All I can say is wow...

http://sabbah.biz/mt/archives/2006/0...comment-188040

You do realize that people are taking those photos completely out of context right? It's addressed to the leader of Hezbollah.

If you want to play propaganda games here's some info from Saudi Arabia - SUPPOSEDLY a MODERATE ARAB government.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/13804825/

I read the whole thing, and realize (I can also read the writing on the shells), that they are not addressed to children. You can clearly see Nasrallah written on them.

And nor did I ever say that these actions are not reciprocated on the Palestinian side, I just thought that these were images that would not be seen by many in the west.

By the way, you might want to read through: http://www.newprofile.org/data/uploa...rs/English.pdf

So what do Arabian textbooks have to do with this, exactly?

I also fail to see what significance Israeli recruitment of children has on this. Israelis must perform mandatory military service, and if everybody's going to be in the service, they should be familiar with the nature of it at a young age.

Kids taking up arms sucks, but that's how the Israelis feel they need to protect themselves.

Was it supposed to phase us? If kids could write messages on artillery shells here in the states they'd probably write something like "Osama is doo doo."

It doesn't matter to whom they are addressed. It's fucking wrong to have children sign artillery shells.

That was uncalled for, Brady, and kids writing on weapons sure is a disturbing thing, no matter what they write.

Sup Mid-East : Total war...

Yeah i bet they'd make one, what with all the warsims about Iraq and the likes..

It was called Medieval: Total War.
Filthy Turks

I also don't see what was uncalled for, since you didn't really specify.

Lol - US kids would probably steal the shells and bring them to school to shoot at each other.

"Billy, where are you going with a hammer and a cone-shaped object in your backpack?"

"I'm going to school, Dad, GODDAMN WHY YOU GOTTA BE ALL UP IN MY GRILL YOU NEED TO GET OUT OF IT."

"Be back by 5, Sport."

http://img49.imageshack.us/img49/698...7214500vp2.jpg

o rly?

The fact is also that Israeli airstrikes have mostly hit civillians since the beginning of this war.

They may be civilian sites but they do have military value. They are selecting targets that are taught in very basic military tactic classes.

http://op-for.com/2006/07/prepping_the_battlespace.html

They are not hitting targets with the intent of killing as many civilians as possible unlike the rocket attacks that are coming out of Lebanon.

Just because they don't have the intent to do so doesn't mean it's perfectly justifiable to kill civilians. Of course, you might prefer to call the slaughter "prepping the battlespace" instead if you wish to.

I only meant to point out that Israel doesn't seem to be so "careful" or selective with their targeting as it's been stated here.

How can you say they aren't justified? You seem to ignore the fact that Israeli citizens are also dying and what is worse is the are being targeted indiscriminately. I think people have been spoiled by the way the US is able to conduct its wars and operations. The US has the luxury of being able to dictate the pace of their operations and take their time in carefully selecting targets all while trying to minimize civilian casualties.

Israel lacks this luxury. The more time they spend in logistics trying to pick targets with the least possible amount of civilian casualties means that many more innocent Israeli citizens are going to die from rocket/terrorist attacks. Not only that, but this type of enemy has adapted to blend into the civilian population. While the loss of innocent life is always a tragedy, I cannot understand how you don't think Israel isn't justified in civilian casualties when the person shooting at them and trying to kill them is hiding behind those civilians.

I'm not weighing these things up against each other. It's the worst thing you can do in a war. I'm not debating the Hezbollah attacks on Israel, I was just trying to argue that the airstrikes conducted by Israel aren't anywhere near as "precise" as they were made out to be. Keep in mind that out of the 500+ total casualties, only 50-100 were alleged Hezbollah fighters. And don't forget close to one million refugees and thousands of people reported missing in southern Lebanon.

And I was trying to argue this isn't true. Israel has been very precise and have hit the targets they have selected. I also pointed out that even though these are civilian targets, they were selected for their military value, not because Israel is out to kill as many civilians as they can. They aren't bombing every place just to kill Hezbollah either. Many of these are strategic bombings that will be used to help crush Hezbollah in the coming ground invasion as pointed out in the article I posted.

Are you arguing the other way because you believe civilian deaths equal an imprecise attack? That doesn't seem very logical to me if so.

I still stand by my claim. In war there are casualties, and some mistakes are made (some of these mistakes are hurting our own troops. Just a couple of days ago, some Israeli soldiers were hit by friendly fire from one of our own helicopters). It doesn't mean that we intentionally hit this ambulance and other civilians. We gain absolutely nothing from hitting civilians. Except for more political pressure to end the conflict, that is...
With over 4,000 sorties of our air crafts, some mistakes and some casualties are to be expected...

