NationStates Jolt Archive

Lol so rather showing us any quotes to back up your claim you slam a hospital director and a relief coordinator.

NiceWhen in doubt, nitpick the opposition into a position that makes them seem totally unreliable.

Lol so rather showing us any quotes to back up your claim you slam a hospital director and a relief coordinator.

Nice
You're the one who has to prove that they are credible, without bias, and have done a detailed job.

And the hospital director works for whom? And he is neutral, and has no sympathies either way?
Ah, he's lying because he must work for Hezb'allah.... because he is in charge of a hospital. And no one can progress in Lebanon if they aren't members of a terrorist organisation right?

He must be lying because his answers don't fit your opinions on the matter.

But you know better, right? Just like when the US said there are WMD's in Iraq- the world said "According to our searches- no.". But you knew better again, right?


And the Norwegian person has verified the accounts given to him, and has counted the bodies himself (or his personal staff has counted them, and performed autopsies to determine the cause of death)?

Again, can't trust anyone over there. They're Arabs! And all Arabs plot against you! :rolleyes:

Gimme a break DK.

You're the one who has to prove that they are credible, without bias, and have done a detailed job.
Lol even POTENTIALY unreliable sources top no sources

Lol even POTENTIALY unreliable sources top no sources
Logic tops unreliable sources.

It's not possible, for instance, that zero Hezbollah fighters have been killed or wounded, or that none of them have shown up at the hospital (unless they're blown to bits somewhere).

PARIS, July 24 (Reuters) - Lebanon's president accused Israel on Monday of using phosphorous bombs in its 13-day offensive and urged the United Nations to demand an immediate ceasefire.

"According to the Geneva Convention, when they use phosphorous bombs.. , is that allowed against civilians and children?" President Emile Lahoud asked on France's RFI radio.

An Israeli military spokeswoman said arms used in Lebanon did not contravene international norms.

sources: Reuters.com / OcceanNEWS©2006

my2cents: Geneva?.. Geneva is nowhere to be seen.. is she?
she likes to hide.. and show up briefly.. whenever convinient..

I have mystical powers, I see into the future:

First, alot of yanks will go: "No way! There is no proof". Then when it's shown on Fox they'll go: "Ah, but it was ok because of terrorist terrorist 9/11 terror terror Americuh".

You're the one who has to prove that they are credible, without bias, and have done a detailed job.

Those are grave charges. He might have already managed to destroy the evidence of his credibility and unbiasedness. :)

Logic tops unreliable sources.

It's not possible, for instance, that zero Hezbollah fighters have been killed or wounded, or that none of them have shown up at the hospital (unless they're blown to bits somewhere).

Or! Maybe! Just MAYBE, they have their own facilities.... you know..... like most militaries do! :eek: :eek:

You're the one who has to prove that they are credible, without bias, and have done a detailed job.Actually, no. You're turning around your claim that the doctor is a diehard Hezbullah collaborator into the an opposing claim that he isn't. The burden of proof is on you.

Logic tops unreliable sources.

It's not possible, for instance, that zero Hezbollah fighters have been killed or wounded, or that none of them have shown up at the hospital (unless they're blown to bits somewhere).

Why not?

Or! Maybe! Just MAYBE, they have their own facilities.... you know..... like most militaries do! :eek: :eek:

They don't.

That's why they set up hospitals and clinics so that they are in place in their area beforehand.

They don't have separate medical units like a regular army does.

Logic tops unreliable sources.

It's not possible, for instance, that zero Hezbollah fighters have been killed or wounded, or that none of them have shown up at the hospital (unless they're blown to bits somewhere).
And how do you come about the claim that there are 0 Hezbollah forces hurt or wounded?

I believe that’s what was asked a few posts ago … for some source of said information

Logic tops unreliable sources.

It's not possible, for instance, that zero Hezbollah fighters have been killed or wounded, or that none of them have shown up at the hospital (unless they're blown to bits somewhere).Now apply that statement to street gangs after a shootout and look how ridiculous it sounds. It's quite possible that none of them will show up at a hospital.

They don't.

Link/Source?

In laymans terms:

Prove it. :)

And how do you come about the claim that there are 0 Hezbollah forces hurt or wounded?

I believe that’s what was asked a few posts ago … for some source of said information

That's what Hezbollah and most Lebanese sources claim from the start. Supposedly neutral parties say it's impossible to tell how many Hezbollah, because all the dead look like civilians.

Of course, since Hezbollah's uniform is civilian clothing, once one dies or is wounded, you pick up his weapon and voila - a dead civilian.

Would you like to see photos of Hezbollah children under arms?

What would such a dead child look like, after you pick up their weapon?

If you aren't at the scene at the exact time of death, it's effectively impossible to say that Israel is hitting anything but civilians (if you're being impartial, and waiting for proof that someone is indeed a militant), because Hezbollah isn't going to drop by and say, "oh yeah, Abdul was one of ours..."

If you aren't at the scene at the exact time of death, it's effectively impossible to say that Israel is hitting anything but civilians (if you're being impartial, and waiting for proof that someone is indeed a militant), because Hezbollah isn't going to drop by and say, "oh yeah, Abdul was one of ours..."The same goes for proving that they were militants...

Of course, since Hezbollah's uniform is civilian clothing, once one dies or is wounded, you pick up his weapon and voila - a dead civilian.

Sure looks like civilian clothing alright:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/olmedia/720000/images/_721738_hezbollah150.jpg
http://www.wanadoo.jo/medias/img/SGE.GIE95.161104101234.photo00.quicklook.default-158x245.jpg

http://www.veteranen.info/~cedarsouthlebanon/hizbullah/Hezbollah.jpg

That's what Hezbollah and most Lebanese sources claim from the start. Supposedly neutral parties say it's impossible to tell how many Hezbollah, because all the dead look like civilians.

Of course, since Hezbollah's uniform is civilian clothing, once one dies or is wounded, you pick up his weapon and voila - a dead civilian.

Would you like to see photos of Hezbollah children under arms?

What would such a dead child look like, after you pick up their weapon?

If you aren't at the scene at the exact time of death, it's effectively impossible to say that Israel is hitting anything but civilians (if you're being impartial, and waiting for proof that someone is indeed a militant), because Hezbollah isn't going to drop by and say, "oh yeah, Abdul was one of ours..."

Here's a crazy idea: Know who you're killing BEFORE you kill them. :p

The same goes for proving that they were militants...

I think a BBC reporter recently got it right when he said that you can't say "civilian casualties" anymore than you could say "Hezbollah casualties".

Since Hezbollah is so tightly intermingled in the mix there, I cannot fault Israel for any civilian casualties.

If all of the people who were crying a year ago to "stand by the Geneva Conventions", they don't really have much choice now but to say it's Hezbollah that is responsible for the carnage among any civilians - unless suddenly the Conventions are no longer good enough for them - and one might wonder why.

And I don't buy the "well, if Hezbollah fought traditionally, they would get killed". Sorry, but those are the rules. That's like saying if I got in a boxing ring with a heavyweight, I would get killed unless I violated the rules and used a pistol.

Maybe - maybe - Hezbollah should NEVER have gotten into the ring.

Sure looks like civilian clothing alright:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/olmedia/720000/images/_721738_hezbollah150.jpg
http://www.wanadoo.jo/medias/img/SGE.GIE95.161104101234.photo00.quicklook.default-158x245.jpg

http://www.veteranen.info/~cedarsouthlebanon/hizbullah/Hezbollah.jpg


Most of them are not in uniform.

Additionally, you may also note that their Katushya launchers are now single rockets fired by remote control so the firer has some chance of escaping before the IDF kills them. Some are even fired on a timer.

The launcher in your pic is obviously an old pic.

And maybe I'm right and Hezbollah is to blame for everything.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20060724/ap_on_re_mi_ea/mideast_fighting_aid

Most of them are not in uniform.
Prove it.


Additionally, you may also note that their Katushya launchers are now single rockets fired by remote control so the firer has some chance of escaping before the IDF kills them. Some are even fired on a timer.

The launcher in your pic is obviously an old pic.
Top two are mortars I believe, as for the third- the photo is from 2004, so they might have updated some ordinance.

From a rather disturbing website too I may add.

Google Image search 'Hezbollah'. Lots of kids in uniforms too, but thats where I got the images from at any rate.

Prove it.

From your Norwegian pal:

"Consistently, from the Hezbollah heartland, my message was that Hezbollah must stop this cowardly blending ... among women and children," he said. "I heard they were proud because they lost very few fighters and that it was the civilians bearing the brunt of this. I don't think anyone should be proud of having many more children and women dead than armed men."

And maybe I'm right and Hezbollah is to blame for everything.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20060724/ap_on_re_mi_ea/mideast_fighting_aid

You just said he's not reliable and now your using him as a source!?


And the Norwegian person has verified the accounts given to him, and has counted the bodies himself (or his personal staff has counted them, and performed autopsies to determine the cause of death)?

From your Norwegian pal:

I KNOW THAT! I LINKED IT ORIGINALLY TO PROVE MY POINT!

(This is unbelievable...I'm stunned)

You just said he's not reliable and now your using him as a source!?
You're the one who said he was reliable.

Are you saying that you don't accept him now?

Better for me to use your source to prove you wrong - unless you want to disqualify all your sources.

You're the one who said he was reliable.

Are you saying that you don't accept him now?

Better for me to use your source to prove you wrong - unless you want to disqualify all your sources.
Ahem.

Firstly, I used him as a source because I feel he is reliable. You were the one dead set against him because his views from on-the-ground didn't suit your opinions.

Second, that quote* does not prove that Hezb'allah only use civilian clothes as you claimed earlier ---> Of course, since Hezbollah's uniform is civilian clothing... It proves that they operate amongst civilian areas. I never said they didn't. I never alluded to otherwise. I know they operate in civilian areas, but that does not mean they wear civilian clothing.

