Stop it!! Those two Israeli soldiers were "captured" not "kidnapped!" nt

given that it's a military target the people who did it are not terrorists.

we are being given is to keep the american public on the dark.

Like that makes perfect sense. Not.

The capture of Israeli soldiers was not an act of terrorism. The people who did it were not terrorists.

Calling them so is a phony rationalization to attack Lebanon. It's easier to kill people if you label them "terrorist" no matter how false the label is.

I couldn't give a toss if the word capture is used instead of kidnap. I was pointing out your logical fallacy. Do I have to spell it out? Looks like I do: Simply because it was a capture instead of a kidnapping (though of course technically, according to the Geneva Conventions, you're wrong)doesn't mean that it follows that those who did the capturing, aren't terrorists. That would depend on past acts, and as H'zbollah has committed such acts as blowing up a Jewish Cultural Center in Buenos Aires, killing 95, they win the brass ring; they're terrorists.

You mean the one Hezbollah denies?

many of the terrorist actions they've committed. They're just such angels. H'zbollah members were arrested. Virtually every credible source attributes it to them. There's a lot of supporting evidence that was presented. It's laughable to assert they didn't do it based on their denial. You have to use your critical thinking skills, not your wishful thinking skills. The evidence is out there, do a little research.

...is why people think there has to be a good guy in this...

maybe both are wrong.

.... and both side HAVE BEEN wrong for over a decade. There are no good guys in the ME conflict, why people don't get that this is between two equally loathesome actors is beyond me.

This isn't a boxing match, it's a case of two sides both acting outrageously and trying to claim the moral high ground. Neither have it.

Maybe it's because I see war as a complete failure, or maybe it's because I'm young and naive, but I don't see how there's any moral side in any of this clusterfuck of insanity.

(I assume this is correct and not media spin) when they were in fact kidnapped.

"Kidnapped" personnel are used as bargaining chips as these soldiers are being used as compared to "captured" as in taken out of the battlefield situation and released later after the "war" is over.

have been kidnapped by Israel?

I believe the Israel's think of them as being arrested, since they are not using them as bargaining chips.

I believe words really do mean things.

I understand your point, but for the Israel solders to have been "captured" would mean they were engaged in military action, which as far as I know they were not. They were on their side of the border.

military or civilian personnel being used as bargaining chips without the context of a declared "war" means they are kidnapped.

The situation on the ground does not change the meaning of words.

Israel "kidnapped" about sixty Hamas politicians in the West Bank only a few weeks ago.

This whole thing is a tit-for-tat feud, with Israel inflicting greater casualties primarily because they have greater firepower. But if one half of the equation is left out or "doesn't count" for some reason, the other side looks like mindless terrorists who kill without provocation.

Hezbollah's capture of the Israeli soldiers may have been an act of war, but it was not an act of terrorism. Their indiscriminate firing of rockets into civilian areas is.

Likewise, Israeli incursions into Southern Lebanaon to eradicate Hezbollah missiles may be an act of war, but they are not terrorism. Their indiscriminate firing of rockets into Beirut is.

I think a lot of people are willfully ignoring that they were in Israel, not Gaza or Lebanon.

they are soldiers- LEGITIMATE TARGETS DURING A CONFLICT

3 soldiers and KIDNAPPED 2 soldiers. There was NO CONFLICT when this happened. NOW there is, thanks to Hezbollah.

STOP IT STOP IT STOP IT STOP IT!!!!

I am so sick of the rationalizations for such horrific destruction!!!

:cry:

What the fuck is the matter with you?!?!?!!?

DAMNIT!!!!

so as not to "offend" anyone unnecessarily. :eyes:

What a fucking minefield these threads have become.

does that mean they can never be "captured"? Or is it because they are wearing special duds that they are in danger of capturing instead of kidnapping?

Also I think your "captured" meme requires that the capturing party treats them along Geneva Convention lines...

I assume you know exactly how they are being treated? And I assume that you know how the Palestinians being held are being treated too?

of seevn ambulances with medicines, etc. and they were bombed by Israeli warplanes.

However, this does not make Hezbollah the good guys. My sympathy are with the Lebanese people, not the terrorists.

Do you have a link? I read somewhere it was a truck with medicine from the United Arab Emirates. I've never heard about a Red Cross truck being bombed. Do you have a link to the story?

national armies at war capture enemy combatants and take them prisoner. They are called Prisoners of War (POW) and are to be treated according to the Geneva Convention. Hezbollah is not the national army of Lebanon. They are not recognized as a government in exile by anyone. They are an armed group that has even been denounced by the Lebanese government and the UN. It is a rogue armed force and nothing more. As such Hezbollah can not take POWs and any of its members are not accorded POW status. For a parallel, consider the Provisional wing of the IRA. No one called their actions "capturing of prisoners", it was correctly called kidnapping, as is what Hezbollah did. The location is actually irrelevant. If Hezbollah was a recognized belligerent, it would not matter, they would be POWs. Since it is not, they were kidnapped.

Captured POW vs Kidnap victim is actually irrelevant. Their being taken was clearly planned for some time and the virulence of IDF response was clearly unanticipated. The IDF is clearly working of a planned methodical approach, and appears to have some shredded fig leaf of coverage WRT to civilian casualties and damage to infrastructure. Still there are numerous innocent casualties and it will be a generation before Lebanon can recover if it ever does. That is what matters, not nomenclature.

Regardless of what its called, the result is identical.

A bunch of thugs took possession of 2 other human beings wrongfully, and now thousands are dying.

To keep people from getting their feelings hurt.

How about:

The soldiers are:

"Otherwise occupied"

"involuntarily diverted"

"unknowingly transported"

"willfully relocated"

Surely there a is PC phrase that will satisfy everyone.

they were soldiers in uniform -- they were captured.

"Kidnapped" is propaganda.

Israel was not at war with Lebanon. The Israeli soldiers were not on Lebanese soil, but Israeli soil. There was not a conflict in progress. The soldiers were KIDNAPPED as bargaining chips, not during a military incursion or act of war!

They do virtually nothing to improve anyone's understanding.

If you start a thread with the purpose of arguing that "Those two Israeli soldiers were 'captured' not 'kidnapped!'" you really have a responsibility to explain why you think that is the case. Simply slapping an "nt" at the end doesn't do anyone any good.

Words have meaning. There is a difference between the words "captured" and "kidnapped," are you are obviously aware. You have my attention, and the attention of many other people who are interested in being informed. Could you please take a moment and explain why "captured" is the appropriate word rather than "kidnapped"?