Political Crossfire Forums

agentkgb · Joined: 23 Aug 2006 Posts: 2241 Location: US

superskippy wrote: Ok, then if you dont mind me asking what was your point?
Bombing airports hurt more than just Hezbollah. It will make it harder to get aid in and Lebanon will obviously have to rebuild it. If it were an airport used exclusively by Hezbollah that'd be different but it's clearly not the situation. When you say you want to destroy their (what I interpreted to mean Hezbollah) capacity to land aircraft for the duration of the conflict, it sounds like you think that bombing airports would only prevent certain people from landing planes for a set period of time (I know you don't think that, I'm just explaining my point).

lilwolf · Joined: 15 Jun 2006 Posts: 12031 Location: idaho

In war the chance is not worth waiting on to see if the bad guys ...(hezbollah ) are still going to be recieving their weapons and supplies from Iran and Syria. So rather than gamble you take it out...In this case a good strategic move and since the hezbollah hide with civilians and all...the civilians must also pay the price there...sad but true

agentkgb · Joined: 23 Aug 2006 Posts: 2241 Location: US

lilwolf wrote: In this case a good strategic move and since the hezbollah hide with civilians and all...the civilians must also pay the price there...sad but true
How many people would say that if they were the civilians and not just reading newspaper articles about it?

superskippy · Joined: 14 Jul 2005 Posts: 7752 Location: Petah Tikva

Quote: Bombing airports hurt more than just Hezbollah. It will make it harder to get aid in and Lebanon will obviously have to rebuild it.

Of course just like the Allies blowing up bridges and roads hurt the civilians in France not just the Germans or destroying ports. Wars hurt civilians to, it's an unavoidable part of war.

The airport was not searously damaged and flights have been reguarly going out of the airport for weeks, it's not like it's immensly difficult to repair the airport or that it drastically damaged the humanitarian situation. Regular flights began several weeks ago on September 7th and flights have been continuing, and there is even talk of expansion.

I mean come on it's not like we leveled the terminals and all the facilities.

Venom · Joined: 06 Sep 2006 Posts: 807

Quote: Bombing airports hurt more than just Hezbollah
Ok so Israel would be powerless to stopping the flow of support for Hezbollah? I think that's hardly realistic.

Quote: It will make it harder to get aid in and Lebanon will obviously have to rebuild it
Both are true, however Israel was in a war they were not worried about Lebanon rebuilding an airport, or that specific avenue of aid being cut off.
Apparently the Lebanese government was not that worried about rebuilding the airport and other infrastructure as they allowed Hezbollah to operate in their country without even attempting to stop them. In fact the Lebanese government has made comments of support for Hezbollah.

Quote: If it were an airport used exclusively by Hezbollah that'd be different but it's clearly not the situation.
Other than that does not exist because that would make them a more conventional force, where as Hezbollah relies no being able to hide and operate in small numbers among a civilian population.

Quote: When you say you want to destroy their (what I interpreted to mean Hezbollah) capacity to land aircraft for the duration of the conflict, it sounds like you think that bombing airports would only prevent certain people from landing planes for a set period of time (I know you don't think that, I'm just explaining my point).
As you've stated I believe we all realize that bombing the airport will affect more than Hezbollah, however would other choice did Israel have? Allow the shipments of weapons and fighters? That doesn't make sense to do. Should they occupy the area in order to allow people after being searched to enter and leave the airport? While that would save the airport from a bombing, however it would cause a lot of fighting between Hezbollah and the IDF there as well (which would cause more civilian causalties) and also there would be an outcry over the "injust" occupation of the airfields.

Bombing them with minimal colateral damage appears to me atleast to be the best choice when fighting an enemy embedded in a civilian population.

Quote: How many people would say that if they were the civilians and not just reading newspaper articles about it?
If there was a terrorist organization that was launching attacks on Canada from the United States, after the US had been told to disarm this group and refused to do anything I would not hold it against Canada from bombing the MI airport where the source of this groups munitions was coming from.
Also it's not a valid excuse that Lebanon didn't have the military power to remove Hezbollah as they didn't even attempt this nor did they request help.

agentkgb · Joined: 23 Aug 2006 Posts: 2241 Location: US

Venom wrote: Quote: It will make it harder to get aid in and Lebanon will obviously have to rebuild it
Both are true, however Israel was in a war they were not worried about Lebanon rebuilding an airport, or that specific avenue of aid being cut off.
Israel wasn't worried about it? I won't argue with that.

