The Middle East part 2

[armandobronca 0]

Want to see something really accurate?

Just in the center

[-ZG-BUZZARD 0]

Quote[/b] ]A lebanese guy disagrees.

Not even your lebanese source does NOT state in any way that the israelis did NOT hit the camp intentionally - insert foot into mouth, Nemesis6?  

[Nemesis6 0]

BUZZARD @ Aug. 03 2006,00:52)]insert foot into mouth, Nemesis6?

Insert eyes into head, insert logic into brain and read again, Buzzard?

[Bernadotte 0]

A lebanese guy disagrees. Here's a more accurate version of events - http://p_blog.blogspot.com/2006....es.html

It even links to the same document that you linked to.

According to your blogger source:

Quote[/b] ]As I understand it, HA then followed the villagers to the UN camp and continued their attacks from there.

Your source's understanding is wrong.

The IDF's highspeed radar located Hezbollah's launch points between 220 and 600 meters from the UN base.  The UN's investigation confirmed the IDF's findings.  The UN found that 2 - 3 fighters had entered the base to be with their families either before or after the IDF shelling.  Neither side has tried to claim that Hezbollah actually launched any attacks from within the base.

 Keep trying.

[Nemesis6 0]

Hey, Armando, wanna see something just as accurate?

Want the video? Here it is.

[Nemesis6 0]

Neither side has tried to claim that Hezbollah actually launched any attacks from within the base.

The terrorists knew damn well what would happen if they hid in the building. They knew damn well what would happen if they launched missiles, and they knew damn well the consequences of their actions, which was the whole reason they set up near the U.N base.

You tell me to keep trying, and I will, you pinko.

[xawery 0]

Quote[/b] ]you pinko

Lol, and here I was thinking that only Americans resorted to such ad hominems Keep trying indeed...

[Bernadotte 0]

Before you said they were firing:

... the first time, they actually FOLLOWED the civilians that fled to a UN camp <span style='font-size:11pt;line-height:100%'>and started firing from that position.</span>

Now you say they were hiding:

The terrorists knew damn well what would happen if they <span style='font-size:11pt;line-height:100%'>hid</span> in the building.

See what happens when you keep trying?  Eventually even you end up able to say something that's true.  

[-ZG-BUZZARD 0]

they knew damn well the consequences of their actions, which was the whole reason they set up near the U.N base.

That means that you admit that the Israelis fire upon U.N. installations on purpouse no matter what just because terrorists may be in the vincinity...

Great morals, way higher than terrorists...  

At least the terrorists don't strike at U.N. installations in Israel...  

Edit: AFAIK at least...

[-ZG-BUZZARD 0]

BUZZARD @ Aug. 03 2006,00:52)]insert foot into mouth, Nemesis6?  

Insert eyes into head, insert logic into brain and read again, Buzzard?

My logic is: you DO NOT FIRE UPON U.N. Installations!!!  

Goddamnit, doesn't the IDF have creative people? Heck, if I was in charge of the IDF, in those situations, I'd hot-drop some special ops squad right on the U.N. installations and have them strike from there the terrorists, so that at least for once, when the terrorists shoot back, maybe Israel gets lucky to be able to say: "See! They also shoot at the U.N.!! Hey, U.N.! Do something about it! Don't let yourself get shot up that way!!!".

But no, the IDF only knows how to bomb and shell things... As I stated in a previous post, they're cowards that rather risk public anger by dropping too much ordenance and shelling too much instead of committing troops to do the job right, instead of just creating collateral damage that rarely kills terrorists anyway...

[xawery 0]

Hey, Armando, wanna see something just as accurate?

Want the video? Here it is.

Hmm, let's follow your faulty logic. Because there is anecdotal evidence of Palestinian (please bear in mind which country your army is blowing up at this moment) insurgents mounting what seems to be a Red Cross ambulance, the IDF should bomb every vehicle bearing the red cross, crescent or diamond? Why... why that's completely logical. Congratulations sir.

Besides, this clip is from 2004, and from (presumably) the Gaza strip. How, then, does this apply to the current situation in Lebanon? Apparently, all movements which you label as terrorists employ the same methods, and this justifies blowing up Red Cross ambulances? How insightful.

Nemesis, you're starting to build up a reputation of quoting material which is completely irrelevant to the situation at hand. You seem to be counting on the ignorance of the readers to disregard the obvious holes in your arguments. Have you forgotten your whole "Hezbollah flag on UN post" story? One would think that such an error would humble you, but apparently one would be mistaken.

