Thanks rudi for your input.

however i have to clear-up a few misconceptions there:

1. the first verse refers to violating a "yameen al muna'akedah" (to swear by allah to do something and then not to do it. ie, to vow to give up 200 dollars for charity if you pass a test and then not fulfill your vow once that comes true..or anything to that effect). The punishments mentioned in this verse refer to repatriation should one break this type of oath. it does not in anyway condone lying. and by the way..in a court of justice to be convicted of telling a lie under oath (prejury) results in discrediting the person convicted of this for life (as in their testimony is considered unreliable).

2. if you actually read the preceeding verse to verse 2:25 you would understand the full context of this issue. islam discourages people from swearing by god's name in casual conversation/arguments. To swear by god's name to support a false argument ("yameen ghamous" in arabic) constitues a great sin for which there is no repatriation unless one repents and seeks god's forgiveness. However, "Allah will not call you to account for thoughtlessness (vain) in your oaths" refers to acts of speaking an oath in god's name unintentionally. ie, in moments of thoughtlessness (extreme anger, drunkenness, etc..) or when one is unaware that they are doing so. Such oaths are not taken into account and are forgiven for god knows what lies in our hearts and what are true intentions are..

@pvdh

I don't think that you are "surprised" by my tone, and I am certainly not surprised by your senseless (even nihilistic) sarcasm.  If you allow your assessment of the longstanding Arab/Israeli conflict to be clouded by your rancune about the decision to remove Saddam Hoessein, that is your problem. It certainly is not wise.  

Of course the removal of Syrian control over the Lebanese government was a positive "achievement" under joint pressure of the USA and France.   The fact that Iran and Syria - through the actions of Hezbollah - probably will still manage to prevent democracy in Lebanon to take hold, in no way takes anything away from that achievement.  It only illustrates that the forces of tyranny remain very strong in the muslim world, and that the road ahead will still be very long.   Particularly, when most of the European 'elites', just like in the 1930's, keep their heads in the sand and are still too afraid to name the real enemy by its real name.  

Whether the lebanese will re-start a "civil war", or not, is not the point.  They will face "war" as long as they allow terrorist organisations' like Hezbollah to 'function freely' on their territory.  Their real choice is between 'endless war' or a painful deal with the 'west' to disarm Hezbollah. 

One positive element that perhaps may help restrain Israel is the fact that Saddam is 'no more'.  Before 2003, Irak was the most dangerous and 'active' enemy of Israel.  This in no way reduces the dangers of the messianic regime in Teheran today. But it certainly lessens the mortal danger for the only democratic state in the Middle East, Israel. 

Quite right Marcfrans. Although I believe this is more an effent under Iranian influence than under Syrian. I doubt the Syrians have sufficient military strength. But the Q8 leaders are probably aware of that, which worries me more. Israel can handle a two front war, but Iranian implication means that Iran is unwilling to co-operate. The Belgian IAEAer being pushed aside in the same timeframe, while he's practically certain the Iranians are working on the bomb, seems to be indication troubled times ahead. Surprisingly when I posted a comment on the Dutch section about the Lebanon conflict and when I reposted my comment on my blog I was port scanned by the UK MoD; half hour before the US DoD did a port scan as well, whilst I was nowhere near any DoD or MoD websites.

@markpetens

The notion that putting Hezbollah on a list amounts to "pressure" (on Lebanon) is pure wishfull thinking, i.e. fantasy.  Particularly when it is accompanied by meaningless words, like those today from the EU Presidency, the Finnish government, that fail to distinguish between attacker and attacked.

The only meaningful pressure would have to take the form of the imposition of real costs, which is inconceivable in the present cultural European context, and these costs would have to be very large before the current Lebanese government would respond to them.  That government is held together by a very 'tenuous' compromise between the various Lebanese religious factions.  Almost 40 percent of the Lebanese population is shiite, and has no loyalty to the secular Lebanese state.  It aspires to an Iranian-style islamic government/State and takes its cues and orders from Teheran.  Perhaps Israel will in the end be forced to impose such a heavy cost on Lebanon that the maronites, sunnis, and dhruze will finally be willing to 'control' hezbollah.  But that is unlikely in the near term, as the prospect of a re-start of the Lebanese civil war is truly a ghastly one.

Iran and Syria are playing again with 'fire', through their proxies of Hamas and Hezbollah, presumably to keep the major powers (gathering at the G-8 in Moscou) preoccupied with this war and to take the attention away from the Iranian nuclear program and the Security Council debate/nonaction next week.

The time wil come when European governments will face similar pressures as the lebanese government does today.  We are simply in the early fases of world war 3, and the sooner all western governments face up to that reality the better chance they will have of surviving the 'long war' with islamofascism.

I am hopeful that the Lebanese will join the Israelis and disarm the Syrian/Iranian terror proxy Hizballah once and for all. Lebanon is probably not strong enough to deal with Hizballah by it's own means but if Lebanon fail to act on an invitation such as this Hizballah and Lebanon is to be considered the same.
Of course, Hizballah is part of the government and their refusal to disarm has been accepted but after such irresponsible agression the rest of Lebanon must either tackle Hizballah or be identified with them.

If your logic would be correct, can you explain why there are no suicide bombers in Darfour. Those people ahev even less to loose than your Palestians "victims".

And why aren't there suicide bombers in Libanon, because it is well known, by those who want to know it, that the Palestinians life in Libanon is worse than anywhere else. 

I suggest however that you try so see some politically incorrect movies such as of Pierre Rehov. Therein you can hear "poor" Palestinians interviewed on their ranches in Gaza an the Westbank.

Have you noticed that the Palestinians don't even care about the retaliation of the IDF? The IDF is killing Palestinians all over the place, including women and children. It destroys bridges, put clinics out of electricity and hard needed medical equipment and drugs. It kills or imprisons their leaders. And what is the result? More self-made rockets, more sympathy for Hesbollah and Hamas, more volunteers for the suicide squad. The problem is, they’ve got nothing to loose anymore. Not only there are no real jobs, the artificial ones, the so called “civil servants jobs” paid by the EU, are gone too. All that’s left is a big prison with no ports no airports no rights no law and order and, above all, no human dignity. So what do a few bridges mean? Or a fighter more or less? A destroyed government palace, without government?