CingularDuality

You seem to want to disagree with me no matter what I say... My comparison to WWII was related only to media coverage, unless we're back to talking about carpet bombing, in which case you should ask a Berliner whether or not it was mostly the Germans that were bombing civilian cities.

My arguments are based specifically around the premise that this isn't an army vs army war. It's an army against a terrorist/guerilla organization that likes to hide behind civilians, and that's not good for the civilians. That's the main point that I've tried to make!

__________________

Become a supporting member!

Buy a Tactical Duck!
Take the world's smallest political quiz! "I was touched by His Noodly Appendage."
TacticalGamer TX LAN/BBQ Veteran:

Wulfyn

Cing, believe me I have no desire to argue with you for the sake of it. I just have a different opinion. I believe that Israel could, and is ethically obliged to take all necessary care to avoid innocent casualties. This is why as much as I condone Israel acting out against Hezbollah in order to prevent the incessant rocket attacks against them, I cannot agree with the air strike strategy that they have come up with. Furthermore I believe that war crimes have been comitted through negligence. As much as Israel want to destroy Hezbollah this does not give them free reign to bomb whatever they damned well please.

I also disagree with your comments about the media in WW2 in conclusion, although i do get and agree with what you are saying. I feel there are some key differences (Germany was an invader, the Blitz, Pearl Harbour, attitude towards enemy sympathisers), but I get what you mean.


Switch, I think we have a fundamentally different view on life. How you can honestly think that Israel are taking suitable steps to keep the cost of innocent lives down is beyond me. The facts clearly find you wrong. Also I never said that a major ground offensive would lessen casualties on either side. I said that working on the ground would reduce the number of innocents killed. Unless you are claiming that is it just as hard to tell a child and a Hezbollah militia apart from a few hundred meters away on the ground as it is from 10,000feet in the air?

Additionally how you can excuse Israel from killing civilians because Hezbollah put a launcher on top of an apartment building is staggering. Hezbollah aren't forcing Israel to bomb the building ya know? That's like a policeman machinegunning down a kidnapper and his hostage, and using the excuse "well the kidnapper was shooting at me so i had to gun them both down". And yes it is reported that Hezbollah are forcing civilians to stay in their villages (human shields aren't much good if you let them walk off).

My last comment is not out of place at all. Read leejo's latest comment in the execution of a teenaged girl thread, and then tell me that as an Arab you would not be worried about your way of life being put under threat from the west.

__________________

Switchcraft

You seem to be claiming that because hezbollah has put the rocket launchers on top of an apartment building, Israel should not attempt to destroy them. One could easily infer from such a position that you believe the lives of people in such a building who may or may not be civilians must be assumed to be more important than the lives of the endangered Israeli citizens.

You're right, we must have a different view on life.

Your example of the police officer/hostage situation is telling. If a man takes someone hostage, then while using them as a shield, begins firing into a crowd of civilians yes a cop should shoot him, even if it means killing the hostage. It's not got to do with how important the life of the hostage is, it's got to do with doing your best to protect as many lives as possible.

And the facts don't "clearly find" me wrong of anything. If Israel was attempting to cause maximum civilian casualties, you would know, because there would be a Lebanon-shaped hole in the ground. Papering towns with leaflets recommending evacuation ahead of bombing is a reasonable attempt to minimize civilian casualties. Limited strikes on areas where ...

I'm sorry, I have to stop. I just took your recommendation and went to your last post in the "execution" thread, where you compare the Sharia way of torturing and murdering women for infractions such as leaving the house alone to the French and their food choices. And it certainly means I was right about your comment.

This conflict is not about Israel trying to force an ideology on hezbollah, unless you think that "don't cross our border and kill our citizens" is just a "competing ideology." I'll say it again: you're right. We have a completely different view on life.

[edit: My original post, above, had "Classy." after the French thing. That was intended for an IM chat I was having at the same time, and was unfortunately placed. --Paul]

H-Hour

Looks like Israel has already lost this round. Whether or not Hezbullah will also lose remains to be seen.

