Hezbollah Committed War Crimes

[warpedskydiver 0]

Quote

>Hezbollah doesn't seem to be having much problems getting arms for themselves..

Ah! I didn't know that; apparently I was misinformed. Can you please point me towards a link or something that shows their attack helicopter squadrons, and what sort of guided weaponry they are armed with?

The reason they don't have any is that Syria and Iran realize that they would be quicky reduced to scrap metal, and the source for those helo's would be pretty apparent, no more plausible deniability.

[billvon 3,031]

> I reject that completely.

Funny - I had a feeling you would refuse to answer the question. Not suprising.

>Why should the Israeli response be proportionate?

It only needs to be proportionate if they care about civilian casualties. If you don't care about killing civilians - blast away. Just don't complain when the other side follows your lead.

[billvon 3,031]

>The reason they don't have any . . .

I agree with your reasoning. The point I was making is that they are using inaccurate unguided missiles (and suicide bombers and IED's) because that's all they had. If that's all the US military had, that's what we'd be using, too.

Heck, that's how we won the revolutionary war. We were despicable terrorists for not lining up in rows to shoot at the other army (and being shot in turn.) Instead, we hid like cowards behind trees and rocks, ran away like crying children when confronted on open battlefields, and cowered in buildings in towns and cities instead of confronting them in the open. (Using right-winger language.) We did all that because we had to - and it worked. The reason Hezbollah will always be labeled as despicable terrorists is that their desperate attempts will _not_ succeed, mainly due to the US's support of Israel.

[pop 0]

Quote

>I will equate the two as soon as Israelis start blowing themselves up
>in miltary targets like buses, shopping centers and restaurants.

Israelis DO blow up ambulances, cars, UN outposts and apartment buildings. They use american helicopters to do so. If you want Hezbollah to do the same, then sell them american helicopters too; they'll stop blowing themselves up, and instead follow the Israeli's lead.

Spoken like a true liberal!

7 ounce wonders, music and dogs that are not into beer

[kallend 2,070]

Quote

Quote

>I will equate the two as soon as Israelis start blowing themselves up
>in miltary targets like buses, shopping centers and restaurants.

Israelis DO blow up ambulances, cars, UN outposts and apartment buildings. They use american helicopters to do so. If you want Hezbollah to do the same, then sell them american helicopters too; they'll stop blowing themselves up, and instead follow the Israeli's lead.

Spoken like a true liberal!

Are you suggesting that a non-liberal would lie about what Israel did, then? All those actions by the Israeli military are pretty well documented.

...

The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.

[sundevil777 102]

Quote

> I reject that completely.

Funny - I had a feeling you would refuse to answer the question. Not suprising.

>Why should the Israeli response be proportionate?

It only needs to be proportionate if they care about civilian casualties. If you don't care about killing civilians - blast away. Just don't complain when the other side follows your lead.

No need to answer the question that does not matter. Of course more Lebanese civilians died. The Israeli military is much more effective. So did more German and Japanese civilians die during WWII than civilians of England and US. The Israelis wanted to achieve victory in a real shooting war and end the threat from Lebanon. There is no reason that Israel should feel sorry for the lousy military of their enemies. War is not fair.

People are sick and tired of being told that ordinary and decent people are fed up in this country with being sick and tired. I’m certainly not, and I’m sick and tired of being told that I am

[sundevil777 102]

Quote

All those actions by the Israeli military are pretty well documented.

Including many at first well documented by the press atrocities that didn't actually happen.

People are sick and tired of being told that ordinary and decent people are fed up in this country with being sick and tired. I’m certainly not, and I’m sick and tired of being told that I am

[Michele 1]

Quote

If you don't care about killing civilians - blast away. Just don't complain when the other side follows your lead.

I'm not quite as sure as you that the situation is that simple. Yes, in theory, blast away if you don't care about civilian casualties.

But what do you do when the enemy hides in apartment buildings? Shoots rockets from apartment building windows? Hides weaponry within those buildings? Use ambulances to not transport the dead/dying, but rather to transport weapons and military? Use hospitals in the same way? Paint red crosses on the tops of vehicles to "fool" those watching that a rescue operation is underway, when in fact they are transporting weapons, ammunitions and men to a better position behind enemy lines?

And then the question is begged: are they civilians or military, if there is no uniform to distinguish them? How to tell? By the guns they carry? The place they live? Their actions? (Doesn't the GC have something on this??)

Further question stems from that one: how does one classify the dead if it is known that the military does not wear uniforms, but instead deliberately dresses as civilians? Does one assume because they are not wearing military uniforms that they are NOT military? By their age? Gender? (BTW, age and gender lines have both been crossed in the suicide bombers; tends to make that less foolproof than before).

Last question: who is doing the counting? The man who claimed 40 dead, but then retracted that to be only one single death? Or basing it on photographs (known to be staged and/or doctored)? Claims from the civilian population? When was the last census? How to determine a starting figure? How to accurately describe the dead numerically?

