Would Americans find it acceptable fo the NYC Police to blow up some

[Toots]

housing districts because some criminal elements lived and operated out of them? That is basically what is going on in Lebonon. I doubt seriously Americans would allow such here in America but chant USA USA when it happens in a foreign country. I sympathise with Police around our country and with Israel when it comes to their problem of searching out the bad people and holding them accountable for their actions but when even one innocent life gets taken because they feel the need for revenge then they lose all credebility IMO. This is a world wide Police problem and there needs to be a world wide police force equiped to deal with terrorism and other world crimes (war crimes). I don't know if the USA should be that police force or not but someone has to step up to the plate as the UN doesn't seem able to accomplish much. What is going on now both in Lebonon and Iraq is simply not acceptable. It is as if the Mafia were doing the Policing. This is not a war and military should not be involved. This is a Police Problem although a huge one granted but still a police problem and the world needs to deal with it yesterday...

[The Stranger]

1. Well struck.

[ixion]

2. The 'American People' wouldn't tolerate a tenth of what we inflict

on the rest of the world. :-(

[Solo_in_MD]

22. Americans would not have tolerate a militia attacking a neighbor

and a large region out of control of the national government either. Not sure you can make a valid analogy.

The Minutemen != Hezbollah

[daydreamer]

26. Why did that Militia attack that neighbor?

[Solo_in_MD]

32. If its an illegal militia, does it matter?

[daydreamer]

42. Was and is the Isreali occupation legal?

[Solo_in_MD]

44. The Israeli efforts have at least a veneer of legitimacy, more in

some peoples eyes, less in others. Hezbollah being an illegal militia has none whatsoever. Told to disarm by the UN, it has refused. Nasrallah has said he will scorch the earth of Lebanon before Hezbollah will disarm. They are also not complying with direction from the legitimate government of Lebanon. There is no semblance of parity as a prior poster inferred.

That does not mean I support what Israel is currently doing, but giving any legitimacy to Hezbollah is specious

[daydreamer]

55. What do you mean by "a veneer of legitimacy"? Israel contributed

to the founding of Hezbollah through their last barbaric invasion of Lebanon. But of course, winners write the laws so whatever Israel does is legitimate.

[bryant69]

3. Maybe you should have told that to Lebanon before this all happened?

I mean Lebanon knew those Hezbollah fucks were down there didn't they? Why didn't they send their police down there to take care of this "police problem?"

Bryant
Check it out --> http://politicalcomment.blogspot.com

[Toots]

5. So you are saying anyone living in a housing project should be killed

because they are aware of criminal elements in their projects? Maybe they are afraid, maybe they feel the police already know about the criminals but catching them all takes time, but according to you all the innocents should die because they just happen to live there. :shrug: Whatever!

[bryant69]

12. So Hezbollah should be allowed to terrorize Israel

Just because they happen to live in a country that choses not to catch them? Israel should basically have to put up with rockets falling on their country, because Lebanon lacks the will to do anything about catching Hezbollah? Whatever.

Bryant

[The Stranger]

31. Their group formed during Israel's LAST occupation of Lebanon.

When THEY were the ones being TERRORIZED.

[daydreamer]

27. Read a little history about how the Hizb Allah was founded

before you make a comment like that.

[bryant69]

28. Presumably the right sort of histry?

Any works you suggest?

[The Stranger]

30. You could start anywhere and it would be progress.

[bryant69]

35. So I take it you support Hezbollah? Or am I reading you wrong?

[The Stranger]

38. I ask you to get educated on a subject and you accuse me of supporting Hez

bollah?

Nice.

Or were you feigning ignorance all along just to take a shot at me?

[bryant69]

41. I asked a question, I didn't accuse anybody.

A question you didn't answer, I note. But I take from the general tone of your comments you oppose them.

[The Stranger]

53. I note that the question contained an implied accusation.

It appears to be a common tactic: The Neocons commonly accuse Progressives of supporting terrorism -- John Ashcroft comes to mind.

Are you a Neocon?

[bryant69]

54. Nope and this is kind of mirror tactic isn't it?

[daydreamer]

43. Do you support the Israeli massacre?

[bryant69]

48. Yep - I sure do.

After all, questioning the validity of Hezbollah means one supports the slaugter of Muslims.

What could be more logical?

[The Stranger]

29. You are kidding, right?

If not, you might try to learn more about their internal politics before posting.

[unblock]

4. didn't the philadelphia police do this like 20 years ago?

"move"?

