[Taliesin]

...... at least that's what the headlines on BBC read like. Funny thing that BBC chose to word differently and to put war crimes in parantheses in one case and the other not:

BBC NEWS | Middle East | Israel accused over 'war crimes'
BBC NEWS | Middle East | Hezbollah accused of war crimes

But at least BBC mentioned it at all, other big western news-sites aren't even doing that, parantheses or not.

Parantheses and the word "over" instead of "of" makes it look like as if it weren't serious or as if it is still not secure information or...

The other interesting observation is that the article that reports AI's condemnation of Hezbollah is sported in prominent position with a big headline, while the same condemnation of Israel is only presented as a small headline below:

BBC NEWS | Middle East

My last observation was that while the article presenting the AI condemnation of Israel's actions in Lebanon discuss the widespread civilian infrastructure-damage, it neatly ignores the much worse warcrime, namely the use of cluster-bombs, which have in this case only the goal of punishing the civilian population for years to come, since they have no strategic nor tactical advantage against a guerillia-force.

Clusterbombs have their justification and use against conventional armies on battlefields, but using them in civilian neighbourhoods during a war against a guerillia-force, the only ones that will be affected by them will be ordinary civilians.

That said, Hezbollah is no angel either, after they captured the soldiers, and Israel reacted with bombardments of the lebanese south and the southern suburbs of Beirut where Hezbollah have their strongholds, but also where civilians live, the Hezbollah fired all in all about 4,000 Katjusha-rockets into Northern Israel, directly and intentionally targetting civilians and civilian infrastructure.

Regardless though of the results of human casualties,

About 1,000 Lebanese - most civilians - died in the conflict, while 161 Israelis, mainly soldiers, were killed.

, both sides are equally guilty of punishing civilians, the one side has only more equipment to use than the other. But while the hardship is over for Northern Israel's civilians, it's not for Lebanon's, the cluster-bombs will kill civilians for years to come.

Taliesin

[Big Mac]

Even the BBC knows that such charges against Israel are illlegitimate. Hezballah is the guilty party.

[badidea]

Originally Posted by Big Mac

Even the BBC knows that such charges against Israel are illlegitimate. Hezballah is the guilty party.

Okay, who was the guilty party of WWI in your opinion?

[Big Mac]

What a total non-sequitur.

[badidea]

Objection overruled - please answer the question!

[Millennium]

Originally Posted by badidea

Objection overruled - please answer the question!

Guilty of what? Touching off the initial conflict, or dragging everyone into it?

[badidea]

Originally Posted by Millennium

Guilty of what? Touching off the initial conflict, or dragging everyone into it?

If you think there's a difference then name both.


edit: But actually I would like to hear this answer from BigMac because he says that Hezbollah is the (only) guilty party!

[vmarks]

I think it's very interesting that the BBC chose to do this. It is in direct contradiction to their normal completely Anti-Israel position.

Looking at Agence France Press, no friend of Israel either, it's interesting to see the quotes they choose from the Amnesty report. http://news.yahoo.com/s/afp/20060914...onflictlebanon

The London-based human rights group said the guerillas fired nearly 4,000 rockets into northern Israel, killing 43 civilians, seriously injuring 33 others and forcing hundreds of thousands to take refuge or flee.

About a quarter of all rockets -- some packed with thousands of metal ball bearings -- were fired directly into urban areas, it added in a nine-page document called "Under fire -- Hezbollah's attacks on northern Israel".

It was only because Israeli civilians fled their homes or took shelter in bunkers that a higher death toll was prevented, it said.

"The scale of Hezbollah's attacks on Israeli cities, towns and villages, the indiscriminate nature of the weapons used and statements from the leadership confirming their intent to target civilians make it all too clear that Hezbollah violated the laws of war," said Amnesty's secretary-general Irene Khan.

"The fact that Israel has also committed serious violations in no way justifies violations by Hezbollah. Civilians must not be made to pay the price for unlawful conduct on either side."

During the month-long conflict, Amnesty said Hezbollah's firing of 900 "inherently inaccurate" Katyusha rockets into urban areas flouted the principle in international law of distinguishing between civilian and military targets.

The modified missiles with ball bearings were "designed to inflict maximum death and injury", it said, adding that one of them killed eight railway workers.

Hezbollah chief Hassan Nasrallah, plus other senior figures, also repeatedly stated their aim of targeting civilians as a form of reprisal for the Israeli military bombardment, Amnesty said.

Amnesty said the document was based on its own research in Israel and Lebanon, interviews with victims, official statements, plus discussions with government officials in Israel and Lebanon and senior Hezbollah figures.

It did not address Israeli claims that Hezbollah used the civilian population as cover for its military activities and was therefore responsible for civilian deaths. Hezbollah has denied the claims.

That issue would be addressed in a future report, Amnesty said.


So, do you agree: DID HizbAllah commit war crimes?

[badidea]

Originally Posted by vmarks

So, do you agree: DID HizbAllah commit war crimes?

Yes, sure they did!

What about Israel?

[marden]

At first I thought the subject was Al as in Al Qaeda. Then I read that it was Amnesty International.

