Talk:2006 Lebanon War/Archive 3

message: I suggest using word "abducted". It does not imply helplessness or child’s qualities of a victim as “kidnapping” and has no military accent as "capture". I would like to point out that the target was any Israeli citizen and not a specific person, who was intended to be arrested. Michagal
:Abducted seems to be a good compromise. I'll begin making changes soon if no one objects. Cheers, TewfikTalk 16:24, 16 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Abducted is cool by me!Hypnosadist 16:28, 16 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Abducted is more weasel words. The only NPOV term is captured, as it describes the action without any judgement. Abduction has moral weight.
--Cerejota 22:22, 16 July 2006 (UTC)

text: Captured or abducted. Both seem sufficiently neutral to me. Perhaps both could be used? (more rich vocabulary) Sijo Ripa 23:03, 16 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: "Captured" seems to be the neutral way to describe it, as it can be both legal and illegal, right and wrong, good and bad. It does have military connotations, but it was a military attack that met with a military response, so that shouldn't be a real problem. Zocky | picture popups 00:49, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

text: Are we able to source our feelings that "captured" has military connotations?  No dictionary I've consulted seems to discuss it in this way.  If I recall all of the discussion so far, most of the objection to "capture" was made by users who insisted on "kidnap."  That said I like the above user's idea of variety:  take/taken, sieze/seized, abduct/abducted, capture/captured.  Of these, abduct carries the most moral weight and leads the user to negative judgement (IMO).  Failing the wiki community's developing Stockholm-syndrome-by-proxy, "abductors" will always be "bad guys," but captors/capturers could be either "good" or "bad" depending on the reader and the nabbers and nabbies. If we use language that casts one side of a conflict as "bad guys," we have obviously failed at NPOV.  "Abduct" is a marked improvement over "kidnap," but I think if falls short of NPOV.--Smallwhitelight 13:12, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

text: I believe "capture" would be the most suitable word. Although there was no open conflict when the event took place, it was a military action. Besides, "abduct" - in my opinion - may relate to capturing someone without harming anyone, while in this event, two vehicles were attacked and 8 soldiers were killed (during the action and during the attempts to stop the Hezbollah soldiers from retreating to Lebanon). By the way, for the record - I am Israeli, but I stick to the NPOV policy. Tamuz 20:10, 17 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, Noam Chomsky refers to the soldiers as being abducted, whereas U.S. President Bush refers to them as being captured. Does this make it any clearer?--Craven Maven 03:45, 18 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Um... No. Only more confusing. But anyway, I think the word "abducted" is also fine, as long as it is made clear the amount of soldiers who died during that action. Tamuz    (Talk)   08:54, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

text: Cerejota, you're going just a little bit too far in trying to use NPOV to back up your points.  It's more like you're using m:MPOV, actually .. Cyde↔Weys 13:04, 20 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Capture vs Abduct

message: Having that link there is pretty POV, no?  Let history decide whether any war crimes were committed here.  --Pifactorial 21:44, 13 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Yea, its POV. Rangeley 21:52, 13 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: last time I cheked, killing children is labeled as war crime —Preceding unsigned comment added by Greier (talk • contribs) 21:55, 13 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: OK so is there a Hezbollah War Crimes article to balance the POV? Even if there was, the casualties section wouldn't be the appropriate place for a see also. This is a pretty clear case of petulant POV pushing. Brentt 22:16, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

text: *Incorrect. The intentional or avoidable (but not avoided) killing of civilians is a war crime. Virtually every modern war has had civilian casualities. Staxringold talkcontribs 21:58, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

text: Israel has a history of war crimes in Lebanon. In 1981-82 they dropped cluster bombs and thermobaryc (fuel-air vacuum) bombs on lebanese civilians, causing hundreds of badly maimed and burnt people. These bombs were made in America and USA sold them to Israel on the condition these very powerful weapons cannot be used unless TWO arab states invade israel concurrently. Instead Israel invaded lebanon and dropped the bombs. There was outrage in the congress, but Teller, himself a jew, intervened with Reagan and the incident was glossed over in the west. In the communist bloc the event was widely publicized, although at that time USSR no longer had any interest in materially helping arab and muslim people, opting to invade Afghanistan instead. 195.70.32.136 07:19, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

text: Amnesty International is calling them war crimes, but both sides : --Paraphelion 09:13, 14 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  In 1982, in similar circumstances to this Israel invaded the Lebanon. In the year leading up to the invasion 9 Israeli civilans had been killed in rocket attacks. In the ensuing invasion Israeli fire killed between 20,000 and 25,000 civilians. I think it is a great idea to have a Hezbollah war crimes page; but it will not be "balanced" because the drimes of Hezbollah against civilans is a drop in the ocean compared to what the Israeli army is up to. ariddles
Israel has a fifty year history of human rights violations and has had numerous UN Resolutions drafted against her for these violations. Both sides behave badly and the truth should be told.
*If a particular organization is calling them war crimes, list it in international reactions as with Amnesty International. We do not call them war crimes until they are proven in a court, in the same way an article would not read "_____ is an American murderer" until he/she is found guilty of murder in a court. 
Jrltex 20:17, 16 July 2006 (UTC)

