Hizbullah Declares Victory

Hizbullah did not wait for the official UN Security Council announcement on a ceasefire and launched its own media campaign declaring it had 'won the war against Israel.'

In the latest video aired on Al-Manar TV the terror group says it “defeated the invincible army” and “July-August 2006: Legend shattered.”

http://www.ynetnews.com/articles/0,7340,L-3289572,00.html

:rofl:

I would agree more with the Hizbullah spokesman than with his detractors.

:D

Plus what's there to lie? Israeli Media are criticizing Olmert and are showing signs of defeat, which does mean that their enemy won the battle if not the war.

I think it has more to do with the handling of the IDF, not the strength of the IDF. And, they have not defeated Israel, despite their delusions.

been victorious. Not only have they dented the aura of invicibility, but they've shown themselves to be deft manipulators. The Israelis fell into every trap H'zbollah laid for them. In short, H'zbollah has been much smarter regarding this conflict than the Israelis.

Many Lebanese dead and injured. I don't think that's a big victory.

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

:rofl:

in 6 days is gone. It won't affect Israel's ability to defend itself, but it's a loss of face more than anything.

If they're defeated, sure they'll have trouble defending themselves, hence they're "defeated".

http://www.haaretz.com/hasen/spages/748534.html

"The Israel Defense Forces are defeated, but the State of Israel is not. And the IDF defeat comes from the fact that it did not, and could not, have achieved the goals it set for itself in this war. On the other hand, the state is not defeated, it lives on. Hence it is time for greetings: Mabruk.

If Israel had been an "army that has a country," as is often said, it would have ceased to exist. Now it has been proved beyond doubt that Israel is a country that has an army. And this army can achieve victory, or suffer defeat. The country will know how to celebrate a victory, just as it will know to grieve a defeat. In both cases, it will carry on living, kicking, marching on. This is the first and most important lesson this unfinished war has to offer."

Even though it looks like a "bright side" article, it makes their situation look worse. What kind of a Country with such a status that has the Hugest Army in the Middle East and Unlimited funds from the U.S. lose to a militant group equipped with nothing more than a number of semi-ancient weapons.

There was really no 'win', was there?

They could've crippled Hezbollah pretty quickly, but they would have to destroy half of Lebanon and probably part of Syria too.

Political issues or feelings on the campaign aside, I think the strategy was bungled from the start on the military's part.

They are fighting an organized militia whose tactics have been to launch unguided missiles from areas populated with innocent Lebanese civilians. It is far different than fighting the Egyptian military or the Syrians on a battlefield.

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

it all depends on the conditions of the ceasefire.

more than willing to sort out the peace details under better conditions.

Lebanon was hurt badly in this war, and could have easily agreed to the first UN resolution that they came up with and that would have resulted in a ceasefire. But, if they have agreed to it, they would clearly have been defeated, since it did not mention the evacuation of Israelis from Lebanese land, or the release of lebanese prisoners from Israeli prisons, and that would have worked perfectly for Israel. But lets assume a new resolution is drafted, requesting a ceasefire, and does not call for the disarment of hizbullah, demands the israeli withdrawal from lebanese territory, then that would be a clear defeat for Israel if they agree to it. A ceasefire would be a semi-victory for both sides, but yet one side is more victorious than the other.

about the politics of it all. I live and my family lives. That's all that matters at the moment.

:spank:

There is a chimp around and he has veto power in the UN.

The UN resolution is needed.

Without it we cannot have an endings.

Just or otherwise this issue must be put to rest.

They can talk all they want but wait for that DAMN UN RESOLUTION.

They are probably trying to goad Israel some more.

....Is one of the reasons we make bombs and bullets.

He is a terrorist and is wrong as usual. Hezbollah is just attempting to broaden the conflict and keep moral. But they have lost ground so far, and are continually backing up. Just because it is not the US's Shock and awe campaign... doesn't mean it is losing.

What you fail to realize is that, in war, there are NO good guys.

Both sides are KILLING INNOCENT HUMAN BEINGS. All equal in value in the eyes of GOD.

Oh my, you reference "Shock and Awe"? The thought of what we have done as a country to many innocent Iraqi people makes me hang my head in shame.

Judge ye NOT lest ye be Judged!

If we start evaluating how, in small increments, we are morally superior, it is the ultimate demonstration of hypocrisy.

Stop the Killing MACHINES! All of them!

None of these bombs should be used ON ANYONE. :cry: :( :thumbsdown:

They have happened for as long as humanity has been around. Christ being on the earth himself did not stop a single war from occuring and arguably started quite a few (dark ages anyone?)

