[Politics] Israeli War Crimes: who are the true terroroists?

[P_Funk]

UN Warning on Mid-East war crimes:http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/5197544.stm

Lebanon claims Israel is using banned weapons against civilians - White Phosphorus:http://jurist.law.pitt.edu/paperchase/2006/07/lebanon-claims-israel-using-banned.php

Israel uses Cluster Bombs on Civilian targets:http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/5201622.stm

What is White Phosphorus? http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/4441902.stm

Is Targeting of Civilian Infrastructure a War Crime?http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/5198342.stm

So if all these unguided rockets raining down on Haifa causing only 14 deaths is to be considered a terrible atrocity then why is the use of White Phosphorus and Cluster Bombs on civilian targets which have caused hundreds of deaths not? Even if Hezbollah is entrenched within civilian areas, isn't it just as wrong to use weapons which are as indiscirminant in choosing their victims as the rockets which Hezbollah are firing? If hezbollah's actions are terrorism and illegal why are the weapons which Israel are using, which are significantly more deadly, and the means with which they deploy them (ie. within civilian areas), not such?

Regardless of the apparent threat to Israel's security should Israel not be as accountable for its actions as Hezbollah?

[Yahoshua]

You are not underneath the rockets that are falling, you are not beside the restraunts that only look good now because the last makeover they had was done with a bus bombing, and you are certainly in no position to criticize Israel for doing what is right.

When the terrorist hide among civilians and they declare war against a government entity, do you really think that government is going to hold back from bombing those terrorists because they're among civlilians? Who is to blame for this situation? The attacker that hides among civilians, or the one who retaliates against the attacker? The U.S. sure hasn't thought twice about it. And we've bombed Baghdad and brought tanks into Iraq and mopped up the place. Israel is just following suit in her own arena.

http://lazerbrody.typepad.com/photos/uncategorized/made_in_iran.jpg Above image, courtesy IDF via the Jerusalem Post, shows a weapon seized during fighting with Hizbullah operatives in south Lebanon: an RPG marked with the logo of the Iranian military industry
Emuna News sources have reported since the beginning of the war that Iranian artillery officers from the Revolutionary Guard have been directing rocket and missile fire for the Hizbolla as well as operating the Fajr and Raad batteries. Now the cat is officially (http://www.ynetnews.com/articles/0,7340,L-3280446,00.html) out of the bag.
Make no mistakes - Hizbolla is Iran's proxy and Hizbolla controls Lebanon. Therefore, Achmedinejad controls Lebanon. Achmedinejad has officially declared that the process of Israel's annihilation (http://www.ynetnews.com/articles/0,7340,L-3280105,00.html)has begun. So far, he's outsmarting everyone.
From the bear's point of view, Iran is a winner either way. Meanwhile, international heat has been taken off of Iran's back; the hostilities in southern Lebanon are Tehran's classic diversion tactic that any semi-intelligent ten-year-old should be able to recognize. Iran forges ahead with its nuclear ambitions, which are so much closer to realization than most people know or care to admit.
Either we deal with an insolent and crass bear cub named Achmedinejad today, or else deal with a lethal Grizzly with nuclear fangs named Achmedinejad tomorrow. At this point, a Bush-Rice-Peres-CFR engineered ceasefire is a dire threat to our existence. Not only that - Israel's assent to a multinational force in South Lebanon is a tacit agreement to the recuperation of the Hizbolla; it won't take six years to wake up and find nukes just north of the Litani River in the Buffor and Nabatiyeh.

"Parts deleted due to irrelevance"

You'll be able to hear Lazer on Israel National Radio tomorrow morning, Tuesday 25 July, between 7-8 AM Israel time, which is 12-1 AM EDT (NYC, East coast USA), 11-12 PM CDT (Chicago and Midwest), 10-11 PM MDT (Denver and Boulder), or 9-10 PM PDT (LA and West Coast). Tamar Yona and Lazer will be discussing the war from a spiritual standpoint. Click here to hear the broadcast live (http://www.israelnationalradio.com/).

[Onkel Neal]

All right, remember, discuss and agree or disagree but don't get personal. When I come back in the morning, if this thread has turned ugly, it will get locked.

I don't care if you support the Israelis or if you think they are terrorists, but you better not start any flaming of people here who disagree with you.

Same goes for all other topics in this forum.