Venom wrote: Apparently the Lebanese government was not that worried about rebuilding the airport and other infrastructure as they allowed Hezbollah to operate in their country without even attempting to stop them. In fact the Lebanese government has made comments of support for Hezbollah.
What about the Lebanese people? They're the ones who suffered.

Venom wrote: Quote: When you say you want to destroy their (what I interpreted to mean Hezbollah) capacity to land aircraft for the duration of the conflict, it sounds like you think that bombing airports would only prevent certain people from landing planes for a set period of time (I know you don't think that, I'm just explaining my point).
As you've stated I believe we all realize that bombing the airport will affect more than Hezbollah, however would other choice did Israel have? Allow the shipments of weapons and fighters? That doesn't make sense to do. Should they occupy the area in order to allow people after being searched to enter and leave the airport? While that would save the airport from a bombing, however it would cause a lot of fighting between Hezbollah and the IDF there as well (which would cause more civilian causalties) and also there would be an outcry over the "injust" occupation of the airfields.
Another choice might be "not bombing it."
And as long as you're talking about what Israel worries about, I would suggest that "injust" occupation is not something the Israeli government objects to.

Venom wrote: Bombing them with minimal colateral damage appears to me atleast to be the best choice when fighting an enemy embedded in a civilian population.
"Minimum"?
Venom wrote: Quote: How many people would say that if they were the civilians and not just reading newspaper articles about it?
If there was a terrorist organization that was launching attacks on Canada from the United States, after the US had been told to disarm this group and refused to do anything I would not hold it against Canada from bombing the MI airport where the source of this groups munitions was coming from.
And if they used cluster bombs? Phosphorus? If they stopped aid?

slitedeviance · Joined: 02 Sep 2006 Posts: 1507

superskippy wrote: Of course just like the Allies blowing up bridges and roads hurt the civilians in France not just the Germans or destroying ports. Wars hurt civilians to, it's an unavoidable part of war.

Getting back to the OP...

I agree that civilian casualties and damage is a consequence of war, but the OP specifically stated that Hizbollahs breaching of the Geneva Conventions was another reason for the IDF becoming involved in the conflict.

Now, I am not debating whether Israel was right or wrong for hitting the targets they did, we've had that debate. What I'm saying is that it is useless to point out Hizbollahs abuse of a convention they are not signed up to, whilst failing to recognise that the IDF have breached these conventions.

The Newb · Joined: 06 Oct 2006 Posts: 2665

slitedeviance wrote: superskippy wrote: Of course just like the Allies blowing up bridges and roads hurt the civilians in France not just the Germans or destroying ports. Wars hurt civilians to, it's an unavoidable part of war.

Getting back to the OP...

I agree that civilian casualties and damage is a consequence of war, but the OP specifically stated that Hizbollahs breaching of the Geneva Conventions was another reason for the IDF becoming involved in the conflict.

Now, I am not debating whether Israel was right or wrong for hitting the targets they did, we've had that debate. What I'm saying is that it is useless to point out Hizbollahs abuse of a convention they are not signed up to, whilst failing to recognise that the IDF have breached these conventions.

show how isreal has breached these conventions? also even if hezbollah is not there are lots of muslim countries who are signed, which one tries to stop them?

Venom · Joined: 06 Sep 2006 Posts: 807

Quote: Israel wasn't worried about it? I won't argue with that.
Why would Isreal worry about a Lebanese airport they blew up :lol:

Quote: What about the Lebanese people? They're the ones who suffered.
Guess who voted the Lebanese government officials into power? The Lebanese people.... maybe they should ask their government why the allowed a group whom wants to kill Isreal to use their airport.

Quote: Another choice might be "not bombing it."
Sure if you don't mind watching as more Hezbollah weapons/fighters roll in... this move makes ZERO sense in a military strategy.

Quote: And as long as you're talking about what Israel worries about, I would suggest that "injust" occupation is not something the Israeli government objects to.
Why would they object to the right to self defense?

Quote: "Minimum"?
What did you expect them to wipe down their targets even further or rather instead just sign up enough bullets so its a 1 bullet to 1 Hezbollah ratio?

