Israel attacks Lebanon, leaving many dead

baff · July 2006

I just had a look at the T.V. footage of that U.N. outpost. You can see why they are calling it deliberate. It's not exactly hard to spot and there didn't seem to be anyother buildings on the same hill.

I'm still not willing ot call it however.

amaska · July 2006

According to BBC, the UN asked Israel "up to 10 times" to stop bombarding the zone in which the observers were................... BBC says the UN says that Israel said they would stop it........... Now Israel says it was a mistake and UN says it does not believe it............

Freedom of interpretation

Kurir · July 2006

Turn that entire region into a sheet of glass and we will finally have peace, barring that let Israel get the job done and stop trying to hamstring them. If the U.N. wants their people to be safe then stop putting them in harms way and quit bitching about it.

Unknown · July 2006

believe me guys, this will not stop until the judgement day starts.

linuxgamer · July 2006

Gingrich Says World War III Has Begun
http://www.newsmax.com/archives/ic/2006/7/16/155736.shtml

Domesto · July 2006

Originally posted by Kurir
Turn that entire region into a sheet of glass and we will finally have peace, barring that let Israel get the job done and stop trying to hamstring them. If the U.N. wants their people to be safe then stop putting them in harms way and quit bitching about it.

Glass the entire region including Israel would be nice. It would save the U.S. tax payers billions of dollars.

B._TOM_Kidd · July 2006

Originally posted by Yamota

Originally posted by B._TOM_Kidd
its not portion of Hamas, its all of them.
who u think send the suiciders ?
who make the bombs ?
who give the money to the right ppl ?

and no, we dont kill civians in puruse.
when we killed them it was a mistake.
and also, u only hear about hte mistakes, so u dont really know what happen there.
one last thing, find me one country that when was in war, didnt killed civians of the other country to ?
u can compare this to the nazis, i can compare this to any other army/country and war times.

p.s. why u dont go to the Hamas leaders, and tell them anything about there terror actions ?

p.s.s
what is IRA ?

300 out of 600 killed in Lebanon are innocent bystanders. Thats not misstakes, thats disregard of human lives.

U dont have a clue what we do to try and not kill citizens.
we lose ground forces coz of that.
we even asked all of the ppl in the village to leave and go to the north, so we wont hit them.
those that stay ar ppl who help Hesbulla by hiding there weapons and ammos, there ppl and so on.
why we should not to kill "civilians" who hiding some of Hesbulla weapons/ammo
and just one last point, if we wanted to kill civilians, we would have just tear Lebanon apart with our air force, and wouldnt have to get in the ground force.

And you are occupying palestine and with a vastly superior millitary force are killing many more palestine people for every Israeli killed. You are also commiting act of torture against "suspected" terrorists and commiting executions of people you have decided are enemies of Israel. Many human rights organisations have reported such acts so dont even try to deny it.

vastly Superior millitary force ?
that dosent help a shit coz we hardly can use it, coz we dont want to harm ppl.
if we kill that much palestine people for every israeli killed, then the answer for that is not to kill the israelies, so we wont kill them.
andn ow for real, we dont kill many palestine people when we get killed, we kill terrorists, but they have a techniq where they take with them childrens and womans, and coz of that palestine people get killed.
we have no reason to not kill terrorist coz he have a woman and childrens with him, they shouldnt go with them, but they do that and they know what could happen to them.
and when u are in war, why would u kill the enemies of your country ?

Im not saying Hamas or Hezbollah are right, but neither are you. Both murderors in my eyes who think peace comes out from the barrel of a gun or whatever super high technology weapon you are using against a mainly civillian population.

none of us are right, but i want to see your country getting attacked by terrorists group, and doing nothing aginst them.
what US did in afganistan is any better ?
no
but they have all the rights to do so after the 9/11 terrorists attack.

