LYING LIVNI ON CNN: "WE DIDN'T ATTACK LEBANON OR IT'S INFRASTRUCTURE..."

[berni_mccoy]

"... we only attacked infrastructure used by Hezbollah."

SIMPLY INCREDIBLE. I can't believe the foreign minister of Israel is outwardly denying what Israel did.

This was just on the Situation Room.

:grr:

[msmcghee]

1. Please present your evidence that . .

. . she is lying. Being a good and honest liberal certainly you have this evidence or you would not have called her a liar.

PS - Yelling in CAPS is not really necessary.

[berni_mccoy]

3. SHE is lying, not HE... and the statement is false on it's own

No evidence necessary. Have you looked at a map of Lebanon lately? Was the U.N. outpost that was bombed even though the Israeli Military knew exactly what it was and was in constant contact by the U.N. who was telling it not to bomb it INFRASTRUCTURE USED BY HEZBOLLAH????!!!!?!

P.S. I'll YELL WHENEVER I FEEL LIKE IT.

[Name removed]

13. Deleted message

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

[uppityperson]

18. Are you seriously saying that if anyone objects to Israel's acts

that they side with Hezbullah? Please clarify what you mean by "Only that you also seem to side with Hizbollah."

[berni_mccoy]

54. You complain about me pointing out a blatant lie, but you don't hesitate

to call me a Hezbollah supporter. You better provide some evidence. If I played by your rules (which seems very much like the rules Israel plays by), then I could say you "seem like a disruptor".

[msmcghee]

58. I said it seemed that way to me.

I could be wrong. I invited you to show me I was wrong. So far you have failed to do that.

[berni_mccoy]

61. You are a piece of work.

I have never and will never support Hezbollah. You are defending a comment that is FALSE at face value. No one needs to prove it's a lie. It's completely blatant, as acknowledged by EVERY OTHER POSTER in this thread. You are an extremist.

Don't bother responding, I've put you on my ignore list.

[uppityperson]

62. You say others must give evidence to prove things.

Prove we support Hezbullah. I invite you to not use double standards. If you demand we prove what we say, you must do so also.

[msmcghee]

70. Again, I said it seemd that way to me.

If that bothers you then I invite you to show me I am wrong or I have misinterpreted your posts.

PS - I could be wrong. It's just that these posts are all so anti-Israel, blaimng Israel for civilian deaths and the destruction of infrastructure - and so unwilling to blame the perpetrators.

[uppityperson]

74. On a different line,

do you live in Forks or PA or ??? We are all here because we are not all there. Hope that is not too obscure.

[msmcghee]

76. Actually I live pretty close to PT. nt

[uppityperson]

80. well, that is at least 3 of us on DU.

Are we acquainted?

[msmcghee]

86. Are you a musician?

I know a lot of uppity persons.:hi:

[uppityperson]

90. nope, do dance though. Are you a musician?

[msmcghee]

98. Yes, I play guitar and banjo.

Motly bluegrass but some old-time too.

And I see the problem in the ME differently than you do. That does not mean that I think you are a bad person. Just mistaken. I hope you feel the same about me.

My wife agrees with you. We both have strong feelings about this but we are still happily married. We just think each other are wrong about this. We both want to see an end to the death and destruction in the ME. We just disagree as to how best to get to that goal.

I could be wrong but I think it is very important that people do not attack others. That causes war. People who attack others must expect serious consequences because people have a right to defend themselves.

I'll buy you a beer if you want to discuss this in person sometime. :hi:

[LynnTheDem]

119. If someone disagrees with the Israeli rightwingnut govt's actions

that means they "support Hezbollah"...then anyone who disagrees with the American rightwingnut govt must support al Qaeda. Right?

It ain't liberals who use that ignorant, stupid, bullshit form of "reasoning". Right?

[lumpy]

65. Bombing the parade of cars fleeing their

towns; the disasterous oil slicks caused by Israeli bombs covering the waters off Lebanon; people without food and water; aid for citizens blocked by destroyed roads and bridges....bullcon

[Cha]

105. GOOD FOR YOU!

IT NEEDS TO YELLED FROM THE ROOFTOPS!

[Eric J in MN]

4. Israel blew up bridges in Lebanon.

Maybe they were used by Hezbollah, but they were also used by the general population.

[msmcghee]

14. So - that does not prove . .

. . that she lied, does it?

[WiseButAngrySara]

20. You want to prove she's telling the TRUTH? ....n/t

[msmcghee]

23. It's up to the person claiming . .

. . she's a liar to prove it. I am not making an accusation that needs to be proven.

[LostinVA]

36. No, it's actually up to you

It's a FACT Israel destroyed power plants, roads, airports, buildings, etc. Understand, a fact. She's the only trying to prove a negative, and so are you. You've been spinning like a top for quite a while now. Dizzy yet?

I am SICK of you and other destruction and war apologists acting all innocent. Shameful.

Dialog over.

[DRoseDARs]

26. I'm with you. Israel only attacked Hezbollah's magical tubes...

...that transported fighters and equipment. They had specialized winged-elfs manning the entry points to ensure that no civilians, no humanitarian aid, and no evil 4-foot ogres from the land of Smelly Awful Things could travel through these magical tubes.



If you believe Israel DIDN'T attack the infrastructure of Lebanon, I have some of Saddam's nuclear flying monkeys of doom to sell you... :eyes:

[msmcghee]

35. The claim was . .

. . that "... we only attacked infrastructure used by Hezbollah." was a lie.

