The post you all have been waiting for...(yeah right.._) How can you say that ROXRAN? How could you? I respected you as one of the top 6 posters of all time...and who rarely if at all could be placed in such a compromising situation of depicting a grossly offensive post for all to see... well I'm exaggerating, but the part I'm not exaggerating is my reference of meaning when I said: "w**** host"...(btw, if I said a dog was a flea host...am I referring to the dog as a flea or a host - think about it it...) "w**** host"...Ugly word. yea...I'm been trying to figure that one out as well. Except, you see I never had to because a basis of reasoning was evident from what I had read before...and a comparison was evident and clear in my mind. Why? I'll tell you why... I am not a History expert, but I had a minor in History and my religious views naturally over the years gave attention upon some instances of biblical history and references of such history... Enter the "w**** of Babylon"...A reference...A meaning...An implication...A warning...It can be whomever as well...Wording fortells the "w****" can be anyone and Babylon can be anywhere... However if I had to single someone out right now based on literalism and symbolism from the described wording which characterizes who the "w**** of Babylon" currently is,... then in my view it is clearly the Islamic facists, otherwise known as bonafide terrorists (i.e. Hezbollah) which best lends being cast as the w**** of Babylon in current times... In other words, Hezbollah is the "w****"...Lebanon is an unfortunate host of such...The w**** of Babylon is referred to as a supreme evil...(what could be more than those who perpetuate terrorism?) The w**** of Babylon is said to be drunken with the blood of saints and blood of the martyrs of Jesus...(To me saints imply those wholesome, innocent and of natural good, in other words: children -...drunk with blood? That implies a bloodlust to kill...Who else is so demonstrative of this than terrorists and their actions?-...also I get an implication against those who follow Jesus) The symbolism of the w**** against jewish people and the w**** emerging from the desert is further implicit of Hezbollah...In a biblical sense God warns that people must decide to be free from the grasp of the w**** of Babylon...I take this that a detachment from terrorism must be decided upon...especially those who are truly innocent... Well,... You have my reasoning on the original post...It simply came to mind as a reference on my choice of wording...Is it so vile now? maybe, maybe no...Regardless I have an opinion and a choice of wording was based on a preconceived reference. You may laugh, cry, disagree...whatever...But it is what it is... My aim was to show a reasoning on what I posted. I really didn't appreciate a poster I thought I held in high regard (even though we oppose political viewpoints) catergorize my intention and meaning without asking...Sometimes all you have to do is ask and show better respect... http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Whore_of_Babylon
Steady, now. Based on this thread, this site is not only a place for Houston Rocket fans, but for fans of the Hezbollah Rockets as well. The Hezbollah team has some interesting players, such as the veteran Katyushka and the new Iranian imports Fajr-3, Fajr-5, and maybe Zelsal-2.
I'm happy to say that I haven't seen any real support for Hezbollah here. But if you want to make up charges then go ahead and fabricate all you want.
Here's someone else's take on the proverbial claim that Israel never deliberately targets innocents. ********* uly 24, 2006 Weekly Commentary -- John Bolton and Collateral Damage n U.S. Ambassador to the United Nations John Bolton kicked up quite a stir recently when he Although Bolton has often been derided as an extremist for his views on the United Nations, in this he was simply articulating the dominant mainstream position. Pundits routinely distinguish between acts where there is supposedly a deliberate intent to kill civilians and those where, although civilians might die in large numbers as an utterly predictable consequence of the act, there is no specific intent to kill civilians. One is condemned as terrorism, something that places the committer of the act completely beyond the pale of civilization, while the other is merely collateral damage, an unfortunate but necessary part of the civilized way of war, engaged in by virtuous people and governments whose righteousness is not even subject to question. In order to truly respect the distinction between civilian and fighter that is at the heart of the laws of war, it’s necessary to eliminate the doctrine of collateral damage. One obvious flaw of the doctrine is that it provides great cover for actual war crimes. Israel has deliberately targeted airports, ports, bridges, and tunnels. Of the close to 400 Lebanese killed, the vast majority were not fighters, although a very large number are children. Israel has bombed residential areas in south Beirut and throughout southern Lebanon, the only concession to their civilian population being the dropping of leaflets warning residents to evacuate the entire area. Recently, a family fleeing a border village was targeted, with three killed, because they were driving in minivans – among Israel’s rules of engagement is indiscriminate targeting of trucks, minivans, and motorcycles, supposedly because Hezbollah either uses such vehicles often or could use them to carry missiles and launchers. Trucks are also used to carry food and medical supplies, but that, apparently, is just tough luck. But beyond narrow questions of fact about whether a particular killing really is collateral damage lie deeper flaws with the doctrine. First, in its application it is consistently entangled with racism and an ignorant and blind cultural supremacism. We “know” that Israelis and Americans don’t intend to kill civilians, just as we “know” that Hezbollah does. If nothing else, we point to the fact that Hezbollah’s missiles, with which it has been attacking Haifa and other northern cities, are extremely inaccurate and cannot possibly be used to reliably attack a particular military target. Of course, when the United States bombed North Vietnam, its weapons were also incredibly inaccurate, yet there we still “knew” that targeting civilians was not the “intent.” How about the idea that Hezbollah and Hamas would much rather kill soldiers than civilians, they just don’t have much ability to do that (although Hezbollah has fought well against the IDF in southern Lebanon)? If Israel’s bombing of civilian areas, targeting minivans, is justified because it doesn’t want to sustain the casualties that would come with a more discriminating approach, why not justify Hezbollah’s rocket attacks because it doesn’t have the technology to do better? What, other than our intrinsic knowledge that Israelis are like us, thus civilized, and that Hezbollah is a bunch of Arabs, thus uncivilized, prevents us from giving Hezbollah’s excuse more credence than Israel’s? The other major flaw is the idea that, as Sahr Conway-Lanz documents in his