A Leauki's Writings
How to read words in press articles and liberal blogs
Published on July 21, 2005 By Leauki In The Media

This is a living document. I add words and modify definitions whenever I see fit.

"aid"
noun
Expired medication.


"anti-Semitism"
noun
Hostility or prejudice against Jews in the past and theoretically in the present unless targeted at Israel. In fact, classic anti-Semitism and its major crimes ended on May 15 1948.

 

"apartheid"
noun
A terrible crime against humanity caused by Israel. Apartheid happens when Arab nationalists or Muslim fundamentalists are unable to commit genocide against a non-Arab population and when Arabs and non-Arabs have the same legal rights as citizens.

 

"Arabia"
name
A large peninsula south of the Arab homeland (see "Palestine").



"arms deals"
noun, plural
A method used by fascist dictators to be armed and supported by the United States and end up with Russian and French weapons.


"cease-fire agreement"
noun
This term means nothing at all.


"censored"
adjective
Caught lying again.


"Christian fundamentalist"
noun
A Republican voter (see "right-wing extremist").


"CIA"
abbreviation
The symbol of all evil and the incarnation of the capitalist satan. Showing the involvement of the CIA in an incident proves beyond a doubt that the incident was inhumane and caused by greed, usually for oil.


"controversial"
adjective
1. (Content) false.
2. (Person) lying.


"disproportionate force"
noun
Lack of even remotely credible evidence for the thesis that the Jews are guilty of causing the latest conflict between Israel and the "Death to the Jews" crowd.


"diversity"
noun
Dominance by a non-white ethnicity or non-Christian religion. Strict observance of diversity is considered a step towards a colour-blind society.


"documentary"
noun
Film comedy (see "right wing propaganda").


"dubious"
adjective
The activities of a country or alliance that acts quickly, can be relied upon to act as promised, and which has widely known moral values.


"ethnic cleansing"
noun
The mass expulsion or killing of members of an unwanted ethnic or religious group unless said group is one of Jews.


"equal opportunities"
noun, plural
Equal results.


"expansionism"
noun
Israel's policy of defeating Arab countries that try to destroy the Jewish state.


"fairness"
noun
The belief that other people work for free.


"fascist"
noun
1. A politician or voter who does not believe in the moral superiority of self-proclaimed leaders.
2. Libertarian individualist loony with a fascination for guns that is likely not good for him and certainly not acceptable for the left.
3. A Jewish moderate from Judaea or Samaria.


"freedom fighter"
noun
A peace activist targeting Jews (see "peace activist").


"genocide"
noun
Any crime committed by Jews or Americans against any other people. A people can be subject to "genocide" even while its population is growing faster than all surrounding peoples.


"guerilla"
noun
A communist terrorist.


"heroic"
adjective
Attacking civilians, preferably kindergarten children (see "freedom fighter").


"Hitler"
noun
Any individual involved in a conflict between America and Arab nationalists except the dictator with the moustache who gases people.


"human rights"
noun, plural
The privileges Arab nationalists enjoy and their victims do not (see "international law").

 

"illegal"
adjective
Israeli, done by or in Israel


"imperialism"
noun
A political and social system used by tiny states against their giant neighbours in the Middle-East.


"insurgent"
noun
A foreigner coming into a country to kill civilians in protest against democracy.


"international community"
noun
The external authority justifying the rule of brutal dictators and condemning attempts to remove them from power.


"international law"
noun
The principle that tyranny is good, the murder of millions acceptable, and ending either immoral.


"intolerance"
noun
Disagreement with progressive opinion (see "progressive").


"Jerusalem"
noun
An Arab city that is completely unrelated to Jews or Judaism (see "Palestine").


"journalist"
noun
A person whose point of view is also his point of sale.

 

"liberal"
noun
An opponent of the Vietnam war and a supporter of John F. Kennedy

 

"lunatic fringe"
noun
Political faction in American parliament consisting of all Republicans and most Democrats.


