Lebanon: We will sue Israel in Hague -- but evidence for the "massacre" doesn't tally

Go ahead sue em,then Isreal can bring up the rockets that have been fired at civilions.as they can not fire them at any certain thing,they have no use but to hurt civilains,and also sue for the kidnapped soldiers.Then when it is proved the court can get them for filing a false report,seeing it was hizzbolah that did it.

Now for "jihad by the docket." Let us hope this gambit will backfire on them as it should. It will be a good test of the so-called "International Criminal Court." I have no faith in this institution, but maybe they will surprise us.

Kidnapping and murdering patrolling soldiers on the other side of an international border is a war crime.

Lobbing rockets into another country with the deliberate intent of slaughtering civilians is a war crime.

Fighting in civilian clothes is a war crime.

Using civilians as human shields is a war crime.

Firing weapons from inside and around occupied civilian structures is a war crime.

Building weapons bunkers underneath civilian structures is a war crime.

Storing munitions in a relgious structure is a war crime.

Moving combatants and weapons around in ambulances is a war crime.

Firing on medical evacuation helicopters is a war crime.

Preventing civilians from evacuating a battlefield is a war crime.

Making faked videos of human casualties brought from local morgues for propaganda purposes is a war crime.

Hizbollah is a war crime.

Lebanon is a war crime.

Islam is a war crime.

Islam is a parasitic entity. It remains parasitic as long as you allow to be so. Lebanon can sue (and probably lose).
Israel should send lebanon a bill for the eradication of Hezbollah parasites.
Lebanon should pay the bill except they feed and raise the parasites they claim exist. They are mad because Israel is killing their pets.

Sue? Courts? Shoot the first "f"ing lawyer that raises his/her head.

This is a war against civilized people by savages. Savages that can only be eradicated. Savages that are being aided by our legal system.

The only thing lower than an islamic terrorist is a lawyer. The islamics are gaining footholds and power in America through the courts and through the threats of lawsuits for anyone who looks crossways at or calls islam for what it is.

First the lawyers - then the terrorists.

This is ludicrous, remember CAIR. I guess the likes of CAIR will never sue in US courts ever again. The discovery rules are tough. I don't have a clue about rules in the jokingly named International "Court of Law."

The only way the Israelis will appear in front of a court is if they lose this war.

Why hasn't the US been sued for war crimes that occured during WW2? Civilians died, ergo the US commited war crimes. Oh, wait: the US isn't a Jewish nation.

"Qana massacre did not horrify the conscience and did not bring about a UN decision for a ceasefire."

The Qana massacre will turn out to be a Hollywood style production along the lines of The Smell of the Mel. Israel must destroy the Hizballah Terminator or we will be forced to endure seeing Terminator II.

http://acmserver.cs.ucr.edu/~anirban/universal-studios-05/target33.html

I would think that the Lebanese tally of the casualties at Qana would be the most accurate of those that have been offered. After all, they are in the best position to know how many corpses were stashed in the building before it was demolished.

I'm now hearing that 34 children died and the rest were mostly females , but , if several were handicapped how can Hezbollah claim that able bodied people couldn't flee when they managed to transfer the disabled to the building.

I also smell a scam with the UN and Hezbollah , and I want proof that the UNIFIL Canadian was alive and in the Post when the bomb hit.
What if the UNIFIL member was taken hostage and the UN knew Hezbollah fired from UN position , but the unexpected Israeli bomb hits the Post and Kofi quickly blames Israel and reports 4 deaths with only 2 bodies recovered.
The hostage is supposed to be dead , and shelling prevent people from getting close to the Post to find the other bodies, so the Qana charade diverts attention and tries to get a ceasefire but it didn't work, then after SIX days of the media convicting Israel for the UNIFIL deaths with 2 unconfirmed KIA's becuase of no tangible body to prove a death , suddenly the Canadian body is found , or killed by Hezbollah and placed back in the rubble .

Kofi Annan angered the Hezbollah with pulling out the other 50 UNIFIL's that were execelent shields , next we see the UN buildings attack by the Lebanese that claim to want peace and get rid of Hezbollah.

