I am getting tired of the rampant anti-israeli comments on this board

[basketcase]

As far as I can tell, the only "official" info you'll accept is if you and I step into a time machine and watch the events for ourselves.

I'll ignore the red herring of the commando raids because this patrol was clearly not one. (or it was a complete mess of one)

 

[markvee]

Coles Notes

Markvee...

I don't know what you are smoking or drinking... but enjoy it!

But I do wish I could understand you!

Or, maybe not!

Perry

Because you don’t understand me, here is the Coles Notes version:

You debating themexi in this thread was like the climax of “Batman: The Dark Night Returns”, in which Superman fights Batman. Each winds up with a bloody lip and maintains respect for the other.

I quoted all the best exchanges from the thread. These exchanges happened several pages ago, so what we have now is the sequel, “The Dark Knight Strikes Again”. What are you going to do to top Batman vs Superman, debate solitaria, also known as Catwoman? I’m not paying $20 for that.

themexi had the sense to leave this thread when the getting was good, and it’s high time this thread reached it’s logical conclusion of discussing why Frank Miller has a thing for fat women and shemales in Wonderwoman costume.

I’ve included a longer synopsis of “Batman: The Dark Night Returns” below, but you would be better off borrowing or buying a copy for yourself rather than reading my spoilers.

 

[markvee]

Spoiler-ridden synopsis of Frank Miller's "Batman: The Dark Knight Returns"

Bruce Wayne is fifty-ish years old and gave up being Batman 10 years ago after the death of the second Robin, Jason Todd.

Bruce is still a thrill seeker. The story starts with him pin-wheeling a race car across the line in a firey finish. He has given up the fake playboy routine and enjoys some hard liquor with soon-to-retire Police Commissioner Gordon. Bruce won’t discuss Jason or Dick Grayson, the first Robin, who Bruce hasn’t spoken with in years.

Twoface is released from Arkham Asylum after a psychiatrist concludes that plastic surgery has cured his insanity. Twoface goes on a rampage just as Bruce, while watching Zorro (the movie he saw just before his parents were killed) on TV, comes to the realization that Batman must return.

Batman tracks one of Twoface’s thugs back to a hideout, which is Twoface-style half-dirty-half-clean. The thug exclaims that he’s got rights just as Batman steps onto the dirty half and throws him through a window. Batman responds that he counts the rights to make himself feel crazy, but right now, the thug has a severed artery and only Batman to get him to a hospital in time.

Batman defeats Twoface and then the leader of a gang called the Mutants and then Joker. Along the way, he picks up a new Robin, a girl this time. Alfred comes right out and asks Batman if he remembers what happened to Jason. Batman replies that Jason was a good soldier but the war must go on.

Also along the way, the reader learns that Superman is the only practicing hero. The Reaganesque White House allows him to work as a covert agent. All other heroes either retired willingly or Superman was sent to take them down. Superman is off making sure that the US side wins in some Cubanesque conflict while Batman is hitting the scene in Gotham City. The sore loser Soviets hit Superman with a nuke, and Batman leads the people of a blacked-out (in which a powerless jet crashes into a skyscraper – written in 1986) Gotham City to safety.

The powers that be decide that Batman has become too high profile, so they arrange a showdown with the big blue boyscout. Batman beats Superman with kryptonite and then fakes his own death at Superman’s hands. Superman hears Batman’s heart restarting before Robin digs Batman up, but Superman gives her a wink and a smile. Batman is free to return to the caves to train Robin and some disenfranchised mutant gang members.

Don and Ron are a couple of mutant gang members, added for comic relief, who wear “My Name is Don” and “My Name is Ron” T-shirts while entertaining us with mutant-gang-speak like, “I’m no spud! I’m a slicer dicer!” and “Leader’s Billy beserk … My man Bats don’t shiv … He nasty, balls nasty … Leader’s bogging.”

By the way, Catwoman, also pushing fifty, runs an escort service and can barely pack her fat into a Wonderwoman costume, which is likely just for some customer’s sex jollies. What is it about Frank Miller and fat women in Wonderwoman costume? He does the routine again in Sin City with a fat shemale bartender.

 

[sorely]

Hezbollah and Hamas have evil intent but they are impotent compared to Israel and the destruction and death it is responsible for during the same period of time.
.

While I can't comment on the full intent of Hezbollah and Hamas, I understand that a significant part of their strategy is to create a better life for the Palestinians who have been treated quite poorly over the past 60 years.

H&H appear upset at the hypocritic position of the U.S. which pretends to be a fair middleman, but actualy suuports Israel ( poltically and militarily) in a very biased and unbalanced fashion.

The Israelis are no better than H&H, but they have enlisted a stronger and richer ally in the U.S.

