[karajorma]

You missed my point about bad PR. If you shell the villages with no warning you wouldn't even be able to make the feeble justifcations you can make now.

The simple fact is that as I said before Israel doesn't care and is being shortsighted about this to the point of stupidity. This won't make things better in the long term. If anything it will make things worse in the long term. And right now it's not even doing any good in the short term either.

[Mefustae]

For example this is why we released an announcement to leave some vilages because they will be attack soon, and we didnt do it for the terroists im sure.

No, they told those civilians to leave the village so the their Airforce would have a nice, clean target as the people ran, rather than having to waste ordinance destroying every building in the village.

It's aaaaaall about the bottom line, folks.

[Sandwich]

*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?

Wait, let me get this straight... you think that Israel is assuming somehow that Hezbollah peeps are hiding in every civilian area we happen upon, so we blow it up?

First off, Hezbollah is in Lebanon, Syria, etc. Palestinians are in Gaza, Judea, and Samaria. Hamas would be the terrorist organization entwined among the Palestinians, and the Lebanese would be the civvies that the Hezbollah is entwined among. Just so we're clear.

Now, you say you want proof? Nitpicking here, but do you realize what an absurd desire that is? The only way you can get "proof" is by being up there, seeing a group of terrorists launch a rocket at Israel, and follow them back to Civvie Area A. Anything else would be you relying upon the claims of someone else, which cannot be construed as proof in your own mind.

Ok, so I'll stop nitpicking now, and assume you mean that you want to hear reasoning and stated "facts" that detail everything from the identification of certain people as Hezbollah thru to their retreating back amongst civillians. Right?

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"?

Yeah, majorly FUBAred situation there. One thing I will point out is that (and this comes from my brother, Splinter, who's kinda in the middle of it all) that UN camp was surrounded on all sides by multiple Hezbollah camps, within a few meters on all sides.

But still... FUBARed.

It's not that Israel is trying to kill civilians its that they don't care how many they kill as long as they kill some people from Hezbollah too. The only thing that does prevent civilian casualties is the bad PR it would give them.

I mentioned this before as well (although in relation to Gaza and that family that got wiped out on the beach... ), but for every strike that is authorized, at least 10 don't make the cut due to civilian presence.

[Mefustae]

First off, Hezbollah is in Lebanon, Syria, etc. Palestinians are in Gaza, Judea, and Samaria. Hamas would be the terrorist organization entwined among the Palestinians, and the Lebanese would be the civvies that the Hezbollah is entwined among. Just so we're clear

Whoops, yeah, noticed that. Well, that's what I get for making a post on politics at 2am whilst FREDing.

Now, you say you want proof? Nitpicking here, but do you realize what an absurd desire that is? The only way you can get "proof" is by being up there, seeing a group of terrorists launch a rocket at Israel, and follow them back to Civvie Area A. Anything else would be you relying upon the claims of someone else, which cannot be construed as proof in your own mind.

Ok, so I'll stop nitpicking now, and assume you mean that you want to hear reasoning and stated "facts" that detail everything from the identification of certain people as Hezbollah thru to their retreating back amongst civillians. Right?

Please. Stop twisting my words. I wasn't asking for unequivocal proof that each and every civilian that has been killed was or was not a member of Hezbollah, I merely asked for the evidence upon which the Israeli military was basing the assertion that Hezbollah are hiding within civilian areas. I was asking not to make a point, but just because I couldn't find the evidence they were using myself. Sheesh.

[karajorma]

I mentioned this before as well (although in relation to Gaza and that family that got wiped out on the beach... ), but for every strike that is authorized, at least 10 don't make the cut due to civilian presence.

PR.

You can only justify the ones that will kill civilians in tens rather than hundreds to the rest of the world.

But don't ever try to pursuade me that it is actually caring about the loss of innocent life that is the deciding factor or Israel wouldn't have gone ahead with most of the strikes it does carry out. As I keep saying it's what they can spin that is the deciding factor.

[Grizzly]

Look at the bright side, there is no war with the shivans...

