ArnoldRimmer said:
I don't quite see why a western article should be less credible than an eastern article in general. But I have to admit the version you posted seems indeed quite plausible to me. Well, in the end the big question is: On which side was the tree really? That can't be that hard to judge, so we should know very soon. If the tree was indeed on the lebanese side, the whole incident was Israels fault and Israel illegally invaded Lebanon. If the tree was on the Israeli side, it was the lebanese fault and Israel's reaction was justified. |
well because in the article they talk to an isreali, and not to an isreali and to a lebanese, also most western articles tend to favor isreal, as the west supports them.
the tree was on the lebanese side, only reason the army shot at them was because hezzab allah were preparing to retaliate, and since it was the army which shot the size of the incident decreased. if hezzab allah shot it would have probably caused a war, but the army shot and know everything is over.
isreal and hezzab allah always provoke each other to cause a war, but most of the times its threw speeches and on tv.
Being in 3rd place never felt so good







