[aldo_14]

What excuse is that?

[Blaise Russel]

Since when are the terrorists civilians?

Terrorists are civilians.

Unless, of course, Terrorland now has a standing army.

[Nuclear1]

What excuse is that?

Terrorists hide amongst the civilian population, and then the rest of the world gasps as the "defenders of the people" use their own neighbors as human shields.

Since when are the terrorists civilians?

Terrorists are civilians.

Unless, of course, Terrorland now has a standing army.

I believe he's making the distinction between the bystanders caught in the crossfire and those working with Hezbollah.

[Splinter]

srael has openly admitted to targeting civilian areas - and by extension the civilians dwelling within - because they believe Hezbollah is hiding within these areas, so answer away.

Listen, What Israel says and what the media reports are two very diffrent things...

Like me for instance if I hit my head and lose consciousness with witnesses and then go to the medic to tell him he will write a letter to a doctor to send with me for the doctor to read and on it will be written that the soldier claims to have hit his head and lost consciousness. why? because the medic wasn't there to see it himself. It dosn't matter if the PM was there to see it and claimed so he would still write that it's just a claim.

Same thing. I can promise you that we KNOW they are there and that's why it was bombed and yeah people who are pissed that a country bombed thier nieghbourhood wouldn't lie and say there were no terrorists there to gain international appeal now would they? No that would just be... plain logical. 

[Blaise Russel]

I believe he's making the distinction between the bystanders caught in the crossfire and those working with Hezbollah.

I don't really think you can make a distinction between civilian and civilian, as though there are 'bad civilians' you kill and 'good civilians' you save.



Regardless, you can't fight ideas with bullets. That's the problem here; easy enough to reduce Nazi Germany to rubble, but can you do the same  to an anti-Western ideology? Can you fight a war against an enemy with no soldiers?

[Nuclear1]

I believe he's making the distinction between the bystanders caught in the crossfire and those working with Hezbollah.

I don't really think you can make a distinction between civilian and civilian, as though there are 'bad civilians' you kill and 'good civilians' you save.



Regardless, you can't fight ideas with bullets. That's the problem here; easy enough to reduce Nazi Germany to rubble, but can you do the same  to an anti-Western ideology? Can you fight a war against an enemy with no soldiers?

True, you can't destroy Islamofacism or anti-Semitism, but you can still destroy Hezbollah and al-Qaeda. That's the thing with Naziism these days; it's still believed and preached in various areas of the world, but they don't have a host to spread like Nazi Germany. Islamofacism, on the other hand, can be carried by groups such as al-Qaeda, Hezbollah, and the various governments in the Middle East that support those ideologies and groups.

Is it odd that I felt like I was quoting the Neo-Nazi in Sum of All Fears about the host thing?

[Sandwich]

They're targeting civilian areas where they think Hezollah is hiding amongst civilians. Regardless of whether or not Hezbollah is actually hiding there, which remains open to debate, the fact of the matter is that Israel is targeting civilians in their attacks, thereby invalidating your earler statement that they are doing no such thing.

I've said it before and I'll say it again:

If Israel were targeting civilians, if Israel were trying to kill civilians, do you really think the death count would be what it is?

It's like the guy who beat another person with a loaded shotgun. In court, the guy was charged with Attempted Murder, but in a precedent-setting ruling, his lawyer got him Aggravated Assault - and for once, it made perfect sense. Why? The argument was that the guy had a loaded shotgun, and had he actually been trying to kill the other person, he could have simply shot him. The fact that he didn't - when he could have - indicated to the judges that the guy was not trying to kill the other person.

The lesson here is that if you want to beat somebody up with a projectile weapon, make sure it's loaded - if not, you may have no basis on which to prove a claim of Aggravated Assault, and may be charged with Attempted Manslaughter.

In case you missed my point in all that: Israel could kill lots and lots of civvies if we were trying to. We certainly have the means to. The fact that we're not should indicate to anyone with a functioning noggin that killing Lebanese civvies simply isn't our goal.