The OP was a quote from CNN - not a transcript anyway. I suspect what Livni said was that Israel attacked only what they believed to be Hizbollah and Hizbollah infrastructure or Lebanese infrastructure used by Hizbollah.

They were attacked by Hizbollah. To retaliate against other parties, except in an attempt to get Hizbollah to stop firing missiles at Israel, would be a war crime.

Please show me where Lebanon has instigated formal war crimes accusations against Israel. Something more than threats and blustering.

[berni_mccoy]

40. No, THAT WAS EXACTLY WHAT SHE SAID. I rewound it to make sure I got

the quote exact. What you suspect is not relevant here. And Lebanon doesn't NEED to charge Israel with war crimes to prove Livni's statement is a lie. Besides, International institutes and agencies have already claimed that Israel is guilty of WAR CRIMES.

[Solo_in_MD]

73. Claims that are specious at this point.

All we have seen is destroyed buildings. We have not seen why Israel targeted specific buildings. We have not seen what was caused by secondary explosions. We have not seen a true picture of what was happening in Israel either, due to active censorship. Until all the data is on the table, hand wringing press releases are just PR fodder and flame bait.

Way way too many people are being glib with claims of war crimes. They are a serious matter that should be handled seriously, not the claptrap seen in the press and on the net. There is a clear process that has to be followed. Until then, its just loathsome noise.

I am not saying that war crimes did not occur (on both sides), I am not saying what either side did was justifiable, I am saying that the glib accusations of war crimes are worthless demagoguery at this point.

Looking into my crystal ball, its not hard to see what will come of this...There will be multiple inquiries. Those that have standing will get data from both sides. Both sides will claim bias. The results will be inconclusive, both sides with claim vindication. There will end runs around the "official inquiries" such as charges through national courts in Europe. Both sides will play that game to no avail. Nothing will result from all of the inquiries. In the end Lebanon will still be in tatters and the dead will still be dead.

[msmcghee]

78. A post I can agree with. Thanks. nt

[berni_mccoy]

82. Whatever the International community decides is "just" is beside the point

The original point was that the Foreign Minister of Israel made a statement which is at face value, FALSE.

As another poster put it, it's like saying, black is white, up is down, left is right... etc.

[Solo_in_MD]

83. The basis for her statement was that they were legitimate targets

based on their use by Hezbollah. As I understand, that may well be adequate justification under the current rules. Nit picking it beyond that is silly.

[uppityperson]

87. Was the convoy of civilians fleeing that got bombed legitimate?

how so? I do not understand how that could be. How about the Red Cross truck/van that got bombed? Was it legitimate? I do not understand that one either.

[Solo_in_MD]

97. Israel has claimed for some time that Hama, Fatah, Hezbollah and others

have used Red Cross and UN marked vehicles for terrorist purposes. I don't recall what evidence they have offered publicly in the past, but it is clearly believed by the IDF. They also believe that UNIFIL was both implicitly and at times expliclty collaborating with Hezbollah. Until that is addressed the Red Cross and UN flags are not going to mean much to the IDF. If those beliefs are true, I can't say I blame them...

[berni_mccoy]

107. BULL SHIT. See my post #104 below.

It's Clear that Israel ATTACKED LEBANON AND ITS CIVILIAN POPULATION TO PUNISH THEM, not to eradicate Hezbollah.

[Solo_in_MD]

115. Your post (#104) does not answer the issues raised and supports

the position that if Lebanon was in control of its territory there would have been no invasion.

[berni_mccoy]

118. That is irrelevant to this discussion. Israel IS DENYING WHAT IT DID.

That's the topic of this discussion. Israel is sayin "We did not attack Lebanon or its infrastructure" But when they started the attack, they claimed it was to PUNISH Lebanon. Their first target was the Beirut airport. And they did it to punish the Lebanese people. Not Hezbollah.

[Solo_in_MD]

125. Taking out the airports (and they were not that heavily damaged the first

day) was to prevent the kidnapped soldiers from being flown out of the country to Syria or Iran. Hezbollah said early on that the soldiers would be in a place that the IDF could never reach. Note that later planes carrying aid did land and take off from Beirut. Presumably C-130 or smaller, so not large enough for mass evacuations. There may have been subsequent damage to the airport fuel farm, I don't recall.

There was some question at the time if the IAF used standard bombs or specialized runway busters. The damage from the former is easy and fast to fix, the latter would take months. Photos I saw looked like standard stuff, several craters, no deep radial fractures, but it was far from an ideal picture.

[berni_mccoy]

127. Keep AVOIDING the point, dontcha?

The point is: When Israel attacked, they said it was to PUNISH Lebanon. Now they are denying it. PLAIN and SIMPLE. They are lying.

[Solo_in_MD]

128. I don't agree...there were all sorts of statements by all sorts of people

on all sides. Quoting one over all others is silly at best.

Fundamentally Israel had enough of the rocket attacks, infiltrators, suicide bombers, kidnappings, planned riots, and the like. Both Hamas and Hezbollah poked at the lion a bit too often and got smacked around for it. However, Israel did not get off scot free either.

The entire who won/who lost argument in the press and elsewhere is clearly juvenile. There were losses on both sides and tremendous expenses incurred. If there were winners it was Syria and Iran who got to hurt Israel through their Hezbollah surrogate. The big loser of course was Lebanon. Everyone one else get a mixed result. The world is not binary, not matter how some try to perceive it that way.

