A Question

sponger

Open wrote:

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?

The UN humanitarian chief, returning from a visit to Beirut, has accused Hizbollah of being "cowardly".
Jan Egeland blasted the group's strategy of "blending" in among Lebanese civilians, causing the deaths of hundreds. [....]
Speaking to reporters at Larnaca airport in Cyprus on his return, he slammed Hizbollah for hiding among civilians.
"Consistently, from the Hizbollah heartland, my message was that Hizbollah must stop this cowardly blending... among women and children," Mr Egeland said.

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.

rebornFixer

This is the way Israel should have fought the war all along. Yes, it means more IDF casualties. But these are some of the best special forces troops in the world. Obviously they can get the job done, this apartment raid was apparently a success. There was no need for bombing as much as they did. Air power should have stayed tactical, on the battlefield itself.
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.

rebornFixer

OutOfBreath wrote:

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? Otherwise, I've been active at these forums since 2000.


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

This is a nice post. I basically agree.

Open

sponger wrote:

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.

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.

sponger

Open wrote:

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.

hailhailkc

Open wrote:

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.

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.

dayan

Open wrote:

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 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.

dayan

reborncareerist wrote:

This is the way Israel should have fought the war all along. Yes, it means more IDF casualties. But these are some of the best special forces troops in the world. Obviously they can get the job done, this apartment raid was apparently a success. There was no need for bombing as much as they did. Air power should have stayed tactical, on the battlefield itself.
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.

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).

dayan

Open wrote:

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.

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.

Byrnzie

dayan wrote:

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.

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.

Open

dayan wrote:

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.

There is a difference between your reality and one that the rest of the world sees...your reality is blinded by your affiliation. You're saying those poor civilians who cant even get out or get relief b/c of IDF bombing all infrastracture should die b/c hezbollah might not have morals...I think your just opening your morals to be questioned...the IDF is by far not the most moral organization..just watch "Death in Gaza"..l

Britain and Israel face off on filmmaker's death
By Sarah Lyall The New York Times

Published: June 25, 2006


LONDON Three years ago, in an incident that resonates now with the recent killing of seven members of a Palestinian family on a Gaza beach, a documentary filmmaker was shot and killed in Gaza.

Then, as now, the victims' families blamed the Israeli military, which denied responsibility. A major difference is that the filmmaker, James Miller, was a British citizen, and after some prodding from his family, his government has taken up his cause.

At first, about the only thing not in dispute in the Miller case was that he was dead, shot on May 2, 2003, in an area of the Gaza Strip thick with Israeli soldiers. The Israelis said he was a casualty of war. His colleagues said he had been killed in cold blood.

His family fought to know more.

A resolution of sorts came in April at a coroner's inquest here into the death of Miller, 34, an experienced filmmaker looking into the effects of violence on children for HBO. The jury's verdict was that he was murdered.

The killer was identified as the commander of an armored personnel carrier in the Israeli Army who had admitted firing his weapon that night, but no one in Israel has been charged, and many of the questions raised in the hours after the shooting have never been resolved.

Suspecting that answers might not be forthcoming, the Miller family sent a private investigator to the scene the day after the killing to do forensic tests - tests, the investigator said, that the Israelis never conducted. In the next few days the army bulldozed the site, destroying much of the remaining evidence, the investigator said.

The Israeli military's criminal investigation, including the basic task of confiscating and securing the soldiers' weapons for tests, did not begin until several weeks after the fact.

Lieutenant Colonel Jana Modzgvrishvily, military advocate for the Israeli Army's southern command, said in an interview that after Miller's death, the army immediately began a standard field investigation, followed by a full military criminal investigation.

She said nine soldiers in the two armored personnel carriers near the scene were repeatedly interviewed and subjected to polygraph tests. She confirmed that the weapons had not been secured for three weeks but said they had been subjected to extensive forensic tests.

It is not just the Miller family who denies that the Israeli inquiry was thorough and comprehensive. So, too, does the coroner at the London inquest, who urged the British government to begin an international prosecution against the commander of the personnel carrier under the Geneva Conventions. So does the British government.

Accounts of what happened diverged almost from the moment Miller was shot.

It was late at night in the ruined town of Rafah, at the southern end of the Gaza Strip, and Miller was concluding his third visit for the film.

