Should Israel just clear out of Lebanon...

...so that Iran/Syria can move in?

In the interest of fast-tracking events, you see, since Lebanon cannot speak or act for itself anyway?

What say we just cut to the chase?

UNIFIL can stay, since all they do is "observe and report".

We can call it Syranbolleb, or something...

What makes you think that Lebanon can't speak or act for itself?

It was doing quite nicely until Israel sent in it's snatch squad, in direct contravention of UN resolutions.

BTW, was the comment that UNIFIL only "observe and report" supposed to be some sort of veiled criticism? If so, you should look to your own, since their purpose - "to carry out interim tasks in the humanitarian and administrative fields" - was mandated by the Security Council, influenced in no small part by the USA.

maybe if isreal formerly apologised like

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by lynx

What makes you think that Lebanon can't speak or act for itself?

Oh-you mean Lebanon chose to allow Hezbollah (popularly believed to act at the behest of Syria and Iran) it's proxy?

Funny, the Lebanese government disavowed them for a few days before it decided it would fight with them side-by-side...

It was doing quite nicely until Israel sent in it's snatch squad, in direct contravention of UN resolutions.

Israel snatched it's own soldiers?

Hmmm.

I hadn't heard that.

BTW, was the comment that UNIFIL only "observe and report" supposed to be some sort of veiled criticism? If so, you should look to your own, since their purpose - "to carry out interim tasks in the humanitarian and administrative fields" - was mandated by the Security Council, influenced in no small part by the USA.

---

"veiled criticism"?

No, not at all.

If you perceive a critical tone, it exists only in your own ears.

In any case, I said they could stay-what do you want?

BTW-

What do you mean, "look to your own"?

My own...what?

In any case, you have not answered my question.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by j2k4

...so that Iran/Syria can move in?

In the interest of fast-tracking events, you see, since Lebanon cannot speak or act for itself anyway?

What say we just cut to the chase?

UNIFIL can stay, since all they do is "observe and report".

We can call it Syranbolleb, or something...

---

Now why would Syria/Iran move in now?

Government destabilization?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by j2k4

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by lynx

What makes you think that Lebanon can't speak or act for itself?

Oh-you mean Lebanon chose to allow Hezbollah (popularly believed to act at the behest of Syria and Iran) it's proxy?
Popularly believed? Only by the uninformed.

Funny, the Lebanese government disavowed them for a few days before it decided it would fight with them side-by-side...
Or perhaps it was when it realised that Israel was going to bomb the fuck out of everyone whether they were involved or not.

It was doing quite nicely until Israel sent in it's snatch squad, in direct contravention of UN resolutions.

Israel snatched it's own soldiers?

Hmmm.

I hadn't heard that.
No, the soldiers captured by Hezbollah were on an a snatch mission into southern Lebanon. It was announced in a press release by the IDF which was quickly withdrawn when they realised it was actually illegal. Fox probably forgot to mention it.

BTW, was the comment that UNIFIL only "observe and report" supposed to be some sort of veiled criticism? If so, you should look to your own, since their purpose - "to carry out interim tasks in the humanitarian and administrative fields" - was mandated by the Security Council, influenced in no small part by the USA.

---

"veiled criticism"?

No, not at all.

If you perceive a critical tone, it exists only in your own ears.

In any case, I said they could stay-what do you want?

BTW-

What do you mean, "look to your own"?

My own...what?
Given the way you usually find obscure forms of the English language I doubt that I really need explain implied phraseology. It's use is not uncommon

In any case, you have not answered my question.

---

If you want an answer to the first part - "Should Israel just clear out of Lebanon" - then the answer is yes, there are several UN resolutions demanding it.

However, your rider about "Syria/Iran moving in" makes it a non-question since there is no evidence that either want to do so.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by lynx

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by j2k4

"veiled criticism"?

No, not at all.

If you perceive a critical tone, it exists only in your own ears.

In any case, I said they could stay-what do you want?

BTW-

What do you mean, "look to your own"?

My own...what?
Given the way you usually find obscure forms of the English language I doubt that I really need explain implied phraseology. It's use is not uncommon

In any case, you have not answered my question.

