Political Crossfire Forums

[Plato & Socrates]

SpartanPhalanx wrote: Rubbish. If true peace is to emerge, you have to JUSTLY engage your enemies politically and diplomatically. There is no other way. Israel has consistently resorted to dictat in its relations with its neighbours. Israel has a history of invading, making demands, hardly ever negotiating with its demands, then it tries to tell the world "it tried", that its enemies are the ones refusing peace. However the true picture of its efforts are far from honest, far from what it tells the world. Thus the pretext is already set, for more aggression and more carnage. All the while Israel slowly changes its "facts on the ground, e.g. the West Bank expropriation of land, the wall, the E1 project, the massacres in Gaza, the seizure of territory in Lebanon(Shebaa farms) and Syria(Golan) as well as Israel's new aggression as we are seeing now.

Israel is a pathological liar, killer and thief. It uses the fear of "annihilation" to justify It's actions.

If an individual were to exhibit Israel's pathological psychology, he or she would promptly be committed, wrapped in a straight-jacket and pumped full of medication.

"Israel is a pathological liar" So true my friend. After Israel got found out lying about Qana, they've had to fall back on "we bomb Qana because Hizbollah was seen there 3 day before" Bombing an area a full 72 hours after your last intelligence, falls under warcrimes.
news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/middle_east/5232434.stm
Did you hear that guys? WARCRIMES. The full story of the Israeli lies about Qana, until they contridicted themselves so much, they gave in. Is for another thread. The first casualty of war is the truth. So true.

[superskippy]

Plato can you please read out that law? Where faulty intelligence makes a warcrime? We have video, eyewitness, and intelligence evidence that rockets were fired from Qana and that it was used as a rocket site. We have plenty of targets we did not launch a bombing sortie at once as we had other targets to attend to first.

[SpartanPhalanx]

superskippy wrote: Plato can you please read out that law? Where faulty intelligence makes a warcrime? We have video, eyewitness, and intelligence evidence that rockets were fired from Qana and that it was used as a rocket site. We have plenty of targets we did not launch a bombing sortie at once as we had other targets to attend to first.


Faulty intelligence in itself is not a crime Skippy, but targeting civilians THEN saying it does not target them IS.

Human Rights Watch gave a damning condemnation today against Israel of what is says is INTENT to kill civilians in South Lebanon. If you feel strongly enough about it, write to them for an explanation.

Here is a quote by Kenneth Roth, Executive Director for Human Rights Watch in his assessment of Israeli killings of Lebanese civilians.

"The pattern of attacks shows the Israeli military’s disturbing disregard for the lives of Lebanese civilians. Our research shows that Israel’s claim that Hezbollah fighters are hiding among civilians does not explain, let alone justify, Israel’s indiscriminate warfare."

http://www.hrw.org/english/docs/2006/08/02/lebano13902.htm

[superskippy]

Quote: Faulty intelligence in itself is not a crime Skippy, but targeting civilians THEN saying it does not target them IS

We arent targeting them thus we dont have a problam.

Spartan you would know if we were targeting civilians, if we were there wouldnt be anything left to target by the 22nd day and 500-600 civilian dead.

Quote: Human Rights Watch gave a damning condemnation today against Israel of what is says is INTENT to kill civilians in South Lebanon. If you feel strongly enough about it, write to them for an explanation.

If they did say we had intent to kill civilians they would be wrong.

Quote: Here is a quote by Kenneth Roth, Executive Director for Human Rights Watch in his assessment of Israeli killings of Lebanese civilians.

"The pattern of attacks shows the Israeli military’s disturbing disregard for the lives of Lebanese civilians. Our research shows that Israel’s claim that Hezbollah fighters are hiding among civilians does not explain, let alone justify, Israel’s indiscriminate warfare."

While I disagree with him vehemently I read the quote where does it say we have intent to kill civilians?

I also disagree with all my heart with the report but then again it took these people months to finally come to grips with the fact of Jenin so I dont expect much, but no where do they say we are intent or hellbent on targetting civilians. Rather it claims we are indiscriminate and make little effort, something I again tremndously dispute.

[Redruin]

"Human Rights Watch researchers found numerous cases in which the IDF launched artillery and air attacks with limited or dubious military objectives but excessive civilian cost. In many cases, Israeli forces struck an area with no apparent military target. In some instances, Israeli forces appear to have deliberately targeted civilians."

There ya go skippy

[superskippy]

And that statement alone proves to me that HRW is wrong, the idea that we are targeting civilians makes no strategic, tactical, or moral sense, it doesnt line up with any of the evidence mathimatical or otherwise, and is a comment of pure emotion to illicit response that it could not get otherwise.

[Redruin]

There are lists of particular incidents which you may peruse here:


Fatal Strikes

[superskippy]

I know there have been fatal strikes in which civilians have died.

[Redruin]

Ah, but I bet you didnt examine any of them. They are quite detailed, including interviews on site, statements from the IDF. Here is an example.


Killing of an Estimated Twenty-six Civilians in Srifa, July 19

Following the July 13 attack on Srifa village that killed four members of a Brazilian-Lebanese family (see above), Israeli warplanes and Apache helicopters continued to bomb the village and the surrounding fields, putting the villagers into a state of panic. A villager who had fled from Srifa explained how the heavy Israeli bombardment effectively trapped people inside the village, and how the village Sheikh had ordered the terrified civilians to seek refuge in the wealthier “Moscow” neighborhood of the village, where the multiple-story homes had concrete basements that offered greater protection:

After the first bombing, villagers started fleeing to neighboring villages for safety. Israel saw this from their drones, and they sent Apache helicopters to circle the village to prevent us from leaving. They started shelling the area around the village from airplanes. There were also Apache helicopters circling over the village. Two Apaches would come and leave, and then another two Apaches would come.… The Sheikh of the village told the villagers to hide in their shelters. The people followed the advice of the Sheikh, and so they sought shelter in the big houses with basements used to dry tobacco [in the “Moscow” neighborhood.]52

Around 3:30 a.m. on July 19, at least three Israeli airplanes struck at least thirteen homes in the “Moscow” neighborhood, firing multiple munitions and collapsing the homes on their basements packed with sheltering civilians. “At 3:30 a.m. the attacks started,” said Qassim Mustafa Nazal, a resident. “We suddenly heard bombs, one hit, then two hits at the same time, overall between 12 to 16 rockets hit the Moscow neighborhood.”53

As of this writing, the number of victims remains unknown because rescue workers have been unable to reach the village to recover the bodies, which remain buried under the rubble, and Israeli warplanes and helicopter strikes have prevented the local villagers from recovering all of the bodies themselves. A local resident coordinating the recovery effort estimated to Human Rights Watch that approximately twenty-six bodies remained under the rubble as of July 31,54 but other residents estimated that as many as forty-two are missing after the attack.55 Two Human Rights Watch researchers visited Srifa briefly on July 31, as local residents recovered the heavily decomposed body of one female victim. The researchers saw no signs of Hezbollah military activity in the village, such as weapons, military equipment, or trenches. The researchers did count at least thirteen homes that had completely collapsed, and relatives of the victims claimed that bodies remained trapped under many of the homes and that they had received no assistance to recover the bodies.

From surviving relatives, Human Rights Watch has been able to obtain the names of sixteen persons believed to have been killed in the attack (but whose bodies are still not recovered). Among them are eight members of a single household: Kamil Diab Jaber, a 53-year-old owner of a construction business and a bakery; Mahmoud Jaber, 33; Ali Kamil Jaber, 30; Ahmed Kamil Jaber, 27; Menehil Najdi, 80; Ali Nazal, 28; Ali Za’rour, 30; and Bilal Hamoudi, 31.56 Also believed killed were three people in the house next to the Jaber family: Abbas Abbas Dakrub, 21; Abbas Dakrub (cousin of Abbas), 18; and Wasim Ghalib Najdi.57 At least five civilians are believed to have died in a third home belonging to Mohammed Qasim Najdi: Ahmed Najdi, 35, who had just returned to Lebanon from Russia; Hassan Qoreim, 22; Ali Najdi, 30; Mohammed Ali Najdi, 35; and Ali Hassan Sabra, 17.58

According to a villager who was in the village at the time of the attack:

There was no Hezbollah in the neighborhood. This neighborhood is known to be partial to the Communist Party, not Hezbollah. There are no Hezbollah people living there. Hezbollah does not have a need to be in this neighborhood, because we are 40 kilometers away from Israel, and the neighborhood looks out over the sea, it is not a strategic place.59

Two additional villagers told Human Rights Watch in separate interviews that Hezbollah had not been present in the neighborhood around the time of the attack. “Except for one person, who didn’t even belong to Hezbollah, no one in that neighborhood knew how to handle weapons,” said Hussain Nazal. “He added, “If they hit some houses that belong to Hezbollah we would understand, but this is not the [Hezbollah] neighborhood.”60

Human Rights Watch asked the office of the IDF spokesperson for information about the attack, which was widely reported in the press. The spokesperson responded that, after consulting with the Israeli Air Force, “on that day at that place we don’t have a report of any air strike.”61

[Redruin]

And here is the leaflet incident you requested Battleaxe

Attacks on Fleeing Civilians


Attacks on Fleeing Civilians

Israel’s military operations between July 12 and July 27 trapped hundreds of thousands of civilians in southern Lebanese villages, including tens of thousands of dual nationals and foreigners who were vacationing in Lebanon at the time. The roads in many parts of southern Lebanon became too dangerous to travel, with daily strikes on civilian vehicles trying to flee.

