They're innocent!!

[jesysamson]

Then why isn't the government of your country standing up against the terrorists using it's land to attack Israel?

[Nono]

Quote by: bishop people say that israel has gone too far, that this exceeds the "normal" response of an anti-terrorist operation.. does it really? this isn't a terrorist cell they're fighting, it's a full fledged terrorist army with its own quasi-state.

The only way Israel will ever take the wind out of the sails of these bearded lunatics is to face reality and settle with the Palestinians. Its refusal to do so is a way of just begging for Hezbollah-type elements on its borders.

In the meantime, the Israelis can fucking well abide by the law of armed conflict -- or openly renounce it.

There is no excuse for all these (patently innocent) civilians getting killed. No excuse at all. It is -- precisely -- disproportionate. Criminally disproportionate.

[bishop]

Quote by: jesysamson Then why isn't the government of your country standing up against the terrorists using it's land to attack Israel?

because israel's also bombing the lebanese military - and they've decided to stay out of this conflict because they know they'll be massacred.

[Fonceai]

Quote by: tivodan War is hell. Are the Israelis supposed to sit around and let Hezbollah kill Israeli women and children? Just because the Israelis are more efficient and powerful doesn't mean they have to sit back and take it.

Exactly. Or, as said in TRON

Quote by: The Master Control Program He pushed me... in the other world. Somebody pushes me, I push back. So I brought him down here...

Israel is not at the same level as other countries. They were pushed, they pushed back harder, and in their own way.

@Nono

Intellectually lazy? Maybe. But it's Realisitc.

Israel may be an outlaw.

They've invaded attacked another country without regard for the Rules of Engagement or the U.N. Laws of Armed Conflict (those are the terms you were looking for).

They've done so without U.N. permission.

Sound familiar? It should. It's what the U.S. is doing.

And how is the U.N. going to stop Israel? The U.S. sells Israel jets, munitions, training, etc. They are one of the most significant military powers in the Middle East.

If someone you know starts fucking with a 6'2", 220 lb, Karate black belt, and the black belt just levels him, do you get pissed at the black belt, or do you say to your friend, "What the hell were you thinking?"

Life is about choices. Those choices have consequences. And now civilians are dead. Don't get me wrong, I feel bad and it sucks, but it happens. Next time, maybe they won't mess with a country with no reservations about large-scale killing.

[Kuroko]

Jesus is one of the most quoted prophets in the karan.
Muslim is not the name of a terror orginization.

An army is bound by laws of war.
The army of children who died made the mistake of not surrendering.

Hezzballa have hostages.
Hostage situations rarely warrant bombardment from multiple weaponry.

If isreal are the blackbelts then why are the hitting children?
History always blames the dead.

[Nono]

Quote by: bishop as far as i'm aware

Then you should look it up.

For example:

Convention respecting the Laws and Customs of War on Land and its annex: Regulations concerning the Laws and Customs of War on Land, The Hague, 18 October 1907, Art. 25 "The attack or bombardment, by whatever means, of towns, villages, dwellings, or buildings which are undefended is prohibited."

1907 LOL. Clearly that's part of customary law. So no effin excuses.

Here's another example:


Protocol Additional to the Geneva Conventions of 12 August 1949, and relating to the Protection of Victims of International Armed Conflicts (Protocol I), 8 June 1977

Art 48. "In order to ensure respect for and protection of the civilian population and civilian objects, the Parties to the conflict shall at all times distinguish between the civilian population and combatants and between civilian objects and military objectives and accordingly shall direct their operations only against military objectives."

Art. 51, para. 2: "The civilian population as such, as well as individual civilians, shall not be the object of attack. Acts or threats of violence the primary purpose of which is to spread terror among the civilian population are prohibited."

and para. 5:

"(...)Indiscriminate attacks are prohibited. (...) the following types of attacks are to be considered as indiscriminate: (...) an attack which may be expected to cause incidental loss of civilian life, injury to civilians, damage to civilian objects, or a combination thereof, which would be excessive in relation to the concrete and direct military advantage anticipated."

What Israel is doing is disproportionate and therefore illegal.

[Nono]

Quote by: Fonceai those are the terms you were looking for

I know what I'm looking for boyo.