Third, are you saying you do accept his findings that 1/3 of the casualties are children, now that he is deemed 'reliable' in your eyes?


*Consistently, from the Hezbollah heartland, my message was that Hezbollah must stop this cowardly blending ... among women and children," he said. "I heard they were proud because they lost very few fighters and that it was the civilians bearing the brunt of this. I don't think anyone should be proud of having many more children and women dead than armed men."

I have mystical powers, I see into the future:

First, alot of (neocons) will go: "No way! There is no proof". Then when it's shown on Fox they'll go: "Ah, but it was ok because of terrorist terrorist 9/11 terror terror Americuh".NationStates the Musical.. 134th week showing..

And still sold out.:D

Third, are you saying you do accept his findings that 1/3 of the casualties are children, now that he is deemed 'reliable' in your eyes?


It's currently their way to wear civilian clothing, and to stand in extremely close proximity to civilians.

It's entirely possible that a lot of children are dead - whether that's 1/3, and whether they were all non-combatants is another question entirely.

As for who is responsible for the civilian deaths? Hezbollah.

And your source appears to agree with me.

The world has changed since then. It has become more globalized; and we have reached a point in history where world peace is possible . . .


Sort of reminds me of the following:

Nobody, however, who has paid any attention to the features of our present era, will doubt for a moment that we are living at a period of most wonderful transition which tends rapidly to the accomplishment of that great end to which indeed, all history points -- the realization of the unity of mankind. Not a unity which breaks down the limits and levels the peculiar characteristics of the different nations of the earth, but rather a unity, the result and product of those very national varieties and antagonistic qualities. The distances which separated the different nations and parts of the globe are gradually vanishing before the achievements of modern invention, and we can traverse them with incredible ease; the languages of all nations are known and their acquirements placed within the reach of everybody; thought is communicated with the rapidity and even by the power of lightning.
--Prince Albert, at the Exhibition of 1851.

I'm not betting on world peace anytime soon.

It's currently their way to wear civilian clothing,

Like I said earlier, Prove it.


As for who is responsible for the civilian deaths? Hezbollah.

And your source appears to agree with me.
Thats your reading of it.

I think as the Israeli bombings killed them, the responsibility is mainly on them.

There is enough blame to be shared between both the IDF and Hezb'allah.

I changed the OP.. because I would like to see the NS Geneva experts to weigth in their knowledge..

I wish to learn more about the Phosphorous issue.

I changed the OP.. because I would like to see the NS Geneva experts to weigth in their knowledge..

I just want to learn about Geneva (I dont know about the issue Phosphorous)

You changed it like you always do - when you start to look bad, you edit your posts and deny what you said to begin with.

No sense in trying to have any discussion with a randomly moving target.

No, I'm saying that when reporters go to the hospital and ask "how many casualties?" the people running the hospital can say, "oh, 500 children, and no Hezbollah fighters".

Even though they do it. Everything from the arab media, to the American media, to the Democratic party, to this thread has been serving as a propaganda arm of Hezbollah to bash Israel for the past time period. I am sick of it.

Ah, the old 'Hospitals are a centre of Asymmetric warfare because they show all the women and children we are killing.' An idea pursued avidly by America in Iraq when it made hospitals one of the first places offensives occupied...to make sure that all the doctors could 'speak the truth' whilst surrounded by heavily armed US and pro-US forces. Ah, sweet, sweet freedom!
http://www.cnn.com/2004/WORLD/meast/11/07/iraq.main/index.html

*sigh*

To keep this loosely on topic. Human Rights Watch say they have gathered substantial evidence proving that the IDF have been lobbing 155mm cluster shells at Lebanese villages. A IDF spokesman ( a young, obviously bored Captain) said something along the lines of "We use the right weapons for the right situations".

Should it matter what weapons are being used? Be they bullets or flamethrowers, Shake n'bake White phosphour/Hi-Ex or Napalm?

The Fourth Geneva Convention forbids the use of any civilian as a shield: "The presence of a protected person may not be used to render certain points or areas immune from military operations." (Geneva Convention Relative to the Protection of Civilian Persons in Time of War, August 12, 1949, 6 U.S.T. 3516, 75 U.N.T.S. 287, art. 28)


That's on the civilian issue.

I'll be back in a bit with the phosphorus cites.

I changed the OP.. because I would like to see the NS Geneva experts to weigth in their knowledge..

I wish to learn more about the Phosphorous issue.

That's nice but unless someone has a degree in International Law and has worked in said field, I wouldn't take what they say as gospel.

Apparently not all the Lebanese are thrilled w/ Hezbollah starting all this:

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20060725/ap_on_re_mi_ea/mideast_fighting_trouble_ahead_1;_ylt=AnvvGRwD_253bSAmKaDdhcoUvioA;_ylu=X3oDMTBiMW04NW9mBHNlYwMlJVRP UCUl

This is telling as to Hezbollah's motives:

Hezbollah leader Sheik Hassan Nasrallah has ominously suggested that the time for "tallying the scores" against the guerrillas' critics would come when hostilities subside.

No sense in trying to have any discussion with a randomly moving target.I am way too fast for you.. Granpa!!
:p :D

That's nice but unless someone has a degree in International Law and has worked in said field, I wouldn't take what they say as gospel.
Thats not beyond the realms of possibility you know. Not everyone here is 14.

The US is not a signatory. I'm not sure if Israel is a signatory.

Convention on Certain Conventional Weapons
Protocol III
Protocol on Prohibitions or Restrictions on the Use of Incendiary Weapons.
Geneva, 10 October 1980
Article 1
Definitions

For the purpose of this Protocol:

1. Incendiary weapon" means any weapon or munition which is primarily designed to set fire to objects or to cause burn injury to persons through the action of flame, heat, or combination thereof, produced by a chemical reaction of a substance delivered on the target. (a) Incendiary weapons can take the form of, for example, flame throwers, fougasses, shells, rockets, grenades, mines, bombs and other containers of incendiary substances.
(b) Incendiary weapons do not include:
(i) Munitions which may have incidental incendiary effects, such as illuminants, tracers, smoke or signalling systems;
(ii) Munitions designed to combine penetration, blast or fragmentation effects with an additional incendiary effect, such as armour-piercing projectiles, fragmentation shells, explosive bombs and similar combined-effects munitions in which the incendiary effect is not specifically designed to cause burn injury to persons, but to be used against military objectives, such as armoured vehicles, aircraft and installations or facilities.
2. Concentration of civilians" means any concentration of civilians, be it permanent or temporary, such as in inhabited parts of cities, or inhabited towns or villages, or as in camps or columns of refugees or evacuees, or groups of nomads.
3. Military objective" means, so far as objects are concerned, any object which by its nature, location, purpose or use makes an effective contribution to military action and whose total or partial destruction, capture or neutralization, in the circumstances ruling at the time, offers a definite military advantage.
4. Civilian objects" are all objects which are not military objectives as defined in paragraph 3.
5. Feasible precautions" are those precautions which are practicable or practically possible taking into account all circumstances ruling at the time, including humanitarian and military considerations.

Article 2
Protection of civilians and civilian objects

1. It is prohibited in all circumstances to make the civilian population as such, individual civilians or civilian objects the object of attack by incendiary weapons.
2. It is prohibited in all circumstances to make any military objective located within a concentration of civilians the object of attack by air-delivered incendiary weapons.
3. It is further prohibited to make any military objective located within a concentration of civilians the object of attack by means of incendiary weapons other than air-delivered incendiary weapons, except when such military objective is clearly separated from the concentration of civilians and all feasible precautions are taken with a view to limiting the incendiary effects to the military objective and to avoiding, and in any event to minimizing, incidental loss of civilian life, injury to civilians and damage to civilian objects.
4. It is prohibited to make forests or other kinds of plant cover the object of attack by incendiary weapons except when such natural elements are used to cover, conceal or camouflage combatants or other military objectives, or are themselves military objectives.

Let's take that in order:

1. It is prohibited in all circumstances to make the civilian population as such, individual civilians or civilian objects the object of attack by incendiary weapons.

- Well, it's against the Conventions to attack a solely civilian target of no military value, so this is redundant.

2. It is prohibited in all circumstances to make any military objective located within a concentration of civilians the object of attack by air-delivered incendiary weapons.

- Ok.

3. It is further prohibited to make any military objective located within a concentration of civilians the object of attack by means of incendiary weapons other than air-delivered incendiary weapons, except when such military objective is clearly separated from the concentration of civilians and all feasible precautions are taken with a view to limiting the incendiary effects to the military objective and to avoiding, and in any event to minimizing, incidental loss of civilian life, injury to civilians and damage to civilian objects.

- Hmm. So if I knew that a particular bunker was filled with Hezbollah, and there were no civilians in the bunker, I CAN use a white phosphorus grenade (or even a flamethrower) to burn them out.

4. It is prohibited to make forests or other kinds of plant cover the object of attack by incendiary weapons except when such natural elements are used to cover, conceal or camouflage combatants or other military objectives, or are themselves military objectives.

- And of course, we can't see what's in the bushes until we burn the bushes down.

Thats not beyond the realms of possibility you know. Not everyone here is 14.

I didn't imply that they were. I was just making a general statement in regards to the word experts and the Geneva Conventions :)

Apparently not all the Lebanese are thrilled w/ Hezbollah ."not all" is about rigth.. close enough ;)

The US is not a signatory. I'm not sure if Israel is a signatory..Wait a minute.. if the US Gov is not a signatory.. how come the US generals "cry foul" everytime the insurgents make a "boubou".

"not all" is about rigth.. close enough ;)
I'd wager a lot are really, really pissed at Hezb'allah for starting the destruction of their country yet again.

