I think you can differentiate between terrorism and violence without condoning or justifying the violence. I think the distinction is important. But just because I see a difference between blowing up a tourist bus in the centre of town, and hitting a strategic target which resulted in civilian deaths doesn't mean I think the Israli action was appropriate.
I'm not making allegations so I don't need proof, lol. As of now there is no concrete proof either way so what is your point? Of course. It is somewhat amusing that some posters get in a tizzy when BigTexx or someone accuses them of being a sympathizer and then they turn around and use the exact same logic.
The airport Israel attacked was not a military or militant target. The militants did not use it as a safehouse, or hq. The militants did not have any aircraft there. There were no militants, terrorists or military there. There were only civilians and civilian aircraft. Israel purposefully attacked it. It isn't like they were going after some terrorists and innocents got killed in stirke. There were no terrorists there and Israel went after it anyway. Hayes, you keep saying the airport was legitimate because missles could be transported in via the airport. real_egal already showed the flaw in that logic. By that logic they could attack schools because the school might teach a terrorist, or any home because that home might house a terrorist. They can blow up libraries because terrorists can read how to build bombs in them. It is the same logic that Al Qaeda uses when it says that the WTC was a legitimate target because civilians vote in the leaders that station the troops in Saudi Arabia, and support those corrupt regimes. The WTC was legitimate target because it housed offices associated with the finances that allows the govt. to do bad things. I don't accept that reasoning from Al Qaeda, and I won't accept it from Israel or anyone else. I am sorry striking at civilian targets with no militant, or terrorist supplies or personnel there is just as reprehensible as terrorist groups who attack civilian targets. I am consistent in my beliefs that it is wrong. Others may change their beliefs on that, but I will hold strong. Targeting civilian targets is wrong.
However, there is also a difference between a group like Al Queda which have very grandiose aims and distant/"utopian" goals of restoring the great Islamic Caliphate and groups like Hamas and Hezbollah. Hamas and Hezbollah are both not even really sub-national groups but are actually full fledged political parties/movements in their respective areas with representation in govt but with an armed wing that conducts "terrorist acts" in its struggle against Israeli occupation. I'm not quite saying that it "means nothing". HOWEVER, I am saying that to a victim, it means very little.
lol, no. An airport is not a library. A school is not a library. How do you think Iran and Syria are going to resupply Hezbollah? How about the roads and the airport? Gee, I wonder why Israel would bomb roads and airports? Airports are legitimate wartime targets for precisely the same reason ports are legitimate wartime targets (because they are a point of entry for resupply). That is easily distinguished from other things that are NOT considered legitimate wartime targets like a library or a hospital. Let's talk about what you DO know...you know the airport was bombed and some people were killed. That's it. You don't know what was at the airport. You don't know whether or not Hezbollah was using the airport for resupply. You don't know if Hezbollah personnel were at the airport or not. That they targeted the runways rather than just carpet bombing the whole damn thing shows they were not 'targeting' civilians. Asserting as much with no proof whatsoever is just a joke. Attacking a transportation hub is not the same as attacking the WTC. Herein again we see the danger of blurring the lines between terrorism and military action by a state. You're equating the two as if they are equal actors. They aren't. We'll if we say its ok for Israel to do it then it would be ok for AQ to blow up the world trade center! Uh, no. Those are apples and oranges. AQ simply never has a case for legitimate action. They are never legitimate. These actors are NOT equal so stop equating the two.
You are being silly. They are attacking their enemies supply lines, which is a strategy practiced throughout the history of modern warfare. They are trying to isolate Hizballah. People at the airport where not the target, the runways were, and they cratered the runways. I'm saddend that 8 innocent people where killed when the Israelis bombed the runways, but that is clearly not targeting civilians. Hell, in this case they where not tageting anyone, they were targeting runways. Ideally they would have warned the Lebanese that they were going to disable the airport so it could be evacuated (I don't know if they did this or not). I do know that they told the Lebanese they would be attacking the southern suburbs of Beirut.
Well both of those groups have certainly recently developed the political side. However, they are different so let's not lump them together. Hezbollah is certainly a subnational terrorist organization. They enjoy the power and political influence more from the fact that the Lebanese government cannot disarm them than from being part of the government. While they are now in the political process they were formed by Iran and Syria to fight Israel. And their decisions to attack Israel does not get the legitimacy that comes with being a state actor just because they have some people in the government. It was not the decision of the Lebanese government to attack Israel, but the non-elected non-Lebanese state actions of Hezbollah as the subnational terrorist organization.
