Man… they know that if they go in and fight there will be greater casualties...they are saving the deaths of their soldiers for those of innocent people. Friggin cost-benefit analysis! If they honestly want to get rid of the terrorists they will have to go in and fight…either do it the right way or don’t do it at all.
Not necessarily contradicting you, per se, but I would point out that the IDF right now is facing fierce resistance in South Lebanon in areas where the civilians have already fled. Most of Israel's target have been "infrastructure" like roads, power plants, some headquarter buildings, etc but I highly doubt Hezbollah routinely hangs out in these places especially now. Hezbollah does have an elaborate system of underground bunkers and reinforcements that are probably more immune to attack than any civilian buildings standing out in the open. Its unlikely that the Hezbollah soldiers who are fighting Israeli soldiers on the ground are mingling with civilians rather than entrenched and waiting for Israeli soldiers to come to them.
Well, they are 'going in and fighting.' An unfortunate part of war is the inevitable civilian death toll, but that doesn't mean air strikes are illegitimate.
in my opinion... air strikes would be legitimate ...however not in this case...there are no soldiers...there are only suspected targets...it's like dropping a friggin nuclear bomb and hoping you solve the problem…this specific case asks for another type of solution…
Certainly there are Hezbollah regulars are now in entrenched positions on the 'front line, but I was referring to the normal state of affairs for Hezbollah. They locate their HQ's and supply depots and most of their operation within civilian centers. They don't have an air force so they can't have depots and bases in the open like a state can - that's what I was referring to. When all this started the civilians had not evacuated - and even so the infrastructure targets you mention are legitimate targets.
Would you be saying the same things you're saying in these threads if the U.S. was getting bombed the same way the Israelis are bombing Lebanon? Also, using the same logic, would you argue that the Pentagon was a legitimate target (and still is) when it was hit on 9-11?
As far as I can tell, yes. Not by a subnational terrorist group, no. But few, if any, strikes by such an organization are legitimate. By another state we were at war with, absolutely.
Thanks for answering my questions. I may not agree with you, but at least you're consistent and don't flip flop like some of the other posters here from what I can tell. It just seems that there's been way too many "accidents" in Israeli history where Arab and Muslim civilians have been killed by Israelis for all of them to be isolated incidents.
You are soooooo clever. No one has ever come up with that before. This gets three rolleyes. If Israel doesn't care if civilians get killed, then why spend the money to use laser and satellite guided bombs when they could drop much cheaper unguided munitions, or even just shell the cities with dirt cheap artillery shells. They sure seem to be going to a lot of expense and effort for a group that doesn't care if civilians get hit. I would say a more accurate assessment is that they will not let the possibility or even probability of civilian casualties deter them from their mission. They are refusing to let Hizballah use the Lebanese civilians as human shields. I would not characterize what the Israelis are doing as bombing the hell of densely populated neighborhoods, so although my answer is no, I feel your question is faulty. If there was a major international terrorist organization operating in the US I would not allow the presence of US civilians prevent the government from taking them out using whatever tactics they thought best.
Who cares about Israel using precision weapons on civilian targets, the 911 terrorists used their lives to guide an airplane to take out civilian targets, what can beat that as precision weapons? They want to precisely kill and torture some civilians, but they don't want to come out like Nazi Germany in wiping out a whole population. The cold blooded murderers/terrorists known as the Israeli army who targets innocent civilian target like an airport to achieve their political agenda is no worse than what Osama Bin Laden did to the Americans. Kill the civilians on purpose and make them suffer as a tool of retaliation. In case you haven't noticed, a Lebonese life is not cheaper than an American life. You guys will be outraged if Mexico bombed and killed Americans because the US government failed to disarm Hezbollah in Texas border.
Israel is using dirt cheap artillery shells. They have the artillery lined up at the border and are using them like crazy. They are using those in addition to their expensive weapons.