See the complications? Sure, in theory, it's simple. But the reality on the ground was very complicated, and not quite so simple.

Ciels-
Michele

~Do Angels keep the dreams we seek
While our hearts lie bleeding?~

[TheAnvil 0]

One thing about the recent Israeli incursion into Lebanon I thought was extremely salient is this: that coward SOB Nasrallah stated that had he known what Israel would do, he wouldn't have allowed the kidnapping of the Israeli soldiers. That tells me that in at least one regard, Israel's action in Lebanon was a success. The next time the Hezbollah shitheads do something of that sort, they should do the same thing and more.

Bill - with regards to your American Revolution scenario, do you think an Al-quaeda attorney would defend any US Soldiers accused of murder under sharia law to the best of his ability? John Adams did so for the redcoats accused in the Boston Massacre. You contrast tactics alone. Hezbollah and their ilk have nothing in common with the instigators of the American Revolution. They're murderers - period.

Hezbollah isn't interested in peace. Nor is Al Quaeda, Hamas, or Fatah. They're interested in the utter destruction of Israel. Such opponents cannot be reasoned with, though they can be killed - and should in the interest of peace.

Vinny the Anvil
Post Traumatic Didn't Make The Lakers Syndrome is REAL
JACKASS POWER!!!!!!

[Royd 0]

Quote

Answer me one question.
Who killed more civilians in the last war? Or as long as there has been an Isreail

Who always establishes their bases of operations amongst the civilians in order to scream " colateral damage"?

Do ya really think Allah approves?

[Dolph 0]

Quote

>Hezbollah doesn't seem to be having much problems getting arms for themselves..

Ah! I didn't know that; apparently I was misinformed. Can you please point me towards a link or something that shows their attack helicopter squadrons, and what sort of guided weaponry they are armed with?

The C-802 radar guided missile. link

AT-5 Spandrels were also used.

METIS-M1 and Kornet-E ATGMs were also used, bith against armour and as long range anti-personnel munitions. link

The Hezbollah made effective use of these weapons, using interesting tactics and expanding the applications of said weapons.

Hezbollah, being a guerilla style insurgency movement, has several advantages a regular military must face. Hezbollah, being a terrorist organisation, has additional methods available and can function with much less restraints on when and how to apply 'em.

The use of these weapons in the conflict is fairly well documented. Sure, it ain't Apache helicopters and F-15's but it is not as if Hezbollah are fighting back by throwing rocks or firing Qassam rockets.

Interestingly, the last few times Israel has engaged the regular forces of its neighbours (meaning: their tanks, helicopters, fighters and so on) the result was much more conclusive and in favour of Israel.

[mnealtx 0]

Quote

>Hezbollah doesn't seem to be having much problems getting arms for themselves..

Ah! I didn't know that; apparently I was misinformed. Can you please point me towards a link or something that shows their attack helicopter squadrons, and what sort of guided weaponry they are armed with?

If guided missiles and attach helicopters are the only weapons that count as arms, then we obviously never armed OBL back in the day, did we?

Mike
I love you, Shannon and Jim.
POPS 9708 , SCR 14706

[livetofall 0]

Quote

Quote

Check out the liberatarian quiz find on internet. Our second ammendment is very important,and that includes all guns all states. and FYI israel gets over 6 BILLION a year in foreign aid. EGYPT 5. We need to cut all foriegn aid..hell..i didnt see egypt or israel fo to Iraq with us, when all that money goes into defense funds. Everywhere else we give aid they just get lazy or a tyrant takes it. Let them blow each other up. and one last note can you say com U.N. ism? Hilary believes we should do what the UN wants... all UN members should allow guns only to military and Police.. you might as well learn chinese now so they are easy on you.
If there's anything to be learned from this whole sorry affair, it is that for a militia to be successful against a modern regular military force it needs more effective weapons than the US allows its militia ("The militia of the United States shall consist of all able-bodied male citizens of the United States and all other able-bodied males who have or shall have declared their intention to become citizens of the United States, who shall be more than eighteen years of age, except as hereinafter provided, not more than forty-five years of age.").

I agree 100%. I think the US militia should be allowed to legally own weaponry that would be effective against our own military in the event we had to overthrow a tyrannical government. Handguns and rifles don't make a militia "well-armed."

Blues,
Dave

www.911missinglinks.com the definitive truth of 9/11..the who and why, not how

You can handle the TRUTH www.theforbiddentruth.net

[kallend 2,070]

Quote

Quote

>Hezbollah doesn't seem to be having much problems getting arms for themselves..

Ah! I didn't know that; apparently I was misinformed. Can you please point me towards a link or something that shows their attack helicopter squadrons, and what sort of guided weaponry they are armed with?

If guided missiles and attach helicopters are the only weapons that count as arms, then we obviously never armed OBL back in the day, did we?