Around July 15, the Israeli army began ordering villagers from the south to evacuate immediately, dropping leaflets, using speaker systems, making radio broadcasts, and even sending messages in Arabic on mobile phones. On the morning of July 15, for example, an Arabic speaker from the Israeli side of the border used a loudspeaker to tell the villagers of Marwahin to leave their homes within two hours (twenty-one of the villagers were killed that same day when an Israeli weapon struck their car, as discussed below).86 Over the following days, Israeli officials also called many village leaders on their mobile phones with a recorded message, ordering them to leave their villages immediately and to head north of the Litani River. The message warned them not to travel on motorcycles, vans, or trucks.87 On July 28, Israel again ordered civilians to “vacate their homes and move northwards” within hours, stating that “any vehicle traveling in this area after 10 a.m. and any person who chooses not to follow this warning is putting his and his family’s life at risk.”88

As documented below, the Israeli military did not follow its orders to evacuate with the creation of safe passage routes, and on a daily basis Israeli warplanes and helicopters struck civilians in cars who were trying to flee, many with white flags out the windows, a widely accepted sign of civilian status. In two cases in this report, Israeli munitions struck humanitarian convoys and ambulances as they traveled the roads. On some days, Israeli war planes hit dozens of civilian cars, showing a clear pattern of failing to distinguish between civilian and military objects.

As a result of the destruction of most main roads in the south, fleeing civilians had to wind their way through narrow secondary roads, facing the constant danger of aerial attack. Taxi fares skyrocketed, often to several hundred dollars per person, or $1,000 per vehicle. The roads became so treacherous that corpses were left in vehicles struck by the IDF, because recovery teams could not reach the site. An exhausted man from Aitaroun, on the Israeli border, recounted his treacherous journey to Human Rights Watch soon after his arrival in Beirut:

We had two vans for four families, eighteen people in all. The journey was very dangerous, with airplanes constantly in the sky. The main road is cut, so we had to go on little side roads or off the road. It took seven hours to Beirut. Just before we reached Tyre, the planes hit a car in front of us, it was still burning when we got there, a civilian car.

We saw a total of thirteen cars along the way that had been bombed, often with civilians in them who had died. We saw the dead women and children, and their clothes and mattresses in the car….There were four cars with bodies still in them, the smell—you could smell them from kilometers away. We had to close the windows because of the smell.89

[augustus kafka]

well, this is extremely depressing. (yay for generalizations)

I will say one thing about this supposed trageting of civilians. Few countries intentionally bomb civilians for the hell of it. Especially not a country like Israel, that is used to having its own civilians bombed and exploded. You can vilify Israel if you want, but I, for one, reserve judgement until the event is over. And besides, its not like the Iraqi occupation has been much different, for those american or british critics out there

[Zeeman]

Besides what they might say,Israel's primary objective is to weaken HA and cause them harm from within,meaning that the Lebanese denounce them and dont want to deal with them.(Ofcourse there is another country's agenda too in Iraq to make sure there is a civil war there in order to split the place and voila the new ME).Anyways for Israel's objective to succeed they have to cause considerable harm to the Lebanese people from destroying their infrastructure and killing people(to overthrow HA)...What happened however is that people more than ever are with HA and more than ever hate Israel.

The plan failed completely (Unless later on the splitting of Iraq is successful) because the Israeli soldiers are not found,people died on both sides (more than 2 which maks this war ludicrous when using the excuse of the two soldiers) and survivors lives are ruined not to mention the damage to the countries..

[battleax86]

Sorry it took me so long to reply. I had a 7-page paper due at 8:00 this morning.

Redruin wrote: You concede then that the Israeli pilots and artillerymen are not acting in personal self defense? Good.
I don't have to "concede" anything since I never made that claim in the first place. :wink:

Redruin wrote: Personal self defense and national self defense are based on the same principles, therefore an analogy comparing the two interchangeably is quite acceptable.
Then what does the pilot's own personal self-defense have to do with this? Why were you saying that Israel's self-defense didn't apply because the specific pilot wasn't in danger?

Redruin wrote: Yet, with you, and most of the pro-Israeli contigent, you have 2 moral standards to judge the world with, one for yourselves, and one for everyone else.
The United States killed more civilians in Germany and Japan than Israel has in its entire existence, yet I have yet to hear you suggest that our war effort in World War II was criminal. In fact, when asked about it in this thread, you tried to justify our actions, while continuing to bash Israel for doing a lot less. It seems that you are holding the United States to a lower standard than Israel. Also, Hezbollah and Hamas have been intentionally targeting Israeli civilians for the last six years and the last twelve years, respectively, but who are you coming on this forum to denounce? Not Hamas, not Hezbollah...just Israel. No, sir, YOU and the rest of the anti-Israeli "contingent" are the ones who use two moral standards to judge the world with: one for Israel, one for everybody else.

Redruin wrote: Tell me who in their right mind would classify the Israeli military action in Lebanon as self defense?
Almost the entire population of Israel and most Americans.

Redruin wrote: If you find 1 Lebanese citizen who would classify this action as so I would be shocked,
Prepare to be shocked:
http://www.ouwet.com/n10452/editorials/free-ain-ebel-from-hezbollah-invasion/
http://www.nytimes.com/2006/07/28/world/middleeast/28refugees.html?_r=3&oref=slogin&pagewanted=print&oref=slogin
http://www.punditreview.com/2006/07/14/labanese-support-israels-actions-especially-christians/
https://lonestarpundit.wordpress.com/2006/07/18/lebanese-christian-reaction-to-the-israeli-military-response/

Redruin wrote: and I would ask you how much you paid him lol.
Which shows how much you are willing to listen to reason. 8:)

Redruin wrote: Accepting your morally bankrupt position, the concept of self defense does allow for acting in defense of others, but it does not excuse the killing of innocent bystanders.
There is nothing "morally bankrupt" about firing at militants who hide in crowds if you are doing so to protect your own civilians. The concept of self-defense DOES allow the deaths of "innocent bystanders" if it can be reasonably determined that 1) they were not the target and 2) the actual target posed a threat to the ones being defended. Now, whether or not most of the Lebanese killed were "innocent bystanders" is debatable, but that's currently outside the scope of our discussion.

Redruin wrote: If you paid attention, you will see we were discussing the morality of both parties, specifically in regard to the targetting of civilians. I stated that I saw no difference between the Israeli and Hezbollah's aerial campaigns; one side drops bombs on civilian areas and the other blind fires into Israel.
Yes, and if you had been paying attention to what you wrote, you would see that you were creating a moral equivalency between the status of Israel and Hezbollah, one that does not exist. Hezbollah is not a legitimate "side" in this conflict. They do not have the right to carry out military operations against Israel or anybody else.

As for your comparison of their actions, you present a factually inaccurate and overly simplified summary of what's going on. Hezbollah is not "blindly firing" at Israel. Their rockets may not have any computer guidance systems, but if these people have any knowledge of math or physics, they can map out within a pretty small distance where their rocket is going to land. You don't "fire blindly" into Israel and just happen to hit downtown Haifa. Furthermore, their rockets are filled with ball bearings, essentially designed to kill anyone who happens to be within 50 meters of where the rocket lands. These type of rockets have little use against hardened military targets, but are especially effective against "soft" targets - military terminology for civilians. The Israelis, on the other hand, use precision-guided bombs to target these militants who are targeting their own civilians. They do not just randomly bomb anywhere in Lebanon. They only target people who are known militants responsible for firing rockets at Israeli cities. The only reason civilians are dying is because the Hezbollah militants are using them as human shields.

Redruin wrote: That is good, I am tired of hearing the IDF is "investigating" cllateral damage disasters on the news. The party responsible for the UN deaths should get a harsh sentence, that was inexcusable.
I agree. I have a feeling that the IDF will sentence these people to death.

Redruin wrote: Israel has a history of ignoring UN resolutions, Geneva Conventions, and racking up high levels of collateral damage in all their conflicts.
Not true. I don't know of much collateral damage against the Arabs in 1956, 1967, or 1973. They don't usually cause collateral damage against armies that come out and fight instead of hiding behind civilians and blaming the "evil" Israelis for their deaths. On the other hand, if they had, it might have worked with people like you... :think:

As for the UN Resolutions, Israel has never disobeyed an militarily-enforceable resolution. Other resolutions were necessary for them to violate in order to preserve their security and I don't blame them for it.

Redruin wrote: Perhaps conspire is a poor choice, but I was assuming there is some portion, or branch, of the Israeli government which objects to such practices.
I don't know of any branch of the Israeli government that objects to self-defense.

Redruin wrote: Beirut airport, the ports, bridges, roads, utilities, vehicles, and communication towers were all intentionally targetted. Of course, as part of the pro-Israeli contigent, I'm sure you will argue they were being used by Hezbollah and all were essential elements of their infrastructure.
Hey, if it's the truth, we will say it. Why is that so hard for the anti-Israeli contingent to understand?

Redruin wrote: If Israel could have bombed the very air Hezbollah breathes I'm sure they would have done that already.
Yes, and if they could, I'm sure every member of Hezbollah would be sharing an air tank with a "civilian."

Redruin wrote: Yet, nice qualifier.
Hey, in the Middle East, ruling out any type of action that you may need to survive is pretty stupid. The point in time might come where Israel would need to nuke another nation in order to stay in existence.

Redruin wrote: I will be quite interested to see Israel's solution to the Iran nuclear issue.
Whatever it is, I don't think it will involve nuclear weapons unless the Iranians are just around the corner from wiping them out.

Redruin wrote: It is not an act of national self defense, it is an act of agression.
Oh really? Who started this fight? Who crossed the border to kill people on the other side? Who started firing rockets across the border? Hezbollah is the aggressor in this conflict, not Israel.

Redruin wrote: Self defense applies only to bombing the armed militants.
So you're telling me that Israel has to wait until the militants decide to discard their human shields before it can be considered self-defense? Thank God we don't have this kind of mentality running our national security...

Redruin wrote: What we see now is an act of aggression as bombs hit things and people where no militants are present.
I see you've bought Hezbollah's lies hook-line-and-sinker. At Qana, they claimed that there were no militants present there...until Israel came out with footage showing rockets being fired right next to the building that was hit.

