NationStates Jolt Archive

Story here (http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/5276626.stm)

Amnesty.org. Very good video too. (http://www.amnesty.org/)

I'm sorry who hasn't Amnesty accused of war crimes?

I'm sorry who hasn't Amnesty accused of war crimes?

that took less than 1 minute after the op.

if you arent going to even read the summary report, is your opinion valid?

I'm sorry who hasn't Amnesty accused of war crimes?
I am pleased to say that I have never been accused of war crimes by Amnesty.

Well, that massacre of the primitive wibbly-woodar tribe doesn't count. They were asking for it.

that took less than 1 minute after the op.

if you arent going to even read the summary report, is your opinion valid?
Well, in fairness, without any commentry in your OP this thread is just spam.

Well, in fairness, without any commentry in your OP this thread is just spam.
Correct sir!

In before the lock.

Right, my commentary is i think its a balanced critique of a vicious war fought by Isreal against innocents that abjectly failed.

DK cant argue with that video footage!!

Right, my commentary is i think its a balanced critique of a vicious war fought by Isreal against innocents that abjectly failed.

DK cant argue with that video footage!!

I'm sorry are you calling Hezbollah innocent?

Occeandrive is that you?

I'm sorry who hasn't Amnesty accused of war crimes?

Me. But then again, they haven't investigated the freshman toilet ducttape incident. :p

I'm sorry are you calling Hezbollah innocent?

Occeandrive is that you?

again, read the op for fucks sake.

the bulk og the report is about the lebanese civilains and the infrastructure that was destroyed.

and they accuse hezbollah of all sorts too.

you are either a moron or a troll

again, read the op for fucks sake.

the bulf og the report is about the lebanese civilains and the infrastructure that was destroyed.

and they accuse hezbollah of all sorts too.

you are either a moron or a troll

So the mass dropping of leaflets telling civilians to get the hell out of the way was...?

again, read the op for fucks sake.

the bulk og the report is about the lebanese civilains and the infrastructure that was destroyed.

and they accuse hezbollah of all sorts too.

you are either a moron or a troll

Amnesty should be accusing Hezbollah for placing their weapons there.

So the mass dropping of leaflets telling civilians to get the hell out of the way was...?

Littering.

So the mass dropping of leaflets telling civilians to get the hell out of the way was...?

illlegal. and an explicit acknowlegement that they were attacking civilian areas in an indiscriminate manner.

and pointless considering the roads and bridges were gone.

Amnesty should be accusing Hezbollah for placing their weapons there.

not another illiterate bigot.

they did.

not another illiterate bigot.

they did.

Illiterate you can call me, but how does that make me a bigot?

illlegal. and an explicit acknowlegement that they were attacking civilian areas in an indiscriminate manner.

and pointless considering the roads and bridges were gone.

Wait, dropping warning letters is illegal?

Wow!

You do realize that Israel has the fire power to turn a signifigant fraction of the middle east into a glass parking lot yes? You do realize that they do infact posess similar or superior weaponry to the United States? You do realize that 1000 civvies given the massive number of weapons exchanged in the combat is trivial yes?

Why didn;t that report mention that Hezbolah deliberately targeted civilian infrastructure? The glaring difference is that Hezbolah's weapons, support, infrastructure and soldiers were hiding in the civilian population while Isreal's is not. By definition, were you to bomb Hezbolah quarters you would be bombing a civilian building because that's where they put their quarters.

Story here (http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/5276626.stm)

Amnesty.org. Very good video too. (http://www.amnesty.org/)

And more innocent civilians die everyday in the Congo than during the whole recent Isreal/Lebanon thing.

No-one ever starts threads on that. I wonder why? (Don't bother answering that, I already know the answer).

And more innocent civilians die everyday in the Congo than during the whole recent Isreal/Lebanon thing.

No-one ever starts threads on that. I wonder why? (Don't bother answering that, I already know the answer).

1) The evil Jews aren't involved.
2) Who cares about brown people.


One of the two answers, perhaps both.

It's easy to condemn the people killing civilians - how 'bout a little credit for those that work so hard defending them *starts a slow clap*

1) The evil Jews aren't involved.
2) Who cares about brown people.


One of the two answers, perhaps both.

and 20 posts in to a thread about a report criticising both Isreal and Hezbollah we get the first anti-semetic accusation.

a pathetic attempt to deflect attention away from the topic in hand.

ignore this WUM

They're both criminals. At least somebody said it. Unfortunately, since Israel is a state, they're committing more crimes with the same action, so they get more flak from the authorities.

Meh. While I'd like them to be a little more neutral yet forceful, I say Amnesty are generally in the right area for a pressure group at the minute. A little more criticism of Hezbollah (though no less of Israel) would not be out of place, of course, but they get my support anyway.

and 20 posts in to a thread about a report criticising both Isreal and Hezbollah we get the first anti-semetic accusation.

a pathetic attempt to deflect attention away from the topic in hand.

ignore this WUM

So why exactly aren't you pissing and moaning about Darfur? Oh yes, the Muslims ARE committing genocide there, and as I recall the only nation to say anything about it was the US.

Oh and I called you anti-semetic on the 8th post, you just didn't get the reference.

So why exactly aren't you pissing and moaning about Darfur? Oh yes, the Muslims ARE committing genocide there, and as I recall the only nation to say anything about it was the US.

Well, I'll be fair. Amnesty does complain about that too. Just no-one gives a fuck.

Well, I'll be fair. Amnesty does complain about that too. Just no-one gives a fuck.

Amnesty complains about everything. That'd be part of the reason no one cares. They're almost as useless as the UN.

So why exactly aren't you pissing and moaning about Darfur? Oh yes, the Muslims ARE committing genocide there, and as I recall the only nation to say anything about it was the US.

start a thread about it so.

im bringing up a report from a credible human rights organisation referring to a conflict thats been all over these pages for 4 weeks.

yet in this thread you bring up darfur.

it is, i repeat, pathetic, offensive and intellectual dishonety to falsely accuse others of racism/anti-semitism to deflect away from a topic you have made no effort to debate.

Amnesty complains about everything. That'd be part of the reason no one cares. They're almost as useless as the UN.

Quite.

The point is the whole israel/lebanon thing is rather minor in terms of the whole world (and please no-one start on about escalation and wider wars, that was the rubbishy claim at one point about serbia too).

The best thing would be just to ignore it, and let the two sides to fight to some sort of equilibrium. Get it out of their system, so to speak.

So why exactly aren't you pissing and moaning about Darfur? Oh yes, the Muslims ARE committing genocide there, and as I recall the only nation to say anything about it was the US.

Oh and I called you anti-semetic on the 8th post, you just didn't get the reference.


Probably because noone on this board is defending the people killing innocent people in Darfur. I've seen Darfur mentioned on this board a few times.

Also one does not have to mention every single other crisis in the world when mentioning one crisis.

I burned my dinner last night and complained about it but that doesnt mean I have to complain about every single time my dinner was burned or discount it because of the greater number of times that I didnt burn it.

Why are you pissing and moaning about Amnesty International but not complaining about the price of eggs in China?

start a thread about it so.

im bringing up a report from a credible human rights organisation referring to a conflict thats been all over these pages for 4 weeks.

yet in this thread you bring up darfur.

it is, i repeat, pathetic, offensive and intellectual dishonety to falsely accuse others of racism/anti-semitism to deflect away from a topic you have made no effort to debate.

Falsely? Oh you've been on this bend for a while. You're aware people can click your name and bring up your entire post history yes?

http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showthread.php?t=495292

That post over two weeks ago you were already trying to stoke the war crimes fire. And you've NEVER started a thread about Darfur, or any African conflict. I find that interesting seeing as you're such an advocate for the dignity of human life.

it is, i repeat, pathetic, offensive and intellectual dishonety to falsely accuse others of racism/anti-semitism to deflect away from a topic you have made no effort to debate.As so often happens on this site when someone says they are for tougher border enforcement.

Falsely? Oh you've been on this bend for a while. You're aware people can click your name and bring up your entire post history yes?

http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showthread.php?t=495292

That post over two weeks ago you were already trying to stoke the war crimes fire.

so i am consistent. fisk made an interesting point that i put up for discussion. amnesty wrote an interesting report, i put it up for discussion

that makes me an anti-semite how?

so i am consistent. fisk made an interesting point that i put up for discussion. amnesty wrote an interesting report, i put it up for discussion

that makes me an anti-semite how?
http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showthread.php?t=494147

Oh it doesn't, but your posting history does. Why do you hate the Jews so much?

http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showthread.php?t=494147

Oh it doesn't, but your posting history does. Why do you hate the Jews so much?

is there a buttion there that can check my sexual history? or a list of friends of mine of the jewish faith? :rolleyes:

i am disturbed by isreali overreaction, their disregard for civilains, the settlements and the bizarre unflincing support they get in the US that makes no strategic or political sense.

but its the state of isreals acions i dislike. i have no opinion of jews above or below any other ethnic/religious group.

i criticise italian political and sporting corruption, am i anti-catholic?

stop stirring and adress any of amnesties points

I did, you ignored it, here it is again.

Wait, dropping warning letters is illegal?

Wow!

You do realize that Israel has the fire power to turn a signifigant fraction of the middle east into a glass parking lot yes? You do realize that they do infact posess similar or superior weaponry to the United States? You do realize that 1000 civvies given the massive number of weapons exchanged in the combat is trivial yes?


Now if Israel wanted to destroy Lebanon (which would be stupid beyond words), they'd of mobilized their army to the Israel/Lebanon boarder, and started carpet bombing from the north down.

Amnesty can whine all they like, they do about everything everywhere. In the end they're just begging for attention so people will send them money.

You realize the sheer devestation Israel could rain down if Genocide was their goal? Have you stopped for half a second to think how incredibly stupid the idea of a bunch of fucking holocaust survivers and refugees commiting Genocide is?

Now if Israel wanted to destroy Lebanon (which would be stupid beyond words), they'd of mobilized their army to the Israel/Lebanon boarder, and started carpet bombing from the north down.

Amnesty can whine all they like, they do about everything everywhere. In the end they're just begging for attention so people will send them money.

You realize the sheer devestation Israel could rain down if Genocide was their goal? Have you stopped for half a second to think how incredibly stupid the idea of a bunch of fucking holocaust survivers and refugees commiting Genocide is?

So, because I have the ability to kill a person, its okay if i just steal them?

So, because I have the ability to kill a person, its okay if i just steal them?

Excuse me what exactly did the Jews steal?

Also you're not quite correct, it would be closer to say "Just because I have the ability to kill someone doesn't mean I should be charged with murder for giving them a black eye".

illlegal.

And now anything resembling credibility is shot here for telling people to get out so that they do not get killed is called trying to limit civilian casualties. They gave fair warning as proscribed by law. So long sir.

Why didn;t that report mention that Hezbolah deliberately targeted civilian infrastructure? The glaring difference is that Hezbolah's weapons, support, infrastructure and soldiers were hiding in the civilian population while Isreal's is not. By definition, were you to bomb Hezbolah quarters you would be bombing a civilian building because that's where they put their quarters.

Sad but true :(

Falsely? Oh you've been on this bend for a while. You're aware people can click your name and bring up your entire post history yes?

http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showthread.php?t=495292

That post over two weeks ago you were already trying to stoke the war crimes fire. And you've NEVER started a thread about Darfur, or any African conflict. I find that interesting seeing as you're such an advocate for the dignity of human life.

That post is total bunk as they are being allowed back into Southern Lebanon.

That post is total bunk as they are being allowed back into Southern Lebanon.

I know, just building up evidence for his pattern of vehemently anti-israeli posts in defiance of logic and sense, to say nothing of reality.

http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showthread.php?t=494147

Oh it doesn't, but your posting history does. Why do you hate the Jews so much?