text: *Agreeing with Staxringold; the term "war crimes" has a fairly specific official usage, regardless of how it's thrown around by media outlets and partisans on any side of a conflict. The best way to avoid POV issues is to stick to this official usage, and so far it's too early to label such actions this way. Mentioning it as a reaction from organizations like AI, however, is certainly warranted. -- H·G (words/works) 00:49, 15 July 2006 (UTC)

text: Except of course a war crime is the targetting of civilans, which Israel has done. Also, warning civilians is not considered a good enough defence in international law: if the civilians do not or cannot flee that doens't mean you can then attack that place - as the attacking army you in fact have to desist from attacking that place. Another aspect is proportionality: you cannot as a country use oover kill - for example destroying a power station in another part of the country is not considered a proportionate attack under international law. Andrew Riddles 22:32, 15 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Israeli war crimes?

message: Does anyone have a good (NPOV) formulation describing Israel's actions after the Hezbollah raid? I thought counter-raid just doesn't fit the actions, as it wasn't a raid, but rather many airstrikes and artilery bombardment. I'm putting in counter-attack for now, though I'm concerned it may also be both vague and POV. Cheers, TewfikTalk 19:01, 14 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: "Israeli responded by [...], with the express intention of ["..." (direct quote from Israeli foreign minister or similarly high-ranking official)] Hezbollah."  Something like that.  --zenohockey 22:27, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

text: You could make that argument for any conflict, but wikipedia describes the events. Later in the article we discuss the Hezbollah motivations. To call it a "response" is not factual, and just mixes things up. We don't call the WTC 9/11 attack a response, and we don't call Pearl Harbour a response, but the understanding of the other side's motivation is discussed later. Cheers, TewfikTalk 23:53, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

text: In the Strategic Studies discipline the two concepts are separated as "immediate causes" (here: the capturing of the two soldiers) and "underlying causes" or "root causes" (the vicious cycle of violence/poverty/humiliation/etc. between the parties) Sijo Ripa 23:57, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

text: It's not about condemning. What we see however is that the violence escalated after the Hezbollah actions. In other words: a conflict is triggered by an immediate cause and I doubt that you can deny that that trigger wasn't the capture of the two soldiers. Ask yourself: would Israel have taken the same actions on the same day without the capturing? Possibly they would have taken the same actions on a different moment, which "however" would mean that there was a different immediate cause (which can be almost anything, internal or external). Sijo Ripa 02:24, 15 July 2006 (UTC)

text: Then you can just claim that the palestinians started this one by capturing the soldier in the Gaza Strip, which led to the israeli actions, and so on and so forth. This particular conflict arises immediately, on a very small time scale, from the capture of the two soldiers in Israel-Lebanon border. Those who mind don't matter, and those who matter don't mind. 22:15, 15 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Israeli response/NPOVing "who started first

message: ===Operation Just Promise===
Was the name of Hezbollah's military operation not of Israel's. Robin Hood 1212 12:36, 15 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I've heard it's Fulfilled Promise - the promise to help release Palestenian prisoners by abducting Israeli soldiers. But I don't feel like hunting for sources now.--Lior 16:29, 15 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  SOuces say True Promise, althought this could be a problem with translation...--Cerejota 22:37, 15 July 2006 (UTC)

text: Israeli Wikipedia calls it שינוי כיוון - Change of Direction. But it doesn't have a citation there. Máfiàg 09:01, 16 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Hebrew Wikipedia* Psychomelodic (people think  edit) 14:31, 16 July 2006 (UTC)

text: While this is how the crisis started, and while the government of Lebanon has called for a cease fire, Israel has made Lebanon a combatant by attacking general lebanese civilian and military Infrastructure. So it is indeed the Israel-Lebanon crisis --Cerejota 21:14, 16 July 2006 (UTC)

text: Crisis can mean violence, even war. See for instance Suez crisis Sijo Ripa 13:33, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

text: Well is there a way to put it to a vote?Criptofcorbin 13:41, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

text: I disagree for several reasons: most victims are Lebanese civilians. Hezbollah moreover has buildings and networks in Syria (and perhaps elsewhere - Iran? Jordan?), but Israel does not wage war against these Hezbollahs. Therefore if we prefer "conflict", the conflict should be called "2006 Israel-Hezbollah Conflict in Israel and Lebanon" or simply "2006 Israel-Hezbollah Conflict in Lebanon" (as most action happens in Lebanon). Sijo Ripa 14:03, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

text: I agree with "2006 Israel-Hezbollah Conflict in Lebanon", as you can't simply ignore the part Lebanon has in this, whether they actually want it or not.Frinkahedr0n 14:35, 17 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Discussion about the name of the article

message: Was the name of Hezbollah's military operation not of Israel's. Robin Hood 1212 12:36, 15 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I've heard it's Fulfilled Promise - the promise to help release Palestenian prisoners by abducting Israeli soldiers. But I don't feel like hunting for sources now.--Lior 16:29, 15 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  SOuces say True Promise, althought this could be a problem with translation...--Cerejota 22:37, 15 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Operation Just Promise

message: I can't find any reference for that. (added by Nachmore)  edit. Delete? --TheYmode 14:38, 15 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Israeli Wikipedia calls it שינוי כיוון - Change of Direction. But it doesn't have a citation there. Máfiàg 09:01, 16 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Hebrew Wikipedia* Psychomelodic (people think  edit) 14:31, 16 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Change name to 'Operation Change of Direction' ?