[Nemesis6 0]

Quote[/b] ]Hmm, let's follow your faulty logic. Because there is anecdotal evidence of Palestinian (please bear in mind which country your army is blowing up at this moment) insurgents mounting what seems to be a Red Cross ambulance, the IDF should bomb every vehicle bearing the red cross, crescent or diamond? Why... why that's completely logical. Congratulations sir.

I never said that. You're putting words in my mouth.

Quote[/b] ]Besides, this clip is from 2004, and from (presumably) the Gaza strip. How, then, does this apply to the current situation in Lebanon? Apparently, all movements which you label as terrorists employ the same methods, and this justifies blowing up Red Cross ambulances? How insightful.

Quote[/b] ]Nemesis, you're starting to build up a reputation of quoting material which is completely irrelevant to the situation at hand. You seem to be counting on the ignorance of the readers to disregard the obvious holes in your arguments. Have you forgotten your whole "Hezbollah flag on UN post" story? One would think that such an error would humble you, but apparently one would be mistaken.

I don't quote irrelevant material. And about that HizbAllah flag - What difference does it make? HizbAllah WAS using the observation post that was hit, that the observation post shown in the picture was not the one in question is irrelevant and just strenghthens my argument that this is what U.N posts are being used for.

Talk about trying. Heh.

[martinovic 0]

Quote[/b] ]And about that HizbAllah flag - What difference does it make?

You LIED, that's the difference it makes. How can i trust anything else you say? I can't, so i would have to double-check everything you state and as the above posts clearly show, you are unreliable, untrustworthy.

Quote[/b] ]HizbAllah WAS using the observation post that was hit,

Prove that.

Quote[/b] ]that the observation post shown in the picture was not the one in question is irrelevant and just strenghthens my argument that this is what U.N posts are being used for.

O_o what... ? It weakens your argument.

You are hopelessly biased and twist and turn facts and quotations in your favor. (Well, you try to.)

Now i understand that you don't want to be attacked anymore, but maybe instead of continueing with the killing of the arab population in the region you guys could achieve more by helping them out in the misery that you caused them.

[xawery 0]

Quote[/b] ]I never said that. You're putting words in my mouth.

Good god man, do you think us complete dolts, incapable of reading between the lines? Communication isn't only about stating something outright. Armando posts an image of a Red Cross ambulance shot and shelled to pieces. The image links to an article about Israeli attacks on civilians and ambulances. Obviously this article is damaging for the IDF and Israel, so in response you posted a clip of Palestenian militants using a Red Cross van for transport. And you're trying to tell me that you didn't post it in order to justify the IDF's actions against Red Cross personnel? Please.

Quote[/b] ]I don't quote irrelevant material.

What an excellent rebuttal! Why try to provide counterarguments when you can simply deny it? Not only do you unconditionally support the IDF, you seem to be assuming their tactics as well. If it's uncomfortable, just deny it.

Quote[/b] ]And about that HizbAllah flag - What difference does it make? HizbAllah WAS using the observation post that was hit, that the observation post shown in the picture was not the one in question is irrelevant and just strenghthens my argument that this is what U.N posts are being used for.

Phew, where to start? First of all, the flag does matter. Do a google search: every right-wing paper or blogger seems convinced that the Hezbollah flag was raised above the UN post which got shelled & bombed, and sees it as proof of Hezbollah fighters hiding inside. As Bernadotte pointed out, this simply isn't true. However, the image has already lodged itself in the collective mind of right-wingers on the internet, who apparently aren't capable of conducting any research. All the more reason to disprove this, especially since noone has confirmed that Hezbollah has ever entered the post.

By saying yourself "what difference does it make?" you admit to posting material which is irrelevant to the discussion at hand. Posting outdated clips and images which relate to a entirely different regions just to support your claims amounts to poor debating tactics.

And as to your last remark... Well, the logic reminds me of the tv-show "Yes Minister". "Something ought to be done. This is something. Hence, we ought to do this." In other words: completely flawed. Let's see what you are doing here.

You're taking a 4-year old article from an outspokenly pro-Israel newspaper (just look at the editorials). From this article, you take a photograph which shows a bit of fencing and the UN and Hezbollah flags flying next to each other. No details of the post are shown. Incidentally, the article includes another picture, displaying the front of the compound. If you look closely, you will see that the fencing is completely different on both pictures. So, what we have here is a photograph of a bit of fencing, two flags, and a lot of sky. From this you are able to infer that UN posts are being systematically used by Hezbollah? Hmm... Tell me, are you familiar with the fallacy of presumption called converse accident? I guess you are, seeing as you so flawlessly employ it.