[vmarks]

Originally Posted by badidea

Yes, sure they did!

What about Israel?

Amnesty International says they intend to address that specifically in another report. I intend to wait and see what they have to say.

[Sayf-Allah]

Originally Posted by vmarks

Amnesty International says they intend to address that specifically in another report. I intend to wait and see what they have to say.

BBC NEWS | Middle East | Israel accused over 'war crimes'

[badidea]

Originally Posted by vmarks

Amnesty International says they intend to address that specifically in another report. I intend to wait and see what they have to say.

I actually wanted to hear your opinion!

If it's the expected "No" then please also tell me why not!

[OAW]

The OP's observations about the interesting differences in the use of language to describe Israel's actions vs. Hizballah's actions are right on point. And he is also correct that the cluster bomb issue has been virtually ignored in the western media. The death/damage toll speaks for itself on where the greater fault lies IMO.

OAW

[ghporter]

Originally Posted by Taliesin

My last observation was that while the article presenting the AI condemnation of Israel's actions in Lebanon discuss the widespread civilian infrastructure-damage, it neatly ignores the much worse warcrime, namely the use of cluster-bombs, which have in this case only the goal of punishing the civilian population for years to come, since they have no strategic nor tactical advantage against a guerillia-force.

Clusterbombs have their justification and use against conventional armies on battlefields, but using them in civilian neighbourhoods during a war against a guerillia-force, the only ones that will be affected by them will be ordinary civilians.

In this case, the use of an areal denial weapon (a weapon that denies one's enemy the use of an area of land) was PERFECTLY appropriate. Israel was trying to keep Hezbollah from being able to fire missiles at Northern Israel, and their method was to make the firing positions the had used untennable. They also used them to cut supply routes used by Hezbollah to receive more missiles and other military supplies.

It's not like the Israelis were dropping these munitions on neighborhoods-because Hezbollah wasn't firing missiles from neighborhoods. When the gurillas moved into neighborhoods and began firing at Israeli forces, those forces responded with appropriate weapons for that type of terrain, NOT cluster bombs.

Finally, why was the population of Lebanon putting up with Hezbollah using their country as a staging ground for international aggression? Isn't Lebanon supposed to be democratic?

[Sayf-Allah]

Originally Posted by ghporter

In this case, the use of an areal denial weapon (a weapon that denies one's enemy the use of an area of land) was PERFECTLY appropriate. Israel was trying to keep Hezbollah from being able to fire missiles at Northern Israel, and their method was to make the firing positions the had used untennable. They also used them to cut supply routes used by Hezbollah to receive more missiles and other military supplies.

It's not like the Israelis were dropping these munitions on neighborhoods-because Hezbollah wasn't firing missiles from neighborhoods. When the gurillas moved into neighborhoods and began firing at Israeli forces, those forces responded with appropriate weapons for that type of terrain, NOT cluster bombs.

Finally, why was the population of Lebanon putting up with Hezbollah using their country as a staging ground for international aggression? Isn't Lebanon supposed to be democratic?

Where have you been lately???

Israel used cluster munitions inside villages and against small towns. It's been well documented already.

[subego]

Originally Posted by ghporter

Finally, why was the population of Lebanon putting up with Hezbollah using their country as a staging ground for international aggression? Isn't Lebanon supposed to be democratic?

Is this a rhetorical question?

[OAW]

Originally Posted by Sayf-Allah

Were have you been lately???

Israel used cluster munitions inside villages and against small towns. It's been well documented already.

Indeed.

Originally Posted by ghporter

Finally, why was the population of Lebanon putting up with Hezbollah using their country as a staging ground for international aggression? Isn't Lebanon supposed to be democratic?

Perhaps because the majority of the Lebanese population supports Hizballah? Which leads me to this so-called issue of Hizballah supposedly using the civilian population as "human shields". This is just plain foolish. Why is it so difficult for many in the West to understand that in the areas where Hizballah has its strongholds (i.e., the south of Lebanon) it is the civilian population?

OAW

[Sayf-Allah]

Originally Posted by OAW

Perhaps because the majority of the Lebanese population supports Hizballah? Which leads me to this so-called issue of Hizballah supposedly using the civilian population as "human shields". This is just plain foolish. Why is it so difficult for many in the West to understand that in the areas where Hizballah has its strongholds (i.e., the south of Lebanon) it is the civilian population?

OAW

That's the problem. For Zionists and their supporters even just supporting Hezbullah (agreeing with their ideology and methods) means you are a legitimate target. So they think that everyone in Lebanon that has either voted for Hezbollah or went/worked at their schools should be killed. Just like a Hezbullah fighter aiming a gun at the Zionist military.

[ghporter]

Originally Posted by Sayf-Allah

Where have you been lately???

Israel used cluster munitions inside villages and against small towns. It's been well documented already.

Those villages and towns were attacked AFTER it appeared that the residents had pulled out-that's what I'd understood from reports.

Damned hard to get objective reports, too. EVERYBODY wants to spin stuff that is significant and important without spin.

So where's the documentation about these towns? Considering Israel's history in this particular episode, I would consider it possible for an occasional misuse of cluster munitions through miscommunication or bad leadership in the field, but not through intentional use as ordered by the command structure. They're too media-savvy and aware of world opinion to actually go out of their way to tick off everybody.

