Israeli air attack kills 54 civilians, including 19 children

Are you going to be providing any evidence that Hezbollah has staged munitions, equipment, and/or rocket strikes near civilians with the intent to deter Israeli strikes? The idea that Hezbollah is running around a charred Lebanese landscape, as Israeli drones are watching, looking for schools to set up in so that Israel will inadvertantly kill all the children that aren't there is a bit silly.

 

You scenario is a bit silly. Hezbollah would have already set up in civilian locale's before the conflict started. As I said in other threads, the UN has already clearly stated that Hezbollah is intentionally mixing with civilians and in civilian installations (not they the UN is the ultimate arbiter on such issues - but if you put stock in their determination).

That should do until tiger can upload the digital pics he's taking from the frontline, lol.

 

You can't have human shields until there is a conflict. Your statement is aking to saying any soldier that goes home to his family is using human shields because he's military personnel and they're not. It's about intent, not the nature of the army in question.

 

This won't satisfy Comets because the Hizballah guys aren't holding signs saying their intention for being here is to use the population as human shields, but for anyone else who is interested:

 

LOL! Aww, hit a nerve there, Hayes?

Anyways, since we're on the topic...

http://www.haaretz.com/hasen/spages/745185.html

As the Israel Air Force continues to investigate the air strike, questions have been raised over military accounts of the incident.

It now appears that the military had no information on rockets launched from the site of the building, or the presence of Hezbollah men at the time.

The Israel Defense Forces had said after the deadly air-strike that many rockets had been launched from Qana. However, it changed its version on Monday.

The site was included in an IAF plan to strike at several buildings in proximity to a previous launching site. Similar strikes were carried out in the past. However, there were no rocket launches from Qana on the day of the strike.

I don't know about you, Hayes, but that's quiet an 'interesting' development, not to mention a 'flip-flop' on the part of the Israelis...What do you think?

---------------------------------------------------------


Some quotes:

"Everyone in southern Lebanon is a terrorist and is connected to Hezbollah." Israeli Justice Minister Haim Ramon on July 27.

"Every village from which a Katyusha is fired must be destroyed." Israeli general in a quote bannered by Israel's largest newspaper, Yedioth Ahronoth. (The Israeli paper then summarized what the justice minister and general were saying: "In other words, a village from which rockets are fired at Israel will simply be destroyed by fire.")

"We will turn back the clock in Lebanon by 20 years." Army chief of staff Lt. Gen. Dan Halutz

"To those countries who claim that we are using disproportionate force, I have only this to say: You're damn right we are." Dan Gillerman, Israel's ambassador to the United Nations, speaking at a pro-Israel rally in New York, accompanied of course by Hillary Clinton

I anticipate your 'analysis', Hayes...

 

There's a thin line though. Hezbollah are the main peacekeeping force in preventing looting and such. If they were to roam the street or to reside in the vicinity, is that truly human shielding?

 

Of course, when Israeli soldiers commute with Israeli civilians on public buses/trains/planes, they are using them as 'human shields', thereby are the ones truly responsible for the deaths of those people.

It's a ridiculous and idiotic argument, but some will go to any lengths to 'justify' criminal actions by 'their' side...

 

What's business of Israellis placing Isreal flag in Lebanon? I saw it on CNN.

 

no friggin way... is there anything online that talks about this?

 

It doesn't satisfy me because it provides no context nor does it provide the picture of a single civilian. By your logic I can simply show an Israeli tank going down the street in a civilian neighborhood and use that as an example of HUMAN SHIELDS.

 

Dunno. It's nothing big. It was on AC 360 while I was flipping channels watching USA/China game. After those Soldiers completed their mission - blowing up something, not too sure - they tied an Israel flag onto the thing looks like an transmission tower. Again, it's nothing big, just strange to me. Wouldn't actions like this incite more hatred? How would that help them win the hearts of people against Hezbollah?

 

I'm not sure exactly what message it implies, but considering that this is not a war of occupation, this may be sending the wrong message.

 

About Human Shields:

Yeah, of course every Israel target is justified - if you believe everything Israel is saying.

While I don't believe Israel is quite targeting civilian population intentionally - they do target civilian infrastructure though - what they are targeting can be best described as reckless and utter disregard of the collateral civilian damage. This one little story sheds some light:

Those memories began on the late afternoon of July 16, when his wife, a granddaughter and four of his children, afraid of a possible airstrike, sought shelter in the basement of a nearby building, as theirs lacked one. The building housed the main office for the city’s emergency workers, and the family felt sure it would be safe.

They were wrong. Around 5:30 p.m., missiles struck the building’s foundations and its top floors. Residents now say a Hezbollah official may have been living there. There was no response from the Israeli Defense Ministry to a request, submitted last week, for comment about the target.

So, they blew the place, causing deaths to many woman and children, just because " a Hezbollah official may have been living there"?

And I do believe incidents like this happen throughout this conflict.

 

It's typical of troops after a tough fight, being a bit of chest-thumping. Some of the US soldiers did the same thing a time or two in Iraq. Once the brass reams out some grunts, that will stop. I don't think it was anything more than pride at the job they had done at the time.

Now, if the Israelis started walling off chunks of South Lebanon for settlements, forget what I just posted!



Keep D&D Civil.

 

The whole human sheild argument used by Israel is a load of crock spewed forth to cover the atrocities they are commiting.

I really think Israel has crossed the line into state terrorism. They have literally terrified an entire nations, forcing up to a million people to flee as refugees and hundreds killed indiscriminitely. Lebanon has been set back 20 years. All this as retaliation against a minor cross border raid to capture a few soliders to use as trade bait.