message: The war is between Israel and Hezbollah, not Lebanon.  Lebanese government is not militarily involved.  Suggest rename of article to "2006 Israel-Hezbollah crisis"???
Kyleberk 21:11, 16 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: While this is how the crisis started, and while the government of Lebanon has called for a cease fire, Israel has made Lebanon a combatant by attacking general lebanese civilian and military Infrastructure. So it is indeed the Israel-Lebanon crisis --Cerejota 21:14, 16 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Rename article

message: I know we had this discussion already but as the "crisis" enters its first week soon, I think we should reconsider the article name. This is no longer a crisis, but not really a war on the classic sense.
So perhaps "conflict"?
Also it is becoming clear that this is not a conflict with just two sides, but three, and the title should reflect this.
So I think we should rename the article "2006 Hizbollah-Israel-Lebanon Conflict" or something similar.
--Cerejota 13:19, 17 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Crisis can mean violence, even war. See for instance Suez crisis Sijo Ripa 13:33, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

text: Well is there a way to put it to a vote?Criptofcorbin 13:41, 17 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Crisis vs. Conflict discussion

message: :I disagree for several reasons: most victims are Lebanese civilians. Hezbollah moreover has buildings and networks in Syria (and perhaps elsewhere - Iran? Jordan?), but Israel does not wage war against these Hezbollahs. Therefore if we prefer "conflict", the conflict should be called "2006 Israel-Hezbollah Conflict in Israel and Lebanon" or simply "2006 Israel-Hezbollah Conflict in Lebanon" (as most action happens in Lebanon). Sijo Ripa 14:03, 17 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree with "2006 Israel-Hezbollah Conflict in Lebanon", as you can't simply ignore the part Lebanon has in this, whether they actually want it or not.Frinkahedr0n 14:35, 17 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Israel-Hezbollah Conflict in Lebanon

message: User 83.70.199.1 has expanded his/her vandalism efforts, previously limited to uncited increase of Lebanese civ deaths, now removing paragraphs without any explanation.--Paraphelion 16:46, 17 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: vandalism by 83.70.199.1

message: 81.58.29.90 and 85.250.210.46 are breaking the info box...--Cerejota 15:13, 18 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Possible vandalism

message: ===Rethinking 'proportionate response'===
Seems to me that a proportionate response would be one that is adequate, but not excessive, in achieving Israel's goals, namely, the return of her kidnapped soldiers and an end to Hizb'allah and Hamas rocket attacks. These goals have not yet been achieved, therefore Israel's response is not in any way disproportionate. If Israel were to achieve her goals and THEN nuke Lebanon, THAT might be disproportionate.
The one positive thing I note from the escalation of anti-terrorist activities in by the US and Israeli in the past few years is that is flushing out our enemies and letting the sane among us see what they really think. By "enemies" above, I mean the MSM, Dems, Commies, feminazis, moonbats, and Islam. I just hope we take advantage of the current situation and push this to unconditional surrender . . . no more half measures, appeasement, or funding Palestine for any purpose. An absolute separation from the UN would be nice too. Oh yeah, GO IDF! SoCalJustice 10:00, 17 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Hi, does this comment refer to the 2006 Israel-Lebanon crisis article?  I'm not convinced that it does.  Perhaps you would be interested in looking into International relations as a topic of your own personal enquiry.  Remember, this is a page dedicated to developing the encyclopedic value of the article. MLA 07:18, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

text: And you know this exactly how? By any chance, are you an Israeli citizen? You certainly sound like one: brainwashed and programmed to say, in response to any criticism, "They're all terrorists! Terrorists!". ==ILike2BeAnonymous 20:27, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

text: It is very childish and immature to comment on people's appearance.  Focus on his actions and rhetoric.--Patchouli 10:51, 20 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Nonsense

message: Seems to me that a proportionate response would be one that is adequate, but not excessive, in achieving Israel's goals, namely, the return of her kidnapped soldiers and an end to Hizb'allah and Hamas rocket attacks. These goals have not yet been achieved, therefore Israel's response is not in any way disproportionate. If Israel were to achieve her goals and THEN nuke Lebanon, THAT might be disproportionate.
The one positive thing I note from the escalation of anti-terrorist activities in by the US and Israeli in the past few years is that is flushing out our enemies and letting the sane among us see what they really think. By "enemies" above, I mean the MSM, Dems, Commies, feminazis, moonbats, and Islam. I just hope we take advantage of the current situation and push this to unconditional surrender . . . no more half measures, appeasement, or funding Palestine for any purpose. An absolute separation from the UN would be nice too. Oh yeah, GO IDF! SoCalJustice 10:00, 17 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Rethinking 'proportionate response'

