If a bomb strapped to a person is terrorism then

bombs dropped from the sky are mass terrorism. IMO.

nt

plane (thought I was gonna say terrahist didn't ya) knows enough to get away from the plane or vice versa.

deliberately target civilians without warning without provocation.
for instance, the bombing of the WTC is terrorism.

nt

No one is disputing what Hezbollah is doing is wrong.

I've read some posts defending Hezbollah on this board.

But I've read some posts also defending the indiscriminate bombing by Israel, which I found pretty nutty.

I do think they have a right to their own defense, and I rather suspect that both the militia arm of Hizb'Allah, if they survive this will go OUT OF THEIR WAY to avoid trying to hit Israel from the south of Lebanon in future. And you can bet Lebanon will think twice before they lazily allow a foreign-controlled militia TAKE OVER the southern part of their country and make it a fiefdom unto itself. Had they complied with the withdrawal accords, and placed their army in the buffer zone as they promised to do, this whole incident might not have happened.

This is a painful ass whipping, but it needed to be done. Otherwise, they'd continue to pull this shit--cross the border whenever the fancy strikes them, capture and kill soldiers, shoot rockets at Israeli towns; it is unacceptable.

That's what gave birth to the militant Hezbollah. This foolish aggression will result in a more militant, more powerful Hezbollah supported by more Lebanese.

Israel could have achieved a much better outcome working through diplomatic channels and giving the new Lebanese government time to establish itself. The Israeli heavy handed, short term fix approach will backfire.

It's amazing how people will do the same stupid thing over again expecting a different outcome each time.

It's worked so well for 6 years

rockets fired at Haifa

now kidnapping soldiers, and killing one

where does it end?

The Lebanese and the UN haven't done shit to root out Hezbollah

Israel can see that

for the sunni majority. the silence is deafening from the neighborhood.

place?

Could it have something to do with PLO shooting ROCKETS over the Israeli northern border, do you suppose? Or FATAH trying to kill their ambassador to the UK? Could it possibly be that Israel was tired of the crap the PLO was pulling, and wanted to roust them? Were they also interested in pushing back at Syria for interfering? At the time of that invasion, Lebanon was deep in the throes of a civil war. There was NO ONE watching their border.

Hizb'Allah militia was founded by Iran, the brand new theocracy that came about in 79 when Ayatullah Khomeini returned from exile. By the Ayatullah's own Revolutionary Guards, in fact, who recruited, trained and funded them them. Iran wanted to "get in on the action" and start sticking it to Israel. Lebanon was as good a front as any, and chockablock full of poor shi'as who made good recruits. They did some "fine work" in Lebanon; they killed SW2 Stetham and tossed his body on the tarmac at Beirut International (from a plane they had hijacked), they killed 241 PEACEKEEPER Marines with a truck bomb, they hung UN PEACEKEEPER Rich Higgins and sent the tape out for everyone to be appalled by....yeah, real swell guys. Never mind the bombings they've done elsewhere, in South America, Saudi Arabia...they're real charmers.

Iran also believes they are the smartest guys in the room, and they have designs on a bit of regional imperialism. They want to control the Holy Places, because they think the Sunnis suck at the task.

You may THINK that Israel's efforts will fail, but tell me about that strong, vibrant, terrorizing PLO militia that they kicked in the ass and scattered to Tunis and points beyond. It was never quite the same after that; they were so badly crushed they HAD to beat their swords into plowshares and go for a diplomatic route. The political and charitable wings stayed strong, on the shoulders of one man, Yassir Arafat, but the militia never regained their clout after they were scattered to the four winds following Israel's invasion. And now, where is the PLO? HAMAS is running the Palestinian Authority nowadays...the PLO is a shadow.

Glad I'm not the only one here that sees the friggin light. I just got back a few days ago from Israel...spent several days in Kiryat Shmona dodging Katyusha rockets while visiting family. I suspect a majority of people here wringing their hands and wagging fingers at Israel have no CLUE as to the extended history and geo-political strife that has led up to this.

...and so many have left to get out of the line of fire. I love the vet in this article--there's a gentle soul: http://www.jpost.com/servlet/Satellite?cid=1153291951803&pagename=JPost%2FJPArticle%2FShowFull

Interesting photo in this Guardian article: http://www.guardian.co.uk/israel/Story/0,,1823817,00.html

With any luck, it will all stop in a week or so.

