QuoteOriginally posted by: brontosaurusQuoteOriginally posted by: Marsden I don't want Israel wiped off of the map, thanksMars I would wager you are a descendant of a nation called Amalek.Are you threatening my life, brontosaurus?

QuoteOriginally posted by: menceyQuoteOriginally posted by: DavidFOn the contrary to our neighbours, we do not resolve problems by killing people...No? really? ............. There was never a civil war in Lebanon who cost the lifes of more than 100.000 people, it was all an invention of the western pupy dog press isn't it? Man, You are really funny !!!! ........................... RFOLThere was a civil war in Lebanon caused by the successive invasions of the PLO, Israel and Syria, each of them manipulating some Lebanese political movements...

QuoteOriginally posted by: migalleyQuoteOriginally posted by: DavidFQuoteOriginally posted by: migalleyQuoteOriginally posted by: DavidFQuoteOriginally posted by: migalleyQuoteOriginally posted by: DavidFQuoteOriginally posted by: gardener3QuoteOriginally posted by: balajiHizbullah's attacks stem from Israeli incursions into LebanonThe fundamental obstacle to understanding the Arab-Israeli conflict is that we have given up on asking what is right and wrong, instead asking what is "practical" and "realistic." I am not sure if I agree with this. Understanding international law and people's legal and moral rights is part of the solution, but at the end of the day what you need is to create political consensus, otherwise as a former Israeli foreign minister said you end up just writing poetry instead of peace deals. Right of return, for instance, is a legal, moral right, but some compromise is required on this issue, otherwise there will just be more misery for the palestinians.Right of return is a necessity. This exodus of Palestinian refugees has created abnormal situations not in Palestine but in fully sovereign, recognized and established countries. Jordanians have been stolen their country by Palestinians (who are today more than 50% of the population in Jordan). Lebanon has to support 400 000 Palestinian refugees (it's just enormous in a country of 3.5 millions people) that constitue a menace to the mere existance of Lebanon as it has been constitutionnally founded.Those sovereign countries do not have to endure for eternity the consequences of Israel's displacement of the Palestinians...If you don't like the Palestinians, and don't want to put up with them for ever, then kick them out of your country.Which one of our neighbour will let the border open to allow us kick them out ? Israel or Syria ?You've got a coastline, so you can push them in the sea. A simple solution to a simple problem.On the contrary to our neighbours, we do not resolve problems by killing people...Well, then you'll be stuck with this Palestinian problem. You only have yourself to blame if you are presented with a solution and you refuse to implement it.There is a UN resolution on this point basically stating that the one who created the problem must implement a solution. Palestinians should return to Palestine.

QuoteOriginally posted by: DavidFQuoteOriginally posted by: migalleyQuoteOriginally posted by: DavidFQuoteOriginally posted by: migalleyQuoteOriginally posted by: DavidFQuoteOriginally posted by: migalleyQuoteOriginally posted by: DavidFQuoteOriginally posted by: gardener3QuoteOriginally posted by: balajiHizbullah's attacks stem from Israeli incursions into LebanonThe fundamental obstacle to understanding the Arab-Israeli conflict is that we have given up on asking what is right and wrong, instead asking what is "practical" and "realistic." I am not sure if I agree with this. Understanding international law and people's legal and moral rights is part of the solution, but at the end of the day what you need is to create political consensus, otherwise as a former Israeli foreign minister said you end up just writing poetry instead of peace deals. Right of return, for instance, is a legal, moral right, but some compromise is required on this issue, otherwise there will just be more misery for the palestinians.Right of return is a necessity. This exodus of Palestinian refugees has created abnormal situations not in Palestine but in fully sovereign, recognized and established countries. Jordanians have been stolen their country by Palestinians (who are today more than 50% of the population in Jordan). Lebanon has to support 400 000 Palestinian refugees (it's just enormous in a country of 3.5 millions people) that constitue a menace to the mere existance of Lebanon as it has been constitutionnally founded.Those sovereign countries do not have to endure for eternity the consequences of Israel's displacement of the Palestinians...If you don't like the Palestinians, and don't want to put up with them for ever, then kick them out of your country.Which one of our neighbour will let the border open to allow us kick them out ? Israel or Syria ?You've got a coastline, so you can push them in the sea. A simple solution to a simple problem.On the contrary to our neighbours, we do not resolve problems by killing people...Well, then you'll be stuck with this Palestinian problem. You only have yourself to blame if you are presented with a solution and you refuse to implement it.There is a UN resolution on this point basically stating that the one who created the problem must implement a solution. Palestinians should return to Palestine.What is it about Lebanon that it has solutions to its problems, and yet doesn't take the easy way out of its problems?You have a problem with Hezbollah. Do you do anything about it? No!You say you have a problem with Palestinians. Do you do anything about it? No!Why don't you take responsibility for control of your own nation rather than getting other people to sort things out for you? You've got an army, use it for fuck's sake.