Word is that the IDF is tearing apart the territory they currently control looking for weapons and guerrillas. Recent reports (as in today) discuss caches of the most current Russian anti tank missiles via Iran and Syria, down to lot number and manufacturers mark being found. Right now its only from IDF sources, but I am sure they will have them on display soon enough. Their use and effectiveness is similar to 1973 and the Sagger missiles. Armor is never invulnerable, even if its made in Israel. The other key point the IDF learned is that you can not win just from the air against an insurgent group. When (not if) this happens again, look for different IDF tactics, and a lot more bodies.

[Richard Steele]

88. What does that have to do with her false claim they DIDN'T bomb them?

"Legitimate targets' or not, she's still lying.

[Canuckistanian]

113. Interesting post

Although from what I've seen and read about, the results of an inquiry will be a bit less than inconclusive.

This clearly seems to be a case of "collective punishment" aimed at making Hezbollah a national Lebanese pariah.

The power stations, the bridges, the water plants. Ambulances, fleeing civilians, funerals. UN posts (which killed a Canadian), apartment complexes, whole villages.

These acts may well damamge Hezbollah, but also a large portion of Lebanese who are neither sympathetic to Hezbollah or even Muslim. Don't forget that Lebanon has a sizable Christian population that has also been destroyed or displaced.

And no, I'm not forgetting the damages inflicted by the Hezbollah rockets, which have caused major damages and death to Israeli towns as far away as Haifa. They're cleary a threat that need to be dealt with.

But the attack on Beirut was not a defensive act. No rockets from Beirut could reach Israel.

This was a "lesson" of some sort. But I don't buy the idea that either side has any "moral high ground".

But, in the end, the damages should be attributed to those who inflicted the most.

[Solo_in_MD]

129. It a mixed bag

Although from what I've seen and read about, the results of an inquiry will be a bit less than inconclusive.
Depends on what the IDF brings to the table. Some are clearly questionable.

This clearly seems to be a case of "collective punishment" aimed at making Hezbollah a national Lebanese pariah..
Certainly seems that way implicitly IMO, but not clear how it would be proved. There public statements by some support that view, though IIRC none were members of the government.

The power stations, the bridges, the water plants. Ambulances, fleeing civilians, funerals. UN posts (which killed a Canadian), apartment complexes, whole villages.
Again, I want to see what the IDF brings to the table in terms of why a particular target was hit. Some are clearly questionable.

But the attack on Beirut was not a defensive act. No rockets from Beirut could reach Israel.
Actually there are some, including the C-802s they fired at the ships at sea. Southern Beirut is also a Hezbollah stronghold. There were media reports of large secondaries after it was attacked which would indicate ordinance storage (legitimate military target).

This was a "lesson" of some sort. But I don't buy the idea that either side has any "moral high ground".
I agree

But, in the end, the damages should be attributed to those who inflicted the most..
Damages as in reparations? Not in the cards...at least not in our lifetime.

I still remain convinced that any international tribunals will not make a significant difference. Lebanon will still be shot to hell, the dead will still be dead, and the underlying issues will remain unresolved.

[Canuckistanian]

132. Hard to argue with your points

But my opinions are my own.

One thing is clear - this must stop and the parties brought to the table.

[Solo_in_MD]

136. I agree it must stop

The recriminations will go one for years, and nothing will come of them in my opinion.

The key to a lasting peace is for Lebanon to disarm Hezbollah and stop the attacks against Israel. Look at the Sinai, no fighting and is prosperous. There is a clue there.

[uppityperson]

28. Are you saying that is something was ever used by a Hezbullah person

and it go blown up, that it is NOT part of Lebanon, NOT Lebanese infrastructure, but ONLY what Hezbullah used? Is this what you are saying?

[msmcghee]

38. I'm saying Israel has a right under UN rules . .

. . to defend itself and stop Hizbollah from firing missiles into Israel. As long as Israel had reasonable indications that hitting their chosen targets would accomplish that - they are within their rights. It makes no difference who "owns" the targets or where they are.

[uppityperson]

48. No, you are saying "we only attacked infrastructure used by Hezbollah."

That is different than saying Israel has a right to defend itself. Of course it has a right to defend itself. And of course infrastructure was destroyed that was only incidentally used by Hezbullah.

[msmcghee]

50. When a nation is attacked with missiles from across her borders . .

. . she has an undisputed right to defend herself by destroying anything that she reasonably believes is being used to aid in that effort. That includes roads and warehouses, homes of sympathisers who could be providing food or shelter to the combatants, suspected command structures, even in residential neighborhoods, etc. Anything that Israel reasonably suspects is being used in the effort to attack her. Those are the rules that civilized nations live by.

That's why most civilized people do not attack others - defense against that attack can involve some serious consequences. Maybe Lebanon will think twice before allowing some militia group to attack her neighbor. I sure hope so.

Don't you?

[uppityperson]

53. We differ on what we think is "reasonable"

I do not believe much of what was bombed was "reasonable" or much of what happened was "civilized".

[msmcghee]

56. You did not have high explosive . .

. . missiles landing in your child's schoolyard either - sent with the intention to kill your children.

[uppityperson]

59. No, thank goodness I was not in Lebanon. That would've really sucked

I always wished to visit there, don't know if I ever will get the chance. It was supposed to be beautiful.

[msmcghee]

67. If you were in Lebanon at the time . .

. . you would not have been getting bombed by people who were out to kill you and your children. You probably would not have been bombed at all unless Hizbollah was using your home and neighborhood to attack Israel.

I am amazed that so many here can condemn Israel as liars and warmongers and baby-killers for defending her citizens from attack - but they have no angry words for the people who purposely started the deadly confrontation and then hid in villages where civilians were located.

Has it occurred to no-one here that if Hizbollah had not attacked Israel there would be no devastation or dead civilians in Lebanon to even discuss?