Sadly as one Lebanese woman who stayed behind said:
Israel has created a lot of hate in the hearts of the young generation of Lebanon, and vindicated the older generations who still remember the past. This young generation born after the war would probably have had a different point of view towards Israel than its elders. But in one fell swoop - Israel has destroyed that.

Wait a minut if the US Gov is not a signatory how come the US generals "cry foul" everytime the insurgent make a "boubou".

Actually, we only complain about the parts we are signatory to.

Using white phosphorus and flamethrowers and napalm isn't something Hezbollah does.

So maybe you need to read up.

Actually, we only complain about the parts we are signatory to.fair enough.. so we are allowed to use Chemical weapons??

just an honest question.

fair enough.. so US (we) are allowed to use Chemical weapons??

just an honest question.

White phosphorus is not considered by treaty lawyers to be a chemical weapon.

Chemical weapons are generally recognized to be varieties of blister agents (lewisite, mustard, and those of similar chemical composition), blood agents (cyanogen chloride), nerve agents (all the nerve gasses).

White phosphorus is not a chemical weapon. Considering that I've been in the smoke of a WP round too many times to count, and I've never experienced injury of any kind as a result, I would agree.

The smallest drop of any of the other agents can be lethal or crippling. I would much rather have a dime size piece of burning WP on my skin than a dime sized drop of lewisite on my skin.

White phosphorus is not a chemical weapon. Considering that I've been in the smoke of a WP round too many times to count, and I've never experienced injury of any kind as a result, I would agree.

The smallest drop of any of the other agents can be lethal or crippling. I would much rather have a dime size piece of burning WP on my skin than a dime sized drop of lewisite on my skin.
Thats...very strange given the pictures of bodies from Fallujah.

Does that mean it was of a higher concentration there to what you experienced or...?

(Is the US a signatory to the part not allowing the use of shotguns in war as a matter of interest?)

Wait a minute.. if the US Gov is not a signatory.. how come the US generals "cry foul" everytime the insurgents make a "boubou".

Try boo boo dolt...

at any rate the US doesnt cry foul it flys a missile up their ass .

deal with it .

Thats...very strange given the pictures of bodies from Fallujah.

Does that mean it was of a higher concentration there to what you experienced or...?

(Is the US a signatory to the part not allowing the use of shotguns in war as a matter of interest?)

The shotgun prohibition is vague, and alluded to by the Germans in WW I when citing the Hague Convention.

Otherwise, shotguns are not prohibited.

If you are trapped inside a building with burning phosphorus, you're going to be horrifically burned. But as you may see under Protocol III, if the people in the building are firing at you, you're perfectly entitled to throw a white phosphorus hand grenade in the window (provided you don't see any unarmed, non-fighting civilians).

According to the Marine SOP for urban combat in Fallujah, that is the most likely cause of horrifically burned people there.

While they did fire artillery barrages in order to get insurgents to panic and run out, using WP rounds, those are usually not casualty producing in the open unless you're within a few meters of it when it goes off.

The difference between getting blasted with WP indoors and WP outdoors is night and day. Outdoors, you might get little particles of burning stuff (rather like a rain of match heads at random), which cause the inexperienced to jump and run.

White phosphorus is not considered by treaty lawyers to be a chemical weapon.

Chemical weapons are generally recognized to be varieties of blister agents (lewisite, mustard, and those of similar chemical composition), blood agents (cyanogen chloride), nerve agents (all the nerve gasses).

White phosphorus is not a chemical weapon. Considering that I've been in the smoke of a WP round too many times to count, and I've never experienced injury of any kind as a result, I would agree.

The smallest drop of any of the other agents can be lethal or crippling. I would much rather have a dime size piece of burning WP on my skin than a dime sized drop of lewisite on my skin.

Maybe it's the color.

White phosphorous sounds so bland and uninteresting. Even slightly racist.

Maybe if they used mauve phosphorous people wouldn't yell so much. :p

The shotgun prohibition is vague, and alluded to by the Germans in WW I when citing the Hague Convention.

Otherwise, shotguns are not prohibited.

If you are trapped inside a building with burning phosphorus, you're going to be horrifically burned. But as you may see under Protocol III, if the people in the building are firing at you, you're perfectly entitled to throw a white phosphorus hand grenade in the window (provided you don't see any unarmed, non-fighting civilians).

According to the Marine SOP for urban combat in Fallujah, that is the most likely cause of horrifically burned people there.

While they did fire artillery barrages in order to get insurgents to panic and run out, using WP rounds, those are usually not casualty producing in the open unless you're within a few meters of it when it goes off.

The difference between getting blasted with WP indoors and WP outdoors is night and day. Outdoors, you might get little particles of burning stuff (rather like a rain of match heads at random), which cause the inexperienced to jump and run.


someone forgot to tell the Marines about shotguns being "prohibited " :p

The shotgun prohibition is vague, and alluded to by the Germans in WW I when citing the Hague Convention.

Otherwise, shotguns are not prohibited.
Cheers. Vaguely remember something to do with 'unnecessary bodily carnage' or something.


If you are trapped inside a building with burning phosphorus, you're going to be horrifically burned. But as you may see under Protocol III, if the people in the building are firing at you, you're perfectly entitled to throw a white phosphorus hand grenade in the window (provided you don't see any unarmed, non-fighting civilians).

According to the Marine SOP for urban combat in Fallujah, that is the most likely cause of horrifically burned people there.

While they did fire artillery barrages in order to get insurgents to panic and run out, using WP rounds, those are usually not casualty producing in the open unless you're within a few meters of it when it goes off.

The difference between getting blasted with WP indoors and WP outdoors is night and day. Outdoors, you might get little particles of burning stuff (rather like a rain of match heads at random), which cause the inexperienced to jump and run.

Ahhh. That's it. In confined spaces its much more concentrated, but if its allowed time and space to disperse significantly in the air/atmosphere it lessens the impact.

I see.

Ahhh. That's it. In confined spaces its much more concentrated, but if its allowed time and space to disperse significantly in the air/atmosphere it lessens the impact.

I see.

Imagine if I have one kilogram of matchheads. Rough equivalent of a WP grenade (except that it's red phosphorus).

Ignite them all, and toss them in the air in a room.

The air will be superhot, unbreathable, and everything in the room that can burn will do so.

Since we're talking WP instead of red, it keeps burning until it's gone - water and rolling on the floor won't put the flames out.

In a fairly small room, you're screwed.

Outside, it's a painful nuisance. Just imagine the smoke production from that volume of matchheads, and whether or not that would really bother you.

So, how likely do you think that at the next Lebanese elections a "wiser" (I assume you mean more Israel-friendly) government will be elected?
No, they can hate Israel, refuse to have a diplomatic relationship, and all the good araby things that are so popular on the street. (I don't think that's very smart myself, particularly long term. Given their geography, similar security concers, cosmopolitin aspects, they're natural allies and economic partners.) But do so reasonably. If you, as Lebanese leadership, don't want war, don't allow people in Lebonon to launch rocket attacks or otherwise antagonize a militarily superior neighbor. That would seem to be a good way to start avoid being on the wrong side of a nations pointy sticks.

Israel is simply providing the government service that both Lebanon and Israel need. Too bad Lebonon didn't choose to do it, were they in the driver's they could select a manner in the interests of their population. But they didn't take the opportunity.

As for the likelihood of reasonable Lebanese leadership. Who can say? They seemed to have one who was particularly effective in many elements of his domestic policy. Can they find one that will save them from this current mess, one who can guide them to a lasting peace? To do that Lebanon needs to rid istself of Hezbollah. Is seems there is no one in Lebanon with the will to realize that end.

I have a question I've been meaning to ask those who support Israels actions in Lebanon. I'm looking at you DK in this thread as you seem to be fairly sensible even if we don't agree on this subject.

When a piece of Israeli ordinance hits an appartment block, what is the minimum hezbollah presence that would allow you to call the others that died 'collateral dammage'?

I have a question I've been meaning to ask those who support Israels actions in Lebanon. I'm looking at you DK in this thread as you seem to be fairly sensible even if we don't agree on this subject.

When a piece of Israeli ordinance hits an appartment block, what is the minimum hezbollah presence that would allow you to call the others that died 'collateral dammage'?

Well, if the apartment building housed any Hezbollah leaders, or was used as a command center, or place of assembly, or a firing position for weapons (even a single rifle shot), or a communications center (a single antenna used for relaying orders discovered by signal intelligence would be enough), provided that you could say that the target opportunity would be more quickly served by an air or artillery attack rather than something slower (such as ground troops).

If it was used as a storage facility for Hezbollah rockets and mortar rounds, that would be enough. You might not kill a single Hezbollah, but their ammo dump would blow a lot of civilians to the next world.

I remember reading about an explosion two days ago in souther Beirut - apparently the Israelis hit a major ammunition dump that lit up the entire city for a moment - that also happened to be right under an apartment block.

Whose fault is that? Well, I would blame Hezbollah, and according to the Conventions, they can't expect to put civilians over top of a ammo dump and expect it not to be attacked.

Well, if the apartment building housed any Hezbollah leaders,

So you would conceed that a single member is enough for it to be legitimate?

No, they can hate Israel, refuse to have a diplomatic relationship, and all the good araby things that are so popular on the street. (I don't think that's very smart myself, particularly long term. Given their geography, similar security concers, cosmopolitin aspects, they're natural allies and economic partners.) But do so reasonably. If you, as Lebanese leadership, don't want war, don't allow people in Lebonon to launch rocket attacks or otherwise antagonize a militarily superior neighbor. That would seem to be a good way to start avoid being on the wrong side of a nations pointy sticks.

