Re: Qana
 

yes, and i was asking where else you have seen/heard that conjecture, since I havent.

Re: Qana
 

Ah, I get your question.

Sorry, I dont recall.

However, there is a story on Arutz Sheva suggesting that the explosion in the Kfar Kana was not the work of the IDF. But that is marginally a hate site, IMO (though I read it regularly).

Re: Qana
 

[ QUOTE ]
Ah, I get your question.

Sorry, I dont recall.

However, there is a story on Arutz Sheva suggesting that the explosion in the Kfar Kana was not the work of the IDF. But that is marginally a hate site, IMO (though I read it regularly).

[/ QUOTE ]

Yeah that cant have any traction. Israel has stated that the Kana attack was not retaliation for todays missile strike from Gaza, but a continuation of the recent campaign to eliminate sources within Gaza.

Re: Qana
 

[ QUOTE ]
After what happened in Qana, Israelis generals should think two times before travelling to Europe. War crime is a serious offense.

This incident, two days after the arrival of US "smart bombs", may cost lifes of american citzens around the world.

Scenes like this is what terrorists are looking for to re-seed their evil.

[img]/images/graemlins/frown.gif[/img] [img]/images/graemlins/frown.gif[/img] [img]/images/graemlins/frown.gif[/img]

[/ QUOTE ]

In my opinion the Lebanese Hezbollah are the ones regularly engaging in war crimes, not the Israeli military.

http://www.alertnet.org/thenews/newsdesk/L30112913.htm

I also saw footage of these Lebanese Hezbollah rockets being fired from this civilian area on Fox news.

Re: Qana
 

As Israel has so many times before, Hezballah raiders crossed the northern border on July 12. They attacked a patrol. Five of the eight Israeli soldiers killed, however, were killed inside Lebanon: 4 in the tank that crossed the border and ran over a landmine and one who tried to retrieve bodies. In short, this was a border skirmish limited to military targets. Israel reacted by a massive bombing campaign against infrastructure and civilian targets all over Lebanon, in gross violation of international law. It therefore did not "respond[] accordingly."

It's a telling case of hypocrisy that when two Israeli soldiers are kidnapped its an act of terror and war meriting a savage response, according to most U.S. officials and pundits, even against the indisputably innocent. But when Israel kidnaps Palestinian civlians (over 2,000 are held by Israel now, without charge), even children, these same people conclude that no act of retalliation or reprisal can be justified. The mainstream consensus is that it's an inconvenience the Palestinians should have to live with; part of the price of being Arabs.

Re: Qana
 

[ QUOTE ]
"Hezzbolla was using this position to attempt to kill and wound Isreali civilians. Those Lebonese civilians killed, occupied a position they knew was going to be bombed. In fact the Isrealis dropped leaflets telling those people to leave. I'd like to know why these people did not leave before I start assigning blame."

[/ QUOTE ]
Do a search on Lebanon-refugees-trapped and you'll get a pretty good idea why they might have been reluctant to leave: nowhere to go, no car, no gas, no safe roads, bridges blown up, little and possibly no food, money or medicine, aid stations in crisis, cabs charging $400 a ride, etc. Take into account that a number of Lebanese are too young, too old or too sick to endure something like this and contrast it to the inviting appearance of a concrete basement in a large building. Consider the possibility of even harder cases: this particular group of civilians included 15 mentally retarded children, according to a report in the Australian Herald Sun, all dead now.

A "rocket luanching position?" Where's the evidence of that? "To date, Israel has not presented any evidence to show that Hezbollah was present in or around the building that was struck at the time of the attack." Human Rights Watch, 7/30/06. That clip they keep running on Fox News comes from three days before the attack, and no one seems to be sure that it's even the same building.

What's more likely is that Israel's "military" campaign is similar to the one Israeli Justice Minister Haim Ramon described to the BBC: <ul type="square">He said that in order to prevent casualties among Israeli soldiers battling Hezbollah militants in southern Lebanon, villages should be flattened by the Israeli air force before ground troops moved in. He added that Israel had given the civilians of southern Lebanon ample time to quit the area and therefore anyone still remaining there could be considered a Hezbollah supporter. "All those now in south Lebanon are terrorists who are related in some way to Hezbollah," Mr Ramon said.[/list]That's as good an explanation for Qana as you're likely to see: they had to get those disabled children terrorists while they slept.

