Lebanon To Defend Itself Against Israeli Attack Regardless of Them Being Against Hezollah
164 replies, posted
[QUOTE=Crhem van der B;21608584]Haha, and what did I say, I love when people show that picture.. It's so satisfying.
EDIT:
Forgot to mention, at this point people should call me "inhumane" and "disgusting" and whatnot.[/QUOTE]
No. I'll just call you creepy.
[QUOTE=Crhem van der B;21608746]Yes, I indeed agree that it was stupid and irresponsible to use such a weapon in a so densely populated area. But really, nobody said the reason they used it. The only thing the IDF did was acknowledging the fact that it was. Why? Nobody knows. I really doubt for the sole purpose of killing innocent people. Why would they do that? To make more people anti-Israel?
I'm pretty sure there is a "deeper" story than "Oh, we have white phosphorous, why not kill some people with it?".
EDIT:
I can also pay this picture game:
[IMG]http://newsimg.bbc.co.uk/media/images/45336000/jpg/_45336940_-12.jpg[/IMG]
Here's a picture for you. It's a kindergarten hit by a Hamas rocket. Luckly, there was nobody inside at the time.[/QUOTE]
There was actually a reason why they wanted to kill all the civilians.
[quote], Eliyahu advocated "carpet bombing the general area from which the Kassams were launched, regardless of the price in Palestinian life." Eliyahu is quoted saying that "If they don't stop after we kill 100, then we must kill a thousand." And, "if they do not stop after 1,000 then we must kill 10,000. If they still don't stop we must kill 100,000, even a million. Whatever it takes to make them stop."[/quote]
Also about your picture, there are literally thousands displaying the Israeli carnage in Gaza, while their is only a select few for Israel, including the rockets that only left some black marks and a tiny crack.
[QUOTE=Crhem van der B;21608746]Yes, I indeed agree that it was stupid and irresponsible to use such a weapon in a so densely populated area. But really, nobody said the reason they used it. The only thing the IDF did was acknowledging the fact that it was. Why? Nobody knows. I really doubt for the sole purpose of killing innocent people. Why would they do that? To make more people anti-Israel?
I'm pretty sure there is a "deeper" story than "Oh, we have white phosphorous, why not kill some people with it?".
EDIT:
I can also pay this picture game:
[img]http://newsimg.bbc.co.uk/media/images/45336000/jpg/_45336940_-12.jpg[/img]
Here's a picture for you. It's a kindergarten hit by a Hamas rocket. Luckly, there was nobody inside at the time.[/QUOTE]
Nobody is innocent in this conflict and there sure is a lot of hate. I'm pretty sure it's the same kind of de-humanizing in this conflict, if not more than in others. They probably used phosphorus without giving it a second thought.
[QUOTE=NoDachi;21608443]It's pretty much widely accepted that Israel commits war crimes.[/QUOTE]
By whom?
[QUOTE=starpluck;21608714]The U.N would know if somebody was using their building as a rocket pad, trust me. I also would take the U.N's word over the IDF any-day, the U.N is highly trust-able while the IDF is a untrustworthy army. Mossad contributes to their reputation.
I stated it many time, no physical evidence proved that there was a gun fight.[/QUOTE]
The only reason you don't trust the IDF is because you don't want to trust it. While it is true the only reason I trust the IDF is because I want to trust it as well, it doesn't mean the logic behind it is obsolete.
We both can't count on each other's source for information, so why not base it on an independent and unbiased source? Hint: It's the Gonzaga report, which lists both the IDF's and the UN's reports as biased, while taking an unbiased stance on the subject.
[QUOTE=starpluck;21608714]What are you trying to prove? It acknowledged it, but it failed to refute it.[/QUOTE]
It has indeed refuted it, you simply don't accept this because you are biased. And what I meant by the Gonzaga report acknowledging the HRW's report, is this:
You said that first there were assumptions by the Gonzaga report that the IDF was in the clear, and later the HRW's report proved that the IDF committed war crimes. However this cannot be since the HRW's report came before the Gonzaga report.
