40,000 canadians trapped in lebanon, 7 killed by israeli bombing

[Ome_Vince]

Its not "go into New York and kill 166 random people", its going into New York and get your people back and punish the terrorist organisation responsible.
Unfortunatly, considering the size of Hezbollah and their mix with the civilian population, i cant seem how you can effectively get rid of them without hitting civilians

 

[CptStern]

Its not "go into New York and kill 166 random people", its going into New York and get your people back and punish the terrorist organisation responsible.
Unfortunatly, considering the size of Hezbollah and their mix with the civilian population, i cant seem how you can effectively get rid of them without hitting civilians

At least 227 people have been killed and more than 450 wounded, according to figures reported by the Lebanese national police and the military. Among the dead are 20 Lebanese army soldiers and two Hezbollah guerrillas.

only 2 militia members killed ...... at this rate there wont be much of a civilian population left

 

[Ome_Vince]

Yeah, never said its an effective of getting rid of Hezbollah. No idea what would be, land force doesnt work, airstrikes obviously only makes matters worse, and Lebannon cant disarm em.
How to get rid of this terrorist organisation?

 

[CptStern]

well negotiation would be a good start ...clearly their current tactic is not the solution

 

[Ome_Vince]

Your right about that, though negotiation wont end Hezbollah. Perhaps an international force will.

 

[gh0st]

If Hezbollah was operating out of California and not Beirut, would you support an Israeli invasion of America?

we have the means to dispatch terrorist groups in our borders. lebanon does not.

 

[DaMaN]

we have the means to dispatch terrorist groups in our borders. lebanon does not.

You may have the means, but that does not mean you have the will. Take the example of the Miami terrorist organisations terrorising Cuba. 5 Cuban men went to investigate the causes of terrorism against Cuba, and upon finding evidence supporting their claims and filing them with the U.S. government, they were promptly arrested.
More about the Case of the Cuban 5:
http://www.antiterroristas.cu/
http://www.freethecuban5.com/page3.html

Also, the means may not be enough to "dispatch" terrorist groups, especially if they are your government. The very definition of Terrorism states that "Terrorism refers to a strategy of using violence, or threat of violence to generate fear, cause disruption, and ultimately, to bring about compliance with specific political, religious, ideological, or personal demands." (Source: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Terrorism ).
On October 12th [2001], a couple of days after the bombing [of Afghanistan] started, [George W.] Bush publicly announced to the Afghan people that we will continue to bomb you, unless your leadership turns over to us the people who we suspect of carrying out crimes, although we refuse to give you any evidence. ...
Notice that is a textbook illustration of international terrorism, by the US official definition. That is the use of the threat of force or violence, in this case extreme violence, to obtain political ends through intimidation, fear and so on. That's the official definition, a textbook illustration of it.

Regarding Isreal's seemingly absurd reaction to this, it is evidence of something deeper going on. I don't believe Isreal is insane, they have always acted in an extremely ruthless manner. Something else is going on--this is part of a larger war.

And as much as we like to pretend otherwise, war is horribly cruel to civilians.

Someone commented earlier that 'the only intentional bombing of German civilians was Dresden.'

Tell that to the RAF bomber command, who adopted the strategy of night-time wide-area bombing of residental distrincts to drive civilians out of their homes to make them ineffective in the factories (and to those of you who remember that the US strategy in Germany was daylight pinpoint bombing, however inaccurate that was, two words: tokyo firebombing). Every side has war criminals--only the losers are generally prosecuted.

Modern war means war against a people, not neccesarily against an army (although that may be involved). You can see this as far back as world war one, with the blockade against Germany (The hope was that by starving them Germany would undergo a revolution and be forced to capitulate). With the attack on Lebanese infrastructure, Isreal appears to very clearly be saying "you either help us eliminate Hezbollah, or we destroy your nation."

But who do the Lebanese hate more? Isreal, or Hezbollah? Will this strategy succeed? It certainly hasn't succeeded very often in the past. In fact, the nation that suffered the most dramatic revolution in world war one was not Germany, but rather Russia--and that was brought on by an entirely self-induced economic crisis.

In this case, both sides are responsible for this spiralling descent into violence. Every time they respond with violence, they increase the chances that the other side will respond with violence. But that doesn't take the fault away from those who respond with violence.

Should we allow a murderer to get away with killing his neighbour because his neighbour was friends with the man's abusive parents? I realize this is a simplification, but try to bear with me.

Very very much agreed upon.