Redruin wrote: WW2 again, yet another nutjob who believes the Israeli-Hezbollah conflict can somehow be equated to WW2. When is rooting out terrorists is equal to a World War? You are just after 2-3k Hezbollah. You have a 500k man army, air force, and navy. You've already dropped 10 shells or bombs on Lebanon for every single Hezbollah that exists. This is not a World War. A comparison to WW2 is not justifiable.
Leave your personal insults in the dustbin of your delusional mind. While not all wars are exactly alike, each of them have certain aspects that can be compared. Yes, the wars have their differences, mainly because Hezbollah doesn't fight like a military, but fights without uniforms and hides behind civilians, a level that not even the Axis powers stooped down to. What I was comparing was the bombing of civilians and your hypocritical stance that Israel is committing war crimes for bombing militants who are using human shields, yet our own pilots who leveled entire German and Japanese cities, killing hundreds of thousands of civilians in the process, were not war criminals.

Redruin wrote: You neglect the other options at the Israeli army's disposal. A much clearer shot from the ground, up close and personal, exists.
Right, so you're suggesting that Israeli troops occupy Tyre, Beirut, Sidon, and wherever else rockets are being fired from so they can nicely and cleanly shoot the terrorists at close range. Do you have any idea how many more civilians would be killed in the massive crossfire between a huge invading force and a terrorist militia that's been entrenched there for the better part of two decades? Do you have any idea how many more Israeli lives would be lost? You're basically telling me that instead of using precision missiles to kill militants at no cost to Israeli lives because they might also kill the civilians that are being used as human shields, the IDF should go in on the ground and launch a full-scale invasion that will cost hundreds of Israeli lives and pose a risk to kill just about every civilian unlucky enough to be caught in any town that the Israelis enter...all for the sake of not hitting those within the blast area of the militants. BRILLIANT! :roll:

Redruin wrote: Also, contrary to what you say, it is not as if Hezbollah drags civilians in front of them as they move about as human shields, they merely move about in civilian areas.
When did I say that they drag civilians in front of them wherever they go? I didn't. I said that they use human shields when they are acting as militants. When the Israelis are able to distinguish them from civilians, which they usually can't do until the moment that the militants attack because Hezbollah doesn't fight in uniforms, they are in close proximity to civilian buildings, such as that shelter in Qana, and cannot usually be hit without the risk of taking a few civilians down with them.

Redruin wrote: It is not impossible to kill Hezbollah without killing civilians.
Maybe not impossible in the strictest form of the word, but in the context of having any realistic hope of ending the attacks on their own civilians, then yes, it is impossible for the Israelis to do that.

Redruin wrote: Try opening your eyes and ears?
Try looking at the forest instead of just the trees.

Redruin wrote: Have you ever heard of Bint Jbeil?
Ah yes, Bint Jbeil, the town where the Israelis enacted your brilliant strategy of getting up close and personal with Hezbollah. :lol:

Redruin wrote: It looked flattened, the pan out showed about 75% of it in ruins.
Can you show us the picture of that?

Redruin wrote: A UN peacekeeper who was interviewed who there said the destruction was widespread.
Who is this UN peacekeeper?

Redruin wrote: What do you think the Israel's 20k+ shells and 2k+ aerial sorties have been doing to Lebanon? Hitting Hezbollah?
Yes and, unfortunately, hitting those who they are cowardly hiding behind.

Redruin wrote: Thousands have evacuated, but thousands are left.
Of course. Hezbollah can't let everybody go.

Redruin wrote: Not all have the means to do so, or the will to brave the Israeli strikes.
Israel has run bombing pauses specifically to allow for the evacuation of civilians, even going so far as to call people on the other side of the border to let them know that they're coming. This makes your idea that they are indifferent to civilians look pretty ridiculous.

Redruin wrote: There are numerous reports on TV which show burning hulks of vehicles on the road side.
Do these people have any solid reports on who or what these vehicles were carrying? How do you know that Israel wasn't tracking Hezbollah militants moving from town to town?

Redruin wrote: Even on this site, a poster moving from one town to the next saw the car behind them hit by an Israeli bomb.
A poster who, for all you know, could be in Canada. I'll try not to use my personal experiences as evidence. I expect the same from any other honest debater.

Redruin wrote: The populace does not have the security to evacuate safely, which is why you see civilians staying behind at Qana.
This might be another reason you see civilians staying behind:

The New York Times wrote: "Hezbollah came to Ain Ebel to shoot its rockets," said Fayad Hanna Amar, a young Christian man, referring to his village. ‘They are shooting from between our houses.’ ‘Please,’ he added, "write that in your newspaper." Amar said Hezbollah fighters in groups of two and three had come into Ain Ebel, less than a mile from Bint Jbail, where most of the fighting has occurred. They were using it as a base to shoot rockets, he said, and the Israelis fired back.

One woman, who would not give her name because she had a government job and feared retribution, said Hezbollah fighters had killed a man who was trying to leave Bint Jbail. "This is what's happening, but no one wants to say it" for fear of Hezbollah, she said.
http://www.unwatch.org/site/c.bdKKISNqEmG/b.1317481/k.96E7/View_From_Geneva/apps/nl/newsletter2.asp

Redruin wrote: Yes you do lack common sense. Hezbollah do not walk around carrying human shields as you imply they do.
You lack basic reading comprehension. I never said that they walked around carrying human shields. I said that they attack from behind human shields.

The Sunday Mail (Australia) wrote: Images and footage of Hezbollah activities taken by local newspapers and TV crews are routinely seized by the group's fighters at road blocks. But in our image taken clandestinely, a group of fighters are preparing to fire a truck-mounted anti-aircraft gun just meters from an apartment block with sheets drying on the balcony.
"There are no Hezbollah here and we will take your cameras to prove it!"

Redruin wrote: A clear shot can be obtained from the ground.
Right, just like in Bint Jbeil. :lol:

Redruin wrote: And, if you don't realize that evacuation to Syria or northern Lebanon consists of a LONG JOURNEY for most people getting the leaflets in southern Lebanon I can't say much for your common sense.
I can't say much for yours either because you assumed I said that this was all easy. I know it's not and I never said it was. But if I knew my town was about to get the living s**t bombed out of it because of the Hezbollah fighters using it as a base, a little difficulty wouldn't dissuade me from getting the hell out. That is, if Hezbollah didn't shoot me for trying to leave.

Redruin wrote: The leaflets are useless without a halt in the bombing and shelling.
You mean like this one?

Redruin wrote: At the minimum they need to stop operations in a corridor allowing for evacuation. The fact the Israelis have not demonstrate just how sincere the leaflets are. Stopping all operations would gurantee safe passage, evacuees may very well have different destinations they wish to go to.
See the above link.

Redruin wrote: Drivers charge ridiculous amounts to get people out now.
Drivers are charging ridiculous routes to get to Beirut, which is where most of the in-country journalists are trying to go.

Redruin wrote: I think the price is a reasonable reflection of just how dangerous the roads are.
For Beirut, probably. But then, who the hell would be trying to go there?

Redruin wrote: Btw, your link is no good, I get a page not found.
Yeah, sorry about that. I don't why it went bad. Well, here's another link to the same story. People have options to get out if they really want to (or if Hezbollah will let them).

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/07/28/AR2006072801989.html

Redruin wrote: How do you know the American news teams are not in contact with Israeli military liasons like the UN observers were?
Because the news teams came at the request of Hezbollah. The Hezbos were the ones leading them from town to town. Do you really think that they would be shuttling around American news teams if they knew that the Israelis were watching and ready to pounce as soon as the Americans left?

Redruin wrote: I don't think it's coincidence no American news teams have been hit. Israel fully realizes it cannot kill an American news team, or the war is over.
Don't you think it also realizes that if it intentionally hits civilians that the war will also end quicker?

Redruin wrote: I can defend my points well enough without your double standards or faulty logic sir.
Adding more illogic to an already lacking post is a poor defense, friend. 8:)

[Redruin]

[quote="battleax86"]Sorry it took me so long to reply. I had a 7-page paper due at 8:00 this morning.[/quote/]

I'm glad you replied, I thought you had turned tail and ran.


battleax86 wrote: Then what does the pilot's own personal self-defense have to do with this? Why were you saying that Israel's self-defense didn't apply because the specific pilot wasn't in danger?

The principles behind self defense are applicable to both the pilot and the nation. The pilot's life was not in danger, he is not entitled to blast an armed militant in a crowd just as Israel's survival is not at stake, thus it is not entitled to smash Lebanon in trying to eliminate Hezbollah.


battleax86 wrote: The United States killed more civilians in Germany and Japan than Israel has in its entire existence, yet I have yet to hear you suggest that our war effort in World War II was criminal. In fact, when asked about it in this thread, you tried to justify our actions, while continuing to bash Israel for doing a lot less. It seems that you are holding the United States to a lower standard than Israel. Also, Hezbollah and Hamas have been intentionally targeting Israeli civilians for the last six years and the last twelve years, respectively, but who are you coming on this forum to denounce? Not Hamas, not Hezbollah...just Israel. No, sir, YOU and the rest of the anti-Israeli "contingent" are the ones who use two moral standards to judge the world with: one for Israel, one for everybody else.

You are right, war crimes were committed by the Allies during WW2. But I argue that Germany did have the war potential and means to destroy the United States; Hezbollah simply does not, and hopefully never will, have the means to destroy Israel. The course of action by the Allies was a last resort, diplomacy had been tried and failed. The Axis powers were intent on world domination. They had the means to accomplish this, their threat was real and immediate to the Allies, they had the most powerful pre-war militaries, their armies were on the move, war was unavoidable. The case now is not so. A negotiated prisoner exchange and diplomatic pressure, from the entire international community, would have a more likely chance of disarming Hezbollah and resolving the situation than the current Israeli "shock and awe" campaign. Now we get to watch the blood flow freely down the streets in both countries, more so in one than the other, and it is saddenning. I freely admit the Allies committed war crimes in WW2, but I see the same happening in Lebanon today. You obviously are intelligent enough to realize the same because of the line of your arguments, but can you admit to it?


battleax86 wrote: Prepare to be shocked:
http://www.ouwet.com/n10452/editorials/free-ain-ebel-from-hezbollah-invasion/
http://www.nytimes.com/2006/07/28/world/middleeast/28refugees.html?_r=3&oref=slogin&pagewanted=print&oref=slogin
http://www.punditreview.com/2006/07/14/labanese-support-israels-actions-especially-christians/
https://lonestarpundit.wordpress.com/2006/07/18/lebanese-christian-reaction-to-the-israeli-military-response/


The first 2 articles just blast Hezbollah, but they do not go as far as labelling the Israeli response as an act of "self defense." The third article is a short post from a Farid of Lebanon, dated July 14, calling out for Israel to come kill and hizbalah, "Please take caution to focus your attack where they are and not attack christian areas. we support you and bear you no ill will." Sadly for you, I don't think he has the same opinion now as he does then. Israel is bombing Christian areas. The last link you posted is an article by Brigitte Gabriel, the founder of a group called American Congress for Truth. Here is part of their mission statement:

Promote the establishment of grassroots ACT activists nationwide. American Congress for Truth activists will network to ensure aggressive implementation of an educational program to enable grassroots citizens to participate in the defense of America on their own level. ACT members will be trained to be vigilant and respond fast to anti American anti Israel media bias.

