Peace, Propaganda & The Promised Land

[Rey]

Hi all,

Sorry for the long delay, work was really busy, then it was the long weekend.

Ahemmm.....NO NEED to start another thread.

ITS FALSE.

What part of my statement was false? If you're going to rebut my statement, please cite your evidence.

This fight has been being fought for thousands of years.  Maybe there will always be dissidents, but a decisive victor needs to emerge.  In that Israel has been putting up with horrifying crap for decades speaks to the restraint they have shown in trying to appease the world opinion.

Okay, so we agree on that.  So what is the point of smashing up against the wall that you know will not be going anywhere. These countries need to grab a big slice of "get over it" and get on with the business of living.  Or don't complain about the business of killing.  If they are being seduced by the lure of hatred by Iran, then that brings us back to "why are we holding a torch for these people".

Actually, this particular fight has been going on since 1948. Israel has been dishing out horrifying crap for decades, its all a matter of perspective.

How is a decisive victor going to be found by military force? Bombing the sh*t out of everyone isn't going to help, in fact with every bit of "collateral damage" you create more insurgents. At this point it seems that many Lebanese of different religions are now supporting action against Israel. With Israel now making moves to occupy southern Lebanon, these numbers will only increase - unless Israel somehow comes up with a plan to win over the population.

Aug 3, 2006
Nasrallah and the three Lebanons
By Sami Moubayed
http://www.atimes.com/atimes/Middle_East/HH03Ak01.html

And currently there are no countries in direct conflict with Israel, excepting Lebanon. And yes, Syria and Iran both support Hezbollah, but that is not too different than Israels support for the SLA. Their actions could be called terrorism.
Iran has not seduced hatred of Israel in other nations, they put their rhetoric out there and see what it can grow. The Israeli actions plant the seeds of hatred. The Palestinian issue is the lynch pin issue in the mideast, if this issue is resolved successfully, it will go a long way to defusing many conflicts.

This has been and continues to be a major powder keg among Muslims and Arabs.

So they can still help with intelligence info.  Surely they could make a phone call, or post a note on an internet site?  If there was a steady stream of information about Hezbollah weapon locations and movements, the people there might get a bit more of a nod, for no other reason than you don't want to blow up your intelligence network.  I am fairly confident that some of the strikes we are seeing in the urban areas are as a result of intel developed by contacts that are there.  Guided munitions are expensive, and if for no other reason it does not make military sense to bomb out a place that is just some random living tenement. 

It isn't a case of guilt.  It is a case of complicity.  If 60% of the country is against Hezbollah, then it doesn't make sense that they should be running the show.  If it is a case of fear of taking action, why should that be an issue for Israel.  There will be hundreds of tragic stories out of this, but routing out Hezbollah needs to happen.  Nobody else is getting it done.

I think everyone agrees that the whole area is a tangled web of interests, history and ideology.  However, I would compare it to when your kid gets gum in their hair.  You might try to get it out gently, but ultimately you know you are going to need to take scissors and hack the whole thing out.

Again read the above article. Why would someone from southern Lebanon turn in Hezbollah, what is their incentive?
Think of the Black Panther movement in the 60's with a similar concept of social and militant wing. Why didn't more blacks turn in Black Panther members, after all they had a militant wing.
Along with their social programs, many Shia see Hezbollah as there only defense against perceived Israeli aggression. Every airspace violation drives that point home.

At that point 60% of the population did not support Hezbollah, though after a few weeks of bombing this has changed. I don't know the percentage that was actively against Hezbollah.
Hezbollah was not running the country. Politically, as elected representatives along with other Shia party members they tried to represent their constituents. There was negotiation between the govt and Hezbollah to disarm (I can't find the article).

The Lebanese govt **cannot** force Hezbollah to disarm, their military budget as of 2004 was $540 million American
( https://www.cia.gov/cia/publications/factbook/geos/le.html ). No offence to any Lebanese, but, Hezbollah seems to be far better armed. In fact compared to the IDF, given how hard a time they have trying to rout out Hezbollah with a military budget of 9.5 billion
( https://www.cia.gov/cia/publications/factbook/geos/is.html ), how effective would the Lebanese military be.