[bishop]

Quote by: nono In the meantime, the Israelis can fucking well abide by the law of armed conflict -- or openly renounce it. There is no excuse for all these (patently innocent) civilians getting killed. No excuse at all. It is -- precisely -- disproportionate. Criminally disproportionate.

ok, i found the law you're referring to.. (can always count on you to cite information without being asked beforehand.)

http://usmilitary.about.com/cs/wars/a/loac.htm

the three principles governing the LOAC: military necessity, distinction and proportionality..

one thing that the war does not include are any nuances, frequently exploited by terrorists.. the law clearly states that ammo depot (for example) should not be located next to civilian areas. hezbollah is certainly guilty of this, and other actions in violation of the LOAC. further, the LOAC does not prohibit a country from attacking military targets even if those targets have made unwilling hostages out of civilian locations.

from the link:

Although civilians may not be made the object of a direct attack, the LOAC recognizes that a military target need not be spared because its destruction may cause collateral damage that results in the unintended death or injury to civilians or damage to their property. Commanders and their planners must take into consideration the extent of unintended indirect civilian destruction and probable casualties that will result from a direct attack on a military objective and, to the extent consistent with military necessity, seek to avoid or minimize civilian casualties and destruction. Anticipated civilian losses must be proportionate to the military advantages sought. <snip> Reflecting the rule that military operations must be directed at military objectives, objects normally dedicated to peaceful purposes enjoy a general immunity from direct attack. Specific protection applies to medical units or establishments; transports of wounded and sick personnel; military and civilian hospital ships; safety zones established under the Geneva Conventions; and religious, cultural, and charitable buildings, monuments, and POW camps. However, if these objects are used for military purposes, they lose their immunity. If these protected objects are located near lawful military objectives (which LOAC prohibits), they may suffer collateral damage when the nearby military objectives are lawfully engaged.

so, what you've argued thus far is that israel is intentionally targetting civilian locations - without realizing that hezbollah has either used these locations for military purposes, or illegally located military installations right next to civilian locations...

also, proportionality is not clearly defined. who is tasked with weighing the proportionality of the military gains vs. collateral damage? how is the definition quantified/qualified? who gets to assign a value to the military advantages/necessity of a particular attack?

clearly, the answer will vary in this case if you had an israeli or the lebanese define what's proportional and what is not. therefore, the legality (or proportionality) of israel's response is entirely in the eye of the beholder. it isn't surprising that the laws were crafted to be as ambiguous as possible.

[RickSp]

Quote by: tivodan1116 War is hell. Are the Israelis supposed to sit around and let Hezbollah kill Israeli women and children? Just because the Israelis are more efficient and powerful doesn't mean they have to sit back and take it.

Isreal is killing Lebanese civilians at roughly ten times the rate that Hezbollah is killing Isreali civilians. If Hezbollah is a terrorist organziation (and it is) what does that make Isreal?

Israel does not need to target Beruit in response to Hezbollah rocket attacks in the South. By attacking Lebanon as a whole, all Isreal is doing is creating more enemies and strengthening Hezbollah and other radical groups. What part of the right to self defense also requires Isreal to be both stupid and murderous?

[Fonceai]

Quote by: RickSp What part of the right to self defense also requires Isreal to be both stupid and murderous?

The part that they are perfectly capable of doing so without fear of retailation.

That doesn't make it right, and I'm not justifying that, but people are ignoring the fact that Israel is a big dog as far as military capability is concerned. When you poke a big dog with a stick and try to go after the owner, they're gonna ask you why you were stupid enough to poke a big dog.

Quote by: nono I know what I'm looking for boyo.

That's your only response?

[phoenix_fire]

If you want me to pick a horror, I won't. The Israelis chose the lives of their own people over the lives of the Lebanese. There are pictures like these on both sides. The Israelis got their country by taking it from others, but so did pretty much all present-day countries throughout history. They're there and we have to deal with it. Killing people to take over territory is wrong, but it was generations ago when the country was established. There are no men on white horses over there. There are only men with bloodied clothing.

[tivodan1116]

Quote by: Nono The only way Israel will ever take the wind out of the sails of these bearded lunatics is to face reality and settle with the Palestinians. Its refusal to do so is a way of just begging for Hezbollah-type elements on its borders.

Israel pulled out of the West Bank and Gaza. As soon as they did, terrorists like Hamas started using Gaza as a base of operations to attack Israel. Israel was being attacked from the south of Lebanon. They withdrew because the Lebanese government said they could handle it. Hezzbollah starts lobbing missles at Israel.

No, sad to say, but the more goes on the more I think the only way to really end the conflict is to wage complete genocide against Muslim Arabs. To prevent it from reaching that point, moderate Muslim Arabs need to denounce their wacko neighbors and take ACTIVE roles in rooting out terrorism.