[QUOTE=starpluck;21608714]This report is riddled with errors and outright fabrications. They provided sufficient evidence proving that civilians were the target (By bombing shelters that had no Hamas) and a later investigation [B]disproved[/B] the IDFs claim that Hamas inhabited the building. The IDF is not going to acknowledged they fucked up or it was intentional, so claimed it harbored militants. Unfortunately for the IDF, Human Right Watch conducted a throughout investigation proving otherwise.[/QUOTE]
Some investigations proved the IDF was in the wrong, and then the IDF pinpointed who's fault it was and brought them to justice (the two officers who used WP without authorization), however all other investigations came up with no convincing evidence that there are other cases were the IDF committed war crimes.
The Human Right Watch's investigation lacks convincing evidence and relies on testimonies, quote: "he NGO "Human Rights Watch" ("HRW") released a report outlining alleged evidence of Israeli violations of international humanitarian law. See Human Rights Watch, Rain of Fire: Israel's Unlawful Use of White Phosphorus in Gaza (2009). However, as this article will show, their evidence, allegations, and legal conclusions tend more toward polemics than a real legal analysis."
[editline]08:14PM[/editline]
[QUOTE=starpluck;21608822]There was actually a reason why they wanted to kill all the civilians.[/QUOTE]
Are you trying to justify their goal of killing civilians again?
[QUOTE=starpluck;21608822]Also about your picture, there are literally thousands displaying the Israeli carnage in Gaza, while their is only a select few for Israel, including the rockets that only left some black marks and a tiny crack.[/QUOTE]
This isn't a tragic story contest, just because Gaza suffered more than Israel doesn't mean Israel is at fault and that Gaza is in the clear.
[QUOTE=Cheezy;21608825]Nobody is innocent in this conflict and there sure is a lot of hate. I'm pretty sure it's the same kind of de-humanizing in this conflict, if not more than in others. They probably used phosphorus without giving it a second thought.[/QUOTE]
They didn't, and you can see this in the report: [url]http://www.gonzagajil.org/content/view/194/1/[/url]
[QUOTE=BurnEmDown;21609475]
Are you trying to justify their goal of killing civilians again?
[/QUOTE]
Before I reply to the whole thing I am going to point this out, you clearly took me out of context.
[quote=Crhem van Dan]
Yes, I indeed agree that it was stupid and irresponsible to use such a weapon in a so densely populated area. But really, nobody said the reason they used it. The only thing the IDF did was acknowledging the fact that it was. Why? Nobody knows. I really doubt for the sole purpose of killing innocent people. Why would they do that? To make more people anti-Israel?
I'm pretty sure there is a "deeper" story than "Oh, we have white phosphorous, why not kill some people with it?".[/quote]I replied [quote]There was actually a reason why they [[highlight]IDF[/highlight]] wanted to kill all the civilians. [/quote]then posted this under it:
[quote]Eliyahu advocated "carpet bombing the general area from which the Kassams were launched, regardless of the price in Palestinian life." Eliyahu is quoted saying that "If they don't stop after we kill 100, then we must kill a thousand." And, "if they do not stop after 1,000 then we must kill 10,000. If they still don't stop we must kill 100,000, even a million. Whatever it takes to make them stop."[/quote]
[QUOTE=BurnEmDown;21609475]By whom?[/QUOTE]
The UN. And pretty much any human rights organisation.
I'm not sure who's this Eliyahu guy but isn't he the Rabbi? If he is then I don't care about what he said, it's not the IDF's mentality and again, using quotes doesn't help you in any way, I could bring hundreds of quotes of Hamas officials, but that is no evidence of anything and doesn't contribute to the argument.
[QUOTE=Kyle902;21586737]So I guess your ok with Israel demolishing peoples homes and running over protesters.[/QUOTE]
Pretty much. Thats what you get for rather than accepting your new neighbours, thinking that land is worth taking lives over for rather than coming to some sensible agreement.
But then again, everybody knows its not about land and just that the muslims dont like the fact that they have jewish neighbours. The rest is just an excuse to continue to pile bombs into israel.
Nobody can deny that the palestinians should accept defeat, stop attacking israel, and go about solivng this through political means. At the end of the day, your not going to fight planes and tanks with a ragtag militia of suicide bombers and the odd rpg user.
Please tell me why you dont see JEWISH citizens creating homemade rpgs to fire into palestinian territory to attack their civilians? Or when they have used suicide bombers SPECIFICALLY targetting areas with no military purpose? At least the israel army TRIES to come up with a reason, other than just an urge to kill in childish revenge..
One day israel will just say 'fuck this' and bulldoze them into the sea.