I say that facetiously because we all know it has occurred to them - they just can't bring themselves to blame the people who actually caused the destruction - because that would violate their cherished but unfounded beliefs that Israel is always the criminal aggressor against Arabs - because Israel has the chutzpah to try to exist as a state in the ME.

[uppityperson]

69. WE ARE NOT DEFENDING THE RIGHT TO DEFEND ONESELF

Why can you not understand this? Of course countries have the right to defend themselves. I think this went wayyyyy beyond that though. If I had been in Lebanon, I may have had my car bombed as I was trying to flee. Or I may have been bombed when a rocket hit my neighborhood because it "missed" a "real" target. COATH (acronym for a swear phrase). Of course we have bad words for Hezbullah! Of course we have bad words for ANYONE killing ANY civilians. Just because we have bad words for Israel's seeming inability to NOT bomb civilians, to NOT miss them does NOT mean we support Hezbullah.

I can bitch about the republican party AND the democratic party. I can bitch about the president and the administration and still like my country. COATH!!!

Edited to add, see? This is a time when CAPS comes in handy. If god didn't want me to use CAPS, why is there a cap key?

[msmcghee]

75. Collateral damage is regrettable.

It always happens in war. Why are you not furiously angry at the Hizbollah who started the conflict and thereby actually caused all the damage and destruction and dead babies? Why are you so angry at the nation that was trying to stop the thousands of missiles being fired at her civilians?

How can you justify that position?

I see defense as highly moral and offensive attacks as highly immoral. That's because offensive attacks cause wars and the death and destruction of infrastructure and innocent civilians.

[Mr_Spock]

123. Oh, you kidnapped two soldiers during a common occurring skirmish

The punishment is to murder hundreds of civilians.

Justifying murder is not a good thing.

[Ani Yun Wiya]

145. Those who caused the deaths and destruction..

"and thereby actually caused all the damage and destruction and dead babies", were in jets dropping bombs.

[eridani]

144. Except that that never happened until after the invasion.

Got some evidence that any rocket attacks occurred between 2000 and mid-2006?

[Richard Steele]

30. Bridges are 'infrastructure', so, YES, it proves she's lying.

[uppityperson]

33. no, you see, a Hezbullah person may have used that brige once.

Hence, "used by Hezbullah". Seems like a disruptor sort of argument to me though.

[msmcghee]

42. Obviously you think logic and facts are . .

. . disrupting. That's what happens when you lack the logic and facts to support your position. I have said nothing disruptive. If anything, the OP was disruptive. It called someone a liar - and without reasonable evdence to support that. I'm just pointing that out.

[uppityperson]

51. Presenting false logic & facts and insinuating things is disruptive.

There is evidence which you falsely logic your way around. #21: "None of those agencies . . were
without agendas of their own. Except the Red Cross. The Red Cross does not get involved in accusations like this. If they did they would be attacked as partisans in the conflict."

Because you attack these agencies, they are partisan and not to be believed.

[Richard Steele]

63. Actually, it's logic and facts that prove she's a liar. Mostly just facts.

Since it really doesn't require much logic to understand that
"Israel bombing Lebanese infrastructure" = "Israel bombing Lebanese infrastructure".
Can you see how those things are similar?

It would be difficult to imagine a more clear-cut, BLATANT
lie than those she told.
It's as if a high Japanese official in January 1942
said "we never bombed Pearl Harbor".

[TahitiNut]

43. Don't forget that Hizb'allah might have once gone swimming in the Med

... so it was only 'prudent' (per GHW Bush) to befoul miles and miles of beaches with oil from the power station the IAF/IDF bombed.

:puke: :puke: :puke: :puke: :puke: :puke:

[uppityperson]

99. and an ambulance once transported a sick Hezbullah person

so better bomb them too. Yes, Hezbullah are thugs and a way needs to be found to control them. Bombing this indiscriminately seems like too much, I hate to say it, overkill. Sometimes words mean what they do. sigh.

[TahitiNut]

19. And airport runways, and power stations, and broadcast antennae ...

... and roads (needed by refugees) and .... Jesus! What a bald-faced freaking lie!

[Solo_in_MD]

66. Which made them legit targets under the current rules

[Emit]

7. I think having followed the coverage over the preceding weeks

more than enough evidence has been reviewed on DU, no?

[msmcghee]

17. All of it was pretty much . .

. . conjecture, invective and cheering for Hizbollah. None of it qualifies as proof she was lying.

[Name removed]

29. Deleted sub-thread

Sub-thread removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Name removed]

39. Deleted sub-thread

Sub-thread removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Name removed]

45. Deleted message

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

[Emit]

46. ...

Naturally, Orwellian doublespeak makes precise thought damned near impossible. The masters of the PR war are out in force. Sometimes, just stating an outright blatant untruth may be required.

Black is white, up is down, ... WE DIDN'T ATTACK LEBANON OR IT'S INFRASTRUCTURE... we only attacked infrastructure used by Hezbollah...


And, of course, the photos of the destruction of Lebanon and their dead should not deter us from seeking the "truth" in the matter. :eyes:

[Name removed]

49. Deleted sub-thread

Sub-thread removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Name removed]

57. Deleted message

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

[Name removed]

68. Deleted message

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

[Marr]

89. No shit. n/t

[minkyboodle]

116. its not apparently

I've alerted on several posts saying the same
thing and didn't see any of them deleted.
what can you do... :(

[Solo_in_MD]

117. They dont drop for that reason...

they were a little over the top and were not adding to the discourse

[WiseButAngrySara]

124. A "little over the top?" I beg to differ. My post was not, but I can't

prove that now, can I? Implying that the MSM and DU supports Hezbollah is 'over the top' and not just a 'little.'