It would not surprise me if Kofi allowed Islamist terrorists to use UN workers as shields , and the whole farce collapsed when Israel didn't stop the responses to illegal bombs being targeted at civilians while Lebanon claimed it was a IDF resistance stance to stop the invaders.

Blair surprises me: In his lastest speech in LA, he says some very politically incorrect things and actually comes darn close to being a JW poster.

Included is this deusie about needing to recognize the enemy:

If we recognize this struggle for what it truly is, we would be at least along the first steps of the path to winning it. But I fear a vast part of Western opinion is not remotely near this yet."

But does he mean it?

Blair undhimmified

J.C. Supercop - If the U.S. had lost the war, a rather different version of the Nuremberg assizes would have no doubt taken place.

Lebanon is planning to take Israel to the International Criminal Court for war crimes. I hope this happens. It will bring the Qana ruse to light.

I take very strong exception; the ICC has no real jurisdiction over anything -- you would give them legitamacy?

Why!!!???

Do Hezbolla -- then the ICC which is just another invitation to tyranny!

Kia ora Henry

Thanks for your points. Your point is well taken when we look at the Muslim community in Christchurch (have a look at their website and the section on Islam www.mac.net.nz). In terms of the Muslim community in Wellington, I somewhat disagree. We have an Ulaema Council who has time and time again condemned terrorism, dhimmitude and the caliphate. They have used itjihad in their reasons, and have not adhered to any particular madhab. This is pretty progressive in my view (perhaps naive). I'm not saying we're perfect, but we do better than most. If you are in Wellington, you should know this. Although, there are some lunatic Muslims in the Hutt. Many Muslims I know including prominent members like Hanif Ali reject the Caliphate, reject Shariah.

The Qur'an does not have to be the equivalent of Mein Kampf. Islamic jurisprudence may have made it so. The use of itjihad however may improve the way we look at the Qur'an. It might inform our understanding of abrogation and the ninth surah better.

Henry, I'm happy to discuss this with you over email newzealand@freemuslims.org.

This is the very reason why the United States and Israel have taken issue with the jurisdiction of teh Rome Statute. It will invariably be used as a political tool against states. While the US was able to enter into agreements with other states to not extradite US servicemen, unfortunately Israel does not have such leverage. Another disturbing development is the use of "universal jurisdiction" in European courts, which have been used to prosecute and convict Ariel Sharon and other Israelis and military leaders. They are politically motivated and dangerous.

Cheers
Thomas Haidon

Perhaps they can get Ramsey Clark to represent them and call Jimmy Carter as a character witness for themselves.
The goose drank wine, The monkey spit tobacco, On the streetcar line, Line broke, The monkey got choked, And they all went to heaven in a little row boat. ...

Hat tip LGF, from an Egyptian blogger.
Very clarifying.

I had an interesting conversation yesterday with a co-worker, on the concept of the disporportinate Israeli attacks on Lebanon compared to Hezbollah attacks. He pointed to me his dismay at Hezbollah’s rockets ineffeciency at hitting targets. He said “If you noticed, they bomb each other almost equally in amounts of missiles shot, but 90% of Hezbollah’s rockets miss or hit nothing, while all of Israel’s rockets hit something. If Hezbollah had better rockets, the civillian death toll on the Israeli side would be huge, and they would be really hurting by now.”

Impressed by this point of view that I haven’t considerd before, I asked him what he would’ve thought, if a Hezbollah rocket had attacked a building in Israel, killing 55 civillians, of which 30 were children. He responded immeidtely “I would’ve thought it was great! A7san!”.

So I repeated the same question to 8 other co-workers, and the responses so far have been as follows: 7 said they would celebrate, and 2 said that such an attack would’ve been bad, but justified! Yeah! Not a single person said that the death of any civllian, on either side, is an equal tragedy. Civillians dead on our side is tragic, civillian deaths on their side cause for celebration. And if you think I am being unfair or demonizing arabs or whatever, do me a favor and try it at your work place and/or with members of your family. Conduct this little social experiment and see for yourself. The results are very interesting.

