Here seems to be a collection of fine IDF ladies, thoughts?

they can interrogate me any day.

ps. go israel! smash those lebs w00t

well i dont know but personally i wonder if someone will ever finish up with the final solution ...

not likely since those jews are packin deagles now

f*** yeah go israel

WTF, Isreal bombing the f*** out of Lebanon because a coule of Isreali soldiers were abducted by a terrorist group? f*** off you jewish c***s. I hate lebs as much as the next man but this is out of hand. Asians and arabs aren't allowed to even OWN weapons, yet a bunch of Jews can start bombing other people and the world police leave them alone? f*** that.

On a lighter note, plenty of hotties there. Of course there's gonna be a fair share of attractive women in the Isreal Defense Force since they have compulsory military service. They should rename it to the "Jews bomb other people and get away with it force" though.

yeah i didnt really want to get all politcal as im quite against what theyve done so far as well, like they say a long lasting peace has rarely been achieved through violent means and israel arent making things better

Sucks to be Lebanon

Some remind me of natalie portman, who was born in Israel.

Damn, some of them are glamours.

Although the uniform looks like complete ass and very messy.

isn't the lebs government basically a terrorist group anyway?

not really paveway, they seem to be pretty good people but obviously dont have enough power/backing to rid of hesbollah that has been in lebanon for years now

if you look back into the 70's or was it even 60's Jordan had a similair problem where the PLA took over and tried a coup detat on King Hussein, well it failed and there was sort of a civil war to cleanse the country of the terrorist PLA

anyway its so far away from here guess its a bit like who cares?

The whole reason for going into lebanon was to put pressure on hizbollah to release 2 of their israeli captives yet israel themselves have hundreds of palestinian prisoners that they wont release in return. While they continue to bomb the f*** outta lebanon hundreds of leb civilians die in comparison to the few random israelies getting taken out.

I'm no hizbollah supporter but anything over those stuck up jew f***s that somehow think they can do whatever they want.

Then on the side of the world you have bush having a convo with blair saying "get syria to get hizbolla to stop this s*** and it's all over". I mean cmon wtf does he care f***ing dumn c***.

last edited by Booyah at 09:57:45 20/Jul/06

yeah its really dumb by israel to do this, the civilians should not be held responsible for hezbollahs actions :/

This thread promises to be interesting. I look forward to bigotry and racism getting heaps of people banned permanently.

If you can't comment on this without doing it rationally, then prepare to get f***ed off this forum forever.

I look forward to bigotry and racism

is that towards any race in particular that you already have in mind?

Meh, sorry Trog. But really, if you look at how the US and Jews are treating Arabs, it's a no brainer as to why they hate the west so much :(

I just think it's bullcrap how the US polices teh world so much, yet lets Isreal bomb the crap out of innocent people. Plus the jews are being total dicks about it and not cooperating with us to help us get Aussies out of the way safely. ::Clicky::

is that towards any race in particular that you already have in mind?

That's right, any race

Palastine people on beach get bombed for no reason by Israel and that is not terrorisim? This happened a month or more ago. Israel and the US are by far some of the biggest terroist nations in the world. And before you say I am wrong go read your history about what these 2 c***ries have done.

This what the US defines as terrorism, how are they not doing this themselves. If you want to stop terrorism stop participating in it.

Terrorism is defined by the US Department of Defense as "the unlawful use of -- or threatened use of -- force or violence against individuals or property to coerce or intimidate governments or societies, often to achieve political, religious, or ideological objectives."

what qt's!

ps israel did not touch lebanon until Hezbollah kidnapped their soldiers. why?!

if you f*** with the bull you get the horns.

last edited by infi at 10:27:36 20/Jul/06

On topic, there's something hot about chicks with assault rifles

hot israeli soldier chick: "drop your drawers."

me: "or else?"

hot israeli soldier chick: "i shoot."

me: drops drawers

Hey trog would I be able to respond to:

ps israel did not touch lebanon until Hezbollah kidnapped their soldiers. why?!

With something from wikipedia such as:

In 1982, Israel launched an attack against Lebanon, which had been embroiled in the Lebanese Civil War since 1975. The official reason for the attack was to defend Israel's northernmost settlements from terrorist attacks, which had been occurring frequently. However, after establishing a forty-kilometer barrier zone, the IDF continued northward and even captured the capital, Beirut. Israeli forces expelled Palestinian Liberation Organization forces from the country, forcing the organization to relocate to Tunis. Unable to deal with the stress of the ongoing war, Prime Minister Begin resigned from his post in 1983 and was replaced by Yitzhak Shamir. Though Israel withdrew from most of Lebanon in 1986, a buffer zone was maintained until May 2000 when Israel unilaterally withdrew from Lebanon.

Or are we just sticking to the fact that the chicks are hot?

as long as you don't call them rude names you can say whatever you want that's going to contribute to an interesting debate

ps israel did not touch lebanon until Hezbollah kidnapped their soldiers. why?!

and that justfies israel bombing an entire country from air, ground and sea not taking into account civillians, how?!

"Horrible deplorable violence is fine as long as nobody says any naughty words!"
"Blame Is-Ra-el!
Their not even a real country anyway ...."

last edited by Xy at 10:43:11 20/Jul/06

Everyone in that region is crazy ... but I don't care how crazy you are ... the way Israel f***ed up Egypts s*** should have been enough of a warning to say "don't mess with these psychos"

hezbollah: *whack*
israel: quit it
hezbollah: *whack*
israel: quit it
hezbollah: *whack*
israel: *WWWHHAACCKKK*

Lebanon 'has been torn to shreds' from the BBC.

Fouad Siniora said more than 300 people had been killed and 500,000 others displaced in a week of Israeli attacks......
Israel said a wave of aircraft dropped 23 tonnes of explosives on a bunker in south Beirut where Hezbollah leaders, possibly including senior leader Sheikh Hassan Nasrallah, where believed to hiding.

You're right that is a fairly large "*WWWHHAACCKKK*"

Hmmmm ^^

where believed to hiding

Don't let the good quality journalistic writing get in the way of the point.

Everyone in that region is crazy ... but I don't care how crazy you are ... the way Israel f***ed up Egypts s*** should have been enough of a warning to say "don't mess with these psychos"

Apparently that had alot to do with egypt being much weaker militarily than now. Egypt recieves aid from the US as well so apparently, they wouldnt want to get involved again as well... since that would end.

Then on the side of the world you have bush having a convo with blair saying "get syria to get hizbolla to stop this s*** and it's all over". I mean cmon wtf does he care f***ing dumn c***.

It is becuase America is so heavily tied into Israel. The very wealthy Jewish community in America gives alot to the Government or to candidate campaigns as well as having many Jewish senators/whatever they are called in the US. If they didnt help Israel they would all take a s*** on the government and it would be trouble. So they stay highly tied to them. Its that pressure that probably got the US to drop them in the middle of the east in the first place and to continue supporting them with militry getup. (which is why they are so strong, though amazingly israel has so much money that they have developed alot of major hardware themselves.... I didnt realise the desert eagle even, is israely made)

Not just that, but they have also ordered more M1a2 main battle tanks than even amaerica is making for its own defensive purposes...

Their womenz are indeed fine though,
A good steal from the Gen[M]ay forums indeed :)

lebanon is protecting hezbollah and hezbollah are hiding offensive rockets in residential buildings. any country of civilians which doesn't uprise and throw those terrorists out is asking for trouble.

re the 1982 invasion, are u saying that lebanon is only now retaliating, as i am referring to the origins of this most recent conflict over the last 2 weeks?

last edited by infi at 11:27:49 20/Jul/06

No, I'm just saying the history between the countries runs far too deep to simplify the reasons behind the conflict to one incident.

well that is agreed for sure!

They are definetly hot womanz!

i was going to raise this topic myself, but was scared of how it would turn out here

i dont know what the solution is

all i know is its a mess and i blame religion

i dont like terrorist organisations, but i dont like innocents being bombed either

cant see a happy solution to this at all

i cant even comprehend living in a city that is getting bombed
what if my car got hit?!??!?!?

why don't they just
-return the soldiers; and
-put away their misiles and israel will leave them alone.

or is that too simple?

spook your car would probably come in handy over there. they would call its SPOOKS ARK and you could sail many people to safety in one go. HOORAAHH

How could spooks car not get hit.

ROFL @ http://i62.photobucket.com/albums/h90/csite/16.jpg

:*(

moving right along...

Apparently that had alot to do with egypt being much weaker militarily than now.

actually egypt was the largest and most heavily equipped Arab army of the time. on paper the arabs had clear superiority in troops, heavy arms and firepower (in both six-day war and arab-israeli war).
it was just that the israelis had to fight like madc***s or be wiped off the map.

Six Day War
Israel vs Egypt, Syria, Jordan, Lebanon, Iraq
result: Israel annihilated them, plus claimed new territory.

seef the arabs really want to get down and dirty with israel again, but some analysts are already predicting its all going to blow out to WWIII.

doubt it, but scary s*** anyway.

http://i62.photobucket.com/albums/h90/csite/32.jpg
I would like to invade her land

Six Day War
Israel vs Egypt, Syria, Jordan, Lebanon, Iraq
result: Israel annihilated them, plus claimed new territory.

seef the arabs really want to get down and dirty with israel again, but some analysts are already predicting its all going to blow out to WWIII.

On paper is rite, my mom's Cousin 'faught' in that war, one time he was talking about the war, he said they sent them out there with out ammo..that 'war' was a joke pure and simple.

on wonder they lost...also it kinda helped that israle had the US, France, England, Australia all helping..

this wont blow out into anything...if were going to it would have done so...im sory to say it but the arab leaders only care about Theire own asses

and im sure sme people wont agree with me but thats why i think this war just need to end full stop just friggen sign some peace agreement and let the people live theire lives..cause the situation now is just stupid.

last edited by TufNuT at 12:49:19 20/Jul/06

That middle east s*** is really messed up.

Israel is one seriously badarse animal though. The authority with which they've dominated this conflict is a pretty big eye opener, and is probably intended to be.

Do a bit of a Wiki on Zionism and the history of Israel and regardless of your opinion or background you have to admit that the Jews have been smashed around the park pretty heavily since about AD 70.

I guess now that they finally have some land back they're scary crazy about keeping it.

Nice womens though!

peace could have occured ages ago when israel offered palestine 99% of their claim over the disputed lands.

then Israel pull out of gaza without an agreement. how much do these guys want!

I think its more correct that syria and iran are eggin these guys on and its the lebanese who are gettig killed. very sad.

Where do i sign up? I wanna give it to them 'leb style'.

peace could have occured ages ago when israel offered palestine 99% of their claim over the disputed lands

if im thinking about the same thing you are then you know that it was a JEW who assasanted the Israli president at the time because they dont want peace..and after that the new israli leaders backed out i think.

no tufnut he was talking about back in the 40's when israel proclaimed itself to exist and how then they proceeded to wipe out arab villages, instilling fear into the population so that then there was a refugee crisis that still stands today where there are thousands of 'palestinians' living in exile in neighbouring countries without a place to call a home ...

oh wait

Man that whole situation is way too f***ed up for me to even pretend I know anything about the history/causation behind it. But srsly, f*** with israel and you get f***ed twice as hard. You'd think people would've figured that out by now.

edit: spelling lol

last edited by taggs at 13:37:50 20/Jul/06

back in the 40's when israel proclaimed itself to exist

Back in the fourties palistine which included all of modern israel was a british protectorate. Isreal didn't anouce itself it was given to the jews by a UN security council resolution. It only happened because Hitler knocked off a few jews and everyone wanted to clear their colective conscience. If it wasn't for the old testament saying that Israel was for gods people it simply wouldn't have happened.

On the news hour last night Henry Kissinger and the former National Security Advisor both said the way forward was to recognise Hamas. Like it or not the US insisted on elections its not up to the US to decide if they made the right choice.

You'd chose to be there if it wasnt compulsory.

no the 99% deal was actually during the outbreak of the intifada (so that was around 1999-2000). it was a genuine attempt at peace.

thomas friedman's column in the new york times discusses it frequently.

The entire middle east has always been riddled with wars and conflict internationally and within each other. That's just what the west wants. Could you imagine all of north africa including saudi arabia and the gulf all united as one, a bit like the european union?... Israel wouldn't dare do s***. But you can also thank traitor arab leaders like king fahad, abdullah and hussien for selling themselves out for occupation "protection" by american forces.

Pussy Puppets.

last edited by Booyah at 13:54:29 20/Jul/06

Kind of like if all the Ga'uld joined forces instead of bikering with each other, they would smack Earths arse sooo harrrd.

:D

Kind of like if all the Ga'uld joined forces instead of bikering with each other, they would smack Earths arse sooo harrrd.

lol

the wraith might turn out to be the same.

But you can also thank traitor arab leaders like king fahad, abdullah and hussien for selling themselves out for occupation "protection" by american forces.

I don't know s*** about s***, but it seems to me that the chances of the Muslim community uniting, with or without external influences, is basically zero anyway, right?

On topic, there's something hot about chicks with assault rifles

yeh and some of those ladies were attractive, but I dunno if it's the uniforms or the body language in some of the pics but I reckon there is some serious 'girl on girl' action happening in the trenches somewhere.....not that there's anything wrong with that.

:P

last edited by Psycho! at 14:09:41 20/Jul/06

I posted this in a new thread orignally, I didn't realise this moved from hot Israeli military chicks to a discussion of the conflict. Sorry trog. Anyways, I read this report the other day from Stratfor, a well respected Intelligence/Analyst group, which outlines the current situation in the Middle East and what they expect to come from it. Seems to be well written and free of racial bashing, as well as making sense.

Middle East Crisis: Backgrounder
Israel lives with three realities: geographic, demographic and cultural. Geographically, it is at a permanent disadvantage, lacking strategic depth. It does enjoy the advantage of interior lines -- the ability to move forces rapidly from one front to another. Demographically, it is on the whole outnumbered, although it can achieve local superiority in numbers by choosing the time and place of war. Its greatest advantage is cultural. It has a far greater mastery of the technology and culture of war than its neighbors.

Two of the realities cannot be changed. Nothing can be done about geography or demography. Culture can be changed. It is not inherently the case that Israel will have a technological or operational advantage over its neighbors. The great inherent fear of Israel is that the Arabs will equal or surpass Israeli prowess culturally and therefore militarily. If that were to happen, then all three realities would turn against Israel and Israel might well be at risk.

That is why the capture of Israeli troops, first one in the south, then two in the north, has galvanized Israel. The kidnappings represent a level of Arab tactical prowess that previously was the Israeli domain. They also represent a level of tactical slackness on the Israeli side that was previously the Arab domain. These events hardly represent a fundamental shift in the balance of power. Nevertheless, for a country that depends on its cultural superiority, any tremor in this variable reverberates dramatically. Hamas and Hezbollah have struck the core Israeli nerve. Israel cannot ignore it.

