Israel vs Lebanon: Deliberate Targetting of UN Positions, Red Cross?

Remove all ads!

When I was in the army I was taught to only attack when I was damn sure who my enemy was. Its cowardly to attack civillians in built up areas with cluster bombs.

If N.Ireland used US and Israel tactics our small provence would be flattened and in chaos. Now we are wealthy and peaceful.

 

Hmm - you guys realise that Hezbollah has called for a ceasefire right? If what you're saying is true about people giving up out of concern for civilians - it seems that Hezbollah does care about them (because it's not like they're losing this war).

I think that Hezbollah's firing into civilian areas can be justified - assuming that their rockets are as inaccurate as I've heard they are, and that the news reporter I heard on SBS News was right when he said that they had been attempting to hit an industrial area 'for days' (which was close by to where the rockets he was reporting on had hit).

Their use of areas where civilians are living to fire rockets is pretty damn deplorable though. It would be nice if we had a better view of how indiscriminate Israel are being in their firing though (Hezbollah could be firing rockets from uninhabited civilian areas for all we know - and Israel are just trigger happy and blow up areas beyond that which Hezbollah fires from).

 

its got nothing to do with strength, i would use the same tactics if i were an underdog. im talking about fighting to win a war as soon as possible with as few friendly casualties as possible. if that means using fear as a weapon, then so be it, im here to win.

have they returned the isralie soldiers? nope

 

I think Israel is thirsty for blood and the only way to stop them is destroying them. I can't say Hezbollah is terrorist after seeing Israel.

 

well, your entitled to that

 

I said this truth after seeing what is going on in Lebanon. Before that, I thought Israel isn't evil so much but after seeing the last 1 month; I decided that Israel is not very different from Bush's US and it is not a good thing

 

Not really. The "strategic bombing", which were the most direct attempt to target "the people" did not end the war. There's a saying that my grandfather, who took part in WWII, used to say: "It's not conquered until the infantrymen's boots have trampled it." WWII ended with the Russians conquering Berlin, not with the bombing of Dresden, Hamburg, or any other city. In the Pacific, it wasn't the bombings of Tokyo that forced the surrender, it was the entry of the USSR in the war and their blitzkrieg through the Japanese garrison. I suppose the nuke had almost the same impact, but it wasn't just another targeting of civilians - it was one showing incredible technical superiority. I'd say the firebombings produced more casualties than Hiroshima and Nagasaki, at least in the short term. Yet it still wasn't effective, and for a good reason: it relied on using the peoples' suffering to influence their leaders, or to provoke a rebellion (essentially). But in a war, the government is usually where people unite around - it has the resources to protect its territory (hopefully), it dispenses aid and health services, and it controls or heavily influences the press (even if it's free in peacetime). I may not have any military experience, but history shows enough examples even only in the last century. The part about the enemy not being the one with the gun but the one in the factory is a bit strange, given how you talk about your comrades being the most important thing in a war. The factoryman is not firing the rockets that maim or kill you and your friends; furthermore, he may work for you in the future. That was probably the rationale behind the formation of the codes of war that protected unarmed people. After all, if King A took King B's land, the peasants there would pay taxes, support the army, and construct the castles - so why bother killing them? The means to use the people changed, sure, but the reason to keep them stays the same. No matter how unruly the inhabitants are, the land and income are usually worth it.

Right now the major difference between Israel and Hezbollah is the weapons they use. Both sides believe they are doing what's right for their people and don't give a s..t how they do it. Blaming Hezbollah for striking out of villages is simply strange. First thing, I'm not sure they have any bases and camps in the Western sense of the word. Second, even here such establishments are sometimes in or very close to cities. Third, if they know they'll be overwhelmed in a conventional battle (and with a manpower ratio against them - 20-1 or 50-1, depending on the source - and vastly inferior weaponry, they probably believe it), it's only normal that they'd use guerilla tactics. If you're ok with using feat as a tactic, you should have absolutely no problems with that. The ultimate line is what you gain from the war, not how many soldiers you kill or lose. If Israel provokes 100 people to join Hezbollah or another such group for every one that they kill, it is not winning, no matter how quickly they steamroller Lebanon or how great their military strategies look on the board. People left resentful and with little chances in a country with devastated economy - reminds me of 1919; to add to this, millions of Arabs now see Hezbollah, initially disliked as troublemakers and bandits, as heroes and champions of their cause. If Israel wants peace, that is the one thing it should avoid, and so far it's not doing a good job.


