On Tue, 25 Jul 2006 19:37:08 +0100,
wrote:


Arthur wrote:
On Tue, 25 Jul 2006 15:07:23 +0100,
wrote:

Haha!! The "I didn't know any better" Defense!!

Not quite. The "I'm doing the best I can with the tools at hand"
defence.
Of course they would have liked to hit military tagets, but they have
basic, inaccurate weapons.


Now it's The Israeli's fault because they have better weapons and a
more efficient military!!

Exactly. They have precision tools and they have destroyed the targets
they chose.
When we saw the Red Cross trucks burning, it was because they were
precisely targeted.

Are you serious?? Any reason why Israel would purposely target Red
Cross trucks?

So under your assumption, with their expertise and firepower,
Hospitals, bomb shelters and virtually anywhere that innocent civilians
gather could easily be targetted right? It's a small wonder then that
"only" 300 have died isn't it? With that firepower, and those
intentions I reckon that I could easily have killed at least a Hundred
Thousand by now!!


You can't have it BOTH ways chum. Either their weapons are accurate, in
which case they targetted the Red Cross trucks, or they are not accurate,
in which case they have no business firing into residential areas.

Perhaps, just maybe, (and this is only a theory!) that they are
actually destroying known Hezbollah strongholds and The deaths are
either terrorists or civilians in the wrong place at the wrong time?


So it's the civilans' own fault for being in the wrong place at the wrong
time. That makes it all right then.
If the bridges and roads hadn't been knocked out, they might have had a
chance to escape. But it's still their fault...

Arthur wrote:
On Tue, 25 Jul 2006 19:37:08 +0100,
wrote:


Arthur wrote:
On Tue, 25 Jul 2006 15:07:23 +0100,
wrote:

Haha!! The "I didn't know any better" Defense!!

Not quite. The "I'm doing the best I can with the tools at hand"
defence.
Of course they would have liked to hit military tagets, but they have
basic, inaccurate weapons.


Now it's The Israeli's fault because they have better weapons and a
more efficient military!!

Exactly. They have precision tools and they have destroyed the targets
they chose.
When we saw the Red Cross trucks burning, it was because they were
precisely targeted.

Are you serious?? Any reason why Israel would purposely target Red
Cross trucks?

So under your assumption, with their expertise and firepower,
Hospitals, bomb shelters and virtually anywhere that innocent civilians
gather could easily be targetted right? It's a small wonder then that
"only" 300 have died isn't it? With that firepower, and those
intentions I reckon that I could easily have killed at least a Hundred
Thousand by now!!


You can't have it BOTH ways chum. Either their weapons are accurate, in
which case they targetted the Red Cross trucks, or they are not accurate,
in which case they have no business firing into residential areas.

Perhaps, just maybe, (and this is only a theory!) that they are
actually destroying known Hezbollah strongholds and The deaths are
either terrorists or civilians in the wrong place at the wrong time?


So it's the civilans' own fault for being in the wrong place at the wrong
time. That makes it all right then.
If the bridges and roads hadn't been knocked out, they might have had a
chance to escape. But it's still their fault...

War in PC Land;

Ohhh! Hold on, hold on, before we drop bombs to kill the terrorists
let's make an announcement and let everybody that hasn't got
"Hezbollah" tattooed on their foreheads escape
first...........................
Ok, is everybody out? better check to make sure it's all
empty...................... Ok, yeah, there's no one left inside, we
can bomb the empty building now.

Oh, Hold ON!! There's a Red Cross Truck, let's get it!!

On Tue, 25 Jul 2006 20:11:14 +0100,
wrote:

War in PC Land;

Ohhh! Hold on, hold on, before we drop bombs to kill the terrorists
let's make an announcement and let everybody that hasn't got
"Hezbollah" tattooed on their foreheads escape
first...........................
Ok, is everybody out? better check to make sure it's all
empty...................... Ok, yeah, there's no one left inside, we
can bomb the empty building now.

Oh, Hold ON!! There's a Red Cross Truck, let's get it!!


War in your land:

We know the Hezbollah are in the town somewhere - if we demolish the whole
place we'll be sure to get them.

On 25 Jul 2006 12:11:14 -0700, "
wrote:

Ohhh! Hold on, hold on, before we drop bombs to kill the terrorists
let's make an announcement and let everybody that hasn't got
"Hezbollah" tattooed on their foreheads escape
first...........................
Ok, is everybody out? better check to make sure it's all
empty...................... Ok, yeah, there's no one left inside, we
can bomb the empty building now.

Oh, Hold ON!! There's a Red Cross Truck, let's get it!!