In before muslim hater: I have nothing against islam. Just the militant, rabid type that is seemingly practiced in the middle east, and that is now appearing in select mosques in my own country. It would be the same if the palestinians were christians, hindus or fucking jedis, it doesnt matter.
Deathbane, there were some cases where some Israeli extremists did horrible things to Arabs, like this: [url]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cave_of_the_Patriarchs_massacre[/url]
However no one in Israel aside from those extremists accepts such actions, we all know it's wrong and if the guy who did had survived he would spend the rest of his life in prison.
[QUOTE=BurnEmDown;21609475]
The only reason you don't trust the IDF is because you don't want to trust it. While it is true the only reason I trust the IDF is because I want to trust it as well, it doesn't mean the logic behind it is obsolete.
We both can't count on each other's source for information, so why not base it on an independent and unbiased source? Hint: It's the Gonzaga report, which lists both the IDF's and the UN's reports as biased, while taking an unbiased stance on the subject.[/QUOTE]
Trusting the U.N over the IDF is like trusting a judge over the defendant.
[quote]
It has indeed refuted it, you simply don't accept this because you are biased. And what I meant by the Gonzaga report acknowledging the HRW's report, is this:
You said that first there were assumptions by the Gonzaga report that the IDF was in the clear, and later the HRW's report proved that the IDF committed war crimes. However this cannot be since the HRW's report came before the Gonzaga report.[/quote] You don’t get it. Ihas not refuted it at all. Just before it came later doesn’t mean it ‘got refuted’. The Gonzaga report made no effort whatsoever to prove that there was bullet casings, tank tracks, bullet holes etc. Like I said, all the Gonzaga report said was “HRW was biased blah blah”. HRW may be biased, but they backed up their statements while the Gonzaga report just says the HRW is wrong without proving [B]HOW[/B]; all they are is repeating the IDF lies. But they never proved HRW wrong. They never proved the official investigation wrong, nor any of the U.N officials.
[quote]
Some investigations proved the IDF was in the wrong, and then the IDF pinpointed who's fault it was and brought them to justice (the two officers who used WP without authorization), however all other investigations came up with no convincing evidence that there are other cases were the IDF committed war crimes.
The Human Right Watch's investigation lacks convincing evidence and relies on testimonies, quote: "he NGO "Human Rights Watch" ("HRW") released a report outlining alleged evidence of Israeli violations of international humanitarian law. See Human Rights Watch, Rain of Fire: Israel's Unlawful Use of White Phosphorus in Gaza (2009). However, as this article will show, their evidence, allegations, and legal conclusions tend more toward polemics than a real legal analysis."[/quote] That’s because you refuse to be convinced. I’m sorry, but it cannot be more convincing then that. The HRW took every measure in investigating the alleged claims by the IDF. [URL]http://www.time.com/time/world/artic...870087,00.html[/URL]
[release] To Human Rights Watch's knowledge, the IDF did not conduct ground operations in the vicinity of the school at any time during Operation Cast Lead. Human Rights Watch's investigations in the area did not uncover any physical evidence to suggest a confrontation with Palestinian armed groups, such as bullet holes, bullet casings or tank tracks.[/release]
[release]UNRWA's Gaza director John Ging adamantly denied that any Palestinian fighters had entered the compound, let alone fired from it at IDF soldiers.[26] [/release]
[release]UN officials said they made dozens of increasingly frantic phone calls with IDF officers as the shells got closer, asking them to stop, and the IDF did not warn UNRWA about Hamas activity in or near the compound. "They should tell us if there are militants operating in our compound or in our area," Ging said. "The fact that they don't, we take that as indicative of the fact that there wasn't."[/release]
I refuse to be convinced by the Gonzga report since their only refutation is “HRW” is biased. You also claim that it relied in civilian testimonies; if you did read it you’d know it was a secondary source [B]and all their conclusions were based on investigations.[/B]
You seem to be avoiding my request on where the HRW was proved wrong. Like I said, just because it came after the HRW, acknowleged it then made baseless claims doesn't mean its been refuted.
[QUOTE]Trusting the U.N over the IDF is like trusting a judge over the defendant. [/QUOTE]
More like trusting the accuser over the defendant.
[QUOTE]To Human Rights Watch's knowledge, the IDF did not conduct ground operations in the vicinity of the school at any time during Operation Cast Lead. Human Rights Watch's investigations in the area did not uncover any physical evidence to suggest a confrontation with Palestinian armed groups, such as bullet holes, bullet casings or tank tracks.[/QUOTE]
WP doesn't have to be used only during conflict. It can also be used when moving troops around, so the enemy can't see.