"militant"
noun
1. A terrorist or murderer who kills specifically American or Jewish civilians.
2. A Sunni terrorist who attacks Shi'ite civilians in Iraq.


"military fiasco"
noun
Any result of an American invasion that saves hundreds of thousands of lives and that liberals disagree with.


"monopoly"
noun
A situation in which a company uses unfair tactics like very low prices and superior products against competing companies. Very low prices and the existence of competing companies are symptomatic of a monopoly.


"myth of the persecuted Jew"
noun
The logical explanation for why the current attack on Jews or Israel is not to be opposed on principle. The myth of the persecuted Jew derives from two thousands years of persecution which ended exactly before the latest attack and does not in any way include or explain it.


"Nazi"
noun
A person who sides with Israel against the dictatorships that surround it, with ethnic minorities against the dictatorships that rule them, and with small countries against dictatorships that attack them.


"Nazi crimes"
noun, plural
A crime of a nature that is beyond even the levels accepted and encouraged by the United Nations and covered by international law. The threshold depends on race and religion of the criminal and is usually the murder of millions and brutal occupation of half a continent for a non-Jew and for a Jew the expelling of a few thousand people and subsequent refusal to allow re-entrance. (see "international law", see "United Nations")


"Nicaragua"
noun
Proof that current American policy is based on greed and evil.


"nuclear reactor"
noun
An expensive device that produces electricity and would be employed by oil-rich middle eastern countries for only that purpose since, presumably, they have no other power source (see "oil").


"occupation force"
noun
An American peace-keeping force (see "peace-keeping force").

 

"occupied"
adjective
Jewish-owned or otherwise not under Arab control

"oil"
noun
A very valuable liquid that costs less than French mineral water and is the source of enormous wealth for some of the poorest and least developed countries in the world. Oil cannot be used to produce electricity (see "nuclear reactor").



"pacifism"
noun
The idea that tyranny and mass murder is to be preferred over war because war is wrong.

 

"Palestine"
noun
1. The only country in the world which has never had a significant Jewish population in its history (see "Jerusalem").
2. The Arab homeland (see "Arabia").
3. Not a territory created by the British in the former Ottoman Empire.



"Palestinian"
noun
A non-Jewish inhabitant of Palestine and any descendant of such living anywhere else. Some Palestinians are Egyptians. Most Palestinians are Muslims. There are Christian Palestinians, but they are often Palestinians for a shorter time. There are no Jewish Palestinians due to tolerance (see "tolerance").


"peace"
noun
A scenario in which ethnic and religious minorities are slaughtered by nationalist dictators without hope of rescue. This constitutes stability and is a good thing (see "progressive").


"peace activist"
noun
1. Any person who protests American and Jewish influence in the middle-east or the world, regardless of the means employed to make such protest known or the influence he wants asserted instead of American or Jewish such.
2. A prison inmate who regularly attacks other prisoners or guards.



"peace-keeping force"
noun
A non-American occupation force (see "occupation force").


"poverty"
noun
A state of existence that has been identified as the reason for why some of the richest men from the middle east attack some of the poorest members of other societies and their own.


"predominantly unarmed"
adjective
Adjective describing the status of a group who cannot currently kill as many Jews as they want to.


"progressive"
adjective
The political position and belief that stability is more important than democratisation.


"public interest"
noun
A liberal cause (see "special interest").


"racism"
noun
The belief that people should be judged on their achievements rather than their backgrounds (see "racist").


"racist"
noun
Someone who does not take into account another person's ethnicity or culture when judging his actions.


"refugee"
noun
Any non-Jewish person who actually fled some-whence or is remotely related to one who might have.


"refugee camp"
noun
Camps located in Arab countries bordering Israel. Refugee camps are surrounded by 200 million Arabs and Palestinians (see "Palestinian") are forced by Israel to live in the camps. The refugees (see "refugee") living in the camps have considerably fewer rights than the other Arabs in the host country and that is Israel's fault.