The thing that affects the Lebanese govt is fear of another civil war. As far as I can see, they are trying to balance the various forces in the population and rebuild their country.

It seems to me that you are saying, for a minor action by a militant group, a foreign country has the right to destroy the country that the militant group was based in. I wish to point out in advance that Hezbollah responded with rockets **after** the bombing attacks in Lebanon. ( http://www.cbc.ca/news/background/middleeast-crisis/index.html )

Lets throw some quick numbers out there. Lebanon has a population of 3.9 million people, of which 40% is Shia. Of this 40%, 80% voted for Hezbollah in the elections according to the Beirut Daily Star. According to you, this would make 1.2 million people at least complicit, if not guilty, in the actions of Hezbollah. How do you plan to rout Hezbollah out of the population, and at which point does that become ethnic cleansing?

First off, anyone who CHOSE to stay behind in New Orleans kind of made their bed then got to sleep in it.  Yes, potentially getting your stuff looted is unfortunate, but again that is not a consideration to be weighed.  Ones life should take precedence over ones personal belongings.  As for at home or on the road, of course the road is the way to go.  Perhaps don't travel in a Hezbollah convoy or drive near
missile batteries. 

My original point in the New Orleans example was to compare the logistics involved in moving a large group of people. But yes there are other issues in evacuating a population.

In New Orleans, not everyone stayed behind due to choice. As in Lebanon, some were left behind because they had **no** means of getting out. These reasons can vary.

My line was whether to take a chance of getting killed on the road or in the home. Again, not much of a choice.

But your response of "don't travel in a Hezbollah convoy or drive near missile batteries" is interesting. Explain to me, exactly, how a Hezbollah convoy is identified? As to the issue of driving past rocket launchers, can't a helicopter or jet hold missile fire until the vehicles have finished driving past a launcher?  In fact, isn't that the moral decision to make?

OK. Here I'll respond to a number of points brought up in response to the articles I cited. I'll respond to them as a whole without quoting them.

Yes, the IDF said that they were responding to rocket launches from the tyre area. However, there was no indication of how close to the vehicles that launchers were to the vehicles hit. In fact, at no point in the article was there a mention of a launcher near or among the wreckage

In two instances you implied that Hezbollah is using white flags and civilian vehicles. While this may be true, what is your proof? Are you now indicating **any** civilian vehicle is a target?

I don't know why you quoted back the price gouging, unless you are trying to imply something about the Arab population.
Unfortunately any extreme situation will bring out profiteers in many cultures and countries.

In regard to the Nasrallah quote, would you have accepted an apology and that they were collateral damage? I can't see one line being any better than the other.

The points (if I remember correctly) you seem to have made are:
If you stay in southern Lebanon, you are Hezbollah.
If you travel in an ambulance, you are Hezbollah.
If you fly a white flag, you are Hezbollah.
If you drive a van, you are Hezbollah.
If you voted Hezbollah, you are Hezbollah.
Am I correct on that?

All of those articles have compelling, heart wrenching stories.  There is no happy face to paint on a shooting war, and no good will come of a cowardly enemy that uses civilian human shields.  Unfortunately for those folks, Israel has had it with the unprovoked attacks on it's civilian population. 

But what else are they supposed to do?  Hezbollah will never stop coming at them.  If Israel pulls out now, certainly it will take them a while to regroup and bomb up.  But none the less, they will be back.  The ball is rolling.  This has to play out.

I would bet the IDF is going to be a lot more successful with it's FIBUA tactics.  They are not concerning themselves with the "hearts and minds" aspect which IMO is part of the problem the US is having.  Certainly in the long run the PR battle will need to be fought and there will be some bitter-for-life individuals as a result of the conflict.  However, seems that area has been pretty bent at the Jews since there has been written history.  Remember, the "turn the other cheek" stuff is from the New Testament.

I think this one applies.  Israel has had a lot of time to plan for this, and is doing what it knows it needs to do.  Simple survival of the fittest. 

