Israel warns they will hit terrorists amongst civilians with extreme force

[bigtree]

09/08/2006

The Israeli military has warned residents of southern Lebanon to leave the area or they'll face fierce attack.

Middle East Correspondent David Hardaker reports from Haifa, Israel's Defence Forces have dropped leaflets over southern Lebanon telling residents to be off the roads.

The leaflets warn that Israel will use extreme force to hit what they call terrorists who Israel says might be hiding amongst civilians.

http://www.radioaustralia.net.au/news/stories/s1710090.htm


related:

Israeli strike kills 14

Tue Aug 8, 2006 5:13 PM BST

BEIRUT (Reuters) - Israeli air raids killed 14 people and wounded 23 in the southern village of Ghaziyeh, rescue workers and hospital officials said. The bombs fell as mourners were burying 15 people killed by a raid there the previous day. They struck targets that were not in the immediate vicinity of the funeral.

Fallen masonry was still hampering a search for bodies or survivors in a Beirut suburb struck by an air raid on Monday.

Brigadier-General Darwish Hobeika, head of Lebanon's civil defence, told Reuters 17 bodies had been recovered and a score of people were still missing in rubble in the Shiyah district.

Israeli bombing and the ban on vehicle movement have hurt efforts to help civilians displaced or trapped by the fighting.

http://today.reuters.co.uk/news/articlenews.aspx?type=worldNews&storyid=2006-08-08T161251Z_01_L069031_RTRUKOC_0_UK-MIDEAST.xml&src=rss

[Skidmore]

1. So they will hit civilians with extreme force...

how big of them to warn. Katrina with bombs.

[DoYouEverWonder]

4. But the Israelis don't target civilians

:sarcasm:

[Beelzebud]

2. I'm an anti-semite for being against this!!!!

I need to just keep reminding myself that war is GOOD, and violence is GOOD, and murdering civilians is GOOOOOOOD.

If only I accept this particular violence, then maybe one day I'll come to accept, and love, all of God's work we are doing in Iraq!

Soon. The Neo-Conservative dream will come true. We just have believe in it, and learn to LOVE war!

[atreides1]

10. No

You're an anti-semite for being against Israel.

This statement was sponsored by the COS(Committee on Sarcasm)

[atreides1]

3. Is this considered intentional....

....targeting of civilians, or does warning them give the Israelis a pass, like the "we dropped leaflets" excuse did.

[treestar]

11. Good point. Even if they dropped leaflets, imagine having to

leave your house! Like that isn't going to stir the ill will by itself! Do they really think these people are saying "Gee, the poor Israelis have to protect themselves! I'm willing to have my life turned upside down to accomdate that."

[Totallybushed]

23. As if having to

leave your house were the worst thing to happen in a war zone.

Frankly, if I were there and able to get out< I would. The fact that some can't speaks far more ill of the Lebanese, and in particular of Hezbollah, than it does of the Israelis. IMHO, of course.

[treestar]

29. It's still a pretty big thing to ask

How does it speak ill of the Lebanese if they can't get out of their homes? Does it speak ill of them collectively?

[Totallybushed]

33. Yes, collectively.

Or rather, institutionally.

Why aren't there organized efforts to get them out? Shades of Bush/Katrina.

Why does Hezbollah (mostly Lebanese, am I correct?) refuse to let them go? Why do they hide behind them?

I'm not saying that they are not in a hard situation, they are, and deserve any help we can give them. But their government is responsible for allowing Hezbollah to arm in their state territory, and to attack Israel. What is Israel supposed to do? Grin and take it? Why is a Lebanese life worth more than an Israeli one?

[bigtree]

35. 600,000 refugees

the line you used has no basis in fact. There is NO evidence that Hizbollah are refusing to let them go.

ALL of the reports say that it is the bombing of roads and bridges, sea and air routes, that have the Lebanese boxed in.

I don't appreciate the distortion at all.

[Totallybushed]

42. Nor do I appreciate

yours. But that's what the debate is all about.

[bigtree]

45. I've made no assertion that I can't back up with a credible source

not so with your assertion that Hizbollah is preventing the innocent civilians to flee the deadly destruction and death that comes with Israel's airstrikes into populated areas of Lebanon.

[Totallybushed]

48. Yep, any

source that contradicts your pre-conceived notions is "not credible", isn't it?

[bigtree]

51. that, again, is an assertion without any basis in fact.

[Ms. Clio]

61. since you don't seem to have any sources at all

I think we can judge who is credible and who is not.

[Ms. Clio]

60. put up a link to prove your assertions

and I mean a credible source.

[Totallybushed]

71. Why don't

you inform me of which assertions of mine need to be documented??

I've said nothing that isn't obvious by the news coming from any newssource. I don't need to source my own opinions as to what the facts mean and how to interpret them.

So. Tell me what facts I have stated that you disagree with. Then tell me what you would consider a reliable source, so that I canget the information from there.

Finally. What makes you think you can make demands upon me?

[Ms. Clio]

91. Other people provide links, and you call them Hezbollah supporters

Perhaps you are not aware that unlike the wingnutosphere, this is a forum where credible evidence is usually required to back up assertions. If you don't have any credible links, then that will reflect upon your own credibility.

You made the bullshit claim that Hezbollah was not allowing refugees to flee south Lebanon. Put up a CREDIBLE link to prove that it. It's just that simple.

[Totallybushed]

96. lol.

:rofl:


Look. I could provide you with links. They will disagree with what you say, and you will denounce them as "non-credible" without trying to answer the arguments.