[vyper]

The only way you can get "proof" is by being up there, seeing a group of terrorists launch a rocket at Israel, and follow them back to Civvie Area A.

Yes Sandwich, that's called Intelligence Gathering. It's a funny thing you do in war to avoid killing the wrong people, and make sure you kill more of the right people. 

[aldo_14]

The only way you can get "proof" is by being up there, seeing a group of terrorists launch a rocket at Israel, and follow them back to Civvie Area A.

Yes Sandwich, that's called Intelligence Gathering. It's a funny thing you do in war to avoid killing the wrong people, and make sure you kill more of the right people. 

They're all terrorists now, apparently, so who needs intelligence?  I mean, clearly all those people trapped in houses because of elderly relatives or young children, or unable to move during to injury, or unwilling to risk venturing down a highway because of Israeli bombing, must be Hezbollah sympathisers worthy of carpet bombing.

(any sympathy I had with Israel has long since evaporated in light of the collective punishment being inflicted on the people of Lebanon for the crimes of a 3rd party)

[neoterran]

hey, there might be a cease fire now...

[Nuclear1]

I mentioned this before as well (although in relation to Gaza and that family that got wiped out on the beach... ), but for every strike that is authorized, at least 10 don't make the cut due to civilian presence.

PR.

Or maybe Israel isn't composed of cold-hearted bastards that want to kill civilians, as most of the world makes them out to be?

I'm sure the IDF understands the difference between a target with heavy civilian presence with little strategic value than a target with some civilian presence and a high strategic value, such as Hezbollah HQ in Beirut. Unfortunately, Hezbollah is essentially making much of Southern Lebanon a high-priority strategic target because of its widespread presence in the region.

For someone who looks at a group's need for PR, I would have expected that you would've noticed what Hezbollah's doing: embedding themselves in the civilian population, firing off rockets, and then running when the IDF comes after them. The result: some civilians dead, Hezbollah retaliates and is lauded for being protectors of the people from the Israelis. See? Hezbollah is indirectly condemning their own countrymen to death for PR.

The only way you can get "proof" is by being up there, seeing a group of terrorists launch a rocket at Israel, and follow them back to Civvie Area A.

Yes Sandwich, that's called Intelligence Gathering. It's a funny thing you do in war to avoid killing the wrong people, and make sure you kill more of the right people. 

Yes, and that's also why Israel's been successful in destroying hundreds of Hezbollah rocket launchers within the past few days.

[vyper]

While still killing over 600 people who probably had nothing to do with said rocket launchers. It's a disproportionate response and you know it.

[Rictor]

I'm sure the IDF understands the difference between a target with heavy civilian presence with little strategic value than a target with some civilian presence and a high strategic value, such as Hezbollah HQ in Beirut. Unfortunately, Hezbollah is essentially making much of Southern Lebanon a high-priority strategic target because of its widespread presence in the region.

But by that same rationale, most Israeli cities are fair game for Katyushas, due to the fact that a good chunk of Israel's male population are reservist soldiers, and legitimate targets.

There are some Israeli attacks which I just can't understand. I'm assuming that they have a capable military, so how could they make stupid mistakes like bombing refugee convoys (the very people that Israel told to evacuate) , UN outposts and residential neighborhoods. I'm not one of those people who believe that the IAF is targetting civies on purpose, but Israel's unintentional mistakes have killed something like 20 times more innocents than Hezbollah's intentional bombardment of civilian areas of Israel. I look at the number of casualties, and I can't agree that Israel are the good guys in all this.

[Nuclear1]

While still killing over 600 people who probably had nothing to do with said rocket launchers. It's a disproportionate response and you know it.

Read the first half of my post and you'll get where I'm coming at. Hezbollah chooses to launch rockets from areas with civilian concentration, essentially condemning their countrymen to death when the IDF comes along to take care of the rocket launchers. Believe it or not, the IDF has more of a responsibility to defending Haifa and its other cities than to ensuring that civilians around the rocket launchers are out of harm's way; the Lebanese civilians aren't the only civilians feeling the effects of this, y'know.

