Israel break truce?

Israel & Palestine Forum

Did they break the truce?

There is no question that they broke the truce. The resolution calls for the withdrawel of Isreal troops from Lebanon so once you leave you can't shoot in and out as you please.

This is a news link abiout the ceasefire but if you read it you will see that the UN has condemmed Israel already.

http://uk.news.yahoo.com/20082006/3...ce-unravel.html

So, whats new...they have break UN resolutions over 50 years

Well did they break it or not? First of all, it's not a truce. It's a ceasefire with all kinds of stipulations. Israel said they were acting in legal accordance with the terms of the ceasefire. Kofi Annan says what they did violated the terms of the ceasefire. But Kofi Annan also said that Israel deliberately shelled or bombed U.N. troops stationed at a lookout post. Then he backed away from saying that it was intentional.

If they were acting legally then why are the majority of the UN going nuts at them?

I can't speak for other members but I expected the UN to condemm Israel for what they did and I got that. The fact is that despite Israel trying to spionj it they broke the truce and from what I ahve seen it had FA to with weapons smuggling and if you break the truce you should be condemmed there have been enough people on this site jumping down Hizbollahs throat for doing the same in 2000,. so why shpuld Israel get off with it.

Appeasement peacenicks who believe in peace at any price, like France's Chirac, want Israel to stop and talk things over, probably over a bottle of French wine. Mr. Speaker, you make peace by making the terrorist criminals stop shooting. Here, guns talk louder than appeasement words, and that's just the way it is.

— Rep. Ted Poe (R-TX)


http://media.salemwebnetwork.com/TownHall/Car/b/PN082106.jpg

Yeah because shooting has beeen sooo succesful in the past. I obviously have forgotten but exactly how many terror groups have stopped fighting due to the threat of violence and the promise of more violence to come? have Al Queda stopped? no, Hizbollah? no, Al Axa Martyrs Brigade? no, ETA? no Combat 13 and 18? no, black widows? no admiitedly the last 3 have been quiet but not defunct not by a long way. Also with ther threat of violence have terror groups been on the slide no in facty every few montghs we see another group take a hostage caryy out a bombing and our securioty services have no idea who this group is. So with the threat of violnce arew the groups being weakend agian no in fact Hizbollah is probably in better shape than it was a few months back, look at AL Queda in Iraq the US kills the leader and they are stronger than they have been in fact they are infiltarting other groups scouting if you will potential new members. So exactly what has the violence achieved or isd this good old American logic that if you have a problem point a gun at it.

… that's just the way it is.

And that attitude is going to solve the problem is it? just keep saying that's the way it is.

Also how do you think the Irish terror groups were stopped because it was not force we talked.

Yeah, that's why America didn't enter the war until '41 and let the Holocaust rage on. Well, the Catholic Church didn't even get involved, so what's the difference.

-HECK!

EUCLID- who, what or where do you see Radical Islam? Do you see it as a group, a country or the entire Middle East?

-HECK!

Joe, (or Hawk, Potus whatever the hell you are calling yourself this week) as for the muscle idea the regiment I was on had as it's motto "Guile over strength" maybe we should be doing that now becasue Captain America and Superman seem to be a bit busy.

By Ross Mackenzie

Random reflections on 8/10, the London foiling of something on the order of a 9/11 repeat. . . .

President Bush termed the incident “a stark reminder that this nation is at war with Islamic fascists who will use any means to destroy those of us who love freedom.” He is a man clearly chastened by 9/11 and locked on to fighting this insidious terror.

Yet America — the Free World, the West — is beset by a monstrous cancer whose fanatic aggressiveness remains broadly underappreciated. If the president has erred, perhaps he did so in his post-9/11 comments that in this war Americans should live their lives normally and go on as though nothing had changed — when in fact 9/11 should have changed just about everything.