[uppityperson]

126. mine was just copying a post that the poster had already posted.

asked for proof, to prove had written something, I copied a post from above (which just got deleted) and pasted it. "show me where I said ...", ok, here. now poof, gone.

[uppityperson]

60. Why do you continue to accuse us of supporting Hezbullah?

#13 above, your writing: Your reply does not prove that she was lying. Only that you also seem to side with Hizbollah.

[msmcghee]

106. PS - FWIW - I don't alert on people who . .

. . disagree with me and I have never put anyone on ignore.

[eccles12]

8. It's a "her." And the evidence has been presented in three instances

in reports from Human Rights Watch, the Red Cross, and reporters on the ground.

About this statement I would just say, consider the source.

[msmcghee]

21. None of those agencies . . were

without agendas of their own. Except the Red Cross. The Red Cross does not get involved in accusations like this. If they did they would be attacked as partisans in the conflict.

[uppityperson]

24. so, because you attack them as partisans, that means they had

other agendas? And because you do not attack Red Cross, that means it does not? I think this is backwards logic.:shrug:

[msmcghee]

27. I seriously doubt that . .

. . any evidence will emerge that Israel simply attacked civilians and any infrastructure they could hit in Lebanon.

I'm not saying that some mistakes were not made - just that I doubt that non-military targets were hit purposely. I have not seen evidence of this. I'm sure HRW did not interrogate the Israeli command offecers who ordered each of the thousands of missions that were undertaken and found that they were purposely trying to hit non-military targets.

If they had it would have been all over the news.

[berni_mccoy]

31. When they hit the U.N. outpost, IT WAS all over the news

When they hit it again during the rescue operation, it WAS all over the news.
When they bombed ambulences with BIG RED AND WHITE CROSSES on them, it was ALL OVER THE NEWS.

The statement is FALSE AT FACE VALUE. Get over it.

[Solo_in_MD]

94. Israel has claimed for some time that Hama, Fatah, Hezbollah and others

have used Red Cross and UN marked vehicles for terrorist purposes. I don't recall what evidence they have offered publicly in the past, but it is clearly believed by the IDF. They also believe that UNIFIL was both implicitly and at times expliclty collaborating with Hezbollah. Until that is addressed the Red Cross and UN flags are not going to mean much to the IDF. If those beliefs are true, I can't say I blame them...

[berni_mccoy]

101. If that were true, why would Israel give the U.N. its assurance

that it would NOT BOMB the outpost. The U.N. and the Israeli military were in contact the entire time (even through the bombing). If it was a legitimate target, then why would they not inform the U.N. that they could not be safe. You can't answer that, can you?

[Solo_in_MD]

122. In another thread there was an extensive discussion of C&C issues

in combat. The gist is that talking to a liason guy does not mean there is a connection to air or artilerlly assets doing strikes at the request of troops on the ground. Layered comm nets are designed not to have external inputs except from the layers above and below.

Without the comms logs, targeting video (for the air assets) and the like its not clear if the attack was deliberate. Also given the IDF position that UNIFIL was at times supporting Hezbollah, the IDF may well of been willing to do risk some close in strikes to take out Hezbollah they thought were sheltering themselves near the UN facility. I remember an email attributed to a UN officer that alluded to that which came out after the outpost was hit. There is also the strong possibility of targeting issues due to smoke and haze, a key issue with LTDs.

Again, without both sides of the story presented with data, all we have is hand wringing and hysterics.

[uppityperson]

32. There is a difference between trying to miss and not caring to miss

There is a difference between hitting on purpose and just not giving a hoot about missing. Shooting into a crowd because there might be a "bad guy" in there, then saying "we only shoot areas which bad guys have been/have used" does not absolve you of any guilt in killing people in the crowd.

[LostinVA]

41. Buzzzzzzzzzz.... like a top

[lumpy]

72. "I'm not saying that mistakes were

not made". The old 'backing away from the convinced' position. I doubt,not seen evidence,blah blah blah....

[tnlefty]

71. Stop. You will never make headway with the facts of this argument.

This sounds exactly like the shit that is put forth by one of my Bush**-lovin', Iraq war supporting brothers. Synopsis: HRWatch is just an organization that documented the torture at Gitmo and Abu Ghraib to make Bush** look bad. The fact that is was reported at all was just to make Bush** look bad. It has absolutely nothing to do with the fact that Bush**, Gonzo, Rummy, etc. actually went along with torture and still try to find new and inventive ways to circumvent international law...it's ALL DONE JUST TO MAKE DUMBFUCK AND HIS MINIONS look bad, as if they aren't doing a bang up job of that themselves.

In other words, EVERYONE HAS A BIAS just to make DUMBFUCK look bad. Facts DO NOT matter. It's all just an agenda by some biased agency, reporter, etc. to make the accused (who in most of these cases is guilty as sin) ....well shine the light on the situation and expose wrongdoing.

Save yourself as you will get absolutely nowhere in pursuing this.

[msmcghee]

85. I never expected to get anywhere with my position.

However, I do have a personal conviction to defend people who are attacked unfairly. I do that by speaking the truth. That usually makes some people very mad. Sorry about that but that's what I do.

My purpose was to not let scurulous accusations stand without rebuttal. I made that rebuttal and satisfied my purpose. Changing your mind was never in the cards.

[uppityperson]

10. are all of these people's houses, etc Hezbullah?

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/in_pictures/4795109.stm


Lebanese Prime Minister Fouad Siniora says more than a million people have been displaced by the crisis.