What I find funny is that so many folks who are so critical of Israel's response in this instance are the same folks who just love President "Martin Sheen" and wish fantasy could be reality with him running the show over here. But they might not like his approach to this sort of situation:

I assume you won't mind if the Iraqis come here and bomb us in retaliation for what we've done to their country?

They'd have to march into Canada, set up a militia whilst the Canadians sleep, and start firing rockets into Houlton Maine, for starters. Perhaps they could prance into a National Guard muster point and snatch up a few soldiers....but wait....most of those poor bastards are...IN IRAQ!!!!!

So why would they travel all that way when they've sitting ducks in their own land?

And I've some horrible news for you--right now, the government of Iraq is ALLIED with the USA. You might not like that, but it's a simple fact. So I rather doubt the government would sanction an attack on us at this point in time.

But hey, good try at a hit and run. :rofl:

Sub-thread removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

15 to 1 civilian to combatant ratio is unacceptable by any civilized standards.

You cheerlead the massacre as if something positive will result in the long run.

If Israel gets its shit together and starts conducting operations like a civilized country, then maybe I will support it too. But the level of civilian death and destruction is far beyond what any reasonable person can consider a success.

Unreal.

edit typo

At the Hizb'Allah COWARDS who fire their missiles from civilian apartment balconies, rooftops, and gardens? Who not only HIDE amongst civilians, but conduct their operations from homes and schools?

Where IS your outrage at these Iranian proxies hiding behind the skirts of women, and the toyboxes of children? Why is all your ire reserved for Israel?

You think Israel should sit quietly and let rockets rain down on them? They should shrug and smile every time these fuckers come over their border and kill and capture their soldiers? They've shown restraint in the past, and ended up with dead soldiers to show for it.

Good thing you aren't running their war--the Israelis would need to be strong swimmers, because under your leadership, they'd all be pushed into the sea.

a tenement. Of a mosque in Sidon.

The WTC attackers would claim they had lots of provocation.

and have (USS Cole).

So-called because "terrorism" is a fiction. It is people fighting for what they believe, as are the Marines or the IDF.

A boatload on the metro and tube/twodecker bus in Spain and London, too....

They would rather target our military, but our military hasn't been kind enough to welcome them onto their bases yet...

In a war, you take what you can get. We fire cruise missiles, they fly airplanes into buildings. No difference.

They'll not waste time trying for a hard target, when a soft one is so much easier to strike. A soft one will give them more carnage, too, and that delights them for propaganda purposes.


We fire cruise missiles, they fly airplanes into buildings. No difference.


I don't see the equivalency in our conduct in wars and theirs by hijacking civilian aircraft and flying them into buildings. I just don't. They are NOT the same. There is a difference.

other than we have a capability that they don't?

Is part of deciding whether to get into a fight or not in the first place. If one lacks the capability to press it effectively and legally. serious consideration ought to be given to taking another course than violence.

The difference is not in capabilities but in the legality of the action. It is legal to attack military personnel and facilities. To attack wityh the sole objective of killing enemy civilians is a crime. When attacking military personnel or facilities, or facilities of useful to both military and civil purposes, and enemy civilians are killed in the course of that attack, a crime may or may not have been commited, depending on a judge's determination of whether the direct military benefit was great enough to outway the harm done to non-combatants, and whether sufficient care was taken to minimize the harm done to non-combatants. These standards are necessarily subjective, and there does not today exist a body of precedent to rely on for determining exactly what is meant by them. That is unfortunate, for it allows just about any opinion to present itself as "what the law is" on the question.

Is it legal to attack Lebanese military personnel/facilities if the actions of a subgroup (Hezbollah) are not officially endorsed by the Lebanese government?

Given that its sole primary purpose was to kill civilians--was Hiroshima a war crime?

If not, what is the difference between killing 80,000 civilians with an atom bomb (ostensibly to end WWII) vs. killing 3,000 by flying planes into buildings (ostensibly in retribution for oppression of Muslims)?

Could one not argue that it was scale, not moral legitimacy, that enabled the US to end WWII by incinerating hundreds of thousands of civilians? If al Qaeda had nukes and used them, pressuring Israel into returning to 1967 borders, would the "direct military benefit" justify their use?