My final comment is to say WHAT THE HELL at you people who are enthusiastically supporting EITHER side of this conflict. It is war-mongering at it's worst, and evidence that the propaganda war is in full swing. PLEASE do not become a casualty of this propaganda war. Even if you aren't a diplomat trying to negotiate peace, you should be trying to bring some sanity to this world. We have enough sociopaths to keep war around for a very long time.

I totally disagree with this statement.

Stating that you support one side or the other does not mean you have been sucked into some sort of media propaganda war. Stating that you support one side or the other is simply that; supporting one side or the other. While your support may be influenced by propaganda, that does not mean your opinion is no less valid. Also, supporting one side or the other does not lessen the amount of sanity present. Indeed, having a clear and concise view of things generally means your sanity is well-endowed. Where your view lands - be it on one side, the other, or in the middle - doesn't matter in the slightest to your sanity.

However, I personally disagree with staying neutral, though I can fully accept why people prefer it. Staying neutral means that you don't have to constantly prove your point to the other side, and it can sometimes provide insight into both sides. A healthy dose of neutrality is nothing bad.

Unfortunately, being completely neutral is the same as with voting: if you choose to abstain from choosing a side, the strongest side will win without you. If you choose to pick a side, you have a say in determining which side is the strongest.

-DaMaN

 

[gh0st]

um why do you bring up the cuban 5? that proves my point that we have both the will AND the means to dispatch them. just because castro and his commie pig government wants them released doesnt make them innocent at all.

and our government is just not a terrorist entity so shut the **** up with that dumb radical liberal talking point. no one wants to hear it.

The men admitted to being spies, but said they were trying to prevent attacks on Cuban President Fidel Castro's government.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/4137036.stm

thats enough for me.

 

[DreadLord]

All civilians are equal. If someone from New York kidnapped 2 people from Boston would that be an excuse for the Boston government to invade New York and kill 166 random New Yorkers? The only crime most of the dead have commited is to have been born, or to live in the same country as the terrorists. It's incredible that people suddenly have no regard for other's lives just because of their nationality.


If Hezbollah was operating out of California and not Beirut, would you support an Israeli invasion of America?

I'm sorry but each Boston civilian = at least 10 New Yorkers.

 

[gh0st]

I'm sorry but each Boston civilian = at least 10 New Yorkers.

you know, Dread's got a point.

 

[Sprafa]

hell yeah bitches.


why in the **** is the discussion on cubans now ?

imo, Israel should kill a lot of people. Like millions, man. Millions after millions. Genocide. Massicide. Yeh, bitches, it's gotta happen sometimes, so the arabs get carte blanche into ****ing Israel. Shit yeah. You know what happens then. NUCLEAR WAR BABEH. HELL YEAH.

Then it's toe to toe, the old, hard way, all the way, hardcore. Oh yeah. Nuclear war. bitches.

You too gh0st you sechsy bitch. Oh yeah you know how i like it.

 

[Mutley]

hell yeah bitches.


why in the **** is the discussion on cubans now ?

imo, Israel should kill a lot of people. Like millions, man. Millions after millions. Genocide. Massicide. Yeh, bitches, it's gotta happen sometimes, so the arabs get carte blanche into ****ing Israel. Shit yeah. You know what happens then. NUCLEAR WAR BABEH. HELL YEAH.

Then it's toe to toe, the old, hard way, all the way, hardcore. Oh yeah. Nuclear war. bitches.

You too gh0st you sechsy bitch. Oh yeah you know how i like it.

What... the... f

 

[pvtbones]

What... the... f

an understatement if I ever heard one

 

[pomegranate]

and our government is just not a terrorist entity so shut the **** up with that dumb radical liberal talking point.

A compelling argument, Mr. Ghost.

 

[Tr0n]

Well actually, if we go by the definition of terrorism on the DoD's website:

"the calculated use of violence or the threat of violence to inculcate fear; intended to coerce or to intimidate governments or societies in the pursuit of goals that are generally political, religious, or ideological."

Bush and America's current goverment would be considered terrorist(s).

 

[gh0st]

yeah ok we're the terrorists.

its no wonder we cant win a war with you dumbasses in our country.

 

[Tr0n]

Who is we?

I didn't say the american people is, I said "if we go by the definition of terrorism on the DoD's website Bush and America's current goverment would be considered terrorist(s)."

I'm just giving an alternative choice to the situation.

 

[15357]

hell yeah bitches.


why in the **** is the discussion on cubans now ?

imo, Israel should kill a lot of people. Like millions, man. Millions after millions. Genocide. Massicide. Yeh, bitches, it's gotta happen sometimes, so the arabs get carte blanche into ****ing Israel. Shit yeah. You know what happens then. NUCLEAR WAR BABEH. HELL YEAH.

