Israeli air attack kills 54 civilians, including 19 children

Still, who is making the decision to bomb civilian targets knowing that innocent people will die?

Israel could easily have agreed to a ceasefire thus insuring both sides didn't lose civilians. What will bombings accomplish? A 10 to 1 kill ratio of civilians to militants? Displace a million people? And for what? Hezbelloh will survive all of it.

 

Thanks for the information. I guess we are all aware that using human shields is war crime. However, couple of questions poped up immediately.

1. All posters claimed that Hezbollah using human shields have yet to prove, by using video, photos, or data. None of such exists in this thread. A couple of Hezbollah fighters in a photo won't prove anything. Similarly, photos of couple of IDF soldiers won't prove that they are targeting civilians.

2. Does that Fourth Geneva Convention say anything about, whenever one side of the war is using human shields, the other side can just bomb and kill at will, indistinguishly?

3. Doesn't some posters just went in lengthy presentation to dismiss Hezbollah as legal actor of war? I am wondering who's IDF in war with, Lebanon, or Lebanon civilians? Even if a legal actor of war is fighting an illegal actor of war, does Fourth Geneva Convention say anything about that legal party can bomb and kill civilian in the war zone, at will?

4. I don't think anyone here has a problem with IDF fighting back after 2 soldiers were kidnapped or captured. What's in question is IDF's action (NOT their unprovable INTENTION) in destroying all Lebananese infurstructures, killing of 10 times more civilians than Hezbollah fighters (or terrorists if you will) - their supposedly targeted group. A simple human shield excuse is not enough for some observers, including me.

At this information age, more info is provided by news agencies, given available technology. However, more and more spin and talk are fed to public. To me, CNN is more objective comparing to Fox News, but still in lots of cases, journalism seems to be missing. I remember a couple of days ago, when CNN was reporting this every incident, Wedeman from CNN interviewed some survived local residents. When he asked whether Hezbollah fighters were hiding and shooting from that building, the woman and other people told him that NOT a single fighter was there before or during bombing, there were just women and children. Wedeman went on and said, that those are all PROBABLY the mothers, sisters, or wives of those Hezbollah fighters, and no one wanted to tell the truth. I don't know what fact gave him such conclusion. As weak as my English skills, I understand that "probably" indicates a strong possibility. According to my shallow understanding, only if you have a strong data sample to indicate that more than 50% of the whole supports such notion, you would be able to say PROBABLY ALL OF THEM. If he CHOSE not to believe them at all, why would he even ask them? That's not objective journalism, but rather some posts in a messageboard with hiden agendas. Heck, even some posters here can spin better than that.

Similar thing happened when Anderson visited Syria, and asked local people on the street. All of them said good words about Syria and their leader. It's very possible, that some of them truly believe so; some of them have different concerns. But Anderson went on and claim that NONE OF THEM dares to speak out the truth, because they all fear the government. I just don't understand that kind of journalism.

Propaganda is a very strong tool to control the minds of public. Even as open and free as it is in America, there are still half of them believe US found WMDs in Iraq. It's ridiculous and also sad. Maybe media as a whole should apply more professionalism, to be responsible for the society and themselves.

Nobody here knows exactly what went on there. Instead of blindly believing whatever is fed to us, maybe we should ask more questions to any information source.

 

Hezbollah? The US?

Innocent people die in every war.

I don't agree with all of what Israel has done here. I don't understand the need for so much damage nor why the Lebanese nation should suffer to this extent...

...but you ask for what? Hezbollah will be weakened and wounded enough for now for the Lebanese army (15,000 so far?) and possible the UN so create a buffer between Hezbollah and Israel. Essentially, the Israeli goal will be realized.

 

If Israel can't disarm Hezbollah by force, neither will the Lebanese army regardless of whether they actually have 15000 well trained troops. If Hezbollah is to lay down arms, it will be through negotiation between Lebanon and Hezbollah. The circumstances hasn't changed and I have serious doubts about the effectiveness of an active buffer zone.

 

No one needs to totally disarm hezbollah. Israel is clearing a buffer, looks like Lebanon and the UN will fill the void when Israel leaves.

Why do you think that won't work?