I'll rephrase my origional point. Do you honestly think that, considering what has happened over the last two weeks, ordinary Lebanese citizens are more likely or less likely to "launch rocket attacks or otherwise antagonize a militarily superior neighbor?" Don't you see that the idea of invading Leabnon and killing Lebanese citizens in order to get a minority of Lebanese citizens to stop antagonising Israel is totally flawed?

Israel is simply providing the government service that both Lebanon and Israel need. Too bad Lebonon didn't choose to do it, were they in the driver's they could select a manner in the interests of their population. But they didn't take the opportunity.

I agree. But as a result of all this do Lebanese civilians diserve being bombed and civil infrastructure being destroyed? No. Is disarming Hezbollah a lenghtly process that would take a long time? Yes. Has Lebanon had enough time since the withdrawal of pro Hezbollah Syria? No.

As for the likelihood of reasonable Lebanese leadership. Who can say? They seemed to have one who was particularly effective in many elements of his domestic policy. Can they find one that will save them from this current mess, one who can guide them to a lasting peace? To do that Lebanon needs to rid istself of Hezbollah. Is seems there is no one in Lebanon with the will to realize that end.

However, this operation is not going to rid Lebanon of Hezbollah. It will only increase support for anti-Israeli forces in Lebanon.

So you would conceed that a single member is enough for it to be legitimate?

Depends on what he's doing, and your observer's estimate of available resources to take the position.

If you have one sniper on the roof there shooting at you, and your unit doesn't have a sniper, you may be forced to blow up the building with tank fire or a missile or an artillery barrage.

If it's one guy with a radio on the roof, you may send in a squad to get rid of him (or even capture him).

There may be no Hezbollah in the building at all - but a known cache of arms. If it's deep inside Hez territory, taking the building may be considered impossible - in any battle, you want to destroy an enemy's logistic train immediately.

Every building you call for fire on is going to be different. And the judgment is always left up to commanders on the scene, who will weigh the situation according to the rules of engagement.

We even had neat rules in Europe, that any building designated as of historical importance had to receive the same protection as though it had civilians in it (even if there were none). Once again, the risk had to be weighed.

Special emblems on those buildings, even today.

Imagine if I have one kilogram of matchheads. Rough equivalent of a WP grenade (except that it's red phosphorus).

Ignite them all, and toss them in the air in a room.

The air will be superhot, unbreathable, and everything in the room that can burn will do so.

Since we're talking WP instead of red, it keeps burning until it's gone - water and rolling on the floor won't put the flames out.

In a fairly small room, you're screwed.

Outside, it's a painful nuisance. Just imagine the smoke production from that volume of matchheads, and whether or not that would really bother you.
Technically the match head contains potassium chlorate, not phosphorus. The red strip you strike it on contains red phosphorus. Potassium chlorate will spontaneously ignite when mixed with red phosphorus. Red phosphorus, however, doesn't burst into flame when mixed with oxygen.

Technically the match head contains potassium chlorate, not phosphorus. The red strip you strike it on contains red phosphorus. Potassium chlorate will spontaneously ignite when mixed with red phosphorus. Red phosphorus, however, doesn't burst into flame when mixed with oxygen.

Now you're just being picky.

In either case, a kilo of burning matchheads might initially appear frightening, if it hits you in a bunch, but a nuisance if it's scattered in the air.

*snip*

In the scenario we have in r/l at the moment the only option is either an air strike or artillary bombardment.

Can you give an answer to my question?

In your opinion, is a single hezbollah member enough to make a building a target?

In the scenario we have in r/l at the moment the only option is either an air strike or artillary bombardment.

Can you give an answer to my question?

In your opinion, is a single hezbollah member enough to make a building a target?

Depends on who he is.

If he's a run of the mill Hez, not doing anything, no.

Higher value Hez people, yes. Hez ammo dump or weapon system, yes. Radio antenna used for Hez communication, yes.

You wish there was a black and white answer, but things military do not work that way. That's why the military allows something called "the exercise of judgment based on tactical conditions".

Depends on who he is.

If he's a run of the mill Hez, not doing anything, no.

Higher value Hez people, yes. Hez ammo dump or weapon system, yes. Radio antenna used for Hez communication, yes.

You wish there was a black and white answer, but things military do not work that way. That's why the military allows something called "the exercise of judgment based on tactical conditions".

So what rank would you ascribe to this high ranking hezbollah member? Use American rankning system to make it clear what you consider to be high ranking.

So what rank would you ascribe to this high ranking hezbollah member? Use American rankning system to make it clear what you consider to be high ranking.

When I shot "high ranking officers" as a sniper, it would mean anyone visibly giving direction to several others OR someone talking on a radio OR someone sitting in an obvious command vehicle OR someone in a commander's seat in a vehicle.

Only idiots wear their rank visibly in combat - it's an invitation to get shot by a sniper.

High ranking also means those designated as such by higher command. You get face pics of those people. If you see them, you shoot them.

Like I said, if you don't have a sniper at hand, and the target is far to the rear of the main battle area, you may have to use an airstrike and blow him up.

When I shot "high ranking officers" as a sniper, it would mean anyone visibly giving direction to several others OR someone talking on a radio OR someone sitting in an obvious command vehicle OR someone in a commander's seat in a vehicle.

Only idiots wear their rank visibly in combat - it's an invitation to get shot by a sniper.

High ranking also means those designated as such by higher command. You get face pics of those people. If you see them, you shoot them.

Like I said, if you don't have a sniper at hand, and the target is far to the rear of the main battle area, you may have to use an airstrike and blow him up.

This is kinda where I wanted you to go with this. If a person is important then he is worth the collateral damage.

So what I really want to know is why this same logic can't be applied to the rockets being dropped into Israel by Hezbollah? The last number I read had 24 Iraelis dead with 12 being member of the military (I'm sure those numbers have changed recently). This seems to imply that contray to being indescriminat, the Hezbollah are far more accurate than the Israelis with their targeting and their collateral damage is far lower.

This is kinda where I wanted you to go with this. If a person is important then he is worth the collateral damage.

So what I really want to know is why this same logic can't be applied to the rockets being dropped into Israel by Hezbollah? The last number I read had 24 Iraelis dead with 12 being member of the military (I'm sure those numbers have changed recently). This seems to imply that contray to being indescriminat, the Hezbollah are far more accurate than the Israelis with their targeting and their collateral damage is far lower.

There seem to be quite a few rockets that fell in civilian only areas, and the lack of casualties is only because of the low density of civilians where the rockets landed.

Not for a lack of trying. And definitely not something that you can do in a regular army.

Firing H&I (harassment and interdiction) rounds is a good way to get in a lot of trouble.

That is, if you fire a round downrange, and you don't really have a target, other than "this 1500 meter by 500 meter" area and "I have no idea who is there", you are being irresponsible.

Keep in mind that Hezbollah has killed two Palestinian children in Israel with the rockets. Good shot, you're thinking.

A lot of the drive behind precision weaponry, networks of combat data, and multiple methods of remote sensing comes from the political cost of an errant round.

Hezbollah knows this. That's why they put their ammo dump under an apartment block full of innocent civilians.

This is kinda where I wanted you to go with this. If a person is important then he is worth the collateral damage.

So what I really want to know is why this same logic can't be applied to the rockets being dropped into Israel by Hezbollah? The last number I read had 24 Iraelis dead with 12 being member of the military (I'm sure those numbers have changed recently). This seems to imply that contray to being indescriminat, the Hezbollah are far more accurate than the Israelis with their targeting and their collateral damage is far lower.

Yeah, but when Hezbollah lobs explosives over the border, they don't yell, "I'm trying to kill combatants!" Since Israel yells that before lobbing theirs, they are clearly more ethical. :)

There seem to be quite a few rockets that fell in civilian only areas, and the lack of casualties is only because of the low density of civilians where the rockets landed.

Not for a lack of trying. And definitely not something that you can do in a regular army.

Why can't a regular army do it? The Israelis seem to have dropped quite a few bombs in civilian areas and they haven't even managed to get a lack of casualties, they got alot of casualties.

Firing H&I (harassment and interdiction) rounds is a good way to get in a lot of trouble.

That is, if you fire a round downrange, and you don't really have a target, other than "this 1500 meter by 500 meter" area and "I have no idea who is there", you are being irresponsible.

And you are assuming that hezbollah has no idea who is there. Just because they don't have the aircraft for constant recon flights it is naive to assume they have no intelligence what so ever.

Keep in mind that Hezbollah has killed two Palestinian children in Israel with the rockets. Good shot, you're thinking.

Israel has killed a Canadian family in Lebanon. Whats your point?

A lot of the drive behind precision weaponry, networks of combat data, and multiple methods of remote sensing comes from the political cost of an errant round.

Hezbollah knows this. That's why they put their ammo dump under an apartment block full of innocent civilians.

Hezbollah aren't exactly the best equipped force in the world. If they had an intergrated intelligence network combining satellite and airbourne recon obsevervations then I'm sure they would use it.

Anything to get the world against Israel.

And like that compares to the HUNDREDS of suicide belts blown up with nails and shrapnel within.

Anything to get the world against Israel.

And like that compares to the HUNDREDS of suicide belts blown up with nails and shrapnel within.

And the hundreds of Lebanese civilians killed by Israeli air strikes don't count, do they?

Anything to get the world against Israel.

And like that compares to the HUNDREDS of suicide belts blown up with nails and shrapnel within.

Could you tell me the last time Hezbollah committed a suicide bombing?

Could you tell me the last time Hezbollah committed a suicide bombing?
Well besides the 1983 suicide bombing on the US Embassy in Beirut, the suicide truck bomb on the Marine Barracks in 1983, the attack on the Replacement US Embassy was a suicide bombing by Hezbollah as well. There various failed attempts during the recent years of the Intifada, which resulted in them funnelling cash and supplies into other groups inside Israel, instead of trying to infiltrate through a sealed border.