The IRA short for Provisional Irish Republican Army was a paramilitary organisation who tought the british occupation of Northern Ireland was unlawful. Very much like Hamas they were labeled as a terrorrist organisation by US and UK even though they had strong support among the irish people.

strong support dosent mean a shit.
its the way the organisation work that get them labled as terrorists.

amaska · July 2006

Proportionality of response is the issue. Here's a good article on that:

The New York Times, July 24, 2006
Op-Ed Contributor
He Who Cast the First Stone Probably Didn't
By DANIEL GILBERT
LONG before seat belts or common sense were particularly widespread, my family made annual trips to New York in our 1963 Valiant station wagon. Mom and Dad took the front seat, my infant sister sat in my mother's lap and my brother and I had what we called "the wayback" all to ourselves.
In the wayback, we'd lounge around doing puzzles, reading comics and counting license plates. Eventually we'd fight. When our fight had finally escalated to the point of tears, our mother would turn around to chastise us, and my brother and I would start to plead our cases. "But he hit me first," one of us would say, to which the other would inevitably add, "But he hit me harder."
It turns out that my brother and I were not alone in believing that these two claims can get a puncher off the hook. In virtually every human society, "He hit me first" provides an acceptable rationale for doing that which is otherwise forbidden. Both civil and religious law provide long lists of behaviors that are illegal or immoral - unless they are responses in kind, in which case they are perfectly fine.
After all, it is wrong to punch anyone except a puncher, and our language even has special words - like "retaliation" and "retribution" and "revenge" - whose common prefix is meant to remind us that a punch thrown second is legally and morally different than a punch thrown first.
That's why participants in every one of the globe's intractable conflicts - from Ireland to the Middle East - offer the even-numberedness of their punches as grounds for exculpation.
The problem with the principle of even-numberedness is that people count differently. Every action has a cause and a consequence: something that led to it and something that followed from it. But research shows that while people think of their own actions as the consequences of what came before, they think of other people's actions as the causes of what came later.
In a study conducted by William Swann and colleagues at the University of Texas, pairs of volunteers played the roles of world leaders who were trying to decide whether to initiate a nuclear strike. The first volunteer was asked to make an opening statement, the second volunteer was asked to respond, the first volunteer was asked to respond to the second, and so on.
At the end of the conversation, the volunteers were shown several of the statements that had been made and were asked to recall what had been said just before and just after each of them.
The results revealed an intriguing asymmetry: When volunteers were shown one of their own statements, they naturally remembered what had led them to say it. But when they were shown one of their conversation partner's statements, they naturally remembered how they had responded to it. In other words, volunteers remembered the causes of their own statements and the consequences of their partner's statements.
What seems like a grossly self-serving pattern of remembering is actually the product of two innocent facts. First, because our senses point outward, we can observe other people's actions but not our own. Second, because mental life is a private affair, we can observe our own thoughts but not the thoughts of others. Together, these facts suggest that our reasons for punching will always be more salient to us than the punches themselves - but that the opposite will be true of other people's reasons and other people's punches.
Examples aren't hard to come by. Shiites seek revenge on Sunnis for the revenge they sought on Shiites; Irish Catholics retaliate against the Protestants who retaliated against them; and since 1948, it's hard to think of any partisan in the Middle East who has done anything but play defense.
In each of these instances, people on one side claim that they are merely responding to provocation and dismiss the other side's identical claim as disingenuous spin. But research suggests that these claims reflect genuinely different perceptions of the same bloody conversation.
If the first principle of legitimate punching is that punches must be even-numbered, the second principle is that an even-numbered punch may be no more forceful than the odd-numbered punch that preceded it. Legitimate retribution is meant to restore balance, and thus an eye for an eye is fair, but an eye for an eyelash is not. When the European Union condemned Israel for bombing Lebanon in retaliation for the kidnapping of two Israeli soldiers, it did not question Israel's right to respond, but rather, its "disproportionate use of force." It is O.K. to hit back, just not too hard.
Research shows that people have as much trouble applying the second principle as the first. In a study conducted by Sukhwinder Shergill and colleagues at University College London, pairs of volunteers were hooked up to a mechanical device that allowed each of them to exert pressure on the other volunteer's fingers.
The researcher began the game by exerting a fixed amount of pressure on the first volunteer's finger. The first volunteer was then asked to exert precisely the same amount of pressure on the second volunteer's finger. The second volunteer was then asked to exert the same amount of pressure on the first volunteer's finger. And so on. The two volunteers took turns applying equal amounts of pressure to each other's fingers while the researchers measured the actual amount of pressure they applied.
The results were striking. Although volunteers tried to respond to each other's touches with equal force, they typically responded with about 40 percent more force than they had just experienced. Each time a volunteer was touched, he touched back harder, which led the other volunteer to touch back even harder. What began as a game of soft touches quickly became a game of moderate pokes and then hard prods, even though both volunteers were doing their level best to respond in kind.
Each volunteer was convinced that he was responding with equal force and that for some reason the other volunteer was escalating. Neither realized that the escalation was the natural byproduct of a neurological quirk that causes the pain we receive to seem more painful than the pain we produce, so we usually give more pain than we have received.
Research teaches us that our reasons and our pains are more palpable, more obvious and real, than are the reasons and pains of others. This leads to the escalation of mutual harm, to the illusion that others are solely responsible for it and to the belief that our actions are justifiable responses to theirs.
None of this is to deny the roles that hatred, intolerance, avarice and deceit play in human conflict. It is simply to say that basic principles of human psychology are important ingredients in this miserable stew. Until we learn to stop trusting everything our brains tell us about others - and to start trusting others themselves - there will continue to be tears and recriminations in the wayback.
Daniel Gilbert, a professor of psychology at Harvard, is the author of "Stumbling on Happiness."