He specialized in documentaries about the downtrodden and the oppressed; his past work included "Beneath the Veil" (2001), about the war in Afghanistan, which won Emmy and Peabody awards; "Children of the Secret State" (2000), about famine in North Korea; and "Armenia: The Betrayed" (2002), about the massacres of Armenians in 1915.

Miller and his colleagues had spent the evening at a Palestinian house, filming Israeli bulldozers knocking down Palestinian buildings.

Two Israeli armored personnel carriers were in the area, investigating reports that a Palestinian tunnel under the Egyptian border was being used to smuggle weapons into Gaza.

The vehicles were fired on during the day, and the soldiers responded in kind. By 11 p.m. or so, things were quiet. The filmmakers decided to call it a night.

Wearing flak jackets and hats marked "TV," waving a white cloth in the air that they illuminated with a flashlight and shouting that they were British journalists seeking to leave the area safely, Miller and two colleagues, Saira Shah and Abdul Rahman Abdullah, slowly walked toward one of the armored personnel carriers. But suddenly, according to Shah and Abdullah, a shot rang out close by.

A warning, they said they thought. They dropped to the ground.

Thirteen seconds passed. Then there was a second shot. It hit Miller.

He lost consciousness almost immediately and was pronounced dead at an Israeli base. His wife, Sophy, at home with their children, then 3 and 1, and expecting her husband home the next day, woke up to a phone call from a distraught Shah.

Soon it was all over the news. But while Miller's colleagues said he had been shot in the front of the neck from the direction of one of the Israeli vehicles, the Israelis initially gave a different account.

Miller walked into an exchange of gunfire, they said, and was hit in the back by a Palestinian bullet.

The next day, the Miller family dispatched Chris Cobb-Smith, a security expert and British Army veteran, to Gaza to investigate.

"The emphasis had to be on us to do the proper investigations, because it was obvious that the IDF was not going to conduct their investigation with any impartiality," said Cobb-Smith. The initials stand for the Israeli military's official name, the Israeli Defense Forces.

His examination of footprints, tank tracks and traces of blood and bullet holes, among other things, led him to conclude that the shot that had killed Miller had come from an Israeli vehicle.

He said no one from the Israeli Army had interviewed him about his findings. One of the most important pieces of evidence was a grainy video taken by an Associated Press Television News cameraman from the balcony of the building that Miller had just left. Seven intermittent shots can be clearly heard on the audio, 13 seconds apart, then 12, then 5, then 15, then 5, then 12.

"These shots were not fired by a soldier in response to incoming fire," Cobb-Smith said. "They were slow and calculated and deliberate." He added, "I have no doubt that it was cold-blooded murder."

Interviewed at home in rural Braunton, Devon, Sophy Miller said her husband had worked in hostile environments for 14 years and was known for his extreme caution. She says she has fought so hard not just for her husband, but because she is disturbed at what she sees as the lack of accountability in the Israeli Army in this and other cases. The Israelis now agree that Miller was indeed shot in the neck, from the front. But they say there is no evidence that M-16 bullet fragments recovered from his body match the guns of any Israeli soldiers in the area.

The army's 94-page report shows that the investigation focused almost immediately on the commander of one of the Israeli personnel carriers, the only one who fired his weapon around the time Miller died.

But although the commander, identified in the report as First Lieutenant H., gave conflicting accounts in six separate interviews of when and why he had fired, he was adamant - as was every other soldier - that they could neither see nor hear the Britons approaching.

Miller's colleagues disputed that, saying the soldiers knew they had been filming from the balcony and had taunted them from their vehicles. The evening was clear, they said; the soldiers had night-vision equipment.

The military's judge advocate general recommended that the commander, who has since been identified by the Miller family as First Lieutenant Hib al- Heib, be disciplined for improperly using his weapon. But the recommendation was rejected.

The London inquest, held as is the custom in Britain when a citizen dies in violent circumstances abroad, took place this spring. The coroner, Dr. Andrew Reid, criticized Israel for not participating and joined Miller's family in calling for the British government to consider an international prosecution of the Israeli soldier. The Millers have filed a civil lawsuit in Israel.

Anne Waddington, James Miller's older sister, said that while the jury's conclusion was reassuring, it was not enough.