In the meantime, the Israelis can fucking well abide by the law of armed conflict -- or openly renounce it.

There are no relevant laws of armed conflict. The Geneva convention took place more than a half century ago. In modern conflicts, professional militaries are often fighting against decentralized groups who can disappear into sympathetic local civilians at a moment's notice. It's nice to say to attack only combatants and leave civilians alone, but the line is so blurry now as to be indistinguishable. The U.S. has faced this problem before (the Viet Cong) and faces it now (Al Queda), with limited success in either case.

There is no excuse for all these (patently innocent) civilians getting killed. No excuse at all. It is -- precisely -- disproportionate. Criminally disproportionate.

Hezzbollah has been actively targeting Israeli citizens for years. Therefore, it is not disproportionate to retaliate in kind, especially given the assymetrical nature of the conflict.

[bishop]

Quote by: rick Israel does not need to target Beruit in response to Hezbollah rocket attacks in the South. By attacking Lebanon as a whole, all Isreal is doing is creating more enemies and strengthening Hezbollah and other radical groups. What part of the right to self defense also requires Isreal to be both stupid and murderous?

i do agree with the latter part of your post, but as far as beirut is concerned, that's where hezbollah's headquarters is located. and if the hq is there, then certainly, they have several military installations there as well to protect the group's leaders. also, the beirut-damascus highway is a major supply line, as is the airport.. with a foe like hezbollah, you do have to attack its supply lines in order to wage an effective war against it.. the water gets muddy of course, since these supply lines are also core parts of lebanon's civilian/economic infrastructure.

israel's actions clearly give its enemies additional reason to hate them - my question is whether/not that really makes a difference? it isn't as if people in the region would mind seeing israel burnt to the ground (imo).

i'm not sure what the correct response would be or should have been to be honest.. israel certainly was right to respond to hezbollah's attacks. and, hezbollah isn't just a tiny little cell of terrorists that can be snuffed out - it's a city-state unto itself for all intensive purposes (and one with its own army - including UAV's, missiles with significant range, etc.)..

what i'm primarily concerned about it that we do not involve ourselves in this mess (including taking sides, which the dipshit house republicans are moving to do via resolution).. i also don't want to see syria or iran involved in this war because that will likely suck us into the conflict.

[brien]

Quote by: Nono Quite a rant you cranked up there, Fonceai. Oh yeah? How many? Three? Four hundred and thirty-seven? "As many as it takes?" This is bullshit. Israel is (of its own volition) bound by the law of war. (And no, pointing out that its opponents ignore that law is no excuse. Israel is the civilized resident in the neighbourhood remember. And the rules are non-reciprocal; look it up.) The law of war requires proportionality. Judging by the events of recent days, Israel is a serious outlaw. Imagine the kind of pix we'd be seeing if hundreds of Israeli civilians had been killed in recent days. Saying that you can't make an omelette without breaking eggs -- as you do Fonceai -- is intellectually lazy.

Nono: I respect your knowledge of the Geneva Conventions, but it seems that even if Israel has signed off on them, the criticism that they aren't following them may fall upon almost deaf ears when they are dealing with terrorists who have no respect not only for the Geneva Protocols, but innocent lives themselves.

Perhaps Hezbollah, Hamas, The Taliban, and Al Queda, know that they can get away with not being bound by the Geneva Convention Protocols and that when the retaliation is a taste of their own medicine, so to speak, they know that World Condemnation will fall upon their enemy and not them. As clever as this may seem, I doubt that it will continue to work on a unlimited and continual basis. Lawful nations may eventually get enough of this tactic and ignore the Protocols and do anything they have to do to destroy the terrorist threats. It is like having a dog on a leash that is contunually teased by the neighborhood bad boy. When the dog snaps the leash, and rips the throat out of the kid, then you will have some who will say the boy got what he deserved, and others calling for the prosecution of the dog and its owner. Meanwhile, the kid is dead, and the dog and his owner stand trial and survive. The terrorists should perhaps smarten up and bring their grievences to the UN and let the Europeans sit down and sort it out with them through binding resloutions that require them to forgo violence, once and for all.

I realize that people say we can't negotiate with terrorists but it is either negotiation or it is total destruction. Let them take their pick, because when terrorist organizations state that they will accept nothing less than the destruction of Israel, if I were Israel, I would be in favor of all out total destruction of Hezbollah, and any other sworn enemy, no matter what it would take to do it. The only other alternative, if we are to take these terrorist groups at face value, is that Israel will be destroyed. That being the case, I am certain Israel will not go down without a fight to the last man. This probably includes Nuclear responses. This is the scary part of the whole deal, so the Europeans and these terrorists groups better get together sooner rather than later, before the whole Middle East goes up in smoke.