[OAW]

Originally Posted by ghporter

Considering Israel's history in this particular episode, I would consider it possible for an occasional misuse of cluster munitions through miscommunication or bad leadership in the field, but not through intentional use as ordered by the command structure. They're too media-savvy and aware of world opinion to actually go out of their way to tick off everybody.

I'm sorry but this just defies common sense. Let's say for the sake of discussion that Israel does not target civilians and that every single civilian death in Lebanon was "collateral damage". And let's say for the sake of discussion that every single Israeli civilian that was killed was targeted intentionally by Hizballah. Of course, this is total BS but work with me here. Even with this scenario that puts Israel in the best light possible ... they still have a nearly 10 to 1 advantage over Hizballah when it comes to killing civilians! In other words, Israel manages to kill nearly 10 times as many civilians by accident than Hizballah does on purpose.

And on top of that when one considers that "dead is dead", these "Israel - good guys, Hizballah - bad guys" simplicities just don't hold much water IMO.

OAW

[Splinter]

Are we all forgetting that Israel warned of the bombings in the neighbourhoods beforehand?

and not just 'we may target suspected hizbollah neighbourhoods', but very specific locations. Which had its advantges and disadvantages. On the plus side anyone with half a brain left those areas before the bombing. The disadvantage the hizbollah leadership all have at least half a brain and because these warning for the civilian populations the hizbollah leadership were able to stay a step ahead of the bombings.

[Splinter]

Originally Posted by OAW

I'm sorry but this just defies common sense. Let's say for the sake of discussion that Israel does not target civilians and that every single civilian death in Lebanon was "collateral damage". And let's say for the sake of discussion that every single Israeli civilian that was killed was targeted intentionally by Hizballah. Of course, this is total BS but work with me here. Even with this scenario that puts Israel in the best light possible ... they still have a nearly 10 to 1 advantage over Hizballah when it comes to killing civilians! In other words, Israel manages to kill nearly 10 times as many civilians by accident than Hizballah does on purpose.

And on top of that when one considers that "dead is dead", these "Israel - good guys, Hizballah - bad guys" simplicities just don't hold much water IMO.

OAW

So according to you if it was 1 to 1 it would have still been horrible but at leasy it would have made sense right?

let me explain very simply why that does not defy common sense...

1. because the Israelis USED common sense. When their areas and homes started getting bombed they all moved into the bomb shelters and those that didnt have or didnt want to left the area and migrated south.

2. Because the army took the fight into lebanon the hizbollah fighters werent able to inflict more direct civilian casualties so they had to resort to...

3. ... the use of inacurate rockets that were shot at any place with living thing in them just in case one of them would hit.

THAT is why the death ratio was 10 to 1. not because of so MANY lost on one side but becasue of so FEW lost on the other.

[subego]

Originally Posted by Splinter

Are we all forgetting that Israel warned of the bombings in the neighbourhoods beforehand?

and not just 'we may target suspected hizbollah neighbourhoods', but very specific locations. Which had its advantges and disadvantages. On the plus side anyone with half a brain left those areas before the bombing. The disadvantage the hizbollah leadership all have at least half a brain and because these warning for the civilian populations the hizbollah leadership were able to stay a step ahead of the bombings.

So the Israelis empty an area of enemies and then blow the place up anyways?

Geez, no wonder the Lebanese are pissed.

[Splinter]

No, they did that because they wanted to give the civilian population a chance. It was inevitable that Hizbollah would hear about it too.

But to blow it up anway was nothing suprising. Yes, it would have been nice to get some of the hizbollah leadership but their bases of operations their equipment, their entire infrastructure was also a very high target.

[ghporter]

Originally Posted by OAW

I'm sorry but this just defies common sense. Let's say for the sake of discussion that Israel does not target civilians and that every single civilian death in Lebanon was "collateral damage". And let's say for the sake of discussion that every single Israeli civilian that was killed was targeted intentionally by Hizballah. Of course, this is total BS but work with me here. Even with this scenario that puts Israel in the best light possible ... they still have a nearly 10 to 1 advantage over Hizballah when it comes to killing civilians! In other words, Israel manages to kill nearly 10 times as many civilians by accident than Hizballah does on purpose.

And on top of that when one considers that "dead is dead", these "Israel - good guys, Hizballah - bad guys" simplicities just don't hold much water IMO.

OAW

The Israeli army doesn't hide in neighborhoods and fire on its adversaries from behind women and children. Hizbollah does. The Israeli army doesn't lob explosives across a border AT SCHOOLS AND HOMES. Hizbollah did-until Israel had enough and moved in because their long-standing diplomatic efforts in Beiruit had zero effect (zero action on the part of the Lebanese government to stop these rocket attacks).

So YES, EVERY SINGLE ISRAELI CIVILIAN KILLED BY HEZBOLLAH WAS INTENTIONALLY TARGETED, and for the most part Lebanese civilians killed by Israel were collateral damage-but how many of those "civilians" had guns all the way up until they caught a bit of Israeli ammunition? Sticky thing, this "unconventional warfare." No uniforms, no accountability. And no guts either-hiding behind women is certainly NOT a "brave thing."