qotsa · July 2006

Normally, I'd bash Bush and what he has done. But I think I am starting to realize these terrorists will never stop untill we wipe them out. There shoud be no negotiation between the world and terrorists. If we compromise with them now, they'll demand even more next time. All of the fanatical retards like Iran, Syria, North Korea and so on need to be put away. They don't want peace and never will. They want to detroy everyone but themselves.

I'm also getting an uneasy feeling with Putin. This guy looks evil to me. I can't stand how he is just sitting back watching it all, with that sly grin. I get the feeling he's part of it in some way. He always looks so guilty to me.

slapme7times · July 2006

why dont native americans bomb american cities?

because neither people any longer care about the conflict.

since the palestinians werent assimilated into jewish culture the way we forced native americans to be, they will always fight to get their stuff back.

slapme7times · July 2006

Originally posted by amaska

Proportionality of response is the issue. Here's a good article on that:

The New York Times, July 24, 2006
Op-Ed Contributor
He Who Cast the First Stone Probably Didn't
By DANIEL GILBERT
LONG before seat belts or common sense were particularly widespread, my family made annual trips to New York in our 1963 Valiant station wagon. Mom and Dad took the front seat, my infant sister sat in my mother's lap and my brother and I had what we called "the wayback" all to ourselves.
In the wayback, we'd lounge around doing puzzles, reading comics and counting license plates. Eventually we'd fight. When our fight had finally escalated to the point of tears, our mother would turn around to chastise us, and my brother and I would start to plead our cases. "But he hit me first," one of us would say, to which the other would inevitably add, "But he hit me harder."
It turns out that my brother and I were not alone in believing that these two claims can get a puncher off the hook. In virtually every human society, "He hit me first" provides an acceptable rationale for doing that which is otherwise forbidden. Both civil and religious law provide long lists of behaviors that are illegal or immoral - unless they are responses in kind, in which case they are perfectly fine.
After all, it is wrong to punch anyone except a puncher, and our language even has special words - like "retaliation" and "retribution" and "revenge" - whose common prefix is meant to remind us that a punch thrown second is legally and morally different than a punch thrown first.
That's why participants in every one of the globe's intractable conflicts - from Ireland to the Middle East - offer the even-numberedness of their punches as grounds for exculpation.
The problem with the principle of even-numberedness is that people count differently. Every action has a cause and a consequence: something that led to it and something that followed from it. But research shows that while people think of their own actions as the consequences of what came before, they think of other people's actions as the causes of what came later.
In a study conducted by William Swann and colleagues at the University of Texas, pairs of volunteers played the roles of world leaders who were trying to decide whether to initiate a nuclear strike. The first volunteer was asked to make an opening statement, the second volunteer was asked to respond, the first volunteer was asked to respond to the second, and so on.
At the end of the conversation, the volunteers were shown several of the statements that had been made and were asked to recall what had been said just before and just after each of them.
The results revealed an intriguing asymmetry: When volunteers were shown one of their own statements, they naturally remembered what had led them to say it. But when they were shown one of their conversation partner's statements, they naturally remembered how they had responded to it. In other words, volunteers remembered the causes of their own statements and the consequences of their partner's statements.
What seems like a grossly self-serving pattern of remembering is actually the product of two innocent facts. First, because our senses point outward, we can observe other people's actions but not our own. Second, because mental life is a private affair, we can observe our own thoughts but not the thoughts of others. Together, these facts suggest that our reasons for punching will always be more salient to us than the punches themselves - but that the opposite will be true of other people's reasons and other people's punches.