Edited to add, sometimes YELLING IN CAPS is GOOD for EMPHASIS!

[KingFlorez]

47. Read the paper or watch the news!

It's been obvious from the beginning they are bombing Lebanese infustructure. Or maybe you choose to pretend they didn't.

[Marr]

84. Oh, Christ. Do you really think there's any infrastructure in Lebanon

that Hezbollah does NOT use? So they could go in and flatten every building in Lebanon and that'd be just super by you, I take it?

I don't think there's anything Israel could do that you wouldn't make excuses for.

[berni_mccoy]

91. I think you misread the statement made by the Israeli F.M.

It's not that they attacked infrastructure solely used by Hezbollah, but only attacked infrastructure used by Hezbollah. If she said your interpretation of it, it would have been a ridiculous statement. As it is, it is an outward deception.

The first sentence of her statement is an absolute lie. Her second sentence is an attempt at justification.

[Marr]

95. I edited a moment after posting.

Too slow, apparently.

[msmcghee]

93. If Lebanon allows Hizbollah to . .

. . use every building in Lebanon and then attack Israel from lebanon - then every building in Lebanon is legally and morally a target - if destroying that building can reasonably be expected to diminish Hiozbollah's success in that attack.

That is why it such a serious breach of all international rules to attack another nation. This is what happens.

[Marr]

96. Uh-huh.

Your humanity is inspiring.

[HiFructosePronSyrup]

92. Does Hezbollah run a large international airline?

HezbollAir perhaps?

I'm wondering, because basically the first thing Israel blew up was the airport.

[peacetalksforall]

102. Starting with the airport - did Hezbollah hang out there? Manage it? Or

was a predominance of employees from Hezbollah? Or were they meeting in a conference room on the tarmac?

[msmcghee]

103. Israel had reason to believe . .

. . the airport was being used to take the kidnapped terrorists out of the country - probably to Syria.

Lebanon could have avoided the destruction of its airport simply by demanding that Hizbollah return the kidnap victims. They chose instead to get their airport bombed. Bad choice I'd say.

[uppityperson]

110. Israel had reason to believe Hezbullah were everywhere

so just had to bomb the heck out of everywhere just in case they were there then. I am done. Off to do something else more productive.

[Solo_in_MD]

134. Your statement is illogical

(sorry, could not resist that)

Ordinance costs money. Israel was using LGB weapons, even more expensive, and require a target designator. Israel presumabmly was droping them on specific targets. Its far from clear why some sites were targeted, others had clear military value. Had their intention been to inflict civilian casualties, they would have been in the 10s of thousands and done with carpet bombing.

[uppityperson]

137. well...

or maybe
It will be interesting to see what is made public and what isn't. It all needs to stop. That is my opinion. It all needs to stop.

[Mr_Spock]

121. "Israel had reason to believe..."

Don't some here spewing that RW excuse for murdering children.

Sickening...

[Mr_Spock]

120. lol

Is this some kind of joke?

[AX10]

2. There were alot of civilian areas that were inhabited with Christians..

that were attacked. This was a war. There is no way that civilian areas were not targeted/damaged. There are photos to show the damage on both sides.

[Howardx]

5. thats why they will refuse to pay for any of the damage

n/t

[WiseButAngrySara]

15. Then we as taxpayers should refuse to pay Israel any money for their

bloodshed and carnage and lack of respect for human life!

[Howardx]

16. that would be nice

but will never happen

[Sherman A1]

34. Agreed

I would very much like to see Israel cut off from American military and monetary aid. I have nothing against Israel at all nor do I "cheer" for Hezbollah (as was previously mentioned). I just really don't want to pay for Israel's wars, peace or anything else.

[evox]

6. Somehow

I actually have read an article somewhere not very long ago, during the beginning of the conflict. The author stated "I won't be surprised if Israel denies it destroyed anything in Lebanon"

[WiseButAngrySara]

37. I'm not surprised. They're already trying to rewrite History. Like the

recent oil spill? And information coming out that they have been planning on this for months, had the 'go-ahead' from Cheney, and were just waiting for the 'right opportunity' to present itself as a pretext for War...

[TomInTib]

9. That was absolutely surreal

she just sat there and kept saying that shit.

I look for the Israelis to soon spin the position that Hezbollah was totally responsible for the damage and then to claim that Hezbollah did all that shit and are trying to pin it on the Israelis.

[WiseButAngrySara]

11. I had to turn it off it made me so infurinated; My old blind dog runs for

cover when she hears me shouting at the T.V. as she is not used to it!
I am so sick of these apologists for Israel, and Wolf Blitzer is one of the major ones, being a former citizen of Israel and having worked as a lobbyist for AIPAC in the past. How do you imagine someone with a background like that can argue objectively? He is unethical for even attempting to do so. I'm not willing at all to support their butchery to the tune of billions of tax dollars each and every year. I wish the U.S. would cut them off, but I know that's not going to happen.

[TahitiNut]

12. "Who're you gonna believe? Me or your lying eyes?"

When the punch-line of a well-known (crude) joke becomes the reality of a stance taken by a government official, sanity is truly at risk.

(Yes, I listened to the part of the interview twice - mouth agape.)

[Hoping4Change]

22. .

[bluerum]

25. Spin phase 2. Don't forget chimpy's speechifyin about how

Hezbollah lost in this debacle. IMO Hezbollah gained the respect of many an emboldened, unemployed, dis-enfranchised, middle eastern youth.

