Options
A Question
dayan
Posts: 475
If Israel is so bloodthirsty and eager to kill civilians please explain this article, especially the bit about sending commandos deep into Lebanon instead of using air power so as to avoid civilian casualties. This is an excerpt from an article that appeared in yesterday's Jerusalem Post.
"Two Naval commando soldiers, including one officer, were seriously wounded and six more sustained light wounds, in an overnight raid on Tyre early Saturday morning. All the wounded were evacuated to Israel to receive medical treatment.
The operation, which was conducted based on military intelligence, targeted terrorists that were responsible for firing long-range rockets at Israel, including those that reached Hadera on Friday.
The commandos entered an apartment building in a crowded residential area in northern Tyre, where they engaged with Hizbullah operatives, including three senior members.
When the elite unit left the apartment, they were fired upon from several directions. IAF aircrafts and drones covered the force and cleared an exit for it. Seven Lebanese were killed in the operation.
Head of Naval intelligence told Army Radio that an aerial assault on the building was avoided since it was not known whether there were civilians in the building. He also mentioned that the ground operation sent a strong message to the fighters, indicating that the IDF can reach deep into Lebanon.
A Hizbullah statement said that Naval commandos tried to land in the orchards of the village of Chabriha, just north of Tyre, at 3:30 a.m. but were repelled by Hizbullah guerrillas and Lebanese soldiers who heavily clashed with the forces.
"One member of the infiltrating force was killed and a large number of others were wounded," the Hezbollah statement said.
No IDF soldiers were killed in Tyre."
"Two Naval commando soldiers, including one officer, were seriously wounded and six more sustained light wounds, in an overnight raid on Tyre early Saturday morning. All the wounded were evacuated to Israel to receive medical treatment.
The operation, which was conducted based on military intelligence, targeted terrorists that were responsible for firing long-range rockets at Israel, including those that reached Hadera on Friday.
The commandos entered an apartment building in a crowded residential area in northern Tyre, where they engaged with Hizbullah operatives, including three senior members.
When the elite unit left the apartment, they were fired upon from several directions. IAF aircrafts and drones covered the force and cleared an exit for it. Seven Lebanese were killed in the operation.
Head of Naval intelligence told Army Radio that an aerial assault on the building was avoided since it was not known whether there were civilians in the building. He also mentioned that the ground operation sent a strong message to the fighters, indicating that the IDF can reach deep into Lebanon.
A Hizbullah statement said that Naval commandos tried to land in the orchards of the village of Chabriha, just north of Tyre, at 3:30 a.m. but were repelled by Hizbullah guerrillas and Lebanese soldiers who heavily clashed with the forces.
"One member of the infiltrating force was killed and a large number of others were wounded," the Hezbollah statement said.
No IDF soldiers were killed in Tyre."
Post edited by Unknown User on
0
Comments
http://forums.pearljam.com/showthread.php?t=272825
Forget it, I'm not gonna keep defending myself & my home just because some people are choosing to see it all in a very cloesed-minded way. This is pointless, I'm recommending the people whome you adressed this artical to have a good psychologist/shrink, or just increas their weekly dose of sex.
I agree with Zinn's point in "Terrorism and war", in that one should not be absolved of responsibility and be able to write things off as collateral damage, when one has fairly certain knowledge beforehand that this will kill civilians. That goes especially for bombers, since discerning friend from foe is hard from high up, and the weapons so powerful as for the distinction to be irrelevant when dropping them.
So, although I believe them when they say they try to kill as few as possible, they still go at it. Doesn't relieve them of responsibility.
and no, I dont support Hizbollahs bombing of civilians in Israel either. There is a difference in intent, but a difference largely irrelevant when dead people stay dead. Doesn't matter for the victim if it was terrorism or collateral damage.
Peace
Dan
"Every judgment teeters on the brink of error. To claim absolute knowledge is to become monstrous. Knowledge is an unending adventure at the edge of uncertainty." - Frank Herbert, Dune, 1965
I agree entirely, except that I don't see that Israel has an alternative. Israel must fight Hezbollah, but it cannot do so away from civilian areas so long as Hezbollah surrounds themselves with civilians. I don't think that Israel is not responsible for civilians who are killed as "collateral damage," but there is a difference between moral responsibility and legal responsibility. Obviously the pilots who drop those bombs must live with their actions, but I don't think that one can say that Israel is acting in an illegal manner simply by saying that civilians have been killed. Such is war.
http://forums.pearljam.com/showthread.php?t=272825
Well, if we're gonna get "legal" about it, I dont think Israel has a right to attack another nation at all.... At least considering the non-agression conventions in place wince WW2.
They're using cannons at sparrows (idiom in norwegian at least). That's my problem with it. That they needed to do something about Hizbollah firing missiles into Israel, I understand. But from that to complete levelling of infrastructure, roads and ports in the entire country, well...