Promote civic activism to ensure elected officials remain vigilant in their duties in defending and protecting the United States and its only democratic ally in the Middle East the State of Israel.


Bought and paid for by the Israeli PR machine, hardly an unbiased source. I am not shocked. You will have to try harder.

battleax86 wrote: Which shows how much you are willing to listen to reason. 8:)

I am listening, your reasoning is merely insufficient.


battleax86 wrote: There is nothing "morally bankrupt" about firing at militants who hide in crowds if you are doing so to protect your own civilians. The concept of self-defense DOES allow the deaths of "innocent bystanders" if it can be reasonably determined that 1) they were not the target and 2) the actual target posed a threat to the ones being defended. Now, whether or not most of the Lebanese killed were "innocent bystanders" is debatable, but that's currently outside the scope of our discussion.

Your own argument defeats itself. If you deliberately fire at militants who hide in a crowd that is a war crime. The militants, yes they are guilty of a war crime too for hiding there, but then so are you for pulling the trigger. Israel has deliberately dropped bombs powerful enough to completely level 10 story civilian buildings, in the hopes of killing militants, who were not actively engaged in the act of firing rockets at Israel. Does this qualify as self defense? Or what about the roads and other things that don't fire back, does bombing them also qualify as self defense? Not even by your flawed definition of self defense will that qualify. It's pretty clear what Israel is doing is not self defense.


battleax86 wrote: Yes, and if you had been paying attention to what you wrote, you would see that you were creating a moral equivalency between the status of Israel and Hezbollah, one that does not exist. Hezbollah is not a legitimate "side" in this conflict. They do not have the right to carry out military operations against Israel or anybody else.

Do you not judge the actions of two combatants locked in combat with the same standards? I do not care if one side is the legitimate heir to the throne and the other is a peasant trying to usurp the kingdom; when both sides are killing innocents left and right, I will call them on it. How can you not, if you claim to be impartial and just?


battleax86 wrote: As for your comparison of their actions, you present a factually inaccurate and overly simplified summary of what's going on. Hezbollah is not "blindly firing" at Israel. Their rockets may not have any computer guidance systems, but if these people have any knowledge of math or physics, they can map out within a pretty small distance where their rocket is going to land. You don't "fire blindly" into Israel and just happen to hit downtown Haifa. Furthermore, their rockets are filled with ball bearings, essentially designed to kill anyone who happens to be within 50 meters of where the rocket lands. These type of rockets have little use against hardened military targets, but are especially effective against "soft" targets - military terminology for civilians. The Israelis, on the other hand, use precision-guided bombs to target these militants who are targeting their own civilians. They do not just randomly bomb anywhere in Lebanon. They only target people who are known militants responsible for firing rockets at Israeli cities. The only reason civilians are dying is because the Hezbollah militants are using them as human shields.

Factually inaccurate? I think you merely refuse to face the facts. The precision guided weapons are hitting exactly where the Israelis are aiming, and they are killing a lot more civilians than the barbaric Hezbollah rocket attacks are. The only reason Lebanese civilians are dying is because the Israelis are dropping bombs on them. That is the bottom line.


[quote="battleax86"]I agree. I have a feeling that the IDF will sentence these people to death.

Good, something we agree with.


battleax86 wrote: Not true. I don't know of much collateral damage against the Arabs in 1956, 1967, or 1973. They don't usually cause collateral damage against armies that come out and fight instead of hiding behind civilians and blaming the "evil" Israelis for their deaths. On the other hand, if they had, it might have worked with people like you... :think:

I'm not looking quite that far back, or even at those wars. I'm looking at the Israeli penchant for assassinating terrorists in civilian areas. The most memorable assassination was of that fellow in the wheelchair. No civilians were killed if I recall, but they took him out with a Hellfire missile from a helicoptor. Incidents like these but with high collateral damage in civilian lives led 27 Israeli pilots to sign the Pilots Letter, refusing to fly missions over occupied territory.


battleax86 wrote: As for the UN Resolutions, Israel has never disobeyed an militarily-enforceable resolution. Other resolutions were necessary for them to violate in order to preserve their security and I don't blame them for it.

List of UN resolutions against Israel
# 1955-1992:
# * Resolution 106: " . . . 'condemns' Israel for Gaza raid".
# * Resolution 111: " . . . 'condemns' Israel for raid on Syria that killed fifty-six people".
# * Resolution 127: " . . . 'recommends' Israel suspends it's 'no-man's zone' in Jerusalem".
# * Resolution 162: " . . . 'urges' Israel to comply with UN decisions".
# * Resolution 171: " . . . determines flagrant violations' by Israel in its attack on Syria".
# * Resolution 228: " . . . 'censures' Israel for its attack on Samu in the West Bank, then under Jordanian control".
# * Resolution 237: " . . . 'urges' Israel to allow return of new 1967 Palestinian refugees".
# * Resolution 248: " . . . 'condemns' Israel for its massive attack on Karameh in Jordan".
# * Resolution 250: " . . . 'calls' on Israel to refrain from holding military parade in Jerusalem".
# * Resolution 251: " . . . 'deeply deplores' Israeli military parade in Jerusalem in defiance of Resolution 250".
# * Resolution 252: " . . . 'declares invalid' Israel's acts to unify Jerusalem as Jewish capital".
# * Resolution 256: " . . . 'condemns' Israeli raids on Jordan as 'flagrant violation".
# * Resolution 259: " . . . 'deplores' Israel's refusal to accept UN mission to probe occupation".
# * Resolution 262: " . . . 'condemns' Israel for attack on Beirut airport".
# * Resolution 265: " . . . 'condemns' Israel for air attacks for Salt in Jordan".
# * Resolution 267: " . . . 'censures' Israel for administrative acts to change the status of Jerusalem".
# *Resolution 270: " . . . 'condemns' Israel for air attacks on villages in southern Lebanon".
# * Resolution 271: " . . . 'condemns' Israel's failure to obey UN resolutions on Jerusalem".
# * Resolution 279: " . . . 'demands' withdrawal of Israeli forces from Lebanon".
# * Resolution 280: " . . . 'condemns' Israeli's attacks against Lebanon".
# * Resolution 285: " . . . 'demands' immediate Israeli withdrawal form Lebanon".
# * Resolution 298: " . . . 'deplores' Israel's changing of the status of Jerusalem".
# * Resolution 313: " . . . 'demands' that Israel stop attacks against Lebanon".
# * Resolution 316: " . . . 'condemns' Israel for repeated attacks on Lebanon".
# * Resolution 317: " . . . 'deplores' Israel's refusal to release Arabs abducted in Lebanon".
# * Resolution 332: " . . . 'condemns' Israel's repeated attacks against Lebanon".
# * Resolution 337: " . . . 'condemns' Israel for violating Lebanon's sovereignty".
# * Resolution 347: " . . . 'condemns' Israeli attacks on Lebanon".
# * Resolution 425: " . . . 'calls' on Israel to withdraw its forces from Lebanon".
# * Resolution 427: " . . . 'calls' on Israel to complete its withdrawal from Lebanon.
# * Resolution 444: " . . . 'deplores' Israel's lack of cooperation with UN peacekeeping forces".
# * Resolution 446: " . . . 'determines' that Israeli settlements are a 'serious
# obstruction' to peace and calls on Israel to abide by the Fourth Geneva Convention".
# * Resolution 450: " . . . 'calls' on Israel to stop attacking Lebanon".
# * Resolution 452: " . . . 'calls' on Israel to cease building settlements in occupied territories".
# * Resolution 465: " . . . 'deplores' Israel's settlements and asks all member
# states not to assist Israel's settlements program".
# * Resolution 467: " . . . 'strongly deplores' Israel's military intervention in Lebanon".
# * Resolution 468: " . . . 'calls' on Israel to rescind illegal expulsions of
# two Palestinian mayors and a judge and to facilitate their return".
# * Resolution 469: " . . . 'strongly deplores' Israel's failure to observe the
# council's order not to deport Palestinians".
# * Resolution 471: " . . . 'expresses deep concern' at Israel's failure to abide
# by the Fourth Geneva Convention".
# * Resolution 476: " . . . 'reiterates' that Israel's claim to Jerusalem are 'null and void'".
# * Resolution 478: " . . . 'censures (Israel) in the strongest terms' for its
# claim to Jerusalem in its 'Basic Law'".
# * Resolution 484: " . . . 'declares it imperative' that Israel re-admit two deported
# Palestinian mayors".
# * Resolution 487: " . . . 'strongly condemns' Israel for its attack on Iraq's
# nuclear facility".
# * Resolution 497: " . . . 'decides' that Israel's annexation of Syria's Golan
# Heights is 'null and void' and demands that Israel rescinds its decision forthwith".
# * Resolution 498: " . . . 'calls' on Israel to withdraw from Lebanon".
# * Resolution 501: " . . . 'calls' on Israel to stop attacks against Lebanon and withdraw its troops".
# * Resolution 509: " . . . 'demands' that Israel withdraw its forces forthwith and unconditionally from Lebanon".
# * Resolution 515: " . . . 'demands' that Israel lift its siege of Beirut and
# allow food supplies to be brought in".
# * Resolution 517: " . . . 'censures' Israel for failing to obey UN resolutions
# and demands that Israel withdraw its forces from Lebanon".
# * Resolution 518: " . . . 'demands' that Israel cooperate fully with UN forces in Lebanon".
# * Resolution 520: " . . . 'condemns' Israel's attack into West Beirut".
# * Resolution 573: " . . . 'condemns' Israel 'vigorously' for bombing Tunisia
# in attack on PLO headquarters.
# * Resolution 587: " . . . 'takes note' of previous calls on Israel to withdraw
# its forces from Lebanon and urges all parties to withdraw".
# * Resolution 592: " . . . 'strongly deplores' the killing of Palestinian students
# at Bir Zeit University by Israeli troops".
# * Resolution 605: " . . . 'strongly deplores' Israel's policies and practices
# denying the human rights of Palestinians.
# * Resolution 607: " . . . 'calls' on Israel not to deport Palestinians and strongly
# requests it to abide by the Fourth Geneva Convention.
# * Resolution 608: " . . . 'deeply regrets' that Israel has defied the United Nations and deported Palestinian civilians".
# * Resolution 636: " . . . 'deeply regrets' Israeli deportation of Palestinian civilians.
# * Resolution 641: " . . . 'deplores' Israel's continuing deportation of Palestinians.
# * Resolution 672: " . . . 'condemns' Israel for violence against Palestinians
# at the Haram al-Sharif/Temple Mount.
# * Resolution 673: " . . . 'deplores' Israel's refusal to cooperate with the United
# Nations.
# * Resolution 681: " . . . 'deplores' Israel's resumption of the deportation of
# Palestinians.
# * Resolution 694: " . . . 'deplores' Israel's deportation of Palestinians and
# calls on it to ensure their safe and immediate return.
# * Resolution 726: " . . . 'strongly condemns' Israel's deportation of Palestinians.
# * Resolution 799: ". . . 'strongly condemns' Israel's deportation of 413 Palestinians
# and calls for their immediate return.