---

If you want an answer to the first part - "Should Israel just clear out of Lebanon" - then the answer is yes, there are several UN resolutions demanding it.

However, your rider about "Syria/Iran moving in" makes it a non-question since there is no evidence that either want to do so.

---

Should the US move out of Iraq? No 'cause Al Qaeda will move in.

I wonder why?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by lynx

If you want an answer to the first part - "Should Israel just clear out of Lebanon" - then the answer is yes, there are several UN resolutions demanding it.

However, your rider about "Syria/Iran moving in" makes it a non-question since there is no evidence that either want to do so.

---

Several U.N. resolutions?

You mean the ones that came after 1559?

As to the question of "Syria/Iran moving in", I suppose it is not (strictly-speaking) necessary, given that they have control anyway...I guess I meant in the figurative sense, but rather more overtly than covertly...do you pretend Iran has only a 'rooting interest' in the situation?

Have you heard any of Ahmadinajad's running commentary at all, at all?

I assume if I see him on CNN or MSNBC or CBS or NBC or ABC or Auntie Beeb or read any print media translations they cannot be believed?

Have you exclusive access to things the rest of us do not?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by j2k4

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by lynx

If you want an answer to the first part - "Should Israel just clear out of Lebanon" - then the answer is yes, there are several UN resolutions demanding it.

However, your rider about "Syria/Iran moving in" makes it a non-question since there is no evidence that either want to do so.

---

Several U.N. resolutions?

You mean the ones that came after 1559?
Have you actually read resolution 1559? It is very interesting, particularly how it starts.

Quote:

---

Recalling all its previous resolutions on Lebanon, in particular resolutions 425 (1978) and 426 (1978) of 19 March 1978, resolution 520 (1982) of 17 September 1982, and resolution 1553 (2004) of 29 July 2004 as well as the statements of its President on the situation in Lebanon, in particular the statement of 18 June 2000 (S/PRST/2000/21),

---

Resolutions 425 calls for the withdrawal of Israeli troops, 520 condemns Israeli incursions into Beirut in violation of ceasefire agreements (426 and 1553 are technical documents relating to UNIFIL). In other words, it reiterates what's been said to Israel before.

Sure, there are other things in there too, but I was always taught that the most improtant things in documents come at the beginnning, so that more people will see them before they get bogged down with the minutiae.

As to the question of "Syria/Iran moving in", I suppose it is not (strictly-speaking) necessary, given that they have control anyway absolute nonsense...I guess I meant in the figurative sense, but rather more overtly than covertly...do you pretend Iran has only a 'rooting interest' in the situation?

Have you heard any of Ahmadinajad's running commentary at all, at all?

I assume if I see him on CNN or MSNBC or CBS or NBC or ABC or Auntie Beeb or read any print media translations they cannot be believed?

Have you exclusive access to things the rest of us do not?

---

I've heard plenty of Ahmadinajad statements, I don't think he's referred to occupying Lebanon at all. You seem to be suggesting he has, so the question is do you have a personal link to some private media releases that are denied to the rest of us?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by lynx

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by j2k4

Several U.N. resolutions?

You mean the ones that came after 1559?
Have you actually read resolution 1559? It is very interesting, particularly how it starts.

Quote:

---

Recalling all its previous resolutions on Lebanon, in particular resolutions 425 (1978) and 426 (1978) of 19 March 1978, resolution 520 (1982) of 17 September 1982, and resolution 1553 (2004) of 29 July 2004 as well as the statements of its President on the situation in Lebanon, in particular the statement of 18 June 2000 (S/PRST/2000/21),

---

Resolutions 425 calls for the withdrawal of Israeli troops, 520 condemns Israeli incursions into Beirut in violation of ceasefire agreements (426 and 1553 are technical documents relating to UNIFIL). In other words, it reiterates what's been said to Israel before.

Sure, there are other things in there too, but I was always taught that the most improtant things in documents come at the beginnning, so that more people will see them before they get bogged down with the minutiae.

As to the question of "Syria/Iran moving in", I suppose it is not (strictly-speaking) necessary, given that they have control anyway absolute nonsense...I guess I meant in the figurative sense, but rather more overtly than covertly...do you pretend Iran has only a 'rooting interest' in the situation?