If "just about any opinion" can present itself as what the law is, what makes Hezbollah's efforts ineffective and/or illegal?

Though not in the order you posed them....

My statement that "just about any opinion" can be presented as valid on the meaning of a portion of the laws of war related to the question of military actions aimed against military targets or facilities of use to both military and civil purposes, in which non-combatants are also harmed. There is no doubt whatever that a military action which takes as its object the killing of enemy civilians is a crime; there have been rulings on that question. The occassional random rocketings Hezbollah has aimed at border region Israeli towns are certainly crimes, as their only object is harming civilians. Hezbollah engagements with Israeli soldiers on the border are not crimes of war. In my view, the rocketing of Haifa is a borderline case, as the place does contain signifigant facilities of military utility, and the rockets are, broadly speaking, as likely to hit these as anything else there. The question of whether Hezbollah has a military capability capable of signifigant effect on Israel is not a legal question. It would certainly not be able to fight toe to toe with the Israeli armed forces for any length of time, and would have no hope of prevailing in such a contest. It is wholly incapable of defeating the Israeli stae in Israel itself.

Hiroshima does not strike me as a war crime. What law was applicable at the time is a little muddled. Aerial bombardment of "open towns" was forbidden in 1907, before any flying machine capable of lifting any appreciable weight was in existance. This regulation was wholly ignored as soon as such machines did exist, and there was no prosecution ever brought, even against a defeated power over such an action. When a law is routinely flouted, and goes unenforced even when there is opportunity to enforce it, there is some real question whether it exists at all. The question of legitimacy behind the Allied effort in the Second World War relates not to the scale of the effort, but the scale of what was opposed. No one familiar with the record of Imperial Japan at that time can countenance any doubt that it was an extraordinary engine of atrocity: Chinese history in the nineteenth and twentieth centuries is a particular interest of mine, and the things done on mass scale there by Japanese forces under orders to do them are the stuff of nightmares. The problem with what you have proposed as a counterweight is that you are putting a handful of feathers in the balance against an ingot of pig-iron: whether Israel retires to the Green Line or not is a trifle, it does not bear comparison to the systematic killing of millions upon millions of people, done in the most beastial manners conceivable in most instances. Similarly, the "oppression of Moslems" is largely illusory. The leading objection of al Queda is actually to the fact of modernization, or effectively Westernization, in the Moslem world, and to the fact of history that the Islamic world was outpaced and eclipsed, commencing in the sixteenth and seventeenth centuries, by the developing and industrializing West, with its culture of innovation and novelty replacing tradition and hewing to the ways of the great ancestors: every detail of their proclaimed grievances is merely a facet of this centuries old process sparkling in the sun of the present day. Moslems in fact as a general rule lead lives no more or less oppressed in any material way than any other people, and most oppression they do come under is exerted upon them by fellow Moslems.

are that it is opposed to modernization and that it is fighting a religious war against infidels. Though there is a strong undercurrent of religion it is never offered as a reason to fight. What is offered instead is a claim of 80 years of non-illusory, systematic exploitation. How much is real? How much oppression would it take to get you to blow yourself up on a bus, or is an entire population just batshit crazy? I would urge you to read the actual statements of al Qaeda, before they are passed through an American media filter:

http://www.doublestandards.org/alqa.html

With respect to international law at the time of Hiroshima, it's worthwhile to point out that the law was similarly muddled pre-Nuremberg; yet that had no effect whatsoever on a tribunal's ability to condemn 11 Nazis to death by hanging. In fact, there were no explicit laws relating to wars of agression until Nuremberg Judge Robert Jackson created them ex post facto, saying, "What we propose is to punish acts which have been regarded as criminal since the time of Cain and have been so written in every civilized code". In essence he was saying, "though this may not BE illegal everyone recognizes that it SHOULD be illegal." Of course, this was an American judge speaking, so what we have here is a double standard--their war crimes are punishable, ours are not. This was accepted by a war-weary world with little other choice. As the saying goes--"might made right". And though aerial bombardment being forbidden in 1907 and to what degree it was enforced are topics which may merit discussion in legal circles, what can't be debated is that the horrors perpetrated on the citizens of Hiroshima were every bit as abhorrent as those perpetrated by Imperial Japan.

