Middle East Crisis: Who Backs an Immediate Cease Fire?

[celluloid_love]

Originally Posted by Eric Blair

What's your source on this celluloid love? Did you ask their corpses?

Just my friend in the IDF.

[Future Boy]

Originally Posted by Eric Blair

What's your source on this celluloid love? Did you ask their corpses?

They died wearing their "I <3 Hezbollah" burqas.

[talk show host]

Originally Posted by celluloid_love

You guys know that most of the civilians that have been killed in Lebanon are there supporting Hezbollah and housing rockets, right?

Corganist, you know that thing you do where you try and make everyone provide concrete evidence for everything they say? Well here's a justified opportunity for you, let's see you go to work.

[Eric Blair]

Originally Posted by celluloid_love

Just my friend in the IDF.

Oh, the Israeli Defence Force

Sorry

[celluloid_love]

fuck off Eric Blair you troll

[Eric Blair]

oh, okay

[talk show host]

Originally Posted by celluloid_love

fuck off Eric Blair you troll

fuck off celluloid_love you idiot

[Eric Blair]

Listen, I'm not trying to be a dick, but I don't think you can completely trust the IDF given the circumstances.

[celluloid_love]

Originally Posted by Eric Blair

Listen, I'm not trying to be a dick, but I don't think you can completely trust the IDF given the circumstances.

If you're not trying to be a dick, then fine. I was pretty much being sarcastic anyway.

Just off news footage and stuff it seems most of the people who hung around (instead of getting the fuck out like most people) were supporting Hezbollah [because Hezbollah supported them.] I mean, it's their own fault/stupidity if they yell out 'we support Hezbollah till we die!' and then get bombed.

[Eric Blair]

Oh right,

But yeah, it's not like Israel are just bombing military camps, they are bombing everywhere. These people who are "hanging around" live there, and with Israel saying any 4WD is a legitimate target for their strikes and strafing main roads, travelling is extremely hazardous anyway, and I don't blame some people for not wanting to leave their homes.

On the bigger picture, the way I see it, is that Hezbollah =/= Lebanon, and I don't think the opinion that the U.N is ineffective is any reason to condone this collective punishment. Really, what Israel is doing is nothing short of a war crime, (which is certainly a contentious comment to make, but that's how I see it).

[Tchocky]

Originally Posted by Eric Blair

Hezbollah =/= Lebanon

Hezbolla is the closest thing Lebanon has to a legitimate ruling body, given their connection to Syria and the fact that Lebanon is basically a puppet state of Syria at this point.

[Eric Blair]

That's not really true. Hezbollah do make up a small part of the government with other parties such as Amal, but as many people have already pointed out, Hezbollah have very little support amongst the people. Secondly, while the president is pro-Syrian, the majority of the coalition government is anti Syria and has been since Syrian troops pulled out last year.

Even if you were right Tchocky, that is absolutely no reason to bomb the fuck out of Lebanon. Billions of dollars of damage has been done and a large number of civillians have been killed. Over what? Two soldiers. Now, I feel for the soldiers, but come on, what Israel is doing is inexcusable.

[Starla]

These people live for this shit, and they want to fight. Let them have their war.

[talk show host]

what a retarded thing to say

[Starla]

Hardly. This is their war. If they want to fight each other over their twisted religious ideals, let them. This goes back ages. I can't support anything that has to do with these people's inability to evolve past their own bullshit.

This doesn't mean I don't want there to be peace, but let's just face the facts, it's not going to happen until they can learn to live in peace together, regardless of religious belief/tradition each wants to practice.

[Andrew_Pakula]

Don't forget everyone, this is all just plain and simple self-defense.

Hezbollah slapped Israel in the face and then ran off into the bushes, unable to get revenge on those crazy terrorists Israel still angry decides to get its revenge on Hezbollah's civillian friends and family in Lebanon by destroying their homes, injuring and killing them but don't forget, its all just self-defense.

[Corganist]

Originally Posted by talk show host

Corganist, you know that thing you do where you try and make everyone provide concrete evidence for everything they say? Well here's a justified opportunity for you, let's see you go to work.

I'd like to see proof of what he's claiming just as much as anyone. But its not as though he's claiming anything more unsupported than the stuff that other people have been offering in this thread suggesting Israel is blowing up civilians for sport. Frankly, both sides of the debate are falling a little short in the proof department from what I can see.

[DeviousJ]

Originally Posted by celluloid_love

If you're not trying to be a dick, then fine. I was pretty much being sarcastic anyway.

