.

User avatar
miditek
Sr. Member
Posts: 2045
Joined: Thu Feb 02, 2006 4:59 am

Re: WWIII -?

Post by miditek » Mon Jul 17, 2006 8:30 am

miditek wrote:
Would Merkel, Chirac, or Blair negotiate with Hezbollah? I don't think so. What leads you to believe that it is Tel Aviv that refuses to negotiate? Article Thirteen of the Hamas Charter specficially forbids negotiations with the so-called "Zionist Entity"- as they refuse to even acknowledge Israel as a sovereign state.
stratohawk wrote:What everyone forgets now, is that only one or two days BEFORE Israel started to attack and march in the Gaza again, there were first signs that the Hamas wants to acknowledge Israel as a sovereign state. It would have been the first and fucking important step to peace. Now we are so far away from a solution again, that nobody's even considering it.
While I understand what you are saying, I have to disagree. If Hamas were going to consider recognizing Israel, it would not be digging tunnels, smuggling in heavy weapons, attacking Israeli army units, kidnapping soldiers, and launching its Qassam rockets across the border into Israeli towns, and *after* Israel had already left Gaza.

Does this sound like someone that actually wants peace? If so, how can you reconcile Hama's allusions of possible recognitions with its unacceptable behavior?

Just because Hamas claims that it "might consider recognition" of Israel does not mean that it intends to do so, as its actions speak otherwise. Even the EU (and not just America or Israel) has labeled Hamas as a terrorist organization.

It's important to consider how your government and your military would react to such provocations. The Arab culture does not respect weakness in any shape or form. It is also important to remember Mohammed's quote, which implores the jihadist to:

"negotiate with your enemy until you are strong enough to destroy him."

The Islamic world's irrational and fanatical hatred of Israel will eventually prove to be its undoing. In fact, it is a central theme of their culture.

Even if only 10% of the world's Muslims are radicals, and that is a conservative estimate, that still leaves at least 120 million potential time bombs that will have to be dealt with.

Time and again, the radical fundamentalists have caused problems; terror in America, Israel, Lebanon, Germany, Denmark, Iraq, Egypt, Jordan, France, Uganda, Somalia, London, Spain, Russia, the Phillipines, Malaysia, Saudi Arabia, India, Kenya, Turkey, Rwanda, and certainly many other localities.

These problems will continue to spread until the perpetrators are dealt with in a swift and severe manner. It is only a matter of time before we see other parts of the world, such as Scandinavia, that have traditionally been safe from terrorism, will also begin to see atrocities. The entire planet is the battleground, and each and every place and person is a potential target; this is the mindset of the jihadist.

User avatar
NeonVomit
Sr. Member
Posts: 4628
Joined: Thu Feb 20, 2003 5:36 pm
Location: London, UK

Re: WWIII -?

Post by NeonVomit » Mon Jul 17, 2006 12:11 pm

So what you're advocating is all-out war against anyone who could be a potential threat? We saw how well that's working in Iraq.

I was watching the news today. Israel doesn't even seem to be trying to avoid hitting civilians. They're treating everyone as a target. Are they trying to destroy Hizbollah? Well, they're just making them stronger, with every Lebanese civilian killed. The hatred of Israel will grow stronger and Hizbollah will only have more support. What on earth possible good could come from blowing up the gas stations? And destroying highways and ports? What have the Lebanese civilians done wrong?

Yes, Hizbollah is a terrorist organisation, and no I am not trying to justify their actions. But Israel fails to realise that Lebanon was powerless to do anything about Hizbollah anyway. Lebanon does not have a strong military, the civil war and Syrian occupation saw to that. Not strong enough to confront Hizbollah in any case. What could they do? Risk another civil war? The country was still in the process of healing from that bloody and painful era of its history.

The Israeli reaction is massively disproportionate. They were just looking for a pretext to go back into Gaza and strike at Hizbollah without having to worry about the damages caused to Lebanon.