The answer to the question in your name is "yes"

--
Cynic

On Tue, 25 Jul 2006 21:33:04 +0100, Humble Scribe
wrote:

In message op.tc9ffnfiq4en03@home1, Arthur
writes
On Tue, 25 Jul 2006 20:11:14 +0100,
wrote:

War in PC Land;

Ohhh! Hold on, hold on, before we drop bombs to kill the terrorists
let's make an announcement and let everybody that hasn't got
"Hezbollah" tattooed on their foreheads escape
first...........................
Ok, is everybody out? better check to make sure it's all
empty...................... Ok, yeah, there's no one left inside, we
can bomb the empty building now.

Oh, Hold ON!! There's a Red Cross Truck, let's get it!!


War in your land:

We know the Hezbollah are in the town somewhere - if we demolish the
whole place we'll be sure to get them.

Isn't that called the "Fallujah Tactic"?

I think it's been around rather longer than that - It's said that King
Herod had a similar policy

Arthur

Arthur wrote:
On Tue, 25 Jul 2006 20:11:14 +0100,
wrote:

War in PC Land;

Ohhh! Hold on, hold on, before we drop bombs to kill the terrorists
let's make an announcement and let everybody that hasn't got
"Hezbollah" tattooed on their foreheads escape
first...........................
Ok, is everybody out? better check to make sure it's all
empty...................... Ok, yeah, there's no one left inside, we
can bomb the empty building now.

Oh, Hold ON!! There's a Red Cross Truck, let's get it!!


War in your land:

We know the Hezbollah are in the town somewhere - if we demolish the whole
place we'll be sure to get them.

That way at least we get them!

Operational success!

wrote:
Scott wrote:

Humble Scribe wrote:

In message , Guy Fawkes
writes


Are Israeli attacks against the people of Lebanon and Gaza in accord with
the requirements of international law, and if not, how are these
attacks any
different to Hitler invading Poland?



Poland wasn't firing rockets into Germany........

The rockets followed the attack against Lebanon, they did not preceed it.


Wrong, actually. UN Security Council Resolution 1655 (2006) noted,
amongst other concerns involving both sides "the hostilities initiated
by Hizbullah on 21 November 2005 and those triggered by the firing of
rockets from Lebanon into Israel on 27 December 2005".


The attack of 21 Nov had been responded to by Israel. A meeting
convened by Defense Minister Shaul Mofaz decided on a restrained
response. The IDF argued that Hezbollah suffered a failure and Israeli
losses had been relatively minor. Senior officers argued that a harsh
response "would play into Hezbollah hands and ignite the region."

As for the rocket attack of 27 Dec, Hezbullah denied launching the
attack or having any knowledge of it.

I repeat that Israel didn't attack in response to rockets being fired
from Lebanon since the current wave of rockets was a response to
Israel's action not a cause of it.

wrote:
Arthur wrote:
On Tue, 25 Jul 2006 20:11:14 +0100,
wrote:

War in PC Land;

Ohhh! Hold on, hold on, before we drop bombs to kill the terrorists
let's make an announcement and let everybody that hasn't got
"Hezbollah" tattooed on their foreheads escape
first...........................
Ok, is everybody out? better check to make sure it's all
empty...................... Ok, yeah, there's no one left inside, we
can bomb the empty building now.

Oh, Hold ON!! There's a Red Cross Truck, let's get it!!

War in your land:

We know the Hezbollah are in the town somewhere - if we demolish the whole
place we'll be sure to get them.

That way at least we get them!

Operational success!

did somebody say 'we'

Humble Scribe wrote:
In message op.tc6u8iu1q4en03@home1, Arthur
writes
On Mon, 24 Jul 2006 09:45:49 +0100, Humble Scribe
wrote:

In message , Guy Fawkes
writes
Are Israeli attacks against the people of Lebanon and Gaza in accord
with
the requirements of international law, and if not, how are these
attacks any
different to Hitler invading Poland?


Poland wasn't firing rockets into Germany........

Just to be clear, are you saying that the current Israeli actions are
justified?

No- just pointing out the difference between Hitler's action and
Israel's action as requested.

That said and although I am Israel's Zionist policies, I suspect that if
the IRA were regularly firing rockets into Liverpool and had a
fundamental objective of wiping the UK off the map (as Hizbollah does
with Israel) then would we not support the UK army seeking to wipe them
out even if they were in the Irish Republic and the Irish Government
were doing nothing to stop them?

But then we get back to why are Hizbollah firing the rockets. They will
claim in retaliation for Israel's military actions over the last 50
years; Israel will claim that the military actions would not happen if
it were not for Hizbollah/Hamas terrorism on Israeli soil and so on.
Regrettably this is just another step along inexorable road to all-out
Arab/Israeli war in the Middle East- possibly even nuclear, within the
next 5-10 years. This could lead to a broader global conflict to gain
overall control of the Middle East/Caspian Sea oil & gas reserves.

