Talk:2006 Lebanon War/Archive 24

message: "Hezbollah cross-border raid and shelling resulting in death of eight and capture of two IDF soldiers"
:Didn't the cross-border raid result in the death of three IDF soldiers, not eight? To my understanding, the other five died while trying to retrieve their comrades. This comment seems a bit misleading. Coolintro 23:54, 13 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree.--Cerejota 00:44, 14 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  And I don't. Eight soldiers died in this attack, not three. It is highly irrelevant that they have tried to save their comrades - that's what soldiers do while under attack, you know? I suppose for you guys to write that the other five were killed in the attack they had to stand still and wait for Hizballa bullets, not trying to do anything against the attackers, right? What an immoral crap... Aleverde.
We already discussed this, you must be new to this talk page, we earlier decided to keep that. Because there are other news report where they where 8 where kiled at the same time. --Zonerocks 02:15, 14 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:   Casus belli 

message: The first sentence of the article should be changed to the past tense and the word "ongoing" removed. If this isn't in fact the end of the conlflict, and it fighting resumes, we can simply change things back.Nwe 21:07, 15 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree. Avraham beat me to it by a few seconds. Stephen B Streater 21:15, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

text: Agreed. The last cease fire lasted six weeks, this one has lasted almost two days. Practically a record! I just past-tensed most of the article, and besides, I think if things fall apart again it would have to be a new artcle. -- Kendrick7 21:56, 15 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Uh, no. You misunderstand the word ceasefire and its definition. There was a ceasefire during WW1 at Christmas time in 1915, when fighting resumed the next day it was still WW1. A ceasefire is not an end to the war in and of itself, but temporary stoppage of fighting. The conflict is still ongoing. ~Rangeley (talk) 21:59, 15 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: No, you are misunderstanding the scope of this article, or at least how it was explained to me here. This article begins with the breach of the May ceasefire, and as such should end with the commencement of this August ceasefire. I originally thought it should cover all of 2006 too. This is perhaps one conflict in a larger war. I believe Israel and Lebanon are technically still at war and have been for dozens of years now. -- Kendrick7 22:10, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

text: First of all we aren't ones to decide what victory is and is not. Secondly, not attaining your goals set at the beginning of the war doesn't necessarily mean your enemy has won. One could just as well say that since Israel killed 4 times as many Hezbollah members as IDF soldiers that died they won the conflict. IMO there was no winner to the conflict but there was definitely one loser and that is Lebanon. Yonatanh 23:02, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

text: Two cases in point: the fighting in the Bosnian War was brought to an end in a ceasefire on October 12, 1995, but the war itself didn't end until the final signing of the Dayton Agreement on December 14, 1995. Likewise the First World War ended on June 28, 1919, not November 11, 1918 when the Armistice went into effect. (That's why most war memorials list 1919, not 1918, as the end date of the war.) In other words, the end of the shooting is not the end of the conflict. -- ChrisO 23:26, 15 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I think it's very premature to state that this conflict is history. When the Lebanese Army and the strengthened UNIFIL force is in place, and the Israelis have withdrawn to the other side of the border, we can assume that there will be a longer period of nomajor military activities in the area. At that point this conflict can be regarded as history, as any renewed outbreak of major hostilities would be labelled as a different conflict. However, if hostilities start again before this happens, the current ceasefire will just be a temporary break in the same conflict. So, let's stick to "ongoing" for now. Thomas Blomberg 23:31, 15 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Exactly right - remember how many ceasefires there were in Bosnia? -- ChrisO 23:39, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

text: Then why isn't the start of this conflict 26 May? -- Kendrick7 00:06, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

text: It began then by your definition. There was a ceasefire 28 May, then hostilities resumed 12 July. You seem to want it both ways. -- Kendrick7 00:15, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

text: Here is the relavant footnote. -- Kendrick7 00:22, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

text: I would tend to agree with Kendrick here. It doesn't make sense to say that a conflict is ongoing if it began as a breach of a ceasefire and a new one was declared. It's status now has returned to its status before the begining of the conflict. 124.186.6.253 00:36, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

