Israel Blockades Lebanon

Wow, I sure hope that when there is a war in your area you all don't walk around in the middle of it expecting not to get shot because your an "Innocent Civilian". Nobody wants to kill innocent civilians but when there are attacks on your country, who's innocent civilians are you going to want to protect most? The ones who harber and take care of the enemy? You do know that the guy who blows up next to you at the restaurant is just some innocent civilian who just waved at you right?
 
You know good and well that you were not saying anything about assumptions in a general context. You know that everyone makes assumptions everyday and lives their lives according to the assumptions that they make. You were using the play on words to make a comment about me. However, I was right in what I said. That leaves the comment you were trying to make about me directed squarely at one of the biggest ones on this forum.
 
To some, it doesn't matter how accurate and truthful it is, it must be wrong if it is on fox news. Even when it agrees with them.
 
Sure I was. Go back and read it... and then consider the often quoted saying... "Assuming makes an ass out of me and out of you"... I didn't think I'd have to spell that one out so literally but I guess I did.


Yes and you made one and I called you on it. I wasn't referring to everyone elses assumptions - just yours.


Of course I was... in short that you were being assnine for making an assumption.



If it makes you feel better to think that then go right ahead. If your skin is so thin that you couldn't connect the dots on that one - then maybe it should have been an insult directed at you.

At least you wouldn't have had to put so much brainpower into trying to figure it out and still missing the mark.

Sigh... same 'ol same 'ol.
Besides... I'm hardly the bashful type here on MAP so if I was going to call you an ass directly and out of context then I'd do it to your face. You'd hardly be the first that fit that bit and got told.
 
That is a very good question. While the death total is much higher in Lebanon than in Israel, how many of them are Hezebollah and how many were actively helping Hezebollah? In most wars, the number of people killed on both sides is not equal.
 
LOL!
Not sure where you been but the UK is hardly the bastion of the fit and firm and neither is their food the stuff of athletes everywhere.
 
On a casual glance, having more damage and more people killed on one side seems disproportionate. The problem is that the one side is using tactics that are just as illegal as using disproportionate force and those tactics are designed to draw that response. When your opponent has no "military targets" and they are using the civilian populace and infrastructure in a military fashion, are they not then military targets?
 
I think the operative words here are that they are trying to kill you. Did you forget that stoning was a popular form of execution in the area?
 
You might want to rethink that. The Nazis took action against the Jews first and thus were proactive. Hezbollah took action first, by almost a month, which made Israel reactive.

Proactive vs. reactive - who attacked who first.
 
I know but i wonder where all the junk food came from...apart from fish 'n'chips thats ours..but i agree we seem to be following America in our eating habits...

:-)
 
err... New Learner... I think it's time you moved on.
Really - at this point take it any way you want it... I could care less.
Your feigned shock is....z-z-z-z-z-z-z-z-z-z-z-z-z-z-z-z-z
 
Hey Slip, don't worry. You can continue to post all the insults you want because you have nothing of value to say.
 
But to be honest, it is entertainment.....:-)


Now if only the Beeb would spend its licence money on Slip sorting out the programmes..

:-)
 
It's probably more entertaining than watching you trying to figure out the context in which something was said.
 
As a matter of fact, yes I do. First, the Nazis were the "National Socialist German Workers Party" and I have a loathing for just about everything socialist from a public policy perspective. Social welfare programs such as American social security, food stamps, public housing, etc are offensive in that they deny personal responsibility and take power away from the people and give it to the gov't. "Gov't, at it's best, is a necessary evil..." (I can't remember who said it, but since it wasn't me I put it in quotations) and as Thomas Jefferson said, "the gov't that governs least, governs best." So basically, everything about my political ideology opposes the platform of the Nazi party.

Second, you mistake my desire to shoot every member of Hezbollah in the face as 'disregard for human life', yet it is anything but that. I've seen enough death and destruction in the last 12 years to last 2 lifetimes. I want to see the fighting and the dying stopped, but I want it stopped for all time. Peace at any cost really means "Peace Temporarily while I reload". How many times have we seen it before? How many Iraqi children are dead because the US failed to remove Saddam Hussein in '91. Instead, in the name of "peace" we established no-fly zones and imposed economic sanctions. The first lead to a low-level, but continual state of hostilities; the second was used by Saddam to further control his people thru starvation and depravation. Medical supplies were withheld for Saddam's military instead of treating sick children, etc. How many children died because we were afraid to use the overwhelming military force available? In '91, the US military numbered nearly 4 million men; today it's less than 1.5 million, with a great number of that Guard and Reserve forces. Because we failed to obliterate the Baath regime then, today we are fighting an insurgency resulting in thousands of civilian casualties that could have been avoided. It's also telling that Al Qaida used the suffering of the Iraqi people at the hands of the sanctions to justify it's attacks against the US in another example of how 'restraint' actually increased the violence.

I have two small children and I don't want them to have to fight our unfinished battles. Their generation will come up with it's own evils and it's own conflicts; they don't need to inherit any extra from us. The peace crowd continues to harp about how violence only brings more violence. I believe they're right. However, responding to violence with overwhelming violence results in victory and lasting peace. In WWI the Allies accepted a conditional Armistice from Germany saving the lives of many men; an Armistice that lead to the resumption of war a generation later. In WWII America and the Allies told the Nazis they would only accept unconditional surrender, which many in the peace crowd said would lengthen the war and cause needless deaths. Undoubtly many more on both sides died as a result of that decsion. Yet in the 60 years since we demanded victory, what nation has Germany invaded? How many wars have the Germans or the Japanese started? How many lives were saved by ensuring we would never have to fight those two former enemies again?

It would be easier to negotiate with a Shark for peace than with Hezbollah- or with Hamas for that matter. The only way for lasting peace is for Israel to utterly destroy Hezbollah, killing it's members and rendering them a disgusting little footnote to history. In doing so, many people will die some of which will be innocent women and children. However, bringing peace to the region for generations to come will save the lives of countless more. The price to be paid today is high and quite painful. But the price of putting it off is higher and guarantees generations of unborn children will suffer the same fate as the victims we are seeing today. The real crime at this point would be for Israel to stop short of victory, virtually guarenteeing a future of continued death and suffering.
 
Back
Top