"We've struggled for three years to put the pieces of this tragic jigsaw together," she said in an interview. "We have all pursued justice all of our lives, and James was the biggest and best of all in doing that. For the circumstances of his death to be treated with such disdain by the Israelis is something we cannot forgive."

After Miller died, his colleagues finished the film, ending it with his killing. Its title was "Death in Gaza," and it won a host of awards, including three Emmys.

dayan

Byrnzie wrote:

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.

It is amazing how much you can get wrong in one paragraph. To begin with the Shebaa Farms does not belong to Lebanon. The area belonged to Syria before Israel conquered it. It has never been a part of Lebanon. The UN has confirmed this. Hezbollah claimed after Israel pulled out of all of Lebanon in 2000 that the Shebaa Farms was Lebanese territory so that they (Hezbollah) could still have a reason for launching attacks on Israel. Check what the UN says on the issue. Israel was holding three Lebanese prisoners before the current violence erupted. This has been stated repeatedly by Shiraz. Each of these prisoners was given a fair trial and found guilty of being involved in criminal acts. These are not political prisoners. (This leaves aside the fact that attacking civilians is not a legitimate means of freeing prisoners to begin with. What, do you think this is ok because they're terrorists and that's what they do?) The occupation of the West Bank is an Israeli-Palestinian issue. It has nothing to do with the Lebanese. According to your logic, any country, or group of people, are legitimate in attacking another country that they percieve to be harming a third party. I assume that you therefore support the war in Iraq on the grounds that Saddam was brutally repressing his own people. You also say that Israel was occupying Gaza. This is simply not true. Israel ended its occupation of Gaza over a year ago. Finally Israel has killed just over 500 Lebanese civilians, not 900, and I have no idea where you have heard that half of these have been children. (That leaves aside the fact that civilian deaths in war are a sad fact, but not illegitimate by definition). I'll leave aside 9/11 for the most part, but the implication that America somehow deserved what happened on 9/11, or brought that tragedy down upon themselves, is a disgusting and inhumane and wrong assertion. 19 men did not have to kill 3000 innocent Americans. They had a choice in there actions. The fact that you deny any sort of moral subjectivity to terrorist is disgusting. They are never responsible for the horrors they cause. It is always the victims that brought the terrorism on themselves. Sick!

sliverstain

Yeah, those IDF internal investigations really are worth the paper they're written on.

Let see if the UK starts bombing Israeli infrastructure because of this murder.

One can but hope.

shiraz

Byrnzie wrote:

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.

Shebaa farms belongs to Syria, we have only 3-4 Lebanese prisoners who were sent to prison after a fair trial, Hizbullah fired towards 2 northern Israeli villages, crossed to Israeli border, kill and kidnapped army reserved soliders before Israel had reacted, Palestinian conflict has nothing to do with Lebanon, But nevermind all that FACTS , lets just keep on using false argumentations to support your narrow point of view. So how is it going in your convenient bubble?

sliverstain

shiraz wrote:

Shebaa farms belongs to Syria, we have only 4 Lebanese prisoners who were sent to prison after a fair trial, Hizbullah fired towards 2 northern Israeli villages, crossed to Israeli border, kill and kidnapped army reserved soliders before Israel had reacted, Palestinian conflict has nothing to do with Lebanon, But nevermind all that FACTS , lets just keep on using false argumentations to support your narrow point of view. So how is it going in your convenient bubble?

Haha. What FACTS are these? The ones reported by the IDF, by and chance?

Head, sand, blood on your hands. There's a sentence in there somewhere...

dayan

Open wrote:

There is a difference between your reality and one that the rest of the world sees...your reality is blinded by your affiliation. You're saying those poor civilians who cant even get out or get relief b/c of IDF bombing all infrastracture should die b/c hezbollah might not have morals...I think your just opening your morals to be questioned...the IDF is by far not the most moral organization..just watch "Death in Gaza"