[Monkeyman]

44. Dum Shit it was a stalemate with hezbolla winning hearts and minds of the

Arab world

[raysr]

52. Who's to stop Israel's

aggression if not for Hezbollah? Cerntainly not Israel enabling US. They "punished" the Lebanese for allowing Hezbollah to exist. OF COURSE they destroyed Lebanon"s infrastructure. Just as the US went after Iraq's. Aid to Israel needs to stop and our connection to Israel needs to be cut. No more terrorism in US. And we need to get the fuck off Arab land, if they don't want us there where do we get off forcing our will and ideas on people that don't want it. They'll still sell us oil.

[WiseButAngrySara]

64. "Aid to Israel needs to stop and our connection to Israel needs to be cut"

YES! It is time.

[Solo_in_MD]

79. Let me turn that around...if Hezbollah did not exist, would Israel have

invaded? I don't think so.

If Lebanon was in control of its territory, there would not have been rocket attacks or kidnappings. Without those, the IDF would have stayed home. As proof you should look to the Sinai. No rocket attacks, no kidnappings, no war, no destroyed infrastructure or homes. Instead its peace and prosperity. Egypt does not have neighbors funding an illegal militia in its nations. It is in control of its territory. There is a clue there for the taking...when Syria and Iran cut of their surrogate (Hezbollah) peace will come. Until then, its bloodshed as usual.

[berni_mccoy]

108. Let ME Turn THAT Around: ISRAEL SET OUT TO PUNISH THE LEBANESE PEOPLE

See post #104 below. Nuff Said.

[Solo_in_MD]

111. You proved my point

If there was no Hezbollah, there would have been no need to punish anyone since there would have been no reason to.

[berni_mccoy]

112. Your point is hypothetical and irrelavent.. that's what I'm trying to show

you. Israel set out to PUNISH ISRAEL. For the Foreign Minister to claim they did not attack Lebanon or its infrastructure is a clear LIE given the earlier statements by the Israeli gov't about WHY it attacked Lebanon.

And let's not forget, that the UNIFIL was there to help Lebanon rid itself of Hezbollah. Even Bush recognized that Lebanon had been making progress to get rid of them and was working with the U.N. and the U.S. (wonder why we had 25 thousand people there?).

[theanarch]

141. Hezbollah exists because of Israel's occupation of...

...southern Lebanon from 1982 to 2000...a short (and over-simplified) history: Israel drove the PLO out of the occupied territories in the early 1970's, which moved to Lebanon. Their presence precipitated the Lebanese civil war, which ended when the (Christian) gov't. of Lebanon invited the Syrians to occupy the country to restore order. The original plan was for Syrian forces to occupy the entire country, but Israel made it clear that the moment Syrian troops moved south of the Litani R., a state of war would exist between Israel and Syria...so, in an effort to keep the peace, Syria appeased Israel by not occupying the area south of the Litani to the (northern) Israeli border. From this administrative/security void Hezbollah arose to create order out of chaos...and in addition to providing social services, created a military wing to provide security (e.g., protect their people from Israeli fly-by bombings, incursions, land/water-grabs, etc). In 1982, Israel invaded Lebanon, and occupied the area between the northern (Israeli) border and the Litani R. 18 years later, when the IDF lost a war of attrition and withdrew, Hezbollah was the defacto gov't. of southern Lebanon, with its own defense force. Last year, in what might charitably be called Bush's only ME foreign policy success, Syria ended its occupation of the rest of Lebanon, and a very fragile, and yes, DEMOCRATICALLY ELECTED, coalition gov't. (which, by political necessity, included Hezbollah--13 MP's and two, minor, cabinet posts) was formed. Now, thanks to Israel's arrogance and hubris, Lebanon is smoldering wreck of a country with a shattered government, drowning in debt, refugees, ruined infrastructure...and a Hezbollah that enjoys exponentially more respect and legitimacy now than it ever could have before Israel decided to go Old Testiment on Lebanon.

[Solo_in_MD]

143. and the funding and arms being received from Syria and Iran

without which is would have never amounted to anything. It is that support that allowed it to build the social organization and the militia. If it were cut off, they would be gone in months.

[IChing]

55. Liar....unless I live in another reality

[Malikshah]

77. Apple doesn't fall far from the tree...her father was a terrorist...she's

just living up to her own family lineage.

[Junkdrawer]

81. Remember the Joey Bishop "deny, deny, deny" scene...

in "A Guide for the Married Man" ???

Lebanon's largest dairy processing facility, the International Airport, pharmaceutical factories, utilities, roads, bridges...

Nope, no infrastructure. What would you like for dinner, dear?

[peacetalksforall]

100. ;Man, killing and destroying seems to go with lying. nt

[berni_mccoy]

104. FOR ALL YOU WHO WOULD DEFEND THIS LIE

Retired Israeli army colonel Gal Luft explained the rationale behind the attack: “Israel is attempting to create a rift between the Lebanese population and Hezbollah supporters by exacting a heavy price from the elite in Beirut. The message is: If you want your air conditioning to work and if you want to be able to fly to Paris for shopping, you must pull your head out of the sand and take action toward shutting down Hezbollah-land.”

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/07/18/AR2006071801436_pf.html

NUFF SAID. Anyone who defends LIVNI'S LIE has jumped the shark.

[msmcghee]

109. The article also said, . .

"Other specialists in security strategy said that Israel is sending messages to several audiences, telling the people of Lebanon that the attack is the price of tolerating the Hezbollah's presence and the broader Arab world that its current response is the price of provoking Israel."

I'd say that since the Lebanese stood by and allowed Hizbollah to set up and cheered them on as they fired their missiles - and made no attempt to stop Hizbollah or condemn them - that it was wise for Israel to send a message to them that they are jeopardizing their country's and their own well being and happiness.