message: US Marine General Zini gave a talk to a bunch of Marine Officers including me in 1996 and he made several good points. International Relations remains largely predicated on the idea of Nation States as the only real threat to other nation States. Trouble is that with the demise of the bi-centric East vs. West Cold War Paradigm, new organizations have emerged with the finance, infrastructure, communications, command and control and organization that effectively rival those of traditional nation states. Zini jokingly noted that the USA was probably NOT going to be attacked by the Bahamas or Fiji or Iceland. I think Zini made a good point. Until the 911 attack, the US's foreign policy was oriented toward the nation state.  Even Israel "likes" to think of working with/for/against nation states. Why not. Centuries of international relations and history were based on the concept.
What's Changed today and what's the point. Israel is in the same bind with a bunch of its own twists and much MORE complexity than the US faces. There's no such nation state as Hesbollah nor really even Hamas. In Lebanon, the NON-nation state entity, Hezboalla has MORE power than the nation state. Israel is lashing out like a drunken sailor and a lot of it is just plain STUPID, if you ask me. What's Lebanon supposed to do about Hezbollah? Eliminate them?  They CAN't and NO amount of Israeli bombing is gonna give them the wherewithal. Only Syria and Iran can reign in Hezbollah. 70.103.164.235 06:18, 17 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Hi, does this comment refer to the 2006 Israel-Lebanon crisis article?  I'm not convinced that it does.  Perhaps you would be interested in looking into International relations as a topic of your own personal enquiry.  Remember, this is a page dedicated to developing the encyclopedic value of the article. MLA 07:18, 17 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Rise of NON-Nation State "powers"

message: Israel and the IDF didn't kill inoccent people, The IDF kill them because of the terror they are helping to by supporting it! They shouln't be considered as innocent civilians, they are part of this war and they are related to the Hezbolla! —The preceding unsigned comment was added by  (talk • contribs).
:And you know this exactly how? By any chance, are you an Israeli citizen? You certainly sound like one: brainwashed and programmed to say, in response to any criticism, "They're all terrorists! Terrorists!". ==ILike2BeAnonymous 20:27, 17 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: All the killed civilians in Lebanon are terrorists or they helped the terror

message: I'd like to remind you that it doesn't really matter the way such group is written.  However, If you insist on using the right term, then use "HezbAllah". This word is a combination of two words which are "Hezb" and "Allah".  Hezb is translated as the "Force" or "Army" and "Allah" as we must all know means "God" in Arabic. 
Secondly, I'd like to remind people that this is Wikipedia, and not a Soap Opera Series.  It's nice to see that people are providing us with their opinions which are needed, however, I'd like to see more facts rather than rumors.  In addition, I would also like to emphasize that terrorism has its own meaning, and that many people lack to understand such meaning including our ignorant, uneducated, illogical and unreasonable President; George W. Bush. 
As explained by the dictionary, Terrorism is "The unlawful use or threatened use of force or violence by a person or an organized group against people or property with the intention of intimidating or coercing societies or governments, often for ideological or political reasons".  The only two countries calling "HezbAllah" terrorists are the United States and Israel. And so far we have not seen any act of terrorism by HezbAllah in the United States, or even in Israel.  
The leader of the "HezbAllah" organization explained fully, and articulated that the reason why they kidnapped two soldiers was not to cause a war, it was to trade these 2 kidnapped men with couple of the prisonners that israel has been holding for years.  Unfortunatly, it is not my job to blame the citizens and people around the world, because the information that we are provided with by our Presiednt are full of lies; the truth has been provided and repeated by all the medias around the world except those held in the United States and by Israel. 
Such actions by "HezbAllah" were military strategies,to which unfortunatly, the media here in the United States, and in Israel lack to provide its citizens the truth that has happened throughout the past years.  Israel has stepped many times over Lebanese borders, and killed civilians in their own homes, as well as kidnapped many and imprisonned them in Israel. Logically, this country of Israel should have been punished, however, they had the ability to hide their action and move on with the help of our American Government and our so loved president George W. Bush. It is said, and believed, and proven, that the United States of America is run by the Land of Israel. And again, my job here is not to explain my beliefs, however, to ask people to research, and be informed before speaking out their opinions and grief.  
I would also like to inform my felow friends, that Israel has attacked Lebanon first.  After "HezbAllah" asked and explained that they will return the kidnapped men with an exchange, Israel decided to bomb bridges, the airport, ports, fuel storages in one night ! After such attacks, the leader of "HezbAllah" stood patient and said that if Israel wanted an open war, they were ready for it; and that is, when Israel felt comfortable bombing hospitals, schools, and civilian houses by reporting that such locations were targets of "HezbAllah"'s army.  Such, was also another lie by Israel, because they have not found any weapons storages, or killed any members of the "HezbAllah" group in the above locations.  The majority of dead in Lebanon hold a population of children and women, and not of the "HezbAllah" organization as our media here in the United States and Israel launched.  It is time that someone speaks, and time that the truth be reveiled.
In addition, I would also like to make another point.  I find it ridicule when Israel, the United States and Tony Blair explain that the missiles launched by "HezbAllah" are made in Iran and in Syria.  Where were they expecting these missiles to be from ? Honnolulu ?!? How come, the "HezbAllah" group doesn't complain that the missles and bombs and so on launched at them are made in USA ? That is an explaination of the hypocracy practiced by Israel.    
Last but not least will be the aim of "HezbAllah". The leader of this organization fears God.  "HezbAllah" is not a terrorit organization rather, a faith organization.  I am not saying that I support such group, however, I would like to make it clear that : IN THIS WORLD, THERE IS NO PRESIDENT, KING, LEADER, OR ANY OTHER RULER AS SMART, LOGICAL, FEARLESS, HONEST, FAITHFULL, REASONABLE, AND STRONG AS THE LEADER OF "HEZBALLAH".  This leader has performed his promises, stood for his followers, walked his path with no fear except that of God, and is leading his people to their rights through incredible tactics and strategies. It is sad to see that our country, the United States of America lack such leadership.  The only thing our president speaks is what he has been taught by Israel ministers and government. In addition, he has proven himself to not be fully informed, lack a needed education of the outside world, and unable to articulate.  It is also an extra that I must inform you that our president of the United States has never travelled outside the United States before becoming a President. Our government's policies and rules relies on lies, ignorance, and abuse of power.  They have brought the country into debts, has only been good bringing up gas prices, and cutting us from our rights of medical abilities, better schooling, and jobs.  It is a disgrase to see that the United States use its money for unuseful issues in the outside, while ignoring Americans needs in the inside.  
There is much more to explain and talk about however, I lack the time to do so. I haven't provided any links because everything writen has been launched in the news and been proven and studied by many newspapers, journalists, and authorities. I beg, and ask people to get informed by the outside world.  I beg people to look at the media of the outside world. I beg and ask people to stand for what they believe in and not for what our president and government has providing us and given us.  I ask of people to research for the truth rather than standing with the majority.  I beg people to disuse logical fallacies in their arguments such as Ad hominem and Ad populum arguments, Bandwagon appeals, circular reasoning that has no end, False analogy, hasty generalization, Non sequitur and all the others.  The citizens of the United States are wise, proud, strong, and faithful. let's not let our president speak for us because he doesn't have the ability to represent us.  Let's become more informed, and stand for the truth. --70.236.146.129 23:04, 17 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: THE TRUTH !