Saying that the governments of any other country would do the same if they'd had TWO SOLDIERS abducted is pointless. What other nation is in Israel's position? You cannot even compare, so it is pointless to do so. How many nations NOT involved in Iraq have had citizens kidnapped and mudrered? Russia has for example, did they send an entire army to Iraq? No, Putin ordered agents and special forces to find and destroy those responsible. Different situations, different reactions.

I believe the Israeli reaction is wrong, and the only reason the USA is accepting these actions is because it will give more validity to the needless disaster that has unfolded in Iraq.
"Beneath the freezing sky arrives Winter's Verge..."

http://www.wintersverge.com


I'm going to hell, and loving the ride!

User avatar
miditek
Sr. Member
Posts: 2045
Joined: Thu Feb 02, 2006 4:59 am

Re: WWIII -?

Post by miditek » Mon Jul 17, 2006 3:57 pm

NeonVomit wrote:So what you're advocating is all-out war against anyone who could be a potential threat? We saw how well that's working in Iraq.
Lebanon is not a potential threat, but Hezbollah is a real one. Iranian Revoltionary Guards are also on the ground in Southern Lebanon, and should be dealt with accordingly.
NeonVomit wrote:I was watching the news today. Israel doesn't even seem to be trying to avoid hitting civilians. They're treating everyone as a target. Are they trying to destroy Hizbollah? Well, they're just making them stronger, with every Lebanese civilian killed. The hatred of Israel will grow stronger and Hizbollah will only have more support. What on earth possible good could come from blowing up the gas stations? And destroying highways and ports? What have the Lebanese civilians done wrong?
The Lebanese civilians, in my opinion, should not be used as pawns or as an excuse not to deal severly with Hezbollah. One of the primary objectives of defeating an enemy is to:

a) Cut his supply chains (such as the airport, sea
ports, and the highways)

b) Stop his mobility (again, this is from the air,
land, and sea)

c) Break his will to fight, although the latter certainly takes time.


NeonVomit wrote:Yes, Hizbollah is a terrorist organisation, and no I am not trying to justify their actions. But Israel fails to realise that Lebanon was powerless to do anything about Hizbollah anyway. Lebanon does not have a strong military, the civil war and Syrian occupation saw to that. Not strong enough to confront Hizbollah in any case. What could they do? Risk another civil war? The country was still in the process of healing from that bloody and painful era of its history.
Israel does realize that Lebanon was either unable or unwilling to rid itself of Hezbollah, and as such, IDF will be the ones that are forced to do this.

If Europe was truly serious about resolving this, it would partner with NATO and the US to get some military forces ready to compel Hezbollah to either withdraw or be destroyed. Read my previous post about Israel's requests; return the soldiers, and stop firing the missiles. It is as simple as that, but Hezbollah and Hamas will have none of it.

Just because Lebanon could not do the job does not mean that NATO does not have the resources to do so. Hezbollah has worn out its welcome in Lebanon, and all of this could have been avoided via UN Resolution 1559- but I guess that we'll have to do this one the hard way.
NeonVomit wrote:The Israeli reaction is massively disproportionate. They were just looking for a pretext to go back into Gaza and strike at Hizbollah without having to worry about the damages caused to Lebanon.
The true problem is that Hamas and Hezbollah just don't get it. If they continue to launch their terror attacks, they are merely bringing destruction down upon themselves.
NeonVomit wrote:Saying that the governments of any other country would do the same if they'd had TWO SOLDIERS abducted is pointless. What other nation is in Israel's position? You cannot even compare, so it is pointless to do so. How many nations NOT involved in Iraq have had citizens kidnapped and mudrered? Russia has for example, did they send an entire army to Iraq? No, Putin ordered agents and special forces to find and destroy those responsible. Different situations, different reactions.
You are also neglecting to mention the fact that Russia is not under missle attack from Iraq. It's not only about the two soldiers- it is also about the missle and rocket attack as well. Moreover, for a conflict closer to home, Russia has effectively leveled Grozny in Chechnya with blistering artillery and aerial attacks, and there has been catastrophic loss of life there, and I am sure that there has been plenty of civilians killed there as well- but we don't see much about that conflict in the media.
NeonVomit wrote: I believe the Israeli reaction is wrong, and the only reason the USA is accepting these actions is because it will give more validity to the needless disaster that has unfolded in Iraq.
America is Israel's only reliable ally in the world, and you can be certain that if Syria or Iran decide upon direct involvement, they will be punished. Syria and Iran have contributed much to the instability of the border between Israel and Lebanon.