Just off news footage and stuff it seems most of the people who hung around (instead of getting the fuck out like most people) were supporting Hezbollah [because Hezbollah supported them.] I mean, it's their own fault/stupidity if they yell out 'we support Hezbollah till we die!' and then get bombed.

Holy shit you were serious

[DeviousJ]

Originally Posted by Corganist

Maybe, maybe not. But regardless, I don't see how "waiting until Lebanon gets back on its feet" is a viable option for Israel. There's probably an appropriate middle ground in there that's a lot closer to the "take action" side of things than the "sit around and take it up the ass until Lebanon decides to help out" side.

Exactly, there's an appropriate middle ground which is not 'shoot rockets into cities and kill lots of innocent people'

Originally Posted by Corganist

Why don't you seem to think they factor it in? That's what I'm not understanding. Israel has this sheer disregard for human life based on what? Body counts? Sadism? Are you really saying that Israel dropping a bomb in a neighborhood is more morally objectionable than the terrorists creating a reason for Israel to drop the bomb there in the first place? You seem to be saying its evil for the terrorists to set up shop among civilians, but by doing so they're showing more concern for the civilians lives, and by extension have less moral culpability than Israel does when they decide to accept the consequence risk the terrorists have created. That's a little unfair don't you think?

Hahaha, you're not even attempting to disguise your little logical backflips anymore. This is progress. Let's rephrase that without begging the question shall we: "Are you really saying that Israel dropping a bomb in a neighborhood is more morally objectionable than the terrorists firing rockets into an Israeli neighborhood?" They're both targetting civilian neighborhoods, knowing that innocent people will be killed - but based on this the terrorists are supposed to be 'evil', and Israel is supposed to be 'not evil'. Israel also has a massively powerful military that it's putting to good use in bombing Lebanese towns and cities. Israel has a track record of showing little restraint and destroying buildings whether or not people are still in them. Israel - again - promised to 'turn the clock back in Lebanon 20 years'. That, my man, is a threat against the population of Lebanon, not Hizbollah, and that constitutes state terrorism.

And we were talking about Israel's attacks vs Hizbollah's attacks, not where Hizbollah is located. If you want to change the subject then say so, don't pretend you have no idea what we're talking about

Originally Posted by Corganist

That's my point. It would be close to legitimate if the terrorists actually did "capture an enemy soldier," but that isn't what happened. You don't "capture" people by making a raid across the border, attacking a convoy unprovoked, and then carrying the survivors away. What these guys did wasn't close to legitimate at all.

Uh, they attacked an enemy convoy and captured surviving soldiers. Exactly what's illegitimate about that? Sure it's not something you'd want to happen, but armed conflict rarely is. And it doesn't count as terrorism when it's just the military involved, sorry

Originally Posted by Corganist

Got a link?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Provisi...armed_campaign

Originally Posted by Corganist

Sure, but I thought you'd be above fighting hysterics with hysterics, thats all.

Oh man

[Corganist]

Originally Posted by DeviousJ

Hahaha, you're not even attempting to disguise your little logical backflips anymore. This is progress. Let's rephrase that without begging the question shall we: "Are you really saying that Israel dropping a bomb in a neighborhood is more morally objectionable than the terrorists firing rockets into an Israeli neighborhood?" They're both targetting civilian neighborhoods, knowing that innocent people will be killed - but based on this the terrorists are supposed to be 'evil', and Israel is supposed to be 'not evil'.

I don't know, but I think a definite case can be made for that idea. What you conveniently leave out of the discussion is the that Israel is ostensibly not bombing neighborhoods merely for the sake of bombing neighborhoods. They at least purport these bombings to be targeted strikes on Hezbollah targets that just happen to be located in civilian neighborhoods. As noted elsewhere in the thread, that claim may or may not be true...and proof either way is not forthcoming right now. My question is simply why, given that ambiguity, you still choose to hold out that Israel is not just equally bad as the terrorists, but actually worse? I could understand you not giving them the benefit of the doubt. I'm loath to do it myself. But the view you're putting forth really just defies the bounds of reason. There's no way to know right now whether Israel is acting in bad faith with their strikes, but the one thing we do know right now is that Hezbollah definitely has no legitimate reason to be firing rockets into Israel. Given that, I can't see how you can be so matter of fact in playing Israel off as the really bad guys here.