I agree with migally in his last post,.... you had full international support to the cedar revolution, everyody would have help your army to control the south of your country...... maybe that's why hezbulla had to destabilize the country once again

QuoteOriginally posted by: menceyI agree with migally in his last post,.... you had full international support to the cedar revolution, everyody would have help your army to control the south of your country...... maybe that's why hezbulla had to destabilize the country once againWhat no one here dares to understand is that:1. Disarming Hezbollah by force would have provoked a civilian war, which is the worse thing that can happen to a country. It is out of question in Lebanon to impose a decision by force to any of the leading communities. Its disarming was actually under negociation in a national consensual process, and the best thing the international community and Israel could have done to help this process would have been an unilateral withdrawing of the Shebaa farms and Kfarshouba hills, throwing away the argument that resistance is justified since part of Lebanese land is still occupied.2. The presence of Hezbollah in the govermnent is normal, on the contrary its absence would have been wrong. Hezbollah do not hold any majority in the Lebanese parliament, it just has about 15/128 deputies in the Parliament where absolute majority is held by the 14 march forces who were the driving power of the Cedar revolution. But Lebanese democracy is based on the compromise between the communities and the representation of all of them, it is a consensual democracy rather than a democracy "a la Française" (like French) based upon the absolute power of the majority. It would have been suiciding the mere principle of the country to ignore the leading shiite party when forming the government.3. Whereas the appeals to disarm militias formulated by some Europeans countries are justified since in their system of values weapons must be controlled only by government agents, such an appeal is ridiculous from a country where forming militias is a constitutionnal right.4. Hezbollah is not Hamas, what he is accused of is a military action against Israeli soldiers, not a suicide bombhing in an Israeli supermarket. Concerning the rockets hitting Israel, it is just an ordinary counter attack when Lebanon is under massive bombings by Israel. A part of what is happening in Lebanon is a war between Israel and a conventionnal guerilla, and the rhetorics of "war against terror" has nothing to do with reality there. The rest is just a massive destruction of civilian homes and economic infrastructures with absolutely no justification.5. Instead of stating that the operation of Hezbollah on Israeli land started the war, it could also very well be said that it was started by Israeli Air Force flights violating the airspace of a sovereign state every week since the 80s. For any western country, a violation of airspace by warplanes would have been considered a war declaration.I would like you here please to look objectively at the facts and find that there is a clear "spread" between Israeli and US official statements and the reality.

hezbollah kills bunnies as well as israelis

QuoteOriginally posted by: DavidF1. Disarming Hezbollah by force would have provoked a civilian war, which is the worse thing that can happen to a country.No. According to half the people, Hezbollah being disarmed would be worse than a civil war. Which is why they would prefer civil war over disarmament.Anyway I have to say again, what a bunch of losers and idiots that find themselves in such a predicament.

QuoteOriginally posted by: DavidFQuoteOriginally posted by: menceyI agree with migally in his last post,.... you had full international support to the cedar revolution, everyody would have help your army to control the south of your country...... maybe that's why hezbulla had to destabilize the country once againWhat no one here dares to understand is that:1. Disarming Hezbollah by force would have provoked a civilian war, which is the worse thing that can happen to a country. It is out of question in Lebanon to impose a decision by force to any of the leading communities. Its disarming was actually under negociation in a national consensual process, and the best thing the international community and Israel could have done to help this process would have been an unilateral withdrawing of the Shebaa farms and Kfarshouba hills, throwing away the argument that resistance is justified since part of Lebanese land is still occupied.2. The presence of Hezbollah in the govermnent is normal, on the contrary its absence would have been wrong. Hezbollah do not hold any majority in the Lebanese parliament, it just has about 15/128 deputies in the Parliament where absolute majority is held by the 14 march forces who were the driving power of the Cedar revolution. But Lebanese democracy is based on the compromise between the communities and the representation of all of them, it is a consensual democracy rather than a democracy "a la Française" (like French) based upon the absolute power of the majority. It would have been suiciding the mere principle of the country to ignore the leading shiite party when forming the government.3. Whereas the appeals to disarm militias formulated by some Europeans countries are justified since in their system of values weapons must be controlled only by government agents, such an appeal is ridiculous from a country where forming militias is a constitutionnal right.4. Hezbollah is not Hamas, what he is accused of is a military action against Israeli soldiers, not a suicide bombhing in an Israeli supermarket. Concerning the rockets hitting Israel, it is just an ordinary counter attack when Lebanon is under massive bombings by Israel. A part of what is happening in Lebanon is a war between Israel and a conventionnal guerilla, and the rhetorics of "war against terror" has nothing to do with reality there. The rest is just a massive destruction of civilian homes and economic infrastructures with absolutely no justification.5. Instead of stating that the operation of Hezbollah on Israeli land started the war, it could also very well be said that it was started by Israeli Air Force flights violating the airspace of a sovereign state every week since the 80s. For any western country, a violation of airspace by warplanes would have been considered a war declaration.I would like you here please to look objectively at the facts and find that there is a clear "spread" between Israeli and US official statements and the reality.ZZZZZZZZZZZZZzzzzzzzzzzz.....