Sweet Holy Mary.

That post is total bunk as they are being allowed back into Southern Lebanon.

as it turns out, yes.

but at the time the IDF said they werent going to.

that took less than 1 minute after the op.

if you arent going to even read the summary report, is your opinion valid?
why don't you apply some actual analytic skills instead of copying urls?

Excuse me what exactly did the Jews steal?

Also you're not quite correct, it would be closer to say "Just because I have the ability to kill someone doesn't mean I should be charged with murder for giving them a black eye".

so 'only' killing 1,000 civilians is ok because they could have killed more? :rolleyes:

lets take that specious logic to the extreme. the holocaust was acceptible because they only murdered 8m when with a bit more effort they could have gotten 12 easy!!

you are talking dangerous shite.

why don't you apply some actual analytic skills instead of copying urls?

we are on the third page of it now, did you just see the headline and hit reply?
:rolleyes:

we are on the third page of it now, did you just see the headline and hit reply?
:rolleyes:

I think he means your spam OP.

we are on the third page of it now, did you just see the headline and hit reply?
:rolleyes:
Your OP is spam and every response you've posted is either flaming, flamebait, or trolling.

Your OP is spam and every response you've posted is either flaming, flamebait, or trolling.

i bet you if amnesty said isreal fough a clean war your opinion would be somewhat different.

i bet you if amnesty said isreal fough a clean war your opinion would be somewhat different.

Mine wouldn't.

as it turns out, yes.

but at the time the IDF said they werent going to.

Newsflash:

When you tell someone to leave a warzone, you normally do not want those people to comeback to a warzone for their own safety.

You do realize that by not allowing them to return before a cease-fire was agreed too probably saved many more lives?

Newsflash:

When you tell someone to leave a warzone, you normally do not want those people to comeback to a warzone for their own safety.

You do realize that by not allowing them to return before a cease-fire was agreed too probably saved many more lives?
Don't try to explain logic to this person.

He obviously can't use it as every post he has made in this debate has been some form of ad hominem.

Newsflash:

When you tell someone to leave a warzone, you normally do not want those people to comeback to a warzone for their own safety.

You do realize that by not allowing them to return before a cease-fire was agreed too probably saved many more lives?

i put up an interesting angle on the issue i heard on the radio for discussion on, wait for it, a current affairs forum. it was the forced expulsion of civilians by a military, and i pondered was that not technically ethnic lceansing

it was also as a counterpoint to the line that civilain areas were not being targetted randomly. to me telling civlians to get out or you would kill them proves that there was not due care given to protecting cilvilains and the idf knew that. and the circle is closed as amnesty also came to that opinion.

i never offered it directly as my opinion.

Don't try to explain logic to this person.

He obviously can't use it as every post he has made in this debate has been some form of ad hominem.

i am responding to personal attacks, not starting the flaming.

no-one has the moral right to threaten civilians unless they run for their lives. its galling to read some of the justifications given. and not one attempt to counter any of amnesties claims. just attempting to flame me for posting the report.

i put up an interesting angle on the issue i heard on the radio for discussion on, wait for it, a current affairs forum. it was the forced expulsion of civilians by a military, and i pondered was that not technically ethnic lceansing

No since they did not go door to door and removing those people from their homes. They said get out because we are going to be conducting a military operation here and we want you out of the way so we can get at Hezbollah. Big difference.

it was also as a counterpoint to the line that civilain areas were not being targetted randomly.

You are right that civilian areas were not being targeted randomly. They hit known Hezbollah strongholds inside civilian areas. No wonder Israel told the citizens here to leave. They wanted to limit civilian casualties.

to me telling civlians to get out or you would kill them proves that there was not due care given to protecting cilvilains and the idf knew that. and the circle is closed as amnesty also came to that opinion.

Now prove that they would kill them if they did not leave! You can not do so. They wanted as many civilians as possible to leave so that they can get at Hezbollah easier without having to worry about civilian casualties. I go back to the point of limiting civilian casualties. If they wanted to, they could have just bombed the area without warning. To do that however, is illegal.

i never offered it directly as my opinion.

No just indirectly as your opinion which is just as bad.

i am responding to personal attacks, not starting the flaming.

no-one has the moral right to threaten civilians unless they run for their lives. its galling to read some of the justifications given. and not one attempt to counter any of amnesties claims. just attempting to flame me for posting the report.

Other posters are right. Amnesty does whine to much and what they perceive as a "war crime" sometimes is not in fact a war crime. The fact that Israel warned the civilians in the area about an impending military action gives Israel credit. They warned the Lebanonese civilians by leaflettes and phone calls so that they would not get killed in the cross-fire. Seems to me Israel went out of their way to limit civilian casualties and for that, I give them credit for.

no-one has the moral right to threaten civilians unless they run for their lives. its galling to read some of the justifications given. and not one attempt to counter any of amnesties claims. just attempting to flame me for posting the report.

I bet you weren't screaming about civilian deaths when NATO was illegally bombing serbia.

No-one really cares about civilian deaths. The issue is just brought up from time to time so people can act all morally superior.

Anyway, the lebanese don't give a fuck about isreali civilian casualities. Instead of bitching a better option for them would be to be less shit at war.

snip.

explain to me why the IDF switched away from an air cased war, removed the general in charge of the campaign and sent in more commando type ground forces halfway through the conflict?

because the tactics were failing and the civilain death toll was so high and the infrastructural damage so severe even the white house told them to keep the noise down.

explain to me why the IDF switched away from an air cased war, removed the general in charge of the campaign and sent in more commando type ground forces halfway through the conflict?

I am not in Israel and not a high ranking IDF member. Only they can answer that question. I can answer the ground componet though. No one wins a war by air power alone. One must have boots on the ground in order to actually win a war.

And there is no need to start to get angry.

I am not in Israel and not a high ranking IDF member. Only they can answer that question. I can answer the ground componet though. No one wins a war by air power alone. One must have boots on the ground in order to actually win a war.

And there is no need to start to get angry.

belive it or not i am a very calm human being, so you will know when i get angry ;)

but you did start to defend the IDF actions....

belive it or not i am a very calm human being, so you will know when i get angry ;)

but you did start to defend the IDF actions....

They did try to limit civilian casualties. Unfortunately, they will occur no matter the pains taken to limit them. Smart weapons malfuction, wrong coordinates, pilot error...alot of things will cause'em.

I do credit them for giving residents fair warning of air attacks. It did save alot of lives. The death toll could have been far worse if the IDF had not done so.

They did try to limit civilian casualties. Unfortunately, they will occur no matter the pains taken to limit them. Smart weapons malfuction, wrong coordinates, pilot error...alot of things will cause'em.

I do credit them for giving residents fair warning of air attacks. It did save alot of lives. The death toll could have been far worse if the IDF had not done so.

well i disagree.

so do amnesty international.

look at the video on their site, thats a lot of pilot error...

well i disagree.

so do amnesty international.

Unfortunately, they cry wolf so many times that no one listens to Amnesty International. As I said, sometimes what they perceive as a warcrime turns out not to be the case.

look at the video on their site, thats a lot of pilot error...

How do you know that it really was pilot error? Amnesty International does not know that.

So the mass dropping of leaflets telling civilians to get the hell out of the way was...?
not many lebanese could get out of the areas concerned due to roads being destroyed by Israel, and hezbollah using civilians as human sheilds.
Im sick of people jumping to the conclusion that just because you do not support Israels actions in the recent conflict that you support Hezbollah!
I myself believe that Israel DID have the right to disarm Hezbollah, but they certainly didnt help themselves by apperently seeming to target civilians and cilvilian infrastructure(point in case a hospital)I also believe that Hezbollah were wrong to target Israeli civilians.
Amnesty is righ, both sides have commited war crimes,both are to blame!

I myself believe that Israel DID have the right to disarm Hezbollah, but they certainly didnt help themselves by apperently seeming to target civilians and cilvilian infrastructure(point in case a hospital)

Even though said hospital was a Command and control center for Hezbollah militants thus making it a legit target for Israel? Notice they did not bomb it but raided it?

Unfortunately, they cry wolf so many times that no one listens to Amnesty International. As I said, sometimes what they perceive as a warcrime turns out not to be the case.



How do you know that it really was pilot error? Amnesty International does not know that.

name one time they called warcrime incorrectly?

you brought pilot error up as possible a reason for the high civilian death toll, not amnesty

Wait, dropping warning letters is illegal?

Wow!

You do realize that Israel has the fire power to turn a signifigant fraction of the middle east into a glass parking lot yes? You do realize that they do infact posess similar or superior weaponry to the United States? You do realize that 1000 civvies given the massive number of weapons exchanged in the combat is trivial yes?

doesnt mean that Israel have the right to do so.Oh, and by the way, I wouldnt call the death of 1000 people , civilians or not, is never trivial(especially since only 3 times that were killed in the world trade centre-resulting in the death of many more thousand civilians in Iraq and afghanistan)
I repeat, just because you have the weapons doesnt mean you have the right to kill civilians, just because you could have killed many more people than you did doesnt mean the killing is excusable.It just makes you a bully.

name one time they called warcrime incorrectly?

Oh I don't know. I do not pay attention to A.I. Let me read the nice little report they have online (presumably it is easy to read and not all that long) and I shall have an answer for you. However, if I find that hospital raid among it....

you brought pilot error up as possible a reason for the high civilian death toll, not amnesty

I listed it as one of many things that could have gone wrong. Not the only thing. A warcrime has to be deliberate and not accidental.

doesnt mean that Israel have the right to do so.Oh, and by the way, I wouldnt call the death of 1000 people , civilians or not, is never trivial(especially since only 3 times that were killed in the world trade centre-resulting in the death of many more thousand civilians in Iraq and afghanistan)
I repeat, just because you have the weapons doesnt mean you have the right to kill civilians, just because you could have killed many more people than you did doesnt mean the killing is excusable.It just makes you a bully.

In Lebanon....define what a civilian is since Hezbollah is not actual military but a militia and militia's by definition are civilians.

In Lebanon....define what a civilian is since Hezbollah is not actual military but a militia and militia's by definition are civilians.

thats the exact same logic hamas suicide bombers use.

all israelis citizens are soldiers therefore all israeli civilians are legitimate military targets.

its wrong from them and wrong from the isrealis.

thats the exact same logic hamas suicide bombers use.

all israelis citizens are soldiers therefore all israeli civilians are legitimate military targets.

its wrong from them and wrong from the isrealis.

Now that is one heck of a fallacy you just used. Sine when are nightclubs, shopping malls, and restaurents military targets? They are not. They are 100% purely civilian targets. The only way for those places to be considered military is if people are shooting at soldiers from them or being used to conduct military operations. Then one can legally hit it.

Hitting a building that is being used as a command center is a legal military target. Bombing a building because of rockets being stored there is a legit target. Bombing a building that had a rocket launch from either on the roof or from inside it makes the building a legal target.

All of this is in accordance with international law. If said structures had nothing to do with Hezbollah's war effort, then I would be granting it to you. Since the above mentioned has been used by Hezbollah against Israel, it makes said buildings legal to be hit.

I did, you ignored it, here it is again.




Now if Israel wanted to destroy Lebanon (which would be stupid beyond words), they'd of mobilized their army to the Israel/Lebanon boarder, and started carpet bombing from the north down.

Amnesty can whine all they like, they do about everything everywhere. In the end they're just begging for attention so people will send them money.

You realize the sheer devestation Israel could rain down if Genocide was their goal? Have you stopped for half a second to think how incredibly stupid the idea of a bunch of fucking holocaust survivers and refugees commiting Genocide is?