Sort of like what the RW nuts did with Dan Rather. I've been down that road before.

Here's the thing. Provide with with some sources that you would consider "credible". I will examine them and find the evidence that I need to back my assertions from your own sources. Then there can be no ad hominem attacks either on me, or on the sources.

I'm really tired of doing in depth research to back my arguments, then have it dismissed without a single counter-argument or attempt to examine the evidence because it's from a "non-credible' source. Not particularly here on DU, I haven't been here long enough to have gotten involved in this much here. But on some other blogs and forums. Still, I've read a lot and know it happens here.

Here's the thing, though. I want to consider the sources to be credible, myself. Please avoid any and all links with Lebanese "civilians" claiming that no Hezbollah were there. Or with emotional appeals. Why would the "civilians" say anything else? And emotion has no place in the logic of why this war is being fought, or how it should be fought.

[Ms. Clio]

100. Yes, LOL indeed -- all that boils down to is that you don't have any links

from credible sources.

You're right, that is hilarious.

[samhsarah]

72. OH.MY.FU*KING.GOD.

Sick, just SICK.

[Totallybushed]

81. I agree, totally.

Hezbollah is sick.

[samhsarah]

85. I wasn't talking about Hezbollah.

[Totallybushed]

89. I know.

But I like to speak truth.

[Ms. Clio]

93. no, you like truthiness

[samhsarah]

84. self-delete

[msmcghee]

64. If they can get into their homes . . .

. . they can get out. War is unimaginably terrible for civilians caught in the middle. That's why people who start wars should face severe consequences - like death. They should face worse than death if that were possible - for starting wars that intentionally trap civilians in the war zone - as the Hizbollah scum have done here.

[bigtree]

65. They don't seem to be killing Hizbollah so much as they are those left

Our own government acknowledges that the Lebanese government didn't have anything to do with the Hizbollah attacks, and, by extension that would include the majority of the Lebanese civilians. Certainly the children, the elderly, and the infirm didn't deserve to die.

There's more than a small question of whether the targets selected by Israel from the air were, in fact, military targets which could be justified within the international laws governing such engagements. At any rate, there have certainly been an excessive number of civilians killed in this short time without any noticible effect on Hizbollah's ability to launch rockets into Israel. I wonder just how much room Israel should have to continue their air war in light of their horrible failure to protect and preserve the lives of the innocent civilians caught underneath of their missiles?

I think it's an amazing notion that Hizbollah is trapping the civilians in the war zone when it is Israel who is being cited by all of the aid agencies for destroying roads, bridges, and other exit routes. Now the order from Israel is that there should be NO traffic at all.

Further, Human Rights Watch has documented numerous cases where they say the Israelis struck civilian areas where there were no Hizbollah combatants operating. I suggest that you review the Geneva Convention Protocol 1 which lays down the law regarding the protection of civilians. I challenge you to show me where Israel is adhereing to those provisions.

[msmcghee]

66. Unless Israel is intentionally targeting civilians . .

. . who were not sheltering or caring for Hisbollah combatants then Israel is justified in going after any reasonable target, especially after warning civilians. You can question the reasonableness of a target - but unless IDF were ordered to attack civilians those would be individual war crimes (if proven) and are not relevant to Israel's efforts to defend herslf generally.

I guess I missed the news story where Hizbollah notifies each town in Israel before it fires a barrage of anti-personnel missiles toward it. Those are war crimes BTW.

During war things are never clear. Hizbollah set up in areas where it would be very difficult to separate them from civilians - and they did that on purpose. They did it to cause the very civilian deaths you are seeing that were inevitable if Israel chose to strike back after Hizbollah's outrageous provocation.

If you really care about civilian deaths you will:

a) Condemn Hizbollah for starting a war that was guaranteed to result in so many civilian deaths on both sides as part of their strategy, and

b) Fully support Israel's efforts to neutralize Hizbollah any way possible - and as soon as possible.

Those are the only two things that will reduce the number of civilian deaths in the weeks and months ahead. If Hizbollah is not destroyed the next stage of this will probably be a conflict that will turn the whole ME into an Arab/Israeli war zone from Afghanistan to Gaza and millions of civilians will die. The vast majority of those will be Arab Shiites.

Certainly you don't want that and neither do I. That's the reality as I see it. Please explain to me any other reasonable scenario. I'd like to see it.

[bigtree]

67. I've done my share of condeming Hizbollah, but we claim to be different

As far as 'neutralizing' Hizbollah, I would refer you to our nation's bloody campaign in Vietnam in which our application of extreme force did not eliminate or neutralize the insurgents.

I think we should have immediately enlisted the Lebanese forces as we are now looking to do and bolster their efforts with some international contingent. Hell, Israel could have done this at the outset, but they opted for a full scale assault on Lebanon and Lebanon's infrastructure. It has had little noticible effect on Hizbollah's ability to launch strikes into Israel and it has alienated the very folks Israel will need to guarantee their safety and security in the future.

The Hizbollah strategy of staging military operations from civilian areas isn't new. It was contemplated in the Geneva accords. It is against the accords to do so. But the fact of their operation from these areas isn't automatic licence to overrun any and all in the way of the target. If there is any anticipation that civilians will be hit there is to be a balancing of the objective against the lives anticipated to be at risk.

That's the objection that Lebanese are operating under. There isn't enough evidence that there are sufficiently threatening targets in these civilian areas which are being hit by the airstrikes which pose a concrete and direct threat to Israel.

