snip#1
Orly :
08 May 2013 11:05:04am
Do you really think Hezbullah won the 2006 war? In what way?
Lebanon was screaming for a ceasefire. Israel occupied territory in South Lebanon and only left to keep the international community happy.
As part of the ceasefire terms, Hezbullah was supposed to be completely disarmed by Lebanon. Hezbullah agreed to pull back all it's forces south of the Litani river.
Does that sound like an Israeli loss to you?
Lebanon was screaming for a ceasefire. Israel occupied territory in South Lebanon and only left to keep the international community happy.
As part of the ceasefire terms, Hezbullah was supposed to be completely disarmed by Lebanon. Hezbullah agreed to pull back all it's forces south of the Litani river.
Does that sound like an Israeli loss to you?
AJC :
08 May 2013 1:42:31pmYes, Hezbollah won that 2006 war. Simple facts of the matter are that Israel attacked first, tried to invade Lebanon, got kicked back out. Israel didn't leave willingly, suffered far more casualties than the Hebollah (counting Lebanese civilians as "combatants" is ridiculous, but I see many Israeli apologists pretend that these are equivalent) and diplomacy is also a tool of war. Israel never got very far at all within the Lebanese borders and was forced to leave. The IDF proved to be totally unprepared for what they were taking on. Hezbollah won. You can keep trying to spin it, but revisionist attempts are just as silly as claiming that the USA won in Vietnam.Orly :
09 May 2013 12:13:42amLie: Israel got kicked out.
Fact: Israel was not kicked out. It was still occupying South Lebanon when the ceasefire occurred.
Lie: Hezbollah won.
Fact: Hezbollah did not win. In fact, it was losing so badly, it had to offer to disarm in order to secure a ceasefire.
Lie: Israel lost more casualties.
Fact: The UN doesn't agree with you there. Neither does the Lebanese government. Neither does Hezbollah, for that matter.
Face it. The only way you can claim Hezbollah won is by ignoring reality. Or by lying.
Comment 2: Orly's "Fact: Hezbollah did not win. In fact, it was losing so badly, it had to offer to disarm in order to secure a ceasefire" must also be a lie, on the grounds that Israel thinks only it ever decides, is never forced, etc. - so no surrender, short of absolute = territorial loss by some target, is ever accepted by Israel. Sooo, some "higher power" must have prevailed over the Zs, but again, as never taking orders, the only "higher power" here would be a stop-loss for the Zs = Israel itself withdrew = loss for Zs, again.
snip#2
aletheia :
08 May 2013 5:58:05pm
Orly: "...produced by the Syrian government. Where do you think the rebels got such weapons from? Prayer? ... So that's going to be the narrative."
Me: No.
I recently found this curious bit: "... although the original core areas, the Iron Age kingdoms of Israel and Judah, are often considered outside the core of present-day Israel."
Two more quotes:
Jabotinsky: "... only Jewish armed force would ensure the Jewish state".
Ben-Gurion(1936-39): “But in the political field we are the attackers and the Arabs are those defending themselves. They are living in the country and own the land, ..."
As improper dispossessors (proof = self-evident and "iron wall"), Israel has no valid title to most of the land it squats on; thus it has no right to 'defend' anything - except their own lives, but that only in the case of "an instant and overwhelming necessity for self-defense, leaving no choice of means, and no moment of deliberation" *attack*.
So the Israeli attack on Syria fulfils the definition of "supreme international crime." Further, the *real* narrative includes US-fomented via-Turkey invasion (*not* civil war), equipped by Saudi Arabia, Qatar with Croatian-type arms – we know this because NYT et al. told us; more "supreme international crime."
Me: No.
I recently found this curious bit: "... although the original core areas, the Iron Age kingdoms of Israel and Judah, are often considered outside the core of present-day Israel."
Two more quotes:
Jabotinsky: "... only Jewish armed force would ensure the Jewish state".
Ben-Gurion(1936-39): “But in the political field we are the attackers and the Arabs are those defending themselves. They are living in the country and own the land, ..."
As improper dispossessors (proof = self-evident and "iron wall"), Israel has no valid title to most of the land it squats on; thus it has no right to 'defend' anything - except their own lives, but that only in the case of "an instant and overwhelming necessity for self-defense, leaving no choice of means, and no moment of deliberation" *attack*.
So the Israeli attack on Syria fulfils the definition of "supreme international crime." Further, the *real* narrative includes US-fomented via-Turkey invasion (*not* civil war), equipped by Saudi Arabia, Qatar with Croatian-type arms – we know this because NYT et al. told us; more "supreme international crime."