By the way, this started with kidnappings. The previous 3-4 times where there were kidnappings in the last 15 years, there were deals for the freeing of prisoners. You can say that this prompted more kidnappings, but at least there were less deaths and destruction. I'd say that it beats the current situation.

[ August 02, 2006, 12:30: Message edited by: The Shaman ]

 

Another difference between Israel and Hezbollah is that the Israeli, wiilingly or not, withdrew their army from Lebabon and were willing to let things lie. Hezbollah though could not leave Israel alone, because that would negate their only reason to exist.

I think it is pretty clear that there can be no peace in the Mideast till groups like Hezbollah are disbanded (willingly or forcibly). They do not seem to be willing to work through the political process (even Hamas, which won elections in Palestine, continued their attacks on Israel), and if they do not fight, they really have no other way of maintaining power.

And saying that Hezbollah (or Hamas) care for the suffering of the civilian population in their respective countries insults the intelligence of people, IMHO. They are happy to use their pain for propaganda purposes. If they'd care, the best they could do was leave Israel alone and make a life for themselves. (and Lebanon was well on its way to becoming a relatively prosperous place)

 

The extremists can't even leave their own people alone. There's nothing more damaging to their Cause than peace and stability and prosperity. Does anyone else remember Rafik Hariri?

 

Don't Israelies count as extremists? After all they are still kicking Arabs out of their homes because 'God promised them that land'.

 

Indeed. Remember also Jitzchak Rabin and what happened to him.

 

There was peace before Israel, so there can be no peace as long as Israel is in Arab's homeland. The wrong thing aren't these groups, the wrong thing is Israel.

Would you leave your homeland if it was invaded? Middle East doesn't belong to Israel and won't be.

 

Sorry, Argohir, but statements like this are the reason for the mess that the Mideast has become over the past 50 years.

So you basically are making the same argument as Hezbollah and Hamas. The precondition for peace is the destruction of the Israeli state. Well, I think (and hope) that this will not happen. One reason is that I believe the jewish people have the right to a home in the Mideast (which was their original homeland, after all). A second reason is political: the powers that be (US, and I would like to believe even EU), won't allow this to happen. So, if you want peace, you'd better find a way to coexist with Israel.

 

I don't have a love for Arabs; but if my country is invaded, I won't rest until it is mine again. Also, if everybody tries to return to their 2000 year old original homelands, half of the world will change place. And I have even less love for the political powers (especially for US, but for its government, not for all of its citizens), so their opinions are nothing for me.

It is like saying "If you want peace, you should allow the thieves to steal everything they want" and not acceptable.

 

If neither side is willing to compromise (which they won't) there won't be peace.

 

Yes - of course - and so should Israel. Neither Israel's apartheid system nor Hezbollahs constant suicidal bombers terrorregime can never be the base of peace. As long as the muslem world feels intimidated and sominated by USA/Israel there won't be any peace. And as long as muslem fundamentalists (supported by various governments) are having their Jihad against all heretics there won't be any peace.

 

Then I guess that almost every country must bomb US as a reaction to illegal kidnappings that have taken place as a part of the "war against terror" .

Anyway, Israel has done the same thing in the past. Do you remember Eichmann's abduction by israeli agents in Argentina? Yes I know that he was a nazi and he certainly deserved the death penalty but Israel instead of going though the normal diplomatic procedures to achieve his extradition, decided to violate argentinian sovereingty in order just to minimize the chances of a possible escape.

 

Because God said so?

Just because Jews lived there a *very* long time ago, doesn't mean they can kick Arabs out of lands they have lived in for hundreds of years.