War requires numerous things — notably: a sense of shared sacrifice; temporary suspension of certain freedoms in the interest of national security; energized Manhattan-project, Apollo-program focus to attain, say, energy independence; mobilization of a national will to win. Urging the nation to live in a la-la pre-9/11 mode undermines at the outset the success of required things.

The war spreads.

It may have begun with the assassination of Robert Kennedy or the shooting of the pope. Or with the Hezbollah bombing of the Marine barracks in Beirut. Or with the first attempt to blow up the World Trade Center. Or with the Achille Lauro. Or with the assassination of Anwar Sadat. Or with the extinction of life over Lockerbie.

It continued, of course, in the horror of 9/11 and with: Tanzania; the USS Cole; Iraq, Afghanistan, and the relentless assaults — suicide and otherwise — on Israel; bombings in Bali, Madrid, London I; and, now, the attempted London II. U.S. authorities have broken up countless terror enterprises, evidently including earlier this summer the Florida-based one intending to blow up tunnels under the Hudson River connecting New Jersey to New York.

How do the faint of heart or the insufficiently sensitized respond? Let’s see:

By calling for more negotiations with North Korea about its missiles and nukes.

By passing meaningless U.N. resolutions about Iran’s nuclear program.

By commending the metier — verily the courage — of the French.

By siding with Arafat, or Hamas, or Islamic Jihad, or Hezbollah — or whatever the terrorist group du jour — and appealing to Israel to relent and withdraw.

By professing outrage at administration terrorist surveillance and detention programs.

By deploring the alleged excesses of the U.S. military, and libeling (Congressman John Murtha) a Marine squadron leader at Haditha, and blasting everything from military policy in the Pentagon to military practice in the field even unto alleged lack of planning for the end game.

By opposing practically every administration initiative (e.g., ANWR and offshore drilling) for energy independence.

By stymieing practically every effort to address illegal immigration.

By demanding the administration commit to withdrawing American forces from Iraq by a certain date, the end of the year, now. This includes, of course, many of those distinguished legislators who voted for sending those forces to Iraq before they voted against it — or something.

On 9/11 terrorists got through; on 8/10 or shortly thereafter they likely would have were it not for the diligence and luck of the beloved Brits. One day, terrorists will get through again — and again. Still, a poll conducted a month ago finds Americans less worried about terrorism than about personal debt.

In the poll conducted for the Center for American Progress, about double the number (or more) were concerned about a secure retirement, identity theft and not having enough money to pay their bills than they were about terrorism or being hurt or killed in a terrorist attack. So as of a month ago, Americans were following President Bush’s post-9/11 advice and living their lives normally — anguishing over how to wrestle that dratted Visa monkey off their back.

London II should tell us to wake up and smell the coffee. And, for instance, to:

— Fly not only without nail scissors but hand lotion, as well.

— Build a sense of sacrifice for the greater good.

— Embrace a broad array of legal surveillance and monitoring, even those meaning temporary suspension of rights until the war is won.

— Do whatever it takes to achieve energy independence.

— Nail illegal immigration pronto.

— Adopt a program of compulsory universal service — up to two years max — for all men and women 18-23, with a front-end military component.

And:

— Take out those nuclear and missile sites in North Korea and Iran.

For all those initiatives and more, it’s time. It’s time for sacrifice — a national sense of sacrifice — too.

EUCLID,

The factors that produce the surging levels of America Hatred—Envy, Communist Legacy and Pop Cultural influence—all do more damage to the people who succumb to that loathing than they do to the interests of the Land of the Free and the Home of the Brave.

Hence, the bankrupt and decayed state—moral, political, sociological, economic—of Europe and parts east and south.

The US needs a policy to tackle terrorism, but that policy should do just that - tackle terrorism. I don't know anyone who has a problem with that. But that is not what Bush is doing. Bush (and the necon agenda) wants to maintain and strengthen US influence and power in the oil rich region and to do that war is the chosen policy. Well this policy is clearly not working AND it is making the threat from terrorism (a seperate issue) worse.