Stinger is a guided missile.

Nice way to try to miss the point, by the way.

...

The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.

[mnealtx 0]

Deliberately, as Bill did mine.

Mike
I love you, Shannon and Jim.
POPS 9708 , SCR 14706

[idrankwhat 0]

Quote

No need to answer the question that does not matter. Of course more Lebanese civilians died. The Israeli military is much more effective. So did more German and Japanese civilians die during WWII than civilians of England and US. The Israelis wanted to achieve victory in a real shooting war and end the threat from Lebanon. There is no reason that Israel should feel sorry for the lousy military of their enemies. War is not fair.

So to sum up your philosophy, might makes right. Is that correct?

[mnealtx 0]

No, it means that in a war, you don't hamstring yourself by half-measures. Go in it to win, or don't go at all.

Mike
I love you, Shannon and Jim.
POPS 9708 , SCR 14706

[idrankwhat 0]

Quote

Hezbollah and their ilk have nothing in common with the instigators of the American Revolution. They're murderers - period.

No. They're very much like the Revolutionaries. They were formed as a resistance army to the occupation of Lebanon by Israel and fight with whatever resources they can muster.

Hezbollah isn't interested in peace. Nor is Al Quaeda, Hamas, or Fatah. They're interested in the utter destruction of Israel. Such opponents cannot be reasoned with, though they can be killed - and should in the interest of peace.

Add Israel to your list of those not interested in peace. This is a blindly simplistic and inhumane response to the conflict that is *very* reminiscent of the US's handling of its "Indian problem". It's also not unlike the air of arrogant invincibility that plagues the current DoD leadership. I hope it's just a venting of frustration and not an acutal opinion or desired foreign policy. If it's the latter then be prepared for a long deadly war that the US just may not win.

[sundevil777 102]

Quote

Quote

No need to answer the question that does not matter. Of course more Lebanese civilians died. The Israeli military is much more effective. So did more German and Japanese civilians die during WWII than civilians of England and US. The Israelis wanted to achieve victory in a real shooting war and end the threat from Lebanon. There is no reason that Israel should feel sorry for the lousy military of their enemies. War is not fair.

So to sum up your philosophy, might makes right. Is that correct?

No. It means that if you're going to start a war, it is really stupid to do so if your military is lousy. It also means that if your enemy has a lousy military but starts a war with you anyway, it is OK to pursue a decisive military victory even though the enemy doesn't match up well militarily.

People are sick and tired of being told that ordinary and decent people are fed up in this country with being sick and tired. I’m certainly not, and I’m sick and tired of being told that I am

[idrankwhat 0]

Quote

So to sum up your philosophy, might makes right. Is that correct?

No. It means that if you're going to start a war, it is really stupid to do so if your military is lousy. It also means that if your enemy has a lousy military but starts a war with you anyway, it is OK to pursue a decisive military victory even though the enemy doesn't match up well militarily.

[sundevil777 102]

Quote

Quote

So to sum up your philosophy, might makes right. Is that correct?

No. It means that if you're going to start a war, it is really stupid to do so if your military is lousy. It also means that if your enemy has a lousy military but starts a war with you anyway, it is OK to pursue a decisive military victory even though the enemy doesn't match up well militarily.

So it looks like we're back to "who started it" and I know I don't want to re-hash that crap all over again.

[idrankwhat 0]

Quote

Quote

Quote

So to sum up your philosophy, might makes right. Is that correct?

No. It means that if you're going to start a war, it is really stupid to do so if your military is lousy. It also means that if your enemy has a lousy military but starts a war with you anyway, it is OK to pursue a decisive military victory even though the enemy doesn't match up well militarily.

So it looks like we're back to "who started it" and I know I don't want to re-hash that crap all over again.

'Who started it' is not just crap, it is essential knowledge.

Was Israel occupying Lebanon?

[billvon 3,031]

>No, it means that in a war, you don't hamstring yourself by half
>-measures. Go in it to win, or don't go at all.

That is certainly one way to view war. And if that morality works for one side, it works for the other as well.

[sundevil777 102]

Quote

>No, it means that in a war, you don't hamstring yourself by half
>-measures. Go in it to win, or don't go at all.

That is certainly one way to view war. And if that morality works for one side, it works for the other as well.

Exactly the reason to have a powerful military.

How do you view war?

People are sick and tired of being told that ordinary and decent people are fed up in this country with being sick and tired. I’m certainly not, and I’m sick and tired of being told that I am

[kallend 2,070]

Quote

Quote

>No, it means that in a war, you don't hamstring yourself by half
>-measures. Go in it to win, or don't go at all.

That is certainly one way to view war. And if that morality works for one side, it works for the other as well.

Exactly the reason to have a powerful military.

How do you view war?

The reason to have an appropriate military for the task at hand. Our very powerful military is not doing so well in Anbar right now, according to the generals on the ground.

...

The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.