"One illustrative example of Hamas using "civilian" buildings for their military operations is the situation at the Al-Quds hospital in the Tel-al-Hawa neighborhood of Gaza City. HRW cited local residents which claimed that no Palestinian fighters were in the area at the time that the white phosphorus felt wedges landed on the roof of the hospital and set the top floors of the hospital on fire.[245]
However, the lack of any Palestinian fighters in the area when the building was set ablaze by the white phosphorus wedges is irrelevant. The white phosphorus munitions used by Israel were specifically designed to create smoke in order to obscure Israeli troop movements from enemy vision. Because this white phosphorus is not used for attacking enemy combatants (or civilians), but for obscuring allied troop movements, only the presence in the area of allied troops is relevant to the analysis. Multiple sources from both the Israeli and the Palestinian side attesting both to the presence of Israeli troops in Tel-al-Hawa from shortly after 12:00 am on Thursday morning until dawn on Friday morning, and to the heavy fighting in the neighborhood throughout the day corroborate the use of white phosphorus as an obscurant for military troops in Tel-al-Hawa.[246]
It seems clear that the fire in the hospital was an unfortunate, yet legal, consequence of errant white phosphorus felt-wedges which were purposely air-burst at a higher altitude than tactically needed, in order to reduce civilian casualties.[247] The example of Tel-al-Hawa is illustrative of the many situations in which Israel was using white phosphorus for legal obscurant purposes in military areas, but was improperly accused of using white phosphorus to improperly attack "civilian" objectives."
[QUOTE]I refuse to be convinced by the Gonzga report since their only refutation is “HRW” is biased. You also claim that it relied in civilian testimonies; if you did read it you’d know it was a secondary source and all their conclusions were based on investigations.
You seem to be avoiding my request on where the HRW was proved wrong. Like I said, just because it came after the HRW, acknowleged it then made baseless claims doesn't mean its been refuted.[/QUOTE]
They say that it is biased, but that is not their only refute, if you want, I can quote the whole section refuting the claim that Israel's WP use is illegal.
The world would be so much better without Zionism
[img]http://i.thisislondon.co.uk/i/pix/2009/01/0501gazafireP8ES-415x275.jpg[/img]
[img]http://www.abc.net.au/reslib/200901/r329950_1486287.jpg[/img]
[img]http://www.timesonline.co.uk/multimedia/archive/00464/GazaSlide_9__585x43_464433a.jpg[/img]
[img]http://www.un.int/palestine/israeli-wall14.jpg[/img]
[img]http://4.bp.blogspot.com/_cukmqcAQ4gs/R7nql0VdK8I/AAAAAAAAAeU/fzPc2V5VEDk/s400/fascist-state-logo.jpg[/img]
[img]http://1.bp.blogspot.com/_UD1TRPOssR0/Sv3rMb7002I/AAAAAAAAAvM/4fXJbTWelCA/s400/flag_Israel_Nazi_0.gif[/img]
[img]http://1.bp.blogspot.com/_vmcBNSZI_3k/S6GnL2-N_iI/AAAAAAAAB-Q/uUYvRGIPYSE/s640/Free-Palestine2.jpg[/img]
[img]http://4.bp.blogspot.com/_uMGWxRFx3Bw/S6KeoG6DowI/AAAAAAAAAu0/qGwRatL2byw/s320/israel-palestine-conflict-.jpg[/img]
[img]http://www.michaeltotten.com/archives/images/West%20Bank%20Wall%20from%20Jerusalem.jpg[/img]
[img]http://sydwalker.info/blog/wp-content/uploads/2009/01/israeli_soldier_palestinian_boy.jpg[/img]
[img]http://www2.ohchr.org/english/bodies/hrcouncil/docs/specialsession/photos-ci-lebanon/Civilian%20objects/images/Haret%20Hreik8_jpg.jpg[/img]
[img]http://www.japanfocus.org/data/wtc_9-11.jpg[/img]
[img]http://scrapetv.com/News/News%20Pages/usa/images-4/iraq-war-victims.jpg[/img]
[QUOTE=starpluck;21606188]Wow wow, whats with the extreme exaggeration? Relax we're not talking about Hitler.