Any realistic solution must take into account and deal reasonably with some of the base concerns of Hezbollah, Hamas and the other Arab and muslim peoples.

There was no winner in this skirmish, just a lot of dead innocents on both sides.

 

[Ulyssses]

While I can't comment on the full intent of Hezbollah and Hamas, I understand that a significant part of their strategy is to create a better life for the Palestinians who have been treated quite poorly over the past 60 years.

Really? And how do you think their strategy of attacking Israel as a means of improving the life of the Palestinians and the Lebanese has worked out? Why not call up Lebanon and ask? If any phones still work over there, that is.

If someone poked a bear with a stick then hid behind me when it struck out, I would call that person anything but a friend with my best interest at heart.

Uly

 

[Ulyssses]

I find the fact that you think Israel has justification for whatever they do silly and idiotic. What is ignorant and un-informed about your opinion is it neglects Israel´s role in the conflict even when it is obvious they are doing the exact same thing only on a grander scale. Even the crazy nutjob on the street corner and most of Europe can see that.

SSDD.

Uly

 

[*d*]

Your still a tool - oh sorry if I offended your tender sensibilities - I give you the direct AP quote and you still have to spin. Only foolish people don't understand that the direct phrase "CROSS BORDER RAID" didn't mean Lebanon's border with Syria and should be able to take the word of a top Hezbollah official as to what their action and intent was.

Never the less only people who support weak positions or simply wrong ones resort to this type of argument or spin that you present and I suspect that if I gave you a taped version of it, somehow you would claim that GWB personally edited it. Clearly you have no idea what it takes to get the AP to print a direct quote.

Anyways sorry to hurt your feelings, well not really but I was taught to be somewhat polite to the morally disabled.

bbk

So everything AP says is gospel?? That would mean this AP article on the same subject is also true.
http://www.forbes.com/technology/feeds/ap/2006/07/12/ap2873051.html
It also reads that the soldiers were captured in 'clashes.. across the border..'. But this time it says '..in southern Lebanon'. Of course this is the Associated Press, so its got to be right.
Face it. There's nothing official out there that states which side the Israeli soldiers were captured. And that includes AP's interpretive interview with Komati.
And about the article you quote-- I find it interesting because it's getting the most undeserved run. Faramarzi says that Komati charged 'that Israelis had taken Hezbollah leaders from their homes at night'. This was in the same sentence where Komati supposedly said that the Israeli soldiers were captured at 'a military base'. In the same sentence. Faramarzi, of course, could never had made an interpretive mistake about who was raiding who in this 'cross-border raid', could he? Or where this military base actually was? Yeah, right. So you can believe whichever news article you want that fits your bias opinion. I'll wait for something that's a bit more official.

PS. And than there's this piece -the author is Jerusalem Bureau chief, Julie Stahi.
http://www.cnsnews.com/ViewForeignBureaus.asp?Page=/ForeignBureaus/archive/200607/INT20060712b.html
"The abduction of two Israeli soldiers by Hizballah militants in southern Lebanon was not a terrorist attack but an act of war, Israeli Prime Minister Ehud Olmert said Wednesday(July 12)."

 

[drrogers]

And the beat goes on!

Watch this short video

http://www.aish.com/movies/PhotoFraud.asp

 

[*d*]

AP is not the only source to this fact. Even today both leaders of Iran and Syria mentioned Hezbollah's daring CROSS BORDER RAID.

I really don't know what your game is here - somehow you think this stimulates debate - it's not a debate when one side of the story is just a lie.

Really *d* you need to polish up your debating skills, because either your some pimply faced teen punk or just some twit so tided up and invested in a bigoted cause that you have to rally around any lie you can find.

The issue is not what Olmert said, after all Israel has more than one reason for their attack, and that's what he was talking about - the question I had for you was your idiotic post about the CROSS BORDER RAID not happening.

If you can't confront that fact then your of no use in this debate.


bbk

Of course there is lots of bogus info out there. That's just the point. The news has everyone saying different locations on where the Israeli soldiers were captured. There's nothing official on where exactly this happened -in Israel or Lebanon. And that's a fact. PERIOD.
If you can't confront this fact then you're simply bias. For whatever personal reason, you've picked a side based on ambiguous information.
For those that are interested on the many news sources claiming different locations: http://onlinejournal.com/artman/publish/article_1107.shtml

 

[basketcase]

What does UNIFIL say? They are supposed to be the "official force" watching for violations of the border. Stange the silence from them. Either they were not doing their job or they have reasons not to say what went on.

Most of the sources are very vague about the situation, many are quite possibly misleading based on the use of English, likely from people who it is not the first language.


