Try this instead of your court case: That man (and his friends) are living in the house next to the armed thugs'. For years, they've been sniping away at each other through the windows. One day, the man suddenly decides he's sick of sniping and charges into the house of the thugs. While he is in the thugs' house, he gets shot at by the thugs, and so he returns fire. He not only manages to hit a neutral woman with his gun, but hit her about 10 times ostensibly trying to hit the thugs. Would a court really count that as "self-defense", and should they?

During the late unpleasantness in Yougoslavia this occured. Are we saying that NATO purposely targeted and attacked the embassy of another nation? Or was it an accident?

http://chineseculture.about.com/libr...y/aa050999.htm

Hm, that's really a joke in itself, isn't it?

But if Hezbollah fighters are hijacking an UN post, why should the Israelis not fire at them? It's a damn war they have over there. In war you shoot at enemies. Maybe the UN should take measure that it could not be abused that easily - evade the area, or arm it's posts so that they can defend against being used as cover by one of the fighting factions. that neutrality thing obviously has a negative feedback when dealing with terror organizations that do not follow the regular rules of the military.

I say this: if I were one of the factions, and I see that post giving away my movements into the air so that my enemy can snap it up and use it against my men, killing them, and countering my plans, i wpould not need 14 strikes in the vicin ity to sielnce that post, but would flatten it immediately. Life of my men and efficiency of my force and worst possible damage to the enemy goes first, before anything else. If the UN would not be ruled by such braindead idiots, those 2000 "unarmed soldiers" (really, great idea...) wouldn'T have been there sinc emany years anyway. All those lifes at risk - for nothing then political nonsens. I hate leaders leading men that unaware and non-caring.

It was a message, from one political leader to the other.

Well then, I'd say that this was a message to the UN.

It didn't happen that way. Think of it like this - Armed man is minding own business, Armed thugs moved in next door to his neigbors house and the neighbor let it happen because he felt sympathy for them. Armed thugs decide they hate armed man because armed man is sitting on land armed thugs like and kidnap son of Armed man to try and get armed man to leave. Armed thugs in neighbors house, shoot rockets at armed man, killing a daughter. Armed man fires back desperately when he can see armed thugs. Armed thugs kidnap another armed mans son for the second time. Armed man gets ticked off at kidnapping and starts coming over to kill armed thugs who are hurting his family. Armed man accidently kills neighbors daughter while killing armed thugs who are neighbors friends.

Seems to me - Oh well. Neighbor brought it on himself and is even in a worse position than the court case above. Court would find that neighbor was at fault 10 times over.

-S

Are you Hezbollah? They kill women and children for fun and political statement. Isreal has also accidently killed women and children in an act of defense. Who's side are you on? Your statements are troubling.

-S

:hmm::hmm:Didn't the UN make Israel in 1948?:hmm:

The Hezballoh were hiding there they ran out of babies,they are cowards and the world should quit calling them by the name they want but the name they are COWARDS.A coward would not hide,if if he thought his cause was just.

Amazing how many people here believe that this retired General's interpretation of a text message received by him "a few days" before the incident answers all questions and exonerates the IDF completely, ignoring the facts implicit in all of this that:

1. As a retired General he had no involvement in the U.N. mission there and was about as close to the action there as I am.

2. That what he asserts is only his interpretation of this cryptic, ambiguous text message.

3. That the text message is "a few days old" and neither he, nor we, know what variables changed in the interim even if we accept his interpretation of the text message.

Therefore the same questions I posted further upthread remain, and this answers none of them, let alone comes close to exonerating the IDF.

Amazing how many folks can't acknowledge the past, and see the present.

I do believe your retired general will have an intimit working knowledge of UN procedures, so I tend to disagree with your assesment until proven otherwise. Not saying that he is 100% right, but saying he has more weight and credability at this point than the alternative, even if the data is a day old.

-S

Quote:
Originally Posted by Skybird
Quote:
Originally Posted by waste gate
During the late unpleasantness in Yougoslavia this occured. Are we saying that NATO purposely targeted and attacked the embassy of another nation? Or was it an accident?

http://chineseculture.about.com/libr...y/aa050999.htm


It was a message, from one political leader to the other.


Amazing how many folks can't acknowledge the past, and see the present.
http://www.subsim.com/radioroom/smar...ser_online.gif

"...We've received e-mails from him a few days ago and ..."

So there is no real chance to check if retired Canadian Major General Lewis MacKenzie says the truth or not. :hmm:

If an action is wrong under the scenario, then it is wrong no matter who the executor of the action was. If attacking a UN post for the ostensible purpose of protecting Operational Security of your side is an acceptable action for Israel, it should also be so for Hezbollah, and vice versa. One can have this objectivity while finding actions such as the purposeful killing of woman and children reprehensible.

Furthermore, one has to wonder what "defense" is involved when Israel bombed a civvie power plant and an airport.

I'm a big evil criminal who has taken your whole family hostage, and I'm armed with a gun. You can ambush me. Instead, because you think your cause of killing me is just, you come up to me and my vast weapons superiority. Is this just or stupid?

When the Soviets were in Afghanistan, would they be justified in calling the Mujahadeen cowards and that they should stand up and face Soviet artillery because they think their cause is just?