The "Call them terrorists" Fad.

Originally posted by xmotex
As far as fault, I'm perfectly happy to admit both sides are quite reprehensible, in fact they deserve one another. However the fact remains that by every single news account from the area, Israel is killing far more civilians than Hezbollah.

and i am perfectly happy to admit that from the reports i've seen that, yes, israel appears to have unintentionally killed more civilians than hizbollah. but that is the fundamental difference between the two sides and the point i am trying to get across: the civilians killed by israels bombs are unintentional collateral damage, but the civilians killed by hizbollah are intentional targets. you can talk all day long about how horrible israel is because of the civilians they've accidentally killed, but they have gone farther out of their way than any other nation in history to attempt to curb the collateral damage.....even so far as to tell everyone where they are going to attack so as to give the non-combatants a chance to leave. meanwhile hizbollah continues to lob missiles into haifa and other population centers with no warning at all while hiding behind the civilians so as to cause an increase in the collateral damage.

at one time i would have said that hizbollah should not be included into the annals of terrorist organizations because they always targetted solely military targets....from the marine barracks forward. however, over the last decade they have moved the way of hamas and al qaeda by attacking civilian targets, a change of policy that moves them from a guerilla group into the terrorist category.....a policy that continues today in the current battlefield. how can you possibly compare a country which is subject to international law with a terrorist organization that follows the laws of no man?

Originally posted by snafu7700

and i am perfectly happy to admit that from the reports i've seen that, yes, israel appears to have unintentionally killed more civilians than hizbollah. but that is the fundamental difference between the two sides and the point i am trying to get across: the civilians killed by israels bombs are unintentional collateral damage, but the civilians killed by hizbollah are intentional targets. [...]

You sure it is unintentional? Because if I'm not mistaken, at the beginning someone (don't remember who) said they're bombing Lebanon to put pressure on the Lebanese government to do something about Hizbollah. I could be wrong though.

but that is the fundamental difference between the two sides and the point i am trying to get across: the civilians killed by israels bombs are unintentional collateral damage, but the civilians killed by hizbollah are intentional targets.

And you're still missing my point: that that is no difference at all.
It's a purely semantic argument that doesn't reflect reality.

The "collateral damage" is not unintentional or accidental. "Unintentional" or "accidental" would imply that they didn't expect there to be civilians at a given target when they hit it.

In reality, unless they are total fools, the targeters know they're targeting roads, apartment buildings, gas stations etc... places likely to be full of civilians who have little or nothing to do with Hezbollah and their rockets. Yet they are intentionally bombing them despite this fact.

I don't know if there is any point continuing this line of discussion.
It seems clear we're not going to convince one another.

Originally posted by snafu7700
and read my post above....you keep ignoring the fact that israel specifically stated that vehicles will be targeted so dont use them.

My apologies for ignoring it, wasn't intended to do so. It's not justifiable to target each and every car with the intention to precautionary take out Hezbollah militant. In this case it's not about whether Israel allows you to travel by car or not, it's about the mere fact Israel brutally bombs away every car trying to escape the escalation. Did the US army do the same in Iraq? Did they bomb away each and everyone traveling around during the invasion? No, you are right, they didn't.

Originally posted by Mdv2
What in gods name do you expect them to do? Walk from the Israeli border to Beirut with barely any food or water?

Originally posted by snafu7700
those who stayed did so at their own risk. besides, you know as well as i do that they dont have to get to beirut,

Really? What about the elderly and invalid people. Pretty easy to say from the side line ''If I was in that position''. You are not. Besides, most of the people in such villages don’t even have internet. Most have television yes. But no one not even you, could have expected Israeli would react in such a disproportional way on the abduction of the two soldiers.

Originally posted by snafu7700
they only need to get north of the litani river.

Watch the news very carefully. Israel targets almost every square centimeter of soil, from south to north. Yesterday farmers were killed due to an Israeli airstrike in the upper north.

Originally posted by Mdv2Haven't heard the Hezbollah ''terrorists'' have been using chemicals lately, have you? Oh, I can recommend you to click on the source to see the effect of cluster bombs on the human body. But hey, Israel cares about the Lebanese civilians ey?

Originally posted by snafu7700
your source is al jazeera.....gee, they are well known for their unbiased reports arent they? hold on, i've got a couple of sources from world nut daily to add while we are at it.