Embedded in Israel's demographic problem is this: Israel has national security requirements that outstrip its manpower base. It can field a sufficient army, but its industrial base cannot supply all of the weapons needed to fight high-intensity conflicts. This means it is always dependent on an outside source for its industrial base and must align its policies with that source. At first this was the Soviets, then France and finally the United States. Israel broke with the Soviets and France when their political demands became too intense. It was after 1967 that it entered into a patron-client relationship with the United States. This relationship is its strength and its weakness. It gives the Israelis the systems they need for national security, but since U.S. and Israeli interests diverge, the relationship constrains Israel's range of action.

During the Cold War, the United States relied on Israel for a critical geopolitical function. The fundamental U.S. interest was Turkey, which controlled the Bosporus and kept the Soviet fleet under control in the Mediterranean. The emergence of Soviet influence in Syria and Iraq -- which was not driven by U.S. support for Israel since the United States did not provide all that much support compared to France -- threatened Turkey with attack from two directions, north and south. Turkey could not survive this. Israel drew Syrian attention away from Turkey by threatening Damascus and drawing forces and Soviet equipment away from the Turkish frontier. Israel helped secure Turkey and turned a Soviet investment into a dry hole.

Once Egypt signed a treaty with Israel and Sinai became a buffer zone, Israel became safe from a full peripheral war -- everyone attacking at the same time. Jordan was not going to launch an attack and Syria by itself could not strike. The danger to Israel became Palestinian operations inside of Israel and the occupied territories and the threat posed from Lebanon by the Syrian-sponsored group Hezbollah.

In 1982, Israel responded to this threat by invading Lebanon. It moved as far north as Beirut and the mountains east and northeast of it. Israel did not invade Beirut proper, since Israeli forces do not like urban warfare as it imposes too high a rate of attrition. But what the Israelis found was low-rate attrition. Throughout their occupation of Lebanon, they were constantly experiencing guerrilla attacks, particularly from Hezbollah.

Hezbollah has two patrons: Syria and Iran. The Syrians have used Hezbollah to pursue their political and business interests in Lebanon. Iran has used Hezbollah for business and ideological reasons. Business interests were the overlapping element. In the interest of business, it became important to Hezbollah, Syria and Iran that an accommodation be reached with Israel. Israel wanted to withdraw from Lebanon in order to end the constant low-level combat and losses.

Israel withdrew in 1988, having reached quiet understandings with Syria that Damascus would take responsibility for Hezbollah, in return for which Israel would not object to Syrian domination of Lebanon. Iran, deep in its war with Iraq, was not in a position to object if it had wanted to. Israel returned to its borders in the north, maintaining a security presence in the south of Lebanon that lasted for several years.

As Lebanon blossomed and Syria's hold on it loosened, Iran also began to increase its regional influence. Its hold on some elements of Hezbollah strengthened, and in recent months, Hezbollah -- aligning itself with Iranian Shiite ideology -- has become more aggressive. Iranian weapons were provided to Hezbollah, and tensions grew along the frontier. This culminated in the capture of two soldiers in the north and the current crisis.

It is difficult to overestimate the impact of the soldier kidnappings on the Israeli psyche. First, while the Israeli military is extremely highly trained, Israel is also a country with mass conscription. Having a soldier kidnapped by Arabs hits every family in the country. The older generation is shocked and outraged that members of the younger generation have been captured and worried that they allowed themselves to be captured; therefore, the younger generation needs to prove it too can defeat the Arabs. This is not a primary driver, but it is a dimension.

The more fundamental issue is this: Israel withdrew from Lebanon in order to escape low-intensity conflict. If Hezbollah is now going to impose low-intensity conflict on Israel's border, the rationale for withdrawal disappears. It is better for Israel to fight deep in Lebanon than inside Israel. If the rockets are going to fall in Israel proper, then moving into a forward posture has no cost to Israel.

From an international standpoint, the Israelis expect to be condemned. These international condemnations, however, are now having the opposite effect of what is intended. The Israeli view is that they will be condemned regardless of what they do. The differential between the condemnation of reprisal attacks and condemnation of a full invasion is not enough to deter more extreme action. If Israel is going to be attacked anyway, it might as well achieve its goals.

Moreover, an invasion of Hezbollah-held territory aligns Israel with the United States. U.S. intelligence has been extremely concerned about the growing activity of Hezbollah, and U.S. relations with Iran are not good. Lebanon is the center of gravity of Hezbollah, and the destruction of Hezbollah capabilities in Lebanon, particularly the command structure, would cripple Hezbollah operations globally in the near future. The United States would very much like to see that happen, but cannot do it itself. Moreover, an Israeli action would enrage the Islamic world, but it would also drive home the limits of Iranian power. Once again, Iran would have dropped Lebanon in the grease, and not been hurt itself. The lesson of Hezbollah would not be lost on the Iraqi Shia -- or so the Bush administration would hope.

Therefore, this is one Israeli action that benefits the United States, and thus helps the immediate situation as well as long-term geopolitical alignments. It realigns the United States and Israel. This also argues that any invasion must be devastating to Hezbollah. It must go deep. It must occupy temporarily. It must shatter Hezbollah.

At this point, the Israelis appear to be unrolling a war plan in this direction. They have blockaded the Lebanese coast. Israeli aircraft are attacking what air power there is in Lebanon, and have attacked Hezbollah and other key command-and-control infrastructure. It would follow that the Israelis will now concentrate on destroying Hezbollah -- and Lebanese -- communications capabilities and attacking munitions dumps, vehicle sites, rocket-storage areas and so forth.

Most important, Israel is calling up its reserves. This is never a symbolic gesture in Israel. All Israelis below middle age are in the reserves and mobilization is costly in every sense of the word. If the Israelis were planning a routine reprisal, they would not be mobilizing. But they are, which means they are planning to do substantially more than retributive airstrikes. The question is what their plan is.

Given the blockade and what appears to be the shape of the airstrikes, it seems to us at the moment the Israelis are planning to go fairly deep into Lebanon. The logical first step is a move to the Litani River in southern Lebanon. But given the missile attacks on Haifa, they will go farther, not only to attack launcher sites, but to get rid of weapons caches. This means a move deep into the Bekaa Valley, the seat of Hezbollah power and the location of plants and facilities. Such a penetration would leave Israeli forces' left flank open, so a move into Bekaa would likely be accompanied by attacks to the west. It would bring the Israelis close to Beirut again.

This leaves Israel's right flank exposed, and that exposure is to Syria. The Israeli doctrine is that leaving Syrian airpower intact while operating in Lebanon is dangerous. Therefore, Israel must at least be considering using its air force to attack Syrian facilities, unless it gets ironclad assurances the Syrians will not intervene in any way. Conversations are going on between Egypt and Syria, and we suspect this is the subject. But Israel would not necessarily object to the opportunity of eliminating Syrian air power as part of its operation, or if Syria chooses, going even further.

At the same time, Israel does not intend to get bogged down in Lebanon again. It will want to go in, wreak havoc, withdraw. That means it will go deeper and faster, and be more devastating, than if it were planning a long-term occupation. It will go in to liquidate Hezbollah and then leave. True, this is no final solution, but for the Israelis, there are no final solutions.

Israeli forces are already in Lebanon. Its special forces are inside identifying targets for airstrikes. We expect numerous air attacks over the next 48 hours, as well as reports of firefights in southern Lebanon. We also expect more rocket attacks on Israel.

It will take several days to mount a full invasion of Lebanon. We would not expect major operations before the weekend at the earliest. If the rocket attacks are taking place, however, Israel might send several brigades to the Litani River almost immediately in order to move the rockets out of range of Haifa. Therefore, we would expect a rapid operation in the next 24-48 hours followed by a larger force later.

At this point, the only thing that can prevent this would be a major intervention by Syria with real guarantees that it would restrain Hezbollah and indications such operations are under way. Syria is the key to a peaceful resolution. Syria must calculate the relative risks, and we expect them to be unwilling to act decisively.

Therefore:

1. Israel cannot tolerate an insurgency on its northern frontier; if there is one, it wants it farther north.

2. It cannot tolerate attacks on Haifa.

3. It cannot endure a crisis of confidence in its military

4. Hezbollah cannot back off of its engagement with Israel.

5. Syria can stop this, but the cost to it stopping it is higher than the cost of letting it go on.

It would appear Israel will invade Lebanon. The global response will be noisy. There will be no substantial international action against Israel. Beirut's tourism and transportation industry, as well as its financial sectors, are very much at risk.
Send questions or comments on this article to analysis@stratfor.com.

Now, here is an update from a few days ago, concerned with motives:

An update to the situation, also from Stratfor:

Red Alert: Hezbollah's Motives

Hezbollah's decision to increase operations against Israel was not taken lightly. The leadership of Hezbollah has not so much moderated over the years as it has aged. The group's leaders have also, with age, become comfortable and in many cases wealthy. They are at least part of the Lebanese political process, and in some real sense part of the Lebanese establishment. These are men with a radical past and of radical mind-set, but they are older, comfortable and less adventurous than 20 years ago. Therefore, the question is: Why are they increasing tensions with Israel and inviting an invasion that threatens their very lives? There are three things to look at: the situation among the Palestinians, the situation in Lebanon and the situation in the Islamic world. But first we must consider the situation in Hezbollah itself.

There is a generation gap in Hezbollah. Hezbollah began as a Shiite radical group inspired by the Iranian Islamic Revolution. In that context, Hezbollah represented a militant, nonsecular alternative to the Nasserite Fatah, Popular Front for the Liberation of Palestine, and other groups that took their bearing from Pan-Arabism rather than Islam. Hezbollah split the Shiite community in Lebanon -- which was against Sunnis and Christians -- but most of all, engaged the Israelis. It made a powerful claim that the Palestinian movement had no future while it remained fundamentally secular and while its religious alternatives derived from the conservative Arab monarchies. More than anyone, it was Hezbollah that introduced Islamist suicide bombings.

Hezbollah had a split personality, however; it was supported by two very different states. Iran was radically Islamist. Syria, much closer and a major power in Lebanon, was secular and socialist. They shared an anti-Zionist ideology, but beyond that, not much. Moreover, the Syrians viewed the Palestinian claim for a state with a jaundiced eye. Palestine was, from their point of view, part of the Ottoman Empire's Syrian province, divided by the British and French. Syria wanted to destroy Israel, but not necessarily to create a Palestinian state.

From Syria's point of view, the real issue was the future of Lebanon, which it wanted to reabsorb into Syria, or at the very least economically exploit. The Syrians intervened in Lebanon against the Palestine Liberation Organization and on the side of some Christian elements. Their goal was much less ideological than political and economic. They saw Hezbollah as a tool in their fight with Yasser Arafat and for domination of Syria.

Hezbollah strategically was aligned with Iran. Tactically, it had to align itself with Syria, since the Syrians dominated Lebanon. That meant that when Syria wanted tension with Israel, Hezbollah provided it, and when Syria wanted things to quiet down, Hezbollah cooled it. Meanwhile the leadership of Hezbollah, aligned with the Syrians, was in a position to prosper, particular after the Israeli withdrawal from Lebanon.

That withdrawal involved a basic, quiet agreement between Syria and Israel. Israel accepted Syrian domination of Lebanon. In return, Syria was expected to maintain a security regime that controlled Hezbollah. Attacks against Israel had to be kept within certain acceptable limits. Syria, having far less interest in Israel than in Lebanon, saw this as an opportunity to achieve its ends. Israel saw Syrian domination under these terms as a stabilizing force.

Destabilization

Two things converged to destabilize this situation. The emergence of Hamas as a major force among the Palestinians meant the Palestinian polity was being redefined. Even before the elections catapulted Hamas into a leadership role, it was clear that the Fatah-dominated government of Arafat was collapsing. Everything was up for grabs. That meant that either Hezbollah made a move or would be permanently a Lebanese organization. It had to show it was willing to take risks and be effective. In fact, it had to show that it was the most effective of all the groups. The leadership might have been reluctant, but the younger members saw this as their moment, and frankly, the old juices might have been running in the older leadership. They moved.

The second part of this occurred in Lebanon itself. After the death of former Prime Minister Rafik al-Hariri, outside pressure, primarily from the United States, forced a Syrian withdrawal from Lebanon. Now, do not overestimate the extent of the withdrawal. Syrian influence in Lebanon is still enormous. But it did relieve Syria of the burden of controlling Hezbollah. Indeed, Israel was not overly enthusiastic about Syria's withdrawal from Lebanon for just that reason.

Syria could now claim to have no influence or obligation concerning Hezbollah. Hezbollah's leadership lost the cover of being able to tell the young Turks that they would be more aggressive, but that the Syrians would not let them. As the Syrian withdrawal loosened up Lebanese politics, Hezbollah was neither restrained nor could it pretend to be restrained. Whatever the mixed feelings might have been, the mission was the mission, Syrian withdrawal opened the door and Hezbollah could not resist walking through it, and many members urgently wanted to walk through it.

At the same time the Iranians were deeply involved in negotiations in Iraq and over Tehran's nuclear program. They wanted as many levers as they could find to use in negotiations against the United States. They already had the ability to destabilize Iraq. They had a nuclear program the United States wanted to get rid of. Reactivating a global network that directly threatened American interests was another chip on the bargaining table. Not attacking U.S. interests but attacking Israel demonstrated Hezbollah's vibrancy without directly threatening the United States. Moreover, activities around the world, not carefully shielded in some cases, gave Iran further leverage.

In addition, it allowed Iran to reclaim its place as the leader of Islamic radical resurgence. Al Qaeda, a Sunni group, had supplanted Iran in the Islamic world. Indeed, Iran's collaboration with the West allowed Tehran to be pictured among the "hypocrites" Osama bin Laden condemned. Iran wants to become the dominant power in the Persian Gulf, and one part of that is to take away the mantle of Islamic radicalism from al Qaeda. Since al Qaeda is a damaged organization at best, and since Hezbollah pioneered Islamist terrorism on a global basis, reactivating Hezbollah made a great deal of sense to the Iranians.

Hezbollah's Position

Syria benefited by showing how badly it was needed in Lebanon. Iran picked up additional leverage against the United States. Hezbollah claimed a major place at the negotiations shaping the future of Palestinian politics. It all made a great deal of sense.

Of course, it was also obvious that Israel would respond. From Syria's point of view, that was fine. Israel would bog down again. It would turn to Syria to relieve it of its burdens. Israel would not want an Islamic regime in Damascus. Syria gets regime preservation and the opportunity to reclaim Lebanon. Iran gets a war hundreds of miles away from it, letting others fight its battles. It can claim it is the real enemy of Israel in the Islamic world. The United States might bargain away interests in Iraq in order to control Hezbollah. An Israeli invasion opens up possibilities without creating much risk.