[Big Mac]

[Taliesin]

Originally Posted by ghporter

Sticky thing, this "unconventional warfare." No uniforms, no accountability. And no guts either-hiding behind women is certainly NOT a "brave thing."

Actually it is a brave thing, for the woman, if she voluntarily allows Hezbollah to use her as cover.

Otherwise, that's what guerillia-forces do when up against a way better equipped army, they use whatever they can to make up for the lack of tanks, radars and air-souvereignity.

It is not even a bit more cowardly than israeli soldiers hiding in tanks and highflying planes.

But back to the whole number-crunching of casualties, that is all misleading: The reason for the low casualties on the israeli side is because of the weak nature of the Katjusha-rockets as well as the pre-warning and protection of the israeli civilians in underground facilities.

So it makes no sense to count up the casualties and say look, Israel is the bad-boy here because it killed many more civilians, for all purposes Hezbollah aimed to kill many more civilians but simply failed. The only justification that Hezbollah has still, is their claim that they choose to target civilian areas because Israel did it too, as a form of reprisal, but I think reprisals are not legitimate either.

But one can say, look, Israel is very naughty, because it used cluster-bombs in civilian areas, which will likely lead to many deaths and maimages of lebanese civilians for years to come, and because of the disproportionate destruction of the infrastructure of south Lebanon.

Taliesin

[Sayf-Allah]

Originally Posted by ghporter

Those villages and towns were attacked AFTER it appeared that the residents had pulled out-that's what I'd understood from reports.

And that's wrong. The villages and towns were often attacked after the residents got a WARNING. And that warning still doesn't make it legal to use cluster munitions inside a civilian area nor does it relieve the attacking force of the responsibility to distinguish between legtimate targets (soldiers) and protected persons (civilians)

Damned hard to get objective reports, too. EVERYBODY wants to spin stuff that is significant and important without spin.

Try HRW for the best reports. Condemn both sides. Just read some of the stuff there.

Start here:

Fatal Strikes: Israel�s Indiscriminate Attacks Against Civilians in Lebanon

And before you comment on it I remind you of the fact that HRW has also strongly condemned Hezbullah.

So where's the documentation about these towns? Considering Israel's history in this particular episode, I would consider it possible for an occasional misuse of cluster munitions through miscommunication or bad leadership in the field, but not through intentional use as ordered by the command structure. They're too media-savvy and aware of world opinion to actually go out of their way to tick off everybody.

"occasional misuse" "miscommunication" "bad leadership in the field".

I love it when the supporters of Zionism use those terms. They really believe (but won't say) that the IOF is simply so grossly incompetent that these "events" just happen at this rate because of mistakes.

Pathetic.

[Sayf-Allah]

Originally Posted by Splinter

Are we all forgetting that Israel warned of the bombings in the neighbourhoods beforehand?

Irrelevant. It's still a civilian area which means you can't use cluster munitions and even if it did Israel is required to distinguish between protected persons and combatants.

and not just 'we may target suspected hizbollah neighbourhoods', but very specific locations. Which had its advantges and disadvantages. On the plus side anyone with half a brain left those areas before the bombing.

But many couldn't. A poor family in southern Lebanon can not afford the 1000$ taxi out of the area. Many were sick or injured. Many didn't have petrol to drive their cars.

Your excuses are irrelevant.

Or do you think Hezbollah and Hamas could do the same. Warn Israelis that they are going to attack and then the Israeli civilians are responsible for staying in the area that will be attacked?

[Sayf-Allah]

Originally Posted by ghporter

The Israeli army doesn't hide in neighborhoods and fire on its adversaries from behind women and children. Hizbollah does. The Israeli army doesn't lob explosives across a border AT SCHOOLS AND HOMES. Hizbollah did-until Israel had enough and moved in because their long-standing diplomatic efforts in Beiruit had zero effect (zero action on the part of the Lebanese government to stop these rocket attacks).

Read the HRW report. I'll quote the relevant part for you.

HRW report:

First they hit a school building at night, from Wednesday to Thursday, starting at around 3:30 to 4 a.m.

....

The bodies of the four Merhi family members were covered with rubble, and firing from Israeli war planes prevented the villagers from digging them out. According to one witness:

The first time they tried to get the bodies out, some villagers went to try and extract them from the rubble, but another rocket fired on the home. Eventually they were able to get the bodies out, but that was only about noon. The bodies were buried in the village around 5 p.m.16

There was no Hezbollah activity around the home when the second bomb struck, the villagers said.

Need more?

So YES, EVERY SINGLE ISRAELI CIVILIAN KILLED BY HEZBOLLAH WAS INTENTIONALLY TARGETED, and for the most part Lebanese civilians killed by Israel were collateral damage-but how many of those "civilians" had guns all the way up until they caught a bit of Israeli ammunition? Sticky thing, this "unconventional warfare." No uniforms, no accountability. And no guts either-hiding behind women is certainly NOT a "brave thing."