 

I think that Hezbollah will keep raiding as long as they have an excuse to do so.

In regards to the buffer zone, it will not be enough to deter rocket attacks. Also, logistically, how do you keep Hezbollah out of the buffer zone? Do you demolish and force everyone to evacuate? Regardless of how they enforce the buffer zone, I feel that Hezbollah will find a way to operate within it and cause Israel grief.

 

Cohen, I don't think it will work, because as long as Hezbollah garners support from Iran and Syria, and has local support, support that may have increased with this conflict, for now, at least, they will be able to infiltrate into the border region, and launch attacks similar to that which set off this mess. (not that it should have set off what we've seen, IMO) The region is heavily populated, normally, with dozens and dozens of villages, as well as trails known to the locals for centuries.

Now, if tens of thousands of UN and Lebanese troops occupy the area, and use state of the art technology, clearly they will make things very difficult for Hezbollah. But what is to keep them from launching those rockets with longer ranges? They have shown the capability to do so. A real political solution is the answer. That's unlikely to happen with the current governments of Israel and the United States. Personally, I believe that over time, the government of Lebanon could have pushed Hezbollah out of their country. Sadly, the country is once again in ruins.

Right now, I think Hezbollah's support in Lebanon is a mile wide, and an inch deep. With Lebanon under a vicious assault, anyone fighting back effectively is going to be supported by the majority of the population. When the shooting stops, and people are able to catch a breath, they will begin to look at just how much damage having Hezbollah has caused to their country, and for their foreign backers, not for Lebanon.

I want to add that I think you've gotten a bit of a raw deal here, regarding how people have responded to your opinions. They have overlooked your comments, on several occasions, about how the Israeli response has been wrong. Just wanted to mention that some of us have noticed. I have, at least.



Keep D&D Civil.

 

Does anyone understand why Israel has done so much damage and inflicted so much suffering? It's really makes me scratch my head.

I do not think Hezbellah will be weakened significantly. They will simply restock over time and remain in the shadows. Eventually the international force will leave. Eventually, the Lebanese Army will relax. Hezbelloh is seeking only to maintain a presence....and no one, not Israel, not Lebanon, nor the U.N. can root them out.

The reason: Because they are supported by the people. More then ever now. And when the people love you, you're are golden.

 

One theory is that the Jewish neocons who control the politics there, sort of planned it with their neocon cohorts in the US. It is their last chance to try to get the US to go to war with Iran and Syria. Even by November, Dubya with his ridiculous Churchill delusion may be hamdstrung from starting more wars. The American public is getting tired of their warmongering bs so this could be their last chance.

Israel figures that if they can turn Syria, Iran, Iraq and Lebanon into 1980's stye Lebanon weakened states they are free to grab more Palestinian land. The US will be more free to dominate the region's oil with the number two and three world producers, Iraq and drastically weakend with hopefully friendlier puppet governments.

One thing is pretty clear, just like the US neocons used 9/11 asx a pretnese to invade Iraq, Israel used the now forgotten two captured Israelis soldiers on disputed border territory as a pretext to put a log planned invasion of Lebanon into place.

 

Your explanation makes no sense for two reasons:

Instability cause oil supplies to DROP, not increase. If the region descends into chaos, so does the world ecomony.

How does weakening Hebelloh allow Israel to grab more land? If anything, it only pushes the world further against Israel and the U.S.? It's clearly a short-sighted military strategic move with negative economic and political reprecussions.

 

Either to: 1. punish Lebanon for allowing hezbollah free reign on the border; 2. motivate the Lebanese gov to place the army on the border while giving clout to Lebanese politicians who propose this; 3. provide a disincentive to any nations who permit attacks or threats to Israel from their lands.... or some mix of these.

It still would not mean that it's 'right', or that it serves Israel's interests in the long-term.

Possibly, but I doubt that the Lebanese will soon forget this so I doubt the Army would relax in the near future, and the UN can hang around quite a while.

 

Israeli helicopters shell Lebanon's largest Palestinian refugee camp, Palestinian spokesman says. IDF says Hezbollah militant was targeted.

www.cnn.com


for one militant you bomb a refugee camp...