You can't really expect Hizbollah to move all their people out into the desert into a building where they print "Hizbollah lives here" on the roof, so that Israel can bomb them without civilian casualties. And just because they reside among other people, doesn't mean Israel is free to bomb them indiscriminately and blame them for using civilan shields (although the accusation may be correct in itself). It is still Israel that chooses to bomb, knowing that they will kill a lot of civilians. Someone might argue that "Well that's what Hizbollah does too" which is correct. But is it really Hizbollah Israel is supposed to compare themselves with? Israel as a sovereign state with a modern military is kept to a higher standard than some ragtag militants and militias with various agendas.
Peace
Dan
"Every judgment teeters on the brink of error. To claim absolute knowledge is to become monstrous. Knowledge is an unending adventure at the edge of uncertainty." - Frank Herbert, Dune, 1965
Off topic question: did you use to have another username? I don't know why, but that the initial thought who pops out in my head everytime I read one of your posts here.
Now back on topic: War is illegal, but there are some cases its a 'must action'. The UN decided in 2000 to bring Int forces inside southern Lebanon, in order to help the Lebanese govt to get rid/control the Hizbullah. It didn't happen. During these 6 years Israel & Lebanon (during late Hariri's time, 2000-2004) repeatedly asked to provide a solution for the going stronger-Hizbullah, but nothing happened. That conflict was an accident waiting to happen - there was no way Israel would do nothing while its civilians were under attack. Sure, our response was exaggerated, but A response is somthing that had to be done - we really had no choice on this one.
Sorry, always been OutOfBreath, as also my post-count should indicate.
Why?
(edit) And as for the Israeli response, the exagerration is exactly what bothers me. that they had to do something, fine. Levelling Lebanon, not fine.
Peace
Dan
"Every judgment teeters on the brink of error. To claim absolute knowledge is to become monstrous. Knowledge is an unending adventure at the edge of uncertainty." - Frank Herbert, Dune, 1965
That's like rationalizing Hezbollah rocket attacks by saying thats the only way that they can defend themselves....such is war. This hippocracy is unreal.
Maybe its your signature and origin... Is it possible I know you from someplace else in the net under a different username?
(sorry for the odd questions)
I don't know what to say to you. Your argument is that if it means causing civilian deaths then Israel should forego on its own defense. I disagree.
So do onto others what you dont want done to you.
Hezbollah started the current conflict. That is universally agreed upon by everyone aside from those that would willingly turn a blind eye to reality. There was no Israeli aggression against Lebanon before Hezbollah attacked Israel. Therefore to say that Hezbollah is acting in their own defense is simply false. Furthermore, defense implies that Hezbollah is hitting a military target used to attack them. This is pattently false as well, as we all acknowledge that Hezbollah is launching rockets at purely civilian targets. Not so with Israel, which targets military targets and tries to avoid civilian casualties.
I don't understand your comment. When attacked you have to defend yourself. In war you fight to win. Yes, you kill others so you won't be killed.
If they hadn't started all of this (=refuse to disarm, getting more weapons, repeatedly break the cease-fire during the last 6 years including 3 kidnapped soliders from inside Israel & one civilian in some other country in 2003, attacking 2 Israeli villages, crossing the Israeli border, kill army reserve patrol soliders and kidnap 2 of them), I would have said Hizbullah were just defending themselfs from god knows what. After all, we left southern Lebanon in 2000, and both northern Israel and Lebanon itself were blossoming.
So no, your analogy is wrong.
A war is a war, civilians die in wars (one civilian dead is one too many). The only thing that matters now is to stop it by sending well trained Int arm forces right away to southern Lebanon instead of the IDF, & in the same time have a cease-fire. For god sake, I've been stuck in a shelter for more than 3 weeks, I want my life back.
sorry, I know the truth hurts sometimes...it just seems those who support everything israel is currently doing are on this board trying to drum up support...hey, if you support it...that's fine, but understand not everyone is going to agree with you...
I dont mind.
But I dont think so. I'm not really active in other forums, except from a stint at the System Of A Down forums 2-3 years ago. But there I also had my username OutOfBreath. Maybe there are just others out there that think like me too?
My argument is that bombing lebanese civilians and roads is not striking at Hizbollah. And I have problems regarding large scale bombing of another country as "defense" in any stretch of the imagination. In the name of defense, I could see Israel retaking the south of lebanon to prevent hizbollah from firing at Israel. That's defense. Bombing the city of Beirut and every bridge, road and port in the country is not "defense".
And I dont see any civilian casualties by any side as "justified" either. Both are monstrous in my eyes. I dont absolve any side of guilt and responsibility for this. Israel can't hide behind "defense" or "collateral damage" for evrything they do, just as the guerilla can't hide behind "fighting the occupation" for what they do. But there are people who wants war on both sides, and sadly, they tend to get it.
Peace
Dan
"Every judgment teeters on the brink of error. To claim absolute knowledge is to become monstrous. Knowledge is an unending adventure at the edge of uncertainty." - Frank Herbert, Dune, 1965
You sound as if you think Israel has levelled all of Beirut. I'd recommend reading the second and third articles I've posted on my new thread.