I have always seen line such as "civilian human shields" referring to many groups, but always used to explain collateral damage. I'm sure it does happen, and I'm aware that an insurgent without a gun can suddenly become a civilian. But it is also used to explain an attack on a civilian location. Recent reports indicate that no rockets had been launched from Qana in the 24 hrs before the building was hit but was claimed that a launcher was near the building. An insurgent is home with his family, and a 1 tonne bomb is dropped on his home, and he is considered to be hiding behind civilians. Cars, vans, trucks, ambulances are all hit with no proof that they are actually carrying weapons or insurgents.

This current action in Lebanon was started by an action on **military** personnel. Israel made the first attack on civilian areas with collateral damage.

Hezbollah has said that if Israel withdraws from Sheba Farms they will become a "purely a defensive role", a position supported by the Lebanese govt.

http://www.dawn.com/2005/05/25/int14.htm
http://www.haaretz.com/hasen/spages/742228.html

If you don't try to win the "hearts and minds" of the occupied population, you are going to feed a growing insurgency. The only way to create a "peace" in such a situation is by clearing out the insurgents and supporting population. Again, at what point does that become ethnic cleansing? And once you have destabilized a country enough to colapse, how are you going to deal with the chaos. Install your own govt, and create a civil war? This is not going to create peace in the area.

Guh.  The drawn out reply-from-hell. 

Ditto

Sorry if this was somewhat disjointed, I wrote it up over 3 days. As I said, it's been busy here.

 

[paracowboy]

Sorry if this was somewhat disjointed, I wrote it up over 3 days.

"disjointed". That's one way of putting it, I suppose.

 

[couchcommander]

I have always seen line such as "civilian human shields" referring to many groups, but always used to explain collateral damage. I'm sure it does happen, and I'm aware that an insurgent without a gun can suddenly become a civilian. But it is also used to explain an attack on a civilian location. Recent reports indicate that no rockets had been launched from Qana in the 24 hrs before the building was hit but was claimed that a launcher was near the building. An insurgent is home with his family, and a 1 tonne bomb is dropped on his home, and he is considered to be hiding behind civilians. Cars, vans, trucks, ambulances are all hit with no proof that they are actually carrying weapons or insurgents.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nYXyKTsSXQg&mode=related&search=

Where are you getting your news from exactly?

The Israeli's don't publish every video from every sortie for various reasons... this one, however, since it is such a big deal, should give you an idea of why there are so many civilian casualties.

As Sen. McCain put it, Israel is going after terrorists, and they do their best to try and limit civilian casualties, but sometimes they happen.

Hezballah, on the other hand, is launching HUNDREDS of rockets a day SPECIFICALLY for the purpose of KILLING CIVLLIANS.

In his words, "THERE IS NO EQUIVALENCY HERE".

 

[Jay4th]

An" insurgent"  outside a building firing rockets then goes inside to have dinner with his family IS using civilians as a human shield.
Voting Hezbolla  means you are Hezbolla.
If a van is driving by the target building NO one is going to ask a pilot to risk his aircraft and crew to go around again.  That crap is for the movies.
Just my opinion, and I am a bit hard lined and cynical but I have the experiences to justify my beliefs.

 

[zipperhead_cop]

The French-US resolution has fallen apart as the French have decided to change direction and side with the arab position. Not a big surprise I suppose. The French are back to their old tricks.

Hell, they couldn't control Arab violence in their own country, they might as well surrender to them too.  If only the French could see how much the French suck.   

 

[tamouh]

Nobody hates war more than a merchant. Which, incidentally, is why the morons on the world stage who accuse the U.S. of being war-mongering are, in fact, morons. The U.S. is the ultimate businessman.

These morons know when to wage wars and when not. They've also colonized America and most of the world before and they know exactly what it means to wage wars. The US military in my humble opinion and opinion of alot of people have not achieved ANY clear victory since WW-II. The US military does a half job on everything, they're never able to complete it. This type of  businessman is a loose canon.

 

[tomahawk6]

In one respect I might agree with you regarding the US military doing half the job. I would much rather see alot less restraint in the application of US power. I want our enemies to accuse us of using too much power. That said I have to say the US military does a great job given the constraints we operate in.

