Israel and Lebanon seem to agree to cease-fire...

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by SeK612

Nice to see an international force stepping in before things got much worse.

Good to see France stepping up to the plate too (I feel much more confident with Europe in charge of maintaining peace than I would if it were America attempting to do the same).

---

Agreed!:P

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by tralalala

And here's the same question: What is Israel meant to do then? Just because the ones attacking us are using shitty arms, means we can't attack back at full strength?? You must understand, that unlike the Arab countries, there is only 1 Jewish state, and Israel doesn't step up and beat the hell out of people trying to hurt us, we shall disappear off the face of the earth.

That's why the next time Hizbollah attack us, Israel should send out 1 huge warning saying we shall raise to the ground every single house with arms or rockets being lanched from it, and if the people living there don't move, tough shit - you let those assholes build their bunkers from your house, you pay for it. So next time, no ground force will be needed, just attack any building which is being used as a place to launch attacks from, and let the bastards suffocate in their own bunkers, and that is how it should end.
It's sad that that's how it should be done but there is no other way to attack a guerilla organization which keeps trying to kill off the Jews. They didn't even give out warnings they were going to attack a certain place, unlike Israel, and although they claimed to be targeting only IDF bases, they killed some 40 civilians... screw them.

---

If you feel like that for 40 civilians; imagine how the Lebanese should feel. We tried to sent help from the Red Cross and "accidentally" some missles blew up the convoy transporting civilians to safe location in order to receive the help from Red Cross.

On the other hand, i agree with you that Israel warned for the places the attacks would take place in order for people to leave and your anger for their sudden missle attacks. But.. Don't know man, its war thats going on..

about Red Cross thingy - Israel said explicitly that it would blow any truck riding on certain roads... they did so knowingly, and thats the outcome.

Hizbollah faked 20+ bodies in the Qana attack, they use humans as their sheild.. so what to do? next time you blow them all up.. the guerillas and the ones who feel good with the guerillas at the top of politics in Lebanon

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by j2k4

I'm betting Israel won't be the one to break the agreement, but I'm likewise quite sure that it will be broken.

---

Right about it being borken, but you lost your bet.

@lynx - Wrong again.

Part of the agreement was Hizbollah laving to the north of the Litani river, and calling to disarm all armed militias in the south apart from the Lebanese army. Hizbollah never did either of those, therefor Israel's strike to try and stop the re-arming of this group is totally acceptable - it's for Israels protection. Plus, France have backed off their huge willingness to send thousands of troops.. they sent 50 yesterday (thats really going to make the difference....), and hlaf the other countries said they were having second thoughts- why? cos no one iss willing to lose soldiers attacking in the middle east, therefor the only armed force left to try and make a change is the Israeli Defence Force.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by lynx

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by j2k4

I'm betting Israel won't be the one to break the agreement, but I'm likewise quite sure that it will be broken.

---

Right about it being borken, but you lost your bet.

---

I'm quite sure I have never read, nor even heard, the word borken in my life.

Is it some obscure reference to a certain Supreme Court nominee back in the '80s, perchance?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by tralalala

@lynx - Wrong again.

Part of the agreement was Hizbollah laving to the north of the Litani river, and calling to disarm all armed militias in the south apart from the Lebanese army. Hizbollah never did either of those, therefor Israel's strike to try and stop the re-arming of this group is totally acceptable - it's for Israels protection. Plus, France have backed off their huge willingness to send thousands of troops.. they sent 50 yesterday (thats really going to make the difference....), and hlaf the other countries said they were having second thoughts- why? cos no one iss willing to lose soldiers attacking in the middle east, therefor the only armed force left to try and make a change is the Israeli Defence Force.

---

Stand by for your nullification, Rafi.

You cannot refute lynx, it is simply not allowed, you impudent Israeli person. :P

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by tralalala

@lynx - Wrong again.

Part of the agreement was Hizbollah laving to the north of the Litani river, and calling to disarm all armed militias in the south apart from the Lebanese army. Hizbollah never did either of those, therefor Israel's strike to try and stop the re-arming of this group is totally acceptable - it's for Israels protection. Plus, France have backed off their huge willingness to send thousands of troops.. they sent 50 yesterday (thats really going to make the difference....), and hlaf the other countries said they were having second thoughts- why? cos no one iss willing to lose soldiers attacking in the middle east, therefor the only armed force left to try and make a change is the Israeli Defence Force.

---

You and your countryman obviously don't understand the meaning of ceasefire. It's really not that difficult, it means you stop firing. Always asuming that there isn't some obscure Hebrew interpretation which means that one side stops firing while the other side keeps going.

It's hardly surprising that countries are having second thoughts, when your troops keep firing at anything that moves. They are waiting for clarification on the rules of engagement, and they aren't talking about against Hezbollah.

what!?

the ceasefire was part of an agreement that said israel and hizbollah would stop firing at eachother, hizbollah would leave the south, and eventually disarm. therefor, if one side breaks a part of the agreement (in this case hizbollah, who have stayed in the south and have no means of disarming), there is no reason why israel should not try and stop them re-arming themselves. its a 2 way thing lynx. the ceasefire was not the only thing that was put on the table before the UN last week...

i think its a bit of a grey area, but on the balance of things i agree with Lynx. Israel rather than Hezbollah have breached the resoluiton.
If you read the text of the resolution, the only thing Hezbollah are required to do is cease fire. Once the Lebanese army and UN forces take over, then its their long term task to ensure that there are only Lebanese military weapons & personnel south of the Litani river. Restocking doesn't seem to be mentioned so its not an accepted reason for recommencing operations.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/mid...st/4785963.stm