Israeli air attack kills 54 civilians, including 19 children

The use of hyperbole does not necessary defines idiocy.

Every government has secret conspiracies of some sort. Can you honestly say the public know exactly what is our country's intention in the middle east conflict? Do we know exactly what CIA is doing right now to carry out those intentions? By the same token, do we know what MOSSAD is doing right now? Has Israel made it's intentions apparent to the world or to it's public? I don't believe so, and you may think otherwise. Perhaps that's where our opinions differ.

 

source
[rquoter]

Human shield is a military term describing the presence of civilians in or around combat targets to deter an enemy from attacking those targets. It may also be used to describe the use of civilians to literally shield combatants during attacks, by forcing the civilians to march in front of the soldiers during human wave attacks. Using this technique increases the civilian casualty rate and is illegal in any nation that is party to the Fourth Geneva Convention.

The term human shield can also be used collectively where the shield is not an individual but the whole population. In this case, one party in a conflict intentionally positions its military assets amongst a civilian population or close to civilian facilities such as hospitals or schools in the hope that the other party will be reluctant to attack them. Furthermore, if the other party attacks these targets anyway, the resulting civilian casualties have propaganda value.

International law considers the use of human shields to protect targets a war crime. The Fourth Geneva Convention forbids the use of any civilian as a shield: "The presence of a protected person may not be used to render certain points or areas immune from military operations." (Geneva Convention Relative to the Protection of Civilian Persons in Time of War, August 12, 1949, 6 U.S.T. 3516, 75 U.N.T.S. 287, art. 28).

[/rquoter]

Assuming that you consider Hezbollah to be an army, not something else, according to the Geneva conventions (which of course Hezbollah have not signed) the group that is responsible for the civilian casualities caused by Israel is Hezbollah.

 

Thanks for the definition.

A couple of questions... What defines military assets? Has it been proven that caches of weapons or barracks were located in the heart of civilian populace? Does hospitals run by Hezbollah count as military assets?

 

You seem to be missing the point.

If someone describes a suicide bomber as a "homicide bomber" the point is technically correct. But by describing them as homicide bombers it becomes clear that the speaker is a hardcore ideological adherent to Fox News.

 

I wouldn't consider them to be hardcore ideological if they were to use the term homicide bomber. To be truthful, I don't know what impact would such term have on the American public.

 

That was actually a typo. I meant to write "Neocon-Zionist" cabal, but even then, your point would still stand I would assume. As far as your offense to my usage, I'm not sure I'm following you. I could somewhat understand if you were taking the Hayesian approach and saying I am being too sensationalistic and you were denying that their was any sinister element to the alliance - I could understand that. But you seem to be implying its anti-semitic in nature and an engulfing quality of an entire group...? The term/phrase(?) doesn't attack Jews, but calls the Zionists for what they are - Zionists. There is a Zionist-Neocon alliance. 'Cabal' is an appropriate term for my feelings towards the morality of this group's intentions. I'm not sure I understand what you're taking offense at.

 

I think that Israel has commited many war crimes, including a couple that people have not brought up as of yet. Many of Israel's targets are illegal.

My intended point, which I may have not articulated clearly, was that counting the military to civilian death ratios on each side to determine who is fighting the more just campaign is pedantic.

 

That is a phrase that I have often seen in use by people who are anti-Jewish hate groups. Your use of it is the first time that I have seen it otherwise. Therefore, my first thought was that you might be a member of one such group. Is that clear enough?

If you think that I am some sort of neocon and will take offense to your words, you clearly don't know me.

 

Why? Is it wrong that I hate Zionism and Zionists? I can hate Zionism, hate neoconservatism, but what does that have anything to do with how I feel about Jews?

I didn't think that at all, judging from your previous posts, you seem faily moderate. I was just confused what you meant.

 

I can agree to that, and I doubt doubt Hezbollah is guilty of some sort of human shielding. At the same time, I have yet to see concrete proof of such.