Re: Qana
 

Chris, last week the UN Security Council held a couple of sessions on "Children and armed conflict"... you might find the transcripts interesting...

Re: Don\'t Be Such a Drama Queen
 

[ QUOTE ]
Terrorism is the act of INTENTIONALLY targeting non-combatents.

[/ QUOTE ]

ATM Hizb Allah has a better record of soldier/civilian death ratios than Israel, so either Hizb Allah isn't terrorist, or Hizb Allah is terrorist and Israel is a mega terrorist.

As for this garbage about intentionality: whats worse? A 30 percent chance of killing 40 civilians or a 100 percent chance of killing 3? One is "intentional" and the other "isn't intentional" but the 1st one is worse. The first one is also more spin friendly.

What Israel is doing is worse than just criminal negligence, because they've been doing it for decades. Sorry, you can't just play the "oops!" card everytime your bad behavior hurts innocent people and makes you look bad.

Re: Qana
 

[ QUOTE ]
Since the last "Qana massacre" led to Israel accepting a cease fire, and since Israel repeatedly warned civilians to leave Qana due to impending attack, I wonder if HZB will be found to have overtly restricted these civilians from leaving an area that HZB ensured was a prime target by using it as a missile site?

[/ QUOTE ]

What probability do you assign to this being the case, and why do you believe that your conjecture would be profitable to entertain?

Re: Don\'t Be Such a Drama Queen
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Terrorism is the act of INTENTIONALLY targeting non-combatents.

[/ QUOTE ]

ATM Hizb Allah has a better record of soldier/civilian death ratios than Israel, so either Hizb Allah isn't terrorist, or Hizb Allah is terrorist and Israel is a mega terrorist.

As for this garbage about intentionality: whats worse? A 30 percent chance of killing 40 civilians or a 100 percent chance of killing 3? One is "intentional" and the other "isn't intentional" but the 1st one is worse. The first one is also more spin friendly.



[/ QUOTE ]

By your argument i assume you believe that american soldiers in Iraq are terrorists since they occasionally kill iraqi civillians.

Its brilliant strategy by hezbollah (or even al qaeda)followers to attempt to morph the definition of terrorists to include every country in the free world that has ever killed civillians during a conflict.

I can only imagine snowballs classification of the US dropping the bomb on hiroshima and nagasaki. That must be the greatest act of terrorism known to mankind.

Re: Don\'t Be Such a Drama Queen
 

[ QUOTE ]
I can only imagine snowballs classification of the US dropping the bomb on hiroshima and nagasaki. That must be the greatest act of terrorism known to mankind.


[/ QUOTE ]

It was actually.

Re: Don\'t Be Such a Drama Queen
 

[ QUOTE ]
I can only imagine snowballs classification of the US dropping the bomb on hiroshima and nagasaki. That must be the greatest act of terrorism known to mankind.

[/ QUOTE ]

One of them, but that's another discussion that has been had many times here.

Re: Don\'t Be Such a Drama Queen
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Terrorism is the act of INTENTIONALLY targeting non-combatents.

[/ QUOTE ]

ATM Hizb Allah has a better record of soldier/civilian death ratios than Israel, so either Hizb Allah isn't terrorist, or Hizb Allah is terrorist and Israel is a mega terrorist.

As for this garbage about intentionality: whats worse? A 30 percent chance of killing 40 civilians or a 100 percent chance of killing 3? One is "intentional" and the other "isn't intentional" but the 1st one is worse. The first one is also more spin friendly.

What Israel is doing is worse than just criminal negligence, because they've been doing it for decades. Sorry, you can't just play the "oops!" card everytime your bad behavior hurts innocent people and makes you look bad.

[/ QUOTE ]


Excerpted from the July 24th session of the UN Security Council...

The reality on the ground has created difficult questions for us as a nation, such as how States are effectively to fight terrorist organizations that deliberately endanger both the civilian population they target and those they use as human shields. How can States exercise their legitimate right to take defensive measures against terrorism without causing undue harm to the civilian population? We wrestle daily with the strategic and ethical complexities of this balancing act. It is, we have observed, a debate that has not entered the halls of government of some of our neighbours, especially those of Lebanon, Syria and Iran.

