Options for Israel

[Black Dog]

Any evidence that there wasn't?

Yeah. Eyewitnesses, including journalists at the scene. Link.

What IS absolutely known, is that Hezbollah uses ambulances and trucks with the red cross symbol for the transportation.

Any evidence of that? Or is that simply more post facto rationalization?

Na, that's the definition of war. Like I've already stated, cowardly is using homes for missile launches, using hospitals, schools, and mosques for weapons depots, and ambulances for transportation. Hiding behind civilians is as cowardly as one can get.

Na, that's the definition of guerrilla war. Look, you can either shrug off civilan casualties and accidental-on-purpose attacks on ambulances and civilian convoys as just a part of war and accept the fact that guerrilla war involves operations in nominaly civilian areas (becoming, in Mao's words "like fish in the sea"), or you can whine about Hizbullah not playing fair, but you can't have it both ways.

[Shady]

This is absolutely known! Wow, my scholarly friend, a cite would help! I know you're not usually asked to actually back up your sweeping declarations with any evidence, but this isn't high school debate class and I won't prove a negative to you.

Other than your staunch and seemingly unthinking blather in Israel's defense, do you have any actual facts? An unbiased, non-Israeli source, if you please

Yeah. Eyewitnesses, including journalists at the scene.

You guys are missing the point. Not seeing the forest for the trees, etc, etc. Incidents like these are more likely to occur when you have a terrorist group hiding behind civilians in urban areas.

Na, that's the definition of guerrilla war. Look, you can either shrug off civilan casualties and accidental-on-purpose attacks on ambulances and civilian convoys as just a part of war and accept the fact that guerrilla war involves operations in nominaly civilian areas (becoming, in Mao's words "like fish in the sea"), or you can whine about Hizbullah not playing fair, but you can't have it both ways

I'm not trying to have it both ways. You people are. I do accept that guerilla war involves hiding behind civilians. I also accept that with waging that type of war, one is dramatically increasing the chances of collateral damage. Quit whining about it.

[Black Dog]

You guys are missing the point. Not seeing the forest for the trees, etc, etc. Incidents like these are more likely to occur when you have a terrorist group hiding behind civilians in urban areas.

It makes a handy excuse, I know, but the devil is in the details. For example: supposing some ambulances have been used to transport Hizbullah guerrillas or equipment: that does not excuse the intentional targetting of ambulances. Indeed, international law proohibits attacking military objects if the anticipated harm to civilians and other noncombatants is disproportionate to the expected military advantage (a principle Israel regularily ignores). In other words, the fact that Hizbullah operates in civilian ares does not excuse the targetting of civilians. And, as the ambulance incident, the bombing of civilian convoys has shown, and even the IDF commander's own comments demonstrate, that's what Israel is doing.

It's ironic, I suppose, but you're rationalizations put you closer to Hizbullah than to the democratic ideals you claim to support.

[Black Dog]

Missed this before.

Argus:

Stop supporting Hezbollah or suffer the consequences. You can say what you want about the Lebanese government, but there's no evidence they are even hostile towards Hezbollah, and since a large number of Lebanese support Hezbolah - enough that they fear civil war if the government tries to take them on, enough that they fear their 70,000 man army would fall apart if they sicked it on Hezbollah, well then, I think it fair to say Hezbollah has massive support among the Lebanese people, especially the ones suffering the most, the Shiites.

Let the Shiites suffer for it.

It doesn't matter if someone tacitly supports Hizbullah, voted for them in the election, or has a Nasrallah T-Shirt. Unless they are actively involved in operations gainst Israel, they are not legitimate targets.

[geoffrey]

Missed this before.

Argus:

Stop supporting Hezbollah or suffer the consequences. You can say what you want about the Lebanese government, but there's no evidence they are even hostile towards Hezbollah, and since a large number of Lebanese support Hezbolah - enough that they fear civil war if the government tries to take them on, enough that they fear their 70,000 man army would fall apart if they sicked it on Hezbollah, well then, I think it fair to say Hezbollah has massive support among the Lebanese people, especially the ones suffering the most, the Shiites.