 

[paracowboy]

These morons know when to wage wars and when not. They've also colonized America and most of the world before and they know exactly what it means to wage wars. The US military in my humble opinion and opinion of alot of people have not achieved ANY clear victory since WW-II. The US military does a half job on everything, they're never able to complete it. This type of  businessman is a loose canon.

you've got an awful lot of whines, but very few solutions. You grow tiresome, my friend. What are you, YOU, doing to make things better? What are your solutions, and how do you plan to carry them out? Are you willing to pick up a rifle and man a post? Are you willing to go into harm's way and fight for what you believe to be right? Are you planning to enter the mouth of Hell and bring food to the hungry, medicine to the sick, clothes to the naked, and comfort to the despondent?

If not, perhaps it's time you shut up, and let those of who are, do so.

 

[tamouh]

you've got an awful lot of whines, but very few solutions. You grow tiresome, my friend. What are you, YOU, doing to make things better? What are your solutions, and how do you plan to carry them out? Are you willing to pick up a rifle and man a post? Are you willing to go into harm's way and fight for what you believe to be right? Are you planning to enter the mouth of Hell and bring food to the hungry, medicine to the sick, clothes to the naked, and comfort to the despondent?

If not, perhaps it's time you shut up, and let those of who are, do so.

We're all in this together, don't think your wars will not affect our lives. What goes around comes around my friend. I do good deeds to what I can within my capacity, no one is forced to do more than what they're capable of.

I'm very serious. Their only interest is in what is good for trade. And peace is good for trade. War disrupts commerce.

There is one type of commerce that never gets disrupted with wars....selling arms, quite lucrative too, and guess who is the dominant arm dealer in the World ? USA , Russia and Israel (In fact Israel in 1986 sold weaponary to Iran) **. USA 1992-2001 had sold over 142 Billion worth of weaponary, mostly to developing countries who can barely feed their own people.

** Corrected the Year of sale, sources listed two posts below

 

[Ex-Dragoon]

(In fact Israel in 1997 sold weaponary to Iran)

Have a source for that to back up that claim?

 

[paracowboy]

We're all in this together, don't think your wars will not affect our lives. What goes around comes around my friend.

they're not MY wars, you pompous poltroon. They are wars your betters fight on YOUR behalf. Nobody hates a war more than the man who has to fight it. One more insult aimed at soldiers, on this site, of all places, will result in your expulsion.

There is one type of commerce that never gets disrupted with wars....selling arms, quite lucrative too, and guess who is the dominant arm dealer in the World ? USA , Russia and Israel (In fact Israel in 1997 sold weaponary to Iran). USA 1992-2001 had sold over 142 Billion worth of weaponary, mostly to developing countries who can barely feed their own people.

nice try, but arms dealing is not, in the long run lucrative. Do some research and get back to me when you find out why. But then, that's entirely contradictory to your style, isn't it?

 

[Infanteer]

Have a source for that to back up that claim?

Funny, just read the same thing today, except it was in the '80s.  Israel supplied weapons to Iran during the Iran/Iraq war as Saddam was a bigger threat at the time.

 

[tamouh]

(In fact Israel in 1997 sold weaponary to Iran)

Have a source for that to back up that claim?

Not only once, but on different occasions Israel and the US had attempted military cooperation with Iran...dig more and u'll find more:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iran-Contra_Affair

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iran-Israel_relations

Additional for those hate wikis: http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/world/iran/army.htm

they're not MY wars, you pompous poltroon. They are wars your betters fight on YOUR behalf. Nobody hates a war more than the man who has to fight it. One more insult aimed at soldiers, on this site, of all places, will result in your expulsion.

You'll continue with the personal attacks and I'll just ignore your 'requests' for answer.

Don't twist what I said as you usually do. I've stated many times that I don't want my army to be involved in the Middle East conflict. You're not fighting on my behalf , I'm sorry.....this is your perception of fighting. I've the right to object to any war. I've full respect for all soldiers doing their job anywhere on the planet. They're fighting for what they've been told to do. To complete their mission and achieve success. Don't attempt to politicize the Army. The Army is ran by civilian administration and all my objections on the political front are directly pointed to those running the strings.

 

[Ex-Dragoon]

Nowhere does it say in your links that Israel sold Iran weapons in 1997 though. Iran-Contra was back in the 80s.... 