Israel also has a massively powerful military that it's putting to good use in bombing Lebanese towns and cities. Israel has a track record of showing little restraint and destroying buildings whether or not people are still in them. Israel - again - promised to 'turn the clock back in Lebanon 20 years'. That, my man, is a threat against the population of Lebanon, not Hizbollah, and that constitutes state terrorism.

You're free to say what you will about the actual methods Israel is undertaking, that's all fair game. But pulling out this quote as some kind of evidence of Israel's ill intent is a bit of a stretch. Its not like they announced that their unequivocal aim is to turn the clock back in Lebanon. They just said it was something they would do if the kidnapped soldiers weren't released. I mean really, are we going to seriously entertain the idea that one country saying "Hey, other country, we think you've wronged us. Make it right or we'll bomb the shit out of you." is "state terrorism" now? Oh man.

Uh, they attacked an enemy convoy and captured surviving soldiers. Exactly what's illegitimate about that? Sure it's not something you'd want to happen, but armed conflict rarely is. And it doesn't count as terrorism when it's just the military involved, sorry

Newsflash: Hezbollah is not the military. Just because terrorists attack a military convoy, it doesn't mean the attack isn't terrorism.

[DeviousJ]

Originally Posted by Corganist

I don't know, but I think a definite case can be made for that idea. What you conveniently leave out of the discussion is the that Israel is ostensibly not bombing neighborhoods merely for the sake of bombing neighborhoods. They at least purport these bombings to be targeted strikes on Hezbollah targets that just happen to be located in civilian neighborhoods. As noted elsewhere in the thread, that claim may or may not be true...and proof either way is not forthcoming right now. My question is simply why, given that ambiguity, you still choose to hold out that Israel is not just equally bad as the terrorists, but actually worse? I could understand you not giving them the benefit of the doubt. I'm loath to do it myself. But the view you're putting forth really just defies the bounds of reason. There's no way to know right now whether Israel is acting in bad faith with their strikes, but the one thing we do know right now is that Hezbollah definitely has no legitimate reason to be firing rockets into Israel. Given that, I can't see how you can be so matter of fact in playing Israel off as the really bad guys here.

I explicitly said, a few posts up, that I don't think they generally attack civilians for the sake of attacking civilians. Of course even if they were, they wouldn't say it - they'd say that they were aiming for legitimate targets, obviously. And like you said, there really is no evidence whatsoever of that being the case. But what there is evidence of is massive damage to civilian neighborhoods, infrastructure, and an escalating death toll. Surely even you must recognize that there comes a point where a line is crossed, where the intent of an action cannot justify the consequences - for a simple example beyond that line, if Israel were to nuke the whole of Lebanon today (effectively wiping out Hizbollah) that would clearly be unjustifiable. I believe that the actions they're executing now are beyond that line, that they can't justify the amount of force being used and the devastation being wrought on the general population, and a lot of people in the international community agree. That's the disregard for human life.

Originally Posted by Corganist

You're free to say what you will about the actual methods Israel is undertaking, that's all fair game. But pulling out this quote as some kind of evidence of Israel's ill intent is a bit of a stretch. Its not like they announced that their unequivocal aim is to turn the clock back in Lebanon. They just said it was something they would do if the kidnapped soldiers weren't released. I mean really, are we going to seriously entertain the idea that one country saying "Hey, other country, we think you've wronged us. Make it right or we'll bomb the shit out of you." is "state terrorism" now? Oh man.

Hizbollah is not Lebanon. Threatening the population of a country with retribution for something a terrorist group did is terrorism, yes. And that quote speaks volumes about Israel's approach - these things don't just slip out casually, and the intention is being borne out by the results so far. This was an official statement of intent by the top level of the IDF, you seem to very casual in dismissing it as 'banter' or something. You might want to read up on the definitions of terrorism

Originally Posted by Corganist

Newsflash: Hezbollah is not the military. Just because terrorists attack a military convoy, it doesn't mean the attack isn't terrorism.

Uhhh whether an act is considered terrorism depends on the target - the IDF are the military, therefore it isn't terrorism. Again, go and read something about it

[Corganist]

Originally Posted by DeviousJ

I explicitly said, a few posts up, that I don't think they generally attack civilians for the sake of attacking civilians. Of course even if they were, they wouldn't say it - they'd say that they were aiming for legitimate targets, obviously. And like you said, there really is no evidence whatsoever of that being the case. But what there is evidence of is massive damage to civilian neighborhoods, infrastructure, and an escalating death toll. Surely even you must recognize that there comes a point where a line is crossed, where the intent of an action cannot justify the consequences - for a simple example beyond that line, if Israel were to nuke the whole of Lebanon today (effectively wiping out Hizbollah) that would clearly be unjustifiable. I believe that the actions they're executing now are beyond that line, that they can't justify the amount of force being used and the devastation being wrought on the general population, and a lot of people in the international community agree. That's the disregard for human life.