Picking and choosing which UN resolutions to heed is childish, either obey or don't. It's quite clear what Israel is doing, and that is simply a course of noncooperation.



battleax86 wrote: Hey, in the Middle East, ruling out any type of action that you may need to survive is pretty stupid. The point in time might come where Israel would need to nuke another nation in order to stay in existence.

At least you are consistent in your argument, however morally bankrupt it is.


battleax86 wrote: So you're telling me that Israel has to wait until the militants decide to discard their human shields before it can be considered self-defense? Thank God we don't have this kind of mentality running our national security...

Ah, but we do. Like I have said before, you will NEVER see the police firing into a crowd to kill an armed criminal. You will never see the "good guys" in a movie blasting away into a crowd of innocents to kill the bad guys. Israel of course, does things its own way. But in general, "this kind of mentality" is prevalent in western culture.


battleax86 wrote: I see you've bought Hezbollah's lies hook-line-and-sinker. At Qana, they claimed that there were no militants present there...until Israel came out with footage showing rockets being fired right next to the building that was hit.

No, the video you refer to shows footage of rockets coming from a similar building that was hit, NOT the building that was hit in Qana. The news media were quite clear in making that distinction. Your bias has blinded you to the truth.


battleax86 wrote: Right, so you're suggesting that Israeli troops occupy Tyre, Beirut, Sidon, and wherever else rockets are being fired from so they can nicely and cleanly shoot the terrorists at close range. Do you have any idea how many more civilians would be killed in the massive crossfire between a huge invading force and a terrorist militia that's been entrenched there for the better part of two decades? Do you have any idea how many more Israeli lives would be lost? You're basically telling me that instead of using precision missiles to kill militants at no cost to Israeli lives because they might also kill the civilians that are being used as human shields, the IDF should go in on the ground and launch a full-scale invasion that will cost hundreds of Israeli lives and pose a risk to kill just about every civilian unlucky enough to be caught in any town that the Israelis enter...all for the sake of not hitting those within the blast area of the militants. BRILLIANT! :roll:

Are you basically telling me you would rather have Israel raze Lebanon to the ground from the air, with its "precision" munitions killing numerous civilians and few militants at no cost to Israeli soldiers' lives? Less civilians will be killed, not more in your "crossfire," because bullets simply do not kill as many people as precision weapons capable of completely levelling 10-story civilian buildings. Send in ground forces to root out Hezbollah fighters and decrease the collateral damage in Lebanon at the cost of more Israeli soldiers lives. Ground forces are the best possibly means to distinguish Hezbollah from civilians. If you want to kill Hezbollah, you must send in ground forces. And yes, the world would accept more dead Israeli soldiers if less Lebanese civilians die. Ideally only Hezbollah would die, but things are never perfect.


battleax86 wrote: When did I say that they drag civilians in front of them wherever they go? I didn't. I said that they use human shields when they are acting as militants. When the Israelis are able to distinguish them from civilians, which they usually can't do until the moment that the militants attack because Hezbollah doesn't fight in uniforms, they are in close proximity to civilian buildings, such as that shelter in Qana, and cannot usually be hit without the risk of taking a few civilians down with them.

No, you just say every civilian killed by Israel is being used as a human shield by Hezbollah. Therefore, wouldn't Hezbollah have to be carrying them around everywhere they go? Otherwise every civilian death couldnt possibly be as part of the human shield operation. The Human Rights Watch has accumulated quite a trove of incidents where Israel has "deliberately" targetted civilians. You might want to look them up and educate yourself.

Israel's Indiscriminant Attacks against Civilians in Lebanon



battleax86 wrote: Can you show us the picture of that?

Here is an article with a gallery

Inside the Town Israel turned into a Moonscape

"Inside the town Israel turned into a moonscape
By RICHARD PENDLEBURY in southern Lebanon, Daily Mail 19:02pm 31st July 2006

Mariam Al Sghair should have been allowed a little more dignity as she lay dying in the hot sun.

Eighty years old, abandoned in the centre of the street on an orange stretcher amid a maelstrom of rubble, she looked like the last survivor of a shipwreck in a heavy sea.

Gallery: The devastation in Bint Jbeil

‘Stay awake, don’t let go,’ she was told, as her eyelids flickered.

We carried her to the shade of what was once pavement where, her face covered with flies, she gasped and rolled her eyes again. You could see in them only a blankness, an absence of hope. She had simply had enough of this life.

A couple of hundred yards away, in the centre of Market Street, lay an unexploded bomb, dropped by an Israeli jet. Hebrew script stencilled on its olive green casing said that it weighed 2,500 pounds.

A haggard, dehydrated old man in an ill-fitting, dust covered suit staggered past, tripping over debris in his exhaustion: ‘It is the first time I have seen the sun in 20 days,’ he told me. How life had changed while he was sheltering underground. His home town of Bint Jbeil was now like a gigantic jigsaw puzzle which some child had tipped from its box. "


battleax86 wrote: Of course. Hezbollah can't let everybody go.

Now that is just silly. Hezbollah is quite intelligent, vastly more so than Israel's political leadership. They are well organized, well trained, have a feasible plan they are executing, and most improtantly, they have the support of the people. That support will be the key to their victory. They would not jeapordize this support by forcing the Lebanese peopel, at gunpoint, to stay behind and be their human shields. This would be the worse thing they could do. This would be cutting their own throats. I am very skeptical they would carry out this behavior and hurt themselves. I challenge you to provide proof of this behavior.


battleax86 wrote: Israel has run bombing pauses specifically to allow for the evacuation of civilians, even going so far as to call people on the other side of the border to let them know that they're coming. This makes your idea that they are indifferent to civilians look pretty ridiculous.

Not true, the article I quoted above states a Lebanese man in Bint Jbeil did not see the sunlight for 20 days, implying continuous shelling during this period. The Human Rights Watch documents many, many cases displaying Israel's indifference to civilian casualties, and in some cases, "deliberate" targetting of them. Check out the link to their site. You are clearly misguided in your claims.


battleax86 wrote: Do these people have any solid reports on who or what these vehicles were carrying? How do you know that Israel wasn't tracking Hezbollah militants moving from town to town?

They were carrying civilians. How do I know? There are only 3000 Hezbollah, you would think there have to be 100x that number to be everywhere, as you are implying they are, that the Israelis are bombing. If Israeli intelligence was good enough to be tracking militants moving from town to town, Hezbollah would already have been eliminated. The fact of the matter is, Israeli intelligence is piss poor, Hezbollah cannot be identified, and the aerial campaign has been a massive failure. This is why you see ground forces moving in, and the limited campaign originally declared, retracted after again, failing miserably, and instead enlarged, again like its predecessors, to ultimately fail spectacularly.


battleax86 wrote: A poster who, for all you know, could be in Canada. I'll try not to use my personal experiences as evidence. I expect the same from any other honest debater.

Ah but I am not using my personal experience, I am submitting her tale as evidence to counter your claims. Byrna:

I didn't read it. I tried going North myself. I know all the roads to the North and they're impossible. There is maybe one or two that you can go on, but you risk being bombed because Israel bombs the roads nearly every day, each time blasting apart a few cars carrying civilians who had the same idea as myself.

EDIT: Oh, just fyi. I managed to get to my house in Broumana. It's some ways under Zahle. That's the most north I could go. And, by the way, on the road there, a car behind us got bombed.

Additionally, I posted a case describing civilian cars being destroyed as documented by the Human Rights Watch group in a previous post in this thread if you find this evidence insufficient to disprove your claims.


battleax86 wrote: You lack basic reading comprehension. I never said that they walked around carrying human shields. I said that they attack from behind human shields.

If they only attack from behind human shields, and as you say, every civilian killed was near to, or being used by Hezbollah as a human shield, why do the Lebanese people still support Hezbollah? If Hezbollah was so callous as to fight this way, the support of the Lebanese people would quickly turn into condemnation. This is clearly not the case. One recent poll showed 87% of the Lebanese support Hezbollah. A human shield does not vote so for the people hiding behind them. So maybe, just maybe, there are no Hezbollah around when some Israeli shells and bombs are falling. Many cases documented in the HRW study have taken civilian testimonials claiming there were no Hezbollah present when the bombs fell. The sheer number of shells fired and sorties flown by the IDF, dispute the fact Hezbollah could possibly have been present to be on the recieving end of each and every bomb or shell. Common sense and logic enough for you?


battleax86 wrote: I can't say much for yours either because you assumed I said that this was all easy. I know it's not and I never said it was. But if I knew my town was about to get the living s**t bombed out of it because of the Hezbollah fighters using it as a base, a little difficulty wouldn't dissuade me from getting the hell out. That is, if Hezbollah didn't shoot me for trying to leave.