"resistance"
noun
The act of murdering an opressive Jew. This is generally done by oppressed minorities who are however free to move into Jewish neighbourhoods and who have determined that the source of the oppression is a school or kindergarden in that neighbourhood. Oppressed minorities have no problem getting weapons and bombs and other equipment required.


"resistance group"
noun
A group of freedom fighters (see "freedom fighter") or peace activists (see "peace activist") who engage in resistance (see "resistance").


"right-wing extremist"
noun
A Democratic/Republican swing voter or conservative Jewish politician (see "Christian fundamentalist", see "lunatic fringe", see "ultra-right-wing").



"right-wing propaganda"
noun
History (see "documentary").


"Saddam Hussein"
name
Leader of Iraq who paid Palestinian freedom fighters for killing Jews (see "freedom fighter") and whose regime had no connection to terrorism. The Anglo-American invasion of his country is now being revenged by Islamic terrorists because there is no connection between Saddam Hussein and terrorism.

 

"segregation"
noun
When Jews and Arabs live in the same city or region. Segregation can only be fought by demanding that the Jews live elsewhere.

 

"settlement"
noun
A place where Jews live as opposed to a place where people live (see "village").

 

"smear campaign"
noun
The act of quoting last year's statements of this year's liberals.


"special interest"
A conservative cause (see "public interest").


"terrorist"
noun
1. Any violent person except insurgents and peace activists (see "insurgent", see "peace activist").
2. An American or Jew involved in a war.
3. An Israeli of any age.



"tolerance"
noun
The ability or willingness to tolerate something that is not a living Jew in "Palestine" (see "intolerance").


"Shah"
title
The one-time CIA-supported (see "CIA") ruler of Iran who ruled since 1941 after being put into power in a CIA-initiated coup in 1953. A committed fascist the Shah allowed the UK and US to send weapons and other provisions to the Soviet Union during World War II thereby severely hurting the German resistance (see "resistance") against allied fascism.

 

"ultra-right-wing"
adjective
Describes whatever political position Israeli foreign minister Avigdor Lieberman currently represents, regardless of how left-wing or liberal it might be. If Avigdor Lieberman has a more moderate position than "Palestinian" president Mahmoud Abbas, Mahmoud Abbas is "moderate", while Avigdor Lieberman is "ultra-right-wing" because he is a Jew.



"unilateral"
adjective
Attribute of any act or decision of a group of countries which does not include France.


"United Nations"
noun, singular
International organisation watching over the world. The main purpose of the UN is to ensure that the world is safe, just, and educated. The logical result is that the world is now UN-safe, UN-just, and UN-educated.


"village"
noun
A place where people live as opposed to a place where Jews live (see "settlement").


"war"
noun
The ensuing event when one country attacks another. Depending on the status of the attacked party a war can be either acceptable to the international community or not. If the attacked party is a dictator prone to slaughtering minorities, a war to remove him is unacceptable (see "international law") and the attack is considered imperialism; if the attacked party is a country with a significant Jewish population, an attack is either considered the desperate act of an opressed people or quickly forgotten.


"war criminal"
noun
A Jew or American involved in a war, for example when under attack.

 

"Zionist"
noun
A middle-eastern Jew. When it is no longer politically correct to murder "Jews", the modern freedom fighter (see "freedom fighter") does not target "Jews" but "Zionists". It is convenient that generally Jews in the middle east are either Zionists (i.e. they moved to Israel) or have been killed by what made the first group move to Israel. The freedom fighter therefor has nothing to change except his rhetoric.

 

 

 


Comments (Page 6)
8 PagesFirst 4 5 6 7 8 
on Oct 28, 2008

Again, this is the hypocrisy I am addressing. As I've said before, I bear no resentment towards Israel, so you have responded by saying I am hostile. I assure you there is no hostility either. What I am getting at is there is a definite double standard-

 

Never mind that it was Israeli bombs dropped by Israeli aircraft, the line of thinking goes that it's the fault of the other guys for staying in their homes.