Have you heard any of Ahmadinajad's running commentary at all, at all?

I assume if I see him on CNN or MSNBC or CBS or NBC or ABC or Auntie Beeb or read any print media translations they cannot be believed?

Have you exclusive access to things the rest of us do not?

---

I've heard plenty of Ahmadinajad statements, I don't think he's referred to occupying Lebanon at all. You seem to be suggesting he has, so the question is do you have a personal link to some private media releases that are denied to the rest of us?

---

Whatever you were taught, the U.N. seems not to have paid attention.

As I said, with informal (but practical) annexation by Iran all but complete, there is no need to have more than the double-triple-quadruple handful of 'advisors' currently on hand...

Poppycock!

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by lynx

Poppycock!

---

Funny, the same word popped into my head when reviewing your postage, but I translated it into American:

Bullshit!

http://www.worldpress.org/images/100703assad.jpg

http://www.miff.no/images/2006/olmer...rtrett-259.jpg

http://msnbcmedia.msn.com/j/msnbc/Co...d_7a.widec.jpg

http://pub.tv2.no/multimedia/na/arch...65_217549c.jpg

The words are the same .........just different sides.



and yes I chose that picture of Bush deliberately

J2, you really are talking complete crap here.

Iran/Syria may have influence over the Shi'ite community which is a minority of the population.

However, as Syria spectacularly failed to use its much greater influence on that population to stay in occupation of Lebanon recently... I fail to see where you theory stands at any point.


As to your question.. Yes it should.

All of Lebanon, including the "disputed" shaba farms area. The only people "disputing" this is Israel and the UN as they were going off French Maps that even the French admit are wrong, and produced letters from the colonial days asking for changes to correct them that were never made...

Both Syria and Lebanon agree that the Shaba Farms area is Lebanese... and Lebanon has never attacked Israel, even when all the other "Arab" states joined together and did that.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Rat Faced

J2, you really are talking complete crap here.

Iran/Syria may have influence over the Shi'ite community which is a minority of the population.

However, as Syria spectacularly failed to use its much greater influence on that population to stay in occupation of Lebanon recently... I fail to see where you theory stands at any point.


As to your question.. Yes it should.

All of Lebanon, including the "disputed" shaba farms area. The only people "disputing" this is Israel and the UN as they were going off French Maps that even the French admit are wrong, and produced letters from the colonial days asking for changes to correct them that were never made...

Both Syria and Lebanon agree that the Shaba Farms area is Lebanese... and Lebanon has never attacked Israel, even when all the other "Arab" states joined together and did that.

---

Pish.

I'm not going to fight the same battle on different fronts.

Pick a thread, any thread, and stick with it?

I am going to also request that you post links to all these 'facts' you recount; I imagine I could refute them by "reputation" rather easily.

Ok.. for your Biased look that it's an old issue, try..

Quote:

---

Actions by the Lebanese extremist organization Hezbollah against Israeli interests, as well as Israeli occupation of the Sheba Farms, have only served to continue the state of hostility.

---

Which can be found Here

I'll stick to others though...

Quote:

---

The UN Secretary-General Kofi Annan wrote in a report to the Security Council this week that the border was vague.

"There seems to be no official record of an international boundary agreement between Lebanon and Syria that could easily establish the line for purposes of confirming the withdrawal," he said


.......

Syria agrees with Lebanon that the Shebaa farms area is part of Lebanon.

---

How about from the year 2000? Source

Quote:

---

"The dispute over the sovereignty of the Shebaa Farms originated with the failure of the French Mandate administrations to properly demarcate the border between Lebanon and Syria. Documents from the 1920s and 1930s show that the local inhabitants regarded themselves [as] part of Lebanon, for example paying taxes to the Lebanese government, but that French officials often expressed confusion on the question of where the border lay. A French official in 1939 expressed the belief that the uncertainty was sure to cause trouble in the future.

"When detailed maps of the border region were finally prepared by the French and British military administration during [the second world war], they showed the region in Syria, but the commission responsible for demarcating the border did not act decisively on the dispute before the French mandate ended in 1946. When the newly formed Lebanese and Syrian governments asked the French government for official information on their common border, it was revealed that almost nothing existed.