[Fonceai]

Don't forget, they live in a completely different type of society with drastically different values and rules.

Two of the greatest flaws of the Western world, when looking at the Middle East are...

1) Calling them lunatics. Never confuse radical ideology with insanity.

2) Applying Western morals and ethics as a frame of judgement for their actions.

That is their world over there, not mine. When I had to walk their streets, you know for damn sure I shut the hell up. If I saw 3 men beating a woman in the street, I kept walking. When I heard screams, saw children hit, or witnessed any number of injustices on a daily basis I shut the fuck up and kept walking.

It's arrogant to assume their way of doing things is wrong. That is why they can hate us.

So you don't need to like what they do.
You don't need to respect what they do.
You just need to understand that that is their way.

Get off the high Western horse and see the world through their eyes.

[brien]

Quote by: bishop what law is this exactly? can you cite the clause you're referring to? there's a just war theory, but no actual law as far as i'm aware.

Bish; I think, if I read it correctly, It is right here in the Geneva Protocols:

Article 96.-Treaty relations upon entry into force of this Protocol
1. When the Parties to the Conventions are also Parties to this Protocol, the Conventions shall apply as supplemented by this Protocol.

2. When one of the Parties to the conflict is not bound by this Protocol, the Parties to the Protocol shall remain bound by it in their mutual relations. They shall furthermore be bound by this Protocol in relation to each of the Parties which are not bound by it, if the latter accepts and applies the provisions thereof.

The Link:http://www.unhchr.ch/html/menu3/b/93.htm

[bishop]

yeah, it's in several documents/treaties.. see post #48..

there is a legal nuance which nono overlooked (either intentionally or by accident). when one military party uses civilian locations for military purposes, or when it places military equipment in/near civilian locations - that does not mean that the opposing military is prevented from attacking these military targets.

[brien]

Quote by: bishop yeah, it's in several documents/treaties.. see post #48.. there is a legal nuance which nono overlooked (either intentionally or by accident). when one military party uses civilian locations for military purposes, or when it places military equipment in/near civilian locations - that does not mean that the opposing military is prevented from attacking these military targets.

Even so, I think what may eventually happen is that some countries will get fed up with these terrorist groups hiding behind their "mommy's aprons" after the have punched the big guy in the nose. The big guy may eventually knock out the mother and kill the little bully. Also see my analogy about a dog on the leash.

The terrorist better wise up soon because if they don't, they run the risk of their own destruction as they have sworn to the total destruction of Israel. Surely they must realize that this is placing them in a positon whereby if they fail, they die. Seems crazy to me, but what the hell, I am not a terrorist. No 72 virgins for me. Where do they get those virgins anyway???? :confused:

[PatrickHenry]

Quote by: tivodan1116 ... I think the only way to really end the conflict is to wage complete genocide against Muslim Arabs. ...

Why not completely annihilate the Israelis instead? Why do you choose the side of the Zionists who originated the terror in Palestine?

[brien]

Quote by: Fonceai Don't forget, they live in a completely different type of society with drastically different values and rules. Two of the greatest flaws of the Western world, when looking at the Middle East are... 1) Calling them lunatics. Never confuse radical ideology with insanity. 2) Applying Western morals and ethics as a frame of judgement for their actions. That is their world over there, not mine. When I had to walk their streets, you know for damn sure I shut the hell up. If I saw 3 men beating a woman in the street, I kept walking. When I heard screams, saw children hit, or witnessed any number of injustices on a daily basis I shut the fuck up and kept walking. It's arrogant to assume their way of doing things is wrong. That is why they can hate us. So you don't need to like what they do. You don't need to respect what they do. You just need to understand that that is their way. Get off the high Western horse and see the world through their eyes.

Whoaaa there cowpoke. Let's not confuse humanitarian laws as belonging only to Western Culture.

When you saw three men beating a defenseless woman, or her children, that is a violation of Humanitarian Laws, not just Western Cultural Law.

I understand why you would keep walking but please don't take the high road on Western Culture by ignoring Humanitarian Law as if Eastern Culture is exempt from Humanitarian Laws.

The West does ride a high horse in many instances, but they are not the only ones guilty of being the posterior end.