The point is no one at least no one I want to associate with)is accusing israel of genocide.What Amnesty are accusing them of(and hezbollah also)is not having enough care for civilian life and seeming to target civilians.
Amnesty are wanting money so that they can at least make a contribution to preventing and stoppong war crimes and human rights violations.They accuse every nation they believe has commited a violation-without bias(I believe).They condemn each with equal fervour!
and once again, just because a country has the weaponry to rain devestation on another doesnt give them the right to do so, or the right to have praise when they dont completly wipe out that nation(and I mean any country not just israel).
Also, just because someone does not agree with Israel's policies doesnt make them an anti semite.Unfortunatly it seems that if you criticice a single jew then you are an anti semite but if you call the whole of Islam evil and vile and claim that all muslims support rape torture or opression of women then that is completly acceptable?

Now that is one heck of a fallacy you just used. Sine when are nightclubs, shopping malls, and restaurents military targets? They are not. They are 100% purely civilian targets. The only way for those places to be considered military is if people are shooting at soldiers from them or being used to conduct military operations. Then one can legally hit it.

Hitting a building that is being used as a command center is a legal military target. Bombing a building because of rockets being stored there is a legit target. Bombing a building that had a rocket launch from either on the roof or from inside it makes the building a legal target.

All of this is in accordance with international law. If said structures had nothing to do with Hezbollah's war effort, then I would be granting it to you. Since the above mentioned has been used by Hezbollah against Israel, it makes said buildings legal to be hit.

i agree with the first part, i was making that point thats got a lot to do with why im not a member of hamas.

its when you start legitimising hitting civilians that the problems begin.

roads, power stations, bridges,water supplies, telecoms, hospitals. all civilian, all used by hezbollah, all destroyed.

if targetting hezbollah commanders at home with their families is acceptible, why not a nightclub full of israelis who are all in the army or reserve? to me both are wrong, but you seem to think otherwise.

off duty soldiers are off duty, IDF or Hez.

The point is no one at least no one I want to associate with)is accusing israel of genocide.What Amnesty are accusing them of(and hezbollah also)is not having enough care for civilian life and seeming to target civilians.

Actually, that is not true in regards to Israel. If they did not care about civilians, they would not have told the citizens to leave the area where they will be conducting military operations.

Given the state of de facto war that was existent, I see no problem with Israel striking against materiel that would be used as strategic reserves by Hiz'bo'allah, given the knowledge of how Hiz'bo'allah makes use of such materials, and various other civilian variables.

Actually, that is not true in regards to Israel. If they did not care about civilians, they would not have told the citizens to leave the area where they will be conducting military operations.
They would also have acted in a far less restrained fashion.

If Israel didn't give a flying fuck about the civvies, they would most likely have been far more aggressive with aerial bombardment of the country. Truthfully, the campaign they fought was quite restrained.

Even though said hospital was a Command and control center for Hezbollah militants thus making it a legit target for Israel? Notice they did not bomb it but raided it?

fair point,as I said I support neither side, both are in the wrong.

Actually, that is not true in regards to Israel. If they did not care about civilians, they would not have told the citizens to leave the area where they will be conducting military operations.

actually they say targetting civilian infrastructure was a key component of the war and thats technically a war crime as they are obliged to distinguish between civilian and military facilities, something you gave out that hamas dont do

Actually, that is not true in regards to Israel. If they did not care about civilians, they would not have told the citizens to leave the area where they will be conducting military operations.

I don't know if its funny or sad that Israel managed to kill "with great care" more civilians that hizballah, that really wanted to kill israeli civilians.

Face it, Israel knew (because no matter how good they are, accidents happen and trigger happy soldiers exist) that by attacking lebanon, they would kill innocent people - and they went ahead anyway. That is the greatest show that they didn't cared for Lebanese civilians, the fact that they unleashed hell on them for reasons that in no way justify the death toll and destruction they caused.

thats the exact same logic hamas suicide bombers use.

all israelis citizens are soldiers therefore all israeli civilians are legitimate military targets.

its wrong from them and wrong from the isrealis.

absoluty
and all amnesty want is for people to stop killing other people(or torturing orbeating other people)
and surley,that is what we all want(i hope),for people(Israli,lebanese,sudanese,whatever)to resolve their differences without resorting to violence!

actually they say targetting civilian infrastructure was a key component of the war and thats technically a war crime as they are obliged to distinguish between civilian and military facilities, something you gave out that hamas dont do

And if said infrastructure is used for a military purpose, it makes it a legit target to hit in accordance with international Law.

And if said infrastructure is used for a military purpose, it makes it a legit target to hit in accordance with international Law.

ehhh, no it doesnt.

find me that law.

Now that is one heck of a fallacy you just used. Sine when are nightclubs, shopping malls, and restaurents military targets? They are not. They are 100% purely civilian targets. The only way for those places to be considered military is if people are shooting at soldiers from them or being used to conduct military operations. Then one can legally hit it.

Hitting a building that is being used as a command center is a legal military target. Bombing a building because of rockets being stored there is a legit target. Bombing a building that had a rocket launch from either on the roof or from inside it makes the building a legal target.

All of this is in accordance with international law. If said structures had nothing to do with Hezbollah's war effort, then I would be granting it to you. Since the above mentioned has been used by Hezbollah against Israel, it makes said buildings legal to be hit.

no because he was claiming Hebollah were wrong to do so,neither side are completly in the right.Israel went over board by destroying infrastructure that they didnt need to and inadvertantly killing,or trapping civilians.If they really wanted to save civilians they should have told the civilians to get out before they blew up the roads that would allow the civilians to get out!
This however does not excuse hezbollah from targeting israeli civilians by claiming they are 'soldiers'

I don't know if its funny or sad that Israel managed to kill "with great care" more civilians that hizballah, that really wanted to kill israeli civilians.
I might want to remind you that Israel was engaged in asymmetric warfare. They are capable of carrying out far more operations than Hiz'bo'allah can even have their own delusional little wet dreams of power about. Beyond that, Hiz'bo'allahs weapons were equally likely to hit a highly populated apartment building or an empty field. They made use of indiscriminate weapons, and basically were shooting blindfolded much of the time.


Face it, Israel knew (because no matter how good they are, accidents happen and trigger happy soldiers exist) that by attacking lebanon, they would kill innocent people - and they went ahead anyway. That is the greatest show that they didn't cared for Lebanese civilians, the fact that they unleashed hell on them for reasons that in no way justify the death toll and destruction they caused.
Prior to the conflict, the normative judgement is very, very difficult to make. I suspect that Olmert truly felt the sovereignity of Israel threatened, and that Hiz'bo'allah provided that threat through continual rocket attacks throughout the years, and repeated kidnappings of Israeli soldiers and violation of Israeli territory.

I don't know if its funny or sad that Israel managed to kill "with great care" more civilians that hizballah, that really wanted to kill israeli civilians.

For starters, Hezbollah used inaccurate missiles and Hezbollah targets were inside civilian buildings. It was little surprise at the amount of Lebanonese casualties.

Face it, Israel knew (because no matter how good they are, accidents happen and trigger happy soldiers exist) that by attacking lebanon, they would kill innocent people - and they went ahead anyway.

Civilians die in war. There is no way around it. Is that hard to understand? That is what makes it so horrible is the innocent life that is lost.

That is the greatest show that they didn't cared for Lebanese civilians, the fact that they unleashed hell on them for reasons that in no way justify the death toll and destruction they caused.

They did warn the people to get out of the warzone. That is more than I can say for Hezbollah who just launched their rockets all over Israel with little regard for civilians. At least Israel had the class to at least warn the residence in the targeted area.

ehhh, no it doesnt.

find me that law.
According to the Fourth Geneva Convention, it is the fault of those who are making use of the civilian infrastructure, if that infrastructure is destroyed.

Civilians die in war. There is no way around it. Is that hard to understand? That is what makes it so horrible is the innocent life that is lost.

:o No its not hard to understand, at least for me - The blind IDF supporters however seem to believe that the IDF is just the morally perfect military force in the world. They kill innocent people. They don't want to, but they know that they will kill innocent people, and they still go ahead. How can that be excused?



They did warn the people to get out of the warzone. That is more than I can say for Hezbollah who just launched their rockets all over Israel with little regard for civilians. At least Israel had the class to at least warn the residence in the targeted area.

..and israel even managed to bomb civilian convoys getting out the areas that they arrogantly wanted "vacated"! (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Attacks_on_civilian_convoys_in_the_2006_Israel-Lebanon_conflict)

and as I pointed out before if israel really wanted to save civilians why did they not warn the civilians to get out of the area before they blew up the roads?

ehhh, no it doesnt.

find me that law.

First rule of warfare is to deny your enemy power, communications, and transportation. Hitting power plants denies your enemy power. Hitting transportation points limits travel to keep supplies from re-inforcing your enemy. Taking out communications prevents your enemy from co-ordinating.

Let us look at the Iraq War. US hit power plants to cut power, took out communication centers to prevent cohesive co-ordination, took out runways to prevent their airplanes from taking off or to be used at all.

Why did the US do all of these things? Because it denies it to their enemy to be used against them and their allies.

Now let us look at the Lebanonese conflict. They blockaded the ports to keep weapons from getting to Hezbollah. They bombed the ports for the same reason. They bombed the runway to keep smuggling weapons by air down thus denying them more material. They hit plants to deny their enemy power and took out communications to prevent them from talking to one another. They bombed roads leading from Syria and bridges leading southward to deny weapons from coming on the ground.

All of the above mentioned is 100% legal in a war because it is denying your targets material and support they need to conduct war. Any building or infrastructure used for a military purpose is 100% legal to be hit by their enemy.

Under International Law, there are certian things that are off limits. You are right about that. However, when they are being used for military purposes, they can be legally taken out.

:o No its not hard to understand, at least for me - The blind IDF supporters however seem to believe that the IDF is just the morally perfect military force in the world. They kill innocent people. They don't want to, but they know that they will kill innocent people, and they still go ahead. How can that be excused?

How can one excuse Saddam Hussein's gas attacks on kurds in the 80s knowing that he will kill civilians? Or how about his assault on Kuwait? How about our assault to liberate Kuwait that also killed civilians? How about our air attack in Kosovo? We killed civilians there knowing full well it was going to happen. Anyone who engages in warfare knows that civilians are going to die. That is why you take steps to limit it and that is what Israel did.

URL="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Attacks_on_civilian_convoys_in_the_2006_Israel-Lebanon_conflict"] ..and israel even managed to bomb civilian convoys getting out the areas that they arrogantly wanted "vacated"![/URL]

Can you honestly tell me that all of those convoys were innocent knowing how Hezbollah operates?

and as I pointed out before if israel really wanted to save civilians why did they not warn the civilians to get out of the area before they blew up the roads?

It is amazing how many hundreds of thousands got out of South Lebanon while a war was being fought. And how many were actually driving to which makes it even more amazing. I guess not all the roads were bombed after all.

snip.

so you couldnt find the 'law' then?

i have to go, but for a month hezbollah were terrorists because it suited. now they are military when it suits?

your hero's werent at war with lebanon, it ws ostensibly a counter terrorism operation, therefore lebanese civilians, infrastructure and hospitals were off limits. so the iraq analagy is false, because the US was invading iraq and fighting their army, not going in to fight a militia camped in border towns.

you cannot have it both ways, military or terrorists, make up your mind

How can one excuse Saddam Hussein's gas attacks on kurds in the 80s knowing that he will kill civilians? Or how about his assault on Kuwait? How about our assault to liberate Kuwait that also killed civilians? How about our air attack in Kosovo? We killed civilians there knowing full well it was going to happen. Anyone who engages in warfare knows that civilians are going to die. That is why you take steps to limit it and that is what Israel did.