It is Hezbollah that takes it on the chin. But Hezbollah, by its nature and its relationships, really did not have much choice. It had to act or become irrelevant. So now the question is: What does Hezbollah do when the Israelis come? They can resist. They have anti-tank weapons and other systems from Iran. They can inflict casualties. They can impose a counterinsurgency. Syria may think Israel will have to stay, but Israel plans to crush Hezbollah's infrastructure and leave, forcing Hezbollah to take years to recover. Everyone else in Lebanon is furious at Hezbollah for disrupting the recovery. What does Hezbollah do?

In the 1980s, what Hezbollah did was take Western hostages. The United States is enormously sensitive to hostage situations. It led Ronald Reagan to Iran-Contra. Politically, the United States has trouble handling hostages. This is the one thing Hezbollah learned in the 1980s that the leaders remember. A portfolio of hostages is life insurance. Hezbollah could go back to its old habits. It makes sense to do so.

It will not do this while there is a chance of averting an invasion. But once it is crystal clear it is coming, grabbing hostages makes sense. Assuming the invasion is going to occur early next week -- or a political settlement is going to take place -- Western powers now have no more than 72 hours to get their nationals out of Beirut or into places of safety. That probably cannot be done. There are thousands of Westerners in Beirut. But the next few days will focus on ascertaining Israeli intensions and timelines, and executing plans to withdraw citizens. The Israelis might well shift their timeline to facilitate this. But all things considered, if Hezbollah returns to its roots, it should return to its first operational model: hostages.

Send questions or comments on this article to analysis@stratfor.com.

Hope you all enjoyed it, feel free to discuss!

I don't know s*** about s***, but it seems to me that the chances of the Muslim community uniting, with or without external influences, is basically zero anyway, right?

I'd say, yeah, pretty much, not anymore anyway. Too many barriers stand in the way of unity. Political and cultural divisions have been embded within the muslim world as a result of greed, power etc not only externally but through patriotic arab leaders themselves. I mean look at who we got, they're honestly a joke, and hence you get these militants/combatants/extremists/islamists/WhateverYouWannaCallemists groups emerging and opposing both foreign american policies and their own puppet government.

I dont blame religion, i blame nationalism and patriotism.


last edited by Booyah at 14:24:22 20/Jul/06

Fascinating post wallacedom. Thank you. The similarties between this and the start of world war one are papable. Not that means we will see a world war, perhaps just the middle eastern equivlant. Hezbollah strikes me as a syrian move that would do Otto von Bismarck proud.

Yeah definately a good read and you can tell he is trying to be objective rather than subjective. Makes my post below it look amature, not that they are comparable.

very interesting post there

Its interesting how long the conflicts have been going on for in this area, i think i saw someone else post that it dates back to AD70 and probably further.

But once u get past a "he did, therefore i will do it back" point, something interesting to consider is that when the pressure came on from the international community to end all this crap, Israel made moves to end the conflicts including leaving certain territories etc and offering to open dialogues etc.

This at least shows that (publicly anyway) Israel are willing to entertain the idea of mutual co-existance

However on the other side of the fence u have the Arab faction that will not recognise israel in any shape or form and continously and demonstratedly campaign to destroy israel and the jews.


On that basis alone i feel more empathy towards the jews than the arabs.

Live and let live imo, this hardline "israel must die attitude" is never going to allow a peace process.


(and yes, cute girls in uniform ftw!)

just to let everyone know in case you cant be bothered reading the long posts / books try to get a hold of this series it pretty much covers teh whole of this topic but doesnt include stuff that happened from the mid late nineties

its the actual people interviewed in it or their speeches



http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0204782/

hezbollah: *whack*
israel: quit it
hezbollah: *whack*
israel: quit it
hezbollah: *whack*
israel: *WWWHHAACCKKK*

Nice work Matt

on wonder they lost...also it kinda helped that israle had the US, France, England, Australia all helping..

Huh? Australia certainly wasn't there :)

Checking the wiki:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Six_day_war#Accusations_and_controversial_claims
...it seems rumours of 'US & British assistance' were false claims by several of the arab nations attempting to get Soviet support (which ultimately failed).

Also remember it was a pre-emptive strike by Israel against Egypt, and with the war all over in 6 days what kind of serious support could countries thousands of km's away provide? :/

Regardless, if you read up on the IDF's movements (especially their airforce in the early days + armour in the latter stages) during the 6 days you can see why it is considered to be some of the finest implemented strategies in the history of warfare.

I also suggest you read this article, "Why Arabs always lose wars" explaining the distrust, hoarding of information, officer/private relationship, training methods etc of Arab armies. A fantastic insight into middle-eastern military:
http://www.meforum.org/article/441

*back to topic*
Some of those IDF girls look fantastic (although I think astro has picked the best one) - go the conscription of hot 19 year-olds :D

She's prolly dead by now.

So how's it feel wanking over a dead person?

her and the 500 000 US soldiers in iraq hey. lol.

for an extremely well referenced and unbiased overview of all the major developments of the last 100 years concerning israel, you need The Gun and the Olive Branch.

Interesting post, I liked the brief recount of the last 30 odd years. Still you said it is from “intelligence officers” and basically they get paid to play “chess”. They look at history, the current environment, make assumptions and basically try and stay ahead of the game, not that I have read 'game theory' but I'm sure it is somewhat along those lines. And even though this report may be objective of events, the revelation that this report provides is that they actually think this s*** up. I can guarantee that both sides and ALL spectators have these intelligence officers, and are actively playing the game and determining next moves, and that is a scary thought.

The easiest way to resolve this is to stop employing such douche bags that are playing this game.

IO thought process:
1) Current intelligence suggests they will do X
2) We need to strike at Y to stop X
3) They will react with Z, falling into our trap at AA… etc…
So they preempt with # 2 before 1 even occurs. If every side thinks like this how do you ever stop wars, or at least stop confrontations from escalating to wars?

So to play the devils advocate and assume that the “intelligence report” will play out, that would certainly leave not just the region but the globe on a knives edge.

Iran and North Korea will keep goading the US. China and Russia will keep doing nothing as the US gets the blame and they can strengthen their global influence. If either the remaining “axis of evil” successfully commit US to a military campaign this will further undermine the US’s influence.

With the US’s influence at a low/stretched the opportunists will start to come out, and that is when you will have a World War.
India and Pakistan have many unresolved issues and the recent bombings are really bad timing.
Middle East will worsen as more countries use subversion tactics to destabilize US’s control.
North Korea , South Korea and Japan get into some kind of a brawl.
China still wants (“owns”) Taiwan and may just exercise that “right”.
Kazakhstan is a black gold mine, with Russia, China and Iran all wanting a piece, and probably someone else’s piece.

Meanwhile, all the destabilized African nations get f***ed because all of sudden everyone cares even less then they give a s*** now.

Europe will eventually have to take a side somewhere in the world… maybe not, god damn pussies.

Australia will fight because, that’s what we do.

Meanwhile no one will know the difference between a terrorist action and warring nations, so stay out of London and the US.

And just because I cant leave out one continent, South America (Brazil may hold as an exception) will all be run by communist leaders.

How’s that for cynical. :)

Yes, what about Antarctica, that’s already f***ed from Global Warming, I didn’t think it necessary to highlight another f***ed up situation!

awaiting "hot womens of hezbollah" thread

mmm, jungle women, i like em hairy

ABC news, among others...

United Nations (UN) secretary-general Kofi Annan has called for an immediate end to the fighting between Israel and Lebanese militants.

Mr Annan has briefed the UN Security Council on the findings of a high-level diplomatic mission to the Middle East, saying Hezbollah was responsible for sparking the crisis but that Israel is using excessive force in its operations.

Got to love teh fact that the United Nations can state the obvious but they have no 'real' power to act. Another bureaucratic entity created to disperse away any accountability to countries actually helping.

I really would like to sit in one of these "briefings" of the UN security council, it must be such a mesmerizing experience.

Got to love teh fact that the United Nations can state the obvious but they have no 'real' power to act.

it doesn't help when the USA does whatever they want anyway - if the USA was the UN's lapdog the whole thing might work a little more effectively.

I'd go one further and say, if the UN had control of the US's military (actually control of all the Big 5 nations), then it would be good.

hells yeh

O_o So we can have an agency with the power of 5 nations millitary behind it running the world in a complete and total lockdown fascism instead of the tenuous hold the U.S has now?
Why not combine NATO and the U.N while your at it and go for the ultimate fusion lockdown of any freedom or rights the countries outside of that union would have?

*Edit* Or for that matter forget the rights any civilians within those nations would also have.

last edited by Xy at 09:41:24 21/Jul/06

UN have their own peacekeeping forces. they could intervene if they wanted - as they did in both bosnia and rwanda

So we can have an agency with the power of 5 nations millitary behind it running the world in a complete and total lockdown fascism instead of the tenuous hold the U.S has now?

Yes - it should be called UNATCO or NSF....(tinfoil hats ahoy). :P

UN have their own peacekeeping forces. they could intervene if they wanted - as they did in both bosnia and Rwanda

Yes that is what is stopping them from intervening against Israel… they just don’t want to… not the mere fact that Israel outguns the UN in every f***ing respect.

The only way that Israel stops is if the “International community” says no… and they could, but they gave the “responsibility” to the UN… except when it comes to what they want then they will just go and do it anyway

UN have their own peacekeeping forces. they could intervene if they wanted - as they did in both bosnia and rwanda

is that sarcasm ?

UN have their own peacekeeping forces. they could intervene if they wanted - as they did in both bosnia and rwanda

I don't know much about these conflicts, but I assume that intervening in some backwater poverty stricken African nations genocide of peasants is a little different between stepping into a major combat zone between Israel - well armed, almost fanatically dedicated - and "everyone else" - well armed, disposed to use suicide bombers, actually fanatically dedicated.

I wouldn't want to weigh in on an issue I know practically nothing about (like most people all I know about this conflict are the snippets I hear on the radio and TV and don't know dick about the history or details), but it seems to me the only way this conflict is going to end is:

a) The UN gets some teeth (ie, the US or some big Euro contingent offers troops to step in and police the situation)
b) The rest of the world sanctions the s*** out of everyone involved until they grow up
c) One of them wipes the other out
d) They both wipe each other out

Option e) would be "one of them gives up and caves in", although the chances of that happening are probably not huge.

So we can have an agency with the power of 5 nations millitary behind it running the world in a complete and total lockdown fascism instead of the tenuous hold the U.S has now?
Why not combine NATO and the U.N while your at it and go for the ultimate fusion lockdown of any freedom or rights the countries outside of that union would have?

*Edit* Or for that matter forget the rights any civilians within those nations would also have.

Now we just have 1 country doing what ever the f*** they want… both in public and behind closed doors...

Although you are right in one respect, what would they do if the world was at peace… prolly start another war, its what we do best!

Anyway, what do you think the UN is… it is the force of 5 nations but they don’t agree on anything (for political positioning) so fighting continues and if one of them wants to do something, they go and do it, that gets condemned but nothing happens, until one “big 5” nation goes against another “big 5”, then the UN will essentially be dissolved just like the league of nations. The reason that the UN will never work is that it does not have a military force that can stop an individual nation. Therefore it is a useless bureaucratic waste of space!

UN have their own peacekeeping forces. they could intervene if they wanted - as they did in both bosnia and rwanda

no they cant, the UN cant send troops anywhere with out a Security counsil resolution and guess what the US can Veto any resolution it doesnt like. i.e they cant do s***.

by saying "if they wanted to" naturally a security resolution would be required, as was the case in both of the prior examples.

and by the way bosnia was a far more deadly war zone that this is. (refer Behind Enemy Lines for further supporting evidence :p) est. 110,000 casualties per Wiki

UN doesn't intervene to stop the fighting, they intervene to police any declared demilitarized zones and ensure the safe passage of human aid. UN's focus would be primarily humanitarian.

last edited by infi at 16:16:00 21/Jul/06

option e) is more likely than you think, in so far as israel can bombard lebanon until it is smouldering rubble (devoid of any useful civilian, economic or military infrastructure) and the hezzbollah are reduced to fighting a low impact guerilla war. there is an interesting article in this week's bulletin about this conflict's effects on oil prices, even though neither side has any oil!

although these kind of covert attacks are very damaging to military morale as can be seen from iraq.

last edited by infi at 15:59:26 21/Jul/06

the UN is useless because they are a pack of bastards

in 2000 Israeli soldiers were kidnapped by Hezbollah wearing UN uniforms in vehicles with UN license plates. the UN videotaped the abandoned vehicles and the evidence that was in them. the UN also videotaped suspected Hezbollah members who recaptured the vehicles from UN custody. the UN then denied the existence of the video tape for months and would only release the videotape to Israel with the faces of the people who took the evidence blurred.

israel will never trust the UN to monitor a treaty

Holy crap, pics two, three and four...

Nah, I've always found most girls from Israel attractive. It's mostly the dark hair, I think.


Just to further fuel the war 'discussion' by the way, to give you guys an idea of what value Israel places on the lives of their citizens, they released 313 (yes, 313) known terrorists and militians, all in exchange for the *corpses* of three of their soldiers.

I dunno that I agree with that move on the basis of letting 313 terrorists back into the wild, but that's one hell of a show of support for their people. They will always have my respect and support - utterly regardless of what damage and loss of life they inflict on the 'civillians' of their enemy countries.

UN is no different to the League of Nations, and this situation is no different to what happened back then, its all the same.

UNATCO for the win.

What we need is Peter f***ing Wiggin.

When trog makes a pointless drunk post, who bans him?

lebanese freedom babes > idf chicks

too bad they couldn't kick Hezbollah out when they got rid of syria

last edited by hast at 01:53:56 22/Jul/06

On another note I believe that all the Leb/Aussie's who are crying for the Australian government to come and bring them home should have to pay for it themselves. They chose to live in a country with this kind of ongoing situation, let them pay to get their arses out of there!

thanks for that awesome bigoted input there Tanaka.

carry on

its on boys..its on...


jews will cop it eventually, just give it time.

i doubt it. arabs lose every time.

thanks for that awesome bigoted input there Tanaka.

How is that bigoted? Every time Australians are in trouble anywhere in the world for ANY REASON, the first thing the media does is cover how the government are useless for not immediately resolving the situation. It's bulls***, it distracts from the real issues, and I for one don't want to see billions of taxpayer dollars going into placating the media.

Some of the excerpts I've heard on the radio from people over there just piss me off - Aussies whining about the government not doing enough to help them. For s***'s sake, YOU'RE IN THE MIDDLE EAST.