The last AP quote from the day would according to reason tell the more complete story as information came in.

By late afternoon, at 4:13 p.m., AP's Panossian had completely shifted location: "Hezbollah militants crossed into Israel on Wednesday and captured two Israeli soldiers. Israel responded in southern Lebanon with warplanes, tanks and gunboats, and said eight of its soldiers had been killed in the violence."

Along the same lines

Australia's ABC News (Reuters) on July 13 quoted the IDF: "The sources say the Israeli soldiers had been seized at around 9 a.m. local time across the border from Aita al Shaab, some 15 kilometers from the Mediterranean coast. The Israeli army confirmed that two Israeli soldiers had been captured on the Lebanese frontier. Israeli ground forces crossed into Lebanon to hunt for the missing soldiers, Israeli Army Radio said."

Some of the vague wordings

Israeli sources went almost unnoticed. Cybercast News Service (CNSNews.com) of July 12 said: "The abduction of two Israeli soldiers by Hizbullah militants in southern Lebanon was not a terrorist attack but an act of war, Israeli Prime Minister Ehud Olmert said Wednesday."

This could mean either the action took place in Lebanon or that the militants were from Lebanon. Similarily,

Voice of America, Jerusalem, on July 12 said: "Speaking to reporters outside the Israeli Foreign Ministry, spokesman Mark Regev says Hezbollah is responsible for the violence. "It appears we have an escalation in the North," he said. "It is very clear that the escalation started on the Lebanese side of the border, and Israel will respond appropriately."

This can be rephrased as "the events were instigated by those on the Lebanese side..."
or,

In his article "Casus Belli," IDF Brigadier General Moshe Yaalon wrote: "The present crisis was initiated -- in Gaza by Hamas and in southern Lebanon by Hezbollah -- from lands that are not under Israeli occupation." New Republic, July 31

Initiated as in planned, organized, and implemented by Hezbollah based Lebanon?

Any of these three can easily be supporting the top two quotes but from someone who is not fully comfortable in English; a reasonable assumption in the region.

The only sources that clearly claim that the events took place in Lebanon are from Hamas and Hezbollah. They wouldn't have a reason to lie would they?

 

[*d*]

What does UNIFIL say? They are supposed to be the "official force" watching for violations of the border. Stange the silence from them. Either they were not doing their job or they have reasons not to say what went on.

Most of the sources are very vague about the situation, many are quite possibly misleading based on the use of English, likely from people who it is not the first language.


The last AP quote from the day would according to reason tell the more complete story as information came in.

Along the same lines


Some of the vague wordings

This could mean either the action took place in Lebanon or that the militants were from Lebanon. Similarily,
This can be rephrased as "the events were instigated by those on the Lebanese side..."
or,

Initiated as in planned, organized, and implemented by Hezbollah based Lebanon?

Any of these three can easily be supporting the top two quotes but from someone who is not fully comfortable in English; a reasonable assumption in the region.

The only sources that clearly claim that the events took place in Lebanon are from Hamas and Hezbollah. They wouldn't have a reason to lie would they?

Misleading, vague, assumption, rephrased, lie.. -that pretty well sums up how this subject has been covered. And Hezbollah is no exception. They could be lying. But then wouldn't Israel also gain credibility for their cause if they simply let the assumption fly that the cross-border raid happened on Israeli soil? Personally, I think cross-border raids have been frequent --in both directions. But that's not official info.

 

[bver_hunter]

What does UNIFIL say? They are supposed to be the "official force" watching for violations of the border. Stange the silence from them. Either they were not doing their job or they have reasons not to say what went on.

Is that why Israel bombed them on two separate occasions, killing a Canadian soldier plus three other UN soldiers and wounding some of the Indian soldiers in a separate incident? Then a couple more UNIFIL civilians were killed in Tyre.

 

[basketcase]

Is that why Israel bombed them on two separate occasions, killing a Canadian soldier plus three other UN soldiers and wounding some of the Indian soldiers in a separate incident? Then a couple more UNIFIL civilians were killed in Tyre.

1: UNIFIL civilians? Is that an oxymoron?

2: Don't know what this quote has to do with my question. Your topic has already been debated at length in another thread.

 

[smyth]

Kidnapped in Israel or Captured in Lebanon?

http://www.antiwar.com/frank/?articleid=9401

 

[bver_hunter]

1: UNIFIL civilians? Is that an oxymoron?

2: Don't know what this quote has to do with my question. Your topic has already been debated at length in another thread.

They exist you know, Mr know it all!!