Quote: And if they used cluster bombs? Phosphorus? If they stopped aid?
I'd be like... hey they are a modern military just like dozens of others across the globe... using a actual strategy to cut off their enemies supplies.

slitedeviance · Joined: 02 Sep 2006 Posts: 1507

The Newb wrote:
show how isreal has breached these conventions?

Already have done. Like I say the articles you pointed out do not contravene one another. Also, are you denying the IDFs use of human shields in Palestine? We've seen the stories of the IDF forcing Palestinians to enter properties containing suspected militants at gunpoint, in case there is any weapons fire towards the doorway, which amounts to the use of Human Shields.

Quote: also even if hezbollah is not there are lots of muslim countries who are signed, which one tries to stop them?

Are you seriously arguing it becomes a nations responsibility to take action against militant groups in other countries by virtue of religous background? Why then did the US allow IRA agents to freely fundraise across the US in the 70's? When did the US send troops to Ireland to try and stop the IRA?

It's ridiculous to expect other nations to try and stop Hizbollah simply because they share religous common ground. The only country responsible for Hizbollah is Lebanon, which has never been in a position to root out and disarm Hizbollah. After around 1 year of freedom from Syrian occupation, following years of Israeli occupation, they simply did not have the capacity for this.

unclesamual · Joined: 25 Oct 2006 Posts: 43

Quote: Feigning of civilian or non-combatant status is perfidy and prohibited by the Geneva Conventions. (Protocol I. Art. 37, Sec. 1)

Quote: A Shadow War is also Fought against Hamas by Israeli Undercover Troops in Gaza and West Bank
http://www.debka.com/article.php?aid=1181

Quote: Israeli air raids on 22 July hit several transmission stations used by Lebanese television and radio stations. These included Future TV, New TV, and the Lebanese Broadcasting Corporation (LBCI), none of which had any links with Hizbullah, as well as the Hizbullah-backed al-Manar TV. They were also used by mobile phone networks. One LBCI official, Suleyman Shidiac, Chief Engineer at the relay station at Fatqa in the Kesrwan mountains north-east of Beirut, was killed and two others were injured.
http://web.amnesty.org/library/index/ENGMDE180072006

Targeting broadcast stations because hezbollah members watch TV? or what?

Quote: The production facilities of companies in key industrial sectors, including Liban Lait in Baalbak, the country’s largest dairy farm; the Maliban glass works in Ta’neil, Zahleh; the Sada al-Din plastics factory in Tyre; the Fine tissue paper mill in Kafr Jara, Sidon; the Tabara pharmaceutical plant in Showeifat, Aaliyah; the Transmed shipping warehouse on the outskirts of Beirut; and the Snow lumbermill in Showeifat, Aaliyah, have been disabled or completely destroyed.
http://web.amnesty.org/library/index/ENGMDE180072006

Well, hezbollah members live in houses so bomb a lumbermill that makes the wood. They use tissue paper to wipe their noses, which is unneeded aid and comfort to them. Bomb the tissue paper plant. They drink milk, surely, so let's destroy the local dairy farm...strong bones are a weapon.

What Israel uses to justify bombing targets are "explanations" and not "reasons". If they were reasons, they would be reasonable. The justification is getting pretty ridiculous. What next? Bombing apartment buildings full of civlians because they are "concrete defensive barriers". Bombing baby strollers because they could possibly be used to smuggle something. They bombed the only powerplant in gaza because light could aid in the smuggling out of the captured soldier supposedly (or so the israeli ambassador to the UK said). Why not baby strollers?

slitedeviance · Joined: 02 Sep 2006 Posts: 1507

Also

Civilians in an occupied territory must not be subject to collective penalties or any other measures of intimidation or terrorism. (Convention IV, Art. 33)

Quote:
A little after 5am fighter plans flew low over Gaza, causing intentional sonic booms which reportedly shattered windows. Israeli Prime Minister Ehud Olmert said their goal was "not to mete out punishment but rather to apply pressure so that the abducted soldier will be freed. We want to create a new equation -- freeing the abducted soldier in return for lessening the pressure on the Palestinians." Such deliberate collective punishment of a civilian population is also a violation of the Geneva Conventions and a war crime.

http://www.unitedforpeace.org/article.php?id=3313

The Newb · Joined: 06 Oct 2006 Posts: 2665

Quote: Islam expressly prohibits the killing of non-combatants, civilian women, children and the elderly, during war. The Quran states "make (them) prisoners, and afterwards either set them free as a favor or let them ransom (themselves) until the war terminates" (Qur'an 47:4).