message: The subsection below was considered POV. However, it is a perspective that I would like to be well visible here on behalf of the innocent man, women and children victims of this unqualified war and destruction, at least to my consciousness, in current times that we call of "global village" in an era that we call "enlightment-information-knowledge-reason"... but, where is our HEART?...
*May a peaceful and civilized solution, in the same way it was found and offered - like an "Ode to Joy" - to the long suffering people of East Timor, be also built soon to stop all this fear and terror in that sad region of Our World;
*May an United and Friendly international community act and react together as it did to ASSIST-AID-HELP the victims of the 2004 India Ocean earthquake or the victims of the Hurricane Katrina in 2005.
*May we all be able to grow and learn to live within ourselves the eternal IDEAL of Divine LOVE so kindly expressed by the great American writer Thomas Paine: The world is my country, all mankind are my brethren, and to do good is my religion. Thank you, Regards --Viriathus 13:49, 18 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Appeal to conflict mediation

message: Hassan Nasrallah looks a little like he could be the Muslim version of Santa (based on the billboard drawing in the article).  I haven't seen the videos (added to my netflix queue though) but I am guessing he looks substantially less Santa-like when talking about the rockets and whatnot.  Has anyone considered that the prisoner exchange might be facilitated by a Secret Santa type arrangement?  I realize now that this is original research but we should keep all possibilities open for the future.--Paraphelion 09:20, 20 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: It is very childish and immature to comment on people's appearance.  Focus on his actions and rhetoric.--Patchouli 10:51, 20 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Muslim Santa?

message: Several questions still puzzle me:
1) Israel's CHUTZPEH: did they start the "Operation Truthful Promise" (bombardment of Lebanon) without much coordination with Condi Rice or the Pentagon?
2) How far and how long is Israel willing to go: aren't they affraid of another Beirut 1982? The eventual Israeli conquest of the Damascus Baathist regime, with the aid of US and British warships (not unlike the tri-partite cooperation during the Suez crisis against Gamal Abdul Nasser)
3) Or was the Israeli action actually a brave act from a loyal friend (of the US) to take the blunt for the US just when it needs it. Therefore there is implication that the US has been "nudging" Israel into doing this all along. 
4) The big honchos in St. Petersburg: what have they been exchanging under the table of excessive courtesy? 
5) The Hezbollah action: who initiated this chain-reaction in the "Muslim Street" first? The election of the Hamas government and the subsequent internecine strifes between secular statist Fatah and international-Islamist Hamas? The Irano-Pyongyang duet in The Nuke Show (prompting Hezbollah to create skirmishes to distranct world community)? Or the unwise decision of the Shiite Hezbollah to "take the heat", or show solidarity for Sunni militants in Palestine and Iraq, eventually leading to their own unfavorable position.
*To the above anonymous anon: Your conspiritorial questions lack credibility if they are not signed by you using the four tildes ~~~~ please do so. IZAK 05:09, 19 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Israel's Chutzpeh and the distractive purpose of Hezbollah's action

message: ===Placard IDF distributed in Lebanon===
what about the Placard IDF distributed in Lebanon?
I think it should be added.
placard explanation:
To the Lebanese nation!
know!
from the front - friend, back - a snake!
(the meaning is to hezzbollah and nasrala)
(my english is not very good so you are invited to fix my mistakes)
Eli5050 22:30, 16 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm sorry, but I don't really understand what you're trying to say. Sijo Ripa 22:37, 16 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: i think that that poster should be added to the articke, this is what IDF distributed in Lebanon before it started to bomb targets.
I wrote the explanation of the words that written in Arabic.  look at the hebrew article about the crisis, scroll down, and you will understand what I meant. Eli5050 22:49, 16 July 2006 (UTC)