 

It was Israeli bombs dropped to stop Hizbullah from fighting. There is no double standard. It is Hizbullah's fault as they started the war. You are again lying and pretend that Israel simply dropped bombs on people and that Israel's supporters claim that it is the people's fault for staying in their homes. How is that not anti-Semitism? Not even the Arab governments (outside Syria) accused Israel of doing that or Israel's supporters of supporting such a thing (in the case of the Lebanon war anyway). EVERYONE, including the people who want to murder Jews and keep attacking Israel, seems to be more civilised in their statements about Israel than you. Do you even notice that?

 

It is a difference whether you drop bombs to try to kill civilians (like Hizbullah does) or whether you drop bombs in response to shelling (like the IDF did). There was no other way to stop Hizbullah. The Lebanese could have stopped them, but they chose not to.

 

YOU are employing a double standard in that you refuse to acknowledge that difference.

 

There is no hypocrisy. I told you I would have wanted the Lebanese to flee before the bombs dropped. They did not afford me the same luxury, of course.

 

If you don't bear resentment towards Israel, why do you repeat lies about Israel and pretend that defense is the same as attack? I just don't get it. What has Israel done to you? Do you see other people repeat lies about other random countries while claiming that they bear no resentments towards those countries???

 

You cannot even talk about war crimes without making jokes. And you don't realise how disgusting that is.

 

I hope for your sake that you are never mistaken for a Jew by someone who believes the same shit you believe but who has the guts to act!

on Oct 28, 2008

 

If Dallas were to be threatened with being overrun by a foreign army, would not the U.S army take up defensive positions around and inside the city? Or would they allow a foreign army to march in freely and take over? And yes, every effort would be made to evacuate the civillian populace no doubt.

Taking up "defensive positions" inside the city and using the citizens as a human shield (and forcing them to stay) is a war crime. If you do it, the civilians in the city lose the protected status afforded to them by the Geneva convention and are fair game to an invading army. And unless that army is Jewish, nobody will be on your side and defend your cowardly behaviour.

Hizbullah didn't make an effort to evacuate southern Lebanon. It was reported from Lebanese Christians that Hizbullah forced them to stay while the terrorists dug in and shot rockets from the Christian homes.

Honestly, your attitude towards war crimes is disgusting. The jokes are one thing but this new thing where you pretend that committing war crimes is the only logical strategy is just another level still. And you have the guts of accusing others of hypocrisy?

 

But history has proven time and again that it is a virtual impossibility to completely evacuate a major city, especially during a time of war. You can get most of the people out, if you have enough time, preparation and the circumstances are in order. But there are always, always some remnant left over in a big city.

Oddly enough Israel could do it. Israel even has existing plans to evacuate universities and continue with classes a few days later in another university. Of course, in contrast to non-hating people like you who believe they know so much about war, Israel actually does know about war and how to survive.

 

The whole purpose of the analogy was to try and illustrate the hypocrisy of Israel when it waged it's 2006 summer war.

Instead it illustrated your own hypocrisy. Well done.

 

 

on Oct 30, 2008

It was reported from Lebanese Christians that Hizbullah forced them to stay while the terrorists dug in and shot rockets from the Christian homes.

Hmmm. That's interesting. Because I was told that after most of the Shiite sections of Beirut were levelled, the christian sections of the city (which were not bombed) and fell under the purview of general Ayoun who had signed a treaty with Hezbollah, gladly opened their doors and let the Shia stay there (not Hezbollah, families that had lost their homes in the bombing)

You are again lying and pretend that Israel simply dropped bombs on people and that Israel's supporters claim that it is the people's fault for staying in their homes. How is that not anti-Semitism?