Exactly, you know civilians die - and generally lots. How you said that can't be excused, never. So why try to excuse Israel? Especially if war could have been avoided, and if you consider past history (namely the previous prisioner exchanges between soldiers that hizb allah captured and lebanese prisioners), this war was really unnecessary.



Can you honestly tell me that all of those convoys were innocent knowing how Hezbollah operates?

I don't need to tell you that; The death toll on civilian lebanese indicates that.

Exactly, you know civilians die - and generally lots. How you said that can't be excused, never. So why try to excuse Israel?

So you are saying then that we should not have liberated Kuwait? Are you saying we should not have had our air war over Kosovo to stop a massacre of civilians?

I don't need to tell you that; The death toll on civilian lebanese indicates that.

Sorry my friend but yes you do. Can you tell me how many of those convoys are in fact 100% innocent?

It is amazing how many hundreds of thousands got out of South Lebanon while a war was being fought. And how many were actually driving to which makes it even more amazing. I guess not all the roads were bombed after all.
but unfortunatly many were trapped.I have never claimed that all the roads were blown up...

so you couldnt find the 'law' then?

It is called the Geneva Conventions. They govern how warfare is supposed to be done.

i have to go, but for a month hezbollah were terrorists because it suited. now they are military when it suits?

Since they are a resistence force (as they are recognzed as one) then anything you can do to deny them material is perfectly legal in warfare.

your hero's werent at war with lebanon, it ws ostensibly a counter terrorism operation, therefore lebanese civilians, infrastructure and hospitals were off limits.

My hero is the Lord Savior Jesus Christ. As to your intended statement...resistence forces/militia are civilians. :rolleys:

so the iraq analagy is false, because the US was invading iraq and fighting their army, not going in to fight a militia camped in border towns.

Analogy still stands.

you cannot have it both ways, military or terrorists, make up your mind

I call them terrorists but they are a recognized Resistence force (What they are resisting I do not know as Israel has been out of Lebanon sinec 2000)/militia.

but unfortunatly many were trapped.I have never claimed that all the roads were blown up...

Now another question one must ask one self is did they stay on their own, forced to stay, or supporters of Hezbollah. That is the question one must ask once self when talking about those who were "trapped". Some probably were. I will not deny that but how many actually were trapped? How many actually stayed their on their own? How many were forced to stay?

AC, you are wasting our time now.

you arent reading whats being put up here. PC MK3 asked you a specific question about why you seem to believe the IDF have magical civilian avoidance powers, you are talking about kuwait? :confused:

the fourth geneva convention (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fourth_Geneva_Convention) does not permit targetting civilan infrastructure. do us the courtesy of reading up on things before you throw them in. it actually refers to protecting civilians and proscribing collective punishment. and you are using this to defend israel in the recent spat? bizarre stuff.

Now another question one must ask one self is did they stay on their own, forced to stay, or supporters of Hezbollah. That is the question one must ask once self when talking about those who were "trapped". Some probably were. I will not deny that but how many actually were trapped? How many actually stayed their on their own? How many were forced to stay?
that is a fair comment, I am sure some were supporters of hezbollah, but if they were not actually killing people for hezbollah then they were probably innocent.
Its all far too complicated.

you arent reading whats being put up here. PC MK3 asked you a specific question about why you seem to believe the IDF have magical civilian avoidance powers, you are talking about kuwait? :confused:

I never said they did now did I? No I did not. He said that Israel should not have done what they did because civilians were going to die. By that logic, we should not have launced a campaign to liberate Kuwait because civilians would die in our liberation attempt. And they did.

the fourth geneva convention (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fourth_Geneva_Convention) does not permit targetting civilan infrastructure.

You do not understand that if it is used for military purposes, it becomes a legal target. The Geneva conventions recognize that.

Article 19 of the IV Geneva Convention: Article 19
The protection to which civilian hospitals are entitled shall not cease unless they are used to commit, outside their humanitarian duties, acts harmful to the enemy. Protection may, however, cease only after due warning has been given, naming, in all appropriate cases, a reasonable time limit and after such warning has remained unheeded.

Seems like that covers the attack on the Hospital as it was used as a Command and Control center for Hezbollah.

do us the courtesy of reading up on things before you throw them in. it actually refers to protecting civilians and proscribing collective punishment. and you are using this to defend israel in the recent spat? bizarre stuff.

I am not the one who is not reading up on things.

that is a fair comment, I am sure some were supporters of hezbollah, but if they were not actually killing people for hezbollah then they were probably innocent.
Its all far too complicated.

Here I will agree with you.

I'll say it again... Israel went way too far. They destroyed infrastructure essential to civilian survival.

Funny that that they claimed to have no beef with Lebanese civilians.

Oh and SR?

Where in the IV Geneva Convention does it state that infrastructure can not be hit?

Oh and SR?

Where in the IV Geneva Convention does it state that infrastructure can not be hit?

im not the one who mentioned that convention.....

the quote you supplied is of utter irrelevance to whether the IDF are legally allowed target lebanses infrastructure in the scale they did, which you are claiming it does. you said the GC allows the IDF do what they did, back it up.

otherwise you are spamming.

im not the one who mentioned that convention.....

the quote you supplied is of utter irrelevance to whether the IDF are legally allowed target lebanses infrastructure in the scale they did, which you are claiming it does. you said the GC allows the IDF do what they did, back it up.

otherwise you are spamming.

I did not quote it either so I am not your guy. Also, I am not seeing anything in accordance with the Conventions in regards to civilian infrastructure being hit.

doesnt mean that Israel have the right to do so.Oh, and by the way, I wouldnt call the death of 1000 people , civilians or not, is never trivial(especially since only 3 times that were killed in the world trade centre-resulting in the death of many more thousand civilians in Iraq and afghanistan)
I repeat, just because you have the weapons doesnt mean you have the right to kill civilians, just because you could have killed many more people than you did doesnt mean the killing is excusable.It just makes you a bully.

The attacks on the WTC were trivial, and blown completely out of proportion, as was our response. I've said that before, so if you're going to try and use 9/11 to make me seem self contradictory you're going to have to work harder.

The attacks on the WTC were trivial, and blown completely out of proportion, as was our response. I've said that before, so if you're going to try and use 9/11 to make me seem self contradictory you're going to have to work harder.
I wasnt, I was just pointing out a fact.
You may think the loss of innocent human life is trivial, but I certainly dont!

+1000 amnesty international.

Israeli war criminals need to face the same justice as their colleagues from other countries.

+1000 amnesty international.

Israeli war criminals need to face the same justice as their colleagues from other countries.

Which is essentially nothing. So there is no problem then, is there?

Big whoop.

I committed war crimes today. Several, infact.

Am I worried? No. Coffee anon needs to stop being such a socialist tard and have a look around him.

+1000 amnesty international.

Israeli war criminals need to face the same justice as their colleagues from other countries.

Now define what a war criminal is when you are literally fighting civilians.

+1000 amnesty international.

Israeli war criminals need to face the same justice as their colleagues from other countries.

Hezzbollah doesn't count as civilians.

OMG!!!11! THE JOOOOOS ARE RANDOMLY BOMBING HOMES IN QANA! WAR CRIM3S!!!! CALL TEH COFEEE ANON!!111!! DAH BLUE HEADS GOTTA COME IN TO MAKE IT RIGHT111!!!!11!!!

I have an israeli guncamera video of the bombings in Qana. I'll post it, then you can decide if the so-called "war crimes" even happened (you can see the hezzbollah rocket trucks running from building to building). Hell, I even have a video of a US f-16 dropping a 500lber in the middle of a crowd of armed Iraqis running towards a US patrol. They were curbstomped, indeed...

actually they say targetting civilian infrastructure was a key component of the war and thats technically a war crime as they are obliged to distinguish between civilian and military facilities, something you gave out that hamas dont do
It isn't a warcrime. That infrastructure was part of Hezbollah's logistical support and supply train, therefore it is a military target.

Just a note, in war, the enemy's logistical supply train is a primary target to hit.

It isn't a warcrime. That infrastructure was part of Hezbollah's logistical support and supply train, therefore it is a military target.

Just a note, in war, the enemy's logistical supply train is a primary target to hit.

I did tell SR that and then he told me to quote the Law that says it is.

The attacks on the WTC were trivial, and blown completely out of proportion, as was our response. I've said that before, so if you're going to try and use 9/11 to make me seem self contradictory you're going to have to work harder.

You must be on crack.

9/11 was an act of war, nothing less.

I 'spose you'd like us to "understand" and "tolerate" Jihadis? Or Alqaeda? Well, they're only plotting to kill all the jews, and then infidels such as us! No biggie, we just need to UNDERSTAND them! PEACE! PEACE! (Nevermind they're going to cut our throats out, we're sheep and we only say "PEACE!") They've been 'oppressed' by the eeeeeeeeeeeeevil joooooooooooS! and USSSSSSSSSSSSSAIIIIIIIIIIIIAN for so long, it's only understandable they last out against unaware and innocent people.

GO back to DU. Are you a troll?

You must be on crack.

9/11 was an act of war, nothing less.

I 'spose you'd like us to "understand" and "tolerate" Jihadis? Or Alqaeda? Well, they're only plotting to kill all the jews, and then infidels such as us! No biggie, we just need to UNDERSTAND them! PEACE! PEACE! (Nevermind they're going to cut our throats out, we're sheep and we only say "PEACE!") They've been 'oppressed' by the eeeeeeeeeeeeevil joooooooooooS! and USSSSSSSSSSSSSAIIIIIIIIIIIIAN for so long, it's only understandable they last out against unaware and innocent people.

GO back to DU. Are you a troll?

Da fuck?

Story here (http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/5276626.stm)

Amnesty.org. Very good video too. (http://www.amnesty.org/)
Excuse me for not caring, swine, leftist-Amnesty. :rolleyes:

You must be on crack.

9/11 was an act of war, nothing less.

I 'spose you'd like us to "understand" and "tolerate" Jihadis? Or Alqaeda? Well, they're only plotting to kill all the jews, and then infidels such as us! No biggie, we just need to UNDERSTAND them! PEACE! PEACE! (Nevermind they're going to cut our throats out, we're sheep and we only say "PEACE!") They've been 'oppressed' by the eeeeeeeeeeeeevil joooooooooooS! and USSSSSSSSSSSSSAIIIIIIIIIIIIAN for so long, it's only understandable they last out against unaware and innocent people.

GO back to DU. Are you a troll?

Where is this hostility coming from?

Da fuck?
Careful, lest thee mightest feedeth the trolleth.

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/1/1e/Troll_cows_ill_jnl_artlibre.png/180px-Troll_cows_ill_jnl_artlibre.png

I did tell SR that and then he told me to quote the Law that says it is.

It's more that there is no law prohibiting it.

Of course, siting your supply chain and whatnot through areas full of civilians may well be a war crime, but as Hezb'allah doesn't commit those it never happened.

Where is this hostility coming from?

Uhhh 9/11 was trivial? Response completely out of proportion?


From those 2 little phrases I concluded he was a left-leaning socialist, and from personal experiance left leaners tend to try and "understand" and "Feel".

It's more that there is no law prohibiting it.

Of course, siting your supply chain and whatnot through areas full of civilians may well be a war crime, but as Hezb'allah doesn't commit those it never happened.

Well hezzbollah itself is breaking the UN resolution, so it shouldn't come as a surpise...

It's more that there is no law prohibiting it.

Of course, siting your supply chain and whatnot through areas full of civilians may well be a war crime, but as Hezb'allah doesn't commit those it never happened.

Which again lays any blame of civilian deaths back at the feet of Hezbollah.

Uhhh 9/11 was trivial? Response completely out of proportion?