[Alert moderator]
Comment: This post went un-answered; but on the principle of silence is acquiescence, it means that the Zs are not contesting aletheia's material - they hardly could, since the quotes are a) true and b) utterly damning... so the z-trolls' only recourse is to ignore, itself signalling a surrender to 'inconvenient truths.'
Comment: This post went un-answered; but on the principle of silence is acquiescence, it means that the Zs are not contesting aletheia's material - they hardly could, since the quotes are a) true and b) utterly damning... so the z-trolls' only recourse is to ignore, itself signalling a surrender to 'inconvenient truths.'
snip#3
aletheia :
08 May 2013 6:54:31pm
Skeptic: "...about the Sarin gas. So the lone UN inspector told her version of facts which got in the way of the West's good story. She was discredited. Did that remind us of Mr.Hans Blix ?"
Me: Yes, but not only.
This week, Israel attacked Syria, a sovereign country - oh, that makes at least two, they (as 'immigrants,' partly illegal = alien invaders) attacked the place they squat on, starting before WW2 following Jabotinsky's strategy, amounting to perpetual war. Proof; Ben-Gurion(1936-39): “But in the political field we are the attackers and the Arabs are those defending themselves. They are living in the country and own the land, ..."
Now some say that there has been no court-case, but guilt is *totally independent* of courts; the real Q: Did 'modern' Israel result from improper dispossession, partly done by ethically cleansing ELO/Os = erstwhile legal owner/occupiers, by genocidal methods? IF A: Yes THEN QED.
Now, to the UN; "Iraq war was illegal and breached UN charter, says Annan," who ought to know. But no court-case there either; *proof* of UN corruption, self-convicted. Also self-convicted, by *not* enforcing UNGA273 (cites 181&194); even agreed to by Israel but to this day not honoured.
Me: Yes, but not only.
This week, Israel attacked Syria, a sovereign country - oh, that makes at least two, they (as 'immigrants,' partly illegal = alien invaders) attacked the place they squat on, starting before WW2 following Jabotinsky's strategy, amounting to perpetual war. Proof; Ben-Gurion(1936-39): “But in the political field we are the attackers and the Arabs are those defending themselves. They are living in the country and own the land, ..."
Now some say that there has been no court-case, but guilt is *totally independent* of courts; the real Q: Did 'modern' Israel result from improper dispossession, partly done by ethically cleansing ELO/Os = erstwhile legal owner/occupiers, by genocidal methods? IF A: Yes THEN QED.
Now, to the UN; "Iraq war was illegal and breached UN charter, says Annan," who ought to know. But no court-case there either; *proof* of UN corruption, self-convicted. Also self-convicted, by *not* enforcing UNGA273 (cites 181&194); even agreed to by Israel but to this day not honoured.
Zing :
09 May 2013 12:31:12amThere's nothing wrong with attacking a sovereign country when there is cause. Last time I checked, Syria and Israel are still officially at war.
Guilt is not independent of courts. Innocent until proven guilty in a court of law, remember?
After all, taking someone else's land away from them isn't automatically a crime. It's only a crime in some cases.
And even if you could prove that Israel somehow "stole" the land, what then? To have a crime, you have to presume someone has the right to judge the criminal for his actions.
Fact is, no nation has the right to judge the legality of Israel's creation any more then Israel can judge the legality of the creation of any other nation.
Incidently, Kofi Annan is a politician. He is not a judge and his opinions have no legal value. Given that your legal arguments are gibberish, I'll presume you're not a judge either.Eric the Echidna :
09 May 2013 7:40:25amZing: "Incidently, Kofi Annan is a politician. He is not a judge and his opinions have no legal value. Given that your legal arguments are gibberish, I'll presume you're not a judge either."
As you claim greater expertise than a Secretary-general of the UN, what are your legal qualifications? Particularly in the area of interrnational law.
On a particluar sta"tement:
"After all, taking someone else's land away from them isn't automatically a crime. It's only a crime in some cases."
What cases would those be?
Comment 2: Normally, "Innocent until proven guilty" is correct. The problem here, though, is that despite prima facie evidence of vicious crimes in progress, 65+ bloody years long, there are no SWAT teams sent in to arrest the perpetrators (or heirs and successors); the crimes continue unchecked, with those same perpetrators (or heirs and successors) squatting on improperly alienated land/property = benefiting from the proceeds of crime. Where's an honest cop or three, when the world needs them? Zing concludes with what amounts to an ad hominem, a lot of these being hurled by z-trolls of late. Indicates that they know they're losing?
No comments:
Post a Comment