So the fact that Japan's crimes were far grander than what Israel is encountering in Lebanon is irrelevant. You seem to argue that the scale of Japan's war crimes serves as justification for our own in Hiroshima. I don't need to point out the obvious logical inconsistencies inherent to this line of thought.

Pretend all you want that our US military does not target civilians. The truth is obvious.

This is not true. Osama himself said the attacks was retaliation for
the US meddling in beiruit in the 80's, that he had a vision of it when
he saw a tower explode. Then, that merits "provocation" and the bombing
of the wtc was not terrorism, but an act of war, a predictable strike by
an opponent against the financial towers that housed the command and
control for financial warfare, at which the US had devastated billions.

Blowback of this proportion is entirely predictable, so it is no only
provoked, but predictable with warning. The WTC was a kick back from
the billions we've oppressed in our empire without being aware of it,
and the kick was not incidental, not designed to kill millions, as other
acts would have higher death toll. IT targeted a war-installation where
the US has destroyed many economies. Many civilians worked in that
installation, and it was 'privatized' oursourced war machinery, but
nevertheless, a spade is a spade, and in war, fair game.

The us has never been engaged with terrorists. The islamic persons
are merely asking resolutely for the colonial empires to fuck off and
take their armies with them. This war is a war of civilizations, one
the US will not win with force, has already lost with force for that
matter, and the terrorists in the end, kill the most people, which
the US now is endowed with that inglorious title.

the neocons to occasionally let al-Qaida get away with its attacks, for their own political gain.

Israel is using terror as a means of deterring Hezbollah.

black is white, up is down, bad is good...what a topsy turvy world!

Nearly 40% of the Lebanese dead are children. Poor innocent Hezbollah indeed.

Your world certainly is topsy turvy.

i just adore apologists for hezbollah. i thought this would be a boring evening but it's turned into a trip down the rabbit hole.

that bombs don't discriminate by age, and there are many pictures out there of children killed in the bombing.

and it is heartbreaking, no one in their right mind could justify the killing of children.

that only "males between the ages of 16-19 in the ranks of the hezzies" are being killed.

Do you also use terms like "muzzies" or "hajis" for Muslims?

no telling what you'll find On DU these days

And you know that. YOu are just REVELING in this. I gave you the benefit of the doubt for just being naive -- now I know the truth.

Sickening logic.

May you remember the blood of the innocents of all sides until the end of your days.

Ignore.

to push the Israelis into the ocean

in their firing of rockets at Haifa

in their continuing amassing of arms

in their continuing growing of power in Lebanon unchecked by Lebanon because they don't have the power to stop them

unchecked by the UN who has done nothing

Spin spin spin spin.

or interpret what you read

because I was referring to Hezbollah, not Lebanon

so before you go off half cocked again, learn how to read

I don't see any of them being killed. I see totally innocent Lebanese being killed -- including children. Inl;cuding those fleeing from South Lebanon as ORDERED to by the Israeli military.

If you are condoning the slaughter of innocents, "no matter what," than that is just as bad as any person who says Hezbollah killing innocents is okay. It's NO different. Not an iota.

You are either mightily confused or being dis=genious. Either way, it's making me feel sick... excusing any of this slaughter -- for either side -- it's appallingly fascist.

It is the collective punishment of the people of Lebanon we are opposing.

simple....to provoke an israeli response.

They may or may not have wanted the Israeli response, but they did offer to make a trade.

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

all of a sudden you are comparing today(olmert) to yesterday(sharon).
i feel bad for you.....you don't have sharon to kick around anymore. he was so easy to scapegoat.

shalom, friend.

Sharon "traded" 400 Lebanese (all alive), for ONE live businessman, who had been held for 3 years, and the BODIES (this means they were DEAD) of THREE soldiers! You may want to work on your "facts!"

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

Not sure how accurate this report is, this is the first time I've even heard of this site.

"The Two Israeli Soldiers Were Captured In Lebanon (whatreallyhappened.com) 18 Jul 2006 Translation: According to the Lebanese police force, the two soldiers were captured in Lebanese territory, in the area of Aïta Al-Chaab close to the border, whereas Israeli television indicated that they had been captured in Israeli territory." "

The end result is the same: innocent civilians are killed at random. No amount of spin can change that fact.