I would be a little less caustic if Hezbollah was aiming for high-value military installations, ground forces, or Rictor's reservist soldiers, but they're instead firing blindly into highly-populated Israeli cities with the pure intention of wreaking chaos and panic; that's why they're called terrorists.

[aldo_14]

While still killing over 600 people who probably had nothing to do with said rocket launchers. It's a disproportionate response and you know it.

Read the first half of my post and you'll get where I'm coming at. Hezbollah chooses to launch rockets from areas with civilian concentration, essentially condemning their countrymen to death when the IDF comes along to take care of the rocket launchers. Believe it or not, the IDF has more of a responsibility to defending Haifa and its other cities than to ensuring that civilians around the rocket launchers are out of harm's way; the Lebanese civilians aren't the only civilians feeling the effects of this, y'know.

I would be a little less caustic if Hezbollah was aiming for high-value military installations, ground forces, or Rictor's reservist soldiers, but they're instead firing blindly into highly-populated Israeli cities with the pure intention of wreaking chaos and panic; that's why they're called terrorists.

You could make - I think a very strong one - argument that doing so isn't any different from 'turning the clock back 20 years' on Lebanon, that such attacks aside from a terrorism purpose also have a legitimate (or at least as legitimate as bombing escape routes to Syria, power stations or the airport) purpose of damaging the Israeli economy (forcing towns and cities to shut down in response) and thus ability to wage prolonged war.  In that context, surely you'd have to ask - were the Allies and Axis in WW2 terrorists, or just practicing the best military tactics available to them?

[IPAndrews]

I wonder how the opinion of some of you guys might be different if... say... your son or daughter had been killed by a Hezbollah rocket whilst the Lebanese goverment sat their twiddling their thumbs and looking in the other direction. I have this theory that you peace at all cost types that are most likely to cause WW3. I can't be bothered to argue either point though .

[Nuclear1]

While still killing over 600 people who probably had nothing to do with said rocket launchers. It's a disproportionate response and you know it.

Read the first half of my post and you'll get where I'm coming at. Hezbollah chooses to launch rockets from areas with civilian concentration, essentially condemning their countrymen to death when the IDF comes along to take care of the rocket launchers. Believe it or not, the IDF has more of a responsibility to defending Haifa and its other cities than to ensuring that civilians around the rocket launchers are out of harm's way; the Lebanese civilians aren't the only civilians feeling the effects of this, y'know.

I would be a little less caustic if Hezbollah was aiming for high-value military installations, ground forces, or Rictor's reservist soldiers, but they're instead firing blindly into highly-populated Israeli cities with the pure intention of wreaking chaos and panic; that's why they're called terrorists.

You could make - I think a very strong one - argument that doing so isn't any different from 'turning the clock back 20 years' on Lebanon, that such attacks aside from a terrorism purpose also have a legitimate (or at least as legitimate as bombing escape routes to Syria, power stations or the airport) purpose of damaging the Israeli economy (forcing towns and cities to shut down in response) and thus ability to wage prolonged war.  In that context, surely you'd have to ask - were the Allies and Axis in WW2 terrorists, or just practicing the best military tactics available to them?

The Allies and Axis were both composed of nations with standing armies; Hezbollah isn't by definition a uniformed service or national military, and their tactics especially distinguish them from conventional modern militaries. The Allies and Axis bombed roads, power plants, and other civilian buildings because the militaries made us of them as well; bridges to transports armored divisions, plants to power military installations, etc. However, the Allies and Axis were both capable of determining targets that were clearly military and others that were clearly civilian.

Hezbollah, however, operates amongst the civilian population, especially since Israel has already taken care of whatever clear installations exist that fly Hezbollah's flag. IDF counterattacks on Hezbollah's rocket positions often result in civilian deaths because Hezbollah fires the rockets from areas of concentrated civilian presence.

With regards to WW2, the shady tactics involved in winning the wars, particularly the bombing of Tokyo, was part of a long-term campaign to cause the Axis to lose the ability to produce war materials and eventually cause the governments to capitulate as a result of psychological damage. However, Hezbollah's attempt to psychologically damage Israel into surrender is entirely different; Hezbollah's gradually running out of areas to operate from, and the loss of their rocket launchers and other means of attacking Israel from Lebanon isn't helping. Eventually, Hezbollah will become weaker and less capable of carrying on its terror campaign, its only real hope of forcing Israel to capitulate.