This begs another question: If we were the ones who had the superior military machine, would we have shown them any mercy, or any regard to their civillian casualties? Would we have hesitated to wipe them all out? Armed forces, civillians, whatever? Would any of us have felt bad about it at all? Or would we be filled with the feelings of Pride, honor and dignity that we keep talking about day and night?

I am just wondering!

What do you think?

Reagrding my posting above

"The Qur'an does not have to be the equivalent of Mein Kampf. Islamic jurisprudence may have made it so. The use of itjihad however may improve the way we look at the Qur'an. It might inform our understanding of abrogation and the ninth surah better".

What I meant to say was that the use of itjihad MAY help Muslims to modernise their interpretations of the Qur'an. It has happened in NZ.

Reagrding my posting above

"The Qur'an does not have to be the equivalent of Mein Kampf. Islamic jurisprudence may have made it so. The use of itjihad however may improve the way we look at the Qur'an. It might inform our understanding of abrogation and the ninth surah better".

What I meant to say was that the use of itjihad MAY help Muslims to modernise their interpretations of the Qur'an. It has happened in NZ.

Sorry for being off topic.

There is a direct mapping between the Koran and Mein Kampf. This has been amply documented by a few analyses that I've read. The proof of this fact is augmented by the actions of the Grand Mufti of Jerusalem during the Reich.

610 * 623 * 732* 1066* 1215 * 1453 * 1492 * 1683 * 1928 * 1938 * 1948 * 1996 * 2001

There is a direct mapping between Mohammed and Hitler. Both were megalomaniacal pedophiles with a taste for bloodlust, murder, kinky sex, slavery, and young boys. This was amply documented by the behavior of the Nazi armed forces, and Moslems past and present.

Praise Allah.

A complaint filed by Moslems to protest a military defense operation to protect against Jihad terror war, to be heard by a corrupt judge in a Marxist court answering to "international law."

Now that's some dirty paper. As dirty as it gets, I would claim.

I'm sure Georgtown Law School will be watching this dramatic event with great hope and interest.

I'd be interested in reading those analyses if you still have access to them.

TREEHUGGER. To answer your question, I would be sad. But I really don't feel sad about the Qana incident. Not once have we heard anything about the Israeli civilians being killed. Not from Koffi Anan,not from anyone. I have been in the thinking stages of a Anti-Hezbollah rally. We see them burning flags and effigies yada yada yada. I would love to stand on the Capital building LAWN in downtown Columbus, Ohio and burn 100 hezbollah flags and Iranian flags too. DEATH TO HEZBOLLAH!

And the Lebanese will probably get somewhere by doing this I hate to say it.

First, as we all know by now, most western Europeans are living in a fantasy world of their own creation wherein Islam and socialism are now clearly ALWAYS OK and Christianity has become the new synonym for brontosaurus and the bad guys will always be the United States and Israel and, yet, miraculously if Europe ever gets into a scrape (which is most of the time) the United States will certainly always bail them out free of charge until Europeans develop instant amnesia (or is it indonesia?)and get back to their perennial America-bashing until the next crisis. And with the proper political voodoo they will make the world instantly OK with Geneva-convention conditions everyplace (that count) and Sudan does not even exist.

In a fantasy world like this one, how in the Hell can Lebanon ever LOSE??????????????????

Hocus-pokus! Lebanon wins the Middle East 'war' and the 'United States of Hizbollah' is soon to be Europe's new partner in the war against Global Warming!!!!!

Haidon:

Does the Kuran not possess the following quote"
"And when the forbidden months have passed, slaughter the infidels everywhere they are found; besiege them, capture them, torture them, prepare every stratagem of warfare upon them; level the tax upon them if they convert; lo the ways of al-lah are indeed merciful"???

There are numerous other quotes that are very similar, are there not? I believe there are even verses in the Kuran that depict talking trees and talking rocks that turn over Jews to Muslims hunting for them.

I see the makings of Mein Kampf in all this. Or worse.