Just because Al Jazeera is an Arab broadcasting company it’s biased? Or are they biased since they actually show the terribly burned bodies of Lebanese people Western sources don’t show? I find it rather a weak excuse as the report even includes a picture of the black charred bodies, that’s not biased reporting, that’s reality. Reality caused by our human loving Israelis, which seems to prefer to worsen the scars and traumas rather than stop it as soon as possible.

Originally posted by xmotex

In reality, unless they are total fools, the targeters know they're targeting roads, apartment buildings, gas stations etc... places likely to be full of civilians who have little or nothing to do with Hezbollah and their rockets. Yet they are intentionally bombing them despite this fact.

nothing to do with hizbollah and their rockets? roads to resupply? gas stations to fill up the resupply vehicles? apartment complexes being used as headquarters, rally points, or firing positions? who is deluded here?

I don't know if there is any point continuing this line of discussion.
It seems clear we're not going to convince one another.

that much i will agree with.....agree to disagree.

Originally posted by Mdv2

My apologies for ignoring it, wasn't intended to do so. It's not justifiable to target each and every car with the intention to precautionary take out Hezbollah militant. In this case it's not about whether Israel allows you to travel by car or not, it's about the mere fact Israel brutally bombs away every car trying to escape the escalation. Did the US army do the same in Iraq? Did they bomb away each and everyone traveling around during the invasion? No, you are right, they didn't.

and as i mentioned, i am not disagreeing that bombing every car in the area is wrong. but that wasnt the point. the point is that israel warned everyone in the area that that was exactly what they intended to do, and the warnings went unheeded.

Really? What about the elderly and invalid people.

you have a point with the ederly and infirm. however, the liberal media continuously spouts garbage about hizbollah's social programs....ask yourself why they havent bothered to help get those people out of the area. personally, i think it's because by keeping them there they increase the collateral damage from israel's bombs.

Pretty easy to say from the side line ''If I was in that position''. You are not.

neither are you, so how can you say that i am wrong....we could keep going around and around with that argument.

Besides, most of the people in such villages don’t even have internet. Most have television yes. But no one not even you, could have expected Israeli would react in such a disproportional way on the abduction of the two soldiers.

again, they covered the area with leaflets, called houses, and transmitted warning via radio and television. there is absolutely no way that the lebanese in that are had no idea what was coming. as for the overused phrase "disproportionate use of force", this conflict with hizbollah has been coming for quite a long time. i personally think that israel waited too long to react to the lebanese governments inability to control hizbollah as per the agreement in which israel left lebanon in the first place. but that's just MHO.

Watch the news very carefully. Israel targets almost every square centimeter of soil, from south to north. Yesterday farmers were killed due to an Israeli airstrike in the upper north.

i have been watching and the majority of attacks have been in the hizbollah strongholds south of the litani river.

Just because Al Jazeera is an Arab broadcasting company it’s biased?

no, because it is just as one-sided as world nut daily.

Or are they biased since they actually show the terribly burned bodies of Lebanese people Western sources don’t show?

how about the terribly burned and maimed bodies of israelis? dont see that on al-jazeera. think about this: if the situation were reversed and it was israel getting its ass kicked, there would not be a single call for ceasefire from any press or country in the middle east, and probably most of europe. that is one-sided.

I find it rather a weak excuse as the report even includes a picture of the black charred bodies, that’s not biased reporting, that’s reality. Reality caused by our human loving Israelis, which seems to prefer to worsen the scars and traumas rather than stop it as soon as possible.

and again, where is al-jazeera's human interest story of israeli civilians being killed and maimed by hizbollah rockets? that's called bias.




[edit on 5-8-2006 by snafu7700]

Originally posted by lucidvisions
Not just muslims, but it seems any US citizen with an "alternate" view as well now...

Now us enviromental activists up here in the pacific northwest are being labled as "terrorists" also, just because we are trying to take a hands on approach to saving our gem of nature...It makes me sick to my stomach.. Im a terrorist for sitting up in a tree, or for having a local produce co- op.. soon im afraid anyone in this country with an "alternate" view will be rounded up as a "terrorist".

[edit on 2-8-2006 by lucidvisions]

[edit on 2-8-2006 by lucidvisions]

can you specify wich governmental branch labeled or charged you with a terror related charge please.

The way I look at it, I could fire into a crowd blindly, and not intentionally hit a certain person... but chances are, that person would probably get hit.

It's all in the way they word it.

They don't really give a **** how many civillians they kill. Sure they dont intend to kill them, but they arent exactly aiming away from them.