Smartraveller obviously says at the moment 'don't go to Syria' - the only previous notice I can find is this one which was issued in 2004 and was still current in 2005 - which says bascially the exact same thing.

So the government IS looking out for these people, but they chose to ignore the warning. They need to take some responsibility for their own actions. It's not like there haven't been warning signs, either - it has been blowing up gradually over the last couple of months. At what point, exactly, when you're a few hundred kilometres from a war zone, is it a BAD IDEA to GET OUT OF THERE?

"duh i didn't know visiting the middle east was dangerous. save me!"

Trog, so what would you make them do?
Leave them all there to teach them a lesson or do something to help them out. I mean it's not like our governments do the right thing with our money anyway, they should be helping them out. Must be easy to be so perfect in life like most people on these boards. None of you have ever done anything wrong what so ever.

I'm sure if trog was stranded in a country where it became a war zone all of the sudden with no other way of getting back home then he'd also be crying out for help from his government.

Leave them all there to teach them a lesson or do something to help them out.

I don't have a problem with the government helping them out, I just don't think they should be whining that the government isn't moving fast enough. There's hundreds if not thousands of people over there that want to get out - what do they expect? It's going to take TIME.

Must be easy to be so perfect in life like most people on these boards. None of you have ever done anything wrong what so ever.

I repeat - how hard is it to know when it might be a good idea to depart from a country so close to a war zone?

I'm sure if trog was stranded in a country where it became a war zone all of the sudden with no other way of getting back home then he'd also be crying out for help from his government.

... all of a sudden? You're talking like the Middle East overnight became a place that, well, MAYBE, you shouldn't go to.

edit: I just realised I was looking up Syria for some reason and not Lebanon. The only Wayback Machine for Lebanon is this one which isn't as scary as Syrias, but it's still cautionary:

Australians in Lebanon should exercise a high degree of caution. There are ongoing tensions in the Middle East and the risk of possible terrorist attacks against Western interests remains.

last edited by trog at 11:47:52 22/Jul/06

Must be easy to be so perfect in life like most people on these boards. None of you have ever done anything wrong what so ever.

There's a world of difference between making a mistake and dealing with that fact vs making a mistake and crying that not enough is being done for you.

You're always going to have to be cautious in the middle east. Just because some travel agency was stating the obvious about "excercing caution" because of decades of political tensions between middle eastern countries (which is hardly suprising) doesn't mean you should stop going to visit your family who you haven't seen in 20 years, getting married, doing bussiness or whatever.

I went for a family visit to iraq few months ago and at the time it was pretty bad if not worse then what is happening in lebanon at the moment, despite all this bombardment. I'd rather be in a country where i know bombs are being droped from above so i can take shelter than not knowing when and where the next suicide bomber is gonna set himself off or the next american apc randomly opening fire at suspected terrorists. I saw my family, got married and learnt a lot of things aboutt the world and still came out in one piece.

My point is everybody's circumstances are different for going overseas whether it's a middle eastern country or a western country. Sometimes you are just forced to go and no lil cautionary tip is going to stop you from going. You just cant merely predict what is going to happen anywhere around the world.

It's like saying "stay away from london, there could be another bus bombing happening anytime in the next 10 years!!" Even though the likelyhood of another bomb going off in london isn't the same as one going off in the middle east.. but you get my drift.


last edited by Booyah at 13:15:51 22/Jul/06

Sometimes you are just forced to go and no lil cautionary tip is going to stop you from going.

Yep, I totally agree - but I also don't think you have the right to call foul against the government if they can't get you out of the country within 48 hours of when you decide you want to go.

Especially whe most of the people whinging are dual citizens. Their own country has a duty to them too... oh wait, which country ;p

What's to stop someone taking out citizenship of every country so they can whinge at them when they don't serve up a gold platter?

What's to stop someone taking out citizenship of every country

um....like a lot?

I also don't think you have the right to call foul against the government if they can't get you out of the country within 48 hours of when you decide you want to go

Right, but again if you where in their situation you can understand where they are coming from. Perhaps they're pushing their luck for getting help within 48 hours, but you'd want some sort of help ASAP under those circumstances.

Though i'm sure they would've learnt their lesson and not go back to lebanon any time soon cause what is unfolding right now is a good sign that lebanon is going to remain rooted for a while.




last edited by Booyah at 13:13:53 22/Jul/06

there are a lot of dual citizen Aussie/Leb who chose to live in Lebanon. Can't blame them for trying to exploit their Australian citizenship to get out though.

i hope they make it out safe but what would the australian public's opinion be if defence personnel were killed in the rescue operation?

there are a lot of dual citizen Aussie/Leb who chose to live in Lebanon. Can't blame them for trying to exploit their Australian citizenship to get out though.

and when they get back to Australia they are going to whinge saying we need welfare etc:

also: that whingy bitch who was on Nine news the other night saying "the govt. stuff up (re: the double book ship)... use your f***ing brain bitch, how did the govt. stuff up? The ship operator stuffed up double booking... the govt. had nothing to do with it.

bigot - a prejudiced person who is intolerant of any opinions differing from his own.

Bigot is often used as pejorative term against a person who is obstinately devoted to their prejudices even when these prejudices are challenged, often engaging these prejudices in a rude and intolerant manner. Forms of bigotry may have a related ideology, like racism, religion, and nationalism.

Bigotry is not "intolerance," but "unreasonable intolerance". For example, some Jews may be intolerant of Nazi Anti-Semitism; that doesn't necessarily make them anti-Nazi bigots. A bigot will continue to hold these opinions even when confronted with evidence that challenges such stereotypes. To protect his views, he may either dismiss the challenges he encounters as an aberration to the norm and ignore the fact that they threaten to undercut his prejudices. On a more extreme level, he may deny the evidence altogether. Both reactions can be classified as forms of cognitive dissonance.

Way to go there SCOGGEX, maybe next time do a bit of reading about what you're flapping your gums about, then maybe you won't look like a total d*******, oh wait...



Trog nailed it in one.

what the world needs is some kind of police force. perhaps a country with more money and military spending than any other.

they can step in and sort it out then.

Yeah alot of you seem to have very outrageous expectations of the Aus government, Its a f***ing war zone ffs, it's not like we can fly in with our fantabulous airships with onboard jacuzzis and pull everyone out, anyone that is there chose to go there against good advice and common sense, its like taking a holiday to iraq then being upset when you get kidnapped and the government doesn't waste millions of dollers and lives getting you out, are you retarded?

I understand where alot of you are comming from, but at the end of the day people need to take responsibility for their own actions.

what the world needs is some kind of police force. perhaps a country with more money and military spending than any other.

they can step in and sort it out then.

LOL Subtle

i got on the news wooooooooooooohoooooooooooooooooooooo.

ah you were the angry arab.

here's some interesting reading, from 1999 about why arabs can't win wars.
http://www.meforum.org/article/441
its a bit long but very well written and makes alot of sense in determining why all those arab states got walloped vs israel in 67, 73, why iraq fought so badly against iran and why iraq folded so badly in 91.

and by the way, dual citizenship is a joke. oh how i laugh when my bro told me a story about a leb work mate of his, who went to visit family in lebanon and got drafted into the army for a few years.

The Israelis are a bunch of f***s. On the news hour on sbs two nights ago I saw an Israeli diplomat say that hezbollah have UAV's. Thats just f***ing funny. Unless they mean those 300$ radio control aeroplanes from tandy it's just an out and out lie.

By the way who ever said the UN is just like the league of nations get a f***ing clue. There is a world of difference.

And finally the UN has the grand total of ZERO peacekeepers they mandate countries to donate manpower, so yeah the UN could only intervene once they had a suitable candidate to donate troops. Finally you shouldn't be to hard on the UN it run on roughly the same budget as disney land.

iraq folded so badly in 91

Iraq folded in 91 because they were holding on to newly captured land and opposed by all the major powers in the world. Any General with half a brain in his head would have done the same.


let me think I can fight a battle I will lose very badly or I can retreat past this imaginary line that the US and co can't go beyond.

Trog, so what would you make them do?
Leave them all there to teach them a lesson or do something to help them out. I mean it's not like our governments do the right thing with our money anyway, they should be helping them out. Must be easy to be so perfect in life like most people on these boards. None of you have ever done anything wrong what so ever.

Great job of completely missing the point there. How did you pull your time way from A Current Affair and Today Tonight in order to post that? Lebanon, like many middle eastern countries, is DANGEROUS. There's political, religious and social tensions that make these places so hazardous. Those people made a decision to go there despite the risks. I'm not exactly 'perfect', but I'm smart enough not to go to a politically unstable region then cry about it to the Australian government when I'm stuck in a messy situation. What ever happened to responsibility and accountability? Once you're an adult you're responsible for your own actions, and you have to live with it. It's like the obesity epidemic. "Oh it's not fair, McDonalds made me fat. They made me eat their fatty foods and not exercise. It's not because I'm a lazy, ignorant, irresponsible CHILD who should have certain decision making privileges revoked. McDonalds should have to give me money."

It's like saying "stay away from london, there could be another bus bombing happening anytime in the next 10 years!!" Even though the likelyhood of another bomb going off in london isn't the same as one going off in the middle east.. but you get my drift.

I kinda agree with you there. It all comes down to calculating the risks. A terrorist could blow up a QR train today, but the odds seem pretty damn low so I'll just go ahead and go to work today. Iraq is an unstable country at the moment, with residents and US forces posing many dangers to me, and there have been many deaths and injuries in recent times there so I'll avoid going there. It's all about risk versus reward. You wanted to see your family, get married and experience your home land so you accepted the risk and went. You made a responsible decision as an adult to accept the risks and follow through. You didn't cry out to the Australian government demanding that they safely escourt you in, around and out of Iraq.

Trog, so what would you make them do?
Leave them all there to teach them a lesson or do something to help them out. I mean it's not like our governments do the right thing with our money anyway, they should be helping them out. Must be easy to be so perfect in life like most people on these boards. None of you have ever done anything wrong what so ever.



Great job of completely missing the point there. How did you pull your time way from A Current Affair and Today Tonight in order to post that? Lebanon, like many middle eastern countries, is DANGEROUS. There's political, religious and social tensions that make these places so hazardous. Those people made a decision to go there despite the risks. I'm not exactly 'perfect', but I'm smart enough not to go to a politically unstable region then cry about it to the Australian government when I'm stuck in a messy situation. What ever happened to responsibility and accountability? Once you're an adult you're responsible for your own actions, and you have to live with it. It's like the obesity epidemic. "Oh it's not fair, McDonalds made me fat. They made me eat their fatty foods and not exercise. It's not because I'm a lazy, ignorant, irresponsible CHILD who should have certain decision making privileges revoked. McDonalds should have to give me money."

QFT

You made a responsible decision as an adult to accept the risks and follow through. You didn't cry out to the Australian government demanding that they safely escourt you in, around and out of Iraq.

Yeah I mean just say i was kidnapped in iraq, i wouldn't expect the australian government to do an israeli job and come in gun blazing to free me since the amount of random deaths/kidnappings that occur there everyday and the all round complete chaotic nature of the country is obvious, and that's where account of your own responsibility definately comes into play. Though i still think the situation with the australian lebanese visiting lebanon is different compared to my visit to iraq since the israeli bombardment suddenly became breaking news and was more of a shock for the aus/leb travelers there.

To sum up, risk vs reward i agree with and taking responsibility of your own actions definately goes a long way especially for one's own benifit, but help is also nice under those some what unexpected cicrumstances, because it may turn out to be a life or death situation for some.

last edited by Booyah at 12:16:41 23/Jul/06

I'm not exactly 'perfect', but I'm smart enough not to go to a politically unstable region then cry about it to the Australian government when I'm stuck in a messy situation.

Excatly. I'm planning on getting to Europe and the US on holiday some time in the next few years, and Israel is a place I'd love to stop by. But the fear of getting stuck in the middle of a war zone is a pretty strong reason to avoid it. And if I did go there, and happened to get stuck there, I sure as hell wouldn't be expecting the government to move a finger to help me.

I'd feel a bit embarrassed being Australian if our government did nothing, or made a complete f***ing mess of things. And saying its their own fault is plain dumb, and would be political suicide (both nationally and internationally) if any politician offered this as a solution. Also, I'm sure 'cutting them lose' to fend for themselves would also be a form of human rights abuse.

Excatly. I'm planning on getting to Europe and the US on holiday some time in the next few years, and Israel is a place I'd love to stop by. But the fear of getting stuck in the middle of a war zone is a pretty strong reason to avoid it. And if I did go there, and happened to get stuck there, I sure as hell wouldn't be expecting the government to move a finger to help me.

You can say that with 20-20 hindsight. When was the last time Israel was actually at war with another country. Some time in the eighties. The people who are stuck in lebenon at the moment have been caught in something totally different then a terrorist attack. If they had been killed in a bombing then sure little to no sympathy. But the Smart traveler website couldn't have and didn't warn agaisnt Israel invading.

Personally The amount of time taken is understandable, but forcing them to pay is BS.

Israel may not have been "at war" for a while but you often hear about rocket attacks and air strikes so it's no surprise that things escalated eventually.

So in other words the only reason your not in Lebanon right now is because you pre-empted Israel's first invasion for over twenty years down to the week. Yeah right, Thats like saying that your not in Pakistan right now because India might invade tomorrow. I would be suprised if it happened but at the same time I could like you say well they have been having border skermishes for the last fifty years it was obvious that things were going to break down into open warfare.

Nobody knew that Israel were going to invade because Israel didn't tell anyone. Saying its obvious after the fact it bulls*** and everyone knows it.

Nobody knew that Israel were going to invade because Israel didn't tell anyone. Saying its obvious after the fact it bulls*** and everyone knows it.

Yeah that's what i've been trying to say except instead of eating the tush i was beating around the bush.

Nobody knew that Israel were going to invade because Israel didn't tell anyone. Saying its obvious after the fact it bulls*** and everyone knows it.

Nobody knew when, but if someone couldn't see something like this was inevitable (and therefore there was an inherent risk involved in going into the area) then they're no great loss to the gene pool. On the otherhand if they go in accepting the risks then they have no right to complain that not enough is being done for them.

Nobody knew when, but if someone couldn't see something like this was inevitable (and therefore there was an inherent risk involved in going into the area) then they're no great loss to the gene pool. On the otherhand if they go in accepting the risks then they have no right to complain that not enough is being done for them.

Like I said saying its obvious after the fact is bulls***. It was not inevitable that Israel would risk open warfare with Lebanon, Syria and Iran, as this has the potential to be, If it were "inevitable" smart traveler would have warned against imminent invasion.

Another example. My friend is living with his wife in South Korea at the moment, North Korea, by your reasoning, could invade at any second and should leave while he can. According to Smart Traveller South Korea is on the minimum threat level. It ranks the same as the US, Canada and is considered safer then the UK.