[karajorma]

Or maybe Israel isn't composed of cold-hearted bastards that want to kill civilians, as most of the world makes them out to be?

I'm sure the IDF understands the difference between a target with heavy civilian presence with little strategic value than a target with some civilian presence and a high strategic value, such as Hezbollah HQ in Beirut. Unfortunately, Hezbollah is essentially making much of Southern Lebanon a high-priority strategic target because of its widespread presence in the region.

Hezbollah are a terorist organisation operating in Southern Lebanon. They aren't democratically elected and they aren't doing what they do with the consent of the majority of the Lebanese people. You could make the same argument that the IRA were in Northern Island as an excuse for sending the tanks into NI and it would be just as wrong there.
 If Hezbollah are not representative of the country they are operating in then it is a civil matter plain and simple. Israel should be supporting the government in removing Hezbollah not invading and attacking the very government whose job it is to deal with these people.

For someone who looks at a group's need for PR, I would have expected that you would've noticed what Hezbollah's doing: embedding themselves in the civilian population, firing off rockets, and then running when the IDF comes after them. The result: some civilians dead, Hezbollah retaliates and is lauded for being protectors of the people from the Israelis. See? Hezbollah is indirectly condemning their own countrymen to death for PR.

So Hezbollah are complete wankers for doing that. What's your point? Has anyone said anything that would lead you to believe that this was even an argument worth making?

We all know Hezbollah are a bunch of terrorist wankers. But does that mean that Israel should start acting like terrorists and meting out collective punishments in return? Surely that makes them wankers too?

I wonder how the opinion of some of you guys might be different if... say... your son or daughter had been killed by a Hezbollah rocket whilst the Lebanese goverment sat their twiddling their thumbs and looking in the other direction. I have this theory that you peace at all cost types that are most likely to cause WW3. I can't be bothered to argue either point though .

I grew up in London when the IRA were at their worst. At no time would I have said that ending the IRA's campaign of bombing was worth the life of one innocent in Northern Ireland. Apparently you probably believe it would have been.

Or if you believe that to not be close enough an argument perhaps Ireland should have invaded NI in return for the British governments failures to punish loyalists sufficiently?


My point is that this kind of shotgun diplomacy has no value in these situations. While it might satify some people's desire for vengence it isn't justice if it results in ten times the number of deaths on the other side. No one is talking about peace at all costs. What we're saying is that this is making things worse not better and so it shouldn't have even been considered.

[Nuclear1]

If Hezbollah are not representative of the country they are operating in then it is a civil matter plain and simple. Israel should be supporting the government in removing Hezbollah not invading and attacking the very government whose job it is to deal with these people.

Maybe you don't quite recall, but the Lebanese government and military was entirely outgunned and overpowered by Hezbollah in the beginning. If the government wanted to do anything to stop Hezbollah, they simply couldn't have; they didn't have the means to.

You can't simply expect the Lebanese government, which in itself is still recovering from the Syrian occupation, to fight Hezbollah effectively. We already know that Syria aids Hezbollah, and that Syria occupied Lebanon for some time. Hezbollah, not the Lebanese government and military, was supplied by the Syrian government during the occupation, and when Syria withdrew, Hezbollah emerged as the dominant force in the country.

So Hezbollah are complete wankers for doing that. What's your point? Has anyone said anything that would lead you to believe that this was even an argument worth making?

We all know Hezbollah are a bunch of terrorist wankers. But does that mean that Israel should start acting like terrorists and meting out collective punishments in return? Surely that makes them wankers too?

I'm saying as long as you're considering Israel's restraint in attacking civilians as a sheer PR move, then why not condemn Hezbollah for pulling off a sheer PR move that results in innocent Lebanese civilians being killed? Of course, I see you have, and that was my whole point of bringing up the argument.