[P_Funk]

I understand your point that Israel is under threat from Hezbullah. Yet that's not my point. The question is whether or not the mass killing of civilians is justifiable in the process of trying to achieve security. But don't try and tell me that unless I am living in Haifa I can't have an opinion about what happens. What about you? Are you living in South Lebanon being constantly bombed by Israeli Artillery and American made F-16s? Who are you to say that Israel is infinately justified because yourpropoganda machine is filling your head with reports of Iran using Lebanon as a proxy to annihilate Israel. Sure that's what they say but honestly. Is that gonna happen? Israel is constantly supplied with war materiel by the US and all that Hezbollah has managed to do is lob many poorly aimed rockets at Haifa and kill little more than a dozen people. Is that the brink of annihilation which you apparently are so afraid of? Iran might posture that it is using Lebanon as a proxy for attacking Israel but you overestimate Iran's influence over Hezbollah. Hezbollah takes Iran's aid but they have their own agenda. And how is this cirrent conflict convenient for Iran? Iran didn't want Hezbollah to attack Israel now. Iran wants Hezbollah as a proxy so that when and if they decide to annihilate Israel they are another tool with which to attack Israel. But this timing is not in Iran's favour. This was a poorly calculated move by hezbollah which has back fired. iran sees Hezbollah as a tool but Hezbollah has its own identity.

You over dramatize the potential consequences. The world willnot end tommorow if Israel does not annihilate Hezbollah immediately. If it was about to don't you think that the Israeli government would have attacked much sooner? Instead they waited for a provocation which they could exploit to make a move against Hezbollah. It is already acknowledged and documented that Israeli Generals have been making plans forthis campaign for more than a year. The Generals a year ago were showing these plans off to reporters and officials. So the potential threat from Hezbollah is blown way beyond what it truly is.

Yes the threat is there and needs to be faced yet the speed and ruthlessness which Israel is showing in lebanon is uncalled for since Israel is at no risk of being destroyed this week or the next.

I'm not syaing Israel doesn't need to protect itself. Israel has every right to exist. But the response to the considerably minor incident which sparked this conflict is so out of proportion. Hezbollah has no immediate plans to nuke Israel. They kidnapped Israeli soldiers with the plan to trade them for prisoners. that doesn't say they are gonna destroy Israel anytime soon. So the level of devastation being set upon Lebanon is unjustifiable.

So once again. Is the mass killing of civilians justifiable? Is the use of cluster bombs and white phosphorus even right under any circumstances? How do you justify the intentional targeting of Ambulances and even civilians in their cars as they flee cities and villages which Israel has just ordered them to leave? What does that have to do with Hezbollah? Is Israel not hypocritical for doing to Lebanon 100 times worse what they accuse Hezbollah of doing?

Answer the qoestion. Don't play the "I'm a Jew you're not" card. That's a tired game.

[mog]

Is there any proof that Israel is targeting civilians? I know ambulances and the like have been hit, but that in itself does not constitute proof of intention.

[scandium]

Is there any proof that Israel is targeting civilians? I know ambulances and the like have been hit, but that in itself does not constitute proof of intention.
UN Human Rights Commissioner:


The Commissioner, Louise Arbour, has raised the possibility of prosecution. "The scale of killings in the region, and their predictability, could engage the personal criminal responsibility of those involved, particularly those in a position of command and control," she said.

"International humanitarian law is clear on the supreme obligations to protect civilians during hostilities."

"Indiscriminate shelling of cities constitutes a foreseeable and unacceptable targeting of civilians", she said. "Similarly, the bombardment of sites with alleged military significance, but resulting invariably in the killing of innocent civilians, is unjustifiable.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/5198342.stm

Clear enough for you?

[Skybird]

At least the phosphorus theory has beeen strongly objected. On German TV there was a German family, originally from the ME, who before were said to be victims of such a strike. The French or the Syrian doctor, I don't remember, who exmained them, ruled out that their burning were caused by phosphorus. Concerning cluster ammunition, I would be surprised if they are NOT used. the pity is that they are an effective weapon, and civilians and militias cannot be separated in this place, since the latter has dug itself deep into the civilian infrastructure and living surroundings.

[Skybird]

International humanitarian law is clear on the supreme obligations to protect civilians during hostilities." "Indiscriminate shelling of cities constitutes a foreseeable and unacceptable targeting of civilians", she said. "Similarly, the bombardment of sites with alleged military significance, but resulting invariably in the killing of innocent civilians, is unjustifiable. Too bad that nobody told that the Hezbollah years ago. Too bad that noone cares to protest against that. People complain about Israel now. Why is it that nobody complains about Hezbollah?