[Tace]

9. See Link Below

I was putting my post together when you posted. Chrs

[Rosemary2205]

6. Actually Atlanta basically did just that.

They used the 1996 Olympics as an excuse to buy out and bulldoze whole neighborhoods full of crack houses and gangs and turn it into Olympic Village or Centennial Park, the new Turner field etc.

I don't know where the gangs and crack hos went but they are someone else's problem now.

Edit -- well I should say condemn and emminent domain -- not so much buy out.

[Tace]

7. This Happened In Philadelphia About 20 Years Ago

Police burned down an entire city block that was inhabited by a group they considered to be criminal. They did it with men, women and children inside. Eleven people died. See the 1985 incident here:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/MOVE#Confrontation_Leads_Police_to_Bomb_MOVE_House

[Minstrel Boy]

8. It happened in Phiadelphia. Remember MOVE?

MOVE Bombing gallery

I think, if the neighbourhoods were far enough away and most victims a different colour, a lot of people would be okay with it. Sadly.

[Totallybushed]

10. Israel is

not conducting a police raid, but war.

You analogy does not hold.

Revenge is not the issue in Israel's, but national survival and, as a specific point, the return of their soldiers without rewarding the terrorist hostage-takers.

This simply is not a 'police' problem for a number of reasons. One is that there is no international police force with police powers.

[Mandate My Ass]

11. Actually the neighbors had been screaming at the cops to do something

for a very long time before that raid. The people who had to live on that block hated MOVE. The police overdid it, but it was done at the behest of the complaints they received over a long period of time.

[Totallybushed]

13. I think you replied

to the wrong post. I said nothing about MOVE.

[Mandate My Ass]

14. oops, my bad

you're right, I was replying to the previous posters. :hi:

[Totallybushed]

17. No problemo n/t

[Toots]

15. When you are dealing with civilians it is a police problem

I don't care how well armed they are they are still civilians. They are not the army of a country. That is what war is, fighting another country with uniformed troops that answers to their government. They would not even refer to Vietnam as a war although we were engaged with the third largest army at the time. It was called the Vietnam Conflict. If the police had to fight against a Militia say from Montana would you call that a war as well? I wouldn't even if they wore uniforms and had better armament than the cops. Maybe I am just splitting hairs here but to me War is something that happens between countries and not just people with guns.

[Totallybushed]

16. Well, I think not.

Israel is at war.

Lebanon has an obligation, both morally and by international law, to prevent attacks on another country from originating on its territory. Due both to a lack of will and a lack of strength, they have failed to do so. Under international law, Israel has the right to defend itself, and to invade the territory where the attacks have originated.

The civilian casualties, under international law, are the responsibility of the combatants who are using them as shields. Israel is entitled, under international law, to attack Hezbollah, regardless of whether or not they are hiding behind their women's burqas, or not.

The only stipulation, under international law, is that the civilian casualties show not be disproportionate to the military objective. That is, the military objective must justify the collateral damage.

"Disproportionate" does NOT mean that if Hezbollah kills 8 Israelis, the Israelis can only kill 8 Lebanese. No, once the attack has been made, Israel, or any country, is entitled to fight until the threat no longer exists.

That's war. Not a police action. And it doesn't matter what you or I call it.

On edit: One further problem. Police can be used only where the government has already established a monopoly of force.

[Solo_in_MD]

23. Concur

The only stipulation, under international law, is that the civilian casualties show not be disproportionate to the military objective. That is, the military objective must justify the collateral damage.

Israel can clearly justify its targeting strategy and that it has tried to minimize civilian casualties. Those who are claiming war crimes do not understand the details here.

Still, that does not make the impact less devastating or the dead less dead. I understand why Israel is doing it. That does not mean that the carnage doesn't make me heartsick

[Totallybushed]

45. Well, the carnage makes

everyone heartsick. But the fault lies with Hezbollah, not Israel.

[Solo_in_MD]

49. More than enough blame to go around

- Hezbollah and its backers, Syria & Iran
- Israel
- UN
- Lebanon
- Others including Saudi Arabia

All own various sized shares of this.

[Totallybushed]

51. Nope, it

all belongs to Hezbollah.

They initiated this round of violence. Everybody else may have made some unwise choices, but are in no sense reposnible for what Hezbollah deliberately did.

Spreading the blame around just ensures that the actual prepetrators of hatred and violence will never be called to account.

[treestar]

24. Where do you get this duty to prevent attacks?

If the government is too weak to prevent them, what would you have them do? Or what would you have the civilians do? They have a right to their own survival first, right? I don't spend my time figuring out how the Mexicans should survive.

If you claim they really could prevent the attacks, then back it up.

[Igel]

39. If they can't prevent the attacks, then two things

hold true.