Then it's toe to toe, the old, hard way, all the way, hardcore. Oh yeah. Nuclear war. bitches.

You too gh0st you sechsy bitch. Oh yeah you know how i like it.

I disagree. War should never be nuclear. However, they do need to do a full clash in there.

 

[dys4iK]

Regarding neutrality: why do you have to pick one of the two warring sides?

I don't believe we have to stick to the standard definition of black and white: supporting one side in the annihilation of the other (or simply the defeat of the other).

I don't consider myself neutral--I am on the side of the civlians. These are the people that suffer from the conflict.

For that matter, most of the combatants on either side could be considered victims, whether of religion or politics.

On a seperate note, is it suicide bombing that has destroyed our love affair with terrorism? When I was young, there was a romantic vision of terrorists--they hijacked planes for radical political causes, or what have you. Now, the only thing I hear about them is 'omg suicide bombing!'

Is suicide bombing just such a violation of something primal in us that we can't stop focusing on it? Can anyone explain why we focus on the suicide bombing over all else?

 

[DaMaN]

Regarding neutrality: why do you have to pick one of the two warring sides?

I don't believe we have to stick to the standard definition of black and white: supporting one side in the annihilation of the other (or simply the defeat of the other).

I don't consider myself neutral--I am on the side of the civlians. These are the people that suffer from the conflict.

For that matter, most of the combatants on either side could be considered victims, whether of religion or politics.

I agree, you don't have to pick one of the two warring sides. The point I was trying to make was that if you want to make a distinct change to the balance of what's happening, you essentially have to pick a side. In your case, the side of the civilians is an excellent one.

At this point in time, I feel that the civilians who are suffering the most are those being occupied and bombed, such as those in Lebanon, Palestine, Afghanistan or Iraq. Hence, I choose to side with them and their struggles and give them my solidarity, in the hope that I can swing the balance in their favor.

It is possible to generate change by simply trying to stop all war everywhere, but throughout history, movements with those demands tended never to accomplish anything major. For example, the 60's era demanding U.S. out of Korea succeeded, but the following demands of "Peace, dude" didn't.

On a seperate note, is it suicide bombing that has destroyed our love affair with terrorism? When I was young, there was a romantic vision of terrorists--they hijacked planes for radical political causes, or what have you. Now, the only thing I hear about them is 'omg suicide bombing!'

Is suicide bombing just such a violation of something primal in us that we can't stop focusing on it? Can anyone explain why we focus on the suicide bombing over all else?

I'm not sure. Suicide bombing was hyped up quite a bit after 9/11, but then again almost everything else was too.

It could be that we have an insecurity with death and no real cause, and to see someone so committed to their cause that they would take their own life might make us fearful. But really, I have no idea.

-DaMaN

 

[dys4iK]

I agree, you don't have to pick one of the two warring sides. The point I was trying to make was that if you want to make a distinct change to the balance of what's happening, you essentially have to pick a side. In your case, the side of the civilians is an excellent one.

At this point in time, I feel that the civilians who are suffering the most are those being occupied and bombed, such as those in Lebanon, Palestine, Afghanistan or Iraq. Hence, I choose to side with them and their struggles and give them my solidarity, in the hope that I can swing the balance in their favor.

It is possible to generate change by simply trying to stop all war everywhere, but throughout history, movements with those demands tended never to accomplish anything major. For example, the 60's era demanding U.S. out of Korea succeeded, but the following demands of "Peace, dude" didn't.



I'm not sure. Suicide bombing was hyped up quite a bit after 9/11, but then again almost everything else was too.

It could be that we have an insecurity with death and no real cause, and to see someone so committed to their cause that they would take their own life might make us fearful. But really, I have no idea.

-DaMaN

You make some very fair points.

I suppose the reason I am hesitant to support either side in the Isreali/Palestinian conflict is because it is hard for me to see that either side is supporting the civilians trapped in the middle.

 

[gh0st]

people dont like suicide bombing because it almost always targets civilians and not military targets.

 

[Raziaar]

people dont like suicide bombing because it almost always targets civilians and not military targets.

Yes... you hear more about scores of civilian deaths from suicide bombings than you do military personel deaths.

Busses... trains, dining establishments... all places where CIVILIANS congregate. Only occasionally have I seen reports of military soldiers and facilities targeted.

 

[skarrob]

I think you blame the ones who started it not Israelis.