Also, you seem to forget that over 2,000 rockets have been shot by Hezbollah into Israeli territory. THESE rockets ARE aimed at civilians.
30% out of the 280,000 residents of Haifa have left their homes, and that's just Haifa. Are they not refugees? Many houses and businesses have been damaged in northern Israel. The difference is that the Israeli civilians are been targeted.

Yet it seems that you expect us to lay low and do nothing.
You can argue that the number of casualties in Israel is much lower than in Lebanon. But what did you expect? Do you want us to drop one bomb for every rocket they launch? Do you expect us to wait until we'll have enough casualties to justify the number of casualties on the other side? Did you think that our missiles will do the same damage as theirs?

It's impossible to fight terror without casualties. And as much as I'm sorry for every innocent civilian that's getting hurt (on either side). I still don't think that we are using any more force than any other country would have used in our stead, despite what they say when it's not them that is being attacked.

That's some nice bombin', Lou.

But seriously, red crosses provide such excellent and convenient aiming points, don't they?

I'm honestly not so sure about that. If this happened once or twice, maybe it could be wracked up to honest mistakes. But that isn't the case, and it keeps happening. Israeli forces have attacked numerous convoys of refugees as they fled southern Lebanon; these convoys existed to be attacked in the first place because the Israelis strongly advised them to leave the area lest they find themselves in the line of fire. Accidents that keep happening generally aren't unless the people having them are really incompetent. Of all the things Israel has been accused of, incompetence has never been one of them.

Israel's campaign also looks less and less like it is intended to simply fight Hezbollah. The airport has been bombed, the country is under a blockade, and among the various other Lebanese civilian infrastructure destroyed is a dairy factory, of all things. None of this hurts Hezbollah, unless they raise a significant amount of money through sales of dairy products (which is in the realm of possibility, I suppose). On the other hand, it does serve to very neatly strangle Lebanon.

This calls into question whether Israel considers a stable Lebanon to be in its interests as you have said, ofirov. Israel's current actions, however much damage they do to Hezbollah, ultimately do more to Lebanon. On the other hand, the other option presented would be just as bad for Lebanon; ordering the Lebanese Army to disarm Hezbollah, by force if necessary, would serve to spark a new civil war, with the resulting instability it would bring.

At some point, the homeowner must take responsibility for bad tenents. I think that no one disagree's with the fact that Lebanese citizens are being harmed and Lebanon as a whole is paying for the war against Hezbollah.

If Israel remains comitted to it's campaign until the finish, Lebanon will have no choice but to disarm Hezbollah's military wing and stop electing its politcians for the sake of the rest of the country. If Israel pulls out now, NOTHING will have been accomplished other than furthur emboldening Hezbollah.

[quote]
Also..

In Chemotherapy, how many good cells are killed off compared to bad cells? If you want to deal with the cancer, you have no choice.

I don't expect you to lay low and do nothing. Some of us live in the real world where there ARE people out there willing to kill you just for religion or national identity.

In my book, the defender can use an unlimited amount of force to get the attacker off you. It's amazing how much crap Israel gets considering how many times your neighbors have tried to remove you from the world atlas.

Source: reuters.com

Comparing yourself to Hezbollah is futile. Do you honestly think the deliberate killing of civilians ist justified because Hezbollah does the same? By this logic, you are terrorists yourselves. There is no denying that Hezbollah's attacks are wrong, but they don't make your actions any more right!

On the other hand, if Israel doesn't go to war against Hezbollah, then they become victims, which still means that nobody is right.

No, but a solid, armed U.N. mission to southern Lebanon and supporting Beirut establish a stable and substantial government could have been an alternative worth considering. Isolating Lebanon and Syria only sparks the flames in this conflict.

And encouraging Lebanon to move against Hezbollah starts a new civil war, particularly since UN forces act under peacekeeping criteria. That kind of situation would require peacemakers, and there's no guarantee that such a mission would take place to begin with. It didn't happen last year when Hezbollah launched rocket attacks to cover an abduction attempt.

Then the U.N. needs to get their shit together and start an armed mission to southern Lebanon with the support from E.U., U.S., Israel, Lebanon and a solid mandate. Isn't this what's being discussed and planned right now? Didn't Israel sort of agree to a U.N. mission? I think we can all agree that Hezbollah needs to be disarmed now, but doing so by destroying the foundation of a prosperous and secure Lebanon isn't exactly a clever solution.

On the other hand, that is precisely the action that has forced the UN to deem it necessary to intervene.

Did anybody see Simon Peres' interview on CNN?

I loved when he said "The purpose of this mission is to destabilize Iran"

Then looked around, sorta made an "O-shit!" look, and then after being prompted, goes "err, Hezbollah, yeah."

Yay for freudian slips!