Let the Shiites suffer for it.

It doesn't matter if someone tacitly supports Hizbullah, voted for them in the election, or has a Nasrallah T-Shirt. Unless they are actively involved in operations gainst Israel, they are not legitimate targets.

But BD!!! We need to punish them for not rising up and crushing Hezbollah on their own!!!

Doesn't really matter that the Lebanese army is less powerful than Hezbollah, but oh well. Must be the poor uninvolved person's fault. Anyone that doesn't stop them deserves to be dead apparently.

[Argus]

Last year it was estimated that 10,000 people were dying per month in Darfur... not that anyone seems to care about that.

Agreed, Darfur is a much bigger concern. Just they are black and no one really cares about Africa. But the issue at hand is Israel and if I'm not mistaken comparing to another conflict of a great nature is really showing you have a weak argument.

"Oh, this is worse, let's turn our backs."

No, it's, "Hey, how about a little realism here?" Remember that the arguments on the other side are entirely emotional. There's little point in responding to an argument which consists largely of "Oh my God! People are dying! We have to stop it!" So in that context pointing out that people are dying a lot faster elsewhere is, I think fair. Ten thousand a month in Darfur. Kindred was whining about kids? Well, UNICEF says kids are dying at a rate of 600 a day in the Congo. How come nobody's pulling their hair out over that? This is a minor brushfire as far as wars and casualties go. The only reason it's all over the news is because it's so close to 5 star restaurants and hotels where the major news media can relax.

Do you, Argus, or anyone else here, actually think the current IDF battleplan will result in the destruction of Hezbollah or the removal of terrorism from Lebanon? If so, why, it has never worked before? If not, then why punish uninvolved people?

They aren't uninvolved when they support Hezbollah, and through that support make it impossible for the Lebanese government to get rid of them. And ultimately, military force will work, even if the Israelis have t push the whole population thirty kilometers back from its borders. They may not eliminate Hezbollah, but they can at least push them back far enough to keep them from firing katusha rockets into Israel.

[Argus]

Missed this before.

Argus:

Stop supporting Hezbollah or suffer the consequences. You can say what you want about the Lebanese government, but there's no evidence they are even hostile towards Hezbollah, and since a large number of Lebanese support Hezbolah - enough that they fear civil war if the government tries to take them on, enough that they fear their 70,000 man army would fall apart if they sicked it on Hezbollah, well then, I think it fair to say Hezbollah has massive support among the Lebanese people, especially the ones suffering the most, the Shiites.

Let the Shiites suffer for it.

It doesn't matter if someone tacitly supports Hizbullah, voted for them in the election, or has a Nasrallah T-Shirt. Unless they are actively involved in operations gainst Israel, they are not legitimate targets.

I didn't suggest they were. On the other hand, Hezbollah is in amongst them. You can't get at Hezbollah without collateral damage. Unfortunate, but true. Whenever an enemy holds up in a town, village or city, that town, village or city is going to be hammered as they are attacked, no matter how careful the attacker is. And I find it hard to be too sympathetic to the Shiites there. They are the same people who would have joined a civil war against their own government if it tried to disarm Hezbollah.

[Argus]

But BD!!! We need to punish them for not rising up and crushing Hezbollah on their own!!!

Doesn't really matter that the Lebanese army is less powerful than Hezbollah, but oh well. Must be the poor uninvolved person's fault. Anyone that doesn't stop them deserves to be dead apparently.

The Lebanese army: 70,000 men

Hezbollah : 5,000 men

It is not a lack of power, it is a lack of willpower. And given Hezbollah won all 23 seats in Southern Lebanon, I think we can say that the population there is being punished, in large part, because of their ardent support of terrorism.