Also, Israel is seen operating outside of the protocol which mandates that, "those which employ a method or means of combat the effects of which cannot be limited as required by this Protocol; and consequently, in each such case, are of a nature to strike military objectives and civilians or civilian objects without distinction." Disproportionate force.

[msmcghee]

68. Good points, but we have to condemn aggression, IMO.

"As far as 'neutralizing' Hizbollah, I would refer you to our nation's bloody campaign in Vietnam in which our application of extreme force did not eliminate or neutralize the insurgents."

In Viet Nam we were fighting a war of choice thousands of miles from our border. We could lose - we did - and go home and quit fighting. Israel can't. If Viet Nam were British Columbia you might have a point.

"I think we should have immediately enlisted the Lebanese forces as we are now looking to do and bolster their efforts with some international contingent. Hell, Israel could have done this at the outset, but they opted for a full scale assault on Lebanon and Lebanon's infrastructure. It has had little noticeable effect on Hizbollah's ability to launch strikes into Israel and it has alienated the very folks Israel will need to guarantee their safety and security in the future."

As I understand it Israel has been begging Lebanon not to let Hizbollah set up in S. Lebanon for years and warning of the serious danger of that. Israel has also made many requests of the UNSC. Israel was ignored. Instead the Lebanese elected two Hizbollah delegates to their legislature.

I am not an apologist for Israel. I know Israel has made many mistakes. I don't think this very deadly situation that has already resulted in possibly up to 1000 civilian deaths can fairly be blamed on Israel. In fact, I think it is very dangerous for the prospects of world peace to do so.

"The Hizbollah strategy of staging military operations from civilian areas isn't new. It was contemplated in the Geneva accords. It is against the accords to do so. But the fact of their operation from these areas isn't automatic licence to overrun any and all in the way of the target. If there is any anticipation that civilians will be hit there is to be a balancing of the objective against the lives anticipated to be at risk."

Yes. But in balancing that any international court would have to take into account the fact that Hizbollah was firing missiles at civilians in Israel contemporaneously. Under those conditions the defending party must have great latitude to stop them. This was not a reprisal - it was a defensive act to prevent the deaths of Israeli civilians who were being targeted every day.

"That's the objection that Lebanese are operating under. There isn't enough evidence that there are sufficiently threatening targets in these civilian areas which are being hit by the airstrikes which pose a concrete and direct threat to Israel."

Of course the evidence is scarce. Hizbolah has had several years to make it that way. That's their intent so it seems ambigous and Israel can be blamed for wantonly killing Lebanese civilians - instead of doing what they have to to defend their own.

"Also, Israel is seen operating outside of the protocol which mandates that, "those which employ a method or means of combat the effects of which cannot be limited as required by this Protocol; and consequently, in each such case, are of a nature to strike military objectives and civilians or civilian objects without distinction." Disproportionate force."

Since Hizbollah are known to set up inside civilian areas to fire missiles at Israeli civilians - I think any international court would give great leeway to Israel trying to stop them under very difficult and confusing conditions. I may be wrong but after this is over we'll probably have a chance to see who was right. If any of us are still alive, that is.

Thanks for engaging this debate by attacking my ideas and not me personally. I respect that. I know I'm in the small minority here. I really want to see the fewest number of civilians hurt and killed over the next several months. Asking Israel to stop before some means of neutralizing Hisbollah is in place - I think will cause many more civilian deaths down the road than we have seen so far.

[Totallybushed]

77. Why is this so

difficult for so many people here to understand?

I don't get it.

[bigtree]

31. nowhere for them to go, TB

ever heard of the Killing Fields?

[Totallybushed]

34. North,

they should go north.

The "Killing Fields". Wasn't that in Cambodia, or some place? Didn't the Communist guerillas take innocent and unarmed civilian prisoners and "enemies of the people" out to some convenient spot adn slaughter them like pigs?

What comparison are you making?

[bigtree]

37. the Israelis are boxing the Lebanese civilians in and striking them

without distinguishing between civilians and Hizbollah combatants.

Their defense minister has said that anyone who remains in south Lebanon is Hizbollah, despite the fact that the ones left are the elderly, the infirm, and the disabled. Now they say they are going to push farther north, Many of the civilians have fled to Syria, many are unable.

Just what do you make of a warning to stay in their homes and off of the roads as the Israeli bomb their villages? Many homes have been flattened. In fact the Israelis announced their intention to 'flatten' villages in preparation for their ground attacks.

[Totallybushed]

43. I f Hezbollah

cared about the civilians, it would seperate out from them.

Israelis, unlike Hezbollah and Hamas, have no interest in killing civilians. In fact, they go to extreme measures to avoid doing so, if possible. But they are in a war for national survival, and they have to prosecute it as such.

[bigtree]

47. extreme measures? over 600 killed. not very effective if true

of course, the results of their violence speaks against that assertion.

I don't see the purpose in comparing Israel's actions to Hizbollah's. Why use Hizbollah's actions as a standard from which to measure Israel?

[Totallybushed]

49. Really, the

issue is not "how many" civilians were killed. The issue is: were they killed deliberately, targeted as civilians, or were they killed by mistake, because the were acting as, or being used as human shields, or just the the "fog of war".

It is a tragedy, every civilian killed, but the deaths are not all crimes. I tire of having to explain this.