So I take a very practical approach to these things and instead of wishing that gravity doesn't work.. I chose to just accept something that we have evidence of from the very start of human life.

We fight wars... nasty.. but true.

That does not make me PRO WAR... since I am ANTI war in Iraq... and actually Pro war in Afghanistan... but it makes me understand that there are times when wars must be fought... and sometimes (like this time) it is easy to chose a side.

(Don't ask me about the Israel palestinian conflict... thats a mess... this one is much easier to call.)

No, YOU CHOOSE to fight wars, not me. No, SHIT happens, it takes hate and the worst kind of EVIL in HUMAN-KIND to choose war over negotiations.

The four years I spent on Active Duty has turned me into a genuine Pacifist and Secular Franciscan.

No Shrewd, HUMANS choose to wage war on each other, it doesn't JUST HAPPEN.

We can look to our higher moral character. Jesus may NOT have been able to STOP wars, but he did die on The Cross for OUR Sins. (if you're Christian)

You forget that Jesus was lauded as "The Prince of Peace." Wars make Jesus weep with sorrow due to the DARK ACTS that our free will has done to Our Brother - fellow humans. :cry:

Well, basically this war is being fought from their homes. Israel attacks from Air, Sea, and Land, and Hezbollah shoots missiles from South Lebanon. As for ground battles, those are taking place in Lebanon, so for everyone to go home would mean all Israeli troops out of Lebanon, hence an Israeli defeat.

as long as Israel "the most powerful country in its region" is not able to put forth its plans in neutralizing their enemy - if nothing more - then that is definitely not a winning situation for them.

Israel hasn't neutralized Hizb'allah, nor have they lost to them...thus, it is called a "stalemate." If anyone has "lost" it is Lebanon, and they have Hizb'allah to thank for that!

Those war crimes won't be soon forgotten by the world.

I doubt it!

If Israel limited its operations to ground battles on the border to "get rid of Hezbollah militants" (because that's what they're after right?) then that would have been somewhat more proportionate.

I am sure we wouldn't be having the same conversation right now. I am also sure that the UN wouldn't be up in arms. I am certain that the Arab leaders wouldn't have called for sanctions. WHATEVER!

I don't know what world you live in, but is not the "real" one!

you live in a fantasy. Because yes, if Israel limited its operations to the South of Lebanon, the UN might complain, but big deal, it's not like Israel ever cared for the UN, have they? Arab leaders certainly won't give a shit, because they're all American puppets plus the fact that they're weak, and overall don't really care about what goes on between Israel and Hezbollah, and even if they did, it would just be to "fake their support" to another arab country , yet would definitely not go as far as to call for sanctions or what not. Still, assuming they did, Israel would still not give a rat's ass. Ground battles are one thing, destroying a whole nation is another thing.

I've been around long enough to watch people here go ape-shit over the comparatively restrained and focused (and successful) Israeli operation against the Hamas suicide bombing campaign. That, too, was unacceptable at the time and would be today if the Israelis pursued such a course of action.

This is not to say that I agree with or condone what Israel is doing. I'm merely pointing out that whatever Israel does is met with instant vilification by a certain subset of the readership here, and also worldwide. That merely encourages Israel to do whatever is most advantageous to them, whatever the cost to others.

Yes, it's true that Israel hasn't yet tried dealing fairly and honestly with the people who have pledged to "drive them into the sea," but I suspect it's difficult not to be paranoid when everybody really is out to get you. They're still jerks--everyone with a hand in the Middle East is acting like jerks, hence my exasperated comment above.

I understand your point. Can you see that you are helping to make my point at the same time?

I did qualify the statement by using the word "comparatively" and I very much meant it. In comparison to this conflict, targeted assassinations alone could be considered restrained. Restrained or not, assassination is unfortunately one of the preferred ways of dealing with asymmetric opponents, and generally it kills fewer innocent people than the broad approach Israel is taking here. (And bombing Lebanon's port facilities does a lot more to hinder Syria than it does to hinder Hezbollah, but that's a different topic.)

I'm really not trying to be a jerk here. Reasonable people, such as yourself, may wisely consider both types of responses to be unacceptable--and I just might agree with you.

But we definitely have a war here, which immediately puts Israel in the doghouse no matter what they do. That was the point I was trying to make: I think that much of the negative response to Israel's actions are against Israel's warfighting at all. That's a valid opinion to have, but my point to evox above is that a more restrained response from Israel would still meet with the same baseline of public outrage.

My contention is that the "no war" position doesn't help at all to moderate Israel's behavior. I think Israel's position is along the lines of, "If you're gonna get a whippin' for sticking a finger in the pie, why not just take the whole damned thing?"