So I therefore have no idea what would make you place the blame for Islamic violence on Islamic jurisprudence (even tentatively). Because Islamic jurisprudence did not create this violence against non-Muslims or the basis for such violence. The Kuran's verses themselves provide plenty of basis for such violence. Certainly the Kuran places no controls on violence against non-Muslims that I can see in Islamic history. Islam has been 14 centuries of bloodletting virtually everywhere it has gone. The legal infrastructure of Islam may have been an accomplice to Islamic terror, but by itself it cannot force Muslims to commit religious acts of violence. Therefore it is logical to conclude that the mentality to kill had been planted in Muslims all along. The source of that mentality could only have been the Kuran.

When will the world wake up to these lies by muslims and their appologists, they had one big lie back in the eighties concerning the former prime minister Sharron, while it was the Christian Lebs that went in and killed off the muslim Lebs. then you have the so called killing at Jenin, the lists goes on.

Does that mean Israel can sue Lebanon for the cost of having to patrol the Israeli-Lebanese border to keep Hezbollah out of Israel? Shouldn't Lebanon have been doing that? Maybe Israel should sue Iran instead since they are funding Hezbollah.

Greetings Pythagoras,

I don't have to convince you do I? I'm not arguing that the Quran is a benign document nor am I anegaging in any sort of equivalency arguments.

Yes, your citation of the Qur'an is correct. The Qur'an is replete with a number of verses just like that. So are the hadith and sirah of the Prophet.We dont need to quote these.

Islamic jurisprudence is part of it. Tafsir is dominated by textualists and literalists. Itjihad, provides a tool that MAY help Muslims contextualise their understanding fo the Qur'an. The Qur'an itself recognises that many of its verses cannot be taken literally, because of their allegorical nature (particularly those which talks about Jews hiding behind Rocks and trees). I would argue that many verses on jihad are time specific and related to Muhammads battles. They are commandments to him and his immdiate followers at the time of revelation. Not now. (Of course I cant back that up with fiqh or the works of scholars, except Ahmed Subhy Mansour).

All I can say is that I see itjihad in practice, by some Muslims who are fed up with violence and corruption. They have realised that itjihad is the only jurisprudential tool to progress Islam with the rest of humanity.

We have different perspectives, but the same goal, to eliminate the menace of Islamic terrorism and treachery. Your method (which is understandable) is to eliminate Islam. I realise this won't happen. So I try and work within the framework of Islam to effectuate some change. But its not easy

Cheers
Thomas

Greetings Henry

Thank you. I do agree with Pythagoras to some extent. He has 1400 years of history to support his thesis. I'm not asking him to accept my argument. Please do not be disillusioned (I'm sure you arent), what I am advocating for, in reality, is probably untenable, and is not a position accepted by Muslims. Further, I can't back my arguments up with fiqh. So really, my opinion is largely irrelevant. But still, I see small ripples being made. Which gives me some hope. But again, my arguments may not hold up.

New Zealand is a great place, but so is Northern California. I actually came here because I met my wife who is a New Zealander. We only planned on staying 6 months, but we have been here for 4 years, and don't plan on returning to the States (other than for visits).

Cheers

"The Qur'an itself recognises that many of its verses cannot be taken literally, because of their allegorical nature (particularly those...."

So you say. The muslims take them literally. And by that I mean the majority. The behaviour of muslims towards infidels is uniform throughout history. And when I say history, I mean starting from yesterday all the way back to muhammad's first looting.

Haidon,

"We have different perspectives, but the same goal, to eliminate the menace of Islamic terrorism and treachery."

1. Yes, we need a multi-faceted approach attacking the problem from multiple angles and hitting it a multiple levels. Although many Muslims will abandon Islam if they are shown the appropriate arguments, evidence, and given the freedom to leave the religion, still many will not. At least some of those who do not leave Islam need to be addressed through Haidon's approach.

2. That "rocks" or "rocks and trees" hadith, re fighting the Jews to bring about the End Times, is not contained in the Koran. There are of course numerous problems in the Koran, but the "rocks and trees" hadith is not one of them.

BTW, Haidon, Turkey is in the process of having some of the misogynous hadiths (including from Bukhari and Muslim) declared invalid. I'm not sure if this is genuinely a small step in the direction of progress, or an attempt at PR damage control.

