I don't believe I am just wrong. I am glad that you posted this as I can see where there might even be legal justification for the bombing of a civilian airport. But that still doesn't automatically make me wrong. There was a time when(had there been an internet) you could have posted rationale for why a black person was only 3/5 human, or why it was ok to own someone as a slave. You could have posted legal rationale for why it was acceptable. But because I disagreed with it, that wouldn't have made me wrong. I feel comfortable saying that if a military attacks a civilian international airport, where there are no combatants, no military equipment, no enemy personnel and they kill 8 civilians in that targeted attack, that it is immoral. I am not saying you have to feel that way, or anyone else does. I am saying that to me that is wrong. Maybe I would I lose a legal battle over it, maybe I wouldn't since war hasn't been declared and they aren't fighting a neighboring state that actually owns the airport. If the war was against Lebanon and that airport was owned by Lebanon then perhaps I would lose since they own the airport or the airport was on Lebanese territory. That isn't the case. The war is against Hezbollah. Hezbollah doesn't own that airport. They don't own the highways and infrastructure. But even if I didn't have any legal backing, I would still hold the same views, because morally I don't believe that I am wrong.
I am so terribly depressed by the news that IYO it doesn't matter what I think. I hope I can get through the night without committing suicide.
Lol, a declaration of war is not necessary. Not sure where you got that. I don't think that I disagree with much of this. Not sure how that affects any of the prior discourse though. It may have been a poor word choice. I should have said misguided.
I believe their action breached the Hague Convention, which states: "The contracting Powers recognize that hostilities between themselves must not commence without previous and explicit warning, in the form either of a declaration of war, giving reasons, or of an ultimatum with conditional declaration of war." Lebanon was not given previously given a previous and explicit warning before Israel started bombardment on their soil. That is unless the dropping of leaflets is warning enough.
As Israel puts it, the war is not with Lebanon. Yet, they bombard and kill hundreds of civilians. I believe this is a breach of the Hague convention. If they are bombarding Lebanon, they need to declare war.
Now you're running things together. What they are bombing is not a breach of any convention. That's already been established. You've quoted nothing that indicates Israel is required to declare war on Lebanon before responding to being attacked.
What the hell does Taiwan and China have to do with this thread? I don't want to comment much on that topic, but let me just say that it would be wise for the U.S. to not play both sides against each other. I think Taiwan will eventually be recognized as a part of mainland China, I wouldn't be surprised if most Taiwanese want to join the massive bandwagon that is China a few years down the road...
Israel commenced hostilities on the populace of Lebanon, therefore it does breach the statement of the Hague Convention. I may have missed the part where it is established that the bombing is not a breach of any convention, can you refresh my memory?
Whoa, I didn't know Invisible Fan opened another Taiwan discussion here. Hayes, we've been through with this before -- U.S.' dealing with Taiwan is both legally and logically absurd. MFW is exactly right. It's none of your freakin' business.
MFW, you haven't changed a damn thing. The only person on my ignore list. I see you changed your moniker slightly. Was that to get back into D&D? Just another CreepyFloyd, hey, MFW? Don't worry... saying crap like this will send you on your way if you keep it up. You don't tell another member that something, "is none of your goddam business." You're a train wreck, MFW. You've derailed yet again. Keep D&D Civil.
And Deckard, you still haven't changed either. Actually the changing of the moniker is merely because I've forgotten the past word to the old one. And perhaps your premature senility is taking an even bigger toll. Perhaps you should email Clutch to find out if CreepyFloyd really is me instead of risk looking like such a conspiracy theorist while at the same time, remain utterly incapable to address the issue on hand (nothing rather unusual now is it). As for this thread, perhaps you haven't noticed, it was derailed far before I got here. So I do find your accusations wildly amusing.
Er, no. Unless you've been asleep for a couple of weeks it should be apparent that Israel was attacked. Sure, as I've already pointed out above in this thread, Israel's bombing does not, in fact, violate any conventions. If you'd like to try again you're welcome to have a go. Lol. I didn't really expect anything more out of you, wnes.
The United States faces growing tensions with allies over its support of Israel's military campaign to cripple Hezbollah, amid calls for a cease-fire to help with the mounting humanitarian crisis. European allies are particularly alarmed about the disproportionately high civilian death toll in Lebanon. They are also concerned that the U.S. position will increase tensions between the Islamic world and the West by fueling militants, playing into the rhetoric of Osama bin Laden and adding to the problems of the U.S.-led coalition force in Iraq. "What there needs to be now is a cessation of hostilities," U.N. Deputy Secretary General Mark Malloch Brown told reporters yesterday. "The Middle East is littered with the results of people believing there are military solutions to political problems in the region." He said civilians are "very unfairly bearing the greatest brunt of the conflict.".... http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/07/19/AR2006071901932_pf.html
Juan Cole has an interesting article in which he speculates that Israel's plan is to force the Lebanese government to fight Hezbollah by forcing the largely Shia population of South of Lebanon to become refugees in the central, Beirut area. According to Cole this will probably be seen by Arabs as trying to obtain access , to water there,which the Israelis have apparently tried to do before. Cole believes the likely outcome of this plan will be to strengthen Hezbollah politically, weaken the Lebanese government and most likely create a failed state leading to great blowback against the Israelis for a generation. Interestingly he also sees a negative repercusssions for the US among the Shia of Iraq as this Israelis assault againt the Shia pooulation of Southern Lebanon, condoned by the US will anger the Shia in Iraq who we put in power. http://fairuse.100webcustomers.com/fairenough/salon024.html
And that's exactly the mistake that Israel, the US, the former Soviet Union and many other countries make when fighting assymetric wars against insurgencies. Because assymetric war primarily isn't about winning militarily but about winning the good will of the populations supporting insurgents. What drives an assymetric war is moral support on the part of the lesser forces since they can't rely on superior military might they have to rely on the willingness of their population to feed, hide and replenish the ranks of the combatants. If the will of the population isn't with the combatants then they want support them. Collectively punishment just insures that the insurgents will gain more popularilty as the populace sees that the enemy doesn't discriminate between the faction fighting and the rest of the population. In Lebanon this is particularly important where Hezbollah doesn't hold universal support and whose support was even declining. By attacking all of Lebanon though that tells the Lebanese that Israel sees no difference between those who support and those who don't support Hezbollah.
Hezbollah didn't control the Beirut airport. Anyway Israel has said themselves they are collectively punishing the Lebanese and the government of Lebanon.
But what is the context for bringing up the link between Iran and Hezbollah and the link between the US and Israel? You're just stating one tiny part of the whole discussion without considering why that point was brought up in the first place? I mean that would be like arguing whether I'm typing on a laptop or not while ignoring why I am typing in the first place.