Ah...I see Infanteer already replied

 

[tamouh]

Corrected my post....thx!

 

[Fishbone Jones]

You'll continue with the personal attacks and I'll just ignore your 'requests' for answer.

You normally ignore everyone's request for an answer anyway, why should things change all of a sudden.

Don't twist what I said as you usually do.

As opposed to you deflecting the statement and creating another tangent.

 

[tamouh]

You normally ignore everyone's request for an answer anyway, why should things change all of a sudden.

I've sent you this in a PM before, I'll not respond to questions that have no value and will not bring any intelligence to the conversation. I'll not respond to questions (what would you do if you were officer......what you want......do you donate to hezbollah......do you support this guy or that guy).

As opposed to you deflecting the statement and creating another tangent.

For everyone their style, just don't put words in my mouth. I answer as much as the question is concerned, you ask a not so smart question, expect a not so smart answer !!

 

[George Wallace]

Rather arrogant of you.  You can spout all you want, but when questioned on it, you avoid answering.  Even when you respond as in the above post, you have avoided everything asked of you, and still have answered nothing.  Contribute to the discussion, other that with other's propaganda, or leave the site.

 

[zipperhead_cop]

Actually, this particular fight has been going on since 1948. Israel has been dishing out horrifying crap for decades, its all a matter of perspective.

Look, people have to face reality.  Israel is not going anywhere.  They will either be annihilated, or will endure.  Don't think that they will just say "well, it was a cool gig for a while" pack up their kids and crap and leave.  "Horrifying" is a pretty subjective term, and from what I have seen it generally applies to the other side.  And for Christ sake, don't pick apart that statement.  It is my opinion, it won't change in a hundred posts or links and there is already to much blah blah blah on the subject. 

How is a decisive victor going to be found by military force? Bombing the sh*t out of everyone isn't going to help, in fact with every bit of "collateral damage" you create more insurgents. At this point it seems that many Lebanese of different religions are now supporting action against Israel. With Israel now making moves to occupy southern Lebanon, these numbers will only increase - unless Israel somehow comes up with a plan to win over the population.

There is a difference between "decisive" and "lasting".  I believe that Israel knows that it will forever be fighting some sort of war against it's existence, however instead of leaving the other guy with a black eye, they intend to leave him with a gapping head wound, along with his team and the car that drove him to the fight. 

And currently there are no countries in direct conflict with Israel, excepting Lebanon. And yes, Syria and Iran both support Hezbollah, but that is not too different than Israels support for the SLA. Their actions could be called terrorism.
Iran has not seduced hatred of Israel in other nations, they put their rhetoric out there and see what it can grow. The Israeli actions plant the seeds of hatred. The Palestinian issue is the lynch pin issue in the mideast, if this issue is resolved successfully, it will go a long way to defusing many conflicts.
This has been and continues to be a major powder keg among Muslims and Arabs.

What have you been smoking in your shisha?  "Iran has not seduced hatred of Israel in other nations"?  :rofl:
Every time Israel concedes anything and gets a peace process going, the terrorist organizations torpedo the talks/agreements and evoke a retaliatory strike from Israel.  It is not in the interest of Hezbollah or Hamas or any of their ilk to have a lasting peace, because their purse strings FROM Iran will be cut. 

Again read the above article. Why would someone from southern Lebanon turn in Hezbollah, what is their incentive?
Think of the Black Panther movement in the 60's with a similar concept of social and militant wing. Why didn't more blacks turn in Black Panther members, after all they had a militant wing.
Along with their social programs, many Shia see Hezbollah as there only defense against perceived Israeli aggression. Every airspace violation drives that point home.
At that point 60% of the population did not support Hezbollah, though after a few weeks of bombing this has changed. I don't know the percentage that was actively against Hezbollah.
Hezbollah was not running the country. Politically, as elected representatives along with other Shia party members they tried to represent their constituents. There was negotiation between the govt and Hezbollah to disarm (I can't find the article).