I wish I had a morally acceptable alternative suggestion, but I don't, except of course to stop fighting, which everyone claims they want, yet nobody's doing it.

I don't think the response we see against Israel is because they went to war at all. I really do believe that in the eyes of the west, it's about proportionality - that debate that's been around forever.

I don't think Israel shouldn't have reacted at all. Israel claims it has a right to defend itself. The problem I, and many have, is that their reaction was so over the top, it's can't be considered a "defence" by any stretch of the imagination.

I think if Israel had been honest about it's desires in Lebanon, then we could have debated the real issue, and not waste all kinds of time with rhetoric. That's what has been happening.

So, I don't think it's that we have taken the "no war" position. I think it's because their justifications so weak and very easy to find fault with.

...various militant groups repeatedly kill women and children on buses and in cafes, target assassinations are "restrained".

after an unprovoked attack on its sovereignty.

Nope. No amount of killing innocent civilians who had no part in the violence against the IDF would have been proportionate.

Of course, bombing isn't the only response. Lots of diplomats and thinkers worldwide are paid quite a lot to come up with other solutions. Israel might have tried using them before deciding to punish innocent Lebanese under the gun of Hezbollah.

"No amount of killing innocent civilians who had no part in the violence caused by and started by HEZBOLLAH would have been proportionate.
Of course, bombing isn't the only response. Lots of diplomats and thinkers worldwide are paid quite a lot to come up with other solutions. HEZBOLLAH might have tried using them before deciding to punish innocent Israelis and Lebanese under the gun of Hezbollah."

That is what Israel has been doing this whole time since the conflict started, so if I were to follow your logic, then I guess Israel is losing after all.

feel bad about claiming victory when their agression caused their country to get flattened?

That caused Lebanon to get flattened.

Listen to the Israeli position on CNN any hour of the day and it will be equally as disgusting to digest. :thumbsdown:

That old meme "we're just defending ourselves" is being revealed as bullshit.

What they are doing is "collective punishment." Because they are the Super Power of the region, there's no way they will come out on top in the Court of World Public Opinion.

Both sides are killing innocents. It's beyond time to negotiate.

Still "spouting" that Hizb'allah was actually doing this for the Palestinians? PUH-LEAZE! Hizb'allah attacked Israel!

Hezbollah captured israeli soldiers along the borders after they got into a conflict. That was Israel's reason to attack Lebanon, therefore Israel attacked Lebanon.

They KILLED 3 soldiers.. captured 2... and seperately mined the roads around the area that killed 3 more israeli soldiers.

That is an act of war in any country on earth.

the bigger picture.. There has always been conflicts on the border between Hezbollah members and Israeli soldiers, but that's when Israel would intensify its clashes on the BORDERS. Why did it not do that this time, but rather attacked other areas in Lebanon?

Pulling out was not a popular thing to do there... they were unhappy about it... and if you attack someone after they have given you 90% of what you asked for and are angry about it in the first place... they blow up... every... single... time.

Try it with your friends and family sometime.... this one is a given.

NT!

Gets so distorted here...

if the history you initially knew was not all true.

You actually have to force them out.

There was no real conflict happening in 2000 with Israel and Lebannon. Israel had held that territory for over 15 years... and were not FORCED out by anyone except their own citizens. Thats not "Forcing" someone out... that is them leaving of their own will.

Battles frequently took place in South Lebanon during the Israeli occupation, Israeli soldiers could not handle any more casualties, so they decided to pull out as a result of Hezbollah's battles. Now why would Israel occupy that territory for 15 years and then all of a sudden just leave it at their own will?

They remained in parts of Lebanon - Sheba (sp?) Farms ring a bell?

No, war doesn't perpetuate itself.

Regardless of who INSPIRED who, it's way past time to stop the killing and begin negotiations.

...Hizb'allah crossed into Israel. Sorry to disturb your fantasy with fact. You are enttitled to your opinions, but not your own facts!

At the time of the incident Israel still occupied Lebanese land and that is a fact. Therefore there were still Israeli soldiers on Lebanese land - but Israel claims its theirs. So Hezbollah militants captured those soldiers into a "disputed area" rather than in Israel.

Wrong! Wrong!


Take it up with the UN. The action took place in SYRIAN occupied land!

But if so, then you just contradicted yourself, because now you are claiming that Israel occupies Syrian land, which is illegal nevertheless.

And the Jury's still out whether these Israeli Soldiers were, in fact, in Israel, not Lebanon.