The very reason many Lebanese have not evacuated is the difficulty of the journey. The old, the poor, even in Katrina you saw how many could not flee before the path of the hurricane. Your continued inability to recognize or even sympathize with the plight of the Lebanese people is mindboggling. I just don't understand it. You fail to see not everyone can flee.

battleax86 wrote:
Redruin wrote: The leaflets are useless without a halt in the bombing and shelling.
You mean like this one?

The airstrikes did not completely stop, Israel continued to launch air strikes on military targets. Did you not hear about the Lebanese soldiers killed by airstrikes during said "ceasefire?" I thought that was quite ironic. The shells continued to fall unabated during the "ceasefire". A good first step, but insufficient to solve the problems in Lebanon.


The greatest tragedy that will come of this conflict is Hezbollah's rise to power. In seeking to eliminate, then degrade Hezbollah's military capabilities, the IDF will push the Lebanese people into Hezbollah's pockets. Hezbollah will emerge as the premier political power in Lebanon when this conflict is resolved. They will be "integrated" into the military. They will control the government. They will dictate Lebanon's foreign policy. Instead of dealing with a group of armed militants bent on terrorizing Israel now you have to deal with a legitimate government bent on shafting Israel and the United States whenever opportunity presents itself. Good job Israel, way to go.

[battleax86]

Well, Redruin, looks like our posts are getting longer and longer. I've replied to about half of your last post and I should have the rest of my response in by tomorrow.

[Redruin]

Life is a series of meetings, this is one of them in cyberspace. I am enjoying our argument, take your time replying there is no hurry.

[battleax86]

Congrats on using the quote feature correctly! :clap:

Redruin wrote: battleax86 wrote: Sorry it took me so long to reply. I had a 7-page paper due at 8:00 this morning.
I'm glad you replied, I thought you had turned tail and ran.
I'm not a liberal. I don't turn tail and run. 8:)

Redruin wrote: battleax86 wrote: Then what does the pilot's own personal self-defense have to do with this? Why were you saying that Israel's self-defense didn't apply because the specific pilot wasn't in danger?
The principles behind self defense are applicable to both the pilot and the nation. The pilot's life was not in danger, he is not entitled to blast an armed militant in a crowd just as Israel's survival is not at stake, thus it is not entitled to smash Lebanon in trying to eliminate Hezbollah.
On the contrary, the lives of Israelis are at stake and yes, if Israel loses this war to Hezbollah, their very survival could be at stake. So, whether or not the pilot's personal life is endangered, he has the right to fire at militants, regardless of whether or not they choose to take human shields.

Redruin wrote: You are right, war crimes were committed by the Allies during WW2.
What were these war crimes? Are you referring only to the firebombings and nuclear bombings of Dresden, Tokyo, Hiroshima, and Nagasaki or are you referring to any operation in which "disproportionate" numbers of civilians died? Are you condemning our daylight bombings of German cities going back to 1943? Were the pilots who ran those missions war criminals?

Redruin wrote: But I argue that Germany did have the war potential and means to destroy the United States; Hezbollah simply does not, and hopefully never will, have the means to destroy Israel. The course of action by the Allies was a last resort, diplomacy had been tried and failed. The Axis powers were intent on world domination. They had the means to accomplish this, their threat was real and immediate to the Allies, they had the most powerful pre-war militaries, their armies were on the move, war was unavoidable.
Whoa!!! Germany had the means to destroy the United States? I'm sorry, but that's bulls**t. Germany did not have anything near the manpower or industrial capability required to destroy a nation as large and as populous as the United States. For that matter, neither did Japan. In fact, neither Japan nor Germany were intent on destroying us in World War II. Japan attacked Pearl Harbor to keep us from interfering in their regional affairs in East Asia, not to destroy us. Germany never even posed a military threat to us at all until we began sending war materiel to the British and even then, they were only targeting ships on the high seas en route to Britain, not our cities or our military bases or anything else on our soil. We were not fighting for our own survival in World War II. We were fighting to stop a nation's aggression and the evil ideology behind it. Israel is doing the same thing...except this time, the aggression was directly against them. Israel is in a life-or-death struggle against an enemy that has been repeatedly attacking them on their own soil for the last six years and has been involved in anti-American terrorism since its inception. They cannot afford to lose this war and have the northern half of their country living in bomb shelters for years because a rocket-wielding terrorist group controls the southern half of a neighboring nation. Israel must disarm Hezbollah by all means necessary. If that means shooting at Hezbollah fighters who are cowardly hiding behind their own civilians, then they have an even greater right to do it than we had to bomb German cities.

Redruin wrote: The case now is not so. A negotiated prisoner exchange and diplomatic pressure, from the entire international community, would have a more likely chance of disarming Hezbollah and resolving the situation than the current Israeli "shock and awe" campaign.
The mind of a liberal never ceases to amaze me. :roll:

Do you think that a terrorist organization like Hezbollah gives a crap about "diplomatic pressure?" They've got the full support of Iran, a nation who has exposed the UN's version of "diplomatic pressure" as a complete joke. Hezbollah has already exposed this joke themselves, as Israel has complied with all UN resolutions pertaining to Lebanon, yet Hezbollah continues to be armed, in violation of Resolution 1559, and continues to fire rockets at Israeli civilians long after the UN verified that Israel had left every inch of Lebanese territory.

The only thing that a negotiated prisoner exchange gets Israel is more kidnappings of Israelis, a fact proven by a Hezbollah official's statement that they were expecting Israel to negotiate for their captured soldiers this time around because they'd done so in the past. The time for diplomacy is over. It has been tried and it has failed. The only sane option left for Israel is to completely dismantle and destroy Hezbollah by all means necessary to protect Israeli citizens from further Hezbollah attacks.

Redruin wrote: Now we get to watch the blood flow freely down the streets in both countries, more so in one than the other, and it is saddenning.
I agree. War may be a necessary evil at times, but it is still an evil.

Redruin wrote: I freely admit the Allies committed war crimes in WW2, but I see the same happening in Lebanon today. You obviously are intelligent enough to realize the same because of the line of your arguments, but can you admit to it?
I think you misunderstood the line of my arguments. I do not believe that we committed war crimes in World War II. Yes, we bombed civilians. However, doing so was not illegal at the time, nor was it out of anything but tactical and strategic necessity. If we had not bombed Germany and Japan back to the Stone Age, if we had not completely broken the will of the German and Japanese people to continue fighting, it's incredibly likely that both Hitler's fascist house of horrors and Tojo's militarist regime would have outlasted the hostilities.

Redruin wrote: battleax86 wrote: There is nothing "morally bankrupt" about firing at militants who hide in crowds if you are doing so to protect your own civilians. The concept of self-defense DOES allow the deaths of "innocent bystanders" if it can be reasonably determined that 1) they were not the target and 2) the actual target posed a threat to the ones being defended. Now, whether or not most of the Lebanese killed were "innocent bystanders" is debatable, but that's currently outside the scope of our discussion.
Your own argument defeats itself.
Riiight. :roll:

Redruin wrote: If you deliberately fire at militants who hide in a crowd that is a war crime. The militants, yes they are guilty of a war crime too for hiding there, but then so are you for pulling the trigger.
No, you are not. The militant poses a threat to the security of your own civilians. He has the ability to fire from the crowd. Therefore, taking him out while he is still in the crowd is not a war crime, as you are taking action in the defense of your own civilians.

Redruin wrote: Israel has deliberately dropped bombs powerful enough to completely level 10 story civilian buildings, in the hopes of killing militants, who were not actively engaged in the act of firing rockets at Israel. Does this qualify as self defense?
So they have to wait until they are in the act of firing for it to be self-defense? What do they tell the families of those killed by that act when they would have prevented it by shooting them before they could fire?

In Vietnam, USAF pilots would see sites that showed all the markings of a SAM site in its initial construction phase. When they requested permission to bomb these sites, Washington refused to let them bomb it until the site had been fully constructed and was "in the act" of firing at American fighter jets. Needless to say, Americans were shot down and spent years in torture chambers of the Hanoi Hilton because the politicians in Washington thought that shooting at something that wasn't shooting at you didn't constitute self-defense.

Redruin wrote: Or what about the roads and other things that don't fire back, does bombing them also qualify as self defense? Not even by your flawed definition of self defense will that qualify.
That is either to hit militants and weapons smugglers on the roads or prevent Hezbollah from moving their captured soldiers out of the country.

Redruin wrote: It's pretty clear what Israel is doing is not self defense.
It's pretty clear to anyone objectively looking at the facts that it is self-defense.

Redruin wrote: battleax86 wrote: Yes, and if you had been paying attention to what you wrote, you would see that you were creating a moral equivalency between the status of Israel and Hezbollah, one that does not exist. Hezbollah is not a legitimate "side" in this conflict. They do not have the right to carry out military operations against Israel or anybody else.
Do you not judge the actions of two combatants locked in combat with the same standards? I do not care if one side is the legitimate heir to the throne and the other is a peasant trying to usurp the kingdom; when both sides are killing innocents left and right, I will call them on it. How can you not, if you claim to be impartial and just?
You can judge killing civilians by the same standards. What you cannot judge by the same standard is their right to prosecute war. Hezbollah is a terrorist organization that has no legitimate reason to fight Israel. Israel, on the other hand, is a sovereign state that is fighting a terrorist organization who has illegitimately attacked them.