That doesn't mean they pruposely attacked non-military targets. It probably means they did not spend too much time and resources being absolutely certain before sending a mission. Time and resources are precious when someone is firing missiles at your citizens. I doubt any international court will fault them for their decisions.

[Junkdrawer]

114. They weren't "cheering" before. But now....n/t

[Solo_in_MD]

130. Holding the Israeli government accountable based on the statements

by a retired army officer is a not barticularly credible argument.

[berni_mccoy]

131. OH FOR CRYING OUT LOUD, How Blind CAN YOU BE?!?!

Here is the OFFICIAL israeli gov't statements on the day of the attacks:

http://www.cnn.com/2006/WORLD/meast/07/12/mideast/index.html

The Israeli Cabinet authorized "severe and harsh" retaliation on Lebanon...

"This affair is between Israel and the state of Lebanon," Adam said. "Where to attack? Once it is inside Lebanon, everything is legitimate -- not just southern Lebanon, not just the line of Hezbollah posts."

Earlier, Israel's chief of staff, Lt. Gen. Dan Halutz, told Israel's Channel 10, "If the soldiers are not returned, we will turn Lebanon's clock back 20 years."

Check and mate. Now go disrupt someone else's post.

[Garbo 2004]

133. Much of what they call "Hezbollah's infrastructure" is also Lebanon's

infrastructure...airport, roads, power plants, fuel tanks, bridges, etc.

So yes, it was an attack on Lebanon and its infrastructure. They seem to be claiming ONLY Hezbollah used the roads, bridges, the Beirut airport, etc. Clearly that's not the case.

[Solo_in_MD]

135. Actually Hezbollah's use of it made it a legitimate target

For example if Hezbollah was using a bridge to bring in supplies it was a legitimate target, even if refugees were using it.

[Garbo 2004]

138. Given that logic, all of Lebanon was a legit target for the Israelis.

Hence the claim that Israel "only" targeted "Hezbollah's infrastructure" and not Lebanon's infrastructure is shown to be false.

By the logic of Israel's claims, they'd have to destroy all of Lebanon to ensure there was no infrastructure or hiding places left in Lebanon for Hezbollah's use. Perhaps "nuke it from space, that's the only way to be sure" would be the only way to eliminate Hezbollah and its capacities in Lebanon. Not exactly a tenable option for Israel as they no doubt realized. (And I'm not claiming that they intended to completely destroy Lebanon but that Lebanon's infrastructure has taken a considerable hit and will take years from which to recover is undeniable.) But to claim that "only" Hezbollah infrastructure was targeted is clearly false.

[Solo_in_MD]

139. Pretty much

Hezbollah militia pretty much had free rein in the country, given the funding and weapons from Syria and Iran. That gave the IDF coverage in terms of targeting a lot of things. Still there were some strikes where the military value is questionable. Assuming there will be tribunals afterwards, I will wait to see why the IDF hit them.

The damage is tremendous, it will take decades to recover. Depending on the weapons used on the airfields, those alone could take a year to rebuild, more if the fuel farm was destroyed.

[breakaleg]

140. That's like blowing up an entire house to get rid of ants...

excessive, to say the least. and completely stupid.

But it wouldn't surprise me to see Israel use such an argument. They will go to any lengths to justify their many actions which are well beyond any democratic or international laws.

[Solo_in_MD]

142. Its not really a valid analogy, but if the target had

demonstrated military use or even significant potential, it can be considered a legitimate target under the current rules. When there are tribunals (a reasonable assumption IMO) the IDF will provide justification for strikes that are questioned. I assume there will be enough to provide some substaniation of them. My take is that in the end there will be some hand wringing about the overall damage done but nothing more than that. This is not to mean I agree with everything the IDF has done.

However, there is nothing defensible about the rockets being fired at Israel or the sinking of the Egyptian freighter. Clear violations of the current rules of war, even though Hezbollah did not do nearly the damage to Israel. Going to be interesting to see if that is looked into at all, and how a tribunal could even convene or question Hezbollah

[maddezmom]

146. locking

please read the new guidelines:
1. ORIGINAL POSTS MUST BE ABOUT A CURRENT EVENT, AND CONTAIN NON-INFLAMMATORY, SUBSTANTIAL CONTENT
If you wish to start a thread in the General Discussion forum about the Middle East situation involving Lebanon, Israel, and the surrounding countries, it must be based on a current news story. The moderators may lock threads which are started with substance-free posts (for example, nothing but a link), or threads started with posts which contain inflammatory rhetoric.

2. DEBATE THREADS WHICH ARE NOT BASED ON A CURRENT NEWS STORY WILL BE MOVED
If you start a thread in General Discussion which is not based on a current event or news story, it will be moved to the Israel/Palestine forum where the thread will be subject to the special rules of that forum. (Yes, we know the name of the forum isn't entirely appropriate, but that's the least of our concerns at the moment.)

3. KEEP IT CIVIL
If you decide to persist in calling people who are attempting to have a reasonable discussion about these issues anything along the lines of terrorists, Jew-haters, Jew-lovers, neo-cons, Nazis, or any other red-hot rhetoric, then you may face further disciplinary action. There are plenty of other places on the Internet where you can have discussions like that. But not here.

We are giving the Moderators wide latitude to enforce these guidelines in the interests of keeping the peace. If you don't want your thread to get moved or locked, we suggest that you think carefully about it before you post, rather than complaining to the Admins afterwards.

As always we appreciate your understanding and patience during this difficult time.