Hezbollah and Hamas do not have the ability to the strike military targets, whether you think they do or not, they don't. Their best option is to launch rockets into Israel because that is the [B]ONLY[/B] option they have. Expanding borders onto an other nation, demolishing homes, indiscriminate killings are in act of war. If Hamas and Hezbollah had the ability to only attack military targets, they would, unfortunately it is impossible.
Israel on the other hand, has one of the most advanced military on earth, expert guidance systems, yet [I]somehow[/I] Israel still annihilates every innocent man, woman and child.
[1996] Qana massacre
[2006] Qana massacre
[2006] Gaza Beach explosion
[2008] Gaza massacre
A small organizations that do not have the power to guide their rockets have killed less civilians then an army who do have the ability to.[/QUOTE]
Lets actually look at objectives here, rather than who has more powerful weaponry. Hezbollah actually aims to destroy the entire state of Israel - not merely to force a retreat, not merely in self-defence. Israel, on the other hand, is committed merely to the destruction of the recognised terror-group Hezbollah - NOT to the annihilation of Lebanon. If they wanted to destroy Lebanon, I have no doubt they could have by now, or at least made significant headway.
It is at this juncture where the distinction between Israel as a foreign nation and Hezbollah as a terror group is made.
[QUOTE=Josh313;21626622]wall of pics[/QUOTE]
Zionism today means "supporting the state of Israel", which basically means patriotism if you're from Israel or supporting it if you're not from it, why do people insist Zionism is so evil? If it's evil then patriotism in general is evil.
[QUOTE=BurnEmDown;21626738]Zionism today means "supporting the state of Israel", which basically means patriotism if you're from Israel or supporting it if you're not from it, why do people insist Zionism is so evil? If it's evil then patriotism in general is evil.[/QUOTE]
Because many powerful people are Zionists and make evil things happen by giving their support to Israel.
[QUOTE=BurnEmDown;21626738]Zionism today means "supporting the state of Israel", which basically means patriotism if you're from Israel or supporting it if you're not from it, why do people insist Zionism is so evil? If it's evil then patriotism in general is evil.[/QUOTE]
I'll respond to your above post later.
Zionism is without a doubt a racist ideology. The United Nations General Assembly passed a resolution equating Zionism to racism.
[QUOTE=Maccabee;21588005]O so you've all been into Isreal and talked to army officials and been onto the gaza strip and had snipers try and shoot your from across the border? O, you haven't? You've just been believed what you've been fed over the news and don't know 1/4 of whats going on? O ya, right. That's me.
You haven't seen the home made bombs that are fired into Isreal every day, killing families and destroying homes. You only see the occasional bomb that Isreal fires in self defense.[/QUOTE]
Stealing land, building walls between people and killing innocent citizens and children really helps Israel to defend itself
those Israelis are a bunch of assholes they're no better than Hezbollah
[QUOTE=BurnEmDown;21626738]Zionism today means "supporting the state of Israel", which basically means patriotism if you're from Israel or supporting it if you're not from it, why do people insist Zionism is so evil? If it's evil then patriotism in general is evil.[/QUOTE]
Zionism: The disgusting level of self-righteousness and sense of entitlement brought on about by a silly old book.
And yes, patriotism has brought about more evil than good. It's the cornerstone of fascism.
I'm confused right now, are you guys saying that Zionism is baseless support for Israel or that it's the right for Israel to exist?
I don't support Israel any more than any other country and seeing as I don't live there, it's not patriotism. As for religious justification of their existence, that's bullshit too. Palestinians claiming it's their land along with Jews claiming god gave it to them, all bullshit.
What the hell is up with that wall of images? I see political cartoons, injuries caused by explosives, civilians talking to soldiers, a demolished building and 9/11. I really don't know what to say, it's all so useless.
Everyone has the right to be patriotic, I know it's the cornerstone to nationalism and then fascism but you can't just make people not believe certain things.
Zionism used to be: "The support for a creation of a Jewish national home", it did not relate to a book, and it did not give excuses to stealing lands.
Zion is one of the many names in Hebrew for Jerusalem, which the Zionists chose as a name for their organization or movement because this was their target, establishing a national home for Jews in Jerusalem and the area.
If you see anything evil here point it out, because all these accusations of stealing land and racism don't amount to anything regarding what Zionism used to mean. I'll assume you don't mean that modern Zionism is evil because I already said what it meant and you didn't respond to it.