[Garcia 0]

Quote[/b] ]And about that HizbAllah flag - What difference does it make?

It makes a lot of difference. You are defending a attack on one US outpost by posting proof that a unknown UN outpost was used as shield by Hizbollah. It's like attacking a Red Cross ambulance and defending it by saying that you saw Hizbollah use a ambulance in a town 150 km from the one you targeted...

Quote[/b] ] HizbAllah WAS using the observation post that was hit, that the observation post shown in the picture was not the one in question is irrelevant and just strenghthens my argument that this is what U.N posts are being used for.

So you're telling me that USA could only post a picture of a camp in the desert with a Al-Qaidaflag and say it was proof of them operating in Iraq, and then when someone points out that the camp was not in Iraq, but in another country, all they need say is "Oh it's irrelevant if the camp in question lies in Iraq or not. We're saying they were in Iraq, so they WERE in Iraq..."

Good logic

[mp_phonix 0]

LOOOOOOLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLL    

From your post I can see that most of you are just anti-Israeli that are arrogent  

Nemessis here showed you a video, that even I saw before in the Israeli news back then, when you obvesli see Terrorist boarding a U.N ambulance,

and what do you say ?

Quote[/b] ]

Besides, this clip is from 2004, and from (presumably) the Gaza strip. How, then, does this apply to the current situation in Lebanon?

Quote[/b] ]

insurgents mounting what seems to be a Red Cross ambulance, the IDF should bomb every vehicle bearing the red cross, crescent or diamond

You are clearly avoiding the facts that U.N is giving aid to terrorist by saying [it's not a direct quote but u get the point] "no the clip is from 2004 it's not rellevent anymore" & "wow so that means u israelis need to start bombing every UN ambulance".

Just ignoring the facts that UN helping terrorist, and also helped them to kidnhapp 3 IDF soldiers in 2000, when some photos that I saw is clearly showing that the jeep they transferd the soldiers was white and had a UN markings all over it. . .

of course what you will say now is "go prove it" &"you are laying", just to cover up your own arrogence and your attitude of "I don't want to listen"

[Bernadotte 0]

...some photos that I saw is clearly showing that the jeep they transferd the soldiers was white and had a UN markings all over it. . .

Overheard conversation:

Quote[/b] ] Dumb Hezbollah Fighter:  How are we going to kidnap those IDF soldiers?  They'll start shooting at us as soon as they see our jeep.

Smart Hezbollah Fighter:  No problem.  We can paint it so that it looks like a harmless UN vehicle.  We can even put UN on the side of it.

Dumb Hezbollah Fighter:  But aren't the Israelis clever enough to realise that we just painted our jeep?

Smart Hezbollah Fighter:  Of course not.  They are blind fanatics.  In fact, they will probably even try to blame the UN for helping us with the kidnapping.  LOL

[mazza 1]

http://www.youthgroup.com.au/archives/175#comments

[Garcia 0]

LOOOOOOLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLL    

From your post I can see that most of you are just anti-Israeli that are arrogent  

Nemessis here showed you a video, that even I saw before in the Israeli news back then, when you obvesli see Terrorist boarding a U.N ambulance,

and what do you say ?

Quote[/b] ]

Besides, this clip is from 2004, and from (presumably) the Gaza strip. How, then, does this apply to the current situation in Lebanon?

Quote[/b] ]

insurgents mounting what seems to be a Red Cross ambulance, the IDF should bomb every vehicle bearing the red cross, crescent or diamond

You are clearly avoiding the facts that U.N is giving aid to terrorist by saying [it's not a direct quote but u get the point] "no the clip is from 2004 it's not rellevent anymore" & "wow so that means u israelis need to start bombing every UN ambulance".

Just ignoring the facts that UN helping terrorist, and also helped them to kidnhapp 3 IDF soldiers in 2000, when some photos that I saw is clearly showing that the jeep they transferd the soldiers was white and had a UN markings all over it. . .

of course what you will say now is "go prove it" &"you are laying", just to cover up your own arrogence and your attitude of "I don't want to listen"

Now that was quite a naiv post. As Bernadotte pointed out, it is quite simple to paint a vehicle white and then paint the letters "UN" on it. It's not like it's a secret art that only UN people know Of course I can't prove that UN didn't participate in any terrorist acts or helped terrorist organizations, but it's far more likely that they haven't than that they have. And, guess what...if you find proof that UN did help out, then good, until then I will presume that the "UN" ambulances/truck/jeeps/planes/nukes/space shuttles/ships etc that is being used by terrorist are vehicles that have been painted to look like UN vehicles...