1. They can ask for help. In Lebanon's case, the first complaint was that it might lead to civil war. "Too weak" was "too weak to easily deal with Hezbollah." However, in the last year, instead of calling for disarming the militia, the official government line is also they're proud of the resistance. "Too weak" is for westerners and anti-Hezb folk, "proud of the resistance" is for Lebanese and pro-Hezb folk.

In this case, Lebanon was too weak--or afraid, or supportive--to even stop transshipments of arms and Iranian trainers through non-Hezbollah-controlled territory.

2. They pull back and let others deal with their problem. They stop shielding the militia. Every time Israel reacted to a Hezbollah provocation, Lebanon was right there condemning Israel and claiming their sovereignty was violated. So Lebanon was too weak to assert sovereignty over S. Lebanon, but when Hezbollah was threatened could claim that Lebanese sovereignty protected Hezbollah.

[Totallybushed]

46. I don't know, but I think

that there is willful misunderstanding on this board about the Israeli situation.

Nobody said that Lebanon had the ability to stop Hezbollah, only that they had a duty to, per international law.

But whatever the reason, Israel has a right to have it stopped, or to stop it. Which they are doing. THey don't have to be 'proportionate' in that they can only kill 1 civilain for every that Hezbollah kills. They have an obligation to try to protect even lebanese civilians. But they don't have an obligation to ensure that NO lebanese civilians are killed when they TARGET combatants. They have to be 'proportionate' only in relation to the military value of the target vs. the number of civilains killed.

Which seems to me to leave a LOT of room for disagreement on what 'disproportionate' actually is. So why should your or Chirac's or the EU's or anybody else's be more accurate than the Isralei's??

Sure the civilians have a right to survive. didn't Israel warn them to leave?

[laura888]

33. So...all of Israeli's civilians victims are...

...caused because Hezbelloh fighters are "hiding behind their women's burqas."

Wow. That's just crazy. Would you say that the UN peacekeepers were also doing the same?

[Totallybushed]

47. No, the Israeli

civilians are victims of Hezbollah rockets.

However, yes, I think that if Hezbollah did not hide in civilian areas, or use UN 'peace-keepers' as human shields, then most of the civilian victims would still be alive. The fault that they are not belongs solely to Hezbollah.

[Fredda Weinberg]

18. Police do not fight militias

In the history of the United States, the army fought native Americans as we expanded.

[Totallybushed]

20. delete, Sorry,

I thought you were responding to me

[laura888]

36. Wow. Your analogy is telling.

In the 1800s American Indians were seen as "terrorists."

Today, they are seen as unfortunate victims.

[acmejack]

21. I have to take issue with you over your Vietnam analogy

Who were you fighting? and where? "the third largest army at the time" That certainly couldn't be the Viet Cong, nor could it be the NVRN.

[stray cat]

19. Borders between nations do make a difference

If groups were killing people in the states the police would be able to take action much more quickly before the group lobbed thousands of rockets at other cities and occupied territory the size of a a small state.

[treestar]

25. But the point of the original post seems to be

more general:

when do you let innocent people suffer because evil people are among them?

Frankly, I think the decent answer is that you let the bad guys survive. It may not be my fault, even, that terrorists lurk in my neighborhood. I don't see anyone having a right to kill me because of that.

So there has to be another way, and I think it disingenuous of the Israel is always right side to pretend there isn't, or to not even try to think of one.

[Igel]

40. I don't know what the OP would say,

but I don't think that you have a right to kill those the bad guys are hiding (or simply) living among.

A right to do something means that it's more than just acceptable to do it. It's explicit permission to do something, one that nobody can infringe on without good cause.

In this case, the general view is that while you don't have a right to kill or destroy so as to produce "damage" "along side" the targets, you're also not culpable if you do so. The culpability lies with the bad guys. As long as the "along-side destruction and deaths" aren't excessive compared with the military advantage, that is.

[Tom Joad]

34. To be fair to Hilary Clinton, she would be consistant and favor such

a remedy in New York as well, most likely.

She certainly favors displacing hundreds of thousands of people of Lebanon, the killing of hundreds, including many children, the destruction of thousands of homes. Its just the kind of person she is.

in other words, AIPAC'S dreamboat. StopAIPAC.org

[ayeshahaqqiqa]

37. Remember when the cops in Philly

accidentally created a firestorm when they went to take out a small group of black folk (were they called MOVE or something like that?) As I recall, a whole neighborhood was destroyed, and there was a BIG stink about it?

[Name removed]

50. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Sgent]

52. Yes

See the Civil War.

Armed, unlawful insurgents are not allowed to attack others in this country -- or any other with a rule of law.