Quote: Quotes from the Qur'an and Hadith

From the Qur'an:

Fight in the cause of Allah those who fight you, but do not transgress limits; for Allah loveth not transgressors. - 2:190

O ye who believe! when ye meet the Unbelievers in war, never turn your backs to them. 8:15

And fight them on until there is no more tumult or oppression, and there prevails justice and faith in Allah altogether and everywhere. But if they cease, verily Allah doth see all that they do. 8:39

But if the enemy incline towards peace, then you (also) incline towards peace, and trust in Allah: for He is One that hears and knows (all things). 8:61

... We ordained for the Children of Israel that if any one slew a person - unless it be for murder or for spreading mischief in the land - it would be as if he slew the whole people: and if any one saved a life, it would be as if he saved the life of the whole people. - 5:32

So when the sacred months (of cease-fire) have passed away, then slay the idolaters wherever you find them, and take them captives and besiege them and lie in wait for them in every ambush, then if they repent and keep up prayer and pay the poor-rate, leave their way free to them; surely Allah is Forgiving, Merciful. And if one of the idolaters seek protection from you, grant him protection till he hears the word of Allah, then make him attain his place of safety; this is because they are a people who do not know. 9:5 (The idolaters referred to in this verse is a group among the idolaters in Mecca who had made an agreement of mutual protection with Muslims and then later conspired against Muslims, thus breaking the agreement.)

From the hadith:

"You are neither hard-hearted nor of fierce character, nor one who shouts in the markets. You do not return evil for evil, but excuse and forgive." - Bukhari, Volume 6, Book 60, Number 362

"Do not kill any old person, any child or any woman" (Abu Dawud). "Do not kill the monks in monasteries" or "Do not kill the people who are sitting in places of worship" (Musnad of Ibn Hanbal).

maybe you can help me understand how the radical islamists can cause terror justified by religion?

Quote: A little after 5am fighter plans flew low over Gaza, causing intentional sonic booms which reportedly shattered windows. Israeli Prime Minister Ehud Olmert said their goal was "not to mete out punishment but rather to apply pressure so that the abducted soldier will be freed. We want to create a new equation -- freeing the abducted soldier in return for lessening the pressure on the Palestinians." Such deliberate collective punishment of a civilian population is also a violation of the Geneva Conventions and a war crime.

you contradict your self in your quote i highlighted it for you :wink:

Nico · Joined: 03 Nov 2004 Posts: 10201

The Newb wrote: some quotes to ponder:

Quote: civilian shields

Civilians must not be used to protect military installations or operations against attacks. (Protocol I, Art. 51, Sec. 7)

Quote: civilian immunity

Quote: Civilians have special protections under Convention IV, Protocol I, and Protocol II.

They must be treated humanely, without discrimination based on race, color, religion or faith, sex, birth or wealth, or other similar criteria.

Violence to life and person including murder, mutilation, cruel treatment and torture are prohibited.

The taking of hostages is prohibited.

Outrages upon personal dignity, including humiliating and degrading treatment are prohibited.

Sentences and executions without a judgment from a regularly constituted court and without benefit of the standard judicial guarantees are prohibited. (Convention IV, Art. 3)
Quote:

Quote: civilian status

Feigning of civilian or non-combatant status is perfidy and prohibited by the Geneva Conventions. (Protocol I. Art. 37, Sec. 1)

Quote: child soldiers

Children under 15 must not participate in hostilities and must not be recruited into the armed forces. (Protocol I, Art. 77, Sec. 2; Protocol II, Art. 4, Sec. 3c)

Quote: terrorism

Civilians who commit an offense against an occupying power which does not include an attempt against the lives of members of the occupying force or administration, pose a grave collective danger, or seriously damage property or installations of the occupying power may only be punished by internment or imprisonment. (Convention IV, Art. 68)

Civilians in an occupied territory must not be subject to collective penalties or any other measures of intimidation or terrorism. (Convention IV, Art. 33)