Look, again with the lying. My friend, who's from Lebanon, has family who live in the southern part of the country. And you know what? They evacuated. But lo and behold, several times they had to pull over to the side of the road and run away from their vehicle, because the IDF was bombing the road. It's a proven fact that even marked ambulances got hit, and the IDF said that it was because hezbollah was using them. How could they have known that? They couldn't. They declared open field on Lebanon when it turned out that all their intel on where the enemy was was wrong.

Why would my friends family lie about this?

Again, Hezbollah is only about five thousand fighters, and they were not hiding in civillian areas. they were out in the countryside, and this was supported by the fact that the IDF was unable to get any further than 2 kilometers into Lebanon on any single day! If they were all hiding in the Shiite sections of Beirut which got flattened, then who engaged the IDF when they sent 30,000 troops across the border???

The truth is that Hezbollah had multiple lines of defence, mostly in the countryside, consisting of small groups of fighters who didn't talk to the other small groups in their line. This meant that they used almost no radio comms, which drove the IDF nuts because they were counting on using radio chatter to locate them.

These small groups, quite often no larger than squad size, had their little area they were responsible for and once overrun then behind them there was another line with another squad size group dug in, again not using very much comms.

Using this model drove the IDF nuts because

1) Their enemy was hard to locate- no radio chatter, mostly underground positions

2) Very dispersed target- because they were so spread out in such small groups, taking out one squad took a long time but accomplished very little strategically as there was another squad not too far behind. This is also bad in the media war- during any campaign the military loves to be able to claim big victories, like "look, we wiped out the enemie's headquarters! Look, we wiped out an enemy division! Look, we captured this city!" When instead, lives have been lost and all they can say is "look, we took out a few squads!!"

3) Contradicts the IDF style- they are built to wipe out conventional armies, which they can do very, very well- ie; wiping out tank regiments and organized infantry divisions of other armies. But in order to do this, they need a stand up fight which is not what they got by any means.

So, since they couldn't effectively counter Hezbollah's tactics without getting into a much longer conflict than anticipated (eventually the IDF would have indeed won- no one disputes this but they would have had to spend a lot longer than 33 days and be willing to lose a lot more soldiers) they switched tactics and tried to inflict as much misery on the people of Lebanon with the line of thinking that the people would see the bombing as Hezbollahs' fault and rise up against them.

This did not work as it turned people against the IDF and towards Hezbollah, having the opposite intended effect.

Honestly, your attitude towards war crimes is disgusting. The jokes are one thing but this new thing where you pretend that committing war crimes is the only logical strategy is just another level still. And you have the guts of accusing others of hypocrisy?

The worst war crimes were perpetrated by Israel, my friend.

Even two years after the fact, just about every week someone in Lebanon is getting maimed or killed by landmines or unexploded cluster bomblets (much of the cluster bombs have been cleaned up but the landmines are still out there)

Interestingly enough, when the U.N went in to start removing all of this ordnance, Israel refused to provide the precise locations for where much of this ordnance was dropped.

Why was that I wonder?

on Oct 30, 2008

Artysim,

Hizbullah WERE hiding among civilians. I have seen IDF videos showing Hizbullah positions in and behind apartment blocks. You are telling lies.

You accuse Israel of war crimes? Just a few days ago you told us that you find war crimes perfectly acceptable if committed by others. (Of course you didn't refer to them as "war crimes" and you even made fun of them.)

I am sick and tired of you telling those lies.

 

on Oct 30, 2008

It's a proven fact that even marked ambulances got hit

Actually no, that is one of the many PROVEN frauds and lies.

http://www.zombietime.com/fraud/ambulance/

 

http://www.honestreporting.com/articles/45884734/critiques/Red_Cross_Ambulance_Libel_Exposed.asp

 

Being hit by a missle does not leave a neat RUSTY hole in the top of an amublance, it reduces it into black charred scrap.

And stitches take longer then 3 days to heal without a scar...

And the hole just HAPPENED to be where the lebanese red cross ambulances have a ventillation vent (which was removed some time ago and left to rust in this particular incident).

on Oct 30, 2008

Ok, here we go, for the sake of other readers, since this won't have any effect on Arty:

they were out in the countryside, and this was supported by the fact that the IDF was unable to get any further than 2 kilometers into Lebanon on any single day!