[Skybird]

es the threat is there and needs to be faced yet the speed and ruthlessness which Israel is showing in lebanon is uncalled for since Israel is at no risk of being destroyed this week or the next.
</p>A slow-rate, silent, constant dying on Israeli streets is more acceptable, then? since the beginning of the second intifada in autumn 2000, until the beginning of the current war, Israel has lost 1100 civilians to attcks on it's street. that is more than double as much as the cost of lifes in this current war. All these killings in Israel were intentional targetting of civilians. when would you think, is it time to say: enough is enough? When has a state a responsebility to protect it's citizens? How could one sit down and negotiate with a group doping these crimes? Is it acceptable that such a group becomes a power faction in the region, spreading Iran influence there and sowing unrest amonhst Arab neighbours (whose governments all would be happy if Hezbollah gets crushed)?

[mog]

"Indiscriminate shelling of cities constitutes a foreseeable and unacceptable targeting of civilians", she said. "Similarly, the bombardment of sites with alleged military significance, but resulting invariably in the killing of innocent civilians, is unjustifiable.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/5198342.stm

Clear enough for you?

She makes clear what would constitute a human rights violation, but doesn't present any evidence. Of course Israeli commanders could be shelling cities indiscriminately, or targeting buildings without proper intelligence, but are they? It would require a lot more than simply pointing at the number of civilian dead to show that.

[Oberon]

Bombing a UN bunker that's been there since the late 1940s wasn't exactly a smart move. I mean, I know the UN is as wonky as a corkscrew these days, but I don't think Hezbollah were using it as a secret base.... :oops:
That's gonna come back and bite them in the ass for sure. :damn:

[micky1up]

well before you critisize two iranian soldiers have been found alongside the dead terroists israel know more than their letting on it seems iran are behind the recent attacks on israel dont critisize untill you have all the intelligence and information about why this is going on mind you as i have said its easy to find fault with people fighting thousands on miles away from you comfortable seat in your non threatened country

[catar M]

They all the same Israel , Lebanon , Afghanistan and Iraq no one will give up centimeter off there argument's. Go back and think how all this started in late 40's Israel did same thing bombing killing

[STEED]

In all wars mistakes are made and yes it's a tragedy but errors are made there is no such thing as a perfect war, accidents are going to happen live with it, stop going on like it's the greatest crime ever committed in today's world.

PS. The media really love whipping these sorts of events up and blowing them out of all proportion, this has been going on in all conflicts over the years.


PPS. No I am not having ago at anyone. ;)

[micky1up]

1. under UN resolution israel left lebanon years ago under the proviso that the goverment disbanded and stopped the terroist threat which they have completely failed to do

2. the terroist started this

3. if they where french or german soldiers who were kidnapped these two countries would be sending in forces to get them

4 the terroists dug a tunnel into sovereign israel territory to carry out the kidnapping

5 the iranians are clearly behind this entire episode and their troops are figthing in lebanon with the terroists


and finally what would you do if you were israel or it was happening to your country?

[scandium]

"Indiscriminate shelling of cities constitutes a foreseeable and unacceptable targeting of civilians", she said. "Similarly, the bombardment of sites with alleged military significance, but resulting invariably in the killing of innocent civilians, is unjustifiable.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/5198342.stm

Clear enough for you?
She makes clear what would constitute a human rights violation, but doesn't present any evidence. Of course Israeli commanders could be shelling cities indiscriminately, or targeting buildings without proper intelligence, but are they? It would require a lot more than simply pointing at the number of civilian dead to show that.

Tell you what, why don't you go to Beirut and find out for yourself? After all, you're not Hezbollah and Israel is only after Hezbollah so you should be just fine.

Or if you're not willing to do that, then do some research. The facts, the pictures, its all out there in the public domain if you want to go looking for it. But I think you have already an opinion formed and why let facts get in the way of it? :dead:

[aaken]

1. under UN resolution israel left lebanon years ago under the proviso that the goverment disbanded and stopped the terroist threat which they have completely failed to do

True, i think, but syrian forces left Lebanon only earlier this year after the so called "cedar revolution". My point is that Lebanon was in a way occupied by another country up to a few months ago and it is still under the influence of Syria and Iran.

2. the terroist started this
4 the terroists dug a tunnel into sovereign israel territory to carry out the kidnapping

I think it's beyond dispute that Israel reacted to an attack from abroad. But I honestly don't think that indiscriminate bombing of civilian population in Lebanon will solve the Hezbollah problem. Maybe Hezbollah forces will withdraw but I think that bombing the civilian population will only breed new Hezbollah militants.

5 the iranians are clearly behind this entire episode and their troops are figthing in lebanon with the terroists
And don't forget Syria.

and finally what would you do if you were israel or it was happening to your country?
I would exert pressure on Syria and Iran to stop supporting Hezbollah, making clear that the continuation of the support would have serious consequences.If this doesn't work, I think the use of force against Syria would be justified. I would also put under pressure the lebanese government to actively enforce the UN resolution regarding Hezbollah, maybe proposing a joint lebanese-israeli force to control southern lebanon.