Greetings Archimedes

Yes, you are right of course about the hadith, which states: "the Resurrection will not take place until the Muslims fight the Jews, and the Muslims kill them. The Muslims will kill the Jews, rejoice [in it], rejoice in Allahs Victory. The Muslims will kill the Jews, and ... the Jews will hide behind the rock and tree, and the rock and tree will say: oh servant of Allah, oh Muslim this is a Jew behind me, come and kill him!. Why is there this malice? Because there are none who love the Jews on the face of the earth: not man, not rock, and not tree everything hates them. They destroy everything they destroy the trees and destroy the houses. Everything wants vengeance on the Jews, on these pigs on the face of the earth, and the day of our victory, Allah willing, will come."

I definitely agree with this multifaceted approach. I would hope that many Muslims would feel free to leave Islam without fear of reprecussions.

If Turkey is doing this, this is excellent. I would be curious as to their methodology. I support the anti-hadith movement, but most misogyistic hadith are sahih. But this is a step in the right direction. But, the government will need to get Muslim buy-in. If they can do this successfully, then we have a case study which indicates that reform may be a slim possibility in some circumstances.

Good tidings to you and yours too americangermany

Treehugger:

In (non-Sharia) law, there are two necessary elements to prove criminality in an act:

1. the guilty act itself; and

2. the guilty mind (the intent).

When Israel targets Hezbollah's or Hamas's rocket firing installations that are deliberately located in residential areas, the intent is clearly not to kill civilians. It's to disarm Hezbollah by destroying their capacity to attack.

When Hezbollah wildly fires quassams and ketyushas at Israel's cities and they either fail to hit their target because they lack guidance systems or because they hit a fortified structure that survives the assault, we have a guilty act and a guilty mind. And quassams and ketyushas are the projectiles of choice because Israel has the capacity to intercept longer-range missiles. Hence, Syria and Iran cynically use their Hezbollah stooges to fight their proxy wars for them.

This is what happened to Armenians in Turkey.

http://www.bibleprobe.com/christianmartyrs-armenia.htm

I don't harbour any hopes of Turkey 'reforming' islam. I don't think it can be reformed. Period.

Americangermany

You can take your tidings and shove them, right along with your islam.

Thank you very much. I'll keep that in mind.

Cheers
Thomas

Archimedes

Given that it's the Islamic party in Turkey doing these changes, I think it's more for public consumption. The day they enforce it in rural Turkey, where such misogynic activities are common, it might be worth believing.

That said, even if they succeed within Turkey, their example won't be emulated in the Islamic world, outside maybe the Turkic countries like Uzbegistan. The only countries whose examples might inspire reformist activities in other Islamic countries are Egypt, and maybe Saudi Arabia. I don't see al Azhar becoming a petri-dish of reform, so I think such examples are more likely for Infidel consumption, rather than a genuine recognition of what ails them.

One question - do all Islamic countries try to figure out the hadiths, or is it just the polypragnomists in Saudi Arabia or al Azhar who do it? Does Singapore, which has figured out how to regulate Islam, even bother with such an exercise?

2. That "rocks" or "rocks and trees" hadith, re fighting the Jews to bring about the End Times, is not contained in the Koran. There are of course numerous problems in the Koran, but the "rocks and trees" hadith is not one of them. Posted by: Archimedes

If this is in the Sunnah, but not the Quran, why is Shia Iran batting with it? Do Shia follow the Sunnah as well - I thought only Sunnis did? In such a case, one would think that Sunni Muslims would take the lead in this fight, instead of (as Saudi Arabia has been reported to be secretly doing) egging Israel on given their fear of Iran.

Greetings Henry:

I'm getting off topic here!

There are parts of the United States that are as beautiful as most of New Zealand is. Might I suggest the coast of Maine, the Colorado Rockies, the Great Smoky Mountains, the San Juan Islands of Washington, California's Redwood Coast, or Moab, Utah.

If you're stuck in a big, ugly US mega-city (who of us isn't these days)I can see how you would see New Zealand as paradise (and maybe it is). But America has its singular charms (so, please don't sell us short).

And, anyway, thank you for quoting from my post. I feel validated now!

Sincerely,

Pythagoras