Examples aren't hard to come by. Shiites seek revenge on Sunnis for the revenge they sought on Shiites; Irish Catholics retaliate against the Protestants who retaliated against them; and since 1948, it's hard to think of any partisan in the Middle East who has done anything but play defense.
In each of these instances, people on one side claim that they are merely responding to provocation and dismiss the other side's identical claim as disingenuous spin. But research suggests that these claims reflect genuinely different perceptions of the same bloody conversation.
If the first principle of legitimate punching is that punches must be even-numbered, the second principle is that an even-numbered punch may be no more forceful than the odd-numbered punch that preceded it. Legitimate retribution is meant to restore balance, and thus an eye for an eye is fair, but an eye for an eyelash is not. When the European Union condemned Israel for bombing Lebanon in retaliation for the kidnapping of two Israeli soldiers, it did not question Israel's right to respond, but rather, its "disproportionate use of force." It is O.K. to hit back, just not too hard.
Research shows that people have as much trouble applying the second principle as the first. In a study conducted by Sukhwinder Shergill and colleagues at University College London, pairs of volunteers were hooked up to a mechanical device that allowed each of them to exert pressure on the other volunteer's fingers.
The researcher began the game by exerting a fixed amount of pressure on the first volunteer's finger. The first volunteer was then asked to exert precisely the same amount of pressure on the second volunteer's finger. The second volunteer was then asked to exert the same amount of pressure on the first volunteer's finger. And so on. The two volunteers took turns applying equal amounts of pressure to each other's fingers while the researchers measured the actual amount of pressure they applied.
The results were striking. Although volunteers tried to respond to each other's touches with equal force, they typically responded with about 40 percent more force than they had just experienced. Each time a volunteer was touched, he touched back harder, which led the other volunteer to touch back even harder. What began as a game of soft touches quickly became a game of moderate pokes and then hard prods, even though both volunteers were doing their level best to respond in kind.
Each volunteer was convinced that he was responding with equal force and that for some reason the other volunteer was escalating. Neither realized that the escalation was the natural byproduct of a neurological quirk that causes the pain we receive to seem more painful than the pain we produce, so we usually give more pain than we have received.
Research teaches us that our reasons and our pains are more palpable, more obvious and real, than are the reasons and pains of others. This leads to the escalation of mutual harm, to the illusion that others are solely responsible for it and to the belief that our actions are justifiable responses to theirs.
None of this is to deny the roles that hatred, intolerance, avarice and deceit play in human conflict. It is simply to say that basic principles of human psychology are important ingredients in this miserable stew. Until we learn to stop trusting everything our brains tell us about others - and to start trusting others themselves - there will continue to be tears and recriminations in the wayback.
Daniel Gilbert, a professor of psychology at Harvard, is the author of "Stumbling on Happiness."

isnt it merely survival of the fittest which led us to evolve in the first place?

thus is would make sense that we take greater revenge simply to help us survive

sonicboom · July 2006

I don't remember clicking on CNN.com, plz try to keep your own comments about news and information on the war... Keep this site a gaming Site.... not a General Discussion about something not related about games

Severoth · July 2006

Originally posted by sonicboom
I don't remember clicking on CNN.com, plz try to keep your own comments about news and information on the war... Keep this site a gaming Site.... not a General Discussion about something not related about games

Then don't read a thread in the off-topic forum. This is off-topic, where it belongs. No one forced you to click-on and read this thread. Go back to your hole, you forum troll.