From those 2 little phrases I concluded he was a left-leaning socialist, and from personal experiance left leaners tend to try and "understand" and "Feel".

So from two words you think you know his political ideology?

Well hezzbollah itself is breaking the UN resolution, so it shouldn't come as a surpise...

I hate to say this but how is Hezbollah breaking a resolution when they do not have a seat at the security council?

So from two words you think you know his political ideology?



I hate to say this but how is Hezbollah breaking a resolution when they do not have a seat at the security council?

Only other person I could see saying that would be...possibly Fred Phelps, saying something about how 9/11 would be insignificant compared to the everlasting armageddon God will unleash upon Americans-Christian and Non christian, if we do not outlaw homosexuality, ban women, etc....

I don't think he's a Fred phelps.


Lebanon has representatives at the UN. Hezzbollah does not. For now atleast.

Which again lays any blame of civilian deaths back at the feet of Hezbollah.

Quite. But that's not how people choose to interpret the situation.

Quite. But that's not how people choose to interpret the situation.

Which shows that people do not actually know what law they are citing when they are making grandious claims of violations of said law :(

Occeandrive is that you?will the real slim shady please stand up.. please stand up..
:D

Where is this hostility coming from?he dont get laid enough. :D

he dont get laid enough. :D
No one does.

9/11 was trivial. Here's an article to compare:

http://www.usatoday.com/news/nation/2006-08-22-us-highway-deaths_x.htm

43443 people died last year on our highways alone. I have yet to hear anyone advocating we go to war against the villianous highway workers, drunk drivers, soccer moms on cell phones or rednecks who think it's NASCAR at rush hour.

3000 deaths is trivial. The economic impact was of course noteworthy, of course that was Bin Ladin's goal, economic impact.

Now if you'll excuse me I need to go eat a baby for breakfast. Oh and of course bow to my zionist leaders who seek to slaughter the vile muslims!

3000 deaths is trivial. The economic impact was of course noteworthy, of course that was Bin Ladin's goal, economic impact.


You’re right that the impact on human life was limited, the psychological impact was not however…

Bin Laden's goal is not to disrupt “the West”, but to unite “the East”

Uhhh 9/11 was trivial?
This is correct...
Response completely out of proportion?
This is also astonishingly accurate.
From those 2 little phrases I concluded he was a left-leaning socialist, and from personal experiance left leaners tend to try and "understand" and "Feel".
Yes, on the other hand, we can't read utter crap, I'm afraid.
Well hezzbollah itself is breaking the UN resolution, so it shouldn't come as a surpise...
Ah yes, because the US (where you're from, I imagine) and Israel are totally innocent in that field...

Wah wah wah.

In the midst of logictical reconstruction, diplomatic tension and the aftermath of a frankly lamentable conflict, what should appear through the smoke but AMNESTY INTER-FUCKING-NATIONAL. Their self-publicising misguided zeal is risable.

I'll say it again... Israel went way too far. They destroyed infrastructure essential to civilian survival.

Funny that that they claimed to have no beef with Lebanese civilians.

I missed this post!

Their war was not with the Lebanonese Civilians themselves. The infrastructure that was destroyed was used to support Hezbollah. Since Hezbollah was at arms with Israel, and I am getting tired of repeating International Law, the infrastructure was legal to be taken out. It may have been essential to civilian survival but unfortunately, that same infrastructure was being used by Hezbollah.

Wah wah wah.

In the midst of logictical reconstruction, diplomatic tension and the aftermath of a frankly lamentable conflict, what should appear through the smoke but AMNESTY INTER-FUCKING-NATIONAL. Their self-publicising misguided zeal is risable.

Indeed.

Hitting infrastructure targets is a legal strategic method of warfare. Or are we going to go back and prosecute any surviving members of any strategic bomber crew going all the way back to WW II? Everyone who ever strafed a supply train, or bombed a factory or powerplant, or whose bombs missed (average miss distance in WW II was really large)?

Oh, and I love the missile-resistant ambulance. Somehow, an ambulance takes a center hit right on top, and somehow isn't blown into tiny flaming chunks.

Here's a video of what a Hellfire hitting a tank looks like. Keep in mind that the Hellfire is the SMALLEST air to ground missile in the Israeli inventory.

Only a 50 pound warhead...

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=2445279951154179093&q=hellfire&hl=en

roads, power stations, bridges,water supplies, telecoms, hospitals. all civilian, all used by hezbollah, all destroyed.

I bolded this and underlined a key phrase. If it was used by Hezbollah, that is all the justification the IDF needed to destroy said target. It is material support to Hezbollah.

if targetting hezbollah commanders at home with their families is acceptible, why not a nightclub full of israelis who are all in the army or reserve? to me both are wrong, but you seem to think otherwise.

Now I am not a big fan of assassinating Hezbollah commanders at home. I do not condone that either. I find it dispicable actually. As to the Israelis, I will again quote international law in regards to this. If they are out of uniform, then they are indeed private citizens and thus are protected. In uniform...that part is a tad sketchy in this scenerio.

off duty soldiers are off duty, IDF or Hez.

For once I agree with you.

Oh, and I love the missile-resistant ambulance. Somehow, an ambulance takes a center hit right on top, and somehow isn't blown into tiny flaming chunks.

Here's a video of what a Hellfire hitting a tank looks like. Keep in mind that the Hellfire is the SMALLEST air to ground missile in the Israeli inventory.

Only a 50 pound warhead...

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=2445279951154179093&q=hellfire&hl=en

To be fair the Iraqi tanks are old T-72s if memory serves, I'm sure Lebanese ambulances have signifigantly more armor.

To be fair the Iraqi tanks are old T-72s if memory serves, I'm sure Lebanese ambulances have signifigantly more armor.

Now that brings up an interesting question. Why should Ambulances have more armor than tanks?

To be fair the Iraqi tanks are old T-72s if memory serves, I'm sure Lebanese ambulances have signifigantly more armor.

Must be the heavy duty coating of PR paint that does it...

Must be the heavy duty coating of PR paint that does it...

I suspect so. Propaganda makes the best armor plating!

Ok, so now the terrorists only have to hide among the civilians and they're immune from any retaliation because any collateral damage is a "war crime". Fuck that. The concept of a war crime is just stupid. It's war. The object is to cause death and destruction. Otherwise we'd call it paintball. Amnesty international does some good work trying to free political prisoners and trying to stop torture, but in this situation they can go screw.

People have the oddest notions about Amnesty International. It is a non-governmental organisation, staffed mainly by volunteers who work to publicise human rights abuses everywhere.

You may call it whining or complaining, but that's what they do. They have neither the power or authority to do more. So, if you say that they are just a bunch of complainers, you are essentially correct, but complaining about human rights abuses is often the first step in stopping them.

They bring up an interesting point in the article cited in the OP: Did the IDF need to destroy such a vast extent of infrastructure that was necessary to Lebanese civilians?

The extent of the damage seems to resemble the Shock and Awe tactic used in Iraq. Like Iraq, people argue that it was useful or necessary in conventional military terms. In both cases, it was seen as too much devastation in proportion to the supposed rationale for the war. Which is why Israel 'lost' this war, even though it was successful in conventional military terms.

This is odd. The IDF is probably the military force that has the most experience fighting terrorists, insurgents, guerrillas and other non-regular forces. And it could also be said that the IDF is one of the best conventional militaries in the world. Why did they insist on fighting this war this way?

People have the oddest notions about Amnesty International. It is a non-governmental organisation, staffed mainly by volunteers who work to publicise human rights abuses everywhere.

You may call it whining or complaining, but that's what they do. They have neither the power or authority to do more. So, if you say that they are just a bunch of complainers, you are essentially correct, but complaining about human rights abuses is often the first step in stopping them.

They bring up an interesting point in the article cited in the OP: Did the IDF need to destroy such a vast extent of infrastructure that was necessary to Lebanese civilians?

The extent of the damage seems to resemble the Shock and Awe tactic used in Iraq. Like Iraq, people argue that it was useful or necessary in conventional military terms. In both cases, it was seen as too much devastation in proportion to the supposed rationale for the war. Which is why Israel 'lost' this war, even though it was successful in conventional military terms.

This is odd. The IDF is probably the military force that has the most experience fighting terrorists, insurgents, guerrillas and other non-regular forces. And it could also be said that the IDF is one of the best conventional militaries in the world. Why did they insist on fighting this war this way?
You clearly have no idea what "shock and awe" was nor do you have any idea what kind of damage a modern military is capable of doing to a civilian population when it chooses to.

Shock and Awe was an attempt to so overwhelm the Iraqi military that they would become demoralized and surrender or flee in large numbers. It worked. It wasn't an attempt to punish the Iraqi population. A modern military can destroy entire cities with conventional weapons alone. Look at what happened to Dresden and Tokyo in WWII. The weapons used in Lebanon and in Iraq have reduced collateral damage.

You clearly have no idea what "shock and awe" was nor do you have any idea what kind of damage a modern military is capable of doing to a civilian population when it chooses to.

Shock and Awe was an attempt to so overwhelm the Iraqi military that they would become demoralized and surrender or flee in large numbers. It worked. It wasn't an attempt to punish the Iraqi population. A modern military can destroy entire cities with conventional weapons alone. Look at what happened to Dresden and Tokyo in WWII. The weapons used in Lebanon and in Iraq have reduced collateral damage.

I’m sorry. I should have been more clear. I meant that the Israeli attack on Lebanon resembled Shock in Awe only in that both were viewed as an overreaction by many people.

As to your comments about what kind of damage a modern military is capable of doing to a civilian population when it chooses to, I can only say that that is the crux of the problem.

Modern air warfare is supposedly very precise. On this we apparently agree, if I read your last sentence correctly.

Therefore, the vast extent of the damage created by the Israeli Air Force can not be dismissed as collateral damage. They meant to hit those targets. So, was it necessary?

Perhaps, but I do not have the expertise to decide that. I do know from reading newspapers that many people feel Hezbollah won this war because public sympathy moved away from Israel, and did so because of the vast extent of devastation.

Considering the long term cost of hitting those installations, I think Amnesty International's claim that many of the attacks were not necessary holds some water.

I’m sorry. I should have been more clear. I meant that the Israeli attack on Lebanon resembled Shock in Awe only in that both were viewed as an overreaction by many people.

As to your comments about what kind of damage a modern military is capable of doing to a civilian population when it chooses to, I can only say that that is the crux of the problem.

Modern air warfare is supposedly very precise. On this we apparently agree, if I read your last sentence correctly.

Therefore, the vast extent of the damage created by the Israeli Air Force can not be dismissed as collateral damage. They meant to hit those targets. So, was it necessary?

Perhaps, but I do not have the expertise to decide that. I do know from reading newspapers that many people feel Hezbollah won this war because public sympathy moved away from Israel, and did so because of the vast extent of devastation.

Considering the long term cost of hitting those installations, I think Amnesty International's claim that many of the attacks were not necessary holds some water.
I think it was necessary. I saw footage from Israeli planes showing rockets being fired from near apartment buildings. It's been widely reported that rockets and launchers were stored in civilian buildings. Also since the goal was to weaken hezbolla, it makes sense to cut the bridges so that they can't be rearmed and resupplied.

I think it was necessary. I saw footage from Israeli planes showing rockets being fired from near apartment buildings. It's been widely reported that rockets and launchers were stored in civilian buildings. Also since the goal was to weaken hezbolla, it makes sense to cut the bridges so that they can't be rearmed and resupplied.

Consider that many photos from the war are faked, exaggerated, miscaptioned, or repeated (I've seen one building that on three different dates was described as being destroyed the night before by the IDF). Wow. It looked completely destroyed on the first night. What, did the Lebanese rebuild the entire building every night, only to have the evil IDF blow it up again?