[Blaise Russel]

but you can still destroy Hezbollah and al-Qaeda.

Not really, no. Again, they're not countries which can be defeated by marching your men across x metres of land; they're amorphous associations of men united under, yes, a common ideology of anti-West Islamic extremism. You cannot defeat such things with guns and missiles. Shoot a man and another will rise in his place, destroy a cell or even an entire organisation and another pops up elsewhere.

Nor are they supported by Middle Eastern governments - rather, governments are supported by these pre-existing ideologies. Toppling dictators and democratic leaders will do nothing to stop Islamic ideology. The clearest example of this is, of course, Iraq.

We need to attack root causes, not symptons. Even more pressingly, we should stop feeding the fire.

[Ace]

Actually Iraq is an excellent example of toppling the standard national scheme only to have it replaced by the non-directly fightable religious/ideological scheme.

[achtung]

Saddam was doing good, never should've taken him out of power.

[Mefustae]

*snip*

Oh, I know that Israel isn't targeting civilians alone, otherwise there would be - as you say - a hell of a lot more casualties. What i'm saying is that they are indirectly targeting innocent civilians becuase of their belief that Hezbollah must be hiding amongst them. All I want is some proof for that assertion, a bit of evidence that Hezollah is without a doubt using Palestinian civilians as 'shields' as you say. Not to mention a bit of proof that targeting civilian infrastructure is actually the most effective [it's obviously not really the right thing to do, but since when did right & wrong enter into War] thing to do?

[Lt.Cannonfodder]

Israeli bomb kills UN observers
Four UN obserevers from Austria, Canada, China and Finland either dead or missing

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/5215366.stm

****ing big "Oops"?

[Mefustae]

Day after day, Hezbollah is looking less & less like the bad guy here.

[Kosh]

Israeli bomb kills UN observers
Four UN obserevers from Austria, Canada, China and Finland either dead or missing

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/5215366.stm

****ing big "Oops"?

Smooth.....

[Rictor]

Well, who the hell put UN observers in the middle of a warzone? In you're going to put troops between Israel and Hezbollah and expect them to have a life expectancy longer than half an hour, they better be Rambo^2.

At least I can admire Israel and Hezbollah as two tough opponent hell-bent on kicking the crap out of each other, whereas putting international forces in the thick of it ishows a completely oblivious innocence, like when a mentally retarded kid doesn't know that a gun can kill him.

[Lt.Cannonfodder]

Well, who the hell put UN observers in the middle of a warzone? In you're going to put troops between Israel and Hezbollah and expect them to have a life expectancy longer than half an hour, they better be Rambo^2.

Just so you know, that UN bunker had been there for ten years. What does that tell of the level of IDF intelligence? And why was it shelled 14 times before one shot hit and blasted the bunker?

[Rictor]

And don't forget that they shelled the rubble as the rescuers were trying to get the bodies out. Sort of like when the US "accidentally" hit the Chinese embassy in Serbia.

[aldo_14]

It's like the guy who beat another person with a loaded shotgun. In court, the guy was charged with Attempted Murder, but in a precedent-setting ruling, his lawyer got him Aggravated Assault - and for once, it made perfect sense. Why? The argument was that the guy had a loaded shotgun, and had he actually been trying to kill the other person, he could have simply shot him. The fact that he didn't - when he could have - indicated to the judges that the guy was not trying to kill the other person.

The lesson here is that if you want to beat somebody up with a projectile weapon, make sure it's loaded - if not, you may have no basis on which to prove a claim of Aggravated Assault, and may be charged with Attempted Manslaughter.

In both cases, it's still a crime........

[Wanderer]

Israel seems to have also decided that Red Cross ambulances are valid targets...

[IPAndrews]

OMG I can't believe this thread is still going 

What is this thread hoping to achieve? Is anyone actually deriving any enjoyment out of it?  Who else things this thread needs to