Qana

[Copernicus]

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

[ACPlayer]

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).

[Copernicus]

[ 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.

[LadyWrestler]

[ 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.

[Chris Alger]

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.

[Chris Alger]

[ 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.

[Sniper]

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

[SNOWBALL]

[ 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.

[SNOWBALL]

[ 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?

[primetime32]

[ 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.