Again, as somebody said earlier in the thread (I believe it was BR), Hezbollah are still essentially civilians too, albeit well-supplied and well-armed. They make just as much use of power plants, roads, and buildings as the Lebanese caught in the crossfire do. Once Hezbollah is disarmed or otherwise forced out of Lebanon, then an international force led by the UN can step in and help rebuild Lebanon's civilian infrastructure.

I hate to break it to you, but there was no real mess-free way of handling this. Syria ****ed up Lebanon with supplying Hezbollah, and now Israel has to get its hands dirty for what Syria did. Once Hezbollah is out of the country and power and stability is returned to the Lebanese government and military, then Israel shouldn't be concerned about its neighbor to the north.

[karajorma]

Maybe you don't quite recall, but the Lebanese government and military was entirely outgunned and overpowered by Hezbollah in the beginning. If the government wanted to do anything to stop Hezbollah, they simply couldn't have; they didn't have the means to.

You can't simply expect the Lebanese government, which in itself is still recovering from the Syrian occupation, to fight Hezbollah effectively. We already know that Syria aids Hezbollah, and that Syria occupied Lebanon for some time. Hezbollah, not the Lebanese government and military, was supplied by the Syrian government during the occupation, and when Syria withdrew, Hezbollah emerged as the dominant force in the country.

I recall very well. Which is why the UN should have gotten involved instead of Israel. But as I pointed out earlier the UN aren't going to stick their heads in to deal with only one side of the stupidity while the other side gets carte blanche to do whatever the hell it wants.

It's also worth pointing out that Israel were right behind Syria withdrawing from Lebanon in the first place even though they were pretty much the only thing keeping Hezbollah under control.

I'm saying as long as you're considering Israel's restraint in attacking civilians as a sheer PR move, then why not condemn Hezbollah for pulling off a sheer PR move that results in innocent Lebanese civilians being killed? Of course, I see you have, and that was my whole point of bringing up the argument.

I didn't denounce Hezbollah for the same reason I don't mention the fact that water is wet every time I mention the sea. It's pretty obvious that no one on this thread likes Hezbollah. In fact we've probably all made that fact crystal clear time and time again. I'm sure at some point everyone arguing against your position has made that fact known. Your argument is completely specious. Of course everyone on this thread condemns Hezbollah. We don't mention it in every thread because

1. I'd have thought it bloody obvious
2. It would be repeatative
3. No one is defending Hezbollah so what would it be the counter argument to?

The simple fact is that the pro-Israel faction like to make out that there is a them and us argument going on. Well there is. It's one between those who think that Hezbollah are stupid, short-sighted, bloodthirsty fools and those who think that both sides are stupid, short-sighted, bloodthirsty fools.

But when discussing something you only argue about those points you disagree on. What's the point in both sides reiterating things they both know to be true? 

Again, as somebody said earlier in the thread (I believe it was BR), Hezbollah are still essentially civilians too, albeit well-supplied and well-armed. They make just as much use of power plants, roads, and buildings as the Lebanese caught in the crossfire do. Once Hezbollah is disarmed or otherwise forced out of Lebanon, then an international force led by the UN can step in and help rebuild Lebanon's civilian infrastructure.

But why the hell should the UN do that if Israel can step in and decide to blow it all to **** again at the drop of a hat? The UN has to be able to prevent agression on both sides if it's going to have any kind of effectiveness.

I hate to break it to you, but there was no real mess-free way of handling this. Syria ****ed up Lebanon with supplying Hezbollah, and now Israel has to get its hands dirty for what Syria did. Once Hezbollah is out of the country and power and stability is returned to the Lebanese government and military, then Israel shouldn't be concerned about its neighbor to the north.

I agree in principle but are you really unable to see that this isn't a way to achieve that goal? Hezbollah are going to come out of this more powerful not less. More of the people in Lebanon are going to agree with their point of view. More people are going to want to fight the good fight.

Putting an army of UN peacekeepers (Who will simply be seen as Israeli's hired goon squad) is not going to prevent that on iota. And if they start clamping down on the new recruits things will go from bad to worse very quickly.

[vyper]

edit: N/m