The Lebanese govt **cannot** force Hezbollah to disarm, their military budget as of 2004 was $540 million American
( https://www.cia.gov/cia/publications/factbook/geos/le.html ). No offence to any Lebanese, but, Hezbollah seems to be far better armed. In fact compared to the IDF, given how hard a time they have trying to rout out Hezbollah with a military budget of 9.5 billion
( https://www.cia.gov/cia/publications/factbook/geos/is.html ), how effective would the Lebanese military be.

The thing that affects the Lebanese govt is fear of another civil war. As far as I can see, they are trying to balance the various forces in the population and rebuild their country.

It seems to me that you are saying, for a minor action by a militant group, a foreign country has the right to destroy the country that the militant group was based in. I wish to point out in advance that Hezbollah responded with rockets **after** the bombing attacks in Lebanon. ( http://www.cbc.ca/news/background/middleeast-crisis/index.html )

Lets throw some quick numbers out there. Lebanon has a population of 3.9 million people, of which 40% is Shia. Of this 40%, 80% voted for Hezbollah in the elections according to the Beirut Daily Star. According to you, this would make 1.2 million people at least complicit, if not guilty, in the actions of Hezbollah. How do you plan to rout Hezbollah out of the population, and at which point does that become ethnic cleansing?

Black Panthers.  Horrible comparison.  Yes, I'm sure we can all see the massive advantages the Black community has enjoyed by turning inwards and celebrating rap culture that degrades women, encourages lawlessness and rewards violent bravado.  Hey, wait a minute....? 
As for why they wouldn't cooperate?  BECAUSE THEY WANT ISRAEL DEAD TOO!!!  And given that concept, why would the IDF give a rat's arse who gets blown up?  Harsh--yes.  Pragmatic--unfortunately.  If the "normal" part of Lebanon really wanted to join the 19th century, they would mobilize their army and create a surprise front to attack Hezbollah themselves.  Imagine the implications for Lebanon then.  Sure, Iran and Syria would be pissed off, but they would suddenly be the darlings of the middle east.  Then they could invite every western nation to camp out and set up bases, and turn themselves into an honest-to-god first world nation.  But I'm sure your way is better.

In New Orleans, not everyone stayed behind due to choice. As in Lebanon, some were left behind because they had **no** means of getting out. These reasons can vary.
My line was whether to take a chance of getting killed on the road or in the home. Again, not much of a choice.

And no doubt all of the children at Qana were there being tended to by a bunch of elderly trapped in iron lungs and electric wheel chairs with dead batteries.  Here's a thought:  what able bodied adult left them there?  What was it, Qana Sundowners Daycare and Missile Battery?  I'm sure my kids daycare doesn't have an active radar on top of it.  :

But your response of "don't travel in a Hezbollah convoy or drive near missile batteries" is interesting. Explain to me, exactly, how a Hezbollah convoy is identified? As to the issue of driving past rocket launchers, can't a helicopter or jet hold missile fire until the vehicles have finished driving past a launcher?  In fact, isn't that the moral decision to make?

Civilian response.  As already mentioned, to hold of engaging a target just because of who is in the area is not a viable option.  The pilot has to go home too.  Bad day to be a traveller.  You also forget the nature of thermal targeting systems.  They pick up on a difference in temperature.  If long metal tubes with pointy tops are lying in a row in a m/v, then it will likely be engaged.  If you are a Sonotube tm salesman in Lebanon, well...tough break. 

Yes, the IDF said that they were responding to rocket launches from the tyre area. However, there was no indication of how close to the vehicles that launchers were to the vehicles hit. In fact, at no point in the article was there a mention of a launcher near or among the wreckage

Gee, with crooked reporters filing photoshopped pictures, and Hezbollah orchestrated picture ops, I can't believe they don't have any pictures.  You obviously chose to ignore the photo's of AA batteries and civilian dressed Hezbollah fighters that had to be smuggled out of the area. 

In two instances you implied that Hezbollah is using white flags and civilian vehicles. While this may be true, what is your proof? Are you now indicating **any** civilian vehicle is a target?

Proof wise, I got that from someone elses post link from earlier.  Find it yourself.  As for **any** civilian m/v, I imagine the ones that have weapons or are scrambling from the Hezbollah strongholds can expect a Hellfire massage. 