text: I can't speak or read Hebrew. But if I understand you correctly, the IDF distributed these to tell the Lebanese people that Israeli's are their friends (the front - friend) and Hezbollah is their enemy (by causing this crisis - the back)? Sijo Ripa 22:55, 16 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: No, it means that Nasralla if presenting himself (the face) as a friend of the lebanese but he is not(realy a snake). --TheYmode 23:32, 16 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: This is not a propoganda, just a part of the war describe, and I think it should be included in the article. Eli5050 09:04, 17 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  If that is not propaganda, then I don't know on what planet you live. Goes to show the quality and NPOV adherence of the hebrew article if it is displayed... I agree fully it should only be included if we create a section or sub-page on propaganda from all sides. Come on people stop being disingeneous!--Cerejota 13:10, 17 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, it is propaganda, but it extremely relevant propaganda. Definitely include. --Jobrahms 16:47, 17 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Why is it so extremely relevant? I dont find it particulary newsworthy that propaganda is being made, I mean, it is part of war since war was invented... again, I think we could make a page or section on Israeli propaganda, and IF propaganda for all sides, maybe a small section. Since this is a total POV image, with no real news value, it would seemingly compromise NPOV.--Cerejota 19:22, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

text: There's absolutely no question that it is propaganda, even if you are an extreme Israel supporter, you'd have to not know the definition of propaganda to say that this isn't propaganda.  That being said, I think it might make sense to link this image in the article (if we can get source information), but on the whole, it's not important enough to really get an inline image display.  --Cyde↔Weys 20:48, 17 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: This is the sort of thing that confuses me.  If in this instance we are allowed to make the obvious conclusion that this leaflet is propaganda in the absence of a "reliable" and "previously published" source for the claim, then I fail to understand why a completely similar process is impermissible when characterizing the events of the last several days as a "war".  mdf 12:14, 18 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Please go open up a dictionary and look up the definition of propaganda (or just read the Wikipedia article).  A flyer distributed to the civilians of a country you are about to invade is practically the definition of propaganda.  This isn't original research, it's a simple definition.  If we're not allowed to use word definitions we wouldn't be able to write a single sentence on Wikipedia.  You seem to be using some sort of a negative connotation of propaganda, e.g. only the "bad guys" use propaganda, when in reality, propaganda is anything distributed by the government to get people more sympathetic to its point of view.  --Cyde↔Weys 13:11, 18 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I have absolutely no problem whatsoever with the characterization of the imaged leaflet as "propaganda".  Indeed, I stand with you when I say that it is so idiotically obvious it is propaganda that to seek out another "reliable source" that documents the propagandaness of the document is a waste of an editors time, if not a direct insult to the intelligence of the reader.  But you see, so is it with the definition of "war" and its use in the name of this article (see above discussion).  That there are agencies beyond Wikipedia -- sub-state and state actors and their media sycophants -- that insist on treating people like infants by using their favourite weasel words to descibe the events doesn't mean Wikipedia should follow suit.  That is, and to wit:  if simple common sense and intellectual courtesy can prevail at Wikipedia re: "propaganda" in the instant case, then I assert it can also prevail re: "war".  (Ironically -- as noted by others -- the failure to use the W-word in the face of the huge pile of reputably-sourced and previously published evidence can itself be said to be deeply propagandistic.)  mdf 14:44, 18 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I'll give you my own simple personal reason why I don't think this qualifies as a war quite yet: casualty count.  It's just not big enough.  Look at the famous wars of the recent past: World War II, the Vietnam War, the Iraq War, each with thousands of military casualties on both sides.  This conflict simply doesn't measure up; you've got maybe a thousand casualties total on both sides, and most of those are civilian.  When I think war I think of two large armies battling each other; this is more like one nation bombing the crap out of a group of people in another nation (with collateral damage, of course).  Hezbollah doesn't really have a chance; they don't have anything to fight Israel's Air Force with.  All they can do is launch rockets at Israel and pray for the occasional civilian casualty.  The Israeli Air Force, on the other hand, is taking out all sorts of military and possibly military targets (with significant collateral damage).  It's kind of like pornography ... maybe you can't define it, you just know it when you see it, and to me, this just doesn't feel like war yet.  --Cyde↔Weys 17:03, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

text: I agree a section, or subpage (!) of propaganda could be made, as long as its NPOV... which is hard considering its by definition POV... see the issue?--Cerejota 13:12, 18 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Huh?  We write NPOV articles on POV subjects all the time.  Hell, Wikipedia wouldn't even be possible if we couldn't do this, as most of the interesting topics one would write about are controversial in some regards.  --Cyde↔Weys 17:04, 18 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: You misunderstood me. I didnt say it wasnt possible, just that it was hard.--Cerejota 18:32, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