"Border disputes arose frequently, leading to the formation of a joint Lebanese-Syrian border demarcation commission. That commission decided in 1964 to include the Shebaa Farms in Lebanon, but apparently no official demarcation of the border actually occurred and the older maps showing the Shebaa Farms in Syria continued to be used.

"The local residents continued to regard themselves as Lebanese and the Lebanese government agreed but showed little interest. However, the Syrian government imposed itself on the region, at one point forcibly replacing the villagers' Lebanese identity cards with Syrian ones. On the eve of the 1967 war, the region was under effective Syrian control."

---

Source

ie: The Israeli's are occupying Lebanese Territory that was previously under the occupation of Syria.. it was not Syrian.

The total area involved is circa 25 km2, which is not a lot.

It's enough, however, to legitimise Hezbollah as a "Resistance" Organisation and not a Terrorist Organisation, in all but 6 countries in the world and the UN itself doesnt include them on theit list of "Terrorist Organisations"... (which is contradictory in that the UN also went off the incorrect Maps and indicated it was Syrian in 2000)

Lebanon has never attacked Israel, thats basic History..

They have shown support for others that have attacked Israel, and also allowed foreign troops to attack from Lebanon. Think about it.. their entire Army in 1947 was circa 3,500. It would not have made the slightest difference to have committed it, and left Lebanon totally defensless instead of virtually defensless.

No one expected them to commit troops, so no one asked them to.. although I do believe both Syrian and Jordanian Troops attacked from Lebanese Territory.

If that means that they have "attacked" Israel, then I guess that the UK has also "attacked" Libya by allowing US Jets to take off from here. If this definition was to be used in the future, the US would have far fewer staging posts around the world it could rely upon... indeed it would be evicted from most of them.

Showing support for an action and committing an action yourself are 2 very different things.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Rat Faced

Ok.. for your Biased look that it's an old issue, try..



Which can be found Here

I'll stick to others though...

Quote:

---

The UN Secretary-General Kofi Annan wrote in a report to the Security Council this week that the border was vague.

"There seems to be no official record of an international boundary agreement between Lebanon and Syria that could easily establish the line for purposes of confirming the withdrawal," he said


.......

Syria agrees with Lebanon that the Shebaa farms area is part of Lebanon.

---

How about from the year 2000? Source

Quote:

---

"The dispute over the sovereignty of the Shebaa Farms originated with the failure of the French Mandate administrations to properly demarcate the border between Lebanon and Syria. Documents from the 1920s and 1930s show that the local inhabitants regarded themselves [as] part of Lebanon, for example paying taxes to the Lebanese government, but that French officials often expressed confusion on the question of where the border lay. A French official in 1939 expressed the belief that the uncertainty was sure to cause trouble in the future.

"When detailed maps of the border region were finally prepared by the French and British military administration during [the second world war], they showed the region in Syria, but the commission responsible for demarcating the border did not act decisively on the dispute before the French mandate ended in 1946. When the newly formed Lebanese and Syrian governments asked the French government for official information on their common border, it was revealed that almost nothing existed.

"Border disputes arose frequently, leading to the formation of a joint Lebanese-Syrian border demarcation commission. That commission decided in 1964 to include the Shebaa Farms in Lebanon, but apparently no official demarcation of the border actually occurred and the older maps showing the Shebaa Farms in Syria continued to be used.

"The local residents continued to regard themselves as Lebanese and the Lebanese government agreed but showed little interest. However, the Syrian government imposed itself on the region, at one point forcibly replacing the villagers' Lebanese identity cards with Syrian ones. On the eve of the 1967 war, the region was under effective Syrian control."

---

Source

ie: The Israeli's are occupying Lebanese Territory that was previously under the occupation of Syria.. it was not Syrian.

The total area involved is circa 25 km2, which is not a lot.

It's enough, however, to legitimise Hezbollah as a "Resistance" Organisation and not a Terrorist Organisation, in all but 6 countries in the world and the UN itself doesnt include them on theit list of "Terrorist Organisations"... (which is contradictory in that the UN also went off the incorrect Maps and indicated it was Syrian in 2000)

I am feeling lazy, and am still spread too thin, so I will take this paragraph as an example of the absolutely flaccid reasoning which permeates your entire argument.