Well besides the 1983 suicide bombing on the US Embassy in Beirut, the suicide truck bomb on the Marine Barracks in 1983, the attack on the Replacement US Embassy was a suicide bombing by Hezbollah as well. There various failed attempts during the recent years of the Intifada, which resulted in them funnelling cash and supplies into other groups inside Israel, instead of trying to infiltrate through a sealed border.

So none during this campaign then?

Why (Israel) uses phosphorous at all?(Devil's advocate) For the grater Psichological efect on the Labanese population.. (terror)

Wikipedia: Phosphorus burns carry a greater risk of mortality than other forms of burns due to the absorption of phosphorus into the body through the burned area, resulting in liver, heart and kidney damage, and in some cases multi-organ failure. These weapons are particularly dangerous to exposed people because white phosphorus continues to burn unless deprived of oxygen or until it is completely consumed, in some cases burning right down to the bone.

Like blindly firing Katusha rockets into Isreal? :rolleyes:


Screw Geneva.
You don't use an indiscriminate weapon like that if you know it's going to harm civilians. Any other line of thinking in unethical.

They are Iran's proxy army



Why can't a regular army do it? The Israelis seem to have dropped quite a few bombs in civilian areas and they haven't even managed to get a lack of casualties, they got alot of casualties.



And you are assuming that hezbollah has no idea who is there. Just because they don't have the aircraft for constant recon flights it is naive to assume they have no intelligence what so ever.



Israel has killed a Canadian family in Lebanon. Whats your point?



Hezbollah aren't exactly the best equipped force in the world. If they had an intergrated intelligence network combining satellite and airbourne recon obsevervations then I'm sure they would use it.

Like blindly firing Katusha rockets into Isreal? :rolleyes:firing missiles is outlawed by Geneva?

They are Iran's proxy armyIran gives weapons to Hezbollah..

I dont have a problem with that.. since Bush gives weapons to Israel.

They are Iran's proxy army

Oh well done. Having read the many posts it took to get to that point between me and DK you managed refute my point in 5 short words having nothing to do with what I was saying. Bravo, I'm in awe of your debating ability, you should become a statesman when you're older. :rolleyes:

Anything to get the world against Israel.

And like that compares to the HUNDREDS of suicide belts blown up with nails and shrapnel within.

Yet these seem to pale before 155mm artillery firing cluster munitions, if the casulaties are an indication. Plus, on the TV and media I see, its made fairly clear that the Suicide bomber is "bad". Not so for our Amerikan and Israeli friends, who suffer so much from decency and civillisation that they feel compelled to occupy/colonise/"liberate" and bomb it into people .

I'll rephrase my origional point. Do you honestly think that, considering what has happened over the last two weeks, ordinary Lebanese citizens are more likely or less likely to "launch rocket attacks or otherwise antagonize a militarily superior neighbor?" Don't you see that the idea of invading Leabnon and killing Lebanese citizens in order to get a minority of Lebanese citizens to stop antagonising Israel is totally flawed?
That last part is not really relevant. The Israeli government exists to serve the interests of Israeli citizens. Not to be the endlessly merciful punching bag for psychopaths under the defacto protection of the Lebanese people. As such they saw a need to achive a long term strategic aim of destroy Hezbollah resources, both in material and personell. The Lebanese people, through their own demands upon their government, created a situation which legitimized this action by Israel by any doctrine of war and nations. Unsurprisingly, Israel has moved to realize this objective (disarming diminishing Hezbollah), which everyone agrees is both just and has NO easy solution. The effecacy of various strategy is certainly something up for debate. But considering in more than half a century, and quarter century with just the Hezbollah element of the problem, no solution has presented itself, it's hard to condem the Israeli actions on any rational grounds. (Dead and maimed children always provoke an emotional reaction.) The Israeli government chose to be proactive in the defense, when in doubt preserve the political status quo at home.

I don't know what the future holds one way or another. That's entirely dependant on the ability of the Israelies to achieve their strategic aims, which no one can know a priori. If the IDF manages to kill a significant portion of the Hezbollah fighters, the leadership, destroy their material, those people critical to their operations, technical know-how, and communications, it will take a very long time to rebuild that capability. They may have willing souls, but if they have little else, the Lebanese people could potentially be better off for it. If the IDF cannot fullfill their aims meaningfully, then Hezbollah may grow even stronger. Which would only lend more justification for something like a Sherman option.

I agree. But as a result of all this do Lebanese civilians diserve being bombed and civil infrastructure being destroyed? No. Is disarming Hezbollah a lenghtly process that would take a long time? Yes. Has Lebanon had enough time since the withdrawal of pro Hezbollah Syria? No.
Deserve has nothing to do with anything. But ultimately they formed a weak government that allowed Hezbollah, largely through popular appeal, to make legitimate military targets of their homes, airports, roads, etc. Does that mean some kid deserves to die of an infected shrappnel wound surrounded by fear and strangers not knowing if his parents and siblings are alive. No, it simply creates the possiblity for and lends legitimacy to that circumstance. The creation of that root circumstance is not something Israel has ANY control over. There choice isn't really between some Lebanese kid and their citizens. The Israeli choice is between defending their citizens from foreign enemies or not. As for time? Lebanon had the time, not the political will power. It's a divided nation that in the wake of the loss of its "guiding light" allowed a vocal minority to drag them into war. And it is a war they now suffer. It's not that anyone deserves inequity, it's that inequity is an inevitable burden and the degree to which we suffer it is often contingent upon our own imprefect choices, and those choices of our neighbors and countrymen. War with Israel was chosen. There are grim realities that go along with that, none of which are any shade of "fair" to individuals.

However, this operation is not going to rid Lebanon of Hezbollah. It will only increase support for anti-Israeli forces in Lebanon.
That's an opinion. Certainly one with many supporters. The IDF has a different opinion. They, and theirs will suffer the consequences should this gambit prove unwise. It is worth noting that there ARE military solutions to problems like this. History is replete with examples. And given the disparity in power between the Israeli military and the populace of Lebanon and the near total inability of other countries to be able to guarantee air supremacy over Israel, no one could prevent Israel from adding one more example to the books. Keep that in mind. It's not the Lebanese military, or Hezbollah, or Hamas, or even the West's power that protects the Palestinians or the Lebanese, but the Israelies' conscience. They show a reguard and concern for Lebanese and Palestinian civilians that Hezbollah and Hamas do not.

Wrong, just wrong.

The camps were not exactly close to where the Allies were fighting. Its not that we waited aslong as we could to liberate the camps, its that they werent exactly next door to Paris. Do you know even WHERE the camps even were?

And Dresden was payback.

poland and ukraine. could have bombed tracks leading to death camps.

the press also tried to cover it up to

This is kinda where I wanted you to go with this. If a person is important then he is worth the collateral damage.

So what I really want to know is why this same logic can't be applied to the rockets being dropped into Israel by Hezbollah? The last number I read had 24 Iraelis dead with 12 being member of the military (I'm sure those numbers have changed recently). This seems to imply that contray to being indescriminat, the Hezbollah are far more accurate than the Israelis with their targeting and their collateral damage is far lower.

it would seem so but jews r hella lucky for instance, a school was hit approximently five minutes after all the kids left.

This is kinda where I wanted you to go with this. If a person is important then he is worth the collateral damage.

So what I really want to know is why this same logic can't be applied to the rockets being dropped into Israel by Hezbollah? The last number I read had 24 Iraelis dead with 12 being member of the military (I'm sure those numbers have changed recently). This seems to imply that contray to being indescriminat, the Hezbollah are far more accurate than the Israelis with their targeting and their collateral damage is far lower.
Or perhaps it means that Isreal, unlike Hezbollah, does not co-mingle it's military with it's civilian population?

How is it my fault that you are so wrong minded and blind to reality that my short post crushes you little argument? If you wrote a voluminous tome containing all your wisdom and knowledge on this, or any subject it would be likewise crushed.


Oh well done. Having read the many posts it took to get to that point between me and DK you managed refute my point in 5 short words having nothing to do with what I was saying. Bravo, I'm in awe of your debating ability, you should become a statesman when you're older. :rolleyes:

Chruchill was BEGGED to bomb the camps but he refused saying winning the war was the best was to stop the Holocaust. Was he right?

Dresden was a test of concept that was later used on Tokyo, the results were VASTLY greater than the Allies expected, it was also a warning to the Soviets.



poland and ukraine. could have bombed tracks leading to death camps.

the press also tried to cover it up to

no and neither is willie pete.

2 rounds HE + 2 rounds WP = SHAKE AND BAKE

firing missiles is outlawed by Geneva?

But considering in more than half a century, and quarter century with just the Hezbollah element of the problem, no solution has presented itself, it's hard to condem the Israeli actions on any rational grounds.
Other countries have gone a similar length or longer and come up with a better response. For instance. UK - IRA and Spain - ETA. It has also been obvious since the first day that the IDF's portfolio of targets were aimed as much, if not more, at diminishing the Lebanese army and organisations of power than at hitting Hizbollah.

But ultimately they formed a weak government that allowed Hezbollah, largely through popular appeal, to make legitimate military targets of their homes, airports, roads, etc.
Could not the same be said of Israel. IDF officials have said that Hezbollah are significantly more powerful now than when the Israelies were on occupying force. If, as several people have claimed, the IDF was not defeated by Hezbollah and kicked out of southern Lebanon then why was Hezbollah not destroyed when it was substantially weaker and far better mechanisms were in place to fight it during the Occupation?

It is worth noting that there ARE military solutions to problems like this. History is replete with examples.
Could you provide a list of examples where robust, well funded and popularly supported paramilitary/terrorist organisations are destroyed through a limited ground offensive and a widespread, multiple target, air and artillery offensive supported by poor intelligence by another nation's armed forces?