Israel, not Hizbullah, is putting civilians in danger on both sides of the border

(sorry about the source. Can't be arsed digging up the original)

[red rocket]

Just came across this:

Other recent findings confirm that Israel may have dropped as many as 60 % of the cluster bombs they used during July-August 2006 in the 72 hours immediately before the ceasefire. Military analysts on the ground offer two explanations:

1. Shear frustration, hatred, and rage by Israel's leadership and its obsession with punishing Lebanon for its more than 85% support (including Lebanon's middle class and Christian citizens) for Hezbollah's resistance to Israel's attempted reoccupation up to the Litani River.

2. A desire by Israel to get rid of as much of its U.S. cluster bomb inventory as possible, which the Pentagon has stipulated must be reduced to a lower level before Israel can reorder newer models like the M-26. This is why the 33 year old CBU-58, almost extinct, was used so widely. Israel was cleaning out its CBU closet for new orders, one Lebanese army source reported.

source

Interesting second explanation. Guess there's a practical reason, after all.

[subego]

Originally Posted by Splinter

No, they did that because they wanted to give the civilian population a chance. It was inevitable that Hizbollah would hear about it too.

But to blow it up anway was nothing suprising. Yes, it would have been nice to get some of the hizbollah leadership but their bases of operations their equipment, their entire infrastructure was also a very high target.

Uh huh. The Israelis did a swell job taking care of that.

It's not like I'm Hizbollah's pal or anything, I supported Israel in the beginning of this but the more I thought about it the more it struck me that as lopsided as the conflict was, it fell to Israel to show some (or more if you prefer) restraint. Even if you agree with what the Israelis did in principle (like I do) I find it hard, especially with the benefit of hindsight, to think what they did was practical.

Blowing up targets that are empty of all but the poorest of the poor would seem to bear out my claim of impracticability.

Even if the justification is "trying to do the right thing".

[subego]

Originally Posted by counterpunch.com

1. Shear frustration

I hope their research is better than their spelling.

[Splinter]

Originally Posted by Sayf-Allah

Irrelevant. It's still a civilian area which means you can't use cluster munitions and even if it did Israel is required to distinguish between protected persons and combatants.

Sigh. The world from the inside of the conflict and from those viewing from the outside is so very diffrent.

Do you have any idea how many attacks were called off because the pilots identified civies even though a high priority target was also seen in the area. I must have witnesed over a hundred. Yes witnesed as in first hand as in what may not have been reported by the lovley media because it's not 'juicy' enough. Puhhhleees

When in the last conflicts that any civilian died has the army responsible not straight away been accused of not caring, indiscriminating, and of plain out targeting civilians?

Originally Posted by Sayf-Allah

But many couldn't. A poor family in southern Lebanon can not afford the 1000$ taxi out of the area. Many were sick or injured. Many didn't have petrol to drive their cars.

So what you are actually helping me point out is that not only did hizbollah have the means to escape these areas they didnt help anyone esle ALONG WITH the lebanese government who should have been organizing buses vans whatever they had to come into these areas that had been targeted and evacuate but hey I guess they didnt care either right? oh and yeah I dont care what country your from it doesn't take $1000 to move a mile out of the way.

Originally Posted by Sayf-Allah

Or do you think Hezbollah and Hamas could do the same. Warn Israelis that they are going to attack and then the Israeli civilians are responsible for staying in the area that will be attacked?

Hell yeah! I wish they would. Do you know how many lives that would save?

Originally Posted by subego

Uh huh. The Israelis did a swell job taking care of that.

It's not like I'm Hizbollah's pal or anything, I supported Israel in the beginning of this but the more I thought about it the more it struck me that as lopsided as the conflict was, it fell to Israel to show some (or more if you prefer) restraint. Even if you agree with what the Israelis did in principle (like I do) I find it hard, especially with the benefit of hindsight, to think what they did was practical.

Blowing up targets that are empty of all but the poorest of the poor would seem to bear out my claim of impracticability.

Even if the justification is "trying to do the right thing".

Wherever you live do they not have poor families around you? If you were targeted witha specific warning by an outside force with more then enough capabilities to accomplish what they are warning would you not get the hell out of there and would not the mayor or governer or even residents of their own free will go and make sure to help those less fortunate? It's one of the most basic things of being a human being and a good nieghbour. When a train is coming through a crossing its not the job of the conductor to stop the train direct traffic out of the way then continue on. No, the gates go down the train uses its horn and thats about all it can do.

[Sayf-Allah]

Originally Posted by Splinter

Sigh. The world from the inside of the conflict and from those viewing from the outside is so very diffrent.

Do you have any idea how many attacks were called off because the pilots identified civies even though a high priority target was also seen in the area. I must have witnesed over a hundred. Yes witnesed as in first hand as in what may not have been reported by the lovley media because it's not 'juicy' enough. Puhhhleees

When in the last conflicts that any civilian died has the army responsible not straight away been accused of not caring, indiscriminating, and of plain out targeting civilians?

Who said anything on viewing this from the outside?

So what you are actually helping me point out is that not only did hizbollah have the means to escape these areas they didnt help anyone esle ALONG WITH the lebanese government who should have been organizing buses vans whatever they had to come into these areas that had been targeted and evacuate but hey I guess they didnt care either right?