text:  If NPOV is the issue, simply say This leaflet was distributed.  We don't need to call it propaganda in the article (whether it is or not).  I think saying The israelis dropped this leaflet, which is translated as ___ should be more than sufficient, and readers can judge whether it is propaganda. Nimur 17:10, 18 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  you are mistaking objections on balance affecting NPOV with objections on NPOV presentation. The display of progranda is always POV, but as Cyde says, can be presented as NPOV. What is of concern is how to presente this in the article, or if this is newsworthy at all. I fear this is a slippery slope, when in the honor of balance the page becomes an archive of pictures of propaganda from both sides. Is bad enought that we have to use the IDF as a source for pictures, if on top of that we start to publish open proganda, there goes having a balanced page. Get the point?--Cerejota 18:32, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

text: What's your point? The picture is, as descibred, the INS Hanit near Ashdod. And stop writing in all caps. Admiral Rupert 16:38, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

text: Your image is an AP Photo, which is not free and does not qualify for fair use. That is the likely reason that someone removed it. ~Rangeley (talk) 14:58, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

text: Huh?!  Companies would actually have a much stronger case on intellectual property of unpublished photos because they were not yet released for general consumption.  Once an image has been aired in the media and on the organization's website you can make a decent fair use claim, but if it is unpublished, you really cannot use it at all.  --Cyde↔Weys 17:26, 18 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  A Wikipedian going to Lebanon to report would violate WP:OR anyways UltraNurd 16:06, 18 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  Not according to the "Original Images" section of that article, which states that original pictures are welcome because "Pictures are generally used for illustration and do not propose unpublished ideas or arguments, the core reason behind the NOR, or no original research, policy."
Spinoza1111 01:58, 19 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Pictures

message: what about the Placard IDF distributed in Lebanon?
I think it should be added.
placard explanation:
To the Lebanese nation!
know!
from the front - friend, back - a snake!
(the meaning is to hezzbollah and nasrala)
(my english is not very good so you are invited to fix my mistakes)
Eli5050 22:30, 16 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm sorry, but I don't really understand what you're trying to say. Sijo Ripa 22:37, 16 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: i think that that poster should be added to the articke, this is what IDF distributed in Lebanon before it started to bomb targets.
I wrote the explanation of the words that written in Arabic.  look at the hebrew article about the crisis, scroll down, and you will understand what I meant. Eli5050 22:49, 16 July 2006 (UTC)

text: I can't speak or read Hebrew. But if I understand you correctly, the IDF distributed these to tell the Lebanese people that Israeli's are their friends (the front - friend) and Hezbollah is their enemy (by causing this crisis - the back)? Sijo Ripa 22:55, 16 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: No, it means that Nasralla if presenting himself (the face) as a friend of the lebanese but he is not(realy a snake). --TheYmode 23:32, 16 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: This is not a propoganda, just a part of the war describe, and I think it should be included in the article. Eli5050 09:04, 17 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  If that is not propaganda, then I don't know on what planet you live. Goes to show the quality and NPOV adherence of the hebrew article if it is displayed... I agree fully it should only be included if we create a section or sub-page on propaganda from all sides. Come on people stop being disingeneous!--Cerejota 13:10, 17 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, it is propaganda, but it extremely relevant propaganda. Definitely include. --Jobrahms 16:47, 17 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Why is it so extremely relevant? I dont find it particulary newsworthy that propaganda is being made, I mean, it is part of war since war was invented... again, I think we could make a page or section on Israeli propaganda, and IF propaganda for all sides, maybe a small section. Since this is a total POV image, with no real news value, it would seemingly compromise NPOV.--Cerejota 19:22, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

text: There's absolutely no question that it is propaganda, even if you are an extreme Israel supporter, you'd have to not know the definition of propaganda to say that this isn't propaganda.  That being said, I think it might make sense to link this image in the article (if we can get source information), but on the whole, it's not important enough to really get an inline image display.  --Cyde↔Weys 20:48, 17 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: This is the sort of thing that confuses me.  If in this instance we are allowed to make the obvious conclusion that this leaflet is propaganda in the absence of a "reliable" and "previously published" source for the claim, then I fail to understand why a completely similar process is impermissible when characterizing the events of the last several days as a "war".  mdf 12:14, 18 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Please go open up a dictionary and look up the definition of propaganda (or just read the Wikipedia article).  A flyer distributed to the civilians of a country you are about to invade is practically the definition of propaganda.  This isn't original research, it's a simple definition.  If we're not allowed to use word definitions we wouldn't be able to write a single sentence on Wikipedia.  You seem to be using some sort of a negative connotation of propaganda, e.g. only the "bad guys" use propaganda, when in reality, propaganda is anything distributed by the government to get people more sympathetic to its point of view.  --Cyde↔Weys 13:11, 18 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I have absolutely no problem whatsoever with the characterization of the imaged leaflet as "propaganda".  Indeed, I stand with you when I say that it is so idiotically obvious it is propaganda that to seek out another "reliable source" that documents the propagandaness of the document is a waste of an editors time, if not a direct insult to the intelligence of the reader.  But you see, so is it with the definition of "war" and its use in the name of this article (see above discussion).  That there are agencies beyond Wikipedia -- sub-state and state actors and their media sycophants -- that insist on treating people like infants by using their favourite weasel words to descibe the events doesn't mean Wikipedia should follow suit.  That is, and to wit:  if simple common sense and intellectual courtesy can prevail at Wikipedia re: "propaganda" in the instant case, then I assert it can also prevail re: "war".  (Ironically -- as noted by others -- the failure to use the W-word in the face of the huge pile of reputably-sourced and previously published evidence can itself be said to be deeply propagandistic.)  mdf 14:44, 18 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I'll give you my own simple personal reason why I don't think this qualifies as a war quite yet: casualty count.  It's just not big enough.  Look at the famous wars of the recent past: World War II, the Vietnam War, the Iraq War, each with thousands of military casualties on both sides.  This conflict simply doesn't measure up; you've got maybe a thousand casualties total on both sides, and most of those are civilian.  When I think war I think of two large armies battling each other; this is more like one nation bombing the crap out of a group of people in another nation (with collateral damage, of course).  Hezbollah doesn't really have a chance; they don't have anything to fight Israel's Air Force with.  All they can do is launch rockets at Israel and pray for the occasional civilian casualty.  The Israeli Air Force, on the other hand, is taking out all sorts of military and possibly military targets (with significant collateral damage).  It's kind of like pornography ... maybe you can't define it, you just know it when you see it, and to me, this just doesn't feel like war yet.  --Cyde↔Weys 17:03, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