Look, if you back you car over your mother on purpose, you are a murderer. If, on the other hand, you just didn't see her, you are not. Either way, it's pretty bad for your mother, but the moral dimensions are not the same.:shrug:

[bigtree]

50. that's not the way the law works, nor should it

I suggest you review the applicable international laws. Of course, neither Israel nor Hizbollah are party to any international agreement in any tribunal who would prosecute such crimes, but they are in violation, as is Hizbollah, for their assaults on civilian areas. The only exception that would allow the air assaults into populated areas would be in immediate defense. That's not the pattern with most of Israel's reprisals. Immediate defense has been stretched to include areas which are far out of range of Israel for Hizbollah's rockets.

I remember the free-fire zones of the Vietnam war and how that concept was abused by our military.


"Free fire zones as defined by Department of Defense doctrine and the rules of engagement are a severe violation of the laws of war for two reasons. First, they violate the rule against direct attack of civilians by presuming that after civilians are warned to vacate a zone, then anyone still present may lawfully be attacked. The rule prohibiting direct attacks on civilians provides no basis for a party to a conflict to shift the burden by declaring a whole zone to be “civilian free.” And second, they violate the rule against indiscriminate attack by presuming without justification in the law that warning civilians to leave eliminates the legal requirements to discriminate in targeting its weapons.

Indiscriminate attack is a defined war crime under the 1977 Additional Protocol I to the 1949 Geneva Conventions. An indiscriminate attack is one in which the attacker does not take measures to avoid hitting non-military objectives, that is, civilians and civilian objects. Protocol I states: “Parties to the conflict shall at all times distinguish between the civilian population and combatants and between civilian objects and military objectives and accordingly shall direct their operations only against military objectives.”

http://www.crimesofwar.org/thebook/free-fire-zones.html

[Totallybushed]

52. Did you know

that the Geenva conventions permit an attack on a hospital, if said hospital is being used for military purposes?

Did you know that it is a war crime for combatants to hide among civilians, or use civilians as human shield? Did you know that legally, the other combatant can attack, anyway. Did you know that the primary responsibility for ensuring the safety of civilians is the authority in control of them? That would be the government of Lebanon and Hezbollah.

Did you know that Israel is not engaged in law enforcement, but is fighting a war?

Do you really think that Israel intentionally targets civilians? If that offends you, then why aren't you protesting Hezbollah and screaming at them?

[bigtree]

53. of course, all of that is still subject to the protocols

Protocol I states: “Parties to the conflict shall at all times distinguish between the civilian population and combatants and between civilian objects and military objectives and accordingly shall direct their operations only against military objectives.”

[Totallybushed]

56. But,

they can attack the military objective, regardless of whether or not civilians might be harmed. Which just shows that Israel is doing it right, as they are atttacking only perceived military targets, while Hezbollah is doing it wrong, with their unguided rockets that might hit a cow or a child, and they would prefer the child.

On edit: Is there something in there that I missed about mistakes not being allowed?

[bigtree]

58. that's not what the Geneva Convention states. read the Protocol 1 again

one account from HRW: http://www.adnki.com/index_2Level_English.php?cat=Politics&loid=8.0.327455106&par=0

The newly published HWR report, 'Fatal Strikes: Israel’s Indiscriminate Attacks Against Civilians in Lebanon' studied more than 20 incidents during the current war in Lebanon that began after guerrillas from militant Lebanese Shiite group Hezbollah captured two Israeli soldiers in a cross-border raid on 12 July.

"Israeli forces have systematically failed to distringuish between combatants and civilians in their campaigns," the report concludes. It is based on extensive interviews with victims and witnesses of attacks, visits to some blast sites, and information obtained from hospitals, humanitarian groups, security forces and government agencies.

Human Rights Watch researchers found "numerous" cases in which the IDF launched artillery and air attacks "with limited or dubious military objectives but excessive civilian cost." The group called for "an end to indiscriminate strikes on civilians."

"The Israeli government has blamed Hezbollah for the high civilian casualty toll in Lebanon, insisting that Hezbollah fighters have hidden themselves and their weapons among the civilian population. However, in none of the cases of civilian deaths documented in the report is there evidence to suggest that Hezbollah was operating in or around the area during or prior to the attack," HWR said.

the law:

Article 51: Protection of the Civilian Population

1. The civilian population and individual civilians shall enjoy general protection against dangers arising from military operations. To give effect to this protection, the following rules, which are additional to other applicable rules of international law, shall be observed in all circumstances.
2. The civilian population as such, as well as individual civilians, shall not be the object of attack. Acts or threats of violence the primary purpose of which is to spread terror among the civilian population are prohibited.
3. Civilians shall enjoy the protection afforded by this Section, unless and for such time as they take a direct part in hostilities.
4. Indiscriminate attacks are prohibited. Indiscriminate attacks are:
1. those which are not directed at a specific military objective;
2. those which employ a method or means of combat which cannot be directed at a specific military objective; or
3. those which employ a method or means of combat the effects of which cannot be limited as required by this Protocol; and consequently, in each such case, are of a nature to strike military objectives and civilians or civilian objects without distinction.
5. Among others, the following types of attacks are to be considered as indiscriminate:
1. an attack by bombardment by any methods or means which treats as a single military objective a number of clearly separated and distinct military objectives located in a city, town, village or other area containing a similar concentration of civilians or civilian objects; and
2. an attack which may be expected to cause incidental loss of civilian life, injury to civilians, damage to civilian objects, or a combination thereof, which would be excessive in relation to the concrete and direct military advantage anticipated.
6. Attacks against the civilian population or civilians by way of reprisals are prohibited.
7. The presence or movements of the civilian population or individual civilians shall not be used to render certain points or areas immune from military operations, in particular in attempts to shield military objectives from attacks or to shield, favor or impede military operations. The Parties to the conflict shall not direct the movement of the civilian population or individual civilians in order to attempt to shield military objectives from attacks or to shield military operations.
8. Any violation of these prohibitions shall not release the Parties to the conflict from their legal obligations with respect to the civilian population and civilians, including the obligation to take the precautionary measures provided for in Article 57.