[scandium]

In all wars mistakes are made and yes it's a tragedy but errors are made there is no such thing as a perfect war, accidents are going to happen live with it, stop going on like it's the greatest crime ever committed in today's world.

PS. The media really love whipping these sorts of events up and blowing them out of all proportion, this has been going on in all conflicts over the years.


PPS. No I am not having ago at anyone. ;)
There are mistakes, and then there is a clear pattern of callous, reckless, and willful disregard for civilian casualties - be they Lebanese, Canadian, or UN Observers (who were shelled 14 times, then bombed, and then the rescue team was shelled as well.

Now to me I'm reading everything I can find on events over there and I'm leaning strongly toward the later.

If a terrorist breaks into a school filled with children and holds them hostage, and the government find his demands unacceptable, they have a number of ways to proceed. If they chose to send in, without negotiating at all, a SWAT team knowing there will be casualties and several school children are killed then that is a mistake. A tragic, horrible mistake. But if instead they decide to drop a 500 lb. bomb onto the school, destroying the school and half the people in it to kill the terrorist and end the crisis ... well, that is not a mere "mistake". That is inhuman. It is an atrocity. It is unacceptable, and you do not dismiss it or try and rationalize it because it cannot be rationalized.

[Skybird]

In all wars mistakes are made and yes it's a tragedy but errors are made there is no such thing as a perfect war, accidents are going to happen live with it, stop going on like it's the greatest crime ever committed in today's world.

PS. The media really love whipping these sorts of events up and blowing them out of all proportion, this has been going on in all conflicts over the years.


PPS. No I am not having ago at anyone. ;)
There are mistakes, and then there is a clear pattern of callous, reckless, and willful disregard for civilian casualties - be they Lebanese, Canadian, or UN Observers (who were shelled 14 times, then bombed, and then the rescue team was shelled as well.

Now to me I'm reading everything I can find on events over there and I'm leaning strongly toward the later.

If a terrorist breaks into a school filled with children and holds them hostage, and the government find his demands unacceptable, they have a number of ways to proceed. If they chose to send in, without negotiating at all, a SWAT team knowing there will be casualties and several school children are killed then that is a mistake. A tragic, horrible mistake. But if instead they decide to drop a 500 lb. bomb onto the school, destroying the school and half the people in it to kill the terrorist and end the crisis ... well, that is not a mere &quot;mistake&quot;. That is inhuman. It is an atrocity. It is unacceptable, and you do not dismiss it or try and rationalize it because it cannot be rationalized.

A military observation post is no school, but a military installation, no matter if painted green, or white (something the UN maybe does not understand, judging be the many failures of their military interventions). And a school that is used by the enemy to open fire, to store ammunition, to fire rockets, and to coordinate his forces, is turned into a target - by the enemy. the bombing and 14 times shelling of that post very likely is all one and the same incident. And one thing, Scandium: there was Israeli intention of negotiating, and self-restriction - SINCE MANY YEARS. They made sacrifices, they left territories. but whatever they did, their enemies just took it up and used it to start firing rockets at them as soon as possible, from closer distances. you give it a wrong spin when indicating that there have not been negotiations, and that there had been alternatives. that simply is wrong. All that is not possible with Hezbollah which is founded and defined be the very war for the destruction of Israel. This fight is forced upon Israel, it cannot avoid it, no matter what you fantasize what "reasonable" diplomacy could have acchieved if only given EVEN MORE time. Israel pays with blood for that kind of fantasy, since years. The simple truth is you cannot force people to follow peaceful and reasonable rules - instead a single bad player can force all players to become violant and use force in self-defense when only just one player decides that he does not want to accept the ruling of peace and reason. You can enforce war and violence. you cannot enforce peace. Tragic, but true.

[Fish]

and finally what would you do if you were israel or it was happening to your country?
I would exert pressure on Syria and Iran to stop supporting Hezbollah, making clear that the continuation of the support would have serious consequences.If this doesn't work, I think the use of force against Syria would be justified. I would also put under pressure the lebanese government to actively enforce the UN resolution regarding Hezbollah, maybe proposing a joint lebanese-israeli force to control southern lebanon.

And while exerting pressure on Syria and Iran, what are you gone do at the countless missiles coming from Libanon?