We do know what was at the airport, according to Israel's own intel and the reasons they claim they attacked it. I'm judging the actions. Attacking a civilian target whether done by state, or terrorist group is reprehensible. Because one attacker of innocent civilians happens to be a state, and the other happens to be a group, doesn't make one action less reprehensible. I'm not talking about the group itself. I do believe a terrorist group is more reprehensible than a state govt. But the actions themselves are still the same. You are making excuses for the action. You choose to feel ok with those excuses but not with the excuses Al Qaeda uses. I don't feel ok with any excuses. I will always be against attacking civilian targets.
See...that's where we disagree. An airport is always a military target. It simply is. It's the avenue through which goods are transfered in and out of country. Just because a military plane wasn't on the runway at the time, doesn't make it less so. I think the attack was an act of war. It was wrong, IMO...but it was hardly a random civilian target. You're usually one of the best reads on this board but I feel like I'm experiencing a Giddy-type logic contortion in your posts (sorry giddy -- you'll never live down the Nugent thread ). I suppose any target could be given the Kevin Beacon five steps to justification treatment...but there is no such stretch required of an airport.
Attacking enemy supply lines generally means attacking areas where enemy supplies are. The airport was not one of those areas. They may have wished people weren't killed. But they attacked a civilian target(meaning the airport was not a military airfield.) You are correct they did warn the Lebanese they would be attacking the suburbs. They then proceded to attack a convoy of civilians who were taking action and fleeing after the warning, killing at least 20 civilians many of whom were children.
No, actually I am reserving judgement until we actually have enough information to make a decision. I can't say the same for you. You similarly made a poor conclusion about the empty soccer field, originally decrying the 'war crime' of bombing a 'university.' As of now we do know that the Israelis bombed the runways at an airport. We know that airports are, in fact, considered legitimate wartime targets by every convention that governs warfare. We know that the Israelis could have just leveled the whole airport but didn't. We can surmise, more reasonably IMO, that they were not 'targeting' civilians since they merely went after the runways. Or we could allege, as you have done, that this was targeting civilians (with no real rationale for the action).
I consider military airfields to be a military target. I consider an international airport to be a civilian target. Would you consider Houston Hobby or IAH to be a military target? I am not trying to contort, and would love to stand corrected. In the other thread I conceded that if the attack on the University in Gaza was merely an attack on a soccer field that was used to launch missles I would have no problem with that attack, and haven't brought it up since. If someone shows me similar logic with the International airport I won't use it again either. However bombing highways because terrorists can drive on them, or airports because supplies can land there seems so overreaching in an effort to excuse attacks on civilian structures that I just don't buy it. Like I said I don't buy the overreaching excuses that terrorist groups like Al Qaeda or Hamas use in their targeting either.
Because Israel could have done worse doesn't mean that what they did do was ok. They could have used a nuke, but that doesn't mean beacause they don't use the nuke everything they do is showing restraint and a surgical strike. We know that Israel's strike on the international airport destroyed no militants, equipment used by militants, nor was that their intention according to Israel itself. Even their own explanation for the attack is that it was merely to destroy transportation. We also know that it killed civilians, and no other casualties. If I attack IAH then I can bet that I will most likely kill civilians and probably won't take out any military targets.
Not at all. Them's the rules. From a discussion about this very issue: So where does that leave the US Air Force in regards to dual-use targets? The Air Force perspective is that when attacking power sources, transportation networks, and telecommunications systems, distinguishing between the military and civilian aspects of these facilities is virtually impossible.60 Since these targets remain critical military nodes within the second and third ring of Warden’s model, they are viewed as legitimate military targets. Air Force doctrine has always supported attacking such targets, and nothing in international law or the JWE specifically forbids such attacks. The Air Force perspective on non-combatant immunity for such dual-use targets is that since the targets are military, the US is responsible for minimizing the direct collateral damage of nearby civilian persons and property. This doesn’t preclude the Air Force from taking a liberal interpretation of weapon-selection duties that permit high levels of force protection,61 nor does the Air Force consider the long-term, indirect effects of such attacks when it applies proportionality to the expected military gain.62 In sum, the Air Force takes a position that is well within the letter of the law and that supports its doctrine of strategic attack. http://www.airpower.maxwell.af.mil/airchronicles/cc/Rizer.html Probably wholesale firebombing of cities ala Dresden would be over the line. Maybe. Transportation and communication networks, power grids...those all fall under acceptable targets for a state in wartime. As you can see above the transportation networks are legitimate targets. So you're just wrong on this one.