Or 'shock & awe'.

element of surprise doesn't exist. not terrorism.

bombing cafes and buses without warning, now that's terrorism.

it's obvious to me.

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

we as a nation had it within our power to safely evacuate new orleans without dumping people into football stadiums. our so-called prez f--ked up.

unlike the hezbollah i know for a fact that israelis ache for every child killed (yes, even muslim and palestinian).
that is the truth.

your hatred is so blind, you just cannot see.

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

i think your hatred knows no bounds. actually, houston is the perfect place for you. all those wonderful petro companies, your bread is certainly buttered. yawn.

argument gets rough, the subject gets changed. From Lebanon, to Gaza, to New Orleans!

Gaza is a different dynamic, the issues surrounding the Palestinian - Israeli disagreements are ENTIRELY separate from what is happening in Lebanon. Hizb'Allah takes ADVANTAGE of that disagreement, but they aren't on the same page, long-term, with those "Sunni infidels."

Palestine and Israel are fighting over real estate that they BOTH occupy.

Hizb'Allah wants to slaughter all the Jews and throw their corpses into the sea.

IF they succeeded, they'd start in all all the Sunnis, next. As far as they are concerned, it's the Shi'a way or the highway. They make fundie Fallwell look like a moderate. After they killed all the Filistines, they'd become guardians of Jerusalem, which would become a Shi'a Holy Place, and the rest of those religions could just go fuck themselves.

In any event, it's real interesting to see your true colors flag flying high in the breeze, there...

Israel when they screw up, but in this situation, on their northern border, they have the right to defend themselves. And this isn't the first time this sort of thing has happened. The main difference is that the militia is going rocket-mad, where previous to this, they'd just grab a couple of reservists (kill them now or later, save the corpses to ransom) and toss a few rockets and be done with it.

This hundred to three hundred rockets a day evolution is over the top, and those little shitheads need to be corrected. Firmly.

thank you. so few of us on either side seem to be able to think with our brains as well as our hearts.

Does that make you a Hezbollah apologist?

...and the exit routes are bombed. And then they're bombed while looking for a way out. That's terrorism as much as firing rockets indiscriminately into Israel. Cutting an entire country off and making it impossible for aid to get in and around to the places it's needed until your demands are met is terrorism.

I rather doubt the Israelis would go to the trouble of leafleting areas ahead of their bombings, callling all of the phone numbers in the southern Lebanon directories and providing a pre recorded message in Arabic warning them to leave, AND blasting the same warnings over loudspeakers, just to play Dick Cheney on the hunt.

Lebanon isn't a small mall with two access roads, it's a good sized country, about as big as 80% of Connecticut. Just because they cut off the access roads to Syria, and the airports (to prevent the militia from shipping the captive soldiers to Iran for display) it's not like they've nowhere to go. They aren't bombing in the east, they aren't bombing in the rural areas, they're bombing, for the most part, the places where the shi'a militia hang out and where they believe there are caches of weapons.

And if you live near a cellphone tower, it's a good time to take a stroll, and keep strolling. But that's war for ya.

with linkage, now, did you?

Just because I read some tripe on a message board full of anonymous people who toss off one liners without any attribution, I'm not going to suddenly discard all that I've learned from credible resources.

it is tragic that anyone is killed

civilians are warned

the government of Lebanon could have stopped this but they didn't

Hezbollah brought this upon themselves

and the people suffer as in any war

war is hell

US media shows the missles taking off, Al-Jazeera shows them landing.

Report vs. Result

When we drop bombs from high up...do you think they think of us a liberators or terrorists?

I think they think of us as aggressors who have invaded and occupied their country and they want us the hell out.

Some however, seem to appreciate us, although I think they are few and far between.

We need to be out of their country.

We aren't terrorists though because we aren't targeting civilian targets in order to produce terror and disruption

I think Halliburton is a perfect example of a terrorist organization. Just look at all they've done to produce terror and disruption! Would you consider what US soldiers did at Abu Grab as terrorism? How about when US soldiers kidnap family members that might be connected to the 'Insurgents'? Is that terrorism?