Nobody is saying there is no risk but planning agaisnt certain risk is unreasonable to expect. All the people who died in september 11 by your reasoning were just f***ing idiots going into a building that had been the target of a terrorist attack, and we should condemn their lunacy saying that they were pissing in the gene pool.

My rellies got back from Lebanon 2 weeks before this all started. They go over every year or so. Lebanon has been peaceful for a long time. Not going on the off chance terrorists may capture some jews and start a war is crazy. It means you could never travel anywhere.

People will always whinge about emergency services taking too long to respond. It's because it's your life and well being on the line (or your fams) so of course it is taking too long if it doesn't happen instanteously. The problem is the media report it like it's important news, when it isn't. It takes time to organise an evacuation. It takes time to drop off aid. Doesn't mean it isn't coming. If in two weeks there's still Aussies there wanting to get home that the government hasn't got out because of continual bungling, that'll be news.

Like I said saying its obvious after the fact is bulls***. It was not inevitable that Israel would risk open warfare with Lebanon, Syria and Iran, as this has the potential to be, If it were "inevitable" smart traveler would have warned against imminent invasion.

Another example. My friend is living with his wife in South Korea at the moment, North Korea, by your reasoning, could invade at any second and should leave while he can. According to Smart Traveller South Korea is on the minimum threat level. It ranks the same as the US, Canada and is considered safer then the UK.

Nobody is saying there is no risk but planning agaisnt certain risk is unreasonable to expect. All the people who died in september 11 by your reasoning were just f***ing idiots going into a building that had been the target of a terrorist attack, and we should condemn their lunacy saying that they were pissing in the gene pool.

Read what I've said again and check were I put a time frame on anything that would suggest anything was "imminent" as you indicate I'm saying. Eventually and inevitable are what I said and I used those words because they don't suggest anything with regards to when it would happen it could have been another 20 years from now or even 40+ etc.

I'm going to dismiss your september 11 analogy because it's just stupid as there was no predictable threat to those towers. Yes South Korea, India and Pakistan are countries where you have to realise there is a risk in going there for various reasons. If you feel the risk is worthwhile then by all means go there but accept there is a risk. If I wanted to go to India to visit my family then I would realise there is a risk to my health from the food/water in some parts and with occasional “terrorist” bombings and politic rhetoric between India and Pakistan there is a risk things may spiral out of hand. To say I shouldn't go or leave immediately is foolish, as long as I accept those risks and don't expect any measures from the Australian government to get me out of a situation I put myself in. Conversely, if I went to Canada and it was suddenly invaded by the US I would expect help because nobody could reasonably predict that could ever happen given the current state of affairs.

Hopefully I've used the word "risk" enough in there to differentiate between the point I'm making and the words you’re putting in my mouth. If there is a risk then it doesn't mean it will happen within the time period of your travel, just that it may and it's up to the individual to decide whether it's worth it.

My 911 analogy makes just as much sense as you saying expect an attack in a country anytime in the next 40 years. In my opinion We will inevitably see a war between China and the US. It might not happen soon perhaps with in the next 200 years but according to your travel advise I shouldn't go to either country on the off chance the war does in fact break out.

As for you accepting your lot if you were in India if a war broke out well it's easy to say that in Australia. Frankly I just don't believe you. The fact of the matter is that the people in Lebanon could not be resonably be expected to predict an Isreali suprise attack. Therefore the Australian government should attempt to evacuate. Talk about it being too slow blah blah blah I have no time for, just like Bush being irrisponsible in planning for Katrina I feel is totally unreasonable. However that is completely different to saying well you should have known so cop it sweet.

Ok so you still haven't got your head around the point of accepting the risks I see. I never said anyone should stay away from any of these places. Simply that there is an inherent risk in going and they have to realise there is a better chance of them coming in harms way if they go to the middle east as opposed to Canada (to continue the example in my last point). Once again, that doesn't mean anything will happen in an immediate time frame or to any specific individual, just that it MAY and therefore they shouldn't expect the Australian government to rush to their aid given they should have weighed up the possible consequences in their own mind prior to travelling. You're twisting everything I'm saying into absolutes and that's never the case, as always this comes down to possible scenarios that it's up to the individual to think about.

I have gotten my head around what your saying. I havn't twisted anything you have said for example:

To say I shouldn't go or leave immediately is foolish, as long as I accept those risks and don't expect any measures from the Australian government to get me out of a situation I put myself in.

Unless I'm very wrong your saying that it would be foolish to not go on the premise that war might break out. In the same sentence you say that if war did break out I should accept the consequences of my completely reasonable decision.

I would put it to you that anyone who, in planning for a trip thought: "if I go to a country and war might break out, the Australian government should and will do nothing to help evacuate me", nobody would ever travel. Why would they? On the chance that something goes wrong you are completely f***ed.

I feel on the other hand that if you are an Australian Citizen and you get caught in a war zone, as opposed to travel to an existing one, you should expect to be evacuated.

As for absolutes your the one who cant distinguish between terrorist activity and open warfare.

Unless I'm very wrong your saying that it would be foolish to not go on the premise that war might break out. In the same sentence you say that if war did break out I should accept the consequences of my completely reasonable decision.

Again stop dealing in absolutes. There is no right or wrong choice for everyone. I'm saying it's foolish to think everyone should plant themselves at one extreme, be it never going to these places because there is a risk, or ignoring the risk completely because they don't have to think about it (i.e. The government should tell me if anything is going to happen and they'll get me out if it does so I'll leave my personal safety up to them.) The choice is up to the individual and the onus is on them to think about what may or may not happen and weigh that up against what they will get out of the trip. Every choice in life comes down to a risk vs reward decision but too often people want someone else to deal with it for them.

I would put it to you that anyone who, in planning for a trip thought: "if I go to a country and war might break out, the Australian government should and will do nothing to help evacuate me", nobody would ever travel. Why would they? On the chance that something goes wrong you are completely f***ed.

See risk vs reward above.

I feel on the other hand that if you are an Australian Citizen and you get caught in a war zone, as opposed to travel to an existing one, you should expect to be evacuated.

That sounds fairly absolute to me.

As for absolutes your the one who cant distinguish between terrorist activity and open warfare.

Where?

I am not dealing in absolutes, you are just refusing to accept meaning to your words. If you are saying that it is foolish to plant your self at an extreme then then you need to accept that the government has a duty of care to explicitly state that in the event of such and such you can expect to be on your own. For example drug traffikers in south east asia. I have zero sympathy, not because I'm anti drugs but simply because the Australian Government has a clear policy that if you are caught you will face that countries justice system.

However, if the government doesn't have a clear policy, something which at some point will have to be discussed in absolute terms, (eg if war breaks out we categoricaly will attempt to evacuate our citizens) then your risk v reward is clearly unfair because the traveller can't accuratly judge the risk.

As for the absolutes you evidently feel that the people in lebanon are in an existing war zone because:

Nobody knew when, but if someone couldn't see something like this was inevitable (and therefore there was an inherent risk involved in going into the area) then they're no great loss to the gene pool. On the otherhand if they go in accepting the risks then they have no right to complain that not enough is being done for them.

However terrorist activity doesn't constitute a war as the US is keen to point out. Therefore the people werent in a war zone until two weeks ago, But, correct me if I'm wrong, the jist of that paragraph is that they dont deserve evacuation because a *Military* rather then *Terrorist* attack was inevitable.

Why should people leave their decision making up to the government? My god, people have a brain of their own and if they can figure out where the on/off switch is they should use it. If they can manage that, then they can figure out that they're taking their life in their hands every time they get in a car or go for a run in the park or travel overseas. The risk increases on the individual case. Is someone driving dangerously, are they running in the middle of the night through a dark area or are they traveling to a region where the political rhetoric suggests something bad may happen in the future. They have to realise the government may be able to help them, i.e. get an ambulance to them in a car crash or fly them home, but that isn't always possible. Charging into a country that is being bombed isn't an easy or safe task. To get people out quickly is an enormous risk to the personnel involved in the retrieval and isn't a choice that's always up to them. Why risk the lives of good people looking to help others to quickly extract people that made a choice to go to a political hotspot?

As for the absolutes you evidently feel that the people in lebanon are in an existing war zone because:


Nobody knew when, but if someone couldn't see something like this was inevitable (and therefore there was an inherent risk involved in going into the area) then they're no great loss to the gene pool. On the otherhand if they go in accepting the risks then they have no right to complain that not enough is being done for them.

You're going to have to explain how you came to that conclusion. I suggested they went to a future war zone. I'm not sure how you decided that makes it an existing war zone. It was more probable that anyone there for a short time would leave before anything happened but it was also possible that this would happen while they were there, I'm not sure how that makes it an existing war zone.

However terrorist activity doesn't constitute a war as the US is keen to point out. Therefore the people werent in a war zone until two weeks ago, But, correct me if I'm wrong, the jist of that paragraph is that they dont deserve evacuation because a *Military* rather then *Terrorist* attack was inevitable.

What do you mean? Regardless people have to make their own decisions and not rely on others to tell them something is safe. Too often in society people want to blame others for situations brought about by their own decisions.

Not going on the off chance terrorists may capture some jews and start a war is crazy

nb, I am not saying "you shouldn't go to Lebanon". I'm saying "if you're in Lebanon, or any other country that is near a war zone, and things start escalating rapidly near where you are, you shouldn't blame your government if and when you can't leave as quickly as you'd like if you leave it too late".

Why should people leave their decision making up to the government?

I didn't say that and you know I didn't, I said that Government policy affects any risk assessment a traveller can do. In the absense of a clear mandate people can not be expected an informed decision, thus have limited culpability when the unexpected occurs.

You're going to have to explain how you came to that conclusion. I suggested they went to a future war zone. I'm not sure how you decided that makes it an existing war zone. It was more probable that anyone there for a short time would leave before anything happened but it was also possible that this would happen while they were there, I'm not sure how that makes it an existing war zone.

in your last post you said that the expectation to be evacuated from a sudden war zone is fair. evacuation from an existing war zone is unreasonable. You said that people who traveled to lebanon deserve to be left there therefore I assume you consider Lebanon to be an exisiting war zone.

Not travelling to a country on the premise it will become a war zone is silly because anywhere on earth is a potential war zone.

However terrorist activity doesn't constitute a war as the US is keen to point out. Therefore the people werent in a war zone until two weeks ago, But, correct me if I'm wrong, the jist of that paragraph is that they dont deserve evacuation because a *Military* rather then *Terrorist* attack was inevitable.


What do you mean?

I mean that you are suggesting that because a country has terrorist activity in it you should expect and all out war, which is plainly false.

as for your last comment.

regardless people have to make their own decisions and not rely on others to tell them something is safe. Too often in society people want to blame others for situations brought about by their own decisions.

You have got to be kidding. People shouldn't rely on others testamony about the safety of another country? How do you suppose people should go about finding out if a country is safe if they can trust other peoples testamony?

too much text and not enough funny.

http://img96.imageshack.us/img96/3677/lebisml2.jpg

I didn't say that and you know I didn't, I said that Government policy affects any risk assessment a traveller can do. In the absense of a clear mandate people can not be expected an informed decision, thus have limited culpability when the unexpected occurs.

If there is no clear policy, why is the assumption that they should be helped. You can't expect the government to clearly state in policy everything they will not or may not be able to do, that would take forever. Therefore shouldn't the reasonable expectation be that they may not be able to help you unless they have specifically said they will?

in your last post you said that the expectation to be evacuated from a sudden war zone is fair. evacuation from an existing war zone is unreasonable. You said that people who traveled to lebanon deserve to be left there therefore I assume you consider Lebanon to be an exisiting war zone.

Not travelling to a country on the premise it will become a war zone is silly because anywhere on earth is a potential war zone.

I'm not sure where I said existing war zone but if I did that was a mistake. In most places I've referred to political rhetoric and existing tensions and that's what I mean in this case. The government should make more of an effort to help people caught in a situation they couldn't have reasonably predicted MAY happen. War between Israel and at least one of their neighbors is not such a situation, because there is a much better chance the region could become a war zone than for example Germany. Again that's not to say anyone knew when that would occur but the odds are much better that it will at any pont in time given the political situation.

I mean that you are suggesting that because a country has terrorist activity in it you should expect and all out war, which is plainly false.

I suggested no such thing, however it is (just) one of the contributing factors in this case.

You have got to be kidding. People shouldn't rely on others testamony about the safety of another country? How do you suppose people should go about finding out if a country is safe if they can trust other peoples testamony?

That's an inaccurate interpretation of the statement as there is an obvious difference between testimony and a decision. By all means listen to others, of course that's how you will come to a decision on how safe a region is. But to simply expect the government to tell you a black or white safe/not safe without going to the effort of making your own decision is lazy and foolish.

Therefore shouldn't the reasonable expectation be that they may not be able to help you unless they have specifically said they will?

No. If the government is going to be unable to help in certain situation the emphasis should be on the government to make it clear that they can't. What ever the case maybe if people can't take government advice about travelling to different countries at face value, who do you prepose they trust in its stead? Laziness and foolishness have nothing to do with what has happened in Lebanon. Those people have a genuine need and the government should be, and is, attempting to help them.

I mean that you are suggesting that because a country has terrorist activity in it you should expect and all out war, which is plainly false.

I suggested no such thing, however it is (just) one of the contributing factors in this case.

You did however suggest that based on terrorist activity people should have to expect to being fleeing a war zone. How else can you say that they deserve their situation.
Before Israels attacks nobody was suggesting a mass evacuation plan should be put in place. Terrorist are unlikely to be able to make leaving a country impossible. On the other hand a full blown military offensive is. Now the fact that Terrorism happens in Lebanon is a separate issue from Israel invading.

The Australians in Lebanon are not running from hezbollah they are running from the IDF. Now it is unreasonable to assume that people could have predicted Israels invasion when there was no warning of that on the government site or in the media. Like I said Israel haven't invaded another country since the eighties and hezbollah have been in Lebanon that entire time.

That's an inaccurate interpretation of the statement as there is an obvious difference between testimony and a decision. By all means listen to others, of course that's how you will come to a decision on how safe a region is. But to simply expect the government to tell you a black or white safe/not safe without going to the effort of making your own decision is lazy and foolish.

I never said that testimony and a decision are one and the same. However if the government can't give you black and white advice they have an obligation to make it known that they aren't in the possession of all the facts. I have no idea what this

But to simply expect the government to tell you a black or white safe/not safe without going to the effort of making your own decision is lazy and foolish.

is supposed to mean, expecting your government to give you information to base your decision on is lazy and foolish? What is DFAT's purpose if not to facilitate foreign information exchange?