The pro-Israel view may be splashed over Our TV screens, but please know that the rest of the World Community sees an Aggressor and Occupier ... The vast majority of the World Community sees Israel as the AGGRESSOR - along with the USA, the worst perpetrator of State Sponsored Terrorism.

I doubt you'll get any real answers. The shame is, Hizb'allah didn't get their country flattened...they have no country!

They have a country (LEBANON) and a land ! I'm also disgusted but the propaganda picturing them as aliens flying out of the a** of Iran.

They have no country! They are militants that have HOLED themselves up in Lebanon! I am SICK of the fucking propaganda that these are "noble" people with "honest" goals! They are NOT!

Sub-thread removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

if south lebanon is not their land maybe they are from NEPTUNE or MARS ???

This is a little historical reminder :

1982 - ISRAEL invades Lebanon, destroy the country, kill thousands of civilians (15000 at least), occupy it, and capture, imprison, torture thousands others. First, southern lebanese weren't so opposed to Israel intervention, they were quite tired of PLO, but soon they understood ISRAEL methods and took weapons to FIGHT THE OCCUPATION.
Sorry to say that, i'm not so thrilled by Hezbollah ideological base but I have to admit the righteousness of their fight, I will be always on the side of the resistance to brutal foreign occupation. In sectarian Lebanon a lot of people don't like Hezbollah but they respect and praise their courage for fighting occupation. You apparently dismiss that because you side yourself with Israel in all circumstances and don't care so much about people in Lebanon.

Just as I thought! Thanks for the info!

If you mean why did this current conflict begin, then here's your answer:

1- Hezbollah captured Israeli soldiers in order to perform some sort of negotiation so that they can exchange them for their own political prisoners in Israeli dungeons. Israel did not want to perform the exchange and decided to attack Lebanon instead. Hezbollah then had to attack back, and that's how it started.

2- It was not their agression that caused their country to get flattened, it was Israeli agression, because you see, If Israel agreed upon the exchange of the prisoners, none of this would have happened. Or better yet, if you want to think of the situation in a sense that Israel did not want to bow down to Hezbollah, then they could have just launched ground battles along the borders, because that is obviously where hezbollah fighters are located; but instead, Israel bombed random Lebanese cities including its capital Beirut, resulting in mass numbers of casualties and most are only civilians. In any case, if Hezbollah is able to pressure Israel to stop its military offensive, and force them to leave Lebanese soil, and exchange their prisoners, then Hezbollah has achieved their goals, and they would not feel bad about claiming victory. Hezbollah promised to rebuild the destroyed areas in Lebanon after the conflict is over, so at this point they are not worried about their country being flattened.

"1- Hezbollah captured Israeli soldiers in order to perform some sort of negotiation so that they can exchange them for their own political prisoners in Israeli dungeons. Israel did not want to perform the exchange and decided to attack Lebanon instead. Hezbollah then had to attack back, and that's how it started."

So you admit they committed an act of terrorism? Interesting. As for the rest...fantasy.

"2- It was not their agression that caused their country to get flattened, it was Israeli agression, because you see, If Israel agreed upon the exchange of the prisoners, none of this would have happened. Or better yet, if you want to think of the situation in a sense that Israel did not want to bow down to Hezbollah, then they could have just launched ground battles along the borders, because that is obviously where hezbollah fighters are located; but instead, Israel bombed random Lebanese cities including its capital Beirut, resulting in mass numbers of casualties and most are only civilians. In any case, if Hezbollah is able to pressure Israel to stop its military offensive, and force them to leave Lebanese soil, and exchange their prisoners, then Hezbollah has achieved their goals, and they would not feel bad about claiming victory. Hezbollah promised to rebuild the destroyed areas in Lebanon after the conflict is over, so at this point they are not worried about their country being flattened."

That would almost be funny if so many innocents hadn't died! It was THEIR agression that caused the Israeli reaction! Your last sentence sums it up...THEY DON'T GIVE A SHIT!

1- Capturing soldiers during a conflict is not an act of terror. When you are in a conflict you expect these kind of things. An act of terror is if Hezbollah fighter were to go in to Israel kidnap a few Israeli civilians and torture them; mind you, Israel has comitted such acts before. As for the rest, you call it fantasy because it does not agree with what you like to think, so you simply cannot comprehend those facts.