CingularDuality

Well, like I said, there's a scale that has zero civilian casualties on one end, and "kill 'em all, let god sort 'em out" on the other end. Israel's policy in this war has certainly been in between the two extremes, and I'm fine with that. I guess this is something that you and I will not reconcile. I hope you are able to step back and realize that many of the things that you state are "facts" are, in fact, just your opinion.

And H-Hour, why do you say that Israel has lost this round? I don't know what you're referring to...

__________________

Become a supporting member!

Buy a Tactical Duck!
Take the world's smallest political quiz! "I was touched by His Noodly Appendage."
TacticalGamer TX LAN/BBQ Veteran:

H-Hour

I'm not referring to any specific event, but I believe that Israel's full-scale invasion signals a last-ditch effort to hold on to some hope of accomplishing something. Israel is going to have to occupy southern Lebanon, rely on an international force to do the occupying, or leave.

It is unfortunate, really, because we've all lost a lot in this round. Hezbollah has gained a ton of strength and credibility. Reports of between 700,000 and 1,000,000 people displaced. That's a lot of angry people-power local to southern Lebanon when they get back. Hezbollah's resistance is playing big across the Arab world. This will only increase the price leaders in countries like Egypt, Jordan and Saudi Arabia must pay to maintain their friendship with the U.S.

You all know I'm not too worried about the weakening grip of U.S. hegemony in the region, but flare-ups like this only show that Hezbollah-the-fighter is much more useful than Hezbollah-the-politician. And Israel and the U.S. strengthened Hamas-the-fighter when they pulled the rug out on Hamas-the-politician. Everyone wants to say, "The fighter and the politician are the same so they must both be destroyed", but even if this is true you have to take on each one in a very different way, and neither one is likely to be bombed into submission.

What's sad is that I think there was an opportunity, early on, when the U.S. could have responded to Siniora's desperate pleas for help, held back Israel and pushed some pretty strong anti-Hezbollah resolutions through the Security Council. This probably wouldn't have totally undermined Hezbollah's power and it will play up the historical hypocrisy of the U.S. and Israel regarding Security Council resolutions, but it could have reoriented power towards Lebanon's government and undermined Hezbollah's ploy for attention, which seems now to have worked.

Wulfyn

Switch, yet again you are misplacing my words to twist them. My examples are deliberately specific.

I never said anything of the sort. What I am saying is that dropping a bomb on it from an aircraft without ensuring that the area is as clear of civilians as you could reasonably expect is irresponsible. I agree with Cing that there is always going to be some civilian deaths, and this is further complicated in how you classify a corpse (is a dead guy a civilian or a militant without his gun?). This is why I have specifically used children as an example, because the situation is far more clear cut.


I didn't say the kidnapper was shooting at other civilians (this analogy would have been akin to Hebollah attacking other countries in the region, which they are not). I said the kidnapper was just shooting at the policeman (Israel). Does that clear my example up? And I am not saying that the policeman shouldn't take the kidnapper out; I don't think anyone would suggest that. What I am saying is that you wouldn't take a machinegun to just blow them both away.


Hang on a second, you should read the whole thread. I was completely against this action, and it was in fact Cing that didn't feel that it changed his position on anything. I would love to have that sort of thing stopped because I don't feel that anyone should be executed on the strength of a petition signed only by a police force (especially a moral police force). That comment was in regard to leejo's comment that 'we' (assumedly either the US, the western world, or the UN) has a right to tell another country what to do, or that it actually can do it.

Look at the situation we are in now. Israel through it's excessive force and lack of regard for foreign civilian life has made itself the villain in this situation. The international community is now asking for a complete ceasefire, and even the Lebanese government has now turned from a neutral position on the matter to one that more pro-Hezbollah. All Israel have done is to piss a lot of people off, including a Lebanese population that could be a prominant part in the removal of Hezbollah from their country, and now it looks like Hezbollah will get away with it.