 

It is not an indication of the words themselves or their meanings, but rather people who I have seen use that particular phrase in the past. You could kiss Jewish babies whenever you see them, I have no idea.

I have no technical problem with the word "homicide bomber". It is reasonably accurate, but there is all sorts of baggage that goes with it.

 

Technically this would include housing soldiers in buildings near other building that contain civilians.

The rub, for me at least, is whether it is accurate to describe the members of Hezbollah as an army in the traditional sense.

 

Would it also include having soldiers 'mingle' with civilians when they commute to work?

 

A group of neocons in the Office of Special Plans under Wolfowitz called themselves "the Cabal" according to an article by seymour hersh from a few years ago.

Anyway, the term has a multiethnic history, according to wikipedia, at least:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cabal

 

It is the "Zionist cabal" part of the phrase that triggered my response, not just the word cabal.

 

As tiger and gee have already stated more eloquently, you're just flat out wrong then. It has nothing to do with Muslim extremism. It's used as a weapon in the grand scheme of their political objective. Hisbollah isn't some Syrian movement hell-bent on toppling democracy and enforcing Islamic ideals. They were resisting the occupation and made a huge miscalculation in their plan to exchange prisoners. You're just simply mistaken if you think this has anything to do with "Muslim extremism."

As far as your issue with suicide bombing, if we already agree that the killing of innocents by both sides in their respective manners is condemnable, then why is it such a big deal to you the manner in which they're carrying it out? Contrary to your assertion, a suicide bomber doesn't carry out the action for the purpose of dying or martyrdom. The purpose is to inflict as many casualties as possible - the same purpose as an F-16 mass bombing. The concept of martyrdom is instilled as the reward or motivation. How is that any different than the pride American parents feel knowing that their sons died to defend their country and democracy?

Again, we already established the parallel between the suicide bombing and the conventional bombing if killing innocents and you concurred. Setting that aside, what's your problem?

 

So what's your point then? I don't mean to come off as confrontational, but I'm not following what your issue is with my use of the term. You have no problem with the word but you do with the way it is used by certain people? What does that have to do with me or my meaning of the term?

I stand by my statement. I feel the alliance is a cabal, disingenuous in what it presents as its intentions to the world, and for the most part sinister in its international dealings and hopes of hegemonizing the Arab Middle East.

 

Then you can't fault people who are against Hezbollah's ideology of Israel's destruction and those who use their lives to die for it.

Veterans can later speak out against the war or any future war. Suicide bombers can't.

Recruits can be motivated by college grants, stability, ambition along with patriotism. Suicide bombers aren't.

Until the parents of dead soldiers end their lives with a bang against the new Axis of Evil, you can't compare them to suicide bombers.

 

Yea of course, but the point here is his assertion that suicide bombing is somehow inherently worse than its opposing construction.

Their widows and orphans can.

Why not? Suicide bombers are motivated by patriotism as much or moreso than they are by any religious ideals. As far as stability, or ambition, it's quite different as most of these people are usually Palestinian refugees with little prospects, so the rationalization provided is that its done in response to the frustration regarding their hopelessness. I'm not saying I agree with this, I'm just saying what the rationalization is.

Why not? I didn't say they were completely analagous situations. I was comparing the sense of pride that a parent feels that his/her child died for his country.

 

Israel can achieve peace with other nations...even some terror groups. If extremists plant to commit suicide for Hezbollah's current ideology (Israel's destruction), then Israel can't negotiate with those people. If there's peace with Hezbollah, they'll splinter into a group that has plans to destroy Israel.

My point is that a soldier has the possibility to change his mind. A soldier can desert after fighting.

I'm saying patiotism/ideology is the only factor. They void their futures for that ideal.

Suicide for beliefs=extremism

Enough pride for them to kill themselves?

Speaking of wildly different degrees, are you a murderer for eating meat? For eating plants?