 

[skarrob]

a couple of nukes in Seria and a couply or 3 in Iran would take care of alot of the problem.

 

[15357]

No regime and/or nation is insane enough to use nukes on another nation today. They know that it would be the mutually assured destruction of humanity as we know it. Ironically, the most destructive weapon created by mankind is the protector of humanity from annihiliation.

Even is they grew insane enough, the collective might of the free world would contain the threat to humanity.

 

[gick]

a couple of nukes in Syria and a couply or 3 in Iran would take care of alot of the problem.

I think that would make the problem considerably worse.

 

[pomegranate]

Ironically, the most destructive weapon created by mankind is the protector of humanity from annihiliation.

Horseshit, if it wasn't for nukes it would be pretty much impossible to wipe out humanity. Yes, a lot of people could be killed with the world's masses of conventional weaponary, but we couldn't be annihilated. With nukes, it's very easy, just let a small proportion of them off and wee no sunshine, irradiated land, no food. Byebye forever.

 

[Sprafa]

a couple of nukes in Seria and a couply or 3 in Iran would take care of alot of the problem.

hell yeah baby.




STALIN SAYS - "NUKE"

 

[Tr0n]

Drop that bomb like it's hot!

 

[Shamrock]

This is my first post ever in the politic forum..

Sounds like Canada is going to get involved in some kind of war! This means World War Three! That means the end of mankind as we know it!

Yay for Armageddon!

 

[DaMaN]

This is my first post ever in the politic forum..

This isn't my first post ever in the politic forum

Sounds like Canada is going to get involved in some kind of war! This means World War Three! That means the end of mankind as we know it!

Actually, Canada is already involved with quite a few current wars:
- Canada currently has 2,400 troops deployed in Afghanistan supporting the occupation in "Canada's own interests", with plans already in place (and, of course, undebated) to send another 2,000.
- Canada helped the overthrow of the democratically elected government of Haiti in 2004, and currently has RCMP officers training the oppressive Haitian police
- Also, despite Canada not officially supporting the Iraq war, Canada is the Number 1 supplier of ammunition to U.S. forces in Iraq. In addition, inserting troops into Afghanistan allows for more U.S. troops to be relocated into Iraq.

Yay for Armageddon!

Indeed...

Though personally I don't think it'll go all the way to total anhilation, if it did, how would the Oil and Arms companies get rich? Since it's in their best interests NOT to kill everything, I don't think they will. (However, I think we can be fairly certain that this trend of invading countries will continue, unfortunately )

-DaMaN

 

[Solaris]

Horseshit, if it wasn't for nukes it would be pretty much impossible to wipe out humanity. Yes, a lot of people could be killed with the world's masses of conventional weaponary, but we couldn't be annihilated. With nukes, it's very easy, just let a small proportion of them off and wee no sunshine, irradiated land, no food. Byebye forever.

Someone doesn't understand M.A.D.

 

[pomegranate]

Someone doesn't understand M.A.D.

I understand M.A.D.
But I disagree with numbers' assertion that nukes prevent humanity from destroying itself. That's simple enough to understand, isn't it?

 

[15357]

Horseshit, if it wasn't for nukes it would be pretty much impossible to wipe out humanity. Yes, a lot of people could be killed with the world's masses of conventional weaponary, but we couldn't be annihilated. With nukes, it's very easy, just let a small proportion of them off and wee no sunshine, irradiated land, no food. Byebye forever.

Yeah, I know what you mean. I'd rather have perpetual war than nukes.

 

[pomegranate]

Yeah, I know what you mean. I'd rather have perpetual war than nukes.

We've got both.

 

[dys4iK]

How do I know it wasn't the Isrealis who started 'it'?

What was it that was started, anyways? Conflict in general isn't anything new, that much is obvious.

I wish it were so simple, but I don't believe that it is.

 

[15357]

We've got both.

At least we don't fight them.

 

[pvtbones]

CBC News- Harper to fly to Cyprus to help with evacuation

Harper to fly to Cyprus to help with evacuation
Last Updated Wed, 19 Jul 2006 11:32:01 EDT
CBC News

Prime Minister Stephen Harper said Wednesday that he intends to go to Cyprus and use a government plane to help Canadians fleeing the fighting in Lebanon.

Prime Minister Stephen Harper: 'It's more than a symbolic trip. There is a need for air support in Cyprus.' (CBC) Prime Minister Stephen Harper: 'It's more than a symbolic trip. There is a need for air support in Cyprus.' (CBC)

Harper said he will try to bring back as many as 120 Canadians using the Canadian Forces plane that took him to Europe earlier in the week.