No one is defending the actions of terrorist organizations. People are simply pointing out that the IDF, and Israels policy in general is not working, and they are not the "good guys" if there is such a thing in this case. Israel has the ability to do nothing but target a terrorist group, however, they seem to take down everything and everyone around that group to do it. Not something they have to do, or should do.
Israel is out of hand, and zionism as an ideology is disgusting and primitive. It's Manifest destiny/imperialism in the modern day with no shame of it.
[editline]07:20AM[/editline]
[QUOTE=BurnEmDown;21627450]Everyone has the right to be patriotic, I know it's the cornerstone to nationalism and then fascism but you can't just make people not believe certain things.
Zionism used to be: "The support for a creation of a Jewish national home", it did not relate to a book, and it did not give excuses to stealing lands.
Zion is one of the many names in Hebrew for Jerusalem, which the Zionists chose as a name for their organization or movement because this was their target, establishing a national home for Jews in Jerusalem and the area.
If you see anything evil here point it out, because all these accusations of stealing land and racism don't amount to anything regarding what Zionism used to mean. I'll assume you don't mean that modern Zionism is evil because I already said what it meant and you didn't respond to it.[/QUOTE]
Hmm, well.. Lets see... Zionism requires the evacuation of thousands of people from their rightful home for... what reason? A religious one?
[QUOTE=HumanAbyss;21627508]No one is defending the actions of terrorist organizations. People are simply pointing out that the IDF, and Israels policy in general is not working, and they are not the "good guys" if there is such a thing in this case. Israel has the ability to do nothing but target a terrorist group, however, they seem to take down everything and everyone around that group to do it. Not something they have to do, or should do. [/QUOTE]
If you're referring to the fact that a lot of civilians were killed during the Gaza conflict, then you aren't aware of the facts that Israel has done it's best to minimize civilian casualties.
Also Israel's policies are working when they use force.
Let's take 3 examples:
Withdrawal from Gaza (2005) - Back when Gaza was a part of Israel it's populace continuously fired rockets at Israeli cities, this happened from 2000 to 2009. Israel then decided in 2005 to withdraw from Gaza in order to appease the populace, however after the withdrawal the rocket fires only increased. So example 1 = diplomacy fails.
Lebanon War (2006) - Hezbollah continuously fired rockets from southern Lebanon to northern Israel, Israel decided to take military action and attacked south Lebanon, the result was complete stop of rocket attacks against northern Israel. So example 2 = military action succeeds.
Gaza war (2008-2009) - Continuing from example 1, Hamas continued to fire rockets into Israel for 9 years, Israel decided to take military action and launched operation "Cast Lead", the result was complete stop of rocket launches against Israeli cities near Gaza. So example 3 = military action succeeds.
We've all learned from these 3 examples, that when we're attacked we must respond with force, because terrorists don't understand diplomacy, they understand force and must be beaten at their own game.
[QUOTE=HumanAbyss;21627508]Israel is out of hand, and zionism as an ideology is disgusting and primitive. It's Manifest destiny/imperialism in the modern day with no shame of it.
Hmm, well.. Lets see... Zionism requires the evacuation of thousands of people from their rightful home for... what reason? A religious one?[/QUOTE]
Where exactly in the Zionist ideology does it say that thousands of people must be evacuated from their home?
[QUOTE=BurnEmDown;21627765]If you're referring to the fact that a lot of civilians were killed during the Gaza conflict, then you aren't aware of the facts that Israel has done it's best to minimize civilian casualties.
Also Israel's policies are working when they use force.
Let's take 3 examples:
Withdrawal from Gaza (2005) - Back when Gaza was a part of Israel it's populace continuously fired rockets at Israeli cities, this happened from 2000 to 2009. Israel then decided in 2005 to withdraw from Gaza in order to appease the populace, however after the withdrawal the rocket fires only increased. So example 1 = diplomacy fails.
Lebanon War (2006) - Hezbollah continuously fired rockets from southern Lebanon to northern Israel, Israel decided to take military action and attacked south Lebanon, the result was complete stop of rocket attacks against northern Israel. So example 2 = military action succeeds.
Gaza war (2008-2009) - Continuing from example 1, Hamas continued to fire rockets into Israel for 9 years, Israel decided to take military action and launched operation "Cast Lead", the result was complete stop of rocket launches against Israeli cities near Gaza. So example 3 = military action succeeds.