Video showing Hizbullah deploying rockets in the middle of a town:

http://www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org/jsource/video/HizbullahKatyushas.wmv

 

they were not hiding in civillian areas

Video showing rockets being fired from apartment buildings:

http://www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org/jsource/video/QanaZidkin682006.wmv

 

If they were all hiding in the Shiite sections of Beirut which got flattened

Note that nobody said that they were all hiding in Beirut. Anyway, here is a video showing rockets being launched from behind an apartment building. I believe it is the building in Qana that Israel destroyed (a "war crime", obviously):

http://www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org/jsource/video/FiringBehindBuilding.wmv

 

The truth is that Hezbollah had multiple lines of defence, mostly in the countryside

Video showing Hizbullah fighters firing from a village and then hiding the launcher in a nearby house:

http://www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org/jsource/video/HizbullahBarashitLaunch.wmv

 

They declared open field on Lebanon when it turned out that all their intel on where the enemy was was wrong.

Another video showing rockets being fired from a house, an example of how precise Israel's intel is:

http://www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org/jsource/video/MissilesfromHouse.wmv

Another video of Hizbullah hiding among houses:

http://www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org/jsource/video/AAGunamongHouses.wmv

 

It's a proven fact that even marked ambulances got hit, and the IDF said that it was because hezbollah was using them.

About the ambulance incident:

http://zombietime.com/fraud/ambulance/

"Proven facts" is what will get all the Jews killed eventually. But there is a difference between "proven facts" and reality. It doesn't matter any more though, now that Jews shoot back.

 

Arty, I don't know where you get your information from or whether you make up lies as you go along. But I doubt that you knew of the IDF videos when you referred to Israel's wrong intel and I doubt that you cared to verify what you were told about how Hizbullah were fighting.

It was also very apparent that you had no problem with the idea of fighters hiding among civilians, you even made fun of the idea of finding it repulsive. Only after you were told that hiding among civilians is a war crime, you suddenly "knew" that Hizbullah didn't do that. (In your example you had American soldiers do it, you apparently didn't know that hiding in cities is indeed not an accepted strategy in civilised warfare.)

I know being shown videos of Hizbullah firing from residential areas or even from within houses won't change your view that Hizbullah didn't hide among civilians. But for the sake of other readers, I thought the videos were useful.

 

And as a bonus:

They declared open field on Lebanon

Picture of a southern Lebanese town (almost) totally destroyed by the IDF:

http://www.michaeltotten.com/archives/images/Maroun%20Al%20Ras%20Mosque.jpg

You can see that the IDF hit everything except the mosque which is unaffected. There was no "open field". The IDF did in fact know what they bombarded and SPECIFICALLY didn't bombard a house of prayer. The "open field" story is another anti-Semitic lie told to keep people hating Israel.

That was one of the towns used to fire at Israel. I am sure Hizbullah were also firing from the mosque. But Israel doesn't bomb indiscriminately.

 

 

on Oct 30, 2008

Actually no, that is one of the many PROVEN frauds and lies.

Indeed. But that doesn't matter. It's about what can be said about and against Israel, not whether it actually happened.

 

on Oct 30, 2008

It is remarkable that the IDF have to prove Israel's innocence in videos. For some reason, when it comes to Israel, the accusations are proof and every story told about the IDF is true and Israel is guilty unless proven innocent (in which case Israel becomes less guilty).

People like Arty, who don't "hate" Israel but mechanically and without any emotions repeat lies, certainly contribute to the problem. I wonder if he really does have friends in Lebanon.

 

on Oct 30, 2008

IDF is true and Israel is guilty unless proven innocent (in which case Israel becomes less guilty).