[Totallybushed]

76. Very interesting.

And yet, HWR's report is just another opinion.

Here's mine: Hezbollah has violated #2, #4, #5

They violated #4 by subcategories 1, and especially 2, and 3.

They violate #5 by subcategory #2.

Why do we never hear your screams about Hezbollah war crimes, eh?

Which ones has Israel violated? I don't see a one there. Also #7 seems to say that Israel is entitled to attack objectives that they think are military threats regardless of the presence of civilians.

I also see nothing there that says that mistakes, acted upon on erroneous intelligence, are crimes.

I am so tired of the hypocrisy of Hezbollah's supporters that I am going to go puke now.

[bigtree]

90. just listing Hizbollah's violations doesn't make the case for Israel

I'm no Hizbollah supporter. I'm anti-war. Period.

[Totallybushed]

98. Still, isn't it curious that

nobody seems to care about Hezbollah's crimes?

No one steps up to defend Israel, so they are supposed to just sit by and let 1 civilian be killed here, 4 there, and a soldier or two be kidnapped every so often.

I don't think so.

And if war is what it takes to stop it, so be it. Hezbollah has brought it upon itself, and, unfortunately upon the Lebanese people. Who, if news reports are to be believed, support Hezbollah.

Go to Beirut, protest Hezbollah. Takes courage, doesn't it? Not like standing up to the Israelis in the United States or even Israel.

[bigtree]

105. If 'nobody' cares then why is Israel being allowed to prosecute this war

alone without any force exerted to stop them? Someone must 'care' about Israel's right to defend themselves, or the pretext of the argument against them wouldn't involve fine points of international law. If we felt they didn't have a right to defense we would advocate direct, defensive action against them.

The concern about Israel's prosecution of this war is not unlike ANY accountability expected from combatants in ANY engagement. What is different in each case is the influence, from associations, that is exerted to restrain the combatants from actions outside of the practices and operations of conventional war. I don't know how to influence Hizbollah, but I do think there should be some consideration that the airstrikes and their 'collateral killings of Lebanese civilians don't seem to be having any significant influence on Hizbollah's actions. The fact that our country is in a position to influence Israel because of our supply of money and weaponry to them SHOULD move us to demand restraint when it comes to protecting innocents in the line of fire.

The suggestion that I should go to Beruit is an insult. I'm an American. I have a responsibility to my country first. That means that I have a responsibility to demand accountability from my government, it's agents, and its allies, as I would be expected to defend these same.

I have no such allegiance to Hizbollah, nor do I harbor ANY support for their organization or their actions. If you are associated with anyone who has such a relationship with Hizbollah or is in a position to influence them I would urge you to do so.

[samhsarah]

82. You mean like THIS human shield?

Child Used as Human Shield after Beating

Or THESE:

20 July 2006: Israeli Soldiers use civilians as Human Shields in Beit Hanun

[MyNameGoesHere]

54. Hmmmmmmmm

Pretty bad like in dead? Yeah that is "pretty bad"


zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz

[samhsarah]

75. Israeli's are cowards.

They close off villages and then do fly-by massacres. They're cowards and terrorists.

[Totallybushed]

80. Bullshit

They don't, however, hide behind their women's skirts. They don't hold their own children up as a shield. They don't boast of what brave warriors they are because they managed to kill a few helpless civilians.

Bullshit!

[samhsarah]

83. No, they hold OTHER people's children up.

See post 82 - http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=364&topic_id=1847586&mesg_id=1860509

[Totallybushed]

87. delete

[Ms. Clio]

92. the truth hurts, doesn't it?

and pictures speak louder than a 1000 words.

[Totallybushed]

97. What's your point? n/t

[Ms. Clio]

101. just speaking truth to truthiness n/t

[Totallybushed]

102. define

"truthiness"

[Ms. Clio]

106. According to the American Dialect Society

truthiness refers to the quality of preferring concepts or facts one wishes to be true, rather than concepts or facts known to be true. As Stephen Colbert put it, “I don’t trust books. They’re all fact, no heart.”

[Totallybushed]

107. Perhaps, then

you should examine your own heart, and your own positions.

[Ms. Clio]

108. no, I'm just waiting to examine all your credible links n/t

[Totallybushed]

109. First, the

sources that you would consider credible. Life's too short to do the work, and then have you dismiss it all with a contemptous "that's not a credible source".

[Ms. Clio]

111. oh, come now

just name some of the sources and/or websites you consider credible -- no need for extensive research to do that.

[Totallybushed]

113. since you insist

http://www.israelnationalnews.com/news.php3?id=108477

I trust the IDF far more than Hezbollah, Hamas, or any other militant group, or frankly, Arab government.

I trust the evidence of 50 years of following this issue.

Ignore the facts at your own peril.

Peace.

[Ms. Clio]

114. well, that really tells me all I need to know about your grasp of reality

good lord.

[Totallybushed]

115. Surely you didn't need

that! Your mind was already made up.

[Ms. Clio]

116. and if that is truly the only source you will ever need

then yours is clamped tight.