text: Also, the page on the Korean war gives the date of the end of the war as the date of the armistice. An armistace can be a date for the end of a conflict, though I wounldn't claim that it's definitive. 124.186.6.253 00:43, 16 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: It really depends on whether it is considered the end or not. We have the ability to see that the Korean War ended then, if fighting occurs again it would be considered a different war. But the Vietnam war had a ceasefire in 1973, fighting then resumed later and it was considered the same war. We dont have enough knowledge to know if this is the end or not, the press isnt calling it the end, its merely a "shaky ceasefire." We have to leave it alone for the time being and see what the press, and experts determine. Because the May event was so small and because it is pretty much entirely forgotten (surprisingly, I had never once seen it mentioned in support of the Israeli rationale by anyone on TV, though it seems like something that could be used to strengthen their argument,) we dont consider it part of this because noone else does. We arent writing history, we are merely recording it. ~Rangeley (talk) 01:16, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

text: Or we can just remove the tag. ~Rangeley (talk) 03:02, 16 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: You could, but you know what would happen then.  I won't change it, but you know that others will.  I was just trying to propose a compromise, but other than that I do not think it matters very much which word is used.  Since there is no POV issue here, I would be satisfied in the knowledge that no matter which word is there, within a few weeks it will be clear which word is correct, and that is what the article will say.  (To those who think they are going to quote this back to me about some other dispute, note the condition that there is no POV issue.)  6SJ7 03:24, 16 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I still say dating this conflict from the end of the last ceasefire to the start of the current one eliminates any POV issues. It makes for nice logical and factual bookends to the article. It's not like there can't be more articles. Otherwise, it becomes a real open ended muddle. If we extend it forward, we'd need to extend it backwards too, and then there would be endless "who started it" debates. I don't know why she swallowed the fly! I mean, if the best counter-argument is that we should write whatever the TV tells us, that's a pretty lousy starting point. Anyway, I like Tewfik's current grammar solution for now. -- Kendrick7 05:15, 16 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Is the conflict still ongoing? 

message: :Shouldn't this be added to the article?
:http://www.haaretz.com/hasen/spages/750941.html
Ruthfulbarbarity 02:12, 16 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't know, but I am having trouble with this sentence:
Isn't that a contradiction? Unless they wish to choose the time and place of their martydom, I guess. -- Avi 15:38, 16 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Added. Flayer 17:01, 16 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Hezbollah Special Ops Chief Killed?

message: Loathe am I to add yet another discussion to the already overloaded talk page, but the constant addition of an unneeded disclaimer to the this comment in the intro of the argument needs to be settled.
"The conflict has killed hundreds of people, mostly Lebanese people (with a yet unknown proportion of fighters and civilians), damaged infrastructure across Lebanon, displaced more than a million Lebanese and 500,000 Israelis, and disrupted normal life across all of Lebanon and the northern part of Israel."
Some people have been arguing it's POV without the disclaimer.
Even if you include Israel's highest estimates of Hezbollah dead, and the lowest estimates of Lebanese civilian dead, the statement still holds true. I can't revert it back, but it'd be nice if someone would. It's rubbish to deny the fact that Lebanese civilians have been hit the most in this conflict - whether you want to blame Hezbollah or Israel for that is up to you, but "with a yet unknown proportion of fighters and civilians" is patent rubbish, since we have the figures right there. Iorek85 04:32, 16 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: It should really just say "people". The casuality and their exact country of original, civilian, irregular, or enlisted status, is counted for elsewhere. I think this paragraph is really trying to explain the tragedy of the whole mess -- Kendrick7 05:44, 16 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: How anyone could claim that this was an equal conflict on both sides baffles me. By any measure, be it environmental, casualty figures, evacuations, physical damage, monetary, or sheer amount of explosives used, Lebanon came out by far the worst. Kendrick, I'd agree with you, but the purpose of the lead is to summarise the main points of the conflict - to lump everyone together (while each life is equal in value) hides the fact that the conflict was unequal. I'm not assigning any moral to that here, anyone can argue its justified or its not, but the lead presents the view that both sides were equally affected, and that's just not the case. Somewhere in that lead it should point out that Lebanon has suffered the most damage/casualties. Iorek85 06:08, 16 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Disclaimer in the Intro to 2006 Israel-Lebanon conflict

message: Has Syria been cleared of this crime? Will Syria ever be investigated now that the UN wants Syria to support the international peace keeping force? Many have stated that Iran wanted this conflict to deflect attention from its problems with the UN over its nuclear program. Could Syria also benefit in that the UN investigation of Syria will also be deflected? Let's debate... user:mnw2000 15:07, 18 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: No lets not debate, this is not a general chat forum. --zero faults |sockpuppets| 16:05, 18 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  What about the murder of Rafik Hariri?