I think that running off now, and saying "war crime!" is premature, until there's been an investigation.

I remember Amnesty shouting "War crime!" about Jenin - and then the ICRC did an investigation - no massacre and no war crime.

Consider that many photos from the war are faked, exaggerated, miscaptioned, or repeated (I've seen one building that on three different dates was described as being destroyed the night before by the IDF). Wow. It looked completely destroyed on the first night. What, did the Lebanese rebuild the entire building every night, only to have the evil IDF blow it up again?

I think that running off now, and saying "war crime!" is premature, until there's been an investigation.

I remember Amnesty shouting "War crime!" about Jenin - and then the ICRC did an investigation - no massacre and no war crime.Go on youtube and check out the film "Hezbollywood".

Consider that many photos from the war are faked, exaggerated, miscaptioned, or repeated (I've seen one building that on three different dates was described as being destroyed the night before by the IDF). Wow. It looked completely destroyed on the first night. What, did the Lebanese rebuild the entire building every night, only to have the evil IDF blow it up again?

I think that running off now, and saying "war crime!" is premature, until there's been an investigation.

I remember Amnesty shouting "War crime!" about Jenin - and then the ICRC did an investigation - no massacre and no war crime.


It does seem those who attack Israel love to hide amoungst civilians then scream war crimes when Israel has the audacity to defend itself.

I think it was necessary. I saw footage from Israeli planes showing rockets being fired from near apartment buildings. It's been widely reported that rockets and launchers were stored in civilian buildings. Also since the goal was to weaken hezbolla, it makes sense to cut the bridges so that they can't be rearmed and resupplied.

You are entirely correct. Many of the targets were legitimate. That does not change the view that many were not legitimate targets, and Amnesty International claims to have evidence.

http://web.amnesty.org/library/Index/ENGMDE020182006

The report includes evidence of the following:

Massive destruction by Israeli forces of whole civilian neighbourhoods and villages;
Attacks on bridges in areas of no apparent strategic importance;
Attacks on water pumping stations, water treatment plants and supermarkets despite the prohibition against targeting objects indispensable to the survival of the civilian population;
Statements by Israeli military officials indicating that the destruction of civilian infrastructure was indeed a goal of Israel’s military campaign designed to press the Lebanese government and the civilian population to turn against Hizbullah.


While a certain amount of civilian deaths and collateral damage to infrastructure is expected, the amount of damage caused by the IDF definitely endangered civilians,and was definitely deliberate. This is only acceptable if every target was being used by Hezbollah.

This is only acceptable if every target was being used by Hezbollah.

If Hezbollah is hiding amongst civilians, how are you going to prove or disprove it after the fact?

I still love the way Amnesty is kneejerking this. Just the way that they did with the Jenin massacre, which turned out not to be a massacre (according to the ICRC).

While a certain amount of civilian deaths and collateral damage to infrastructure is expected, the amount of damage caused by the IDF definitely endangered civilians,and was definitely deliberate. This is only acceptable if every target was being used by Hezbollah.

You do remember Hezbollah using a UN bunker as cover for their missile launchers yes?

You do remember Hezbollah using a UN bunker as cover for their missile launchers yes?
No. Link?

No. Link?
It would be more correct to say "cover for their fighters".

Remember the email from the Canadian UN observer who was later killed? He said Hezbollah were firing from in and around his position.

If Hezbollah is hiding amongst civilians, how are you going to prove or disprove it after the fact?

I still love the way Amnesty is kneejerking this. Just the way that they did with the Jenin massacre, which turned out not to be a massacre (according to the ICRC).

I think AI may intend to prove that the IDF attacked the civilian infrastructure regardless of whether or not it was being used by Hezbollah. Then it doesn't matter if Hezbollah was there or not.

I'm not sure what you mean by 'knee-jerk'. AI is calling for an inquiry, not for punitive measures. If you think attempting to create a debate about violence committed by a state is 'knee-jerking', then I guess you are correct.


The report exposes a pattern of indiscriminate and disproportionate attacks, which resulted in the displacement of twenty-five percent of the civilian population. This pattern, taken together with official statements, indicates that the attacks on infrastucture were deliberate, and not simply incidental to lawful military objectives.

Amnesty International is calling for a comprehensive, independent and impartial inquiry to be urgently established by the UN into violations of international humanitarian law by both sides in the conflict. It should examine in particular the impact of this conflict on the civilian population, and should be undertaken with a view to holding individuals responsible for crimes under international law and ensuring that full reparation is provided to the victims.

The press release can be found here:http://web.amnesty.org/library/Index/ENGMDE020182006

The press release can be found here:http://web.amnesty.org/library/Index/ENGMDE020182006

Show me an AI link where they castigate Hezbollah for using civilians as shields, and UN observers as shields, and I'll say they're being evenhanded.

Otherwise, it's a biased kneejerk.

No. Link?

http://www.allheadlinenews.com/articles/7004343191
http://www.nysun.com/article/36860?page_no=2

I think AI may intend to prove that the IDF attacked the civilian infrastructure regardless of whether or not it was being used by Hezbollah. Then it doesn't matter if Hezbollah was there or not.

If Hezbollah was using it as cover, then it becomes a legitimate military target. Proving that Israel destroyed civilian buildings without cause is a serious accusation, burden of proof lies with the prosecution.

It would be more correct to say "cover for their fighters".

Remember the email from the Canadian UN observer who was later killed? He said Hezbollah were firing from in and around his position.

In this particular case, no one would deny the legality of the IDF attacking this position. Even if it was obvious this UN observer would die.

This has no bearing on the rest of the attacks, though.

By the way, I like your creepy sig.

It would be more correct to say "cover for their fighters".

Remember the email from the Canadian UN observer who was later killed? He said Hezbollah were firing from in and around his position.
You mean this email (http://www.ctv.ca/servlet/ArticleNews/story/CTVNews/20060718/mideast_lebanon_UN_060716/20060718/)?

Here's a bit:

(4) Team Sierra is currently observing both IDF/IAF and Hezbollah military clashes from our vantage point which has a commanding view of the IDF positions on the Golan mountains to our east and the IDF positions along the Blue Line to our south, as well as, most of the Hezbollah static positions in and around our patrol Base. It appears that the lion's share of fighting between the IDF and Hezbollah has taken place in our area. On the night of 16 July, at 2125 hrs, a large firefight broke out between the Hezbollah and the IDF near a village called Majidyye and lasted for one hour and 40 minutes.

(5) Based on the intensity and volatility of this current situation and the unpredictability of both sides (Hezbollah and Israel), and given the operational tempo of the Hezbollah and the IDF, we are not safe to venture out to conduct our normal patrol activities. We have now switched to Observation Post Duties and are observing any and all violations as they occur.

This is all the information of a non-tactical nature that I can provide you. I cannot give you any info on Hezbollah position, proximity or the amount of or types of sorties the IAF is currently flying. Suffice to say that the activity levels and operational tempo of both parties is currently very high and continuous, with short breaks or pauses. Please understand the nature of my job here is to be impartial and to report violations from both sides without bias. As an Unarmed Military Observer, this is my raison d'etre.

What I can tell you is this: we have on a daily basis had numerous occasions where our position has come under direct or indirect fire from both artillery and aerial bombing. The closest artillery has landed within 2 metres of our position and the closest 1000 lb aerial bomb has landed 100 metres from our patrol base. This has not been deliberate targeting, but has rather been due to tactical necessity.

I thank you for the opportunity to provide you with some information from the front lines here in south Lebanon.

Maj Hess-von Kruedener

And yes, DK- I see the tactical necessity part. I do not however see, any inference to Hezb'allah positions using the base as cover.

Show me an AI link where they castigate Hezbollah for using civilians as shields, and UN observers as shields, and I'll say they're being evenhanded.

Otherwise, it's a biased kneejerk.

Sure:

http://web.amnesty.org/pages/lbn-210706-background-eng

http://www.allheadlinenews.com/articles/7004343191
Oh no no no no. I have the actual email.

Oh no no no no. I have the actual email.

Highlight the rest fo the data why don't you:

as well as, most of the Hezbollah static positions in and around our patrol Base.

Oh no no no no. I have the actual email.

I note you didn't read the relevant part:

(5) Based on the intensity and volatility of this current situation and the unpredictability of both sides (Hezbollah and Israel), and given the operational tempo of the Hezbollah and the IDF, we are not safe to venture out to conduct our normal patrol activities. We have now switched to Observation Post Duties and are observing any and all violations as they occur.

This is all the information of a non-tactical nature that I can provide you. I cannot give you any info on Hezbollah position, proximity or the amount of or types of sorties the IAF is currently flying. Suffice to say that the activity levels and operational tempo of both parties is currently very high and continuous, with short breaks or pauses. Please understand the nature of my job here is to be impartial and to report violations from both sides without bias. As an Unarmed Military Observer, this is my raison d'etre.

What I can tell you is this: we have on a daily basis had numerous occasions where our position has come under direct or indirect fire from both artillery and aerial bombing. The closest artillery has landed within 2 metres of our position and the closest 1000 lb aerial bomb has landed 100 metres from our patrol base. This has not been deliberate targeting, but has rather been due to tactical necessity.

Highlight the rest fo the data why don't you:

as well as, most of the Hezbollah static positions in and around our patrol Base.

He's going to leave that part out, for effect.

Highlight the rest fo the data why don't you:

as well as, most of the Hezbollah static positions in and around our patrol Base.
That's prior to July 16.

July 16th was 10 days before the destruction of the base.

Are you telling me the IAF was working off of intelligence that was almost 2 weeks old?

That's prior to July 16.

July 16th was 10 days before the destruction of the base.

Are you telling me the IAF was working off of intelligence that was almost 2 weeks old?

You're operating under the presumption that Hezbollah suddenly decided that hiding behind the UN guys was boring all of a sudden?

That's prior to July 16.

July 16th was 10 days before the destruction of the base.

Are you telling me the IAF was working off of intelligence that was almost 2 weeks old?

Are you telling me that Hezbollah just suddenly abandoned static positions?

It says that a firefight broke out on the 16th, not that they left the area.

I note you didn't read the relevant part:

[/b]

No I dealt with that:


And yes, DK- I see the tactical necessity part.

Nice try though.


He's going to leave that part out, for effect.
Check the timeline.

No I dealt with that:



Nice try though.


Check the timeline.

What "timeline"? That a firefight broke out or your interpretation that him not giving specific details over an unsecured e-mail equaling that he doesn't know the positions when he clearly states they are being observed?

That's prior to July 16.

July 16th was 10 days before the destruction of the base.

Are you telling me the IAF was working off of intelligence that was almost 2 weeks old?

It's extremely plausible. By the time ground forces that see something notify higher, and that information filters back down to the air targeting staff...

Even in the US, using JSTARS as a method of detecting targets (small concentrations of people, moving vehicles), it takes an average of 20 hours for that information - if done in an exercise, and done as the sole event being monitored - to have that translate into an air attack. Many exercises have been held in the US to try to speed this up.

The only air attack that has sufficient real-time information is information with a ground controller - and most airstrikes nowadays do not use one.

I don't understand.
We have this statement:
Team Sierra is currently observing both IDF/IAF and Hezbollah military clashes from our vantage point which has a commanding view of the IDF positions on the Golan mountains to our east and the IDF positions along the Blue Line to our south, as well as, most of the Hezbollah static positions in and around our patrol Base.

that seems to imply that there is a Hezbollah base in the patrol Base.

And then we have this statement:
This is all the information of a non-tactical nature that I can provide you. I cannot give you any info on Hezbollah position, proximity or the amount of or types of sorties the IAF is currently flying.
that states that the author can't tell anyone where hezbollah is.