This link has a lot of pictures from Lebanon that depicts the graphic reality of war...so if you're queasy about war, don't click on the link: http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/article14069.htm
Asia calls for Mideast intervention, mulls sending troops http://news.yahoo.com/s/afp/20060721/wl_asia_afp/mideastconflictasia_060721142524 JAKARTA (AFP) - Indonesia and Malaysia said they could send troops as part of a UN deployment to the Middle East as Asia showed mounting concern and urged the international community to intervene. With the Israeli bombardment of Lebanon well into its second week, countries in the region warned of spiralling violence if world powers failed to check the current conflict. Indonesian President Susilo Bambang Yudhoyono wrote to UN General Secretary Kofi Annan to express concern over the conflict and pledge Jakarta's readiness to contribute to a possible UN force there, his spokesman said. "The president expressed support for the formation of an international force under a UN mandate and Indonesia is willing to participate in such a force by contributing at least a battalion," spokesman Dino Patti Djalal said. The letter followed his call Tuesday for a ceasefire between Israel and the Lebanon-based Hezbollah militia, whose capture of two Israeli soldiers 10 days ago triggered the violence. Indonesia, the world's most populous Muslim-majority nation, has no diplomatic ties with Israel. More than a week of Israeli airstrikes and incursions into Lebanon have left more than 330 dead in Lebanon and hundreds of thousands had fled their homes fearing that the Jewish state could mount a full-scale ground offensive. Annan has called for an immediate cessation of hostilities and for an expanded contingent of peacekeeping troops to be deployed in the region. G8 leaders -- from Britain, Canada, France, Germany, Japan, Italy, Russia and the United States -- have also proposed an international stabilization force for Lebanon, where the UN currently has a 2,000-strong contingent. Muslim-majority Malaysia said it was also considering sending troops, pending UN Security Council approval. Deputy Prime Minister Najib Razak said that Malaysia, the current chair of the world's largest grouping of Islamic countries, the Organisation of the Islamic Conference, was well placed to send soldiers. Foreign Minister Syed Hamid Albar added: "The international community ... should make every effort to ensure that these aggressive military actions by Israel do not lead to a widening of the conflict involving other countries." "It is no good for the United Nations to say they are concerned about the humanitarian catastrophe. What are they doing about the humanitarian catastrophe? That is important," he said. Asian newspaper editorials also called for the international community to act swiftly to prevent an escalation. Japan's most-read paper, the conservative Yomiuri Shimbun, commented: "Before it becomes too late, the international community must take quick actions to prevent the situation from deteriorating." The Asahi Shimbun, an influential liberal daily, said in an editorial: "Isn't it a time to establish a framework in which extremists would take part in dialogue? It is the role of the international community to build the foundation for it." Australia's Financial Review criticized world leaders for taking too long to respond to the crisis, singling out the United States. "The international community led by the United States, has been slow to respond to what is becoming an extraordinarily destructive regional conflict that threatens a wider war. "This tardiness reflects poorly on the US's international leadership role and is partly a consequence of the fact that its energies have been dissipated on a war in Iraq gone awry." China's People's Daily called for both sides to sit down and talk. "History tells the peoples of the Middle East that armed force does not solve the enmity between the Arabs and the Israelis. "Only if a political road is followed will it be possible to replace war with talks, fighting with consultation, extremism with reason, and hostility with tolerance." Hong Kong's South China Morning Post also said more needed to done. "Only a multinational stabilising force will bring peace to the region, but those capable of making that happen -- the Un, the US and Britain among them -- are watching and commenting instead of taking action," it said.
How very disturbing. I made myself look at all of the pages and pictures. What an awful mess. It is sad that so many people who had no choice in this at all are being affected like this.
This is hilarious. They generally rip US for acting too quickly, for going it alone and not waiting for an international consensus to emerge over months or years. Now in this instance, they are all pissy because we haven't strong-armed Israel after two weeks of fighting. So which is it haters - are we supposed to sip tea until Jaques Chirac, et al decide to finally do something, or are we supposed to send in the diplomatic calvary to save the day?
Are you comparing the blood shed in Lebanon to said WMD situation in Iraq? This post is hilarious. Indeed.
This is silly, but if I was a citizen around the area there I'd be pointing them out for the world to see...That is unless an agreed symbiosis is what is going on...In that case, the issue of civilianship is compromised, and legitimacy of attack is heightened...
I'm just asking - does the world want us to take the lead on every crisis in the world, or does it? And if it doesn't, then give us some guiding principles on when they want us to take the lead. And it wasn't as though we went into Iraq overnight. It took months and months before we finally attacked.
My interpretation of the events is that the standard for any military action involves some level of international consensus. It doesn't necessarily need to be the UN (NATO or full EU Support would work) but the point is that any action must have some level of approval from the most powerful parts of the international community at large. Both Iraq and the Israeli incursion fail this test. Iraq was done primarily unilaterally with basically British help and some smaller countries. Israel basically went in unilaterally and initally had international support but the sheer force and tactics that they have engaged in has eviscerated all of that support.