text: I agree a section, or subpage (!) of propaganda could be made, as long as its NPOV... which is hard considering its by definition POV... see the issue?--Cerejota 13:12, 18 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Huh?  We write NPOV articles on POV subjects all the time.  Hell, Wikipedia wouldn't even be possible if we couldn't do this, as most of the interesting topics one would write about are controversial in some regards.  --Cyde↔Weys 17:04, 18 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: You misunderstood me. I didnt say it wasnt possible, just that it was hard.--Cerejota 18:32, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

text:  If NPOV is the issue, simply say This leaflet was distributed.  We don't need to call it propaganda in the article (whether it is or not).  I think saying The israelis dropped this leaflet, which is translated as ___ should be more than sufficient, and readers can judge whether it is propaganda. Nimur 17:10, 18 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  you are mistaking objections on balance affecting NPOV with objections on NPOV presentation. The display of progranda is always POV, but as Cyde says, can be presented as NPOV. What is of concern is how to presente this in the article, or if this is newsworthy at all. I fear this is a slippery slope, when in the honor of balance the page becomes an archive of pictures of propaganda from both sides. Is bad enought that we have to use the IDF as a source for pictures, if on top of that we start to publish open proganda, there goes having a balanced page. Get the point?--Cerejota 18:32, 18 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Placard IDF distributed in Lebanon

message: FOR GOD-SAKE DO REMOVE THE PHOTO OF THE SA'AR 5-CLASS MISSLE CORVETTE (MCV). THAT AIN'T BATTLE DAMAGE, BUT RATHER SMOKE RESIDUES AND STAINS FROM ONE OF IT'S EXHAUST. ALL SA'AR 5-CLASS MISSLE CORVETTE (MCV)HAVE THIS SO CALLED "PARTICULAR FEATURE" —The preceding unsigned comment was added by  (talk • contribs).
:What's your point? The picture is, as descibred, the INS Hanit near Ashdod. And stop writing in all caps. Admiral Rupert 16:38, 17 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Photo of the Sa'ar 5-class Missile Corvette

message: I'm going to appeal the deletion of the picture of the Ter Hafra victim.
This is what happened. The posting of the innocuous picture of Israeli naval reservists is NPOV since it participates in the ongoing Israeli public relations campaign to present Israel as the "good", uniformed side, versus the "terrorists".
This is an opinion, a global opinion which creates a global bias.
The massacre happened and is documented thoroughly by Western reporters outside the US.
:Your image is an AP Photo, which is not free and does not qualify for fair use. That is the likely reason that someone removed it. ~Rangeley (talk) 14:58, 17 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Huh?!  Companies would actually have a much stronger case on intellectual property of unpublished photos because they were not yet released for general consumption.  Once an image has been aired in the media and on the organization's website you can make a decent fair use claim, but if it is unpublished, you really cannot use it at all.  --Cyde↔Weys 17:26, 18 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  A Wikipedian going to Lebanon to report would violate WP:OR anyways UltraNurd 16:06, 18 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  Not according to the "Original Images" section of that article, which states that original pictures are welcome because "Pictures are generally used for illustration and do not propose unpublished ideas or arguments, the core reason behind the NOR, or no original research, policy."
Spinoza1111 01:58, 19 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: The true victims are erased [[User:Spinoza1111|Spinoza1111]] 13:57, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

message: The infobox lists the IDF strength as 6,000. What does that number refer to? Where did it come from? Unless there is some citeation of a source with that number, I belive the strength field should be removed, as neither Hizbulla nor the IDF publish their strength. --darkskyz 13:12, 13 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Right now, the most accurate description would probably be "variable". — ceejayoz talk 13:34, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

text: Should be removed if it doesn't have verified source. --TheYmode 13:40, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

text: Is there any source for that? We can't just list our estimated strength of the combatants' strength without proper citation. reverting the strength section to "unknown" until someone brings up real numbers with proper citations. And please sign your comments. --darkskyz 11:50, 14 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Strength?