Have you not seen Vice PM Peres' statements? He is dovish by nature, and indicated that Israel does not want war with Lebanon itself.

Europe looks down on Israel with contempt, but seems to coddle radical Islam in every way that it can, despite the widespread terror attacks that Europe itself is not immune from.

User avatar
Shurik
Sr. Member
Posts: 3774
Joined: Mon Mar 04, 2002 12:17 am
Location: Satellite Of Love
Contact:

Re: WWIII -?

Post by Shurik » Mon Jul 17, 2006 4:19 pm

stratohawk wrote:
miditek wrote:
Would Merkel, Chirac, or Blair negotiate with Hezbollah? I don't think so. What leads you to believe that it is Tel Aviv that refuses to negotiate? Article Thirteen of the Hamas Charter specficially forbids negotiations with the so-called "Zionist Entity"- as they refuse to even acknowledge Israel as a sovereign state.
What everyone forgets now, is that only one or two days BEFORE Israel started to attack and march in the Gaza again, there were first signs that the Hamas wants to acknowledge Israel as a sovereign state. It would have been the first and fucking important step to peace. Now we are so far away from a solution again, that nobody's even considering it.
Hamas is a not homogenous organization - there's a difference between their "political wing" and the regular terrorists. Even a political wing is divided between those who live in Gaza (Hania, a-Zaher and such) and those who take shelter in Damascus (Mash'al). The Gaza political wing doesn't have any influence on the the terrorist groups in the field, it's powerless, more or less. The Damascus political wing has much more influence on the terrorists, but they also can't exactly tell each terrorist in the field what to do and what not to. Their orders, in general, come from Iran (like when to heat up the area and when to cool down) ...

miditek, where are you from?
Chemistry is physics without a thought
Mathematics is physics without a purpose

User avatar
NeonVomit
Sr. Member
Posts: 4628
Joined: Thu Feb 20, 2003 5:36 pm
Location: London, UK

Re: WWIII -?

Post by NeonVomit » Mon Jul 17, 2006 5:42 pm

miditek wrote: Lebanon is not a potential threat, but Hezbollah is a real one. Iranian Revoltionary Guards are also on the ground in Southern Lebanon, and should be dealt with accordingly.
Right, so Lebanon is not the target here. We've established that, right? Iranian links are tentative, Iran has obviously denied the accusations, but no it's not hard to imagine those maniacs getting involved somehow.
One of the primary objectives of defeating an enemy is to:

a) Cut his supply chains (such as the airport, sea
ports, and the highways)

b) Stop his mobility (again, this is from the air,
land, and sea)

c) Break his will to fight, although the latter certainly takes time.
So take out the civilian infrastructure? If Lebanon is not a target, try looking up casualty figures. Something like 5 or 6 Hizbollah militants have been killed so far, against almost 200 Lebanese civilians and soldiers. How is this possibly justifiable? It shows Israel simply disregards civilians and treats everyone as a target. Just like Hizbollah does. So, they're lowering themselves to the terrorists' level. What have Lebanese civilians done to deserve this treatment and having their country put 20 years back?
The Lebanese civilians, in my opinion, should not be used as pawns or as an excuse not to deal severly with Hezbollah.
:shock:

I had to re-read that sentence about 4 or 5 times because I couldn't believe what it said. I thought you'd made a typing error or something.