So in your mind, the only thing that puts Israel on lower moral ground than Hezbollah is the fact that they do more damage and kill more people? So I assume that if Hezbollah were to become more effective killers the pendulum would swing and you'd turn the brunt of your disapproval back to them, right? That seems an awfully strange way of approaching things. It all but guarantees that you always hold the big countries who respond to terrorism, in good faith or not, in lower moral standing than the terrorists who initiate things unless the terrorists manage to pull off some spectacular 9/11 type attack. It seems awfully simplistic just to ignore the necessary subjective moral aspect and instead replace it with a scoreboard.

Hizbollah is not Lebanon. Threatening the population of a country with retribution for something a terrorist group did is terrorism, yes. And that quote speaks volumes about Israel's approach - these things don't just slip out casually, and the intention is being borne out by the results so far. This was an official statement of intent by the top level of the IDF, you seem to very casual in dismissing it as 'banter' or something. You might want to read up on the definitions of terrorism

Apparently everything is terrorism these days...

Uhhh whether an act is considered terrorism depends on the target - the IDF are the military, therefore it isn't terrorism. Again, go and read something about it

...except for actual terrorism.

I guess now you're gonna tell me that the truck bomb that killed those 200 Marines in Beirut back in 1983, or the attack on the USS Cole, etc. were "close to legitimate" military exercises too. There's a difference between attacking a military target as part of established hostilities and attacking for no strategic reason a target that happens to be military. Attacking a bunch of guys driving around their own country, or sleeping in a barracks, etc. doesn't suddenly become warfare just because the victims have patches on their arm.

[DeviousJ]

Originally Posted by Corganist

So in your mind, the only thing that puts Israel on lower moral ground than Hezbollah is the fact that they do more damage and kill more people? So I assume that if Hezbollah were to become more effective killers the pendulum would swing and you'd turn the brunt of your disapproval back to them, right? That seems an awfully strange way of approaching things. It all but guarantees that you always hold the big countries who respond to terrorism, in good faith or not, in lower moral standing than the terrorists who initiate things unless the terrorists manage to pull off some spectacular 9/11 type attack. It seems awfully simplistic just to ignore the necessary subjective moral aspect and instead replace it with a scoreboard.

Well that depends on how they 'respond' now doesn't it. I think Israel should be held to a higher standard since they're (apparently) a legitimate, law-abiding state with a powerful military and intelligence service. Nobody's replacing anything with a scoreboard, but you seem to want to ignore the actual magnitude of destruction involved and claim it's somehow irrelevant. That is a *huge* part of whether an attack is being done in 'good faith'

Originally Posted by Corganist

Apparently everything is terrorism these days...


...except for actual terrorism.

I guess now you're gonna tell me that the truck bomb that killed those 200 Marines in Beirut back in 1983, or the attack on the USS Cole, etc. were "close to legitimate" military exercises too. There's a difference between attacking a military target as part of established hostilities and attacking for no strategic reason a target that happens to be military. Attacking a bunch of guys driving around their own country, or sleeping in a barracks, etc. doesn't suddenly become warfare just because the victims have patches on their arm.

Yeah, there's also a difference between attacking a target that's military and terrorism. Seriously, look it up - it's even a law thing, you like law. 'Terrorism' doesn't mean 'bad stuff I don't like' unfortunately. Although it tends to be thrown around that way a lot for propaganda purposes, so I can see why you might be confused. So you're correct, those two incidents weren't terrorism.

[talk show host]

Originally Posted by To Starla

Hardly. This is their war. If they want to fight each other over their twisted religious ideals, let them. This goes back ages. I can't support anything that has to do with these people's inability to evolve past their own bullshit.

This doesn't mean I don't want there to be peace, but let's just face the facts, it's not going to happen until they can learn to live in peace together, regardless of religious belief/tradition each wants to practice.

So............EVERYONE there is into this religious war? These little kids and civilians getting the holy hell blown out of them are part of this war, in fact it's their war after all, and so we should just stay out?

