France sides with Hezbollah

[Captain Virgil Hilts]

Originally posted by moot
You guys sorta missed the slap Redradr put in his face..
Any of you would've bit at least as hard into that sorta provocation.

Tell ya what. When the vast majority of Lebanon turns their back on Hezbollah, and starts pointing them out to the Israelis, then I'll worry about their feelings. Right now, they're aiding and abetting Hezbollah. Makes them guilty of harboring and aiding terrorism. I'm a little short on tolerance for that particular criminal act these days.

[Delirium]

Originally posted by xrtoronto
'Redradr' should be PNG'd for the comment.

Don't mean to hijack, but until Skuzzy ties all accounts to game logins, he is going to have to baby sit all these shade posters.

Sorry Roy, but you have your work cut out for you and I do not envy you at all.

[Captain Virgil Hilts]

Originally posted by xrtoronto
6- Members are asked to not act as "back seat moderators". Issues with any breach of rules should be brought to HTC's attention via email at support@hitechcreations.com.

Certainly no more than "infidel" should be for his response. Good for the goose? Good for the gander.

[xrtoronto]

Originally posted by Captain Virgil Hilts
Certainly no more than "infidel" should be for his response. Good for the goose? Good for the gander.

not at all true Captain...

If someone said they "enjoyed the death and destruction" caused in NYC and Washington while it was happening on 9/11 and posted it somewhere...how would you respond to it? I myself would have answered it in much stronger language than did infadel. (and I'm not even American)

What Redradr said was unconscionable. It is the single worst thing I think I have read on this bbs in all my years.

[Elfie]

2. I understand that many Americans believe the territory in question was taken from Lebanon during the 6 day war or Yom Kippur or some sort of aggressive war against Israel. This is false. The territory in the south was illegally invaded and occupied by Israel in 1982 in response to an assassination attempt by the PLO on an Israeli ambassador. In 1985 Hezbollah was formed to resist the illegal occupation of South Lebanon in a time where Lebanon was in civil war.

3. Israel is claiming the border skirmish happened on their side of the border, and Hezbollah claims the opposite. They BOTH think they are right because there is no clear line of border anymore, just a no-man’s land. In the last 20 years of Israeli occupation the Israelis have ‘captured’ hundreds of Hezbollah soldiers in border skirmishes.

Point number 2: The attempted assassination attempt was only the straw that broke the camels back so to speak. Prior to that there were repeated artillery attacks by the PLO into northern Israel. If Israel is being attacked they have every right to invade to stop the attackers, nothing illegal about that imo.

Point number 3: Israel had the UN come in and define the border between Lebanon and Israel. When Israel pulled out of Lebanon the first time, they pulled back past the UN defined boundary.

[AKIron]

Originally posted by xrtoronto
6- Members are asked to not act as "back seat moderators". Issues with any breach of rules should be brought to HTC's attention via email at support@hitechcreations.com.

I didn't realize it was off, thanks. It's on now but I don't check that email account often. I'll switch back to that account once I get the email thing rearranged.

[Masherbrum]

Originally posted by Infidel
5- Flamebaiting, trolling, or posting to incite or annoy is not allowed.

Interesting how one's flawed logic eventually comes to the surface.   You don't know ME enough to make this statement.

[Edbert1]

So lukster = akiron?

Regarding redradr's comment...I took it to mean he's glad to see that someone is willing to confront the evil that has beset them rather than hide and "hope the mean man goes away" like so many naive folks do, or as the French and Lebanese populace do and actually take the side of the terrorists (the subject of the thread in the first place).

[Hawco]

My guess on the international force is that it's gonna be led by crack units from France and the Italians.. god help us all....
Thinnest book in the world anyone ?.... Italian book of war heros...

[lukster]

Originally posted by Edbert1
So lukster = akiron?

Regarding redradr's comment...I took it to mean he's glad to see that someone is willing to confront the evil that has beset them rather than hide and "hope the mean man goes away" like so many naive folks do, or as the French and Lebanese populace do and actually take the side of the terrorists (the subject of the thread in the first place).

Yes, I was away from this board for about a year and a half. My akiron account was disabled (Skuzzy renabled after I mentioned it) so I used the first one I played the game with. Lukster was actually a friend who I played RB with on TSN, I don't he minded me using his name.

[Kev367th]

Originally posted by Infidel
1. You don’t ‘kidnap’ soldiers in a border skirmish. Unless you are picking them up on the streets of Europe like your CIA ineptly tries to do, it’s called ‘capturing’ an enemy soldier.

Yes it would be apart from a small detail -

They were 'captured' for eventual use in a prisoner swap, so in effect are in fact HOSTIGES.

Capturing hostiges is AGAINST the Geneva Convention, but then again why should this surprise anyone from a group of thugs who break the Convention at every opportunity.

1) Blending in with the Civilian population.
2) Using civilians to hide weapons.
3) Using civilian areas to launch attacks.
4) Using protected structures to hide weapons caches.

Funny how one side is expected to abide by all rules of war while a blind eye is turned towards others.

These thugs aren't even subject to being classed as combatants -
1) Must have a clear chain of command
2) Must be distinguishable form the civilian populaiton
3) Must carry arms openly
4) Must abide by the laws of armed conflict

[Sandman]

Originally posted by Toad
Unless the Canaanites show up, it looks like the Israelites have the oldest claim on the area of Palestine. [/B]

Well... if we're going to go with oldest claims on an area, we may all have to move somewhere else.

[RedRadr]

Originally posted by xrtoronto
not at all true Captain...

If someone said they "enjoyed the death and destruction" caused in NYC and Washington while it was happening on 9/11 and posted it somewhere...how would you respond to it? I myself would have answered it in much stronger language than did infadel. (and I'm not even American)

What Redradr said was unconscionable. It is the single worst thing I think I have read on this bbs in all my years.

Aww,you'll get over it..  

As for Infidel an them Lebneeze... dont start none, want be none.

[Toad]

Originally posted by Sandman
Well... if we're going to go with oldest claims on an area, we may all have to move somewhere else.

I'm just seeking knowledge.

As Rolex correctly posted,

Before Israel was created, all the land belonged to someone else. That is what it all distills down to.

I just want to know where we draw the line and say "OK, this land now belongs to...  _________________"

Is it a date? Is it after all previous occupiers of the particular land have lived their lives and passed on? Do we have to wait until all their relatives pass on?

What's the determining factor?

Who really "owns" the land of the United States? Should we give it back to the Indians?

What's your standard?

[Elfie]

Originally posted by Sandman
Well... if we're going to go with oldest claims on an area, we may all have to move somewhere else.

Exactly, none of us would have a place to live. That's what makes the Palestinian claims so rediculous imo.