>>>>By the same argument Al-Queda is not a threat to the existence of America / the West
>>>
>>>You're right. Al-Queda is not a threat to the existence of the west/America, but is lethal to its citizens. A big difference.
>>
>>Hezbollah and Hamas are not lethal to Israeli citizens? Please Evan.
>
>I didn't say that. They are not a threat to the existence of Israel.

Evan, look at your reponse above which I have underlined. The point you were making is that although Al-Queda is not a threat to the existence of the West it is still a threat to it's citizens and the attack on 9/11 was sufficient justification to invade Afganistan. I am saying that this exact same logic must also then apply to Israel's invasion of Lebanon to attack Hezbollah which is a threat to its citizens.


>> Do you think if they could aim them better and send them further that they would not do so?
>
>I despise Hamas and Israel, but if they had the money for better equipment they would probably attack military targets.
>
>We are back to the pre-emptive argument.

I think you meant Hamas and Hezbollah. But anyway, no we are not back to the pre-emptive argument. We are back to the type of warfare that is waged by each side.


>>I'm sorry for the civilians on both sides. No one is right in this mess. Like Dragan said, everyone only remembers the last punch.
>
>The Lebanese government has to assert political, social and military authority in the south.

Yes I agree.


>Israel has to quit proving that it is strong. We all know that.

I think this is debateable so long as several near-neighbouring countries openly express their desire to destroy it. It's complicated. This is never going to end.