It is very likely that the six countries who stand alone in their agreement that Hezbollah is a terrorist organization have at some juncture been targeted by Hezbollah, and have arrived at their negative conclusion with cause.

I ask you, therefore:

What reason would any other country have for applying the label of 'terrorist organization', absent any direct attack by Hezbollah, especially as it might reasonably conclude that to do so would result in it's being seen as another potential target?


Lebanon has never attacked Israel, thats basic History..

They have shown support for others that have attacked Israel, and also allowed foreign troops to attack from Lebanon. Think about it.. their entire Army in 1947 was circa 3,500. It would not have made the slightest difference to have committed it, and left Lebanon totally defensless instead of virtually defensless.

No one expected them to commit troops, so no one asked them to.. although I do believe both Syrian and Jordanian Troops attacked from Lebanese Territory.

If that means that they have "attacked" Israel, then I guess that the UK has also "attacked" Libya by allowing US Jets to take off from here. If this definition was to be used in the future, the US would have far fewer staging posts around the world it could rely upon... indeed it would be evicted from most of them.

Showing support for an action and committing an action yourself are 2 very different things.

---

I would make the case that Israel attacked Hezbollah (NOT Lebanon), which saw a benefit to themselves, and the opposite for Israel, by situating themselves in close proximity to Lebanese civilians and infrastructure, all of which renders Hezbollah a terrorist organization.

Bollocks.

Israel attacked parts of Lebanon where Hezbollah, and Muslims in General, are not welcomed with open arms.

They destroyed an International Airport, Official Lebanese army Posts and Bombed Hospitals and known UN Observers (which were 5km away from the nearest Hezbollah emplacement). Not to mention the majot Cities that cannot be said to be in Southern Lebanon.


Yes, Hezbollah have attacked the US Military.

Where were the US soldiers at the time? Lebanon.

They have attacked Israel.. Occupying Lebanon.

They have attacked other Foreign Soldiers.. In Lebanon.


Thats the thing you see... Resistance Fighters resist.


Anyway, we all know that Israel can do no wrong in the eyes of the USA.. hell you even let them bomb your own ships (USS Liberty) and sell your Military Secrets and they remain squeaky clean.

And you wonder why the Mulim World gets pissed off? Jeez...


BTW, considering the annoyance you have shown to people not quoting your whole posts in the past... why did you remove the relevant part from the the quote of my post?

ie:

Quote:

---

Actions by the Lebanese extremist organization Hezbollah against Israeli interests, as well as Israeli occupation of the Sheba Farms, have only served to continue the state of hostility

---

Taken from your beloved Fox...


Now, I'll agree that Hamas is a Terrorist Organisation... which puts me in a quandry on that, because its also a Democratically Elected government. :(

Hmmm.

Hezbollah is fairly elected.

Why don't they wear uniforms and fight by the rules?

Yet another quandary, eh? ;)

Should Israel withdraw from Lebanon?

That is a matter for the Lebanese Government. If they wanted them to stay then it would questionable whether any of us should gainsay that position.

However, I have heard little to suggest that any of the Lebanese factions, Christians, Shias, Sunni or Druze, express a preference for Israel to stay. Consequently, I think it reasonable to suggest that the proposed plan, that Israel leave and that the Lebanese Army with UN support takeover security for the south of the country, go ahead. I do not think Israel staying is a better plan or more likely to result in a peaceful settlement.

Hezbollah argue that the prisoners and the Chaba farms are their key issues. It looks like these are both going to be resolved. After this and with a strengthened Lebanese Army in place then Hezbollah as a separate military force will have no logical purpose. Hezbollah as the political voice of the Shia looks set to stay for some time.

Iran and Syria will undoubtedly continue to support Hezbollah - if not with arms then with money for its political wing. I do not think we should be overly surprised by this. It is not as if we have not done similar in various parts of the world since WW2. I think it most likely that we will support the Lebanese Government in part to counter Iranian influence in the region.