May I remind you we speak of innocent civilians here. Like, people like you and me and stuff who go to work and function in society and things. Terrorists see the killing of civilians as necessary, which is why they do it. Therefore, with this thinking, you justify their conclusions. That's like so unbelievably messed up I cannot comprehend it. Please reconsider what you've written. Because it reads as incredibly cruel and misanthropic.

We're talking about the life of people who have had nothing to do with any terror attacks, people just getting on with their lives who have been caught up in this. Your attitude is frankly revolting. Military action against civilians is unjustifiable no matter what. If 50-60 Hizbollah militants had so far been taken out and a few civilian bystanders, I'd understand that, accidents happen. But in this case the reverse is true. Just like the well-documented and equally sickening case of the suicide bomber in Iraq who killed 22 Iraqi civilians (most of them children) to kill the one US soldier present. He was giving out chocolates.

Yes, Israeli civilians get attacked, and so have people in London (where I live most of the time) and countless other terrorist targets. I am not trying to marginalise that, I don't like feeling as if I'm a target simply because I live in London. I still get nervous sometimes when the Underground is very busy.

However, does that mean that Israel must lower themselves to the level of Hizbollah? Any moral high ground that they might have held has been blown away now.
Israel does realize that Lebanon was either unable or unwilling to rid itself of Hezbollah, and as such, IDF will be the ones that are forced to do this.

If Europe was truly serious about resolving this, it would partner with NATO and the US to get some military forces ready to compel Hezbollah to either withdraw or be destroyed. Read my previous post about Israel's requests; return the soldiers, and stop firing the missiles. It is as simple as that, but Hezbollah and Hamas will have none of it.

Just because Lebanon could not do the job does not mean that NATO does not have the resources to do so. Hezbollah has worn out its welcome in Lebanon, and all of this could have been avoided via UN Resolution 1559- but I guess that we'll have to do this one the hard way.
Interesting you should say that, Blair and Anan have actually suggested this to Israel but Israel has turned down the offer. They prefer to do it themselves, which is fair enough but again, Israel is not exactly known for care and subtlety in their attacks. I guess when you drop a 1000lb bomb onto a building housing terrorists in a crowded city, accidents can happen huh... or firing a missile from an aircraft to kill a single man in a wheelchair (and a lot of good that did).
The true problem is that Hamas and Hezbollah just don't get it. If they continue to launch their terror attacks, they are merely bringing destruction down upon themselves.
Hizbollah and Hamas are extremist terrorist organisations, no they don't 'get it' and they never will. If they 'got it' they wouldn't even be involved in those sorts of activities. They think dying in the course of their aims is the highest form of glory. Like all religious extremists of any sort, they operate in an entirely different manner from you or I or any other rational person.

Again, I have absolutely nothing but contempt for any terrorist organisation and I want to make that absolutely clear. My sister on the train behind the one attacked at Liverpool Street in the London suicide bombings, my aunt was on a plane flying into NYC on the morning of 9/11. No, I do not sympathise with their methods in the least. However, I have the same feelings for any nation which does not discriminate between innocent bystanders and their real targets, which is what Israel seems to be doing. It's a bit nausiating to think that it's highly likely I'd be trapped in Beirut right now had that festival not been cancelled last month, because the airport was hit on one of the days between my scheduled going and coming. It's nausiating because I wouldn't have been safe from Israeli bombs, as apparently no-one is.
America is Israel's only reliable ally in the world, and you can be certain that if Syria or Iran decide upon direct involvement, they will be punished. Syria and Iran have contributed much to the instability of the border between Israel and Lebanon.

Have you not seen Vice PM Peres' statements? He is dovish by nature, and indicated that Israel does not want war with Lebanon itself.

Europe looks down on Israel with contempt, but seems to coddle radical Islam in every way that it can, despite the widespread terror attacks that Europe itself is not immune from.
Perhaps Peres' statements have been peaceful, but the bombs falling on Beirut give a rather different impression. If Lebanon itself is not the target, then why destroy all the gas stations and major highways and port facilities and airport? Hizbollah isn't the only one who might sometimes use those facilities. That's like destroying the playground watercooler because the school bully sometimes drinks from it or something.

