Originally posted by no1marauderThis remains to be seen. That's not a fact, it is an assessment, an opinion.
You're asking the wrong question. It's not would A response have been justified, it's whether THIS response i.e. a full scale invasion of Lebanon was justified. And the answer to that in international law is: NO.
I have noticed a disproportionate demand of ceasation of hostilities towards the Israelis.Even in the protests that are carried out in various countries around the world, there has been no marches towards the embassies of the Lebanon, and most protestors are anti Israeli. . .Why is that?
How many Israelis have to die before they can defend themselves ?
Originally posted by huckleberryhoundIn marauder's eyes eveybody who doesn't agree with him is a hypocrite .... welcome to the crowd.
Ok, so in your eyes, i'm a hypocrite for asking a simple question, and i'n not interested in other peoples opinions. . . well debated.
Anybody else prepared to actually answer the question?
Originally posted by huckleberryhoundBecause Israel is the one killing hundreds of people and destroying Lebanon village by village. Maybe you should read some of the reports from Lebanon.
I have noticed a disproportionate demand of ceasation of hostilities towards the Israelis.Even in the protests that are carried out in various countries around the world, there has been no marches towards the embassies of the Lebanon, and most protestors are anti Israeli. . .Why is that?
How many Israelis have to die before they can defend themselves ?
1 edit
Originally posted by no1marauderAt least you are admitting that Hezbollah and their supporters Syria and Iran were not willing to implement UNSC resolution 1559, but moreover you are admitting now that militairy force was/is necessary to do this.
And how would you have done that? How many people would you have been willing to kill?
I know marauder, you claim, and in doing this you are following the Syrian stance, that 1559 is not legal ......
How come that you constantly support the Syrian regime, the Iranian regime, Hamas and Hezbollah ?
Please, don't say it is because they have International Law on their side.
Originally posted by no1marauderYou haven't answered my question, but i will answer yours in the hope that you respond in kind.
Answer this question (Huckleberry you can jump in too since Ivanhoe will refuse to): Is Israel now killing: A) Too Many Lebanese; B) Not Enough Lebanese; or C) About the Right Amount of Lebanese?
Too many Lebanese innocents have died.
Now you answer my question, and while you are at it answer another.
Do you believe hiding behind civilians is a correct way to carry out an armed struggle? and do you believe Hesbolla could've positioned civillians in direct line of fire on purpose?
Originally posted by no1marauderI will jump in too, N1M. Neither side is killing enough of the other side. That's the basic problem with limited wars, the killing just goes on and on until it becomes routine, a way of life and death.
Answer this question (Huckleberry you can jump in too since Ivanhoe will refuse to): Is Israel now killing: A) Too Many Lebanese; B) Not Enough Lebanese; or C) About the Right Amount of Lebanese?