[Skybird]

Exert pressure on Iran - how? They are in the stronger position. Pressure on Syria - only possible by the thread of war. And then what is happening in Lebanon now, would happen in Syria, and civilians would die. What's the difference? And all this is only about preventing future weapons delivery to Hezbollah. It does not touch the enormous stockpiles of weapons they already have. No, first the Hezbollah must be severly wounded, and then we can take on Syria, in this or that way, I am not sure about that. concenring Iran, they are simply out of reach with their nuclear program - at least as long as you do not will to use nukes against them premptively (by that I do not say I propagate that option). a cooperaion between Lebanese army and IDF again would mean that Israelis tropps are stationed in Lebanon. and the pure attempt to disarm Hezbollah necessarily must cause it to go to full scale battle, which probably would lead to the same turnout that we have now. there is no way for flanking manouveurs and fints and fakes here. To aim at the middle of the enemy's front and clash right into it, head-on, going for the very centre of his imemdiate combat potential is the unwelcomed, but only option here. Don't like that myself, I avoid frontal collisions. But I see no other way here that could work. I'm even jot sure that what happens now will work. But from all options I give it the by far highest probability to acchieve at least some degree of functional success.

[scandium]

A military observation post is no school, but a military installation, no matter if painted green, or white (something the UN maybe does not understand, judging be the many failures of their military interventions).

So you believe Israel should make no distinction between a U.N. observation post and a Hezbollah installation and that Israel therefore is justified in killing Canadian, Finnish, Austrian, and Chinese UN Observers occupying a UN installation under a U.N. Mandate?

Your arguements, consistently, seem to be that Israel need not respect International law, need not take care to avoid killing International observers, need not take care to avoid killing Lebanese civilians, and is justified in destroying any Lebanese infrastructure - civilian or potentially otherwise - that they please. Well they seem to be doing just these things, but they have no right to do so, and are prohibitte by the International Laws they so flagrantly ignore. They are rapidly becoming, in my books, an outlaw state and an international pariah. :down:

[aaken]

And while exerting pressure on Syria and Iran, what are you gone do at the countless missiles coming from Libanon?
I would have tried the possibility of a joint operation with the lebanese government before starting to shoot the entire south Lebanon to pieces.
Pressure on Syria - only possible by the thread of war.
I never said that I would have exerted pressure sending them flowers. "Exert pressure" means also threats.
And then what is happening in Lebanon now, would happen in Syria, and civilians would die. What's the difference?
If I'm not mistaken Hezbollah is regarded by Israel as a terrorist organization backed by Syria. The difference between attacking Lebanon and attacking Syria is that in the latter case you would go directly at the source of the problem.
And all this is only about preventing future weapons delivery to Hezbollah.
Not just that but also the financial aid that is put forward to sustain Hezbollah.
It does not touch the enormous stockpiles of weapons they already have.
True, that is why I mentioned the joint operation in Lebanon. The fact that the lebanese population successfully threw out the syrians a few months ago leeds me to think that there are political forces in Lebanon who are tired of the syrian influence and are tired of Hezbollah. Why not try that before shooting the place to bits? As I said, I don't think that a bombing campaign is the way to remove the Hezbollah problem. The targeting of civilian infrastructure will unavoidably breed new Hezbollah militants so, in the long term, I'm afraid Israel will only have more problems.

[Yahoshua]

1. I do not condone the mass and indiscriminate killings of civilians. Ever. Problem being that Hizbullah hides among civilians and the civilians have already had more than enough time to leave the city (the IDF dropped leaflets warning the population of the upcoming war). There shouldn't be any civilians left in the city...why are they still there? What purpose could they possibly serve?

2. I have lived in Israel long enough to know which side I'd fight on if I were on the ground there. And telling people that Iran will use Lebanon and Syria to stab Israel in the back with "death by a thousand cuts" is no propaganda. It is happening.

3. Yes, Hizbullah has their own agenda and their own identity, the destruction of Israel. Ahmadinejad, the current leader of Iran, has stated the same in several press releases tha he intends to wipe the zionists off the face of the planet. Google it and the evidence is there.

4. I do not overdramatize the effects of rockets, suicide bombers, and sneak attacks. They are devestating both as a means of killing large numbers of cvilians at a given time, as a tool in psychological warfare, and as a means to deprive victims of any real means of fighting back. And if Israel had struck back sooner we'd still be having this thread. Besides, what is the most common word I hear when regarding Israeli military manuevers? "Restraint." You don't win wars through the show of "restraint." The enemy sees "restraint" as weakness, and thus invites more attacks.

5. Yes....Israel waited for hizbullah to attack her......I find that incredibly stupid, other than to deny the U.N. the satisfaction of their team chant "restraint, restraint, peace negotiations!" And the potential murderer is always there in Hizbullah. Google up some photos of what's left of a bus or a restraunt after a suicide bombing. Blown out potential? Hardly.