There are an estimated 50,000 Canadian citizens among the foreigners in Lebanon, many desperate to escape the Israeli military strikes that began after Hezbollah militants crossed the border into Israel on July 12 and attacked an army outpost.

"Because of the seriousness of the situation and our relative proximity to Cyprus, we have decided to take the Canadian Forces aircraft we have been travelling on to help airlift evacuees back home," Harper told reporters.

"It's more than a symbolic trip," Harper said. "There is a need for air support in Cyprus. We believe this is the right thing to do and that's why we are going to do it."

'Stripped down' crew gives more room for evacuees

Harper made the surprise announcement meeting with French President Jacques Chirac in Paris on Wednesday afternoon. Harper is on a week-long trip, visiting Europe and attending a meeting of leaders from the Group of Eight richest industrialized nations in Russia on the weekend.

The plane will be "stripped down" with as few crew members on board as possible to allow for more room for the stranded Canadians, Harper said. The rest of the Canadian delegation and reporters who have been travelling with the prime minister have been told that they cannot stay on the plane for the same reason.

Officials said only Harper's wife, Laureen, and a couple of his communications staff and his official photographer, will fly to Cyprus with him.

The prime minister said he was supposed to return to Canada on Wednesday night but decided to go to Cyprus instead because he believes more action is needed.

Lebanon's only international airport, in Beirut, has been unusable since Israeli planes bombed runways shortly after the fighting began.

A Canadian citizen waits at the port in Beirut for a vessel to ship her out. Some of the estimated 50,000 Canadians in Lebanon have complained that Ottawa's evacuation efforts have been too slow and chaotic. (Mahmoud Tawil/AP) A Canadian citizen waits at the port in Beirut for a vessel to ship her out. Some of the estimated 50,000 Canadians in Lebanon have complained that Ottawa's evacuation efforts have been too slow and chaotic. (Mahmoud Tawil/AP)

Israel pledges safe passage for Canadians

More than 240 people — including eight Canadians — have died in Lebanon after Israel responded to the cross-border raid by sending in planes, troops and tanks. Meanwhile, Hezbollah has fired more than 700 rockets into Israel, killing dozens — including at least one Canadian — and injuring many others.

Harper said he received a call from Israeli Prime Minister Ehud Olmert expressing his condolences for the loss of eight Canadians who were killed in a recent Israeli air strike in southern Lebanon.

Olmert gave assurances to Harper that Israeli officials will ensure the safe passage of Canadians out of Lebanon.

Harper said he also received a call from Australian Prime Minister John Howard. Howard is reportedly seeking help in his country's efforts to evacuate Australians from Lebanon.

Canada starts shipping citizens from Beirut

Canada has chartered seven ships to carry some of its citizens in Lebanon to Cyprus and Turkey, where they will be shipped out on flights home. (CBC) Canada has chartered seven ships to carry some of its citizens in Lebanon to Cyprus and Turkey, where they will be shipped out on flights home. (CBC)

Canada has chartered seven ships to carry citizens in Lebanon to Cyprus and Turkey, where they will be shipped out on flights home.

Harper said the first of those trips, headed to Cyprus, began on Wednesday.

Critics have attacked Harper's government over its response to the crisis, with opposition politicians and ordinary citizens saying Ottawa took too long to establish an evacuation plan.

On Wednesday, hundreds of Canadians waited for hours to receive word from Canadian embassy officials on when they would be able to board ships in Beirut. Many complained about the wait in the heat, saying the situation at the port has been chaotic.

Handfuls of Canadians said on Tuesday and Wednesday they were not waiting for official intervention and planned to make their own ways home. Some Canadians boarded ships arranged by other countries and have already arrived back in Canada.

I'll be honest, I like harper alot more than I did previous PM for this reason alone, he's not just sitting back watching from a television set like some of our politicians would no doubt do.

PS: five bucks says the opposition and media will find something about this to b**** about...

*EDIT* quoted the article and bold the section titles.

 

[CptStern]

it's taken him 5 days to even start evacuation ..I'm glad he's flying in but at the same time I cant forget that he agreed with israels attack on lebanon despite there being 40,000 canadians in harms way

I think Israel's response under the circumstances has been measured.

wtf? some reports are saying as many as 100 dead civilians a day ..how is that "measured"? IMHO he's just too much of a bush lackey. However I do applaud his decision to visit cyprus (even though it's not the same as entering lebanon, you have to ask yourself why)