If the first statement is saying that the Hezbollah position is in the patrol base, isn't that giving away the Hezbollah position?

Can someone explain the contradiction between the two statements, please?

I don't understand.
We have this statement:


that seems to imply that there is a Hezbollah base in the patrol Base.

And then we have this statement:

that states that the author can't tell anyone where hezbollah is.

If the first statement is saying that the Hezbollah position is in the patrol base, isn't that giving away the Hezbollah position?

Can someone explain the contradiction between the two statements, please?


There's general info "they're in and around the base" and specifics, "They're camped in this area of the base and Isreali jets flew over at 1000" etc.

No I dealt with that:



Nice try though.


Check the timeline.


Were you using invisible ink, because I'm not seeing where you've dealt with the fact that contrary to what you've already said Hezbollah was infact using a UN position as cover while actively engaging the Israelis, and apparently were doing so up to and including time when air strikes were being used on the Hezbollah position.

There's general info "they're in and around the base" and specifics, "They're camped in this area of the base and Isreali jets flew over at 1000" etc.

Then the patrol base is a large area? And is separate from the vantage point?

Then the patrol base is a large area? And is separate from the vantage point?

It would be more than a few acres but not separate from the vantage point.

Then the patrol base is a large area? And is separate from the vantage point?
It's a base, dammit.

The "vantage point" is a three-story building.

Were you using invisible ink, because I'm not seeing where you've dealt with the fact that contrary to what you've already said Hezbollah was infact using a UN position as cover while actively engaging the Israelis, and apparently were doing so up to and including time when air strikes were being used on the Hezbollah position.

1 date = a "timeline"

not providing specific tactical info on open e-mails= not knowing it

It would be more than a few acres but not separate from the vantage point.

OK, now I'm confused again. Looking at this statement:

Team Sierra is currently observing both IDF/IAF and Hezbollah military clashes from our vantage point which has a commanding view of the IDF positions on the Golan mountains to our east and the IDF positions along the Blue Line to our south, as well as, most of the Hezbollah static positions in and around our patrol Base.

I get the impression that the vantage point is away from, and above, the patrol base. This is necessary so that the vantage point has a 'commanding view'.

This would imply that the patrol base and vantage point are separate locales.

Are you telling me that Hezbollah just suddenly abandoned static positions?

It says that a firefight broke out on the 16th, not that they left the area.

Oh my God! Guerrilla forces move!!!! :eek:


It's extremely plausible. By the time ground forces that see something notify higher, and that information filters back down to the air targeting staff...

Even in the US, using JSTARS as a method of detecting targets (small concentrations of people, moving vehicles), it takes an average of 20 hours for that information - if done in an exercise, and done as the sole event being monitored - to have that translate into an air attack. Many exercises have been held in the US to try to speed this up.

The only air attack that has sufficient real-time information is information with a ground controller - and most airstrikes nowadays do not use one.

Yes. 20 hours fine.

Over ten days? No.

Were you using invisible ink, because I'm not seeing where you've dealt with the fact that contrary to what you've already said Hezbollah was infact using a UN position as cover while actively engaging the Israelis, and apparently were doing so up to and including time when air strikes were being used on the Hezbollah position.

Now now. Don't be assuming. I'm going by what the guy (who was there) said. He mentioned Hezb'allah in and around the base before 16th July yes. No mention of them preceeding the 25th July destruction though. They didn't set up camp in the shade under the base and stay there for over 10 days- groups like that don't do that.

OK, now I'm confused again. Looking at this statement:

I get the impression that the vantage point is away from, and above, the patrol base. This is necessary so that the vantage point has a 'commanding view'.

This would imply that the patrol base and vantage point are separate locales.
They were killed at the location of the 3-story building.

OK, now I'm confused again. Looking at this statement:



I get the impression that the vantage point is away from, and above, the patrol base. This is necessary so that the vantage point has a 'commanding view'.

This would imply that the patrol base and vantage point are separate locales.

It could imply that. Most likely though, the point is within the base and that's just the way he worded it.

It's a base, dammit.

The "vantage point" is a three-story building.

So, the patrol base is a large, multi-acre area with a three storey building inside it,and the vantage point is at the top of this building?

Okay. I understand now.

Thank you.

EDIT: With this, my 700th post, I am no longer deadly.:(

1 date = a "timeline"

not providing specific tactical info on open e-mails= not knowing it
Timeline:

1
Team Sierra is currently observing both IDF/IAF and Hezbollah military clashes from our vantage point which has a commanding view of the IDF positions on the Golan mountains to our east and the IDF positions along the Blue Line to our south, as well as, most of the Hezbollah static positions in and around our patrol Base.

2
On the night of 16 July, at 2125 hrs, a large firefight broke out between the Hezbollah and the IDF near a village called Majidyye and lasted for one hour and 40 minutes.

(not the same date as 1 or he would have said so)

3
Here is his full email, written July 18, with background on the mission and the current situation:

(writes email 2 days later)

4
July 25th: destruction of Khiam UN Observation post.

The report of Hezb'allah forces "in and around" the base was 10 days before the base was destroyed.

Oh my God! Guerrilla forces move!!!! :eek:



Yes. 20 hours fine.

Over ten days? No.

Show me where it says they moved the "static positions". You've claimed a "timeline based on a date of 1, count it one, firefight.



Now now. Don't be assuming. I'm going by what the guy (who was there) said. He mentioned Hezb'allah in and around the base before 16th July yes. No mention of them preceeding the 25th July destruction though. They didn't set up camp in the shade under the base and stay there for over 10 days- groups like that don't do that.

Now you get to provide the proof that they moved. The Maj. didn't make any claims about them abandoning the positions in or around the base. He stated they were there as a present tense, not past tense. Sounds like all the "assumptions" are being made by you.

Timeline:

1
Team Sierra is currently observing both IDF/IAF and Hezbollah military clashes from our vantage point which has a commanding view of the IDF positions on the Golan mountains to our east and the IDF positions along the Blue Line to our south, as well as, most of the Hezbollah static positions in and around our patrol Base.

2
On the night of 16 July, at 2125 hrs, a large firefight broke out between the Hezbollah and the IDF near a village called Majidyye and lasted for one hour and 40 minutes.

(not the same date as 1 or he would have said so)

3
Here is his full email, written July 18, with background on the mission and the current situation:

(writes email 2 days later)

4
July 25th: destruction of Khiam UN Observation post.

The report of Hezb'allah forces "in and around" the base was 10 days before the base was destroyed.


Now where does it say they abandoned the "static positions" in your timeline? Show me the evidence that Hezbollah abandoned the position and were no longer using it as a fighting point.

Oh my God! Guerrilla forces move!!!! :eek:



Yes. 20 hours fine.

Over ten days? No.



Now now. Don't be assuming. I'm going by what the guy (who was there) said. He mentioned Hezb'allah in and around the base before 16th July yes. No mention of them preceeding the 25th July destruction though. They didn't set up camp in the shade under the base and stay there for over 10 days- groups like that don't do that.

Who's assuming? A one thousand pound bomb landed within 100 meters of their position. Hezbollah doesn't use them, Israel does. They're dropped from planes, not pickup trucks. Ergo the Hezbollah fighters were still using the base as cover after the airstrikes began.

quod erat demonstrandum

Now where does it say they abandoned the "static positions" in your timeline? Show me the evidence that Hezbollah abandoned the position and were no longer using it as a fighting point.
Show me evidence they were still there.

You can't from his email. I can't show you evidence that they moved from his email either.

All we can do is look at who you're dealing with :

A "guerrilla" group- they don't stay in fixed positions.

You are



You trust the IDF's version that solidly? *shrug*

No, that's what it says in the email you so thoughtfully provided a link to. Did you read it? I even bolded the appropriate section in a previous post.

Show me evidence they were still there.

You can't from his email. I can't show you evidence that they moved from his email either.

All we can do is look at who you're dealing with :

A "guerrilla" group- they don't stay in fixed positions.

"Static Positions". Do you understand what that is?

You made the claims that they had left. There is no evidence they had. They HAD BEEN using it as a base of operations in the past and continued to even when the Maj was e-mailing.

Who's assuming?
You are
and apparently were doing so

A one thousand pound bomb landed within 100 meters of their position. Hezbollah doesn't use them, Israel does. They're dropped from planes, not pickup trucks. Ergo the Hezbollah fighters were still using the base as cover after the airstrikes began.

quod erat demonstrandum
You trust the IDF's version that solidly? *shrug*

I could only refute that by reading into his words (which I don't like doing as it gets messy with assumptions):
(5)We have now switched to Observation Post Duties and are observing any and all violations as they occur....

Please understand the nature of my job here is to be impartial and to report violations from both sides without bias

One would assume that having Hezb'allah troops inside the base would warrant it being reported, like the time prior to 16th July, no? I see no report. If you could provide one I'd be obliged. :) I can only logically come to the conclusion that no report was made because there was no report of Hezb'allah troops inside the base, to be made.

You are



You trust the IDF's version that solidly? *shrug*

You seem to want to give the benefit of the doubt to an organization that openly claims to want to kill all jews and brags about using civilians as cover.

You are



You trust the IDF's version that solidly? *shrug*

I could only refute that by reading into his words (which I don't like doing as it gets messy with assumptions):

One would assume that having Hezb'allah troops inside the base would warrant it being reported, like prior to 16tyh July, no? I see no report. If you could provide one I'd be obliged. :)

Once again "static positions" . Means it's been there for awhile.

Like ignoring that point eh?

Once again "static positions" . Means it's been there for awhile.

Like ignoring that point eh?

It also mentions the bomb landing within 100 meters in the email he linked to.

It also mentions the bomb landing within 100 meters in the email he linked to.

And that the UN wasn't being targetted by it.

"Static Positions". Do you understand what that is?
stat‧ic  /ˈstætɪk/ Pronunciation Key [stat-ik]

–adjective Also, stat‧i‧cal. 1. pertaining to or characterized by a fixed or stationary condition.


You made the claims that they had left. There is no evidence they had.
Based on what gurrellia groups do, yes.

continued to even when the Maj was e-mailing.
That's a suppositon. We are entering the territory of trying to think what he 'meant'. No good can come of going down this path.

You seem to want to give the benefit of the doubt to an organization that openly claims to want to kill all jews and brags about using civilians as cover.

Um, no. Unless the UN changed its charter recently.

And that the UN wasn't being targetted by it.

Of course goading the IDF into bombing the UN observers was a rather classic terrorist tactic. Since Hezbollah isn't answerable to the UN for their antics, and Israel is. Not to mention it splashes it all over news headlines that Israel has bombed the UN.

Typical terrorist method, it was done to promote their agenda and slander Israel. Lots of people fell for it, so of course they'd stay in the area until their goal was achieved.

Based on what gurrellia groups do, yes.


That would be an assumption, something you've repeatedly accused me of. Pot, say hello to Kettle.

Once again "static positions" . Means it's been there for awhile.

Like ignoring that point eh?
Yes, static meaning 'fixed'.

Now pray tell, why when the conflict kicked off on the 18th July would Hez'ballah remain in fixed or 'static' positions from 2 days previous?

Doesn't make sense for a guerrilla group to do that now does it?

That would be an assumption, something you've repeatedly accused me of. Pot, say hello to Kettle.
No... that's what differentiates 'guerrilla' groups from conventional armies. Their tactics.... you know... guerrilla tactics or not acting like a conventional army?

Of course goading the IDF into bombing the UN observers was a rather classic terrorist tactic. Since Hezbollah isn't answerable to the UN for their antics, and Israel is. Not to mention it splashes it all over news headlines that Israel has bombed the UN.

Well that is true- but I fear we are only rehashing the points about the destruction of the Khiam base itself (what with the numerous phone calls etc etc) and that was debated to death at the time.