2- It cannot be their agression that caused Israeli reaction because as stated previously, capturing soldiers amidst a conflict is not an act of terror. Plus if that was the case, then you are openly agreeing to support Israeli reaction even if it was wrong. Two wrongs don't make a right. As for the point I made about them not worried about their land being flattened is because it already is flatenned and it can't get any worse, but they do worry about civilian casualties which is the reason why Hezbollah warned that will attack with missiles if Israel continued to attack random cities and killing civilians.

there was no fucking conflict, as a poster pointed out to you, shebba farms is disputed Syrian territory. Israel left S. Leb 6 years ago.

"but they do worry about civilian casualties which is the reason why Hezbollah warned that will attack with missiles if Israel continued to attack random cities and killing civilians"

Hisbullah could give a shit who they kill, their missiles have killed Israelis, Muslims and Druze. They started firing missiles at Israel the very same day they crossed the border and killed the IDF solders, and have not stopped since.

Syria claims that Shebaa farms is Lebanese. If its theirs, why would they say it isn't?

In 2000, in what appears to be the Lebanese government's first claim to the territory, Lebanon disputed Israel's compliance with UN Resolution 425 (1978).

All period maps save one, an apparent forgery, show the land as being on the Syrian side of the border. In contrast to this forged 1966 map, submitted to the UN in 2000, all published maps showed the area to be within Syria. Lebanese army maps published in 1961 and 1966 clearly show the Shebaa Farms area (including Zebdine, Fashkoul, Mougr Shebaa, and Ramta) as being on the Syrian side of the border.

The United Nations agreed with Israel that the area is not covered by United Nations UN Security Council Resolution 425, which governed the withdrawal from Lebanon, inasmuch as the Farms are not Lebanese territory, and the UN certified Israel's pullout.<15[br />
The United Nations stated: "On 15 May 2000, the United Nations received a map, dated 1966, from the Government of Lebanon which reflected the Government's position that these farmlands were located in Lebanon. However, the United Nations is in possession of 10 other maps issued after 1966 by various Lebanese government institutions, including the Ministry of Defense and the army, all of which place the farmlands inside the Syrian Arab Republic. The United Nations has also examined six maps issued by the Government of the Syrian Arab Republic, including three maps since 1966, which place the farmlands inside the Syrian Arab Republic."

Nancy Soderberg, the former United States Ambassador to the United Nations, made a similar observation on July 21, 2006. She wrote that: "When it was clear the Israelis were going to withdraw fully from Lebanon, Syrian and Lebanese officials fabricated the fiction that this small, sparsely populated area was part of Lebanon. They even produced a crudely fabricated map to back up the dubious claim. I and United Nations officials went into the map room in the United Nations and looked at all the maps of the region in the files for decades. All showed the Shebaa Farms clearly in Syria.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shebaa_farms

about...Ok have it your way -- it belongs to Syria...which STILL means Israel shouldn't be occupying it.

Maybe Lebanon and Syria some day will sort that out BETWEEN them. You guys are too much...

"I'd like to remind you that the Shebaa Farms is not a property of Hezbollah. It's a property of Lebanon and it's for all the Lebanese.

"So anyone who would say that giving this land back to Lebanon would be considered a victory for Hezbollah is mistaken. This issue has to be looked at in totality. Lebanon gets back its land and, ultimately, Israel gets a safe border." -- Fouad Siniora, Lebanon's Prime Minister.Link

The Lebanese figure they have a case, no?

Kind of a pot, kettle thing.

I have no clue. But it does show that you don't care for innocent Lebanese civilians. This prove you support Israel no matter what, even if it's wrong; I rest my case...

You claim "victory," and at the same time claim you don't know what I am saying. :eyes: It wasn't even addressed to you.

You're message was unclear but it gave a good indication that you didn't care about Lebanese civilians. If that was not what you meant then you have every right to restate your words. Basically everyone in this forum has a right to reply to my posts as this is not a one-on-one discussion so I assumed I could have that same option as well.

Their deaths are just as tragic as any other innocent lost in this aggression by Hizb'allah!

How do you justify Israel's attacks in Beirut if Hezbollah are located in the South?

are the targets in s. beirut.

Can you not also admit that fact? Or are you suggesting that dead civilians are a price worth paying?

Involves dropping bombs everywhere. It appears to me that Israel attempted to pick their targets so that civilian casualties would be avoided. If the Hezbollah cowards weren't placing rocket launchers next to houses then civilian casualties would be minimized.

I can't believe any "democract" would defend Hezbollah terrorists. Utter horseshit.

"Hezbollah's political rhetoric has centred on calls for the destruction of the state of Israel. Its definition of Israeli occupation has also encompassed the idea that the whole of Palestine is occupied Muslim land and it has argued that Israel has no right to exist."