Our foremost obligation as a nation is to protect our civilian population from violence. That is not only an obligation, it is a right recognized by the Charter of the United Nations. Yet we must also take great pains to minimize any harm to other civilian populations, thereby preserving the fundamental values, principles and the democratic rule of law that defines Israel as a nation, which we proudly embrace. We grieve for all civilian casualties on all sides. We hold those who have knowingly and deliberately precipitated this violence fully responsible.

We must emphasize the difference between terrorists that deliberately target innocent civilians — especially children — including the States that sponsor them, and those States that, acting defensively, target these lawless terrorists. Not to make that distinction is to lend equal legitimacy to terrorists who carry out unprovoked terrorist acts and States acting in selfdefence. That would run counter to all international precedent and the Charter of the United Nations itself and would serve to encourage terrorists to commit ever greater numbers of terrorist acts.

Re: Don\'t Be Such a Drama Queen
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
I can only imagine snowballs classification of the US dropping the bomb on hiroshima and nagasaki. That must be the greatest act of terrorism known to mankind.

[/ QUOTE ]

One of them, but that's another discussion that has been had many times here.

[/ QUOTE ]

This is where i like to make the dinstinction between acts by a government and acts by an independent terrorist organization whose goal is to commit acts of terrorism. Acts of war by one country against another is not "terrorism" as is discussed today. Its an act of war. It can be responded to by a similar act of war by the country effected. That doesn't make it any more or less terrible.

When a independent group, such as al qaeda or hizbollah or kahane chai attacks innocent civillians and then retreats back into the community, that act is better defined as "terrorism" as is understood today.

If syria attacked israel tomorrow and launched missiles into jerusalem and tel aviv, i would NOT consider that "terrorism." It would merely be an act of war.

Re: Don\'t Be Such a Drama Queen
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
I can only imagine snowballs classification of the US dropping the bomb on hiroshima and nagasaki. That must be the greatest act of terrorism known to mankind.

[/ QUOTE ]

One of them, but that's another discussion that has been had many times here.

[/ QUOTE ]

This is where i like to make the dinstinction between acts by a government and acts by an independent terrorist organization whose goal is to commit acts of terrorism. Acts of war by one country against another is not "terrorism" as is discussed today. Its an act of war. It can be responded to by a similar act of war by the country effected. That doesn't make it any more or less terrible.

When a independent group, such as al qaeda or hizbollah or kahane chai attacks innocent civillians and then retreats back into the community, that act is better defined as "terrorism" as is understood today.

If syria attacked israel tomorrow and launched missiles into jerusalem and tel aviv, i would NOT consider that "terrorism." It would merely be an act of war.

[/ QUOTE ]

You've made this point before; that you think terrorism relates to whether or not the actors are state actors or not. You can have that defintion if you want, but I don;t share it, it seems redundant when you can simply talk about states and non-state actors, and I think the vast majority of people see terrorism as something along the lines of the use of violence against civilians to terrorise them for the furtherance of political goals.

However, if you do see terrorism as simply about the state/non-state status of the actors, you shouldn't be using it pejoratively/condeming people for being "terrorists" merely according to your definition. It makes no sense to say that an attack by a "terrorist" non-state group on say military invaders is worse than an attack by state forces on civilians simply becasue one isn;t a state actor. There are obviously numerous times when non-state actors' violence is legitimate (eg Warsaw resistance) and state actors' violence is completely illegitimate (eg Nazis).

At any rate, if you don;t want to label civilian targetting atrocities by stae actors terrorism, they can be called war crimes instead. I would say they are both state terrorism and war crimes.

Re: Qana
 

There are acknowledged rules of warfare that predate Xerxes. Hizbollah and most arab terrorists are in clear violation of what civizilation considers proper. Many Lebanese civilians will die because of it.

Re: Don\'t Be Such a Drama Queen
 

The only chance for peace is an Israeli victory that drives Hezbollah out of Lebanon. Otherwise any peace agreement will only be temporary until Iran wants to stir the pot some more.

Re: Don\'t Be Such a Drama Queen
 

Hezbollywood!

http://web.israelinsider.com/Article...omacy/8997.htm