If Hezbollah was using it as cover, then it becomes a legitimate military target. Proving that Israel destroyed civilian buildings without cause is a serious accusation, burden of proof lies with the prosecution.

Agreed. Something that the people accusing Israel of war crimes do not seem to get.

stat‧ic  /ˈstætɪk/ Pronunciation Key [stat-ik]

–adjective Also, stat‧i‧cal. 1. pertaining to or characterized by a fixed or stationary condition.


Based on what gurrellia groups do, yes.

So the Major was lying? Or Hezbollah does use static positions in an area they had been established in for years? They weren't using former IDF strongpoints as fixed defensive positions?


That's a suppositon. We are entering the territory of trying to think what he 'meant'. No good can come of going down this path.

Like you asserting the Maj didn't know the Hezbollah positions?



Um, no. Unless the UN changed its charter recently.

Right, because I was talking about the UN.:rolleyes:

No... that's what differentiates 'guerrilla' groups from conventional armies. Their tactics.... you know... guerrilla tactics or not acting like a conventional army?

So the Major was lying when he said "static positions"? Hezbollah did not use strongpoints in their defensive operations?

So the Major was lying? Or Hezbollah does use static positions in an area they had been established in for years? They weren't using former IDF strongpoints as fixed defensive positions?
Years? Never mentioned anything about Hezb'allah being in those specific positions (in the shade of the Khiam UN base) for 'years'. I'm sure they do use old IDF or SLA positions in places- however in the case of Khiam... can you provide me a link or some evidence? :)



Like you asserting the Maj didn't know the Hezbollah positions?
I didn't assert that. Don't put words in my mouth.



Right, because I was talking about the UN.:rolleyes:
Well I don't know what you were talking about then, because I was talking about the UN.

Yes, static meaning 'fixed'.

Now pray tell, why when the conflict kicked off on the 18th July would Hez'ballah remain in fixed or 'static' positions from 2 days previous?

Doesn't make sense for a guerrilla group to do that now does it?

In an area that they had been the established military force for years. Are you saying they didn't make a stand at any strongpoint?

Translation: You have no evidence they abandoned the position.

In an area that they had been the established military force for years. Are you saying they didn't make a stand at any strongpoint?

In towns further south, like Maroun-al-Nas and Bint Jbeil yes. The Bekkaa Valley was mostly consigned to IAF strikes if memory serves. Khiam is quite east (and slightly north) of most of the worst fighting.



Translation: You have no evidence they abandoned the position.
I can only go on tactics of guerrilla movements. Because.... you know... that's what Hezb'allah use..... guerrilla tactics.

Years? Never mentioned anything about Hezb'allah being in those specific positions (in the shaed of the Khaim UN base) for 'years'. I'm sure they do use old IDF or SLA positions- however in the case of Khiam... can you provide me a link or some evidence? :)

You first claimed they wouldn't use static positions. They do. They've been in control of S. lebanon for years. I didn't claim they'ld been in the UN positions for years. Nice way to move the goalposts.



I didn't assert that. Don't put words in my mouth.

Then what was the point of highlighting the Maj.s sentance in the E-mail post?



Well I don't know what you were talking about then, because I was talking about the UN.

You're trying to give benefit of doubt that Hezbollah would abandon a position that was being used as cover.

You seem to want to give the benefit of the doubt to an organization that openly claims to want to kill all jews and brags about using civilians as cover.

Could you please quote where Hezbollah have stated that they want to kill all Jews? And the same for where they boast of using civillians for cover.

Could you please quote where Hezbollah have stated that they want to kill all Jews? And the same for where they boast of using civillians for cover.
The first one is in their charter.
The second one is from Jan Egeland, the UN observer to whom they bragged about using civilians for cover.

The first one is in their charter.
The second one is from Jan Egeland, the UN observer to whom they bragged about using civilians for cover.

You have an up to date copy of the charter that you can link to?

You first claimed they wouldn't use static positions.
Guerrilla groups do not use static positions on the front lines in the middle of a conflict. Prior to July 18th, yes I firmly believe they were established. After the conflict kicked off, standard guerrilla tactics (especially faced with complete air superiority from the IAF) means they move. The IAF would have known where their bases (static yes) prior to the conflict. It would have made good sense (and guerrilla tactics) to move when the conflict starts- thus denying your 'enemy' the chance to hit your established bases.

I didn't claim they'ld been in the UN positions for years. Nice way to move the goalposts.
Well, I thought that's what you meant. I didn't move the goalposts. Knock off the hostility.


You're trying to give benefit of doubt that Hezbollah would abandon a position that was being used as cover.
I'm giving the 'benefit of the doubt' to no one- Hezb'allah or IDF. I take the UN report on this- especially as I've seen diddly squat in a report from the Israeli govt.

Could you please quote where Hezbollah have stated that they want to kill all Jews? And the same for where they boast of using civillians for cover.

Again? Have you forgotten/ignored every other thread where these have been posted?

Hassan NAsrallah-

if they [Jews] all gather in Israel, it will save us the trouble of going after them worldwide

If we searched the entire world for a person more cowardly, despicable, weak and feeble in psyche, mind, ideology and religion, we would not find anyone like the Jew. Notice, I do not say the Israeli.

http://english.aljazeera.net/NR/exeres/46DACF37-AD07-4D14-A4EA-9F9B1909DE5D.htm
http://judeoscope.ca/article.php3?id_article=0429

Guerrilla groups do not use static positions on the front lines in the middle of a conflict. Prior to July 18th, yes I firmly believe they were established. After the conflict kicked off, standard guerrilla tactics (especially faced with complete air superiority from the IAF) means they move. The IAF would have known where their bases (static yes) prior to the conflict. It would have made good sense (and guerrilla tactics) to move when the conflict starts- thus denying your 'enemy' the chance to hit your established bases.

So, you're making assumptions. Gotcha. There were multiple occasions where Hezbollah forces fought from strongpoints for quite a while. The UN base was a perfect operating point for them. It provided cover while making it politically difficult for the IDF to hit them back w/o consequences. Why would they leave? That is a guerrila tactic as well.


Well, I thought that's what you meant. I didn't move the goalposts. Knock off the hostility.


I'm giving the 'benefit of the doubt' to no one- Hezb'allah or IDF. I take the UN report on this- especially as I've seen diddly squat in a report from the Israeli govt.

Oh, you mean like Annan claimed that the IDF was deliberately targetting UN troops even when the soldiers were saying they weren't?

It would appear that the Israeli forces deliberately set out to destroy the base because there were Hezbollah forces stationed there, to the best of the IDF's knowledge.

It would also appear that the IDF knew the UN observers were there as well, and deliberately deliberately set out to destroy the base anyway.

I hope that the Israeli inquiry will be transparent to observers from the effected countries.

So, you're making assumptions. Gotcha.
Go read up on guerrilla tactics. Here I'll help:Guerrilla Days in Ireland by Tom Barry. Or read up on some literature on Flying Columns.

Otherwise you're being obtuse for the sake of it and we have nothing more to discuss.


Oh, you mean like Annan claimed that the IDF was deliberately targetting UN troops even when the soldiers were saying they weren't?
You mean like Qana in 1996?

Or do you mean the destruction of the Khiam base in July of this year? I wonder had the 4 Observers survived (somehow) would they say the IDF didn't target them?

I personally know several former peacekeepers who served throughout Southern Lebanon in the 1980's (including during the Second Invasion) from Tibnin to Khiam amongst others. They had no love for Amal, the SLA or Hezb'allah.

They also had no love for the IDF.

It would appear that the Israeli forces deliberately set out to destroy the base because there were Hezbollah forces stationed there, to the best of the IDF's knowledge.

It would also appear that the IDF knew the UN observers were there as well, and deliberately deliberately set out to destroy the base anyway.

*breathless*
Which is what pretty much I was trying to argue all along... *collapses*

Go read up on guerrilla tactics. Here I'll help:Guerrilla Days in Ireland by Tom Barry. Or read up on some literature on Flying Columns.

Otherwise you're being obtuse for the sake of it and we have nothing more to discuss.

Now try reading "The other side of the Mountain" by Lester Grau and Ali Jalali. Political manuevering is just as important. Like using the traditional Hezbollah tactic of non-combatants as cover.


You mean like Qana in 1996?

Or do you mean the destruction of the Khiam base in July of this year? I wonder had the 4 Observers survived (somehow) would they say the IDF didn't target them?

I personally know several former peacekeepers who served throughout Southern Lebanon in the 1980's (including during the Second Invasion) from Tibnin to Khiam amongst others. They had no love for Amal, the SLA or Hezb'allah.

They also had no love for the IDF.

Did or did not the Major say the IDF was not specifically targetting the UN because Hezbollah forces were there?

Now try reading "The other side of the Mountain" by Lester Grau and Ali Jalali. Political manuevering is just as important. Like using the traditional Hezbollah tactic of non-combatants as cover.

Great. Good dismissal of what some regard as the bible of guerrilla warfare.



Did or did not the Major say the IDF was not specifically targetting the UN because Hezbollah forces were there?
Like I said, I wonder if their opinions would have changed had they survived the direct hits....

We done here?

Great. Good dismissal of what some regard as the bible of guerrilla warfare.

Did I dismiss it? I provided a source on central asian guerrilla's fighting against an organized military. Considered by some to be the definitive book on Mujahideen style warfare.



Like I said, I wonder if their opinions would have changed had they survived the direct hits....

We done here?

Buh bye.

It would appear that the Israeli forces deliberately set out to destroy the base because there were Hezbollah forces stationed there, to the best of the IDF's knowledge.

It would also appear that the IDF knew the UN observers were there as well, and deliberately deliberately set out to destroy the base anyway.

I hope that the Israeli inquiry will be transparent to observers from the effected countries.

Newsflash:

Under International Law, if someone is using something that they should not have for military purposes, it is 100% legal to destroy it.

Newsflash:

Under International Law, if someone is using something that they should not have for military purposes, it is 100% legal to destroy it.

Yes. I am aware of what you are trying to communicate. What interests me is how the inquiry is going to reconcile this fact with the fact that the IDF knew that it was also being used as a vantage point for UN observers at the time.

Show me an AI link where they castigate Hezbollah for using civilians as shields, and UN observers as shields, and I'll say they're being evenhanded.

Otherwise, it's a biased kneejerk.
AI said in their release that two documents will be produced. One detailing the alleged war crimes of Israel and one detailing the alleged war crimes of Hezbollah.

They are talking about Israel now an about Hezbollah in a few weeks.

Now that you can say they are evenhanded, I'll assume you will retract from saying they are biased?

Again? Have you forgotten/ignored every other thread where these have been posted?

Hassan NAsrallah-

if they [Jews] all gather in Israel, it will save us the trouble of going after them worldwide

If we searched the entire world for a person more cowardly, despicable, weak and feeble in psyche, mind, ideology and religion, we would not find anyone like the Jew. Notice, I do not say the Israeli.

http://english.aljazeera.net/NR/exeres/46DACF37-AD07-4D14-A4EA-9F9B1909DE5D.htm
http://judeoscope.ca/article.php3?id_article=0429


But the statement from the UN person does not say that they boasted of using human shields......

"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. We need a cessation of hostilities because this is a war where civilians are paying the price."

Oh, you mean like Annan claimed that the IDF was deliberately targetting UN troops even when the soldiers were saying they weren't?

They've done so on regular occassions. It would not be a first. And why for an army with all the modern surveillance techniques and recording apparatus, is there no footage of the base being used by Hezbollah? They shelled the place for a number of hours, after all.

Newsflash:

Under International Law, if someone is using something that they should not have for military purposes, it is 100% legal to destroy it.

what law?

you claimed this earlier and failed to back it up