Kidnapping family members=war crimes

one could call this terrorism, but it isn't the US military doing it, it is rogue elements. Now the culture of the military command and control on the ground may be encouraging this, and that would be a war crime.

Terrorism is something different, although similar.

None of these actions are lawful and they aren't helping the battle for "hearts and minds" the the BA is always harping about.

I say retreat and redeploy to the rear is the best strategy for Iraq

but I don't know how we got to Iraq, as I thought this was probably a thread about Israel and Hezbollah

I too would just like to call them 'rogue elements' and be done with it, but they wear the uniform of the United Stated Army when they commit these war crimes. Evidently some of the orders to torture came directly from Donald Rumsfeld! So is Rummy a terrorist?

before I'd call the US Military a terror organization as you seem to imply

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

Germany was terrorism?

and so is this:

and this is not a war, it is an all-out attack on a defenseless nation.

Some might argue on that. Dresden bombing was done to disrupt comm. & stop the movement of German troops. This bombing is done to target Hizzbollah missiles & leaders. I think it's sort of pointless to debate whether something is "terrorism" or not - it's the wrong question to ask. "Terrorism" is used by groups that don't have military superiority to specifically target civilians. That's not what's happening here, or Dresden, or the Iraqi invasion. The question here is whether this bombing is a war crime. Int. law has very specific definitions of war crimes, & this bombing might well qualify. I personally think it is a war crime; but it isn't terrorism.

and this bombing is not "targeting" Hezbollah.

Unless you think this picture represents Hezbollah:

Do have any information on the building that the strike was clearly aimed at?

there are blocks of buildings levelled. Full of "Hezbollah," no doubt.

There does seem a row of smaller structures affected as well, which may have been targets or a clean miss. The one sizeable structure clearly was struck multiple times. Most of the damage otherwise evident in the photograph is blast effect on structures near the target.

Having myself no knowledge of the precise location of various Hezbollah facilities in southern Beirut, beyond the well established fact that such facilities, of both its civil and military arms, do exist there, it is not possible for me to make any judgement on whether the target was a legitimate one or not. The picture does not provide any aid towards this.

forbidden under the Geneva Conventions.

Not for an established fact. Certainly there are people of that opinion, and some who hold it are knowledgeable enough to command my respect for their view. But there are as yet insufficient facts available to state a certain conclusion. Even those persons refered to are stating opinions without examination of the sort of evidence they would be set to present and assess in a trial of the question to determine guilt or innocence on the charge.

while the innocent continue to die.

To consider it cruel and quite likely pointless....

"They say war is an art, but it isn't. It mostly consists in taking unfair advantage, robbing widows and orphans, and inflicting suffering on the helpless for one's own ends, and that's not art: that's business."

and the winners decide who committed war crimes. Oddly enough, they usually don't point the fingers at themselves.

It is a pleasure to have made your acquaintance.

although I think we have met once or twice before, over the years.

I'm talking in a kind of unemotional, legal way here. About how this would be defined under international humanitarian law. If the ICJ were to condemn Israel, what would be the charge? What would be the crime? If Israel, w/it's overwhelming firepower, were targeting civilians, there'd be a lot more than 300 people killed. They could bomb the entire city of Beirut if that was their goal. That's not their goal. Their goal is to take out Hizbollah. They want to minimize civilian deaths if possible, because it creates more international condemnation of the bombing. That's why they send the leaflets & everything - not cause they're just being nice. But ultimately, if they have to kill 300 civilians to stop Hizbollah, Israel will do that.

So, Israel would never be charged w/"terrorism", cause it's not a terrorist organization. People just use that word here to show their outrage & horror about the bombing, but that isn't what's happening here. Israel does have a legitmate army, and a legitimate military objective here - the question is about the means that they're using. If it's "collective punishment" of Lebanese civilians for the actions of Hizbollah, that's a war crime. If it's only intended for Hizbollah targets, it probably isn't. I feel like this probably is because the bombing seems very indiscriminate & often aimed at civilian targets. But it isn't terrorism, as that's defined under int. law.

I don't believe there is any more concern for civilian deaths in this invasion than there was and is in Iraq.

Perhaps not - civilians are always caught in the cross-fire now, w/both sides sometimes using them as cover. It's what modern warfare has become.

was to kill thousands of civillians.