[Michael Hardner]

Remember that the arguments on the other side are entirely emotional. There's little point in responding to an argument which consists largely of "Oh my God! People are dying! We have to stop it!"

As an aside, this is a peculiar argument I hear from right-of-centre posters. My response is that anger is an emotion too. So there's plenty of emotion to go around on both sides.

Just a sidebar...

[Black Dog]

I didn't suggest they were.

Actually, you did:

They aren't uninvolved when they support Hezbollah, and through that support make it impossible for the Lebanese government to get rid of them.

This is exactly the same logic used by Al Qaeda to justify its attacks on civilians and even by Hizbullah itself in justifying its attacks on Israel. Basically, you're saying political beliefs are enough to make noncombatants legitimate targets:

And I find it hard to be too sympathetic to the Shiites there. They are the same people who would have joined a civil war against their own government if it tried to disarm Hezbollah.

It is not a lack of power, it is a lack of willpower. And given Hezbollah won all 23 seats in Southern Lebanon, I think we can say that the population there is being punished, in large part, because of their ardent support of terrorism.

Which brings us back to the immoral and, under international law, illegal practice of collective punishment.

Look, you can argue that you're approaching this from the side of "realism", but I must say it's getting harder and harder to tell who's the terrorists here. I mean, what's the difference between targeting civilians because of their religion and targeting civilians because of their political beliefs?

And ultimately, military force will work, even if the Israelis have t push the whole population thirty kilometers back from its borders. They may not eliminate Hezbollah, but they can at least push them back far enough to keep them from firing katusha rockets into Israel.

A short term tactical solution (even if it is successful: given Israel's aversion to casualties, and the fact they are already on thin ice in the eyes of the entire world, I doubt they'll be able to pull it off) that will not solve the long-term problem. In the end, it'll probably make it worse. Israel's conditions for victory are lofty: trhey need to drive out and disarm Hizbullah. For Hizbullah to triumph, they need but survive as a political entity.

[Argus]

I didn't suggest they were.

Actually, you did:

No I did not. The statement I responded to was that they were not legitimate military targets.

It is not a lack of power, it is a lack of willpower. And given Hezbollah won all 23 seats in Southern Lebanon, I think we can say that the population there is being punished, in large part, because of their ardent support of terrorism.

Which brings us back to the immoral and, under international law, illegal practice of collective punishment.

Not if they are merely incidental to the attacks on Hezbollah.

Look, you can argue that you're approaching this from the side of "realism", but I must say it's getting harder and harder to tell who's the terrorists here.

My sympathies for your lack of any real moral compass.

I mean, what's the difference between targeting civilians because of their religion and targeting civilians because of their political beliefs?

It's the difference between targeting civilians because you want to kill them and targeting terrorists who are firing rocket launchers from the middle of the town square because you want to protect your people, and are willing to accept collateral damage to the other sides people to protect yours.

[Black Dog]

o I did not. The statement I responded to was that they were not legitimate military targets.

I stand corrected. I gues syour position would be more accurately characterized as being Lebanese civilians are not legitimate military targets, but close enough that we shouldn't care if they are treated as such.

Not if they are merely incidental to the attacks on Hezbollah.

You're being disingenous. You have said quite explicitly that the Shiites should "suffer" for their support of Hizbullah. That's about as close as you can get to suggesting thety are legitimate targets. The collateral damage line is merely a cover.

It's the difference between targeting civilians because you want to kill them and targeting terrorists who are firing rocket launchers from the middle of the town square because you want to protect your people, and are willing to accept collateral damage to the other sides people to protect yours.

Again, we're seeing intentional taregting of civilian infrastructure. We've high-ranking members of the IDF talking revenge attacks. In the face of this and your own ambivilance towards civilian casualties (best summed up as "hey: these things happen and they probably had it coming anyway.") how much longer do you expect the fiction of "collateral damage" to hold?