No. If the government is going to be unable to help in certain situation the emphasis should be on the government to make it clear that they can't. What ever the case maybe if people can't take government advice about travelling to different countries at face value, who do you prepose they trust in its stead? Laziness and foolishness have nothing to do with what has happened in Lebanon. Those people have a genuine need and the government should be, and is, attempting to help them.

Think about the implications of what you have just said and get back to me when you see how long it would take to outline every single scenario the government can't help in. I'm fairly sure that's impossible as there are infinitely more situations they can't help in compared to those they can. Also the point isn't that they aren't helping them, that's nice and all that they're trying, but they don't have to and they definitely don't have to do it within a time frame dictated by the people that chose to go to a clearly POTENTIAL war zone.

You did however suggest that based on terrorist activity people should have to expect to being fleeing a war zone. How else can you say that they deserve their situation.
Before Israels attacks nobody was suggesting a mass evacuation plan should be put in place. Terrorist are unlikely to be able to make leaving a country impossible. On the other hand a full blown military offensive is. Now the fact that Terrorism happens in Lebanon is a separate issue from Israel invading.

So you think that terrorist activities by parties on both sides of the border doesn't indicate a millitary offensive is a possible reaction by one of the sides, especially given political tension in the region? I think it's a fair assumption that a government could react to terrorism by dealing with parties involved by bombing them. The US certainly has many times in the past.

The Australians in Lebanon are not running from hezbollah they are running from the IDF. Now it is unreasonable to assume that people could have predicted Israels invasion when there was no warning of that on the government site or in the media. Like I said Israel haven't invaded another country since the eighties and hezbollah have been in Lebanon that entire time.

See above. Also I never said anyone could predict it would happen NOW, just that it would at some stage hence the risk it could happen now.

I never said that testimony and a decision are one and the same. However if the government can't give you black and white advice they have an obligation to make it known that they aren't in the possession of all the facts. I have no idea what this

But to simply expect the government to tell you a black or white safe/not safe without going to the effort of making your own decision is lazy and foolish.

is supposed to mean, expecting your government to give you information to base your decision on is lazy and foolish? What is DFAT's purpose if not to facilitate foreign information exchange?

If you can't be bothered forming your own opinion and want the government to do it for you how is that anything but lazy. It's just one source of information that's helpful, but treating like gospel is absolutely foolish. And yes, what you did say equated testimony and advice with a decision. I said people should make their own decisions, you somehow concluded I said people shouldn't trust others testimony which is incorrect.

Shamelessly stolen from the parrelel thread running in [M].
http://img138.imageshack.us/img138/7231/bukkake001kg0.jpg


last edited by Xy at 21:10:37 23/Jul/06

When was the last time Israel was actually at war with another country. Some time in the eighties.

Yes but they've been under constant attack for years (whether or not you want to consider/call it war), and even those attacks alone have made me weary.

Think about the implications of what you have just said and get back to me when you see how long it would take to outline every single scenario the government can't help in. I'm fairly sure that's impossible as there are infinitely more situations they can't help in compared to those they can. Also the point isn't that they aren't helping them, that's nice and all that they're trying, but they don't have to and they definitely don't have to do it within a time frame dictated by the people that chose to go to a clearly POTENTIAL war zone.

The implications of what I said are pretty clear. If you Can't organize an Evacuation from a country then you should say so. There isn't an Infinite number of situations, there are around 190. If war breaks out it can only happen in 2 or 3 of the around 190 states in the world. It isn't alot to ask the feasability of an emergency evacuation from each of them. Once again I didn't put a time frame on it, I just said that an attempt should be made.

So you think that terrorist activities by parties on both sides of the border doesn't indicate a millitary offensive is a possible reaction by one of the sides, especially given political tension in the region? I think it's a fair assumption that a government could react to terrorism by dealing with parties involved by bombing them. The US certainly has many times in the past.

No. firstly because Hezbollah by definition can't and secondly because Israel never has before. The US to the best of my knowlegde has never crippled a nation on the basis of terrorism. Both in Iraq and Afghanistan the objective was regime change. They haven't, in the name of soley chasing terrorists, destroyed every viable means of exiting a country.

See above. Also I never said anyone could predict it would happen NOW, just that it would at some stage hence the risk it could happen now.

So in otherwords you didn't *know* that an attack was going to happen, How could anyone else? If that is the case the clearly people are stuck through no fault of their own.

If you can't be bothered forming your own opinion and want the government to do it for you how is that anything but lazy. It's just one source of information that's helpful, but treating like gospel is absolutely foolish.

Once again if you can't trust the government as a source of information, the governments website is a source of information you can use to form an opinion. I don't understand how you could form an opinion without information. The government suppling and accurate source of information is not the same as making peoples opinions for them.

And yes, what you did say equated testimony and advice with a decision. I said people should make their own decisions, you somehow concluded I said people shouldn't trust others testimony which is incorrect.

No what I said does not equate testimony and a decision.
Lets recap

you said

Regardless people have to make their own decisions and not rely on others to tell them something is safe. Too often in society people want to blame others for situations brought about by their own decisions.

Then I said

You have got to be kidding. People shouldn't rely on others testamony about the safety of another country? How do you suppose people should go about finding out if a country is safe if they can't trust other peoples testamony?

So explain to me how someone can make an informed decision with out relying on someone elses opinion. Short of going to the country and seeing for yourself, tell me how you could find out if a country is safe or not?

But ofcourse if your correct that is the only way you could find out. So if I got caught in a war zone according to you it is categorically my fault. I don't know what you think a decision is but it is generally considered to be a comparison of two options based on factors one considers important. If the testamony of others must be excluded because, according to you, that is letting others make your mind up for you, how would you go about making a decision concerning options you are new to.

last edited by PornoPete at 20:33:07 23/Jul/06

pete wins

blah who can be bothered reading quote wars.

anyway, what sort of legitimate government allows the 'terrorist' branch of another state (hezbollah and syria/iran) to basically run its own race within a country. allows them to stockpile weapons. allows them free run to do whatever they want. one would say they are almost complicit in what was going on.

lebanon has no one to blame but itself. israel have done it before with the PLO, and they'll do it again with hezbollah. they'll kick their arse out of town and do themselves and lebanon a favour in the process.

if people are too stupid to not leave town like the israelis have told everyone, or live near known hezbollah bases/buildings, then they have about as much right to complain as the conveniant 'dual' citizens of lebanon and [insert bleeding heart country here] complaining because [said] government hasnt help THEM out enough.


last edited by cainer at 22:22:22 23/Jul/06

The implications of what I said are pretty clear. If you Can't organize an Evacuation from a country then you should say so. There isn't an Infinite number of situations, there are around 190. If war breaks out it can only happen in 2 or 3 of the around 190 states in the world. It isn't alot to ask the feasability of an emergency evacuation from each of them. Once again I didn't put a time frame on it, I just said that an attempt should be made.

That's not the point I made. I didn't say there are an infinite number of countries they can't evacuate people from. I said there are an infinite number of situations they may not be able to help in. i.e. Anything from you losing money in an internet scam to accidentally blowing yourself up in a backyard experiment. The government isn't going to outline every possibility they can't help you in. Therefore the implications of what you said in response to my point are impractical.

No. firstly because Hezbollah by definition can't and secondly because Israel never has before. The US to the best of my knowlegde has never crippled a nation on the basis of terrorism. Both in Iraq and Afghanistan the objective was regime change. They haven't, in the name of soley chasing terrorists, destroyed every viable means of exiting a country.

The problem there is the best of your knowledge. On more than one occasion the US launched cruise missiles into Afghanistan after terrorist activities during the Clinton administration, long before this regime change BS was ever mentioned.

So in otherwords you didn't *know* that an attack was going to happen, How could anyone else? If that is the case the clearly people are stuck through no fault of their own.

I said I didn't know it would happen NOW. Hence now was in capitals for emphasis. If you paid any attention to my previous points when you clearly haven't then you would know I've maintained that people should realise they are risking putting themselves in this sort of situation as it was bound to happen eventually and MAY happen while they are there.

Once again if you can't trust the government as a source of information, the governments website is a source of information you can use to form an opinion. I don't understand how you could form an opinion without information. The government suppling and accurate source of information is not the same as making peoples opinions for them.

Read what I said and stop twisting my words. It's one source of information you can use to make a decision but to say the government didn't tell me this was going to happen so they should rush to my aid is stupid. More responsibility needs to be put on the individual and they need to be able to live with the decision they made to possibly put themselves in harms way.

So explain to me how someone can make an informed decision with out relying on someone elses opinion. Short of going to the country and seeing for yourself, tell me how you could find out if a country is safe or not?

Again you've twisted my words here. I'm talking about a decision as to the relative safety of a location. You need testimony to arrive at that conclusion and I never said otherwise even though you claim I did. The government saying a location is safe and someone trusting them is not an individual going through their own decision making process and hence is lazy and foolish. A person gathering enough relevant information (through news and testimony) about the current situation to form their own opinion means they must realise the risks and know what they may be getting into without going there first.

But ofcourse if your correct that is the only way you could find out. So if I got caught in a war zone according to you it is categorically my fault. I don't know what you think a decision is but it is generally considered to be a comparison of two options based on factors one considers important. If the testamony of others must be excluded because, according to you, that is letting others make your mind up for you, how would you go about making a decision concerning options you are new to.

This is a false interpretation on multiple levels.


last edited by Chakas at 22:46:56 23/Jul/06

That's not the point I made. I didn't say there are an infinite number of countries they can't evacuate people from. I said there are an infinite number of situations they may not be able to help in. i.e. Anything from you losing money in an internet scam to accidentally blowing yourself up in a backyard experiment. The government isn't going to outline every possibility they can't help you in. Therefore the implications of what you said in response to my point are impractical.

Well you are just wrong there. There is nothing like an infinitude of problems a person can run into while abroad. Least of all asking after assistance in leaving a country when you can’t by normal means. Losing money in an internet scam or any other time you are short of cash can be solved by stating something to the effect of, if you are robbed and have no access to money go to the embassy and ask for help. If you hurt yourself somehow you can go to a hospital and then ask the embassy for help if you incur medical bills beyond your means. There isn’t anything prohibitive about these kinds of mandates.

The problem there is the best of your knowledge. On more than one occasion the US launched cruise missiles into Afghanistan after terrorist activities during the Clinton administration, long before this regime change BS was ever mentioned.

Launching cruise missiles at the odd target in Afghanistan is totally different to a concerted effort to cut off all transportation routes out of the country.

I said I didn't know it would happen NOW. Hence now was in capitals for emphasis. If you paid any attention to my previous points when you clearly haven't then you would know I've maintained that people should realise they are risking putting themselves in this sort of situation as it was bound to happen eventually and MAY happen while they are there.

I know that you said you didn’t know exactly when it would happen. The problem is that nobody did. You are evidently having trouble with this. Because war might happen is not sufficient grounds to abandon citizens in harms way. Until two weeks ago nobody could have said anything stronger then Israel might invade Lebanon. Therefore saying that people bought their situations on themselves is unreasonable

Read what I said and stop twisting my words. It's one source of information you can use to make a decision but to say the government didn't tell me this was going to happen so they should rush to my aid is stupid. More responsibility needs to be put on the individual and they need to be able to live with the decision they made to possibly put themselves in harms way.

I have at no point twisted your words. I have merely stated that as far as Australian travellers are concerned you are not going to find a more reliable source of information then the Australian department of foreign affairs and trade. It is the purpose of the department.

Again you've twisted my words here. I'm talking about a decision as to the relative safety of a location. You need testimony to arrive at that conclusion and I never said otherwise even though you claim I did.

That is exactly what you have said:

regardless people have to make their own decisions and not rely on others to tell them something is safe. Too often in society people want to blame others for situations brought about by their own decisions.

That is a direct quote. I can’t see how it doesn’t explicitly state that despite other people opinions you should make up your on mind as to the relative safety of a country before going, other then going to the actual country and seeing the situation first hand how is any information regarding it not testimony? This includes all sources of information, because any information that you didn’t physical get for yourself is testimony.

The government saying a location is safe and someone trusting them is not an individual going through their own decision making process and hence is lazy and foolish. A person gathering enough relevant information (through news and testimony) about the current situation to form their own opinion means they must realise the risks and know what they may be getting into without going there first.

I simply fail to see how treating the government’s opinion as being accurate is lazy. DFAT is payed for by the taxpayer so that they can be informed about foreign situations. Besides which I have said only that the government information about a countries is likely to be accurate. Besides which tell me about a more accurate source, if I should treat the governments information skeptically the outlook for any other source of information isn’t good. The only information that needs to be clear and incontrovertible is the government’s policy toward various mishaps. If for example I went to the US and had my passport nicked and I wasn’t able to have a new issued I would be pissed off, if, before I went I could find no information concerning lost passports only to find out that the policy is tough luck. I would have a genuine reason to be pissed off further more.

Anyway we are straying from the point. The government does have a duty of care to its citizens. Those which find themselves in a war zone and need evacuation where possible should get it. Now saying that people who are caught in a war zone should left to their own devices because they should have known better is simply BS. Israel made a surprise attack, the fact that there had been terrorist activity beforehand did not make that inevitable and being a surprise attack no one could be reasonably expected to have anticipated it. Therefore, the Australian government does have a responsibility to attempt to evacuate them. What ever else you may think about the situation DFAT evidently feels differently. Thank you for your discussion I’m going to bed.

XY wins the thread, with me at a close second.

judges rule in favour of dice

Well you are just wrong there. There is nothing like an infinitude of problems a person can run into while abroad. Least of all asking after assistance in leaving a country when you can’t by normal means. Losing money in an internet scam or any other time you are short of cash can be solved by stating something to the effect of, if you are robbed and have no access to money go to the embassy and ask for help. If you hurt yourself somehow you can go to a hospital and then ask the embassy for help if you incur medical bills beyond your means. There isn’t anything prohibitive about these kinds of mandates.

Read it again, that's not what I said. Nowhere there did I restrict myself to overseas activities in that statement.

Launching cruise missiles at the odd target in Afghanistan is totally different to a concerted effort to cut off all transportation routes out of the country.

It adresses your point.

I know that you said you didn’t know exactly when it would happen. The problem is that nobody did. You are evidently having trouble with this. Because war might happen is not sufficient grounds to abandon citizens in harms way. Until two weeks ago nobody could have said anything stronger then Israel might invade Lebanon. Therefore saying that people bought their situations on themselves is unreasonable

Again that's not what I said. "brought their situations on themselves" isn't what I indicated. I said by travelling they are at risk of being caught up in a situation and they have to seal with taking on that risk. The way you say it make it sound like they should have know exactly this would happen and again you're twisting my words due to your false interpretations.

I have at no point twisted your words. I have merely stated that as far as Australian travellers are concerned you are not going to find a more reliable source of information then the Australian department of foreign affairs and trade. It is the purpose of the department.