Or perhaps it means that Isreal, unlike Hezbollah, does not co-mingle it's military with it's civilian population?

Of course it does. Where do the military go when on leave? Is a captain having dinner at his mothers any less of a valid target than the same guy on the front line?

How is it my fault that you are so wrong minded and blind to reality that my short post crushes you little argument? If you wrote a voluminous tome containing all your wisdom and knowledge on this, or any subject it would be likewise crushed.

lol......go play in traffic :)

it would seem so but jews r hella lucky for instance, a school was hit approximently five minutes after all the kids left.

And we have to assume of course that Hezbollah are so stupid and muslim that they couldn't have known what time the school closed, they were just left cursing their own lack of intel when they didn't kill a load of kids :rolleyes:

Of course it does. Where do the military go when on leave? Is a captain having dinner at his mothers any less of a valid target than the same guy on the front line?

Actually yes for under the Laws of War, if a soldier is out of uniform, he is an invalid target to hit but if he is in uniform, he becomes legal.

Oh good show what ripping repartee! :rolleyes:
lol......go play in traffic :)

Oh good show what ripping repartee! :rolleyes:

It becomes difficult to debate something with someone who doesn't address your points. If I'm so obviously incorrect then you should be able to take pleasure in blowing my arguments out of the water.

Actually yes for under the Laws of War, if a soldier is out of uniform, he is an invalid target to hit but if he is in uniform, he becomes legal.

Really? Could you point out the law that states that, I've not heard it before.

Really? Could you point out the law that states that, I've not heard it before.

I remember it being a bone of contention with Saddam Hussein and taking him out (in other words, assassinating him). I remember people saying that if he was in a suit, he couldn't be killed legally but if he was in a Uniform that made him a legitament military target. Even in war, Heads of state were protected by the rules of war since they are (depending on government) civilians. Legally, the President of the USA cannot be killed unless he was in a military uniform.

Civilians are not to be targeted intentionally and if someone is out of uniform, they are, in essence, civilians. Why do you think that under the Geneva Accords, it has a stipulation in there about Uniforms and militias?

I remember it being a bone of contention with Saddam Hussein and taking him out (in other words, assassinating him). I remember people saying that if he was in a suit, he couldn't be killed legally but if he was in a Uniform that made him a legitament military target. Even in war, Heads of state were protected by the rules of war since they are (depending on government) civilians. Legally, the President of the USA cannot be killed unless he was in a military uniform.

Civilians are not to be targeted intentionally and if someone is out of uniform, they are, in essence, civilians. Why do you think that under the Geneva Accords, it has a stipulation in there about Uniforms and militias?

That is absolute bollocks.

If it were true then every military in the world would be issuing their servicemen a tophat and tails, safe in the knowledge they couldn't be legally fired on.

That is absolute bollocks.

If it were true then every military in the world would be issuing their servicemen a tophat and tails, safe in the knowledge they couldn't be legally fired on.

So you want to ignore the example I laid out? Some soldiers do do that so that they can mingle in with the civilians and not get shot at while trying to retreat.

So you want to ignore the example I laid out? Some soldiers do do that so that they can mingle in with the civilians and not get shot at while trying to retreat.

A member of the armed forces out of uniform is still a member of the armed forces. The example you gave made no sense as the people you mentioned are civilians who may sometimes wear a uniform. A soldier is a soldier regardless of his hat.

A member of the armed forces out of uniform is still a member of the armed forces. The example you gave made no sense as the people you mentioned are civilians who may sometimes wear a uniform. A soldier is a soldier regardless of his hat.

Not in the eyes of International Law. Soldiers are private citizens of their nations when they are not in uniform. If you cannot understand that, then I feel sorry for you.

Not in the eyes of International Law. Soldiers are private citizens of their nations when they are not in uniform. If you cannot understand that, then I feel sorry for you.

You still havn't pointed out the law that says so.

You still havn't pointed out the law that says so.

*sighs* I guess you missed the part about the Geneva Conventions? You do not kill civilians intentionally. A soldier out of uniform and not attacking anyone is a civilian by definition. As such, in accordance with the Laws of War, he cannot be targeted intentionally.

*sighs* I guess you missed the part about the Geneva Conventions? You do not kill civilians intentionally. A soldier out of uniform and not attacking anyone is a civilian by definition. As such, in accordance with the Laws of War, he cannot be targeted intentionally.

Yeah, had a quick flip through the convention and must have missed the part about a uniform alone deciding whether or not a man is a soldier. Perhaps you can provide a link, or just give me the name of the article?

Fourth Geneva Convention, Part 1, Article 3, section 1:

Art. 3. In the case of armed conflict not of an international character occurring in the territory of one of the High Contracting Parties, each Party to the conflict shall be bound to apply, as a minimum, the following provisions:

(1) Persons taking no active part in the hostilities, including members of armed forces who have laid down their arms and those placed hors de combat by sickness, wounds, detention, or any other cause, shall in all circumstances be treated humanely, without any adverse distinction founded on race, colour, religion or faith, sex, birth or wealth, or any other similar criteria.

To this end the following acts are and shall remain prohibited at any time and in any place whatsoever with respect to the above-mentioned persons: (a) violence to life and person, in particular murder of all kinds, mutilation, cruel treatment and torture; (b) taking of hostages; (c) outrages upon personal dignity, in particular humiliating and degrading treatment; (d) the passing of sentences and the carrying out of executions without previous judgment pronounced by a regularly constituted court, affording all the judicial guarantees which are recognized as indispensable by civilized peoples.

Fourth Geneva Convention, Part 1, Article 3, section 1:

Art. 3. In the case of armed conflict not of an international character occurring in the territory of one of the High Contracting Parties, each Party to the conflict shall be bound to apply, as a minimum, the following provisions:

(1) Persons taking no active part in the hostilities, including members of armed forces who have laid down their arms and those placed hors de combat by sickness, wounds, detention, or any other cause, shall in all circumstances be treated humanely, without any adverse distinction founded on race, colour, religion or faith, sex, birth or wealth, or any other similar criteria.

To this end the following acts are and shall remain prohibited at any time and in any place whatsoever with respect to the above-mentioned persons: (a) violence to life and person, in particular murder of all kinds, mutilation, cruel treatment and torture; (b) taking of hostages; (c) outrages upon personal dignity, in particular humiliating and degrading treatment; (d) the passing of sentences and the carrying out of executions without previous judgment pronounced by a regularly constituted court, affording all the judicial guarantees which are recognized as indispensable by civilized peoples.

When did the IDF surrender?

Other countries have gone a similar length or longer and come up with a better response. For instance. UK - IRA and Spain - ETA. It has also been obvious since the first day that the IDF's portfolio of targets were aimed as much, if not more, at diminishing the Lebanese army and organisations of power than at hitting Hizbollah.
It's worth noting that the aim of the IRA wasn't the annihilation of the UK at all costs. In the case of Spain, afaik, that doesn't even cross international boarders and is completely internal, with the crazy basques wanting a chunk of Spain as their own country. It's also been obvious that it doesn't matter what concessions Israel makes with either the Palestinians or Hezbollah they will never get the security their people desire, and quite frankly deserve through either land or tribute (not that those are more satisfactory options than laying waste to everything near the bastards anyway). Did they bomb the Palestinian parliment? No. Did they raze every Lebanese army facility? Not that I've read. They attacked the infrastructure that Hezbollah was permited to use. Which are legitimate miilitary targets. If the Lebanese don't want their country and infrastructure destroyed there is an INCREDIBLY simple solution. Don't let Iran's proxy army use that infrastructure and start wars from your country. So simple, any nation can do it.

Could not the same be said of Israel. IDF officials have said that Hezbollah are significantly more powerful now than when the Israelies were on occupying force. If, as several people have claimed, the IDF was not defeated by Hezbollah and kicked out of southern Lebanon then why was Hezbollah not destroyed when it was substantially weaker and far better mechanisms were in place to fight it during the Occupation?
You seem to be asking why do I think the IDF can defeat Hezbollah now, when they couldn't in 1982. Well the simple answer is they could, if they had to, kill everything in Lebanon before anyone could stop them. With the IDFs F-15's I'm not even certain the US could guarantee air supremacy over Israel, or even protect the Suez cannal! with a carrier group in the area. And it seems the height of impossibility to suggest that the US could do such a thing without great cost. Israel is VASTLY more powerful now in conventional arms, and there is no threat of some dust up leading to a nuclear armaggedon. If that happens, it's pretty clear it will be all one way, and iodine pills for the rest of us. Can the IDF with a lower profile that William Tecumsa Sherman might like, adapting some of the more recent developments in the American war fighting doctrine, root out and greatly diminish Hezbollah without razing Lebanon to a pile of smoking rubble, who knows. One certainly would hope so, since that's the path we're on. This conflict doesn't blow up in an scenerio where it's the West vs the Warsaw Pact, it's not even Israel vs the Arab world, it's not even Israel vs Iran, Syria and Lebanon. It's Israel vs Lebanon, maybe half of Lebanon.

Could you provide a list of examples where robust, well funded and popularly supported paramilitary/terrorist organisations are destroyed through a limited ground offensive and a widespread, multiple target, air and artillery offensive supported by poor intelligence by another nation's armed forces?
Um dude. Sherman's match tore the heart out of the Confederacy in the civil war. The Roman annihilation of Carthage. Umm pretty much anything Geghis Khan did to anyone who didn't unconditionally surrender. The American destruction of the American Indian nations after some joined forces with the British in the war of 1812. Notice these aren't "limited" but they're very effective military solutions to intractable political problems.