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/1908671.stm

"Until Sept. 11, Hezbollah - the so-called "Party of God" - had killed more Americans than any other group, starting with 241 Marines in a suicide bombing of their Beirut barracks in 1983."

http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2003/04/17/eveningnews/main549876.shtml

That's the second false argument next to "they're only protecting themselves."

NO, just because some of the radicals in this multifaceted organization, want to destroy Israel, it doesn't give the IDF the MORAL AUTHORITY to turn Lebanon into a Parking lot and thereby kill hundreds of INNOCENTS.

No, that radical segment does not give Israel a free-for-all "License to Kill."

1- The reason you think "Hezbollah cowards were placing rocket launchers next to houses" is because that's what Israel wants you to think and that's what the "media" tells you. Most Lebanese people would say that Hezbollah fighters are located in the South, so even if the claims that they hide in houses are true, then why are the houses that aren't in the south also being targeted?

2- Hezbollah are entitled to their opinion about what they think about the state of Israel. The reason they are in a war with Israel right now is not to destroy it, but rather to free their own land and prisoners.

3- The 1983 bombing was denounced by the Hezbollah organization claiming that the group was not officially formed until 1985. Furthermore,

"Many in the U.S. government do not claim Hezbollah is responsible for the marine barracks attack. For example in 2001 Caspar Weinberger, Secretary of Defense under Reagan at the time of the attacks stated: "But we still do not have the actual knowledge of who did the bombing of the Marine barracks at the Beirut Airport, and we certainly didn't then"


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1983_Beirut_barracks_bombing

"Hezbollah are entitled to their opinion about what they think about the state of Israel." So you don't mind that you are making arguments in support of an organization that calls for the destruction of Israel?

Do you also think Hitler was entitled to his opinion about Jews?

You are an embarrassment to the Democratic party.

1- I am not in support of Hezbollah, but I would like to share their point of view the same way we learn the Israeli point of view from our own media. I tend to do a little bit of research on both sides, and I like to think that I am just a bit more informed about what's going on. Having said that, I am not making arguements in support of Hezbollah, but rather to state what they would think. Whether or not they believe in the destruction of Israel is not very clear to me as I haven't researched it much, but then again I did mention that the current conflict was not because of such an opinion but rather to free their land and prisoners.

2- As for what land they are trying to free, Shebaa farms was still under occupation after year 2000.

3- Yes, Hitler is entitled to his opinions, but that does not mean I support him or his ideas. Also, please note, that even your comparison is not very accurate, because assuming Hezbollah does believe in the destruction of Israel does not mean they believe in the destruction of all the Jews, because not all Jews support Israel, and not all Israelis are Jewish.

I am also not going to complain about the fact that you think I am an embarassement to the Democratic party, because that is your opinion.

It appeared you were supporting Hezbollah.

It's okay.. It's really easy to be mistaken for that when I put myself in such position. But then again, that's the only way I could show the other side of the story.

Lebanon, their host country (every parasite requires a host) is in ruins, but they're victorious. Oh, happy day.

And a little bit of vengeance for Sabra and Shatila is paid.

Not sure if Hezbelloh has scored a victory yet, especially if the the peace proposal brings Lebanese troops to the Israeli border. At any rate, a victory for Hezbelloh is a victory for the worst kind of religion, and the only people who should be celebrating are homophobic, sexist, religious nuts. That Israel has been tamed is good news; that Hezbelloh might still remain an illegitimate army in Lebanon is bad news. Anyone progressive who took sides in this war, I think is a hypocrite.

From your comment I make out that when it really comes down to things, you prefer Israel to win this war so that Hezbollah does not exist. Which is fine and does not bother me.

But what you said:

"a victory for Hezbelloh is a victory for the worst kind of religion, and the only people who should be celebrating are homophobic, sexist, religious nuts."

That sure is one hell of a racist comment.

And, no, I actually prefer the peace proposal if it brings Lebanese and foreign troops to the south. The international community is largely responsible for this conflict because it's basically ignored Lebanon, and Bush is responsible because he disengaged from the MidEast peace process. But, I am curiious. How is my comment racist? Do you even know what the word means?

"a victory for Hezbelloh is a victory for the worst kind of religion, and the only people who should be celebrating are homophobic, sexist, religious nuts."

But from what I understood is that basically you are implying that Islam is the worst kind of religion, therefore you probably deem all muslims are part of that worst religion which makes them bad people and are "homophobic, sexist, and religious nuts". If that's the case, then that's definitely a racist comment.