[Black Dog]

It is not a lack of power, it is a lack of willpower. And given Hezbollah won all 23 seats in Southern Lebanon, I think we can say that the population there is being punished, in large part, because of their ardent support of terrorism.

Here's a question: is the punishment itself the objective? If not, what is the objective? Punishing the population that now supports Hizbullah won't bring about an end to Hizbullah. Destroying public infrastructure and trying to drive a wedge into Lebanese society to force non-Shiites to act won't enable the government to act, but will weaken it. So what is Israel tyrying to acomplish?

[planetx]

of course they have an option!

pull out of all occupied territories!

release all prisoners of war!

appologize!

begin the process of financially helping those countries that they harmed realize the potential they may have had had they not been under military occupation for 30 years!

the attacks will not end immediately. but with time they can become a peace loving country.

but they must give up on the idea that they can expand their borders so that every jew in the world can come and enjoy the kind of elbow room that they enjoy in europe, the usa etc etc...

[Rue]

Black Dog's position is interesting. He has stated even if Hezbollah uses ambulances or disguises itself as civilians, Israel does not have the right to target civilians.

This is typical. He has slipped in the assumption that Israel is targeting civilians and then creates a double standard moral position that lectures posters that Israel can not shoot at civilians but remains completely silent on Hezbollah's culpability for usin civilians as weapons.

As a result Black Dog has zero credibility because his analysis and postulations only comment as to Israeli conduct.

Let us be crystal clear. Black Dog is utterly without basis when he makes genarlizations and sweeping statements stating Israel is targeting civilians. This is a personal and subjective opinion by Black Dog from the comfort of his sofa and stated so simply because he does not understand war and has never been shot at so he makes such inaccurate and ignorant statements.

The Israeli Defence Force is not targetting civilians and never has. It is targetting Hezbollah.

If Hezbollah chooses to hide behind civilians, they die as collateral damage because they are placed in the line of fire by Hezbollah.

Black Dog's positiion is completely ignorant of basic morality. If a murder shoots to kill you, and then uses a human as a screen, while continuing to shoot at you, you have the moral right to defend yourself and shoot back and try suirvive. It is that simple. There is nothing absolutely nothing that states, you must die because to shoot back might kill the person the murderer is using as a shield.

Black Dog's moral lecturing is selective because it misses the basic point, that Hezbollah is morally culpable for the death of civilians by using them as shields.

Black Dog is trying to assign the blame for placing civilians in the line of fire on Israel which is nonsensical.

In Black Doig's simplistic world of evil Zionists, there is of course a double standard-Hezbollah can use civilians as shields, but Israel can't defend itself. That is pure and utter piffle.

Now Black Dog says is there any proof Hezbollah uses ambulances, civilians as shields, etc. Either Black Dog is being deliberately ignorant or provocative. Anyone can go on the internet and find out for themselves the substantiated third party proof from neutrals as to the tactics Hezbollah has used and will contimnue to use. In fact Hezbollah openly admits it uses civilians as shields and believes in killing civilians and having them killed as tools of its war. There is no secret to this.

Black Dog's naive belief that Hezbollah is some sort of heroic champion of the oppressed is laughable. It shows his complete and absolute ignorance of the culture of Shiite fundamentalism and its lack of respect for human life.

[Rue]

of course they have an option!

pull out of all occupied territories!

release all prisoners of war!

appologize!

begin the process of financially helping those countries that they harmed realize the potential they may have had had they not been under military occupation for 30 years!

the attacks will not end immediately. but with time they can become a peace loving country.

but they must give up on the idea that they can expand their borders so that every jew in the world can come and enjoy the kind of elbow room that they enjoy in europe, the usa etc etc...

1. Israel is not in occupied territories and this shows your complete and utter ignorance as to what is going on. Israel unilaterally pulled out of Gaza, The West Bank and Lebanon.

2. There are no prisoners of war. Israel has captured terrorists who are NOT prisoners of war because they are not conventional military soldiers fighting a conventional war.