Yeah. If you kill everyone, no one is left to fight back, and sometimes in the process people become willing to accept peace at any price. This is essentially all of human history before the Age of Enlightenment. Problems like the one Israel faces, and the cost of dealing with them, are the reason the ancient world, which lived so frequently hand to mouth, settled on the rather savage solutions it did. And as savage, vicious and inhumane as those solutions are, they work. They really do work. If there's any great fear in all of this, it's how well they work. Our particular savagrey is a feature of our spieces and is avoided only while circumstances afford that possibility. In many ways the artifical constructs to assist the convienence of political stability and trade make for a more dangerous situation by trying to prevent the little failures, creating more unpreventable catastrophies.

For instance, were Sun-Tzu the last word on the ethics of war and nations in our modern world, Israel might just decide to conquer part of Lebanon and or Syria to use as a buffer. Acceptable in the ancient world, due to the disproportunate power Israel wields, ethical to Sun-Tzu, as this hypothetical buffer obviously wasn't being appropriately governed and needed, and was deserved by, a greater power. Not acceptable in the modern world for obvious reasons. But this lack of any hope for an inbetween solution pushes the possiblities to the extremes. Either Hezbollah at some point does a 180 and chooses peace, or Israel is destroyed. Well, Israel killing all of her enemies wholesale comes before/instead of Israel is destroyed. We've artificially constrained ourselves to spontanious (almost magical) peace, or genocide. This isn't particularly reasonable, ultimately only serving to preserve a state of perpetual intermittent warfare.

Given the poor choices available to them, Israel selected the most reasonable course of action they could. Kill Hezbollah, destroy their material, the citizens of Lebanon suffer as a direct but unintended consequence. It's far more reasonable than allowing Hezbollah to engage in unrestriced warfare in and against Israel without reprisal indefinately. It's one of the very few inbetween choices Israel has, even if it does have a low probability of success (which I think is a fairly unfounded assumption) what else is left to them?

As a postscript, what I find so amazing is that people are willing to accept Hezbollah waging unrestricted warfare in and against Israel indefinately, but they're unwilling to accept very limited warfare against Hezbollah by Israel in Lebanon for a limited amount of time. Double-standard is a woefully inadequate description of that situation.

When did the IDF surrender?

"...or any other cause..."

"...or any other cause..."

They are not out of combat, they are just not currently involved. If you are wounded or inprisoned then you can fight, just not being in the right place doesn't remove you from the fight.

They are not out of combat, they are just not currently involved. If you are wounded or inprisoned then you can fight, just not being in the right place doesn't remove you from the fight.

It is sad to see that you are quibbling over one little phrase instead of looking at the entire article that you actually wanted. I guess you do not like it when things contradict what you want to believe.

They are not out of combat, they are just not currently involved. If you are wounded or inprisoned then you can fight, just not being in the right place doesn't remove you from the fight.
Under the genva conventions being out of uniform, without the accoutrements of a soldier, and not at a military target means you are not a military target. That YOU don't agree with the Geneva conventions is fine. But your asserted fact, which you cling to appearently to lend some legitimacy to various Islamic organizations preferentically attacking Israeli civilians, is laughably incorrect.

A new source for info:

http://www.bloggingbeirut.com/

Technically, you are allowed to use white phosphorus to destroy materiel, or to produce a rapid smoke screen (the latter is the more common use in artillery and mortar shells).

Aircraft do not have phosphorus in any of the bombs, unless you're dropping napalm, in which case the phosphorus is only the igniter, and you won't notice it because the flaming plastic is what's frying your meat off the bones.

White phosphorus also finds limited use in certain types of hand grenade, once again primarily used for smoke screen.

However, any white phosphorus shell or grenade throws the burning particles over a huge radius - the hand grenade has a bursting radius of 35 meters, which is greater than anyone can throw it.

According to international law, it's legal to use as long as civilians were not the "primary" target. In addition, it is not proscribed by name.

Very useful, for instance, for "destroying" bunkers. You don't even need to get it inside the bunker - just lay one at the door or firing slit. Anything near the opening will catch fire, and the smoke will stifle anyone inside (if they're smart, they'll run out so they can be shot and die quickly rather than smother and burn).
We used "Willy Pete" to mark targets, as well. Either by artillery, mortar, or airborne FACs. The smoke gave us a good idea of where the wind was coming from, as well as where the target was. Of course, after lead dropped his bombs, the corrections were all off of his hits.

Under the genva conventions being out of uniform, without the accoutrements of a soldier, and not at a military target means you are not a military target. That YOU don't agree with the Geneva conventions is fine. But your asserted fact, which you cling to appearently to lend some legitimacy to various Islamic organizations preferentically attacking Israeli civilians, is laughably incorrect.

So being out of uniform (hezbollah don't wear uniform), not at a military target (apartment buildings aren't military targets) and without the accoutrements of a soldier, means you arent' a legitmate target?

Perhaps you should take a close look at the actions of the side you are defending.

I do agree with the conventions and I don't agree with the actions of hezbollah, I just think it would be nice if people judged the actions of both according to the same standard. Both are firing across the border, both are killing civilians and both are refusing a ceasefire until the other stops shooting. I am interested by the fact that only one side has attacked an exteranl force so far and it ain't the terrorists.

Your claims of Israel atrocity play directly into the hands of Hezbollah. For years they have hidden behind and among civilians relying on the civilized nature of Western and Israel powers to not go after them where they dwell because of the resulting loss of innocent lives. What Hezbollah didn't foresee was the fundamental change in ideology in some parts of the Western world post 911 that desire to destroy the terrorist is greater than the will to preserve innocent life. Israel and the US both have adopted a two eyes for an eye policy. There are parts of the world that understand this and parts that do not. Hezbollah seems to have made a grave error as it was NOT business as usual with a prisoner swap. This action is meant as a message to not only Hezbollah but to Iran who seems to be feeling its oats lately perhaps Iran will learn from this and soften it's stance..perhaps hot.


It becomes difficult to debate something with someone who doesn't address your points. If I'm so obviously incorrect then you should be able to take pleasure in blowing my arguments out of the water.

Your claims of Israel atrocity play directly into the hands of Hezbollah. For years they have hidden behind and among civilians relying on the civilized nature of Western and Israel powers to not go after them where they dwell because of the resulting loss of innocent lives. What Hezbollah didn't foresee was the fundamental change in ideology in some parts of the Western world post 911 that desire to destroy the terrorist is greater than the will to preserve innocent life. Israel and the US both have adopted a two eyes for an eye policy. There are parts of the world that understand this and parts that do not. Hezbollah seems to have made a grave error as it was NOT business as usual with a prisoner swap. This action is meant as a message to not only Hezbollah but to Iran who seems to be feeling its oats lately perhaps Iran will learn from this and soften it's stance..perhaps hot.

Great, and everywhere the US and Israel decide to impliment this new policy the ones to suffer most are the average family who probably just want to get through life and have a few laughs before dying at an old age surrounded by their family.

I'm an average bloke, not particulaly extreme about my views on anything but I can guarantee that if one of those countries killed or maimed my family then I would pick up a rifle and seek revenge, all the actions of the US and Israel are doing in the middle east is to act as the most effective recruitment campaign in the history terrorism.

I'll ask you a question I've asked other who support this action, when was the last time force completely destroyed a terrorist threat?

So being out of uniform (hezbollah don't wear uniform), not at a military target (apartment buildings aren't military targets) and without the accoutrements of a soldier, means you arent' a legitmate target?

Perhaps you should take a close look at the actions of the side you are defending.

I do agree with the conventions and I don't agree with the actions of hezbollah, I just think it would be nice if people judged the actions of both according to the same standard. Both are firing across the border, both are killing civilians and both are refusing a ceasefire until the other stops shooting. I am interested by the fact that only one side has attacked an exteranl force so far and it ain't the terrorists.
That's right Hezbollah aren't true soldiers! This is important. But they are armed, and their arms constitute a valid military target as does their leadership. This is the difference, and what validates Israel's actions in what would normally be civilian areas. Hezbollah, by their actions, turn what would otherwise be civilian areas in to valid military targets, where a soldier with a nation respecting the Geneva convention, by providing uniforms, and keeping military facilities at least somewhat seperate from civilian areas would gain protections under the conventions that Hezbollah effectively denies to everyone around them.

In America wars are not prosecuted from appartment complexes, schools, or churches, nor are the materials of war stored in these places. That's what Hezbollah does. What the Geneva conventions assert is that a facility's military use takes precedence over its civilian use, with only purely civilian facilities gaining protection. Because Hezbollah is always without uniform, they're always in uniform, always Hezbollah, and always a legitimate target. They choose, as part of their strategy, to not make that distinction between combatant and non-combatant, and so, unlike soldiers that do make that distinction, they do not gain the additional protections offered by the Geneva conventions. This target on everyone's back is what they chose for the Lebanese people, and ultimately what the Lebanese people chose for themselves in lieu of peace and security. It's a poor choice. But it wasn't by any measure Israel's to make. So I fail to see how Israel is responsible for the consequences of that choice, at all.

The terrorists attacked an external force with their incersion into Israel, and they do so everytime they fire rockets into predominantly civilian areas. War's a bitch. Maybe the Lebanese people shouldn't have so greatfully accepted bribes from, and bestowed protection upon a group so keen to start one. But given what they're telling to the BBC, this is exactly what the Lebanese people wanted.

I probably should mention that Hezbollah does actually have uniforms, they wear them in parades. Seemingly exclusively. That is telling.

I'm an average bloke....
Sweet. Let's pretend Lebanon is your house, south Lebanon is your backyard, and you and your house are within and subject to the laws of the US.

If you willingly, knowingly let terrorists operate out of your backyard, when you're caught, you're tried for treason and hung. So enjoy that. You by your permissive actions take on a share of the responsability for their destructive acts. I doubt the state of affairs is very much different in England. It's even worth noting that if the terrorist were not terrorists but part of another nations military and wore uniforms etc, they couldn't be tried for anything, they'd be entitled to bereleased at the end of hostilities, but you'd still be hung.