Come again?

edit to add:
using vans would be suicide. As well as buses.

Over the following days, Israeli officials also called many village leaders on their mobile phones with a recorded message, ordering them to leave their villages immediately and to head north of the Litani River. The message warned them not to travel on motorcycles, vans, or trucks.

from the hrw link above

oh and yeah I dont care what country your from it doesn't take $1000 to move a mile out of the way.

That mile you mention is actually up to 25km.

and

Taxi drivers in the south were charging up to $400 per person for rides to Beirut - more than 40 times the usual price.

Guardian Unlimited | World Latest | Israel Hints at Full-Scale Lebanon Attack

The price continued to rise as the conflict went on. I'll find a link later with the $1000 claim.

Hell yeah! I wish they would. Do you know how many lives that would save?

They already did. Get out of the occupied territories or they will attack Israel. Now I eagerly await your spin on the subject.

If you were targeted witha specific warning by an outside force with more then enough capabilities to accomplish what they are warning would you not get the hell out of there and would not the mayor or governer or even residents of their own free will go and make sure to help those less fortunate?

1. No, I'd make sure I was a part of the welcoming committee.

2. Yes, but that's kind of impossible when all the access routes have been destroyed. And it's kind of impossible when the "outside force" will not guarantee the safety of Red Cross/Crescent transports nor buses from the government.

But do go on defending your immoral actions. Do go on defending war crimes. One day the world will stop acting blind when it comes to your nation and the sooner the better.

[subego]

Originally Posted by Splinter

Wherever you live do they not have poor families around you? If you were targeted witha specific warning by an outside force with more then enough capabilities to accomplish what they are warning would you not get the hell out of there and would not the mayor or governer or even residents of their own free will go and make sure to help those less fortunate? It's one of the most basic things of being a human being and a good nieghbour. When a train is coming through a crossing its not the job of the conductor to stop the train direct traffic out of the way then continue on. No, the gates go down the train uses its horn and thats about all it can do.

You caught how things went down a year ago in New Orleans, right?

Regardless, you still haven't explained how "wanton property damage" is a viable military strategy, unless you're willing to admit to a victory condition of ****ing the infrastructure of a nominally democratic country.



P.S. I dig your "Location".

[Splinter]

Originally Posted by Sayf-Allah

Who said anything on viewing this from the outside?

Your right. I was assuming that you were not viewing this within the access of military inteligence. Maybe you do know things about the war that the public does not know.

Originally Posted by Sayf-Allah

using vans would be suicide. As well as buses.

No, Suicide would be to stay. Using vans and buses would be risky but so is driving down the jordan valley.

Originally Posted by Sayf-Allah

That mile you mention is actually up to 25km.

No, I'm talking about the minimal 1 mile to get out of the way of the attack in said village or town. Worry about not dying first.

Originally Posted by Sayf-Allah

They already did. Get out of the occupied territories or they will attack Israel. Now I eagerly await your spin on the subject.

Are you serious? I mean really. How does saying leave this area or we will attack your civilians throught the country add up to leave this town because we are coming through.

See in one of them you KNOW where the attack is taking place and it's meant as a warning to save lives. The other is a threat that if you don't leave an area they will hunt you down and murder you wherever they find you.

I hope for all our sakes as rational human beings you can see the diffrence here.

Originally Posted by Sayf-Allah

1. No, I'd make sure I was a part of the welcoming committee.

2. Yes, but that's kind of impossible when all the access routes have been destroyed. And it's kind of impossible when the "outside force" will not guarantee the safety of Red Cross/Crescent transports nor buses from the government.

Bridges were destroyed but there are still roads. You can still get the hell out of the way at least for that specific village and worry about the rest after you at least TRY to save yourself.

Where do they say they wouldn't garuntee safe passage to emergency vehicles and buses?

not that they had to anyway.

The red cross/red crecent in these areas have more the once transported terrorists and homocide bombers. buses? forget about it. But belive me I know that if a bus would have come into a village that was targeted and started loading up people there was more then enough satelite and UAV coverage to show them who and what was being loaded on there.

Originally Posted by Sayf-Allah

But do go on defending your immoral actions. Do go on defending war crimes. One day the world will stop acting blind when it comes to your nation and the sooner the better.

MY immoral actions. Yes because I went into Lebanon and took over a house with a family in it and raped the children then shot the parents because and I dont feel bad about it because I am "defending my immoral actions"

I'm sorry. Do you know me? Do you know what I have done? I didn't think so. So before I go calling you a terrorist because you have an arab name or some dumb sh*t like that don't go saying my actions are or were immoral because of where I am from. you have no clue what I have or havn't done.

Originally Posted by subego

You caught how things went down a year ago in New Orleans, right?

Regardless, you still haven't explained how "wanton property damage" is a viable military strategy, unless you're willing to admit to a victory condition of ****ing the infrastructure of a nominally democratic country.



P.S. I dig your "Location".

Not really... I was sorta detached at the time that all went down.

I do know how it went down here... when the war started. my friends took in 5 whole families all at once that they didnt know from adam. Things like that happened here and I can only assume that the lebanese people were the same.

and the wanton property damage. Look I'm not saying it was a completly wholesome way to go about things but think of it this way.