6. Granted. Hizbullah doesn't have a nuke (yet) and isn't going to truck it down to Tel Aviv and set it off. But death by a thousand cuts is just as painful as a sudden blow. And I'm not surprised that the generals have been planning this for over a year. How many other countries do you know that perform military exercises where they are outnumbered 10 to 1?

7. If this were a single event, the first of it's kind. I'd agree with you. But this is event #xxxxxxxxxx. How many times can you stand the drops of water on your head before you crack? To the point that you can time when the drop is going to hit your head? Eventually you lose it. Hizbullah has touched a raw nerve, and is getting what they deserve. And if you look up the situations regarding prisoner swaps.....is swapping 1500 lebanese prisoners for 2 men a fair swap? 1500 potential murderers back on the street for two soldiers who might possibly be killed by the same men who were released in order to free them? Doing prisoner swaps with a terrorist entity indicates weakness, and again invites more kidnappings and more negotiations.....what happens when Israewl has no more prisoners to negotiate away? What then?

8. Show me the cluster bombs. Show me the phosphorous. Show me the intentional murders of civilians in their vehicles, who just might be next to a "tagged" Hizbullah vehicle and they happened to be at the wrong place at the wrong time?

Btw, I can't play the "I'm a Jew card" to begin with. I'm not Jewish. And even if I were, it'd be a far stretch for me to play it.

I have answered your questions/statements. But the burden of proof rests on you. I've gotten tired of finding the evidence which people so conveniently ignore.

Oh...and a last bit for scandium here: Could you pull up for me how many international laws Hizbullah has broken in comparison to Israel? And how many each have obeyed? Because if I recall. Terrorist organizations aren't covered by the Geneva convention specifically because they break it as a routine matter. Whereas Israel has bent over backwards to obey these laws, but is criticized for retaliating and told to shown "restraint?"

[VipertheSniper]

Oh...and a last bit for scandium here: Could you pull up for me how many international laws Hizbullah has broken in comparison to Israel? And how many each have obeyed? Because if I recall. Terrorist organizations aren't covered by the Geneva convention specifically because they break it as a routine matter. Whereas Israel has bent over backwards to obey these laws, but is criticized for retaliating and told to shown "restraint?"

TWO WRONGS DON'T MAKE A RIGHT!!! :damn: :damn: :damn:

[scandium]

Oh...and a last bit for scandium here: Could you pull up for me how many international laws Hizbullah has broken in comparison to Israel? And how many each have obeyed? Because if I recall. Terrorist organizations aren't covered by the Geneva convention specifically because they break it as a routine matter. Whereas Israel has bent over backwards to obey these laws, but is criticized for retaliating and told to shown "restraint?"
Israel obey international law? Why does it have to do that? International law is something for other countries to worry about, ones that don't have a proxy US veto.

http://www.washington-report.org/backissues/0393/9303040.htm


There is another major area, largely ignored, that at some point must be faced. It involves the serious distortion of the official Security Council record by the profligate use by the United States of its veto power. In 29 separate cases between 1972 and 1991, the United States has vetoed resolutions critical of Israel. Except for the U.S. veto, these resolutions would have passed and the total number of resolutions against Israel would now equal 95 instead of 66.

These resolutions would have broadened the record by affirming the right of Palestinian self-determination, by calling on Israel to abandon its repressive measures against the Palestinian intifada, by sending U.N. Observers into the occupied territories to monitor Israel's behavior and, most serious, by imposing sanctions against Israel if it did not abide by the Council's resolutions.

Such a list of resolutions passed and resolutions vetoed is unparalleled in United Nations history. The list in itself forms a stunning indictment of Israel's unlawful and uncivilized actions over a period of 45 years and of America's complicity in them.

Yet references to this damning record are totally absent from the vocabularies of American leaders as they go about saying they are seeking peace. If they are really serious about peace, then at some point they must act with the same firmness they displayed toward Iraq's occupation of Kuwait. Had they approached Iraq with the same timorous tactics they are applying to Israel, Iraqi soldiers still would be in Kuwait.

The point is that aggressors have always answered the question of whether they want peace by their actions. If the United States really wants peace in the Middle East, it must insist that Israel abide by the judgment of the world community as expressed in resolutions by the United Nations. The U.S. can do this at any time simply by forsaking the use of the veto and joining the world consensus. Anything less makes a sham of the peace process, and is demeaning to leaders of a democratic country.
And that article was written in 1993. The pattern, however, has continued right up to the present day.