[mp_phonix 0]

wait . .you actually think that the ambulance wasn't really UN's ? come on, I can understand if you think the jeep was painted or something . .but ambulance ? it even had a flag on him !

the one is being naive is you !

[-ZG-BUZZARD 0]

@ mp_phoenix

I refuse to believe that the U.N. would ever endorse any terrorist activity. It is entirely possible that the Hezbollah stole a U.N. jeep, maybe just for the purpouse of that kidnapping resulting in the "finger-pointing" with such blind stupidity at the U.N. supposedly helping a terrorist organisation... seriously, that's got to be bullshit.

The main issue here is that Israel is shooting at everything without verifiying and/or caring about if:

a) the target is a valid target, and

b) innocent people may get hurt by use of excessive firepower.

If, as I stated previously, they used ground troops to verify targets, civilian casualties and wrong targetings would be avoided. But, as I've also stated before, the Israelis are too chicken-shit afraid of putting ground troops to use. So what everybody's blaming Israel for is indiscriminately destroying everything which might be even remotely located near suspected Hezbollah positions.

Edit: And if they could have stolen a U.N. Jeep and/or U.N. ambulance, then they just as well could have stolen a flag...

[Messiah 2]

mp_phoenix, given your arguments over the course of this thread, what position are you in to call anyone here naive or ignorant?

pot calling the kettle black

[mp_phonix 0]

chicken shit ? ok . .

that because we don't want to go back 10 years back with ground troops inside lebanon. The israli news even showed videos of Hizballah shooting Katyushas from a courtyard of a house, after 4 minutes it was bombed and also the house collapsed. [no i'm not talking about Qana II - {i think something similar happend}].

Excuse me, but if the civilians are allowing Hizballah to shoot rockets from their home, fuck those civillians, they are not civillians to me.

Did u watched sky news yesterday ? IDF posted the video from the Airborne SF in Baal-Beek, in the video u can see the terrorist shooting on the forces throught the UAV infra-red Cams, u can see the muzzle flashes ? and what does the sky news reporter say ? "U can clearly see that those are unarmed civillians . .", yeah and what are those muzzle flashses and aoutomatic fire ? home-made fireworks ? also a video of cars rushing to Baal-bek when the raid started, full of Hizballah, IDF says it is terrorist reinforcment and Sky-News reporter say "Israel claim that these cars are moving rockets, but u can clearly see that they are civllian cars.."

yeah right, then saying Israel is killing civis for fun . . .

of course they [sky-news] don't show the video that we post of Katyushas firing from houses, and that are parked near houses in center of villiges, even I saw a video of a 40 baarels Katyusha launcher standing in a yard and is being bombed. I don't know if it was a smart bomb but you can see it destroyed like in missle flight, when it get closer & closer and then when it 2 cm close in the zoom the screen goes snowy becasue the bomb expllodes . ..

Of course they don't show that . .only saying that Israel dilibiratly targeting civillianns . .that makes me sick !

edit:

I'm not able to find the video of the commando raid . .mybe some of u can find it.

and what I saw in sky news was live, maybe they changed it later I don't know...

[Bernadotte 0]

wait . .you actually think that the ambulance wasn't really UN's ?

The point is that I'm thinking neither without more info.  A reasonable person gathers evidence and then tries to draw conclusions.  A fanatic draws conclusions and then tries to gather evidence.

The ambulance could be painted.

The ambulance could be stolen.

The militant being transported could be injured.

The whole thing could be staged (I could probably make an identicle video in less than 24hr).

I don't doubt that ambulances have been used to transport Palestinian militants under Israeli occupation.  And I don't doubt that ambulances were used to transport Jewish LEHI terrorists under Palestine's British administration.

So what?  The IDF can't simply destroy everything that moves on the basis that terrorists also move.  

IDF posted the video from the Airborne SF in Baal-Beek, in the video u can see the <span style='font-size:11pt;line-height:100%'>terrorist</span> shooting on the forces throught the UAV infra-red Cams, u can see the muzzle flashes ?

Question:  If a foreign military landed in the middle of Israel and started attacking a hospital would you call the Israeli citizens who shoot at them <span style='font-size:11pt;line-height:100%'>terrorists</span>??

[CsonkaPityu 0]

Quote[/b] ]Excuse me, but if the civilians are allowing Hizballah to shoot rockets from their home, fuck those civillians, they are not civillians to me.

Lets see you tell a group of heavily armed men not to use your backyard, wiseguy.

edit: i goofed!