The reprecusions of this act will go far beyond what happens in Lebanon. Israel is fanning the flames of hate and showing the entire world how injust and cruel it really is. You can argue that Israel is justified in doing this, but the perception will now be that Israel is on the verge of being a rogue state - one that flips a finger at the U.N. and that has stooped down to the level of those they claim are terrorists.

There is no distinction between the Israeli government and Hezbelloh or Palentians now. If one is a terrorist group - so all of them are.

 

That's not quite the same as physically firing from or hiding your weapons beside where civilians are.

 

No, of course not. It is idiotic to suggest it is - especially when the Israeli soldiers are ON the buses etc to protect against attacks by suicide bombers from.....oh I dunno.....Hezbollah?

I think it is surreal that people would call the human shield argument a crock when by form and function Hezbollah mixes with civilians out of necessity. It doesn't have normal military bases separate from civilian areas, like a nation-state's military would. It is therefore incomprehensible how someone could determine that Hezbollah is not purposely mixing with civilians. And again I will mention that the UN (by no means am I saying they are the ultimate arbiter or truth tellers, but if you're into that) has already concluded and publicly denounced Hezbollah for using the Lebanese population as human shields.

 

how about 242.

 

What about it? How about 1559? How about 425?

The United Nations agreed with Israel's view that the area is not covered by United Nations UN Security Council Resolution 425, which governed the withdrawal from Lebanon, inasmuch as the Farms are not Lebanese territory, and the UN certified Israel's pullout [12]. At the same time the UN noted that its decision was "without prejudice to future border agreements between the Member States concerned," referring to Israel, Syria, and Lebanon.

The United Nations stated: "On 15 May 2000, the United Nations received a map, dated 1966, from the Government of Lebanon which reflected the Government's position that these farmlands were located in Lebanon. However, the United Nations is in possession of 10 other maps issued after 1966 by various Lebanese government institutions, including the Ministry of Defense and the army, all of which place the farmlands inside the Syrian Arab Republic. The United Nations has also examined six maps issued by the Government of the Syrian Arab Republic, including three maps since 1966, which place the farmlands inside the Syrian Arab Republic."[11]

In a June 18, 2000 statement, the Security Council noted that Israel and Lebanon had confirmed to the Secretary General, that identification of the withdrawal line was solely the responsibility of the United Nations and that both sides would respect the line as identified. Moreover, the Security Council took note, "with serious concern," of reports of violations - by Hizbullah[13] - that had occurred since June 16, 2000, and called upon the parties to respect the line drawn by the United Nations.

UN Secretary-General Kofi Annan, in remarks to the press with U.S. Secretary of State Colin Powell, Foreign Minister of Spain Josep Pique, Foreign Minister of Russia Igor Ivanov, and European Union Senior Official Javier Solana in Madrid, Spain, on April 10, 2002, said: "With reference to the disturbances along the Blue Line emanating from Lebanese territory, I call on the Government of Lebanon and all relevant parties to condemn and prevent such violations. The Security Council itself confirmed in June 2000 that Israel had withdrawn from southern Lebanon in compliance with UN Security Council resolutions 425 and 426. Attacks at any point along the Blue Line, including in the Shebaa Farms area in the occupied Golan Heights, are violations of Security Council resolutions. Respect for decisions of the Security Council is the most basic requirement of international legitimacy."

More recently, the January 20, 2005 UN Secretary-General's report on Lebanon stated rather emphatically: "The continually asserted position of the Government of Lebanon that the Blue Line is not valid in the Shab'a farms area is not compatible with Security Council resolutions. The Council has recognized the Blue Line as valid for purposes of confirming Israel’s withdrawal pursuant to resolution 425 (1978). The Government of Lebanon should heed the Council’s repeated calls for the parties to respect the Blue Line in its entirety." [14] Timur Goksel, a spokesman for the United Nations Interim Force in Lebanon (UNIFIL) told the BBC that: "on all maps the UN has been able to find, the farms are seen on the Syrian side [of the border]." [BBC News (London), 25 May 2000.]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shebaa_Farms#UN_Reaction_to_Lebanon.27s_claim

 

Except that I didn't say the 'human shield' argument is a crock, I do buy into it and it's a fact of life for all sides (the Palestinians are certainly familiar with being used as human shields by Israeli soldiers).

What I am saying, however, is that using it to justify flattening an entire block of buildings and every civilian that happened to be anywhere near it is a ridiculous and dangerous argument, which would serve to absolve groups such as Hezbollah or Hamas of any 'wrongdoing' due to their attacks; you can't have it both ways, which you often like to do, Hayes.

Let me provide two hypothetical examples to better illustrate my point...

If we use your incessant arguments to the effect that 'intent' is the only determining factor we should consider as to whether or not an action is 'terrorism/war crime' or a 'collateral damage' (which I agree with to a certain extent, but I won't give a carte blanche exemption as you seem to be willing to do; it's worth pointing out that this is exactly what Israeli officials say in attempting to justify their actions), if a Hamas suicide/homicide bomber blows himself up on an Israeli bus, but the intent was to target the half-a-dozen 'enemy' soldiers on-board, how would you be able to justify calling it 'terrorism'?

Similarly, if Hezbollah fires each rocket with the intent to 'target' a military/industrial installation inside Israel, but those rockets happen to miss their targets, how would you then qualify that as 'terrorism'?

What I am trying to say is that intent is not all that counts, and that when the IDF continues to change/modify its 'official' story attempting to explain away Qana and similar attacks, it seriously undermines their credibility and it makes it rather difficult to believe much of what they say.

I am trying to show you, Hayes, that it's not as 'black and white' as you might think, and that your own arguments can and will (as long as I post in the D&D) be used consistently.