And your interpretation of what I said is frankly ignorant. My issue is with fundamentalism, in this case Muslim fundamentalism. My views on the Hezbelloh conflict are based in part on dicussions I've had with a couple of Muslim friends (one religious, one left wing) and a Lebanese Christian neighbor (who was in Lebanon when the war started).

what Israel has done to (in) Lebanon, but I fail to see that the poster's comment was racist. It's true, as you've pointed out, that H'zbollah is indeed a Lebanese movement, but that hardly makes their long term goals ones I have much sympathy for. They are religious fundamentalists- a mentality I have little use for.

Yes, quite disgusting IMO.

You are disrespecting Muslims on the basis of one group.

Shame on you! There are aspects and separate segments of Hezbollah who do humanitarian aid for the people of Lebanon.

Again, Shame on you for disrespecting an ENTIRE Religion due to one small element.

I'm not PRO- Hezbollah NOR am I PRO- Israel.

However, I don't see ANY logic in killing and then blaming the other side for the deaths because, according you you, they started it.

I hope and pray that these two peoples can PLEASE try to live next to each other in PEACE. :hi:

I pray for peace as well. But I do get frustrated when someone only looks at a story from one point of view, which is why it seems like I support hezbollah, but I really just like to present both sides, because the other side is already being forced fed to us through our media which does not always show the complete truth.

The worst kind of religion is the type of fundamentalism that is anti-women, anti-gay, etc. That you assumed I was talking about all Muslims is stupid and neurotic. If I said a victory for the 700 Club is a victory for the worst kind of religion, would you assume I was against all Christianity? I hope not. I think your own prejudices are showing in your interpretation.

I was not sure of what you meant earlier, that's just how I interpreted it when I first read it. Now that I know what you really meant, my apologies!

But communication requires the presumption of good will and cooperativeness, so I can see why there'd be a problem.

Oh yes, let's draw in all the misogyny, etc., that is UNTRUE to the true moderate interpretation and practice of Islam. Moderate Muslims claim that it's the opposite. That Islam is very similar to Christianity with regard to God's Commandments.

Just like the nut-so Right Wing Christians, some people hijack "Islam" for their evil purposes ... or for people here to believe the LIES of of our twisted RW Christian nut cases. :(

No Apologies Here. Specifically, throwing around the word FUNDAMENTALISM without fully explaining yourself is not a good idea to promote clear and understandable communications.

You deliberately twisted the poster's words. He/she couldn't have been clearer that they were talking about fundamentalism and NOT all of Islam. Good shit stirring.

You have only responded to my posts in three or four line censor.

Isn't it about time we start seeing other people? :thumbsdown:

Now, I have not responded to any of your COMMENTARIES outright. I'd appreciate it that if, you can't say anything polite, to at least stop following me around sniping at my posts.

It's just not healthy.

On Topic:

No, I did no twist for "fundamentalism" is a loaded word. I'm still not convinced that the original poster was talking about fundamentalism in general.

Remember, it's the Right Wing Neo Cons with their fundy enabling base that is trying to bring us The Raptor.

The most gracious comment I can make is, if you are going to use loaded terminology, that one takes the time to fully set up their arguments.

I would guess if they lob another rocket across the border we will see Israel and just how defeated she really is. How does one claim victory on something like this? They both lost.

MUCH less distaste for Hezbollah ... the moderate Arab states have done a 180 and our now supporting them.

That's what happens when you destroy a Country and try to blame the enemy.

No, it was Israel's bombs. They did NOT have to start this genocide.

But if Lebanon is sending its troops to the border I guess it would be seen as a victory for Hezbollah.
On Edit Israel has been attacked for so many years because of its location, they PREPARED fro this type of conflict by building livable bomb shelters for the people, and children. Hezbollah just hid behind theirs. A very questionable tactic in my opinion and I would never support people that would stoop to that type of cowardess.

amazing how information in this age doesnt seem to reach here:

1) sheba farms are formally Syrians. They may have said its Lebanon's, but they've neglected to do the paper work in the UN and make it formal
Hence according to the UN the sheba farms are syrians.


2) Hezballa is a militia/terrorist group that owns (did?) southern lebanon, southern beirut (which has been flattened) it was their command structure, and parts of east lebanon. The lebanese army cant enter those places. They run schools, hospitals, collect taxes and have their own foreign policy, get their fighters trained by foreign advisers (iran) import weapons etc

Lebanon did not "give" Hizballa S.Lebanon and in effect they have occupied it.

3). They are fundamentalists...an intolerant, racist, anti democratic life style that hangs homosexuals, stones adulterers etc (see iran, taliban, saudi arabia, hamas for examples....)