Like I said, retarded. Yes the governments are part of this shit, no not everyone else is. Therefore we shouldn't just stay out of it huh? Maybe put some pressure on the governments to cut the shit out? Get where I'm going with this?

[Effloresce]

Originally Posted by Andrew_Pakula

Don't forget everyone, this is all just plain and simple self-defense.

Hezbollah slapped Israel in the face and then ran off into the bushes, unable to get revenge on those crazy terrorists Israel still angry decides to get its revenge on Hezbollah's civillian friends and family in Lebanon by destroying their homes, injuring and killing them but don't forget, its all just self-defense.

Precisely.

You want revenge? Don't drag innocent people into it. I swear, they're acting like all we need to do is wait a few more months until Hezbollah is completely destroyed. It's not happening.

This is absurd.

[Corganist]

Originally Posted by DeviousJ

Well that depends on how they 'respond' now doesn't it. I think Israel should be held to a higher standard since they're (apparently) a legitimate, law-abiding state with a powerful military and intelligence service. Nobody's replacing anything with a scoreboard, but you seem to want to ignore the actual magnitude of destruction involved and claim it's somehow irrelevant. That is a *huge* part of whether an attack is being done in 'good faith'

I never said the magnitude of what's happening is not relevant, but it is only relevant in context with the big picture, not as part of some kind of tit-for-tat exchange. Its really easy to accuse Israel of overreacting if you think the measuring stick of the conflict is something on the level of the kidnapping of a couple soldiers or lobbing a couple rockets into a neighborhood. But I don't really think that Israel is really going through all this trouble just because of a few militants making an incursion across the border, and I suspect you think the same. You know this whole thing didn't just start two weeks ago out of nowhere. Let's just suppose for a second that Israel is acting out of a sincere and true belief that acting on such large scale will save many more innocent Israeli lives in the future than it costs innocent Lebanese lives in the present. Would they still be wrong to act as they are right now were that the case?

Yeah, there's also a difference between attacking a target that's military and terrorism. Seriously, look it up - it's even a law thing, you like law. 'Terrorism' doesn't mean 'bad stuff I don't like' unfortunately. Although it tends to be thrown around that way a lot for propaganda purposes, so I can see why you might be confused. So you're correct, those two incidents weren't terrorism.

Funny that you mention the law. Here's the definition of "terrorism" as adopted in US law, and applied by the US State Department (whose interpretation of the law seems to be the most accepted among US intelligence types.)

No one definition of terrorism has gained universal acceptance. For the purposes of this report, however, we have chosen the definition of terrorism contained in Title 22 of the United States Code, Section 2656f(d). That statute contains the following definitions:

The term "terrorism" means premeditated, politically motivated violence perpetrated against noncombatant/*/ targets by subnational groups or clandestine agents, usually intended to influence an audience.
The term "international terrorism" means terrorism involving citizens or the territory of more than one country.
The term "terrorist group" means any group practicing, or that has significant subgroups that practice, international terrorism.

/*/ For purposes of this definition, the term "noncombatant" is interpreted to include in addition to civilians, military personnel who at the time of the incident are unarmed or not on duty. For example, in past reports we have listed as terrorist incidents the murders of the following US military personnel: Col. James Rowe, killed in Manila in April 1989; Capt. William Nordeen, US defense attache killed in Athens in June 1988; the two servicemen killed in the Labelle discotheque bombing in West Berlin in April 1986; and the four off-duty US Embassy Marine guards killed in a cafe in El Salvador in June 1985. We also consider as acts of terrorism attacks on military installations or on armed military personnel when a state of military hostilities does not exist at the site, such as bombings against US bases in Europe, the Philippines, or elsewhere.

Notwithstanding that, most of the other legal-type definitions of terrorism I found were pretty non-specific on the whole combatant/non-combatant thing (but a lot of em were off the wikipedia...so there's no telling how accurate some of that info is. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Definition_of_terrorism ), but I definitely wouldn't say its a blanket rule that attacking a soldier =/= terrorism.

[celluloid_love]

Originally Posted by Corganist

I never said the magnitude of what's happening is not relevant, but it is only relevant in context with the big picture, not as part of some kind of tit-for-tat exchange. Its really easy to accuse Israel of overreacting if you think the measuring stick of the conflict is something on the level of the kidnapping of a couple soldiers or lobbing a couple rockets into a neighborhood. But I don't really think that Israel is really going through all this trouble just because of a few militants making an incursion across the border, and I suspect you think the same. You know this whole thing didn't just start two weeks ago out of nowhere. Let's just suppose for a second that Israel is acting out of a sincere and true belief that acting on such large scale will save many more innocent Israeli lives in the future than it costs innocent Lebanese lives in the present. Would they still be wrong to act as they are right now were that the case?