I am not saying that these civilians SHOULD die. I am saying that Israel is fighting a legitimate military campaign against an enemy that attacked them first without provocation, and then intentionally adopted the strategic position of hiding amongst a civilian population in the hopes that civilians would be killed by Israel. Make no mistake that Hezbollah gains from civilian deaths and that it is there policy to put civilians in harms way for exactly this reason. Israel does not want to kill civilians. It is morally wrong and it is strategically wrong. Israel, despite what you might think, and despite the actions of isolated soldiers in the past, attempts to use its military in as moral a fashion as they can. (I'm sure you won't believe that but it's true so far as I can tell in the majority of cases. I am not defending all of Israel's history. I oppose the occupation of Palestinian territories, but I believe that since Israel made a serious attempt at ending the occupation in 2000 the onus is now on the Palestinians to prove to a terrorized Israeli public that ending what is left of the occupation will not result in yet another wave of terror in Israel.) Furthermore, Israel is not stupid. We realize here that civilian deaths hurt our ability to carry out our military operations because they cause the international community to put pressure on us to conclude our operations. From a military perspective civilian deaths are a strategic liability, yet another reason why the IDF does its best to avoid them. Unfortunately they are to a certain extent unavoidable unless Israel was to forego entirely any sort of military response to Hezbollah's initial and continuing attacks on Israeli civilians.

shiraz

sliverstain wrote:

Haha. What FACTS are these? The ones reported by the IDF, by and chance?

Head, sand, blood on your hands. There's a sentence in there somewhere...

No, the ones who were reported by almost EVERYONE in the media, including the arab ones & Al Manar - Hizbullah TV.

Open

dayan wrote:

I am not saying that these civilians SHOULD die. I am saying that Israel is fighting a legitimate military campaign against an enemy that attacked them first without provocation, and then intentionally adopted the strategic position of hiding amongst a civilian population in the hopes that civilians would be killed by Israel. Make no mistake that Hezbollah gains from civilian deaths and that it is there policy to put civilians in harms way for exactly this reason. Israel does not want to kill civilians. It is morally wrong and it is strategically wrong. Israel, despite what you might think, and despite the actions of isolated soldiers in the past, attempts to use its military in as moral a fashion as they can. (I'm sure you won't believe that but it's true so far as I can tell in the majority of cases. I am not defending all of Israel's history. I oppose the occupation of Palestinian territories, but I believe that since Israel made a serious attempt at ending the occupation in 2000 the onus is now on the Palestinians to prove to a terrorized Israeli public that ending what is left of the occupation will not result in yet another wave of terror in Israel.) Furthermore, Israel is not stupid. We realize here that civilian deaths hurt our ability to carry out our military operations because they cause the international community to put pressure on us to conclude our operations. From a military perspective civilian deaths are a strategic liability, yet another reason why the IDF does its best to avoid them. Unfortunately they are to a certain extent unavoidable unless Israel was to forego entirely any sort of military response to Hezbollah's initial and continuing attacks on Israeli civilians.

Two frickin soldiers and all this death come on man....?!?!?! I'll keep saying it cant play the victim anymore...not after all this death.

dayan

sliverstain wrote:

Haha. What FACTS are these? The ones reported by the IDF, by and chance?

Head, sand, blood on your hands. There's a sentence in there somewhere...

You can believe what you want. However these are facts reported not only by the IDF, but by every reputable news agency in the world. AND, to speak about the IDF for a moment, you cannot simply say that what they report is false. I know many people in the IDF at various levels, and they are good and decent people who serve because they want to defend their country. I am amazed that people can hold such an anachronistic view of the IDF as this legion of cold-blooded killers goose stepping their way across the Middle East. The reality is far different. It is a true people's army made up of soldiers who are little more than children, and reservists who are husbands and fathers.

lgt

Is Israel's strategy (in its view, attacking Lebanon for reprisal of Hezbollah's kidnappings of 2 soldiers) effective? After 3 weeks of bombing, 10 times over the number of casualties in Lebanon, displacement of civilians, is Israel feeling more secure? Is it achieving its objectives? How long will it take?

I briefly caught Netanyahu on British TV the other morning talking of this conflict as "World War III", and I quote his words, uttered casually, as if it was normal to talk about World War III. That sent chills down my spine... No lessons learnt from Iraq? The regional implications of this conflict are scary.

Not to mention, so many kids growing up hating Israel....

I really struggle to see what the benefits are for Israel - the strategy of attacking Lebanon to get rid of Hizbullah. I think it's counterproductive, from an Israeli point of view, not to mention appalling from the Lebanese.

What do you guys think?

Laura

PS Sorry for slightly derailing the conversation off topic!