3. Your use of the word apologize is idiotic. This is not a one sided conflict. There is no good guy and bad guy and your simplistic notion that there is a bad guy and if they say sorry, this will resolve the conflict is laughable. More to the point, I would like to take you to Israel and have you speak to but one victim of terrorism and have you tell them to apologize. Your ignorance is amazing.

4.You make another baseless statement that Israel should financially compensate Palestinians. Who compensates Israel for all the terrorist attacks it has suffered and who compensates it now for the turmoil to its economy while it has to fight Hezbollah? Your selectivity is amazing. More to the point your comment is so simplistic as to be idiotic. The economic suffering of Palestine has been caused by two clear phenomena;

i-terrorism

ii-the coruption of the PLO which took money sent to Palestinians for relief and misappropriated the funds placing billions in Swiss bank accounts.

In regards to i, if the Palestinian people on a collective basis denounced terrorism and refused to support it, there would be no need for the Israelis to stop Palestinians from entering Israel proper for work.

In regards to ii, no Arab country has a regime free of coruption. Even the oil rich nations are corupt. SO to blame Israel for the Muslim world's failure to oeprate financially solvent countries is past idiotic.

Its comments like yours that make me ask do you bother to read anything and try educate yourself as to a situation before you make such statements?

Try at least to read up so you can offer a position we can debate or appreciate. I do not mean to sound personal but I am aghast at your lack of awareness and I apologize if I sound rude.,

[Black Dog]

Black Dog's position is interesting. He has stated even if Hezbollah uses ambulances or disguises itself as civilians, Israel does not have the right to target civilians.

This is typical. He has slipped in the assumption that Israel is targeting civilians and then creates a double standard moral position that lectures posters that Israel can not shoot at civilians but remains completely silent on Hezbollah's culpability for usin civilians as weapons.

Uh, if you bother reading, you'll see we had a poster a little ways back citing the qwell-known "fact" that Hizbullah uses ambulances for transpotrtation. This being evidence of their perfidy and, one can surmise, adequate justification for Israel to attack on ambulances.

Also, how does one use civilians as weapons? Last I checked, it was rockets they were lobbing over the border, not shepheeders and farmers.

The Israeli Defence Force is not targetting civilians and never has. It is targetting Hezbollah.

No. Israel is targeting civilian areas and civilian infrastructure. It is bombing empty office buildings and vacant houses in civilian areas where civilian casualties are an inevitable consequense and when such activity is not germaine to the efforts against Hizbullah.

If Hezbollah chooses to hide behind civilians, they die as collateral damage because they are placed in the line of fire by Hezbollah.

It must be nice to have such an all-encompassing excuse at hand. But it's pretty clear that Israel is not exactly taking a lot of care when it comes to avoiding civilian casualties.

Black Dog's positiion is completely ignorant of basic morality. If a murder shoots to kill you, and then uses a human as a screen, while continuing to shoot at you, you have the moral right to defend yourself and shoot back and try suirvive. It is that simple. There is nothing absolutely nothing that states, you must die because to shoot back might kill the person the murderer is using as a shield.

A better analogy would be to put one in the situation of facing a crowd from which a gunshot aimed at you has come. You don't know who fired the shot, so you apply the Israeli solution and open fire on the whole crowd. But then such analogies are overly reductivist and unhelpful.

Black Dog's moral lecturing is selective because it misses the basic point, that Hezbollah is morally culpable for the death of civilians by using them as shields.

Correct as far as it goes. In those cases where civilian deaths result from Hizbullah using them as sheilds, Hizbullah is culpable. In cases where civilians die because of Isralei carelessness or willful malice, Israel is morally culpable.

Black Dog is trying to assign the blame for placing civilians in the line of fire on Israel which is nonsensical.

Given that Israel is bombing residential areas of Beirut, its laughable to the extreme to suggest these peopel were "placed in the line of fire".