That's right Hezbollah aren't true soldiers! This is important. But they are armed, and their arms constitute a valid military target as does their leadership. This is the difference, and what validates Israel's actions in what would normally be civilian areas. Hezbollah, by their actions, turn what would otherwise be civilian areas in to valid military targets, where a soldier with a nation respecting the Geneva convention, by providing uniforms, and keeping military facilities at least somewhat seperate from civilian areas would gain protections under the conventions that Hezbollah effectively denies to everyone around them.

In America wars are not prosecuted from appartment complexes, schools, or churches, nor are the materials of war stored in these places. That's what Hezbollah does. What the Geneva conventions assert is that a facility's military use takes precedence over its civilian use, with only purely civilian facilities gaining protection. Because Hezbollah is always without uniform, they're always in uniform, always Hezbollah, and always a legitimate target. They choose, as part of their strategy, to not make that distinction between combatant and non-combatant, and so, unlike soldiers that do make that distinction, they do not gain the additional protections offered by the Geneva conventions. This target on everyone's back is what they chose for the Lebanese people, and ultimately what the Lebanese people chose for themselves in lieu of peace and security. It's a poor choice. But it wasn't by any measure Israel's to make. So I fail to see how Israel is responsible for the consequences of that choice, at all.

The terrorists attacked an external force with their incersion into Israel, and they do so everytime they fire rockets into predominantly civilian areas. War's a bitch. Maybe the Lebanese people shouldn't have so greatfully accepted bribes from, and bestowed protection upon a group so keen to start one. But given what they're telling to the BBC, this is exactly what the Lebanese people wanted.

I probably should mention that Hezbollah does actually have uniforms, they wear them in parades. Seemingly exclusively. That is telling.

And that is the sad and sorry truth of this whole conflict. :(

Sweet. Let's pretend Lebanon is your house, south Lebanon is your backyard, and you and your house are within and subject to the laws of the US.

If you willingly, knowingly let terrorists operate out of your backyard, when you're caught, you're tried for treason and hung. So enjoy that. You by your permissive actions take on a share of the responsability for their destructive acts. I doubt the state of affairs is very much different in England. It's even worth noting that if the terrorist were not terrorists but part of another nations military and wore uniforms etc, they couldn't be tried for anything, they'd be entitled to bereleased at the end of hostilities, but you'd still be hung.

So if you live in an apartment block in Seattle and it comes to light the guy downstairs is an ebil terrorist you should be shot?

You think that all the civilians that have been killed know what is happening near them, or even support it?

That's right Hezbollah aren't true soldiers! This is important. But they are armed, and their arms constitute a valid military target as does their leadership. This is the difference, and what validates Israel's actions in what would normally be civilian areas. Hezbollah, by their actions, turn what would otherwise be civilian areas in to valid military targets, where a soldier with a nation respecting the Geneva convention, by providing uniforms, and keeping military facilities at least somewhat seperate from civilian areas would gain protections under the conventions that Hezbollah effectively denies to everyone around them.

In America wars are not prosecuted from appartment complexes, schools, or churches, nor are the materials of war stored in these places. That's what Hezbollah does. What the Geneva conventions assert is that a facility's military use takes precedence over its civilian use, with only purely civilian facilities gaining protection. Because Hezbollah is always without uniform, they're always in uniform, always Hezbollah, and always a legitimate target. They choose, as part of their strategy, to not make that distinction between combatant and non-combatant, and so, unlike soldiers that do make that distinction, they do not gain the additional protections offered by the Geneva conventions. This target on everyone's back is what they chose for the Lebanese people, and ultimately what the Lebanese people chose for themselves in lieu of peace and security. It's a poor choice. But it wasn't by any measure Israel's to make. So I fail to see how Israel is responsible for the consequences of that choice, at all.

The terrorists attacked an external force with their incersion into Israel, and they do so everytime they fire rockets into predominantly civilian areas. War's a bitch. Maybe the Lebanese people shouldn't have so greatfully accepted bribes from, and bestowed protection upon a group so keen to start one. But given what they're telling to the BBC, this is exactly what the Lebanese people wanted.

I probably should mention that Hezbollah does actually have uniforms, they wear them in parades. Seemingly exclusively. That is telling.

I'll make a sensible response to the majority of the post tomorrow, its 2:40 am here and I need sleep.

I would like to hear your defence for the 6 hour long shelling then precision missile strike on a UN observation post though. How is that legitimate warfare?

Well I guess I would feel like all the " southern " symythisers during the civil war in the US ...Brother against brother ..and ..family against family..it depends on what you believe.




Thats why we are all fucked .

So if you live in an apartment block in Seattle and it comes to light the guy downstairs is an ebil terrorist you should be shot?

You think that all the civilians that have been killed know what is happening near them, or even support it?
If you, in the apartment block and everyone around you know that there is a criminal enterprise going on in that "ebil terrorist" apartment, then it is your duty to contact those responsible for removing said enterprise.

Oceandrive doesn't exactly make much of a distinction between Hezzie and civilians. I'm not getting very choked up at all. Must be my eyes, they're so full of dust...

NOT!

Lebanon has no place to talk in this since they've let Hezz pukes stockpile rockets overthere for a while now. Tough luck buddy. Noone cares.

:D

So if you live in an apartment block in Seattle and it comes to light the guy downstairs is an ebil terrorist you should be shot?

You think that all the civilians that have been killed know what is happening near them, or even support it?

Nope, he should. But the good guys probably can't get to him to capture him alive so an infidel predator drone woud launch a rocket through his dining room window at dinner time and get him.

Or, you could go clean house yourself....

Shoot, Shovel, Shutup.

That's right Hezbollah aren't true soldiers! This is important. But they are armed, and their arms constitute a valid military target as does their leadership. This is the difference, and what validates Israel's actions in what would normally be civilian areas. Hezbollah, by their actions, turn what would otherwise be civilian areas in to valid military targets, where a soldier with a nation respecting the Geneva convention, by providing uniforms, and keeping military facilities at least somewhat seperate from civilian areas would gain protections under the conventions that Hezbollah effectively denies to everyone around them.

In America wars are not prosecuted from appartment complexes, schools, or churches, nor are the materials of war stored in these places. That's what Hezbollah does. What the Geneva conventions assert is that a facility's military use takes precedence over its civilian use, with only purely civilian facilities gaining protection. Because Hezbollah is always without uniform, they're always in uniform, always Hezbollah, and always a legitimate target. They choose, as part of their strategy, to not make that distinction between combatant and non-combatant, and so, unlike soldiers that do make that distinction, they do not gain the additional protections offered by the Geneva conventions. This target on everyone's back is what they chose for the Lebanese people, and ultimately what the Lebanese people chose for themselves in lieu of peace and security. It's a poor choice. But it wasn't by any measure Israel's to make. So I fail to see how Israel is responsible for the consequences of that choice, at all.

The terrorists attacked an external force with their incersion into Israel, and they do so everytime they fire rockets into predominantly civilian areas. War's a bitch. Maybe the Lebanese people shouldn't have so greatfully accepted bribes from, and bestowed protection upon a group so keen to start one. But given what they're telling to the BBC, this is exactly what the Lebanese people wanted.
I probably should mention that Hezbollah does actually have uniforms, they wear them in parades. Seemingly exclusively. That is telling.

Qouted for truth. I am in tears....the most logic I have seen in nigh 26 pages now.

That last part really got to me.

Oceandrive doesn't exactly make much of a distinction between Hezzie and civilians. I'm not getting very choked up at all. Must be my eyes, they're so full of dust...I dont make any difference between Hezbollah and IDF.

So if you live in an apartment block in Seattle and it comes to light the guy downstairs is an ebil terrorist you should be shot?
If the Swat team comes to get him and I don't follow their instructions, there's certainly a chance that would happen. Or blown up, or immolated, or shot in the face (see Waco, Ruby Ridge)

You think that all the civilians that have been killed know what is happening near them, or even support it?
I know some have. Considering I've seen survivors say it into BBC cameras. I think I'll take them at their word. Keep in mind, deserve has NOTHING to do with anything. Even if they didn't know, and Israel had reason to believe that Hezbollah was working out of a Stripper Factory/Baby Emporium, it's still a valid military target. The military use overrides the civilian use. The blame falls to Hezbollah, is diffused through those who gave Hezbollah the tacit approval to operate out of Lebanon, and again through those that put those stupid ass-clowns in a position to make such awful decisions. If the Lebanese people weren't derelict in their duty to form an effective government that served them well and faithfully, I can say with absolute certainty, this could not have happened. Hezbollah is a shitty conglomeration of ass-hats, and they've brought misery to a great many Lebanese. Many Lebanese in turn give them a complete pass on this. That lethal stupidity is what brought this about.

The Boxer Rebelion, Warsaw Ghetto uprising, Hue, The Tet Offensive. The point is you need overwhelming violence, you need to also make it known to the people that had Hezzbalah not been amoung them this this wouldn't happen so they will fear not ratting out terrorist more than they fear the terrorists.


Great, and everywhere the US and Israel decide to impliment this new policy the ones to suffer most are the average family who probably just want to get through life and have a few laughs before dying at an old age surrounded by their family.

I'm an average bloke, not particulaly extreme about my views on anything but I can guarantee that if one of those countries killed or maimed my family then I would pick up a rifle and seek revenge, all the actions of the US and Israel are doing in the middle east is to act as the most effective recruitment campaign in the history terrorism.

I'll ask you a question I've asked other who support this action, when was the last time force completely destroyed a terrorist threat?

In the role that is sanctioned by the UN and Geneva Conventions. As a flare and as a smokescreen.

If you shot me in the face with a flare I wouldn't care if a bunch of old guys met in switzerland and decided it was OK or not