Domesto · July 2006

Originally posted by qotsa
Normally, I'd bash Bush and what he has done. But I think I am starting to realize these terrorists will never stop untill we wipe them out. There shoud be no negotiation between the world and terrorists. If we compromise with them now, they'll demand even more next time. All of the fanatical retards like Iran, Syria, North Korea and so on need to be put away. They don't want peace and never will. They want to detroy everyone but themselves.

I'm also getting an uneasy feeling with Putin. This guy looks evil to me. I can't stand how he is just sitting back watching it all, with that sly grin. I get the feeling he's part of it in some way. He always looks so guilty to me.

What you call a terrorist, many people in the world call freedom fighters. Much of the world is starting to think that it is the U.S.A. that is the evil oppressor. People do need to remember that we (the U.S.) are sending our forces to the other side of the world to occupy these countries. Im sure if it was the other way around and someone was occupying the U.S.A. they would be calling me a terrorist as I grab my .308 and headed out to defend my homeland.

B._TOM_Kidd · July 2006

Originally posted by Domesto

Originally posted by qotsa
Normally, I'd bash Bush and what he has done. But I think I am starting to realize these terrorists will never stop untill we wipe them out. There shoud be no negotiation between the world and terrorists. If we compromise with them now, they'll demand even more next time. All of the fanatical retards like Iran, Syria, North Korea and so on need to be put away. They don't want peace and never will. They want to detroy everyone but themselves.

I'm also getting an uneasy feeling with Putin. This guy looks evil to me. I can't stand how he is just sitting back watching it all, with that sly grin. I get the feeling he's part of it in some way. He always looks so guilty to me.

What you call a terrorist, many people in the world call freedom fighters. Much of the world is starting to think that it is the U.S.A. that is the evil oppressor. People do need to remember that we (the U.S.) are sending our forces to the other side of the world to occupy these countries. Im sure if it was the other way around and someone was occupying the U.S.A. they would be calling me a terrorist as I grab my .308 and headed out to defend my homeland.

what exackly did the US Occupied ?
they had war with Iraq, and now they trying to leave the place, but not to conqure it.

Domesto · July 2006

Originally posted by B._TOM_Kidd

Originally posted by Domesto

Originally posted by qotsa
Normally, I'd bash Bush and what he has done. But I think I am starting to realize these terrorists will never stop untill we wipe them out. There shoud be no negotiation between the world and terrorists. If we compromise with them now, they'll demand even more next time. All of the fanatical retards like Iran, Syria, North Korea and so on need to be put away. They don't want peace and never will. They want to detroy everyone but themselves.

I'm also getting an uneasy feeling with Putin. This guy looks evil to me. I can't stand how he is just sitting back watching it all, with that sly grin. I get the feeling he's part of it in some way. He always looks so guilty to me.

What you call a terrorist, many people in the world call freedom fighters. Much of the world is starting to think that it is the U.S.A. that is the evil oppressor. People do need to remember that we (the U.S.) are sending our forces to the other side of the world to occupy these countries. Im sure if it was the other way around and someone was occupying the U.S.A. they would be calling me a terrorist as I grab my .308 and headed out to defend my homeland.

what exackly did the US Occupied ?
they had war with Iraq, and now they trying to leave the place, but not to conqure it.

Remember the big speech by Bush infront of the big banner that said MISSION ACCOMPLISHED back in 2003? Well I would say that from that point on the U.S. has been conducting a military occupation of Iraq. But don't take my word for it. Have a look at my link or do a search on google.