QuoteOriginally posted by: farmerQuoteOriginally posted by: DavidF1. Disarming Hezbollah by force would have provoked a civilian war, which is the worse thing that can happen to a country.No. According to half the people, Hezbollah being disarmed would be worse than a civil war. Which is why they would prefer civil war over disarmament.Anyway I have to say again, what a bunch of losers and idiots that find themselves in such a predicament.Spot on!

QuoteOriginally posted by: DavidF1. Disarming Hezbollah by force would have provoked a civilian war, which is the worse thing that can happen to a country. It is out of question in Lebanon to impose a decision by force to any of the leading communities.This contradicts your earlier insistence that Lebanon is a democracy.QuoteOriginally posted by: DavidFthe best thing the international community and Israel could have done to help this process would have been an unilateral withdrawing of the Shebaa farms and Kfarshouba hillsHah, I didn't know muslims celebrated Christmas. Why help them, when it's cheaper just to bomb the losers? Who gives a fuck if they have a civil war, just don't throw your dumb firecrackers at Israel.For all I care, you idiot Lebanese can go stick your heads in some Hezbollah guy's toilet and flush it.

QuoteOriginally posted by: farmerQuoteOriginally posted by: DavidF1. Disarming Hezbollah by force would have provoked a civilian war, which is the worse thing that can happen to a country. It is out of question in Lebanon to impose a decision by force to any of the leading communities.This contradicts your earlier insistence that Lebanon is a democracy.Democracy do not mean that 65% of the population have the right to impose their will to 35% of the others. They can legally pass laws in the Parliament of course, but it is not the way Lebanon works. In Lebanon, strategic decisions are made after a consensus between all the communities. The Christians and the Sunnis can ally to have majority, but cannot impose disarming Hezbollah without consentment of the Shiites. As well, the Christians and the Shiites can ally and have majority, but they cannot ask for example for a return of the Syrian army without the acceptance of the Sunnis. Strategic questions are always resolved by the way of compromise, never of some majority imposing its will to a community who massively disagrees.

QuoteOriginally posted by: DavidFQuoteOriginally posted by: farmerQuoteOriginally posted by: DavidF1. Disarming Hezbollah by force would have provoked a civilian war, which is the worse thing that can happen to a country. It is out of question in Lebanon to impose a decision by force to any of the leading communities.This contradicts your earlier insistence that Lebanon is a democracy.Democracy do not mean that 65% of the population have the right to impose their will to 35% of the others. They can legally pass laws in the Parliament of course, but it is not the way Lebanon works. In Lebanon, strategic decisions are made after a consensus between all the communities. The Christians and the Sunnis can ally to have majority, but cannot impose disarming Hezbollah without consentment of the Shiites. As well, the Christians and the Shiites can ally and have majority, but they cannot ask for example for a return of the Syrian army without the acceptance of the Sunnis. Strategic questions are always resolved by the way of compromise, never of some majority imposing its will to a community who massively disagrees.And I want to add that this is what allows Lebanon to be the only country on Earth being a democracy without having a dominant community. All countries without a dominant community, on the exception of Lebanon, either held but were dictatorships or just exploded (example: Syria vs Iraq today).

QuoteOriginally posted by: DavidFStrategic questions are always resolved by the way of compromiseResolved? It's just an armed showdown. Sometimes they fight, sometimes one side backs away temporarily. But democracy - which involves "tyranny of the majority" instead of tyranny of the armed (which is thugocracy) - it is not.

QuoteOriginally posted by: farmerQuoteOriginally posted by: DavidFStrategic questions are always resolved by the way of compromiseResolved? It's just an armed showdown. Sometimes they fight, sometimes one side backs away temporarily. But democracy - which involves "tyranny of the majority" instead of tyranny of the armed (which is thugocracy) - it is not.Democracy means that political power is held by the people. It is the case in Lebanon where all decision makers are elected through universal vote. It does not mean that the elected deputies have to act like forming a majority to impose their will. If the elected deputies decide to reach a consensus rather than passing a law by force, it is their decision and does not mean that Lebanon is not a democracy.