The casualties on the IDF side were quite high the new rockets from russia really did a number on the tanks and things were pretty messy.

Now you know of a village that is a hezbollah stronghold. And after sufficient warnings of 'evacuate' from you, from the government of the village, and after even anyone who ignored that couldn't ignore the fighting going on getting closer, would you:

A. Send in tanks and APCs get massiv casualties to both sides lose equipemnt lives of the soldiers under your command but accomplish your goals eventually

B. Drop a bomb Save lives save equipment in a fraction of the time.

Yes loss of porperty was unfortunate but seriously the lebanese government has does nothing to get hezbollah out. And they knew what they were up to. and they knew that we would retaliate although not on a level like this and belive you me that next time they wont think twice they will thing 1000 times before making that same mistake.

I find that quote from 'Black Hawk Down' to be most applicable:

"Once that first bullet goes past your head, politics and all that sh*t just goes right out the window."

[subego]

Originally Posted by Splinter

Not really... I was sorta detached at the time that all went down.

Suffice it to say the rich fled, the poor stayed, and the government blew it at all levels. Not surprising the same thing happened in a country with a miniscule fraction of America's wealth, infrastructure, and government services.

Originally Posted by Splinter

I do know how it went down here... when the war started. my friends took in 5 whole families all at once that they didnt know from adam. Things like that happened here and I can only assume that the lebanese people were the same.

While I'm sure it did, the unity the Israelis show in the face of the enemy I perceive as somewhat unique.

Originally Posted by Splinter

and the wanton property damage. Look I'm not saying it was a completly wholesome way to go about things but think of it this way.

The casualties on the IDF side were quite high the new rockets from russia really did a number on the tanks and things were pretty messy.

Now you know of a village that is a hezbollah stronghold. And after sufficient warnings of 'evacuate' from you, from the government of the village, and after even anyone who ignored that couldn't ignore the fighting going on getting closer, would you:

A. Send in tanks and APCs get massiv casualties to both sides lose equipemnt lives of the soldiers under your command but accomplish your goals eventually

B. Drop a bomb Save lives save equipment in a fraction of the time.

These options presuppose warning your targets is a valid strategy to begin with. It's a half-assed compromise. Half-assed military solutions never work. I see the choice as:

A. Hunker down and take the heat for the massive civilian casualties a successful military campaign will incur.

B. Seek a narrower military victory commensurate with the offense that was committed (i.e. rescue the damn hostages)

C. Seek a non military response.

Originally Posted by Splinter

Yes loss of porperty was unfortunate but seriously the lebanese government has does nothing to get hezbollah out.

I ask this question in all seriousness, and with an admission of my own ignorance:

Just how possible would it be for the Lebanese government to evict Hizbollah?

While an obvious solution to the problem, on the surface it doesn't seem particularly practical.

Originally Posted by Splinter

And they knew what they were up to. and they knew that we would retaliate although not on a level like this and belive you me that next time they wont think twice they will thing 1000 times before making that same mistake.

This is true, and a very good point. Though aren't you concerned this will prompt them to make a different mistake? Revenge makes people do stupid ****.

Originally Posted by Splinter

I find that quote from 'Black Hawk Down' to be most applicable:

"Once that first bullet goes past your head, politics and all that sh*t just goes right out the window."

Well, if your Generals have bullets whizzing past their heads, maybe things are worse than I imagined.

[Sayf-Allah]

Originally Posted by Splinter

Your right. I was assuming that you were not viewing this within the access of military inteligence. Maybe you do know things about the war that the public does not know.

1. Never trust military intelligence. Not even when it's your own military that says/shows something.
2. Yes, to the last sentence.

No, Suicide would be to stay. Using vans and buses would be risky but so is driving down the jordan valley.

No, I'm talking about the minimal 1 mile to get out of the way of the attack in said village or town. Worry about not dying first.

Read the HRW report.

Are you serious? I mean really. How does saying leave this area or we will attack your civilians throught the country add up to leave this town because we are coming through.

See in one of them you KNOW where the attack is taking place and it's meant as a warning to save lives. The other is a threat that if you don't leave an area they will hunt you down and murder you wherever they find you.

I hope for all our sakes as rational human beings you can see the diffrence here.

I don't see much difference. Both threaten civilians with harm if they don't leave. Both deserve to be severely punished.

Bridges were destroyed but there are still roads. You can still get the hell out of the way at least for that specific village and worry about the rest after you at least TRY to save yourself.

Where do they say they wouldn't garuntee safe passage to emergency vehicles and buses?

not that they had to anyway.

The red cross/red crecent in these areas have more the once transported terrorists and homocide bombers. buses? forget about it. But belive me I know that if a bus would have come into a village that was targeted and started loading up people there was more then enough satelite and UAV coverage to show them who and what was being loaded on there.

Read the HRW report.

MY immoral actions. Yes because I went into Lebanon and took over a house with a family in it and raped the children then shot the parents because and I dont feel bad about it because I am "defending my immoral actions"

I'm sorry. Do you know me? Do you know what I have done? I didn't think so. So before I go calling you a terrorist because you have an arab name or some dumb sh*t like that don't go saying my actions are or were immoral because of where I am from. you have no clue what I have or havn't done.