[bigtree]

117. not to pick a fight TB, but you can't be serious.

the Israeli press is heavily censored in times of war. Tru that they have more than the majority of our own press, but you can't be serious in using just one government source for your news. Why be a slave to their singular point of view? Cull from different sources and make up your own mind. JMHO

[Totallybushed]

118. I do.

I was asked to provide a lind backing up what I said. I have now done so.

I check even sources that I distrust, and evaluate what they say based on numerous factors including, have they lied, or been shown to have a bias before, is what they say reasonable, do their facts and even more opinions, match facts of which I am personlly knowledgeable. Etc.

[bigtree]

119. but you do have other sources, no?

I think the one you provided has great insight into the Israeli cause. I do think, however that you might be well served to find some companion sources from the perspective of different regions and interests to balance.

Thanks for answering.

[Totallybushed]

120. I'm not sure what your question is??

The original source would be the IDF, and probably only the IDF. Do you think Hezbollah would admit to such a thing? Given a choice between the two, and absent any further information, I would always trust the IDF before Hezbollah.

Now, I do read such things as www.arabnews.com every day, and I'm a member of, and read regularly at, www.islamicity.com. also, Iread a lot here, and check out links that interest me.

Still, I'm not interested in any perspective that justifies hiding behind civilians or keeping them from escaping a location where military activities are occurring. There is no justification for such, and I believe Hezbollah is doing this. There is, however, justification in international law for attacking locations where civilians are in military activity is taking place there.

[Totallybushed]

112. delete, response to wrong post.

[malaise]

15. I tell you what

When Israel handed out those leaflets telling Lebanese people that any car south of the Litani river would be fair game, I would line up a convoy of hundreds of cars and let them dare. How dare a foreign government deny people in a sovereign country to right to move in their own homeland.
At the risk of being called what I've been called already - Fugg Israel and all those countries backing this barbarian slaughter of humanity. I am shaking with rage.

Add.

[Ms. Clio]

62. I hear you loud and clear

fuck those barbaric fuckers. And anyone who doesn't like it can kiss my ass.

[LostinVA]

73. I stand with you both on this

[cali]

And just how in hell

are they supposed to leave, when all routes have been cut off? How are the old, the infirm and the very young supposed to get out? grrrrr.

[mom cat]

22. They have destroyed all the bridges that might have been escape routes.

They have threatened to bomb anyone attempting to reconstruct the bridges. They bomb convoys of people whit white flage trying to leave. Now they say they will kill anyone left.
Fish in a barrel? Or Genocide!

[LostinVA]

74. And, won't let Doctors without Borders drive their supplies in

It is definitely ethnic cleansing... and is starting to ease over into genocide....

Fascist bastards.

[mom cat]

88. I think that it is already genocide.

[LostinVA]

95. I certainly think it is really, really close to it

The bombing of the refugee camp yesterday certainly was....

[mom cat]

99. and the bombing of the amusement park!

[LostinVA]

110. I know...

[Botany]

5. Attn Israel:

For every house you blow up, for every person that gets hurt,
for every bridge that is bombed, and for every city you shatter
the stronger Hezballah will grow.

[Jim__]

6. So thery're telling innocent civilians

leave the area or they'll face fierce attack
and Israel's Defence Forces have dropped leaflets over southern Lebanon telling residents to be off the roads

So, are these contradictory warnings to warn innocent people in Lebanon, or CYA for Israeli attacks?

[librechik]

7. exactly what the terrorists want, to build outrage against Israel

and us

[MadHound]

18. Let's see here

Who is promising to bomb civilian neighborhoods, again? Israel. Who is warning civilians to stay off the roads or risk death? Israel.

Frankly I don't see how Hezbollah plays any part in these actions:shrug: These are actions undertaken by Israel, not by Hezbollah.

[librechik]

28. I'm just sayin, if you wanted to defeat the terrorists,

you might want to deny their dearest wishes among other things. The Israeli tactics do not serve their greater objectives. But NONE of this crap does. Violence is wrong and counterproductive on all levels, and a country demonstrates its superiority by avoiding it while solving problems.

[Ms. Clio]

63. yeah, all those people will have to die just so the terrorists won't win

fuck that noise.

[ThomCat]

8. And they'll bomb the roads while those civilians are trying to

leave.

How nice of them.

And they'll retroactively claim there were terrorists present anyplace they decide to bomb. So matter who they kill, it's somehow your fault for being there, not their fault for bombing.
:grr:

George Orwell would recognize all of this. I wonder if he'd be impressed.

[izzie]

9. Hard to tell who is the terrorist anymore.

--

[kentuck]

12. "...might be hiding amongst the civilians.." ?

Shouldn't it be a fact before bombs drop? Just asking?

[Recursion]

13. Again, a double standard

The IDF says where they are going to launch attacks and it's a "warning".

Hezbollah says where they are going to launch attacks and it's a "threat".

Sigh.

[havocmom]

14. Sounds like neocons in Iraq

You're either with us or with the terrorists...

Guilt by association is one thing. Assuming guilt by circumstance of birth, economy and geography is a questionable policy.

KABOOM! is not a long term solution to anything, unless you intend to blow up every man, woman and child in the population you have a dispute with. And, isn't there a word for that policy? Nobody would actually be advocating THAT policy, would they? So, Collective Punishment will only assure generations or more war on the same issues.
And assure lots of profits for the corporations that make the implements of war.