Redruin wrote: battleax86 wrote: As for your comparison of their actions, you present a factually inaccurate and overly simplified summary of what's going on. Hezbollah is not "blindly firing" at Israel. Their rockets may not have any computer guidance systems, but if these people have any knowledge of math or physics, they can map out within a pretty small distance where their rocket is going to land. You don't "fire blindly" into Israel and just happen to hit downtown Haifa. Furthermore, their rockets are filled with ball bearings, essentially designed to kill anyone who happens to be within 50 meters of where the rocket lands. These type of rockets have little use against hardened military targets, but are especially effective against "soft" targets - military terminology for civilians. The Israelis, on the other hand, use precision-guided bombs to target these militants who are targeting their own civilians. They do not just randomly bomb anywhere in Lebanon. They only target people who are known militants responsible for firing rockets at Israeli cities. The only reason civilians are dying is because the Hezbollah militants are using them as human shields.
Factually inaccurate? I think you merely refuse to face the facts. The precision guided weapons are hitting exactly where the Israelis are aiming, and they are killing a lot more civilians than the barbaric Hezbollah rocket attacks are. The only reason Lebanese civilians are dying is because the Israelis are dropping bombs on them. That is the bottom line.
As I said before, that is a massive oversimplification. Yes, you can choose to ignore facts and logic and say that the only reason Lebanese civilians are dying is because Israel is dropping bombs. However, one who takes an objective look at the facts will see that the Lebanese civilians are dying not because Israel is trying to hit them, but because Hezbollah militants are intentionally putting them in the way. Israel does not bear the fault here for Hezbollah's crime.

Redruin wrote: battleax86 wrote: I agree. I have a feeling that the IDF will sentence these people to death.
Good, something we agree with.
Yes, that is good. I'm not sure if we agree on who the responsible party is, though. :lol:


Redruin wrote: battleax86 wrote: Not true. I don't know of much collateral damage against the Arabs in 1956, 1967, or 1973. They don't usually cause collateral damage against armies that come out and fight instead of hiding behind civilians and blaming the "evil" Israelis for their deaths. On the other hand, if they had, it might have worked with people like you... :think:
I'm not looking quite that far back, or even at those wars. I'm looking at the Israeli penchant for assassinating terrorists in civilian areas.
Oh, I see. Tell me, would you happen to know when exactly it is that these terrorists leave the civilian areas?

Redruin wrote: The most memorable assassination was of that fellow in the wheelchair.
Yes, the fellow in the wheelchair who happened to be the commander of Hamas.

Redruin wrote: No civilians were killed if I recall, but they took him out with a Hellfire missile from a helicoptor.
Well, that's no good. Don't you think that they might have waited until he was in a huge crowd before firing? :lol:

Redruin wrote: Incidents like these but with high collateral damage in civilian lives led 27 Israeli pilots to sign the Pilots Letter, refusing to fly missions over occupied territory.
Yep, unfortunately, there are leftists in every profession...

Redruin wrote: battleax86 wrote: As for the UN Resolutions, Israel has never disobeyed an militarily-enforceable resolution. Other resolutions were necessary for them to violate in order to preserve their security and I don't blame them for it.

List of UN resolutions against Israel
# 1955-1992:
This should be interesting. 8:)

Redruin wrote: # * Resolution 106: " . . . 'condemns' Israel for Gaza raid".
And? The raid was over by the time they passed that resolution, now wasn't it? :-|

Redruin wrote: # * Resolution 111: " . . . 'condemns' Israel for raid on Syria that killed fifty-six people".
How do you obey a resolution that condemns you for something that you've already done? It's not like Israel can go back in time and undo it.

Redruin wrote: # * Resolution 127: " . . . 'recommends' Israel suspends it's 'no-man's zone' in Jerusalem".
1) It was a recommendation, not an order that Israel had to obey.
2) Does that "no-man's zone" still exist?

Redruin wrote: # * Resolution 162: " . . . 'urges' Israel to comply with UN decisions".
Only the UN could pass a resolution telling a country to obey its resolutions. :lol:

...unless you're the US Congress on illegal immigration. :x

Redruin wrote: # * Resolution 171: " . . . determines flagrant violations' by Israel in its attack on Syria".
Well, is Israel still attacking Syria?

Redruin wrote: # * Resolution 228: " . . . 'censures' Israel for its attack on Samu in the West Bank, then under Jordanian control".
Again, Israel can't go back in time and make itself comply with a resolution that condemns something after the fact.

Redruin wrote: # * Resolution 237: " . . . 'urges' Israel to allow return of new 1967 Palestinian refugees".
Eh? What refugees?

Redruin wrote: # * Resolution 248: " . . . 'condemns' Israel for its massive attack on Karameh in Jordan".
This is why I like the US Constitution. No ex post facto laws. :lol:

Redruin wrote: :# * Resolution 250: " . . . 'calls' on Israel to refrain from holding military parade in Jerusalem".
# * Resolution 251: " . . . 'deeply deplores' Israeli military parade in Jerusalem in defiance of Resolution 250".
:rotf:

Redruin wrote: # * Resolution 252: " . . . 'declares invalid' Israel's acts to unify Jerusalem as Jewish capital".
OK...so? If the UN doesn't want to recognize what Israel does with its territory, that's their choice.

Redruin wrote: # * Resolution 256: " . . . 'condemns' Israeli raids on Jordan as 'flagrant violation".
So tell me, how does Israel comply with this resolution?

Redruin wrote: # * Resolution 259: " . . . 'deplores' Israel's refusal to accept UN mission to probe occupation".
In other words, they don't like it, but they won't "call on Israel" (legalese for "order Israel") to allow them in.

Redruin wrote: # * Resolution 262: " . . . 'condemns' Israel for attack on Beirut airport".
# * Resolution 265: " . . . 'condemns' Israel for air attacks for Salt in Jordan".
An irrelevant waste of New York City's electricity.

Redruin wrote: # * Resolution 267: " . . . 'censures' Israel for administrative acts to change the status of Jerusalem".
In other words, they don't like it and now they're going to b!tch.

Redruin wrote: # *Resolution 270: " . . . 'condemns' Israel for air attacks on villages in southern Lebanon".
When was this resolution passed?

Redruin wrote: # * Resolution 271: " . . . 'condemns' Israel's failure to obey UN resolutions on Jerusalem".
Hmm...if they had actually read their own damn resolutions, they would see that they never actually prohibited Israel from doing what it did with regard to Jerusalem. :lol:

Redruin wrote: # * Resolution 279: " . . . 'demands' withdrawal of Israeli forces from Lebanon".
Which they did, until Hezbollah attacked last month.

Redruin wrote: # * Resolution 280: " . . . 'condemns' Israeli's attacks against Lebanon".
Irrelevant ex post facto resolution.

Redruin wrote: # * Resolution 285: " . . . 'demands' immediate Israeli withdrawal form Lebanon".
When?

Redruin wrote: # * Resolution 298: " . . . 'deplores' Israel's changing of the status of Jerusalem".
We don't like that you didn't immediately bow down to us when we declared your actions invalid, so we're going to pout! :roll:

Redruin wrote: # * Resolution 313: " . . . 'demands' that Israel stop attacks against Lebanon".
Yep and they weren't attacking anymore until Hezbollah started things back up.

Redruin wrote: # * Resolution 316: " . . . 'condemns' Israel for repeated attacks on Lebanon".
Hmm...just out of curiosity, how many resolutions do we have condemning the PLO and telling them to stop? :think:

Redruin wrote: # * Resolution 317: " . . . 'deplores' Israel's refusal to release Arabs abducted in Lebanon".
They don't like that Israel captured people in a war...big deal.

Redruin wrote: # * Resolution 332: " . . . 'condemns' Israel's repeated attacks against Lebanon".
Wait, didn't they just say the same thing in Resolution 316? Man, these guys really do like wasting your tax money. :lol:

Redruin wrote: # * Resolution 337: " . . . 'condemns' Israel for violating Lebanon's sovereignty".
While ignoring that Lebanon's sovereignty was being violated by a terrorist group in order to attack Israel. Not that it matters, since a "condemnation" carries absolutely no weight under international law.

Redruin wrote: # * Resolution 347: " . . . 'condemns' Israeli attacks on Lebanon".
%*

Redruin wrote: # * Resolution 425: " . . . 'calls' on Israel to withdraw its forces from Lebanon".
# * Resolution 427: " . . . 'calls' on Israel to complete its withdrawal from Lebanon.
Which they did...

Redruin wrote: # * Resolution 444: " . . . 'deplores' Israel's lack of cooperation with UN peacekeeping forces".
So?

Redruin wrote: # * Resolution 446: " . . . 'determines' that Israeli settlements are a 'serious
# obstruction' to peace and calls on Israel to abide by the Fourth Geneva Convention".
Now, what are they actually ordering Israel to do here?

Redruin wrote: # * Resolution 450: " . . . 'calls' on Israel to stop attacking Lebanon".
When?

Redruin wrote: # * Resolution 465: " . . . 'deplores' Israel's settlements and asks all member
# states not to assist Israel's settlements program".
Well, has anybody been helping them?

Redruin wrote: # * Resolution 467: " . . . 'strongly deplores' Israel's military intervention in Lebanon".
They can deplore anything they want.

Redruin wrote: # * Resolution 468: " . . . 'calls' on Israel to rescind illegal expulsions of
# two Palestinian mayors and a judge and to facilitate their return".
Why were these people expelled? If they were involved in terrorist activity, Israel has every right to expel them.

Redruin wrote: # * Resolution 469: " . . . 'strongly deplores' Israel's failure to observe the
# council's order not to deport Palestinians".
If Israel determines that certain people are dangerous to their national security, then they have the right to deport them.

Redruin wrote: # * Resolution 471: " . . . 'expresses deep concern' at Israel's failure to abide
# by the Fourth Geneva Convention".
What violations are you talking about?

Redruin wrote: # * Resolution 476: " . . . 'reiterates' that Israel's claim to Jerusalem are 'null and void'".
# * Resolution 478: " . . . 'censures (Israel) in the strongest terms' for its
# claim to Jerusalem in its 'Basic Law'".
They don't like Israeli law. So what? Israel doesn't have to change it just to conform to their views.