We've all learned from these 3 examples, that when we're attacked we must respond with force, because terrorists don't understand diplomacy, they understand force and must be beaten at their own game.
Where exactly in the Zionist ideology does it say that thousands of people must be evacuated from their home?[/QUOTE]
I won't deal with the first part because I really can't be arsed to dredge through statistics for you at 7 in the morning when I've been up for 30 hours now, but as for the second part, the fact you can't realize this is depressing.
Zionism declared jereusalem the only home the state of Israel can rightfully occupy as it is "god given land". Guess what? That land is fucking occupied already. Why do they get to come in and just take it? Because foreign government said so? Because god said so? Those people are displaced for another group of displaced people, however, I'm fairly certain there is another group of land that could just as easily suit their causes as a "home" whether or not its jerusalem.
[QUOTE=BurnEmDown;21627765]
Where exactly in the Zionist ideology does it say that thousands of people must be evacuated from their home?[/QUOTE]
He's talking about the ones that were forcefully uprooted as refugees and denied the right of return, which is a basic human right.
[QUOTE=starpluck;21626846]Zionism is without a doubt a racist ideology. The United Nations General Assembly passed a resolution equating Zionism to racism.[/QUOTE]
Also I'd like to post what Wikipedia has to say on the UN resolution:
[QUOTE]The Organisation of African Unity and the Non-Aligned Movement passed resolutions condemning Zionism and equating it with racism and apartheid during the early 1970s. The United Nations General Assembly passed Resolution 3151 72 to 36, with 32 abstentions, in December 1973, stating that there was an "unholy alliance between South African racism and Zionism." [31] Resolution 3379, stating in its conclusion that "Zionism is a form of racism and racial discrimination", passed in November 1975, with many Arab, African, South Asian, Latin American and Soviet bloc states voting in favor of it.[27][32] The resolution was opposed by most of the Western world.
As the war in Iraq began and the South Africa's apartheid government and the Soviet Union collapsed, the resolution was repealed in 1991 with Resolution 4686, after Israel declared that it would only participate in the Madrid Conference of 1991 if the resolution were revoked.[31] [33] [34]
At the session revoking the motion, U.S. President George H. W. Bush declared that 3379 mocked the founding principles of the United Nations and its charter's pledge "to practice tolerance and live together in peace with one another as good neighbors."[35] The revocation motion was co-sponsored by 90 nations and supported by 111, and opposed by 26.[31][/QUOTE]
[url]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zionism#Resolutions_condemning_Zionism[/url]
[LIST=1]
[*][URL="http://www.un.org/Overview/rights.html"]The Universal Declaration of Human Rights[/URL] article 13 affirms: [B]"Everyone has the right to leave any country, including his own, and return to his country."[/B]
[*][URL="http://www.hrcr.org/docs/CERD/cerd2.html"]The International Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Racial Discrimination[/URL] [Article 5 (d)(ii)], states: "State parties undertake to prohibit and to eliminate racial discrimination on all its forms and to guarantee the right of everyone, without distinction as to race, color, or national or ethnic origin, to equality before the law, notably in the enjoyment of ... [B]the right to leave any country, including one's own, and to return to one's country.[/B]"
[*][URL="http://www.hrweb.org/legal/cpr.html"]The International Convention on Civil and Political Rights[/URL] [Article 12(4)], states: [B]"No one shall be arbitrarily deprived of the right to enter his own country."[/B]
[/LIST]
[QUOTE=HumanAbyss;21627804]Zionism declared jereusalem the only home the state of Israel can rightfully occupy as it is "god given land". Guess what? That land is fucking occupied already. Why do they get to come in and just take it? Because foreign government said so? Because god said so? Those people are displaced for another group of displaced people, however, I'm fairly certain there is another group of land that could just as easily suit their causes as a "home" whether or not its jerusalem.[/QUOTE]
Well, the Zionist Jews bought lands in Palestine from Arab owners, they didn't steal them and didn't conquer them, they didn't "come in and just take it", they bought it fair and square.
[QUOTE=starpluck;21627824]He's talking about the ones that were forcefully uprooted as refugees and denied the right of return, which is a basic human right.[/QUOTE]
I'm talking about Zionism here, about the ideology. Where does it say in the Zionism ideology that thousands of people must be evacuated from their home?
Sorry, you need to Log In to post a reply to this thread.