You meant to say "in which case the story changes and Israel remains as guilty as before or even more guilty"

For example, the "hiding in cities" went from "its ok to do so" to "well they didn't do it"

on Oct 30, 2008

You meant to say "in which case the story changes and Israel remains as guilty as before or even more guilty"

No, there is actually such a thing as an assumption that Israel is not the only bad guy among liberals. You can even get a liberal to admit that Saddam Hussein was a fascist dictator if it is taken as read that the US are equally evil.

 

For example, the "hiding in cities" went from "its ok to do so" to "well they didn't do it"

Yes, that was a bit odd. In his example of a hypothetical invasion (in which the side corresponding to Israel was the aggressor, obviously) the "defending" army hid in cities to avoid being eliminated. That was OK with him. He even laughed at the idea that the situation should be handled differently.

And after being told that that was a war crime, it suddenly became something Hizbullah never did.

 

 

 

on Oct 30, 2008

It was also very apparent that you had no problem with the idea of fighters hiding among civilians, you even made fun of the idea of finding it repulsive. Only after you were told that hiding among civilians is a war crime, you suddenly "knew" that Hizbullah didn't do that. (In your example you had American soldiers do it, you apparently didn't know that hiding in cities is indeed not an accepted strategy in civilised warfare.)

I never changed my tune. I was trying to illustrate that, God forbid the U.S is ever invaded, soldiers DEFENDING a city would be portrayed as cowards hiding behind civillians by the invaders. This is the double standard I was talking about.

And by the way, "hiding in cities is indeed not an accepted strateget in civilised warfare" seems to have been forgotten by every single frickin army on the planet as they all put massive emphasis on training for urban warfare... why is that hmmm????

on Oct 30, 2008

And by the way, "hiding in cities is indeed not an accepted strateget in civilised warfare" seems to have been forgotten by every single frickin army on the planet as they all put massive emphasis on training for urban warfare... why is that hmmm????

Heard the quote - YOu dont go into battle with the army you want, but rather the army you have?

Same thing.  You cannot fight a war when they are shooting at you from urban areas and not have to fight that way.

on Oct 30, 2008

About the ambulance incident:

oh ho! The ambulance incident, singular? There were several documented cases in which marked ambulances were fired upon. I will provide sources to back that up!

Furthermore, I never stated that Hezbollah never went in cities. They themselves have released videos showing their members firing rockets from houses and apartment buildings.

However, once the fighting started in earnest the vast majority of Hezbollah, including it's non-military components left populated areas so as to not bring airstrikes down on the populace, airstrikes which occurred anyway.

Again, if even a tiny fraction of the ordnance dropped had hit Hezbollah targets then that organization and their ability to launch rockets would have been wiped out, no?

But it wasn't... why?

Because the IDF's strikes for the most part didn't hit Hezbollah. All they succeeded in doing was turn people's homes into rubble!

on Oct 30, 2008

And by the way, "hiding in cities is indeed not an accepted strategy in civilised warfare" seems to have been forgotten by every single frickin army on the planet as they all put massive emphasis on training for urban warfare... why is that hmmm????

In case you attack a city and fighters hidden in it? Hmmmm?

You actually thought that urban warfare training is about teaching soldiers to use human shields?

 

 

Furthermore, I never stated that Hezbollah never went in cities. They themselves have released videos showing their members firing rockets from houses and apartment buildings.

Oh, give it up, Arty. You are just changing your tune again. But the lyrics are still the same.

 

oh ho! The ambulance incident, singular? There were several documented cases in which marked ambulances were fired upon. I will provide sources to back that up!

Right. I have heard that before. And there are several "documented cases" of Jews trying to take over the world. Less "documented cases" and more facts, please!

Incidentally, I saw a video of terrorists using an ambulance for attacks.

I knew that the videos wouldn't make a difference.

 

 

 

on Oct 30, 2008

Arty, is this one of the ambulances Israel targeted?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sRmYYSp0-B8

Also, I would like to know. Is using human shields a war crime if Jews do it?

 

8 PagesFirst 4 5 6 7 8