[Skybird]

A military observation post is no school, but a military installation, no matter if painted green, or white (something the UN maybe does not understand, judging be the many failures of their military interventions).

So you believe Israel should make no distinction between a U.N. observation post and a Hezbollah installation and that Israel therefore is justified in killing Canadian, Finnish, Austrian, and Chinese UN Observers occupying a UN installation under a U.N. Mandate?

Your arguements, consistently, seem to be that Israel need not respect International law, need not take care to avoid killing International observers, need not take care to avoid killing Lebanese civilians, and is justified in destroying any Lebanese infrastructure - civilian or potentially otherwise - that they please. Well they seem to be doing just these things, but they have no right to do so, and are prohibitte by the International Laws they so flagrantly ignore. They are rapidly becoming, in my books, an outlaw state and an international pariah. :down:
that you interpret my words does not necessarily mean that you mirror their content correctly. What I say, in principle is that when the UN leaves military (or any kind of) personnell in a hot warzone, it must accept to take losses, eventually. but you know, all this debating is pointless as long as noone can come up with a realistic alternative to the current action. Do you think I am a warmonger and bloodthirsty Muslim-eater? Fighting with all ruthless determination, and fighting and liking to fight, are two very different things. I have no illusions about war, I have seen places of war in Algeria and Kurdistan, and i have seen people suffering from war, in the ME, and refugees from the Balkans in german hospitals. I dalt with such people at occasions. I have no illusions about war, and because of that I am extremely hesitent to vote for full-scale war. When I think of it, I have never done that before. What is happening now is the first time ever that I do that without restraints or doubts. This enemy needs to be fought with, at all means, under all conditions, no matter where, no matter how, at all costs. I bitterly opposed Iraq 2003, I did not like that Iraq 91 was not brought to an end, I called Afghanistan a terrible miscalculation that is doomed to fail as well, and I do not like the many pseudo-reasonable military follies of the UN or Western countries that I have seen during my life. When I support this war now, then only because I see no alternative, and have no illusions about the nature and mentality of the enemy. I hate war - but when there is war, then fight it as hard and crushing as possible and without the smallest remorse. If an enemy does not like it, he better does not ask for a fight. But that is my understanding of fighting, no matter if in a prvate duel, or in a grand-scale war: with all detemrination, without remorse, willing to kill or get killed, but wanting to crush the enemy at all costs. If that is too scaring, then do not ask for a fight, turn and run. Anything else will even increase the cruelty, and prolongue the suffering of people. Trying to soften the military effort and making it more humanitarian acchieves nothing and only does harm in the name of misunderstood ideals. War is war, and nothing else. they fought with restraint in Korea. It turned into a strategical defeat. They fought with political restraints in vietnam, and it turned out to be a strategical defeat. They fought 91 with restraints, and after four days, they turned it into a strategical defeat. they underestimated Afgha istan and do not deal with it as determined as would be needed - it already is a stratgeical defeat. Iraq 2003 was underestimated, and too little effort pout into it: a strategical defeat. try to fight in Lebanon with self-restraint and humanitarian care, and it is doomed to become a strategical defeat. It's war. No game.

[Skybird]

I wonder why you quote all the UN resolutions Israel does not have followed (they see it slightly different occasionally) - but never quote the many violations of international law and basic human rights commited by Hezbollah and other Islamic terrorist organizations. Your bias is very one-sided.

[The Avon Lady]

http://www.washington-report.org/backissues/0393/9303040.htm
Just so everyone should be aware of it, Scandium linked to a site run by a Saudi heavily funded organization, whose main recipients are former diplomats to Arab states. They get payed tremendous amounts to parrot the Arab line.

For those of you that still take the UN seriously for anything, you have my pity.

I have no time here to reply to all the other nonsense but I've said it before, you are what you eat.

Good day, gentlemen.

[SUBMAN1]

http://www.washington-report.org/backissues/0393/9303040.htm Just so everyone should be aware of it, Scandium linked to a site run by a Saudi heavily funded organization, whose main recipients are former diplomats to Arab states. They get payed tremendous amounts to parrot the Arab line.

For those of you that still take the UN seriously for anything, you have my pity.

I have no time here to reply to all the other nonsense but I've said it before, you are what you eat.

Good day, gentlemen.

What was your first clue? The Middle East book club links on the same page? :rotfl::rotfl::rotfl::rotfl::rotfl:

What a bunch of crap!

-S

[scandium]

http://www.washington-report.org/backissues/0393/9303040.htm Just so everyone should be aware of it, Scandium linked to a site run by a Saudi heavily funded organization, whose main recipients are former diplomats to Arab states. They get payed tremendous amounts to parrot the Arab line.