It's just one source of information and just because it's the most reliable doesn't mean it's perfect e.g. this case. Others saw this coming at some stage but because there wasn't even a broad time frame known there was no warning. therefore the sytem is flawed. If the system is flawed then by definition it isn't perfect as it doesn't tell you everything. If it doesn't tell you everything then the smart person would find out additional information by themselves.

That is exactly what you have said:

Read it again till you figure out that's not what I said.

That is a direct quote. I can’t see how it doesn’t explicitly state that despite other people opinions you should make up your on mind as to the relative safety of a country before going, other then going to the actual country and seeing the situation first hand how is any information regarding it not testimony? This includes all sources of information, because any information that you didn’t physical get for yourself is testimony.

How does coming to a decision yourself preclude you including testimony in the decision making process. Read it all again before you reply to make sure you understand before making a flat out wrong analysis again.

I simply fail to see how treating the government’s opinion as being accurate is lazy. DFAT is payed for by the taxpayer so that they can be informed about foreign situations. Besides which I have said only that the government information about a countries is likely to be accurate. Besides which tell me about a more accurate source, if I should treat the governments information skeptically the outlook for any other source of information isn’t good. The only information that needs to be clear and incontrovertible is the government’s policy toward various mishaps. If for example I went to the US and had my passport nicked and I wasn’t able to have a new issued I would be pissed off, if, before I went I could find no information concerning lost passports only to find out that the policy is tough luck. I would have a genuine reason to be pissed off further more.

See above.

Anyway we are straying from the point. The government does have a duty of care to its citizens. Those which find themselves in a war zone and need evacuation where possible should get it. Now saying that people who are caught in a war zone should left to their own devices because they should have known better is simply BS. Israel made a surprise attack, the fact that there had been terrorist activity beforehand did not make that inevitable and being a surprise attack no one could be reasonably expected to have anticipated it. Therefore, the Australian government does have a responsibility to attempt to evacuate them. What ever else you may think about the situation DFAT evidently feels differently.

Why do they have a duty of care. Why do they have to put more people in harms way to say people that should have known they were at risk? More to the point, why does it have to be at the travellers time line. I'm not actually saying they shouldn't be helped, just that there's only so much that can be done for them safely so they have no right to COMPLAIN that not enough is being done for them.

Finally, have you ever had to do a 'risk assessment' at work etc. Nasty often pointless bits of paper work but they highlight the point I'm trying to make. A person has to fill out a risk assesment before undertaking some tasks (at work in Australia - nothing to do with travel) so they are forced to gather the information themselves on the danger and realise what the worst case scenario is. So A) they find out what the dangers are for themselves and B) accept what the risk of the task are even though the worst cse scenario almost never happens. It isn't left up to the government to tell them the task is safe, and any one person saying a blanket "it is safe" might be right for 99% of the time but it doesn't tell you the risks that happen 1% of the time and may happen to you. Therefore you gatther facts and testimony to come to the decision that 99% of the time it's ok, but I have to be aware that there is a 1% risk I could kill myself by doing this or that. See how testimony works there without being a final decision, and that though something may be classed as 'safe' it isn't the whole story?

typo is hacking into peoples accounts!

blah blah blah

blah blah

blah

1. Going to the middle is retarded. If you go there sucked in get your own way out.
2. Whats this got to do with barely legal hot women carrying assult rifles ?

typo strikes again :(

Read it again, that's not what I said. Nowhere there did I restrict myself to overseas activities in that statement.

You are being moronic now. You implicitly agree with me that there is a finite number of problems someone can run into overseas and you think by adding being at home into the mix now it is infinite. We have a justice system for this exact reason

It adresses your point.

No it doesn’t.

Again that's not what I said. "brought their situations on themselves" isn't what I indicated. I said by travelling they are at risk of being caught up in a situation and they have to seal with taking on that risk. The way you say it make it sound like they should have know exactly this would happen and again you're twisting my words due to your false interpretations.

The way I make it sound? That’s laughable, if they didn’t bring it on themselves then as Australian citizens they are entitled to expect help. You on the other hand are trying to suggest that they should have anticipated a situation like this, how else could possibly justify not helping them.

It's just one source of information and just because it's the most reliable doesn't mean it's perfect e.g. this case. Others saw this coming at some stage but because there wasn't even a broad time frame known there was no warning. therefore the sytem is flawed. If the system is flawed then by definition it isn't perfect as it doesn't tell you everything. If it doesn't tell you everything then the smart person would find out additional information by themselves.

Yes, that is true. However you fail to account for the fact that every other news source is going to get progressively less reliable. I suppose you think we should watch channel 10 news and figure it out from there.

Read it again till you figure out that's not what I said.

If you refuse to have meaning attached to your words then don’t write any.

How does coming to a decision yourself preclude you including testimony in the decision making process. Read it all again before you reply to make sure you understand before making a flat out wrong analysis again.

Once again you attempt to insult me. It isn’t going to work. You have said more then once that you shouldn’t rely on outside sources of information including but not limited to the government’s security assessment. Anyway once again you need to go back to school and learn what a prediction is. A predication that can’t rule out anything with in a given frame of reference is no prediction at all. That is, if you couldn’t rule out a significant time period in the next forty years when a war couldn’t break out then you have predicted nothing. If you are saying that people who check one or two accurate sources and don’t listen to security advice from john laws and co are lazy well fair enough I call them smart.

See above.

For what?

Why do they have a duty of care. Why do they have to put more people in harms way to say people that should have known they were at risk? More to the point, why does it have to be at the travellers time line. I'm not actually saying they shouldn't be helped, just that there's only so much that can be done for them safely so they have no right to COMPLAIN that not enough is being done for them.

Why does a government have a duty of care to its citizens? The fact that you have to ask that question proves once and for all you have no idea.

Finally, have you ever had to do a 'risk assessment' at work etc. Nasty often pointless bits of paper work but they highlight the point I'm trying to make. A person has to fill out a risk assesment before undertaking some tasks (at work in Australia - nothing to do with travel) so they are forced to gather the information themselves on the danger and realise what the worst case scenario is. So A) they find out what the dangers are for themselves and B) accept what the risk of the task are even though the worst cse scenario almost never happens. It isn't left up to the government to tell them the task is safe, and any one person saying a blanket "it is safe" might be right for 99% of the time but it doesn't tell you the risks that happen 1% of the time and may happen to you. Therefore you gatther facts and testimony to come to the decision that 99% of the time it's ok, but I have to be aware that there is a 1% risk I could kill myself by doing this or that. See how testimony works there without being a final decision, and that though something may be classed as 'safe' it isn't the whole story?

Look as for risk assessment my uncle actually does that full time. I know what a risk assessment is. And you if you think that you can make a final decision without testimony of others then you are a moron. Information that comes from any source what so ever, excluding information you create yourself, is testimony. You are clearly too simply to grasp this point. In your little risk assessment you rely totally on others opinions. Did you sit down and do 100 trials? How do *you* *know* that the odds are 99 to 1. If you didn’t you are basing your opinion on other peoples not on “the hard facts”. Testimony and a decision are the same and I never said they are, however they are enormously important to one another and you evidently have trouble understanding. Once again prior to the surprise attack nobody knew it was going to happen. There was no testimony that would lead someone to believe that Israel was going to bomb the Beirut airport and then say get out while you can.

Do either of you guys have a point you can summarise in about five words?

Australia should attempt to help

Here's the difference between making a decision and having someone make it for you.

A) Someone making a decision for an individual.
Someone asks is it safe to travel to South Korea and gets a simple yes or it's fairly safe. In this scenario the person has not used their own brain to come to the conclusion and does not know enough about the situation to acknowledge the risks. Therefore they have taken the lazy and foolish option available to them. Is this a form of testimony? Yes of course it is, but you've decided that by me saying one particular form of testimony is not a good option, that I in fact mean all forms of testimony are bad. That's a problem at your end, not mine.

B) An individual making a decision for themselves.
Someone asks (or pays attention to news sources etc) what the current political situation is in the region. They find out that North and South Korea have previously been at war with each other, the political climate between the two is cold to say the least, North Korea was included in the US 'axis of evil' and are currently pursuing Nuclear and long range missile programs much to the anger of the international community in general. They also find out that there hasn't really been much in the way of skirmishes recently that would lead them to believe anything is imminent, but that things are likely to come to a head at some stage in the future. They therefore decide that though there is a risk something will happen, it is minimal enough that they are willing to take that risk. In this case they have used testimony to come to their own decision and therefore know the risks involved in traveling to South Korea.

I never said other people's testimony is a bad thing. I have maintained all along that it is part of the decision making process but you have chosen to ignore that.


last edited by Chakas at 10:26:53 24/Jul/06

Let's be realistic. For 99.9% of Australian's their best source of information to make up their own mind whether to go overseas or not is DFAT's intel on the situation.

It is the same as investing in stocks. You get the best information available and then make a calculated risk.

It's not like an Aussie could ever have first hand knowledge of the political environment of another country without going there first.

I really don't see what the argument is about.

last edited by infi at 10:58:57 24/Jul/06

It's not like an Aussie could ever have first hand knowledge of the political environment of another country without going there first.

You can't have first hand knowledge of ANYTHING without experiencing it first. That's what first hand means!

But you don't NEED first hand knowledge in all cases to know that something isn't good for you (or bad for you). You can read about it from trusted sources.

The argument is that if people use their own brains they will realise there is a risk involved in going anywhere but in some places it is higher than others. Having said that it started off with whether or not it was predictable that the current situation would occur at some stage.

that's what we pay $400 billion in taxes for, to help us out of s***ty situations like this i suppose.

people make all sorts of silly mistakes. do we just say "that's their tough f***en luck"?

what about australian mateship and helping others when they are down on their luck? from the above commets i guess that is dead.

I'm not saying that efforts shouldn't be made. I'm just saying there's no point in risking the lives of people that didn't chose to be there to save people that did chose to be there (given it should have been apparent this situation could have occured at any time). The people over there will be extracted from the war zone as soon as can reasonably and safely be done so, and should not complain that others aren't charging in risking their own lives.

yeah fair enough. i wouldn't be tripping over myself to go there and save them either. but when it is safe to extract them it should be done.

All I have ever said is that failure to predict Israels invaision isn't suficient grounds to abandon people. The only people risking their lives to save these people are military personel. Nobody is being asked to go above and beyond for them. this is what the military recieves money for.

Now if these people were part of that human shield thing in Iraq in 2003 then zero sympathy. But talk of they should have known better is stupid. You haven't offered anything like a prediction, you have given an oman and last time I checked it wise to ignore witch doctors.

Some people in Lebanon would fall into your category A. However some perhaps even most would fall into category B. Listening to the mass media about the political situation in another country ahead of government advice I would say is idiotic. Broadening you reasearch net doesn't guarantee better or more accurate information. To revist your risk assessment example if a company like siemans for example declares that their radio batteries are safe for use and then some clown with a blog said they aren't because they have a 1% failure rate if you chose to accept the bloggers word then you haven't used your brain as you put it. You selected to trust his testimony over siemans however if someone else choses to ignore the bloggers testimony that doesn't somehow mean you have used your brain and he hasn't even if he does indeed get unlucky and die in a freak radio battery incident.

Using the government as a primary source of information and disregarding some reports that contradict it isn't being lazy. Particularly over the internet. I dont know what you would consider to be an industrious amount of information to gather about a country before you go but it seems it would be more then is necessary or even reasonable. Particularly in the case of Lebanon.

anyway it seems that we are arguing over the most minor of technicalities so I will stop.

I'm thinking agreeing to disagree would be the best option at this point for work productivity.

^ Finally! Sense!

Slightly off topic here
Is anyone else sick of how loosely the word "Terrorist" is being thrown around these days for situations that aren't even related to what a terrorist is??

I know I am
Last time I checked if a group of people crossed a border an kidnapped someone, that was called "raiding".

no that is wow terminology. in the real world it is called an act of terrorism. i know the two are easily confused.

Sigh. It's not terrorism if it's done by a state, regardless of how you want to throw the word around. Act of war? Sure, maybe, even that's more accurate. But terrorism... sorry, no.

this wasn't done by a state. this was done by a political party's paramilitary arm.

last edited by infi at 15:49:09 24/Jul/06

Err.. I don't don't play WoW. Never have, never will as I think the game is s***e
Raven gets the point tho

Which example or examples are you referring to here? If it's the abduction of Israel's soldiers then I think it's a terrorist act if it's not sanctioned by a sovereign nation's governing body. If it's Israel's response then it's an act of war.

I may be on a wrong tangent here, but I think the term terrorist has been used in scare campaigns so much lately that it's hard not to automatically think of the extreme cases (e.g. suicide bombers and 9/11) when it's used.

All I am saying is Hezbollah are not the Lebanese government. They are one political party in the Lebanese parliament. Thus their (para-)military actions would be considered terrorist because they do not fit within the normal paradigm of international conflict.

yet the lebanese government complicitly turns a blind eye to their activities thereby passively supporting it. if they had a set of balls they would do something about a political party/terrorist hijacking their country.

Yes, i'm sure it's that easy. If only you were running lebanon right, cainer? Surely you're not that stupid...

Chakas / PornoPete - to me your whole argument was mute from the begining, not that I read to the end...

I have been in Vegas for the weekend so maybe I have missed something, but did you guys watch the news prior to launching into your respective tirade. To my knowledge I cant ever see the Australian Government not evacuating any australians caught in any type of unfortunate circumstance beyond their control whether warned or not about the potential seriousness of the situation.

Iraq - SAS were sent in to find/return kidnapped Australians.
Indonesia - Hercules/commerical sent into evacuate, Jakata,Bali x2,tsunami victims
East Timor - evac just recently

If you actually watched/read what happened, Israel systematically locked down Lebannon, seriously f***ing any "easy" way to evacuate people. The sea/ports are patrolled and no ship can enter, the airports were crippled, critical bridges were destroyed, not to mention all the other targets that were taken out. The only real way out is by car (hampered by the destruction of bridges) through syria and then plane but that is no guarantee. (ok apparently they have let ships through, just caught up on the news)


But really, as someone that likes to travel, no warning will stop me from travelling from areas that I really want to go and see - exception, maybe a current warzone - although I would still like to travel to Israel, and that is potentially on my list next year. Egypt is a definite and that has had recent bombings, I just did India in Dec and that just got bombed, not to mention London, so f*** all terrorists/warring nations, I will do whatever the f*** I want... and if the Australian government cant get me out, I may just bitch about it! ;)

And as for warnings, I dont think DFAT is where 99% of Australians get their info from (warnings included), it is those damn lonely planet guides... idiots, those things are outdated by 2 years if your lucky!!

omg are u serial

To clear teh earlier 'terrist' argument up:

the calculated use of violence (or threat of violence) against civilians in order to attain goals that are political or religious or ideological in nature; this is done through intimidation or coercion or instilling fear.

http://wordnet.princeton.edu/perl/webwn

Raid
Noun
S: (n) foray, raid, maraud (a sudden short attack)
S: (n) raid (an attempt by speculators to defraud investors)
Verb
S: (v) raid, bust (search without warning, make a sudden surprise attack on) "The police raided the crack house"
S: (v) foray into, raid (enter someone else's territory and take spoils) "The pirates raided the coastal villages regularly"
S: (v) raid (take over (a company) by buying a controlling interest of its stock) "T. Boone Pickens raided many large companies"
S: (v) raid (search for something needed or desired) "Our babysitter raided our refrigerator"
http://wordnet.princeton.edu/perl/webwn?s=raid

Terrorism is different in that it is largely a PSYCHOLOGICAL attack to achieve a particular end.

so f*** all terrorists/warring nations

Twat has a very good point. If we give in to the fear of terrorist attacks, the terrorists win. If we stop travelling because we fear them and their actions, we're giving them more power and control. So make that desired trip to the middle east if you must, or head over to the US or latin america. Just don't blame the Australian government if you can't get out safely if something bad happens.