Before we get any further, we should perhaps try to "decide" on a few items: AFAIK, the timeline of events is as follows: (1) Hezbollah attacked the Israeli military and managed to kidnap two soldiers. Was this an act of war, of course! But was this a "terrorist act"? I would say no. Not saying that Hezbollah has never committed terrorist acts before but in this particular instance, they attacked the Israeli military who they have been fighting against since they were created to eject Israeli occupation of Lebanese lands. So I would not say this was a terrorist act but an act of war only. (2) In response, Israel decided to bomb Lebanon's airport, roads, and other infrastructure that they claim could be used by Hezbollah. I do not consider these acts "war crimes or terrorist act" per se. However the amount of destruction and collateral damage and death of civilians is far disproportionate as a response to the kidnapping of two soldiers. Israel basically has admitted it was more a pretext to wage full scale war against Lebanon. (3) In retaliation, Hamas has attacked various Israeli targets: (a) the warship using C-802 cruise missile (IMO not a terrorist act but a military attack on a military target) (b) various towns and cities of Northern Israel killing various civilians (IMO these are not justifiable as they kill civilians indiscriminately with little military value. HOWEVER, I would distinguish this attack since it was a retaliation conducted during war in response to Israeli attacks as opposed to something like the London subway bombings, Madrid railway bombings or WTC attack that came out of nowhere). So here we are. I'm not trying to justify anything but just trying to explain how I see things.
This may apply if Israel actually declared war on Lebanon before the bombing, and if they are actually fighting Lebanon. They are bombing a 3rd party in this conflict, so this does not apply. In fact, doesn't attacking a country without a declaration of war violate some sort of provision in the Geneva Convention?
However, Hezbollah's lack of "legitimacy" since they are not a full fledged state actor also does not mean that therefore every action they take is by defintion "terrorism". Remember that Hezbollah was created to fight Israeli occupation of Lebanon. I do not consider its fight against the Israeli military, where it attacked the Israeli army to be "terrorism" despite the fact that it was a not acting as the official armed forces of Lebanon but of a regional "militia". Most of Hezbollah's rocket attacks on Israel have also usually come about as retaliation for Israeli attacks although most of these attacks had no military significance and therefore can be considered as "terrorism". But I would somewhat distinguish them from random terrorist attacks of the WTC, London, Madrid variety that come out of nowhere. Hezbollah may or may not be a "terrorist organization". But whatever you may think, it is more of the Contras, IRA, PKK, Tamil Tigers variety not the Al Queda variety. It is an organization that is fighting against a specific enemy not an organization that is trying to launch big random terrorist attacks all over the world out of nowhere.
Yes. Please do make a reference to back in 1996. Hmmmmm, how many times has China launched missiles since then? Amazingly, your argument is incredibly one-sided. Specifically, it completely ignored the fact that the Asian Al-Qaeda (that'll be the DPP on Taiwan) plotted to strike the Three Gorges Dam, with the consequence of wiping out over 150 million people. Thank god it won't succeed huh? Also, first of all, Taiwan DOESN'T have foreign affairs offices in all but a dozen countries. And those are begotten by merely monetary bribery. It's interesting that you try to argue when you didn't even get your facts straight. Also, let's see: the Union and Confederacy both had their respective currencies, issued bonds, conducted foreign affairs, had military forces, yada yada yada. The argument is much more in favour of Texas as supposed to Taiwan. On the other hand, North and South Koreas are legally separate entities. They acknowledge themselves as separate entities. And despite what several idealists would like, neither side truly wants to reunify. They can conduct diplomatic negotiations whereas with the Mainland and Taiwan, it is a none-starter. In fact, both side created a Reunification Council to separate the negotiations from normal diplomatic process.
Quite frankly, despite your attempts to stick your nose everywhere, Taiwan is none of your goddam business. So also quite frankly, it doesn't matter one bit what you think.