He's right...

*cue "lol you just said that most of the civilians who died were staying in Beirut out of stupidity and support for a terrorist organisation, why the hell would I listen to you" comment*

Except that no one can prove that wrong...

[Starla]

Originally Posted by talk show host

So............EVERYONE there is into this religious war?

I couldn't say if it were everyone or not. I cannot provide statistics regarding the numbers.

These little kids and civilians getting the holy hell blown out of them are part of this war, in fact it's their war after all, and so we should just stay out?

Yes, we should stay out of it. That doesn't mean I *want* to see innocents getting killed or that I do not care.

Yes the governments are part of this shit, no not everyone else is. Therefore we shouldn't just stay out of it huh? Maybe put some pressure on the governments to cut the shit out? Get where I'm going with this?

It's common knowledge our "leaders" support Israel. (I personally do not. I don't support either side)

Seems hypocritical to me, for our "leader" to demand a cease fire when in turn he has waged war on Iraq. What about the innocents dying every day over there?

and...

If we can't place enough pressure on our govt to pull troops out of Iraq, how the fuck are we going to pressure them to enforce a cease fire on Hezbollah and Israel? And please tell me how we would FORCE them to cease fire? I'm intrigued.

You missed the part in my other post where I said I wanted to see peace, but in reality *I* know it won't be until the people who live there CHOOSE it for themselves. They rather kill each other over their religion and politics than learn to live harmoniously side by side despite their differences.

WE cannot force a people to live the way WE want them to. Haven't we learned this yet with Iraq?

[DeviousJ]

Originally Posted by Corganist

I never said the magnitude of what's happening is not relevant, but it is only relevant in context with the big picture, not as part of some kind of tit-for-tat exchange. Its really easy to accuse Israel of overreacting if you think the measuring stick of the conflict is something on the level of the kidnapping of a couple soldiers or lobbing a couple rockets into a neighborhood. But I don't really think that Israel is really going through all this trouble just because of a few militants making an incursion across the border, and I suspect you think the same. You know this whole thing didn't just start two weeks ago out of nowhere. Let's just suppose for a second that Israel is acting out of a sincere and true belief that acting on such large scale will save many more innocent Israeli lives in the future than it costs innocent Lebanese lives in the present. Would they still be wrong to act as they are right now were that the case?

You're right, this is a long-running conflict with a history of aggression from both sides, so don't try and paint it like Israel is only now reacting to attacks after decades of austerity. As part of the big picture, this campaign is still massively disproportionate - AND the people who are really suffering are the ordinary Lebanese people, not the terrorists. Even if Israel were acting in good faith (let's revisit that 'bomb Lebanon back 20 years' comment shall we), the idea that they can somehow kill hundreds of innocent people and destroy homes as some kind of insurance policy is incredibly tenuous, and isn't even borne out by intelligence, results, or even a basic knowledge of the region and how resistance movements work. There are alternatives, and they are better alternatives

Originally Posted by Corganist

Funny that you mention the law. Here's the definition of "terrorism" as adopted in US law, and applied by the US State Department (whose interpretation of the law seems to be the most accepted among US intelligence types.)

Notwithstanding that, most of the other legal-type definitions of terrorism I found were pretty non-specific on the whole combatant/non-combatant thing (but a lot of em were off the wikipedia...so there's no telling how accurate some of that info is. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Definition_of_terrorism ), but I definitely wouldn't say its a blanket rule that attacking a soldier =/= terrorism.

So you agree that attacking a military patrol on the border and capturing armed soldiers doesn't fall under the banner of terrorism, cool. This is unprecedented progress!

[DeviousJ]

Originally Posted by celluloid_love

He's right...

*cue "lol you just said that most of the civilians who died were staying in Beirut out of stupidity and support for a terrorist organisation, why the hell would I listen to you" comment*

Except that no one can prove that wrong...

Yeah, they should just go to a hotel or something. Oh hey, did you also know that many people are fleeing towns and villages (after Israel dropping leaflets telling them to get out) and being killed in their cars as Israel fires rockets at the escaping vehicles?

Check it out
http://www.nytimes.com/2006/07/24/wo...yre.html?fta=y
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article...282992,00.html