__________________

leejo

I wholeheartedly disagree with just about everything you've written lately Wulfyn.

Anyway, here's a little raw VDH for folks to chew on: http://article.nationalreview.com/pr...Q4OWMzNDhmMzk=

CingularDuality

I'm sorry, but are you suggesting that the United Nations is capable of doing something good in the region? Ha! They've been in southern Lebanon for how many years with no effect?

No, most of the Arab world denounced Hezbollah's actions and supported Israel in this fight. That is significant. I don't think that Israel has lost anything yet...

Your analogy is quite twisted. You're saying that Israeli civilians don't count as civilians? I think you're confused about which side has un-uniformed fighters that are claiming to be civilians, hiding amongst innocent people. Do you know how many rockets Hezbollah has launched at civilians in Israel over the past few weeks? Twisted...

__________________

Become a supporting member!

Buy a Tactical Duck!
Take the world's smallest political quiz! "I was touched by His Noodly Appendage."
TacticalGamer TX LAN/BBQ Veteran:

Steeler

You know what would be fun? Let's use metaphor and literal interpretations of inappropriate analogies to twist each others' words into meaning something horrible and evil, and then hate each other forever for opinions we don't even have.

__________________

Trooper

^^ what do you think we have been doing.

__________________
that sounds like a good idea trooper.
-Vulcan

Wulfyn

In the analogy Israel (and all of it's civilians and citizens and soldiers and warplanes) is the policeman. It was Switchcraft who brought in the point of the "analogy civilians" that the kidnapper (Hezbollah) was supposedly shooting at. So yes you are right, in the analogy the civilians that Switchcraft invented are not Israeli civilians.

But you have brought up yet another good point Cing. For all the innocent Lebanese children that have been killed Israel have still not prevented Hezbollah from firing missiles and rockets across the border. I believe it was around 230 yesterday if the BBC reports were accurate (I did not get a counter point on this number so please forgive me if it is inaccurate). It was very sad to see the weeping Isrealite families lowering the bodies of their family into the ground.


hmm.. maybe if I stopped using analogies people would stop trying to twist them.

__________________

H-Hour

You mean most of the Arab governments. Those that did the denouncing were already U.S. allies and their populace in most cases certainly does not support Israel in this fight. Thus, an increase in the price these U.S. allies must pay to be U.S. allies and more power channeled to politics through militia.

The U.N. is not capable of taking on Hezbollah and winning in southern Lebanon, but if you read what I said, you'll see that's not what I claimed.

Yes, the U.N. can do something useful in the region. When it responds to calls for help from sovereign governments, it can assert a legitimacy in the region no one but possibly Syria, Iran or paramilitary organizations can at this point.

Steeler

Unfortunately, UNIFIL has been kept an impotent force in the last 10 years. Part of Israel's pull-out from Lebanon hinged on an international force being able to suppress Hezbollah's political and military infrastructure. Sadly, a combination of international apathy and Lebanese politics prevented that from happening. So I understand why Israel would find the idea of a pre-mature retreat now fairly dubious.

__________________

TheFatKidDeath

Who is the leading mainstream politican calling for a cease-fire in Lebanon?

http://news.yahoo.com/s/afp/20060731...onflictlebanon

Hagel seems to be the only rational policy maker in Washington right now when it comes to the conflict:

"The United States and Israel must understand that it is not in their long-term interests to allow themselves to become isolated in the Middle East and the world," Hagel said"

"Military action alone will not destroy Hezbollah or Hamas," said Hagel."

And he urged Bush to revise his policy of isolating Iran and Syria for their support of Hezbollah, saying a meaningful political settlement was unachievable without engagement of both countries.

"Both countries exert influence in the region in ways that undermine stability and security," Hagel argued. "Both Damascus and Tehran must hear from America directly."

Thankfully we have one politican on the issue who seems to be tempered by reason rather than cheerleading for war in the comfortable confines of an office.