I'd also be curious to know just how long putting up with incoming rockets is too long before you take action?

what do you think the U.S. should do about it?

Level 15 square miles of the surrounding countryside?

Do you even KNOW how many incoming rockets have been fired into Israel by Hezbollah in the last four to five months? In excess of 500.

Do you even KNOW what it is like to constantly run to and from a bomb shelter and try to get on with a normal life? I did it for 5 days while visiting my family in Northern Israel. THEY have been doing it for months...years.

I wish those wagging their sanctamonius fingers at Israel would spend as much time researching the facts of the situation as they do throwing up their hands and calling Israel a terrorist nation.

Under the Geneva Conventions.

And I guess you think that all the people who lived in these buildings were responsible for those rockets. Yes, in your world it's only fair that they should suffer now, right?



Some people have a near-pathological desire to deny reality, it seems.

Israel invaded Lebanon in 1982 because they were getting hit with missle fire. By terrorists being harbored in Southern Lebanon.

And no...all of the people in those buildings were not responsible, and no they shouldn't HAVE to suffer. But riddle me this one Clio...please tell me how many missles Israel should have to get hit with, and how many of its soldiers must be kidnapped before it's acceptable for Israel to retaliate?
I want actual numbers in your response, not just vapid, empty, misinformed rhetoric.

although in the 5 years I have been here, I have correctly "predicted" any number of things, including the lies about the Iraq war, the Dem roll-over for the rightwing SCOTUS nominees, etc.

I could make some snarky comment about your nick, but I'll refrain.

And Israel has now, currently, invaded Lebanon. Bombs and tanks and troops. So answer my question first: 2 rockets hit the Green Zone in Baghdad yesterday. Should the U.S. level the surrounding countryside?

The only thing that matters to some is the little patch of Earth they live on, nothing else.

Easier than responding honestly to the points I raise, apparently.

When we bomb indiscriminately in Iraq, do the civilians see us as liberators or terrorists? I got an answer, but it was very weak IMO.

laboring under the delusion that they are humorous.

IN THEIR NAME. Sorry guys, but it is true. Don't complain to me, take it up with the Defense Secretary, since he gave the orders to torture and terrorize Iraqi citizens.

and those are abstract at best

not, not what weapon is used. The intentional targeting of non-combatants is pure terrorism and is orders of magnitude different from unintentional non-combatant casulties that result while targeting a legitimate combatant. Equating the two is odious and reminds me of one who would say, "But you have to look at WWII from the Nazi's point of view."

When non-combatants are killed because combatants hide among them, they bear the responsibility. A non-combatant doesn't get a "home free" by hiding out in a church.

When their home is shelled or bombed to pieces, is it okay to pick up a weapon and fight back? Murder is murder, even if the state likes to pretend it's all just sanctioned killing.

This is not to say that it's morally better to bomb people from planes, but a definitive aspect of terrorism is that it's done in secret, and the terrorists do not identify themselves with uniforms or locations. So, a traditional army may inflict horrible, indiscriminate damage, and they may be assholes, but they are technically not terrorists. Furthermore, a band of stealthy rebels may blow shit up for a "good" cause (see Red Dawn;-)), but they're still terrorists.

They didn't wear uniforms and they inflicted heavy casualties on white "civilian" settlers instead of fighting pitched battles with the U.S. Army?

as an attempt to use them to bargain for what they want? Now they don't demand anything and they kill themselves in the process. Kind of desperately pathetic when you think about it.

People willing to kill themselves can get away with anything; that's what scares us.

I'm actually not sure when the word entered the English language.

of course according to the old cliche, one man's terrorist is another man's freedom fighter.

label goes to the bombers who killed him or her.

Terrorism is a tactic of those who don't have armies. It can never destroy as much as an army can. And it's those who deem terrorist attacks "war" who I can thank for pointing that out. Terrorists are just weak armies of weak states or nonstates. They can't conquer or destroy a nation itself. They can kill some people, but they have no hope of occupation or of conquering a nation itself. The Israelis answer terrorists with armies, and occupying lands. They always "win" because they can respond at a higher level.

This thread has gone way off on a number of tangents, has lots of "is too", "is not" kind of round robin posting, has a number of deletions for PA's and a sub thread snip. We're locking it.

Thanks for yout consideration.