4) israel left lebanon in 2000 to a UN sanctioned border, Hizballa has been attacking israel ever since them: kidnappings, road side bombs, missiles, snipers. (israel has recon flights over s.lebanon for obvious reasons-like to get info for the next attack)

5) The latest kidnapping was done on the israeli side of the border and hizballa, and israel claimed (and the evidence clearly shows)

6) Lebanon may be an involuntary host of hizballa and they may be caught between iran and syria, but ultimately they are responsible for the happenings on their territory and of their citizens, as are all countries.

the organization you belong to killing over 300 children 12yo & under.

But its obvious this sort of rationalization is needed to look at oneself in the mirror.

for lies or ignoring facts and truths......especially the ones i've listed above....so easy to find on the internet

...killed by Israeli bombs is no lie.

But I fully understand the need to rationalize this, no one want to see themselves as inhumane monsters.

I belive your trying very hard to change the subject....

see if you can back up a few posts and perhaps give an excuse as to how posters here seem to "miss that information"..that was after all my original contention.

perhaps comment on that?....

Farms? Or is the greed for land so intense that it prevents Israeli governments from doing what is so obvious to everyone else on this planet?

syria is hardly at peace with israel....using hizballa, with iran to attack israel.....perhaps like in gaza as in lebanon returning the golan would only be a prelude to the next attack?


Outside of this "67 border belief syndrom" is there any evidence that returning the golan will the bring peace, open borders etc?.....or is this one of those religion things, where belief supersedes reality?

Give up the Golan and the Shebaa Farms, and settle with the Palestinians. If nothing else, you will regain the high moral ground that you lost when your country decided to keep what it took in 1967.

Look at how Israel was viewed by the world in June 1967 to the way it is viewed now, and tell me if this is a good thing.

what would be your suggestion to israel, its citizens if after giving back the golan and the westbank...the result is unlike that of egypt but more like lebanon and gaza.....they are used to lob missles/mortars into israel?

what should israels response be?



(....a footnote: at this point i find i almost never receive an answer...i've been trying for a long time, hence i developed the theory of the "67 border religion": its like telling someone who is religious to not believe in god-cant be done- i did get a "i dont know" from one poster, but that was as close as i ever got to a real discussion about the possibililty)

away by UNIFIL and the Lebanese Army (the weapons that haven't already been destroyed).

What is needed is a victory for Lebanon, not Hezbollah. Soon Hezbollah as a military force will be no more.

...to Israeli excess is similar to what happened in the West Bank.

Though a difference may be the level of corruption involved. None-the-less, Hezbolah will be a more powerful political force in Lebanon, just as Hamas is more powerful in Gaza and the West Bank. In both cases the rise in political power is, in no small part, due to short-sighted and foolish Israeli policies.

Not saying it's a good thing, nor am I saying it's a bad thing. Action begets reaction begets reaction.

Depending on the political cache Hizbollah reaps, Israel may find the Lebanese Army merging Hezbollah militants or being controlled by Hezbollah politicians.

A victory for Hezbollah is a victory for Lebanon. Hezbollah is Lebanese. Hezbollah is not an enemy of Lebanon. Israel is not a friend of Lebanon. Do you see the common point?

"Hezbollah is not an enemy of Lebanon"...so is that why they took over S.Lebanon, S.Beruit, E.Lebanon and refused to let the Lebanese security forces, tax people enter?

is a fundamentalist shia terrorist group whose goal is to eradicate Israel. Israel is more a friend to Lebanon than Hezbollah is. Hezbollah has brought destruction and death to Lebanon by starting this war with Israel.

Hezbollah is now remaining in Lebanon as a state within a state because the Lebanese army is too weak to get rid of them and the U.N. doesn't have the ability to enforce resolution 1701.

Hezbollah may be Lebanese but Timothy McVeigh was also an American and he was no friend of the U.S.

Lebanon has gained nothing and lost a lot. Misery has been reaped upon them because of the stupidity and arrogance of the Hezbollah terrorists. Hezbollah couldn't leave well enough alone could they? Abducting and killing Israeli soldiers and violating a sovereign border wasn't enough for them.

Hezbollah had to fire Katyushkas, 150 to 250 a day at Israel, to inflict as much pain and death as possible on citizens. Israel fired back at Hezbollah targets, killing citizens living among the artillary caches. This was good propaganda for Hezbollah. Kill lots of innocents and the world will condemn Israel.

Hezbollah won the propaganda wars. Terrorists usually do because there are so many people gullible enough to buy into their lies.

then Israel will have made progress.

although i do have to say it's amazing to me how many here seem quick to condemn Israel but make excuses if Hezbollah doesn't live up to the cease-fire agreement...