If we give in to the fear of terrorist attacks, the terrorists win. If we stop travelling because we fear them and their actions, we're giving them more power and control.

I don't think you'd stop travelling due to terroism, surely. There's a difference between not going somewhere touristy because you think someone might blow it up (chances are less than getting struck by lightning) and going to a warzone though.

unless you like going to warzones...

Twat you are quite right Chakas and I were arguing over a relatively unimportant technicallity. I disagree with him about the level of responsibility that should be givin to those currently stuck in lebanon. He feels they should wear some blame and I feel that are blameless.

I agree with you. the australian government is probably always going to try to evacuate their citizens and rightly so. Where aussies travelling abroad get there information is not important. I merely contended that *even* DFAT's site didn't predict the invasion, and given that it is going to be the most accurate readily available source any other source IMO is going to progressively less useful for making an informed decision.

But like you said, the Israelis bombed and blockaded every easy way out of Lebanon. It may have been over the course of one or two days but two days is hardly a long time to pack up and organize a flight to Australia Particularly when the airport has just been bombed. There would be no need for an evacuation if it was easy to leave.

Anyway Im not going to argue but I will say that people complaining about the time frame of the aussie government in responding is unreasonable. seeing as the only sure way out is by sea and we have zero naval presence in the Mediterranean it was always going to take some time to find a contractor willing to sail to hostile waters to rescue some aussie expats.

That is why the capture of Israeli troops, first one in the south, then two in the north, has galvanized Israel. The kidnappings represent a level of Arab tactical prowess that previously was the Israeli domain. They also represent a level of tactical slackness on the Israeli side that was previously the Arab domain. These events hardly represent a fundamental shift in the balance of power. Nevertheless, for a country that depends on its cultural superiority, any tremor in this variable reverberates dramatically. Hamas and Hezbollah have struck the core Israeli nerve. Israel cannot ignore it.

I found this very interesting. My thinking up to the point of reading that was "Some terrorists that live in Lebanon grabbed two of your soldiers, and you blow a metric arse ton of f*** out of the country?!?!? WTF is wrong with you people?!?!"

Now my thinking is, "Some terrorists that live in Lebanon grabbed two of your soldiers, and you blow a metric arse ton of f*** out of the country?!?!? WTF is wrong with you people?!?! You must be really really scared!!!" Which makes more sense to me. I still think they're over doing it though.

Here's a scenario that MAY have worked.

1. Hezbollah (sp?) come and steal some soldiers. Israel are understandably pissed.
2. Israel call Lebanon and say "Hey, some terrorist dudes killed and stole some of our soldiers. We'd like to find them, and f*** their s*** up. Mind if we send some forces across the border?"
3. Lebanon say "Sure, but try not to f*** up civilians while you're doing it. Want some help?" (From what I understand, Lebanon are just as pissed at Hezbollah as Israel are... well maybe not AS much."
4. Lebanon and Israel work together to return soldiers, f*** some terrorist s*** up, and generally behave like grown up countries.

I realise that that scenario might sound like a bit of a fairy tale, but I honestly believe that Lebanon would happily avoid all of this if it could, even to the point of diplomatically allowing Israel to occupy and bitch slap Hezbollah territory. From what I understand, Lebanon the country has not fired a shot in anger, which is amazing. They're just going "WAAAHHHHH! Stop blowing our s*** up! We can't watch game shows and have potable drinking water!!!"... and everyone is waiting and seeing what happens.

Amazing stuff.

So you really think this is all about two soliders?

This is not the first time that two Isreali soliders have been captured by an arab country. This is however, the first time that Isreal has invaded an arab country to 'rescue' two soliders.

GG.

No trust me.

GG.

Trust.

That report also said that Hezbollah have a stronger military wing then the Lebanese army. So to anyone saying who would put up with a terrorist outfit in your country, I don't think Lebanon could have gotten rid of Hezbollah even if they wanted to.

so pretty much, israel is doing them a favour right?

He feels they should wear some blame and I feel that are blameless.

I think they should take responsibility for their own actions. Though blame and responsibility are essentially synonyms, there is a small but important difference in the way they read to me. Blame is associated more with 3rd party accusations. i.e. They're to blame so they shouldn't be helped (THIS IS NOT MY POINT). Taking on a level of responsibility indicates an internal thought process more often. i.e. Ok I decided to come here knowing the risks so help would be great but I'm not going to complain to anyone and everyone that not enough is being done quickly. I'm not saying nothing should be done, just that it should be done safely which will take time and the people over there shouldn't be complaining about that. Which is what you say:

I will say that people complaining about the time frame of the aussie government in responding is unreasonable. seeing as the only sure way out is by sea and we have zero naval presence in the Mediterranean it was always going to take some time to find a contractor willing to sail to hostile waters to rescue some aussie expats.

So we agree and can stop arguing.

the kidnapping of the 2 soldiers in northern israel is the catalyst for israel to do what it has wanted to do for 6 years, and that is to crush hezbollah. they can do it now with support from their main benefactor, the US. they kicked the PLO out of lebanon, they'll do the same with these punks.

basically that's it in a nutshell

yes but does that justify killing innocents? at the end of the day it just seems that they can get away with an eye for an eye thinking when this type action should be stamped out everywhere

israel is hemmed in on all sides by nations that would like to see them wiped off the face of the earth and those countries (including many civilians i dare say) would not shed a tear if every jew was murdered by muslim forces.

you know what they say about backing a dog into a corner.

they wouild be much better off accepting israel's right to exist and forming profitable trade partnerships with each other so everyone can make moniey and have better lives for the children too.

instead they provoke israel and israel in turn retaliates. all parties concerned need to draw a line in the sand and move on. that is what the camp david peace neogitations hosted by bill clinton were all about.

you know what they say about backing a dog into a corner.

Outlaw dangerous breeds!

Calm!

touche

so pretty much, israel is doing them a favour right?

If they were actually getting hezbollah maybe.

UN relief chief Jan Egeland launched a scathing attack on Hezbollah today, branding the Shiite militants cowards for boasting that Lebanese civilians were enduring the Israeli bombardments.
"Some believe I spoke only about excessive use of force by Israel there (in Beirut)," he said in Cyprus after arriving from Lebanon en route to Israel.

"However, consistently from Hezbollah heartlands my message was: 'Hezbollah – stop this cowardly blending in among women and children'.

if anyone is to blame for civillians getting killed, its hezbollah. theyre the ones using civillians as shields. its classic asymetric warfare, theyre trying to turn the entire world against israel by showing how unhumane israels assult is. how humane, on the other hand, is launching so far over 2000 rockets into another country?

saying otherwise is almost as stupid as the israeli ARAB father, whose 2 sons were killed by a hezbollah rocket, blaming israel. it was all israels fault. if israel didn't exist this would never of happend.

I read today that they'd launched well over 1000 rockets and killed 37 people.

Atleast we know they're really bad shots.

I read today that they'd launched well over 1000 rockets and killed 37 people.

Lets hope for Israel's sake the rest of the Arab/Muslim world are as ineffective. Frankly that's an incredibly s*** conversion rate, since their goal is to cause casualties.

Lets hope for Israel's sake the rest of the Arab/Muslim world are as ineffective.

That pretty much is the case in general - I think Israel will easily weather this and we'll see an international peace-keeping force instated + Hezbollah all but removed (and definately de-armed).

I would still back Israel in the event of an Israel/Iran conflict (and would continue to even if Israel was stripped of its nuclear strike capabilities).

and would continue to even if Israel was stripped of its nuclear strike capabilities.

An Israeli nuclear strike would be utter lunacy. Any friends they had except perhaps the US wouldn't be their friends much longer. But yeah Israel has one of the most highly trained armed forces in the world. You'd back 'em to beat virutally anyone (Including most of western europe). They are the undisputed masters of blitzkrieg.

The whole reason for going into lebanon was to put pressure on hizbollah to release 2 of their israeli captives ...

Ahhh No... That's not the reason.

Yeah sure, the israelis are mounting a whole invasion force to wipe out hezbollah because they have a couple of their blokes.

http://www.animemanga.pl/forum/images/smilies/rolleyes.png

I just think it's bullcrap how the US polices teh world so much, yet lets Isreal bomb the crap out of innocent people.

Nooo ...I think you'll find it's the hezbollah their targeting. It's likely that any 'innocent' cilvilians that do get caught up is either a mistake, or they are connected with hezbollah one way or another.

last edited by Ecstasy at 00:45:58 26/Jul/06

Targetting UN now?

they are just an interference.... i am sure it was a mistake

the un have been flapping their gums a fair bit

perhaps it wasnt a mistake ... . .

are you suggesting that Israel tagretted to the UN relief post?

i was making teh joke

Nooo ...I think you'll find it's the hezbollah their targeting. It's likely that any 'innocent' cilvilians that do get caught up is either a mistake, or they are connected with hezbollah one way or another.

heard of collateral damage? thats how israel classifies these civilains and this is where the issue is

meh, let them kill eachother already its been going on for too long
i think i've posted this a while ago too but look at the iranian policewomen o_O

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=8071337793166478323

teh funneh is absent

Nooo ...I think you'll find it's the hezbollah their targeting. It's likely that any 'innocent' cilvilians that do get caught up is either a mistake, or they are connected with hezbollah one way or another.

Civilians stop being innocent when they allow Hezbollah to hide rockets in their homes. Hezbollah are playing a dirty game - by hiding rockets in civilian homes they win either way. If the home gets hit Israel's campaign gets tarnished. If not then they still have rockets to hurl over the border.

The UN incident was unfortunate however and isn't going to help Israel at all :(

Civilians stop being innocent when they allow Hezbollah to hide rockets in their homes. Hezbollah are playing a dirty game - by hiding rockets in civilian homes they win either way. If the home gets hit Israel's campaign gets tarnished. If not then they still have rockets to hurl over the border.

Yes, if the civilians are "allowing" it. If on the other hand they're coming to the door armed saying we're launching rockets from here and you're staying as human shields then they probably don't have much choice in the matter.

If on the other hand they're coming to the door armed saying we're launching rockets from here and you're staying as human shields then they probably don't have much choice in the matter

I'd say that's more accurate.

I think the majority of civilians, even if they support the idea of an attack on Israel, would still not risk their families' lives by openly allowing weapons to be hidden in their homes, etc. I don't think the Western world really understands the tight bonds that families form in the Middle East.

If on the other hand they're coming to the door armed saying we're launching rockets from here and you're staying as human shields then they probably don't have much choice in the matter

but that still doesn't say hezbollah should be allowed to do it without retaliation. unfortunately the civilians may become casualties due to the political motives of a terrorist group.

not really a way to win votes now is it?

No, but he said "civilians stop being innocent when..." which is true but there is no evidence (that I'm aware of) this is that case here.

Justifying the collective punishment of people in southern Lebanon, Ramon added, "In order to prevent casualties among Israeli soldiers battling Hezbollah militants in southern Lebanon, villages should be flattened by the Israeli air force before ground troops move in."

They call everyone a Terroris to justify everything, they use it so ofter it really has lost all meaning..to them anyone who isnt Israli is a terrorist.

and

"Last Sunday people came to us and asked us to go help some people after their home was bombed by the Israelis," he said from his bed in Hamoudi Hospital in Sidon, the largest in southern Lebanon. "We found one of them, without his legs, lying in a garden, so we tried to take him to the nearest hospital."

On way to the hospital an Israeli Apache helicopter hit his ambulance with a rocket, severely injuring him and the four people in the back of the vehicle, he said.

"So then another ambulance tried to reach us to rescue us, but it too was bombed by an Apache, killing everyone inside it," he said. "Then it was a third ambulance which finally managed to rescue us."

and

Thousands of angry protestors stormed the UN building in Beirut Sunday after at least 34 children and 20 adults were killed inside a shelter targeted by an Israeli air strike in the southern town Qana.

from here
while im sure the jews firmly believe tthat all is fair in war as long as they are the ones doing "the worng thing", last time i checked bombing abulances and civillians was considered an act of terrorism..but i guess thats only if your not a Jew

last edited by TufNuT at 09:09:28 31/Jul/06

its not like anyone can stop them though so its just going to keep going till israel gets bored

^^yeah i know i just wanted to show the Hipocracy of both Israle and America who invades countries using this sort of thins as an excuusse just for all the U.S fan boys who think that the U.S does no evil, whats really funy is the other day a reporter on CNN i think was asking a person why he is chanting against america when its sending blankets...he goes, they send us blankets and send israle bombs, how about they stop giving israle bombs and we wont need their blankets.

Nova news update: Israel has promised to stop bombing for at least the next 48 hours. Hurrah! :)

Then after that proceed with its terrorism again with twice as much fire power. Hurrah!

^^ they are waiting on a new shipment of bombs..

Or maybe they're waiting on a new shipment of blankets?

i have israeli sand in my vagina

One rock gets thrown over the border and Israel will claim terrorism again and 3 seconds later the artillery will be going again.

stick your hand in a beehive, expect to get stung. silly arabs...

^^ lol.

From what I heard the cease fire lasted until Hezbollah decided to fire more rockets.

Israel should have to foot the bill to rebuild what they did not have to destroy, such as hospitals and any housing that didnt have weapons in them and so forth.

By that reasoning then shouldn't Hezbollah be forced to do the same seeing as they were the ones who started this whole war with the kidnappings?
Edit - Considering too that their Katyusha missiles are renowned for their poor accuracy, it shows Hezbollah have just as much disregard for the safety of innocent Israeli civilians as what is alleged by the Lebanese in regards to the Israelis.


last edited by Tanaka Khan at 03:31:29 01/Aug/06