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

16. How does one say "Wounded Knee" in Arabic?

Ghost Dance Shirt
The Wounded Knee Massacre

White officials became alarmed at the religious fervor and activism and in December 1890 banned the Ghost Dance on Lakota reservations. When the rites continued, officials called in troops to Pine Ridge and Rosebud reservations in South Dakota. The military, led by veteran General Nelson Miles, geared itself for another campaign.

The presence of the troops exacerbated the situation. Short Bull and Kicking Bear led their followers to the northwest corner of the Pine Ridge reservation, to a sheltered escarpment known as the Stronghold. The dancers sent word to Sitting Bull of the Hunkpapas to join them. Before he could set out from the Standing Rock reservation in North Dakota, however, he was arrested by Indian police. A scuffle ensued in which Sitting Bull and seven of his warriors were slain. Six of the policemen were killed.

General Miles had also ordered the arrest of Big Foot, who had been known to live along the Cheyenne River in South Dakota. But, Big Foot and his followers had already departed south to Pine Ridge, asked there by Red Cloud and other supporters of the whites, in an effort to bring tranquility. Miles sent out the infamous Seventh Calvary led by Major Whitside to locate the renegades. They scoured the Badlands and finally found the Miniconjou dancers on Porcupine Creek, 30 miles east of Pine Ridge. The Indians offered no resistance. Big Foot, ill with pneumonia, rode in a wagon. The soldiers ordered the Indians to set up camp five miles westward, at Wounded Knee Creek. Colonel James Forsyth arrived to take command and ordered his guards to place four Hotchkiss cannons in position around the camp. The soldiers now numbered around 500; the Indians 350, all but 120 of these women and children.

The following morning, December 29, 1890, the soldiers entered the camp demanding the all Indian firearms be relinquished. A medicine man named Yellow Bird advocated resistance, claiming the Ghost Shirts would protect them. One of the soldiers tried to disarm a deaf Indian named Black Coyote. A scuffle ensued and the firearm discharged. The silence of the morning was broken and soon other guns echoed in the river bed. At first, the struggle was fought at close quarters, but when the Indians ran to take cover, the Hotchkiss artillery opened up on them, cutting down men, women, children alike, the sick Big Foot among them. By the end of this brutal, unnecessary violence, which lasted less than an hour, at least 150 Indians had been killed and 50 wounded. In comparison, army casualties were 25 killed and 39 wounded. Forsyth was later charged with killing the innocents, but exonerated.

[treestar]

17. Interesting

One Zionist argument is that we have to give the US back to the Native Americans if we don't support Israel. IOW, they see the Palestinians as similar to the Native Americans. And they have the right to shove them off their land with US support, since allegedly the US is based on that very method of existence.

Though I argue the US at least came about naturally. There was no UN to suddenly declare the US in existence, and the Indians did not have a concept of land ownership.

[bigtree]

20. “I had a vision with which I might have saved my people . . .

. . . but I had not the strength to do it.” -- Black Elk

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

21. More great words from Chief Joseph.

I have carried a heavy load on my back ever since I was a boy. I realized then that we could not hold our own with the white men. We were like deer. They were like grizzly bears. We had small country. Their country was large. We were contented to let things remain as the Great Spirit Chief made them. They were not, and would change the rivers and mountains if they did not suit them.

I am tired of fighting.... from where the sun now stands, I will fight no more.

Our fathers gave us many laws, which they had learned from their fathers. These laws were good. They told us to treat all people as they treated us; that we should never be the first to break a bargain; that is was a disgrace to tell a lie; that we should speak only the truth; that it was a shame for one man to take another's wife or his property without paying for it.

Suppose a white man should come to me and say, "Joseph, I like your horses. I want to buy them."

I say to him, "No, my horses suit me; I will not sell them."

Then he goes to my neighbor and says, "Pay me money, and I will sell you Joseph’s horses."

The white man returns to me and says, "Joseph, I have bought your horses and you must let me have them."

If we sold our lands to the government, this is the way they bought them.

I am not a child, I think for myself. No man can think for me.

If the white man wants to live in peace with the Indian, he can live in peace. Treat all men alike. Give them a chance to live and grow.

All men were made brothers. The earth is the mother of all people, and all people should have equal rights upon it. You might as well expect the rivers to run backward as that any man who was born free should be contented when penned up and denied liberty to go where he pleases.

If you tie a horse to a stake, do you expect him to grow fat? If you pen an Indian up on a small spot of earth, and compel him to stay there, he will not be contented, nor will he grow and prosper.

The earth and myself are of one mind.

We were taught to believe that the Great Spirit sees and hears everything, and that he never forgets, that hereafter he will give every man a spirit home according to his deserts; If he has been a good man, he will have a good home; if he has been a bad man, he will have a bad home.

This I believe, and all my people believe the same.

Good words do not last long unless they amount to something. Words do not pay for my dead people. They do not pay for my country, now overrun by white men. They do not protect my father’s grave. They do not pay for all my horses and cattle.

Good words cannot give me back my children. Good words will not give my people good health and stop them from dying. Good words will not get my people a home where they can live in peace and take care of themselves.

I am tired of talk that comes to nothing It makes my heart sick when I remember all the good words and all the broken promises. There has been too much talking by men who had no right to talk.

It does not require many words to speak the truth.

We do not want churches because they will teach us to quarrel about God, as the Catholics and Protestants do. We do not want that.

We may quarrel with men about things on earth, but we never quarrel about the Great Spirit.