For those of you that still take the UN seriously for anything, you have my pity.

I have no time here to reply to all the other nonsense but I've said it before, you are what you eat.

Good day, gentlemen.

From their website:


About the Washington Report on Middle East Affairs

The Washington Report on Middle East Affairs is a 100-page magazine published 9 times per year in Washington, DC, that focuses on news and analysis from and about the Middle East and U.S. policy in that region.

The Washington Report is published by the American Educational Trust (AET), a non-profit foundation incorporated in Washington, DC by retired U.S. foreign service officers to provide the American public with balanced and accurate information concerning U.S. relations with Middle Eastern states.

AET's Foreign Policy Committee has included former U.S. ambassadors, government officials, and members of Congress, including the late Democratic Senator J. William Fulbright, and Republican Senator Charles Percy, both former chairmen of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee. Members of AET's Board of Directors and advisory committees receive no fees for their services.

The Washington Report on Middle East Affairs does not take partisan domestic political positions. As a solution to the Palestinian-Israeli dispute, it endorses U.N. Security Council Resolution 242´s land-for-peace formula, supported by seven successive U.S. presidents. In general, the Washington Report supports Middle East solutions which it judges to be consistent with the charter of the United Nations and traditional American support for human rights, self-determination, and fair play.

Material from the printed version of the Washington Report, and from this Web site, may be reprinted without charge as long as articles are not changed in any way and are credited to the author and the magazine. [This release does not apply to any of the photographs or graphic designs in the printed magazine or this Web site.]
Founders

The American Educational Trust was founded in Washington, DC in January, 1982. Its founding chairman was Edward Firth Henderson, a British Army Officer during World War II who served in Europe, North Africa and the Middle East.

Co-founders were Andrew I. Killgore, AET's first president, who was U.S. Ambassador to the State of Qatar when he retired from the U.S. Foreign Service in 1980; and Richard H. Curtiss, AET's first executive director, who was chief inspector of the U.S. Information Agency when he retired from the U.S. Foreign Service in 1980.

In addition to the three founding directors, other initial directors of the American Educational Trust were Prof. John Ruedy, director of studies at Georgetown University's Center for Contemporary Arab Studies; former Democratic Member of Congress Thomas Rees of Los Angeles; John Law, Middle East correspondent for U.S. News & World Report for some 20 years before he founded Mideast Markets, a publication of the Chase Manhattan Bank; and Dr. John Duke Anthony, president and chief executive officer of the National Council on U.S. Arab Relations.

Subsequent board chairmen have included Dr. John Davies, former U.S. Assistant Secretary of Agriculture and director of the United Nations Relief and Works Agency (UNRWA), and the current chairman, the Reverend Dr. L. Humphrey Walz, former associate executive of the Presbyterian synod of the Northeast.

[Fish]

A military observation post is no school, but a military installation, no matter if painted green, or white (something the UN maybe does not understand, judging be the many failures of their military interventions).

So you believe Israel should make no distinction between a U.N. observation post and a Hezbollah installation and that Israel therefore is justified in killing Canadian, Finnish, Austrian, and Chinese UN Observers occupying a UN installation under a U.N. Mandate?

Your arguements, consistently, seem to be that Israel need not respect International law, need not take care to avoid killing International observers, need not take care to avoid killing Lebanese civilians, and is justified in destroying any Lebanese infrastructure - civilian or potentially otherwise - that they please. Well they seem to be doing just these things, but they have no right to do so, and are prohibitte by the International Laws they so flagrantly ignore. They are rapidly becoming, in my books, an outlaw state and an international pariah. :down:

They could have shoot them by accident, they killed Israely soldiers as well, and shot down one of there own helies.
Things like that happens in war, not that I like it.
Lets not make hasty conclusions. All we know we know second hand.

[bradclark1]

What was your first clue? The Middle East book club links on the same page? :rotfl::rotfl::rotfl::rotfl::rotfl:

-S

No, it was the link for PALESTINIAN ARTS & CRAFTS .
Don't feel so bad scandium. AL got me on a link once too.

[scandium]

What was your first clue? The Middle East book club links on the same page? :rotfl::rotfl::rotfl::rotfl::rotfl:

-S
No, it was the link for PALESTINIAN ARTS & CRAFTS .
Don't feel so bad scandium. AL got me on a link once too.

I don't, I had posted the article in good faith and this was one of the very few times (perhaps the only one) that I have linked to anything outside of the mainstream BBC, CNN, etc.

If I could say the same for AL I might though ;)