recent book, Collateral Damage, basically you can do anything you want to civilians as long as you claim to have no intent to kill them. Much of the book involves tracing the bit-by-bit evolution of the doctrine in roughly the 10 years after World War 2. In the Korean War, which really put the doctrine firmly on its feet, as he shows, rules of engagement evolved to the point that, in the last half of the war, entire cities were targeted for destruction by virtue of the reasoning that said the cities produced something necessary for the war effort and that they contained roads that troops might travel on. In other words, that they were cities. And yet, even though the American public wanted to retain the idea that targeting civilians was wrong, these decisions never aroused any serious revulsion. As Conway-Lanz suggests , the sensible criterion by which to judge whether one is targeting civilians is not something totally unmeasurable like supposed absence or presence of intent to kill them, but rather concrete steps taken to minimize or eliminate the possibility of killing civilians. With this criterion, assaults like Israel’s on Lebanon, or the first U.S. attack on Fallujah, where 60% and more of fatalities are civilian, could not possibly make the grade. It would be an important step toward putting such questions on fairer ground and remedying the extreme bias implicit in our basic framework regarding questions of war. It would also allow for an unbiased definition of terrorism. So, of course, the powers that be will resist it tooth and nail. Posted at 10:40 am http://empirenotes.org/
That might work if all military targets stayed at least one mile distant from all civilian targets at all times, and they were clearly marked as military targets. Either that, or we have a worldwide agreement not to use modern weapons any more. It is pretty easy to avoid stabbing the wrong person, so I think we should turn back the clock and fight all of our wars with the weaponry of the middle ages, minus ranged weapons of course, because we don't want a stray arrow, sling stone, etc killing a civilian. Once everyone agrees to those rules, we can have a zero tolerance policy on collateral damage. Until then, we have to be more realistic. Obviously launching unguided rockets at a major metropolitan area is targeting civilians. Attacking runways at the time they are least busy is not. To make it really simple, ask yourself if Israel could easily kill more civilians if such was their intention? Could Hizballah? I would say yes and no respectively.
Stupid (as in SM), Intentional or not, Israel shows it simply doesn't care if civilians are the hit targets. The facts are undisputed that disproportionally more civilians are dead or wounded than the number of Hezballah fighters because of Israeli military campaign. Would you bomb the hell of densely populated neighborhood in U.S. where some alleged "terrorists/criminals" are hiding? If the answer is no, why should Israel have the free pass to do it and why would you condone its crime against humanity? Are Labanese people lesser human beings in your view?
I think it is important to put the Collateral Damage 'doctrine' in perspective. It evolved after the area carpet and fire bombing campaigns of WWII were retrospectively considered too harsh. That's a huge swing in policy. With the current doctrine the actions have to be tied to specific goals, not wiping out the populace. The suggestion that we should do away with this doctrine is, unfortunately, not realistic at all. Every single engagement would feature a human civilian shield giving unapproachable haven to any group wanting and willing to take any action. We could move away from the Collateral Damage doctrine and back to the WWII style open season, but I don't think that's what the author had in mind. Not sure what's wrong with Bolton's statement.
Look at his actual statement instead of the perjorative rhetoric surrounding it. We shouldn't morally equivocate terrorism and collateral damage. That is hardly controversial. That is based on the law of war conventions agreed on how we conduct war. There are many reasons not to equate the two. Terrorism particularly targets civilians whereas collateral damage is the accidental (ie not intentional) killing of civilians. I'm not sure why one WOULD equate the two. Having said that it does not mean that there is no recognition of the harm in killing civilians, but only that they are not equally heinous.
Although since every almost every Israeli is required to serve in the military and Israeli soldiers mingle with Israeli civilians often in uniform there is some support to the argument that Hezbollah is targetting military personel. Also Israel might claim that they are only trying to target the military but are limited by Hezbollah mingling with civillians along with the accuracy and power of their weapons Hezbollah could claim the same. They can say they are in war and they are deliberately trying to only target the Israeli military but since Israeli soldiers mix in with civillians and they are limited by their the sophistication of their weapons. Perhaps if soemone gave Hezbollah more sophisticated weapons with better guidance or Israelis moved their bases well away from cities and didn't do things like ride city buses while in uniform they could avoid civillian casualties. My point isn't to deny that Hezbollah doesn't target civillians or aren't terrorists but just to point out that to a large extent Israel's arguments regarding only targetting terrorists and its the terrorists fault for mixing with civillians and that 1,000 lb bombs dropped into crowded areas kill more than just militants also applies to Israelis too.
What are the isrealies supposed to do?. hezbollah is pointing over TEN THOUSEND missiles at there country. they kidnapped there soldiers in there own borders. if hezbollah was so brave, they wouldnt have put civillians in harms way by placing there operation centers in the middel of hreavily poulated areas. there nothing but a bunch of cowards hiding behind a bunch of innocent woman and children.
Maybe, if it weren't for the fact that Israel's military mixes with civilians and rides buses to deter and react to attacks from organizations like Hezbollah. OTOH Hezbollah mixes with civilians for the opposite reason, which is to use civilians as a shield. Further, while Israeli citizens are required to serve in the military, that does not mean all Israeli citizens are IN the military. Mandatory service is required by the Swiss, that doesn't mean all Swiss are legitimate military targets.
That is a very serious claim. I'm not trying to be confrontational, but is there any genuine evidence or proof to back that assertion up?
Well, if you mean do I have a readily available quote to back it up? No. But if Hezbollah operated like a normal military and had bases, then that's where Israel would be striking. It's pretty much something you can't contest - its textbook guerilla operations. I'm not even sure if you could find a quote on something like that because there is no reason for someone to write it - it is self evident.