Links to U.S. Occupation of Iraq.

and from www.webster.com

Main Entry: oc·cu·pa·tion
Pronunciation: "ä-ky&-'pA-sh&n
Function: noun
Etymology: Middle English occupacioun, from Anglo-French occupaciun, from Latin occupation-, occupatio, from occupare
1 a : an activity in which one engages <pursuing pleasure has been his major occupation> b : the principal business of one's life : VOCATION
2 a : the possession, use, or settlement of land : OCCUPANCY b : the holding of an office or position
3 a : the act or process of taking possession of a place or area : SEIZURE b : the holding and control of an area by a foreign military force c : the military force occupying a country or the policies carried out by it
synonym see WORK
- oc·cu·pa·tion·al /-shn&l, -sh&-n&l/ adjective
- oc·cu·pa·tion·al·ly adverb

DUH!

sonicboom · July 2006

Severoth go play with your lego blocks and to your room.

dmace1 · July 2006

If you pick a fight with the 4th largest military in the world guess what.... its gunna get ugly, I feel bad for those in Lebanon but they Started the fight again, the "civilians" harbor the terroists. Oh now we are going to cry about the bombing but it was ok for Hez to store the missles in your house...........please.

Time for the world to wake up, diplomatic solutions are not started with suicide bombs and other cowardly acts I dont care what the reasons are for it, it just doesnt cut it. The bottom line is the only way muslims will accept peace is when israel is blown off the map. People have a hard time believing that but its true, no matter what Israel does it will never be good enough, The radicals will hide behind other reasons like they hide behind children. They only want to halt Isreal now so they can store some more ammo and try again at a later date, up until they have nukes and blow the whole region to hell, honestly..... THESE PEOPLE RUN INTO GROCERY STORES WITH BOMBS STRAPED TO THEM AND TARGET WOMEN AND CHILDREN, do you think they will hesitate for 1 second to throw up a nuke, put some real thought into it for god sake that is all they are doing right now, buying time for WMD.

What Arab nation got attacked and a word wasnt said about it? are you kidding, But you are right... This war on terror will be lost because nobody will put forth the action that is needed until its to late.

Nerf09 · July 2006

Originally posted by slapme7times

why dont native americans bomb american cities?
because neither people any longer care about the conflict.
since the palestinians werent assimilated into jewish culture the way we forced native americans to be, they will always fight to get their stuff back.

*slams fist on desk*

ABSOFREAKINGLUTELY!

Israel thought they could live in a multi-cultural society.

Democrats think we can live in a multi-cultural society. Let us thank our lucky stars Mexicans are CHRISTIANS! Get on your hands and knees, and cry out in a loud voice and thank God Mexicans are Christains. You lucked out this time.

Rudnoc · July 2006

Originally posted by Nerf09

Originally posted by slapme7times

why dont native americans bomb american cities?
because neither people any longer care about the conflict.
since the palestinians werent assimilated into jewish culture the way we forced native americans to be, they will always fight to get their stuff back.

*slams fist on desk*

ABSOFREAKINGLUTELY!

Israel thought they could live in a multi-cultural society.

Democrats think we can live in a multi-cultural society. Let us thank our lucky stars Mexicans are CHRISTIANS! Get on your hands and knees, and cry out in a loud voice and thank God Mexicans are Christains. You lucked out this time.

WTF does Native Americans have to do with Mexicans? I think someone needs to go learn history to see that Mexicans are really basically Spaniards that came around the same time the English did. However they raped the Natives and blended in with them rather than trying to create their own civilization. Mexicans don't have any rights of claiming any part of the US as they sold it to the US a LONG LONG time ago. Now they are trying to be Indian givers (Pun. LOL)

As for this stupid topic....It is only started by Terrorists trying to make themselves look like the victim (Of course only when they are getting their arses killed).

Fa|con · July 2006

I'd like to say one thing about people who say the Israeli's stole their land. They didn't. It belonged to the Israeli's first, and they got it back. Israeli's just want peace, they allow Muslims to live in piece in their country and they aren't trying to expand. Even if they did "take" the land in a controversial way, it doesn't justify murdering civilians.

Stradden · July 2006

I am locking this thread, as it is filled with personal attacks and flaming.

Stradden

Howdy, Stranger!

Israel attacks Lebanon, leaving many dead

Comments

Howdy, Stranger!

Quick Links

Israel attacks Lebanon, leaving many dead

Comments