Bullshit when you have the technology that Israel has 700+ civilians should not be dead....you guys are unbelievable..complete hippocrits....If the numbers were the other way around you would be screaming bloody murder....you are supporting war crimes and rationalizing your guilt away. Pathetic.
I didn't know you were a modern weapons expert. Perhaps you have an engineering degree and work for Northrop Grumman?
Or perhaps you haven't heard that the Hezbollah hide amongst civilians when rocketing northern Israel?
http://jeffweintraub.blogspot.com/2006/07/jan-egeland-condemns-hezbollahs-war.html
And this is from Jan Egeland, a person who is not shy about lambasting Israel either.
http://forums.pearljam.com/showthread.php?t=272825
I know Israel isn't as utterly bloodthristy as the detractors make it out to be ... But still. Too many people not directly involved in this conflict have died. Sure, they have been pulling punches. But its like punching a guy in the kidney instead of the temple. Less lethal, but still pretty damaging.
I don't know ... I've always agreed with the general argument that Israel must fight terrorism to protect itself. But this? The airstrikes have gone too far now. Some of them probably do hit missile launchers, and some of these people killed in houses in Beirut could well be Hizbollah. SOME of them. I don't think all the people who aren't Hizbollah should have to live this way, though.
Lebanon's government taking some responsibility and offering to occupy the south is a good start. If Israel lets it happen.
This is a nice post. I basically agree.
If hezbollah hides behind the civilians then you dont kill the civilians to kill hezbollah...that's the thinking of a moral nation...if you think it's worth it to kill civilians then just come out and say it...im so tired of some you hiding behind that excuse....dont say i care about civilians but hezbollah was there...just say as long as the civilian is not me, go ahead and kill em all....at least admit it..dont try to act moral.
You're confusing morality with pacifism. If that's your rationale, then, from your point of view, all wars are bad. In fact, you might as well come out and say that every war that has ever been fought throughout history has been an act of immorality on the part of all participants. Can you name a war in which no civilians ended up as collateral damage? If that's really what you're trying to say, that's fine. I have respect for pacifists, actually. There should always be someone who's willing to say that killing is wrong under any circumstances.
http://forums.pearljam.com/showthread.php?t=272825
How about ridiculing Hezzbollah for hiding behind those civilians, thus putting them in harms way? How moral is that? No one is saying civilians should be killed, but you can't stand idly by while Hezzbollah used kids and women as human shields either.
High Traffic ART EZI FTJ JSR KPA PCD SYN ULX VLB YHF
Low Traffic CIO MIW
Non Traffic ABC BAY FDU GBZ HNC NDP OEM ROV TMS ZWL
I was just having dinner with a family friend who is a very serious historian whose name I will keep private. He related to me that before D-Day the allies needed to bomb the French railway system to prevent the Germans from using it to move troops and equipment to wherever the landings would be. Eisenhower came to FDR and Churchill to get them to sign off on the plan, but wanted them to know that the allies could expect 20,000 French civilians to be killed in the bombings. The two signed off on it. In the event only 10,000 French civilians were killed. My point is that Israel does have much better military technology, which is why they have been able to carry out what I'm sure is a much more extensive bombing of infrastructure then what the allies attempted without causing nearly as many deaths (500 as compared to 10,000). You simply can't expect that war will be entirely bloodless and clean. It can't.
I agree that Lebanon's plan COULD be a good start, except that half of the Lebanese army is Shiite and supports Hezbollah. This plan will only work if there can be some way to ensure that the army, or the Shia within it, won't simply let Hezbollah come back. After all, Shia in the military have already given Hezbollah access to military radar stations, which is how they were able to hit an Israeli warship with a radar guided missile (provided by Iran).
Morality cannot exist in a vacuum. It has to recognize reality. The reality of war is a terrible one, one in which innocents often die, but there it is. If morality dictates that war cannot be prosecuted so long as it may result in civilian deaths then morality has been divorced from reality and has become a suicide pact, at least for those moral nations fighting people with no morality at all.
Israel was perfectly innocent before two of it's soldiers were kidnapped. They were only continuing to occupy the Shebaa farms area of Lebanon and hold thousands of Lebanese prisoners in their jails. They were also continuing the illegal and brutal military occupation of the West bank and Gaza. But nevermind all that. Two Israeli soldiers were kidnapped and so they are now perfectly justified in killing over 900 Lebanese civilians, half of them children.
This is not much different to how a lot of people viewed the events of 9/11. I.e, the U.S was perfectly innocent before 9/11. After 9/11 it was justified in premptively attacking any country it felt like attacking.
This is a very convenient viewpoint to have. It means that one can ignore history and go through life being a bigoted idiot, selecting whichever facts one chooses to support ones political agenda, and without any reference to the bigger picture. I wish I could exist in such a limited bubble of conservative convenience.