The outlook is not good! :-))

A sort of tune-up for Armageddon, you mean?

Cheers, Sage

In message op.tc9j4jaaq4en03@home1, Arthur
writes

.

Isn't that called the "Fallujah Tactic"?

I think it's been around rather longer than that - It's said that King
Herod had a similar policy

Good one, Arthur! :-))
--
John

In message , Scott
writes


As for the rocket attack of 27 Dec, Hezbullah denied launching the
attack or having any knowledge of it.

To quote Mandy Rice-Davies, "Well, they would, wouldn't they?".

However, the concept of agents provocateurs firing the rockets should
not be lightly dismissed- look up "The Sinking of the Main" (Cuba), "The
Burning of the Reichstag"- (Germany); "The Tonkin Incident"- (Vietnam)
and the conspiracy theories re Mossad and 9/11.
--
John

Scott wrote:

As for the rocket attack of 27 Dec, Hezbullah denied launching the
attack or having any knowledge of it.

Nevertheless, the attack took place and whether that particular rocket
was launched by Hizbullah or Al-Queda or any other group, many have
taken place since that date prior to the current escalation of
hostilities, which unequivocably _were_ launched by Hizbullah.

I repeat that Israel didn't attack in response to rockets being fired
from Lebanon since the current wave of rockets was a response to
Israel's action not a cause of it.

Repeating a statement does not make it fact. The fact is that the
current crisis is not a sudden isolated event, but the upswelling of a
cycle of violence committed by *both* sides over a period of time.
The rockets are not simply flying as a response to Israels recent
actions. Trying to apportion blame is fatuous in this scenario when
both sides are clearly in the wrong.

wrote:
Scott wrote:


As for the rocket attack of 27 Dec, Hezbullah denied launching the
attack or having any knowledge of it.


Nevertheless, the attack took place and whether that particular rocket
was launched by Hizbullah or Al-Queda or any other group, many have
taken place since that date prior to the current escalation of
hostilities, which unequivocably _were_ launched by Hizbullah.


I repeat that Israel didn't attack in response to rockets being fired
from Lebanon since the current wave of rockets was a response to
Israel's action not a cause of it.


Repeating a statement does not make it fact.

But I can support that with statements made by the Israeli PM. He gave
the reason for attacking Lebanon as the abduction of 2 soldiers and
promptly bombed bridges airports and civilian infrastructure. By any
reasonable measure that was an escalation - they were after all
soldiers not civilians who were abducted. Israel on the other hand has
abducted many civilians.

Scott wrote:
wrote:
Scott wrote:


As for the rocket attack of 27 Dec, Hezbullah denied launching the
attack or having any knowledge of it.


Nevertheless, the attack took place and whether that particular rocket
was launched by Hizbullah or Al-Queda or any other group, many have
taken place since that date prior to the current escalation of
hostilities, which unequivocably _were_ launched by Hizbullah.


I repeat that Israel didn't attack in response to rockets being fired
from Lebanon since the current wave of rockets was a response to
Israel's action not a cause of it.


Repeating a statement does not make it fact.

But I can support that with statements made by the Israeli PM. He gave
the reason for attacking Lebanon as the abduction of 2 soldiers and
promptly bombed bridges airports and civilian infrastructure. By any
reasonable measure that was an escalation - they were after all
soldiers not civilians who were abducted. Israel on the other hand has
abducted many civilians.

With respect, that has very little to do with your earler assertion
that Hizbullah rockets were only fired /after/ the Iraeli attacks which
as we have seen is not the case.

With regard to the escalation by Israel, it must be viewed in totality.
While the abduction of the soldiers was the flash point it was not the
sole event that has lead to the current situation. Bear in mind also
that the Hizbullah actions leading to the abductions was not just
driving a car up to a couple of unsuspecting squaddies and bundling
them in the back, but also involved cross border shelling which also
hit "civilian infrastructure" and caused civilian casualties. It's
worth bearing in mind that in time of war much "civilian
infrastructure", such as roads and bridges becomes "military
infrastructure".

I'd recommend you read this article.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/opinion/m...ixopinion.html

While the Telegraph naturally has its own agenda, this particular
commentary has much to commend it and is blessedly free from much of
the bias we generally see in the media.

In message .com,
writes

It's
worth bearing in mind that in time of war much "civilian
infrastructure", such as roads and bridges becomes "military
infrastructure".

Quite right! Part of military strategy will always be to disrupt the
enemy's communication routes- bridges across rivers being an obvious
target. In this case, I suspect the Israeli strategy was/is to inhibit
military resources being sent to South Lebanon from either within
Lebanon itself, or from Syria.

However, it the strategy also place a limit on the distance the Israeli
army could penetrate into Lebanon- the Litani river?- without having
its own advance stymied by blowing up the bridges.
--
John