I don't know why you quoted back the price gouging, unless you are trying to imply something about the Arab population.
Unfortunately any extreme situation will bring out profiteers in many cultures and countries.

 

I'm implying that if their own country men don't care enough about assisting in a time of crisis, why are they being painted as such victims. 

The points (if I remember correctly) you seem to have made are:
If you stay in southern Lebanon, you are Hezbollah.

 

At this point, yeah.  Any able bodied male that isn't piggy backing an elderly person or child north is pretty likely in the "game".  If said male is holding an AK, then it should be pretty obvious.

If you travel in an ambulance, you are Hezbollah.

 

Only if the patient in the ambulance is named Katusha

If you fly a white flag, you are Hezbollah.

 

Only if the flag is flying off of the radome of a missile battery.

If you drive a van, you are Hezbollah.

 

No, you are a defeated suburbanite with kids and a mortgage. 

If you voted Hezbollah, you are Hezbollah.

 

Umm, yeah.  If you voted for them, you burn with them. 

I have always seen line such as "civilian human shields" referring to many groups, but always used to explain collateral damage.

Totally different concepts.  Collateral damage is the unfortunate killing of innocents.  Human shields are when an amoral enemy intentionally puts civilians in an area that they know will be targeted, with the hopes that either a) the attack will not happen because of sympathy for the innocents or b) the great photo op after all the innocents are killed. 

I'm sure it does happen, and I'm aware that an insurgent without a gun can suddenly become a civilian. But it is also used to explain an attack on a civilian location. Recent reports indicate that no rockets had been launched from Qana in the 24 hrs before the building was hit but was claimed that a launcher was near the building. An insurgent is home with his family, and a 1 tonne bomb is dropped on his home, and he is considered to be hiding behind civilians. Cars, vans, trucks, ambulances are all hit with no proof that they are actually carrying weapons or insurgents.

 

As mentioned, refer to the link.  Again, you are being ridiculous to think that after a missile attack has been launched and the bad guys are still in there that it shouldn't be attacked.  And it has already been shown that there was some historical reason to get Qana bombed to upset the locals. 

This current action in Lebanon was started by an action on **military** personnel. Israel made the first attack on civilian areas with collateral damage.

Again, because the coward Hezbollah choose to hide in populated areas.  Smart, but cowardly. 

Hezbollah has said that if Israel withdraws from Sheba Farms they will become a "purely a defensive role", a position supported by the Lebanese govt.

http://www.dawn.com/2005/05/25/int14.htm
http://www.haaretz.com/hasen/spages/742228.html

:rofl: And the cheque is in the mail, and I won't.....  Surely you cannot be so naive?  If anything, that should encourage the IDF that Hezbollah is trying to get a breather. 

If you don't try to win the "hearts and minds" of the occupied population, you are going to feed a growing insurgency. The only way to create a "peace" in such a situation is by clearing out the insurgents and supporting population. Again, at what point does that become ethnic cleansing? And once you have destabilized a country enough to colapse, how are you going to deal with the chaos. Install your own govt, and create a civil war? This is not going to create peace in the area.

Again, I fully believe that Israel doesn't think it will ever have the hearts and minds.  So in the absence of love and stuffed grape leaves, a burned out buffer zone that will seriously have to think twice before it lets rockets be stored in it's garden sheds any time soon.

 

[armyvern]

Don't twist what I said as you usually do. I've stated many times that I don't want my army to be involved in the Middle East conflict. You're not fighting on my behalf , I'm sorry.....this is your perception of fighting. I've the right to object to any war. I've full respect for all soldiers doing their job anywhere on the planet. They're fighting for what they've been told to do. To complete their mission and achieve success. Don't attempt to politicize the Army. The Army is ran by civilian administration and all my objections on the political front are directly pointed to those running the strings.

This is my perception of democracy:

This IS Canada's war as our democraticly elected parliment sent us there. That means it's YOUR war whether you like it or not. That civilian administration running the Army NOW happens to have beat the party I think you voted for in the last election ( you know.. the Party that sent us there in the first place). Be an objector all you want...but the voters spoke and here we are. Protest all you want too, apparently not enough protested with your ballots the last election. Isn't democracy grand?