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
@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.
"Researchers have already cast much darkness on the subject, and if they continue their investigations, we shall soon know nothing at all about it."
-Mark Twain
"Researchers have already cast much darkness on the subject, and if they continue their investigations, we shall soon know nothing at all about it."
-Mark Twain
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.
.Political correctness is based on the principle that it's possible to pick up a turd by the clean end.
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
Bookmarks