One Sri Lankan the source indicates they are UNIFIL civilian staff, and there is no evidence that a second Nigerian couple was killed in an Israeli bombing.[10]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Casualties_of_the_2006_Israel-Lebanon_conflict

2) Precisely, as you wondered what they were doing there, as if to say they were taking sides with Lebanon & Hezbollah!!

 

[basketcase]

...
2) Precisely, as you wondered what they were doing there, as if to say they were taking sides with Lebanon & Hezbollah!!

My question was a valid question. What were the UNIFIL troops doing? If they were fulfilling their mandate (which has been a joke anyways), they should know what happened. If they were not, I would assume it was not because of incompetance or dereliction of duty. That only leaves two possibilities. They either saw it and aren't saying anything (under pressure from Koffi?) or that Hezbollah (and their extremely limited mandate) was preventing them from fulfilling their observer mission and are staying quiet on that matter (not including the subtle comments of our dead soldier).

I'd say it's an extremely valid question.

 

[*d*]

Nobody but you disputes the fact that Hezbollah did a CROSS BORDER RAID.

Fact?? LOL!! Have you read any other articles from across the world? You'd be hard pressed to prove it a fact. I can't, but I'm still looking.
From the Online Journal link that I already posted:

by Trish Schuh, Online Journal article and interview with Ibrahium Mousawi, chief editor of foreign news at Hezbollah's al Manar TV(Mousawi being Hezbollah's spokesperson through most of the conflict)--

Hezbollah's position had been cited in the Jerusalem Post of July 12 : "Hizbullah leader Sheikh Hassan Nasrallah said the timing of the capture of two Israeli soldiers in southern Lebanon on Wednesday would boost the position of Palestinians in Gaza."

It was a view Hezbollah spokesman Ibrahim Mousawi had reiterated to me on July 16 by phone. He insisted that the crisis occurred on the Lebanese side of the border "in front of the village of Ayt Al Shaab" adjacent to a military post.

On August 2, I discussed the kidnapping issue again with Hezbollah's Mousawi in Beirut.

Q: We spoke earlier on July 16, 2006, about this issue and I would like to make it official. The Lebanese Army has claimed that the Israeli soldiers captured on July 12, 2006, were captured in Lebanon, not Israel as we hear in the US. Were they caught inside Israel or Lebanon?

A: How can you possibly say Israel? This is an occupied land, occupied Palestine.

Q: All right. Was it in occupied Palestine or Lebanon?

A: It was in Lebanon, on the border.

Q: On the border -- what town? Where was it near?

A: There is no town. It was a military post.

Q: Did Hezbollah cross over into Israel?

A: This has never been claimed by Hezbollah- only on the border. And don't say Israel -- its occupied Palestine.

Now of course, this is just another news release and just another Hezbollah spokesperson, but clearly he quotes that the Israeli soldiers were captured in Lebanon. Do you believe it? You must if you believe Faramarzi's interpretive interview with Komati. Or does this particular article not suit your prejudice agenda?

On this issue you have lost all credibility, and I suspect most of the rest of your posts are full of BS. I have no time for for people who try to start silly and false arguments. A two year old does that better than you *d*
bbk

So, if you're only shooting insults without backing your argument with real facts then obviously you have NO credibility at all, you're just being bias and my debate with you is over. All I wanted were some official facts.

 

[basketcase]

So Hezbollah's claims mean that it happened in Lebanon? Where is the critical analysis you have included.

 

[bver_hunter]

My question was a valid question. What were the UNIFIL troops doing? If they were fulfilling their mandate (which has been a joke anyways), they should know what happened. If they were not, I would assume it was not because of incompetance or dereliction of duty. That only leaves two possibilities. They either saw it and aren't saying anything (under pressure from Koffi?) or that Hezbollah (and their extremely limited mandate) was preventing them from fulfilling their observer mission and are staying quiet on that matter (not including the subtle comments of our dead soldier).

I'd say it's an extremely valid question.

Don't you remember that the Israelis warned that any vehicle that moved was a potential target be it ambulances or UN observer trucks. Did you not see on TV how ambulances and other Lebanese medical cars and vans were destroyed. For heaven's sake, the UN buildings were hit and they sported large UN insignias. In the first couple of days when the UN reported first hand of how shocked they were at the scale and brutality of the bombing, little did they know that they were going to be the next target of the indiscriminate bombing from Israeli jets. They did not manage to venture far enough after that. I did not hear of Hezbollah bullets or missiles that were aimed at the UN compound. Did you?

 

[*d*]

So Hezbollah's claims mean that it happened in Lebanon? Where is the critical analysis you have included.

I have no critical analysis proving it happened in Lebanon. Nor do I have any that it happened in Israel. That's the point. I'm simply looking for more official info either way. Choosing a side based on conflicting and possibly bias news reports just don't cut it for me.