Quote: perfidy

It is prohibited to pretend to surrender, without an actual intention to do so. (Protocol I, Art. 37, Sec. 1)

Pretending to seek a cease-fire with the intent to betray the confidence in order to kill, injure or capture an adversary is perfidy and is prohibited. (Protocol I, Art. 37, Sec. 1a)

Quote: hostage taking

The taking of hostages is forbidden, both in internal conflicts (Convention I, Art. 3, Sec. 1B and Protocol II, Art. 4, Sec. 2c) and international conflicts. (Convention IV, Art. 34 and Protocol I, Art. 75, Sec. 2c)

In international conflicts, the taking of hostages is considered a grave breach of the Geneva Conventions. (Convention IV, Art. 147)

Quote: guerrillas

Guerrillas who follow the rules spelled out in the Geneva Conventions are considered to have combatant status and have some of the same rights as regular members of the armed forces.

In international conflicts, guerrillas must distinguish themselves from the civilian population if they are preparing or engaged in an attack. At a minimum, guerrillas must carry their arms openly. (Protocol I, Art. 44, Sec. 3)
Under the earlier Geneva Conventions, which are more widely recognized, a guerrilla army must have a well-defined chain of command, be clearly distinguishable from the civilian population, carry arms openly and observe the laws of war. (Convention III, Art. 4, Sec. 2)

In the case of an internal conflict, combatants must show humane treatment to civilians and enemies who have been wounded or who have surrendered. Murder, hostage-taking and extrajudicial executions are all forbidden. (Convention I, Art. 3)

these are a few and many more violations so how can you expect isreal not to defend themselves again? :think:

Is hezbollah a signatory to the Geneva conventions? No.

The reason the US and Israel ignore the third article of the Geneva conventions is because they are not signatory to that either, otherwise they would have been in breach many times over. You can't have it both ways.

The Newb · Joined: 06 Oct 2006 Posts: 2665

lebenon did as well as other middle eastern countries

Bahrain, Egypt, Iran, Iraq, Kuwait, Libyan Arab Jamahiriya, Oman,
Pakistan

lebenon has refused to do anything about terrorism, and iran helps hamas, and hezbollah

http://www.icao.int/icao/en/leb/Genev.pdf

ALi* · Joined: 20 Sep 2006 Posts: 427 Location: Beirut

off topic but will help the n00b undesrtand nico's point

israel says it hasnt sign any conventions to limit nuclear weapons experiments and developements therefore she sees it normal to develop those weapons and noone is aloud to discuss with her.

hezbollah is not a country ---->therefore and since it hasnt signed any internationnal conventions u cant say anything abt its actions.

The Newb · Joined: 06 Oct 2006 Posts: 2665

ALi* wrote: off topic but will help the n00b undesrtand nico's point

israel says it hasnt sign any conventions to limit nuclear weapons experiments and developements therefore she sees it normal to develop those weapons and noone is aloud to discuss with her.

hezbollah is not a country ---->therefore and since it hasnt signed any internationnal conventions u cant say anything abt its actions.

Quote: hezbollah is not a country ---->therefore and since it hasnt signed any internationnal conventions u cant say anything abt its actions

correct, but the "countries" supporting hezbollah have signed, and we can say something about them, and if they do not do something about it then isreal is well within their rights to do it for them

ALi* · Joined: 20 Sep 2006 Posts: 427 Location: Beirut

mmmm... i seriously dont think ull do anything abt it soon.
the worlds attention is diversed to N.Korea now...

agentkgb · Joined: 23 Aug 2006 Posts: 2241 Location: US

Venom wrote: Quote: Israel wasn't worried about it? I won't argue with that.
Why would Isreal worry about a Lebanese airport they blew up :lol:
Yeah you're hilarious.
Anyway this is way off topic my bad.

superskippy · Joined: 14 Jul 2005 Posts: 7752 Location: Petah Tikva

Quote: hezbollah is not a country ---->therefore and since it hasnt signed any internationnal conventions u cant say anything abt its actions.

If they arent a country, arent a seperatist group, then they have no status as militants or soldiers and are only armed criminals. Thus they have already broken a law. They cannot be both ways, they are either a para-military force under the arm of the government, or they are a group in rebellion, or they are simply criminals.