The relatives of people who have died for no crime other than being in the wrong place at the wrong time will not easily accept those words of Peres.

Of course, the residents of Haifa (one of my dad's friends lives near the building that was hit earlier today, my dad has yet to get in touch with him) are in much the same situation. Again, I am not belittling what Israel is in, I fully understand the need to do something but I am appalled at the casual disregard for innocent lives Israel has thus far shown.

Europe looks down on Israel and coddles radical Islam? That has to be one of the most ignorant and blind statements I've yet read here and more importantly, totally out of context with this topic. You said yourself that Europe is not immune from terrorism, so what possible good could come from 'coddling radical Islam'? Is everyone here stupid? The fact that European nations (apart from the UK) don't go around attacking other nations with a flimsy pretext does not mean that Islamic extremism, or extremism of any sort for that matter, is accepted. I think it is because of the realisation that doing that sort of thing will only make things worse. Look at Iraq.

You seem to be blaming the ills of the region on the European Union. Interesting.
"Beneath the freezing sky arrives Winter's Verge..."

http://www.wintersverge.com


I'm going to hell, and loving the ride!

User avatar
NeonVomit
Sr. Member
Posts: 4628
Joined: Thu Feb 20, 2003 5:36 pm
Location: London, UK

Re: WWIII -?

Post by NeonVomit » Mon Jul 17, 2006 5:53 pm

Let me just make one thing clear, I do not hate Israel and I do think that something had to be done. Any sovereign nation would have reacted as is their right. I just think Israel's apparent casual disregard for innocent lives is what is wrong. That precise factor is what is angering me so much.

It does nothing for peace, and will only serve to increase hatred in the region that needs it least.
"Beneath the freezing sky arrives Winter's Verge..."

http://www.wintersverge.com


I'm going to hell, and loving the ride!

Patricia
Sr. Member
Posts: 1515
Joined: Sun May 30, 2004 4:56 pm
Location: France
Contact:

Re: WWIII -?

Post by Patricia » Mon Jul 17, 2006 10:33 pm

The best thing who could arrive first is to destroy the weapons.
But i guess the conscience is not woke up so...Sad to see a war keeps on again... :cry:
Olen tyytyväinen...Onpa kiva tavata...

User avatar
miditek
Sr. Member
Posts: 2045
Joined: Thu Feb 02, 2006 4:59 am

Re: WWIII -?

Post by miditek » Tue Jul 18, 2006 2:40 am

Shurik wrote:miditek, where are you from?
Hi Shurik, I'm from Tennessee.

Hope that you, your family, and friends are safe.

Please keep the forum members posted when you have time, as we are concerned for you.

Shalom...

User avatar
miditek
Sr. Member
Posts: 2045
Joined: Thu Feb 02, 2006 4:59 am

Re: WWIII -?

Post by miditek » Tue Jul 18, 2006 2:43 am

NeonVomit wrote:Let me just make one thing clear, I do not hate Israel and I do think that something had to be done. Any sovereign nation would have reacted as is their right. I just think Israel's apparent casual disregard for innocent lives is what is wrong. That precise factor is what is angering me so much.

It does nothing for peace, and will only serve to increase hatred in the region that needs it least.
Hi NV, I wanted to respond to this post first before responding to your previous one.

I believe you when you mentioned that you don't hate Israel, and did not have the impression that you did.

I also believe that we have common ground on certain aspects of this issue, but differences of opinion with others. I disagree with the assessment that Israel has a reckless disregard for the Lebanese citizens. I will explain why when I follow-up in the next post.

You may or may not have seen this quote on Tolkki's forum, but I feel that Golda Meir said it best;

"we will forgive you for killing our sons, but we will never forgive you for making us kill yours." These words came from a woman that was not only a politician, but also a Jewish mother with two children of her own.

Image

Locked