Redruin wrote: # * Resolution 484: " . . . 'declares it imperative' that Israel re-admit two deported
# Palestinian mayors".
Why were they deported?

Redruin wrote: # * Resolution 487: " . . . 'strongly condemns' Israel for its attack on Iraq's
# nuclear facility".
I guess they would have preferred that Saddam Hussein develop nukes. :lol:

Redruin wrote: # * Resolution 497: " . . . 'decides' that Israel's annexation of Syria's Golan
# Heights is 'null and void' and demands that Israel rescinds its decision forthwith".
The UN Charter seems to be pretty big on self-determination. Most of the Golan population is Jewish and loyal to Israel.

Redruin wrote: # * Resolution 498: " . . . 'calls' on Israel to withdraw from Lebanon".
# * Resolution 501: " . . . 'calls' on Israel to stop attacks against Lebanon and withdraw its troops".
# * Resolution 509: " . . . 'demands' that Israel withdraw its forces forthwith and unconditionally from Lebanon".
# * Resolution 515: " . . . 'demands' that Israel lift its siege of Beirut and
# allow food supplies to be brought in".
# * Resolution 517: " . . . 'censures' Israel for failing to obey UN resolutions
# and demands that Israel withdraw its forces from Lebanon".
# * Resolution 518: " . . . 'demands' that Israel cooperate fully with UN forces in Lebanon".
Israel has already complied with these resolutions when they withdrew in 2000.

Redruin wrote: # * Resolution 520: " . . . 'condemns' Israel's attack into West Beirut".
After the fact.

Redruin wrote: # * Resolution 573: " . . . 'condemns' Israel 'vigorously' for bombing Tunisia
# in attack on PLO headquarters.
Yeah, the UN would condemn Israel for attacking a terrorist group. :roll:

Redruin wrote: # * Resolution 587: " . . . 'takes note' of previous calls on Israel to withdraw
# its forces from Lebanon and urges all parties to withdraw".
And I take note of their asininity.

Redruin wrote: # * Resolution 592: " . . . 'strongly deplores' the killing of Palestinian students
# at Bir Zeit University by Israeli troops".
After the fact.

Redruin wrote: # * Resolution 605: " . . . 'strongly deplores' Israel's policies and practices
# denying the human rights of Palestinians.
:roll:

Redruin wrote: # * Resolution 607: " . . . 'calls' on Israel not to deport Palestinians and strongly
# requests it to abide by the Fourth Geneva Convention.
What were the reasons for these deportations?

Redruin wrote: # * Resolution 608: " . . . 'deeply regrets' that Israel has defied the United Nations and deported Palestinian civilians".
# * Resolution 636: " . . . 'deeply regrets' Israeli deportation of Palestinian civilians.
# * Resolution 641: " . . . 'deplores' Israel's continuing deportation of Palestinians.
Hey, Israel will do what is necessary for their security.

Redruin wrote: # * Resolution 672: " . . . 'condemns' Israel for violence against Palestinians
# at the Haram al-Sharif/Temple Mount.
Yeah, the place where Arabs throw rocks at people praying at the Wailing Wall.

Redruin wrote: # * Resolution 673: " . . . 'deplores' Israel's refusal to cooperate with the United
# Nations.
Tell me, if you were Israel, would you cooperate with an organization that passed a resolution equating Zionism to racism?

Redruin wrote: # * Resolution 681: " . . . 'deplores' Israel's resumption of the deportation of
# Palestinians.
# * Resolution 694: " . . . 'deplores' Israel's deportation of Palestinians and
# calls on it to ensure their safe and immediate return.
# * Resolution 726: " . . . 'strongly condemns' Israel's deportation of Palestinians.
# * Resolution 799: ". . . 'strongly condemns' Israel's deportation of 413 Palestinians
# and calls for their immediate return.
See above.

Redruin wrote: Picking and choosing which UN resolutions to heed is childish, either obey or don't.
No, it's not childish. It's doing what you have to do to preserve the security of your country.

Redruin wrote: It's quite clear what Israel is doing, and that is simply a course of noncooperation.
Israel has complied with many UN resolutions. Pertaining to this conflict, Israel complied with Resolution 1559, which called for a complete Israeli withdrawal from Lebanon and the disarmament of Hezbollah. Israel complied, even though it cost Israeli civilian lives at the hands of Hezbollah and Lebanon's non-compliance.

Redruin wrote: battleax86 wrote: Hey, in the Middle East, ruling out any type of action that you may need to survive is pretty stupid. The point in time might come where Israel would need to nuke another nation in order to stay in existence.
At least you are consistent in your argument, however morally bankrupt it is.
There is nothing immoral about using nuclear weapons in order to save your nation.

Redruin wrote: battleax86 wrote: So you're telling me that Israel has to wait until the militants decide to discard their human shields before it can be considered self-defense? Thank God we don't have this kind of mentality running our national security...
Ah, but we do.
No, we really don't. Civilians have died in Iraq and Afghanistan. Their deaths were accidental, we did not intentionally target them, but we are willing to accept collateral damage in order to eliminate threats to our security.

Redruin wrote: Like I have said before, you will NEVER see the police firing into a crowd to kill an armed criminal.
And like I said before, if that criminal is shooting at them, they will warn the crowd to get down and then return fire as necessary to protect their lives. What they WON'T do is risk their own life to avoid hitting a human shield.

Redruin wrote: You will never see the "good guys" in a movie blasting away into a crowd of innocents to kill the bad guys.
No, in the movies, you will see the hero chase the villian in to a nice, isolated corner, where they can duke it out one-on-one. It would be nice if such things happened in real life, but that's by far the exception, not the rule...but it does sound like a good idea. Maybe we can get Hollywood to come in and direct the war... :think: ...on second thought, that's probably not a good idea because Hezbollah might win.

Redruin wrote: Israel of course, does things its own way.
Hey, when your neighbors have been trying to annihilate you for the fact that you exist...

Redruin wrote: But in general, "this kind of mentality" is prevalent in western culture.
Recently, yes. Mostly in France, Germany, and, unfortunately, a good number of people in this country who have forgotten what it takes to win a war.

Redruin wrote: battleax86 wrote: I see you've bought Hezbollah's lies hook-line-and-sinker. At Qana, they claimed that there were no militants present there...until Israel came out with footage showing rockets being fired right next to the building that was hit.
No, the video you refer to shows footage of rockets coming from a similar building that was hit, NOT the building that was hit in Qana. The news media were quite clear in making that distinction. Your bias has blinded you to the truth.
No, I was under the impression that this was the building that was hit. Do you have a link to show that it wasn't the building? At any rate, your bias has blinded you to the fact that Hezbollah was operating in Qana and using the civilians there as human shields from which to hide behind as they attacked Israeli civilians. It's entirely likely that Hezbollah was firing next to that building as well or had militants who ran inside the building when they heard the Israeli jets overhead.

Redruin wrote: Are you basically telling me you would rather have Israel raze Lebanon to the ground from the air, with its "precision" munitions killing numerous civilians and few militants at no cost to Israeli soldiers' lives?
1) They're not razing Lebanon to the ground. They are only bombing in places where Hezbollah has set up shop. They haven't even razed Beirut to the ground, only hitting a few buildings, mostly in the southern neighborhoods.
2) A full-scale ground invasion probably WOULD raze Lebanon to the ground in the same manner as Bint Jbeil.
3) Yes, if I were doing Israel's war planning, my first responsibility would be to Israelis, not Lebanese. They should go with whichever option best preserves Israeli lives.

Redruin wrote: Less civilians will be killed, not more in your "crossfire," because bullets simply do not kill as many people as precision weapons capable of completely levelling 10-story civilian buildings.
Are you that ignorant of ground warfare? Do you seriously think that bullets are the only things that fly in ground battles? Do you think that Israel will go in only with rifle-wielding infantrymen? No tanks, no RPGs (on either side), no close air support, no artillery...just a bunch of guys with M-16s? :rotf:

If your story about Bint Jbeil is true, then Israel has caused far more damage to towns where it has gone in and tried to completely remove Hezbollah than towns where it has struck specific targets that attackers were operating from. A ground invasion all over Lebanon could easily turn into Bint Jbeil times however many towns in Lebanon that Hezbollah has a combatant presence in. The destruction would be far more widespread, leading to far higher civilian casualties than Israel's current air campaign.

Redruin wrote: Send in ground forces to root out Hezbollah fighters and decrease the collateral damage in Lebanon at the cost of more Israeli soldiers lives.
So you're seriously expecting the Israelis to take a higher cost in Israeli lives to prevent the loss of Lebanese lives? This "logic" of yours just keeps getting better and better. :lol:

Redruin wrote: Ground forces are the best possibly means to distinguish Hezbollah from civilians.
Not really. In the air, a fighter jet sees militants launching rockets, then running into a building, so the pilot fires at the rocket launcher and at the building. On the ground, soldiers see militants shooting at them, then running into a building, so they put a few RPGs into the building. Either way, that building goes down without the Israelis having any way of knowing whether or not there are civilians inside. All they know is that enemy fighters are now using that building to attack Israelis and they must be stopped.

Redruin wrote: If you want to kill Hezbollah, you must send in ground forces.
Israel is already killing Hezbollah from the air, but I do agree that they must send in ground forces in order to root them out. However, the idea that doing so will cause less civilians casualties is quite frankly absurd, and even if a fewer amount of Lebanese civilians would die, it does not outweigh the higher loss of Israeli lives that would result from it.

Redruin wrote: And yes, the world would accept more dead Israeli soldiers if less Lebanese civilians die. Ideally only Hezbollah would die, but things are never perfect.
Did you seriously read what you just wrote? The world will accept more dead Israeli soldiers if less Lebanese civilians died? Yeah, no s**t, the world would probably accept the Israelis being driven into the sea, but do you think that the Israeli public will accept more dead Israeli soldiers? Do you think that the Israeli government will sacrifice more of its people on the altar of world opinion just so a few less civilians from a country that it complicit, at best, with a terrorist organization will die? If you were the mother, father, brother, sister, or child of an Israeli soldiers, would you want your government to send your loved one to his death in order to save a few more people who, if Hez