I know you joined the IOF. The IOF is responsible for war crimes. You are a member of the OIF. You defend your (the IOF's) war crimes.

[Splinter]

Originally Posted by subego

Suffice it to say the rich fled, the poor stayed, and the government blew it at all levels. Not surprising the same thing happened in a country with a miniscule fraction of America's wealth, infrastructure, and government services.

I see.

Originally Posted by subego

These options presuppose warning your targets is a valid strategy to begin with. It's a half-assed compromise. Half-assed military solutions never work. I see the choice as:

A. Hunker down and take the heat for the massive civilian casualties a successful military campaign will incur.

B. Seek a narrower military victory commensurate with the offense that was committed (i.e. rescue the damn hostages)

C. Seek a non military response.

Well I guess that is all in the eye of the beholder. Because to one person that is making an excuse and it's better to leave things completly black and white but to another person it is trying to brace yourself as best you can for the obvious media breakdown of what they think happened.

Maybe it is better to just have not given any warning just gone in and said tuff luck this is war. But thats not what they did and they decided at cost only to themselves to try and help out as many civilians as they could. The lesser of two evils I suppose.

Originally Posted by subego

I ask this question in all seriousness, and with an admission of my own ignorance:

Just how possible would it be for the Lebanese government to evict Hizbollah?

While an obvious solution to the problem, on the surface it doesn't seem particularly practical.

Possible? Yes. although at no small cost in finances and manpower. In fact I wouldn't be suprised if they are very glad it went down like this because it porbably saved them a thousand or so soldiers, equipment, and quite a few civilians.

Originally Posted by subego

This is true, and a very good point. Though aren't you concerned this will prompt them to make a different mistake? Revenge makes people do stupid ****.

This is always our concern and yet not our responsibility. We teach them lessons if they are too stubborn to learn them then God have mercy on thier souls because they will be meeting him soon.

Originally Posted by Sayf-Allah

1. Never trust military intelligence. Not even when it's your own military that says/shows something.
2. Yes, to the last sentence.

Yeah I Don't usually trust MI that is let out of the military becasue almost always it's not what I know and not what I am told. So yeah I trust that the MI I get is the real deal.

Very good for you I hope it's reliable.

Originally Posted by Sayf-Allah

Read the HRW report.

I did, and? okay 1. it didnt say anything about buses 2. what I did see there were accounts by people like you and me saying they saw this 'civilian' car get hit. so what? are the hizbollah new to civilian cars? you think they travel in huge hummers with big yellow and green flags painted on the roof? yeah I am sure that the IAF made some mistakes and hit some civilian cars. but half the times it said cars were hit it said vans and motorcycles which correct me if i am wrong but were told to stay off the roads. oh and the white flags... because the hizbollah wouldn't try to blend in a fly white flags of their own.

I mean seriously okay in the war a katyusha flew over my head and landed 20 meters behind me no one was hurt and nothing got damaged but it was close. So when the reporters come and are all excited and want a juicy story some pople will juice it up for them and say that thier friend behind them caught a piece of shrapnel that got lodged in his skull and you cradled him in your arms till he died. Now that isnt the truth but hey it's a damn good story to tell and as long as that's what you told them they can't be blamed for publishing false information because thats what they were given.

Ever since the start of this whole conflict back in 2000 and even before it has been as much of a media war as it has a physical one. And if you weren't there all you have to rely on is the word of someone else.

Look what you are implying here is that Israel gave those messages so that the civilians would leave thier village bunkers or whatever and try to flee so we could pick them off? Is that what you really belive? Or is that what you want to belive?

Originally Posted by Sayf-Allah

I don't see much difference. Both threaten civilians with harm if they don't leave. Both deserve to be severely punished.

Ok let me break this down as simply as possible. Leave now so that we dont hit any civilians. Leave now or we will target all civilians.

Originally Posted by Sayf-Allah

Read the HRW report.

I still don't see any reliable source that would say they rejected giving the right of secure passage. (no HRW is not reliable i'm sorry)

And even If it was not granted like I said before "The red cross/red crecent in these areas have more the once transported terrorists and homocide bombers. buses? forget about it. But belive me I know that if a bus would have come into a village that was targeted and started loading up people there was more then enough satelite and UAV coverage to show them who and what was being loaded on there."

Originally Posted by Sayf-Allah

I know you joined the IOF. The IOF is responsible for war crimes. You are a member of the OIF. You defend your (the IOF's) war crimes.

are you insane? seriously? I am also American does that mean I am responsible for all of Americas war crimes? I am also Irish does that mean I am responsible for all of Irelands war crimes?

If I saw another soldier take a gun to a woman or child or man I knew was innocent do you think I wouldn't stop them? oh thats right you don't know because you don't know me. and because you don't know me you have no f*cking clue what I am responsible for. I would take a step back right now and think about the gravity of what you are saying. Because if you go on spouting this sh*t I just won't be able to have a rational civilised conversation with you because without even knowing anything about me you have already labled me a murderer.