I believe much trouble and blood would be saved if we opened our hearts more. I will tell you in my way how the Indian sees things. The white man has more words to tell you how they look to him, but is does not require many words to seek the truth.

Too many misinterpretations have been made... too many misunderstandings...

The Great Spirit Chief who rules above all will smile upon this land... and this time the Indian race is waiting and praying.

I am tired of talk that comes to nothing.

[TahitiNut]

24. I met some descendants of Chief Joseph among the Nez Perce ...

... in southwest Idaho once upon a time. We spent much of an afternoon sitting in the sun and chatting. It was a good time. We were 'family.'

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

27. I discovered those words of his replying to another thread.

I can't even imagine any current politicians or "leaders" coming up with anything with as much power and eloquence.

A great "American".

[debbierlus]

19. Ah..Haven't they CLOSED off people from leaving...the red cross can't get

Through....

Disgusting.

[madrchsod]

25. where and how are the people supposed to leave ?

this shit just gets sicker and sicker every day.

[PA Democrat]

26. The Idiot's Guide to Creating More Terrorists

Bombing civilians trapped because of lack of means of evacuating does NOTHING to increase the security of Israel (and America for that matter). In fact, it will have the opposite effect.

[breakaleg]

30. Israel deserves any backlash that comes from this...

they are so shortsighted. All they see is their immediate neighbours. What they now have to consider is what happens when the world no longer allows Israel to trample on those around them. The bigger impact will come when they realize they are on their own. And I hope that day does come.

[jpkenny]

46. I agree, but I'm afraid to say more for getting 'warned' by the mods.

[Lilith Velkor]

94. The fall of the United States would have to come first

...and in all honesty, I can't say we don't have it coming.

[bvar22]

32. Ethnic Cleansing.

:(

[leesa]

36. "Leave the area" but "be off the roads"....No, Israel's is not wilfully

slaughtering civilians. It's just an illusion.

[bigtree]

38. . . . and, to stay in the homes while they flatten the villages

in preparation for their ground assault.

[Javaman]

39. So how is that different from what they are doing now?

dead is dead. extreme force or otherwise.

I mean are they going to die that much more extremely?

:shrug:

[butterfly77]

40. Why don't they just admit that...

they are so afraid of hezzbolah that they are going to kill everything in site until they think that there are not anything moving any more. I heard on an earlier report that they did not want any one to move by driving cars, is this realistic in a war?

[mitchtv]

41. when will these dumb ass lebanese get a hold

of some SAMs and pop a few of those F16s? Are they that hard to knock down?

[The Stranger]

44. "Extreme force" caused the worst environmental disaster ever in the E. Med

[lumpy]

55. Not new news, haven't they been doing

this all along?

[bigtree]

57. That they are continuing SHOULD be news.

I'd hate to see these reports slip into obscurity because they are seen as 'old' news. The one's whose lives are in the balance deserve the airing.

[bigtree]

59. VOA: South Lebanon in Lockdown After Israeli Warning

Tyre, Lebanon
08 August 2006

Vehicle traffic in southern Lebanon has come to a virtual standstill after the Israeli military warned residents that every single car on the road will be considered a target. Ambulances are no longer leaving the southern port city of Tyre to evacuate wounded people from surrounding villages. The president of the International Committee of the Red Cross (ICRC) has visited southern Lebanon and is warning both sides in the conflict that international law requires them to protect civilian lives.

LEBANON RESIDENT READING LEAFLET: "Therefore, every car of any type that is moving south of the Litani River will be struck since it will be considered suspect, suspect in the movement of rockets, munitions and terrorists. You are hereby instructed and been notified that your movement in any vehicle will be a serious threat to your life."

That warning has been taken very seriously. The streets are all, but abandoned.

Lebanese Red Cross and Civil Defense ambulances are still moving around to some extent within the city of Tyre, but they are not leaving town. Medics said they were in telephone contact with wounded people trapped under a bombed building in a nearby village but could not reach them.

http://www.voanews.com/english/2006-08-08-voa74.cfm

very important report. Listen: http://128.11.143.113/english/figleaf/ramfilegenerate.cfm?filepath=http%3A%2F%2F128%2E11%2E143%2E113%2Fmediaassets%2Fenglish%2F2006%5F08%2FAudio%2Frm%2FMcDonough1%2Erm

[sweetheart]

69. 1600 pennsyllvannia avenue

10 downing street
...

we're waiting.

[stepnw1f]

70. Yes... Show the World How Sociopathic You Are

that oughta teach em!

[MisterHowdy]

78. How noble of them.

And those civilians that are lucky enough to get out, before all the carnage starts, will someday return to their leveled neighborhoods and see what the Israelis did to them. They will hate them for this and join Hezbollah, or some other extremist group, to get some revenge.
And thus, the cycle of hate will continue.

[Douglas Carpenter]

79. important article - recommended

[Jacobin]

86. That worked in Iraq........oh wait, no it didn't

This, of course is the very definition of 'terrorism'

[evox]

103. Sure

warn the civilians to leave, but destroy all the roads, kill all the civilians, and then say "well we warned them". Hezbollah's warnings are way more civilized, their leader states in the media where city they're going to hit if Israel intensifies their attacks.

[evox]

104. Sure

warn the civilians to leave, but destroy all the roads, kill all the civilians, and then say "well we warned them". Hezbollah's warnings are way more civilized, their leader states in the media which city they're going to hit if Israel intensifies their attacks way ahead of time, plus all the Israelis have got bomb shelters, but the Lebanese civilians, nothing.