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

[scandium]

Originally Posted by mog

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?

[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]

Originally Posted by 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.

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]

Originally Posted by scandium

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.

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]

Originally Posted by Aaken

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]

Originally Posted by 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.

[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]

Originally Posted by Yahoshua

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!!!

[scandium]

Originally Posted by Yahoshua

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/bac...93/9303040.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]

Originally Posted by scandium

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.

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]

Originally Posted by scandium

http://www.washington-report.org/bac...93/9303040.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]

Originally Posted by The Avon Lady

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