In Black Doig's simplistic world of evil Zionists, there is of course a double standard-Hezbollah can use civilians as shields, but Israel can't defend itself. That is pure and utter piffle.

Stop embrassing yourself with your pathetic strawmen.

Now Black Dog says is there any proof Hezbollah uses ambulances, civilians as shields, etc. Either Black Dog is being deliberately ignorant or provocative. Anyone can go on the internet and find out for themselves the substantiated third party proof from neutrals as to the tactics Hezbollah has used and will contimnue to use. In fact Hezbollah openly admits it uses civilians as shields and believes in killing civilians and having them killed as tools of its war. There is no secret to this.

Which explains the derth of actual first hand accounts of this practice.

And again, even if that were the case, that is not a license to bomb ambulances indiscriminately. It's up to Israel to ensure that the targets they are hitting are the right ones.

Black Dog's naive belief that Hezbollah is some sort of heroic champion of the oppressed is laughable. It shows his complete and absolute ignorance of the culture of Shiite fundamentalism and its lack of respect for human life.

It's telling that I take the time to respond to your slurs, yet mostly, my responses go unremarked by you. I can only assume this is because your argument is wih a fictional character who shares my moniker and espouses a rather outrageous set of beliefs. Perhaps its time to up the meds and maybe then that nasty , terrorist supporting, Zionist-hating "Black Dog" of whom you speak will go away. As such, I shan't bother responding to you and your inane and patently moronic misrepresentations anymore.

[Argus]

It is not a lack of power, it is a lack of willpower. And given Hezbollah won all 23 seats in Southern Lebanon, I think we can say that the population there is being punished, in large part, because of their ardent support of terrorism.

Here's a question: is the punishment itself the objective? If not, what is the objective? Punishing the population that now supports Hizbullah won't bring about an end to Hizbullah. Destroying public infrastructure and trying to drive a wedge into Lebanese society to force non-Shiites to act won't enable the government to act, but will weaken it. So what is Israel tyrying to acomplish?

I would say that Israel disagrees with your asessment of things, and that this has probably done a lot to stiffen the spines of non-shiites, at least, to take away Hezbollah's pretty toys after the fighting stops.

[Argus]

of course they have an option!

pull out of all occupied territories!

Every time they do that they get rockets and mortars fired across their borders.

release all prisoners of war!

I think if a terrorist had stabbed your old grandmother to death just because she was a Jew you might have second thoughts about releasing him. And I don't think people like that qualify as "prisoners of war".

appologize!

For being Jewish?

begin the process of financially helping those countries that they harmed

You mean the countries which repeatedly attacked Israel and were defeated? Should Israel apologise for beating them while they're at it?

realize the potential they may have had had they not been under military occupation for 30 years!

Well let's see. The potential, huh? What exactly is the "potential" of a pissy little arid country in the desert with no resources? About the same as Yemen? Does it strike you that the Palestinians lead much poorer lives than their compatriates in Yemen?

the attacks will not end immediately. but with time they can become a peace loving country.

So they should just sit there like good little Jews and take it until the Arabs decide they're bored with attacking them? Somehow, I don't see that happening.

[Shady]

Rue,

Unfortunately, Black Dog has slowly atrophied into what is commonly known as a troll. If you're looking for logic and reason, you'll find none. If you're looking for a legitimate discussion of ideas, you'll find none. And if you're looking for some kind of consistency, you'll definitely find none. Alas, Black Dog has become Black Troll. The transformation is complete.

Don't waste your time on him, just accept him for the special person he is, and concentrate your discussion with board members who haven't fallen into the abyss of the kook-left.

[Shady]

Oops, almost forgot to post this...

Hezbollah was using UN post as 'shield'

Ottawa Citizen

The words of a Canadian United Nations observer written just days before he was killed in an Israeli bombing of a UN post in Lebanon are evidence Hezbollah was using the post as a "shield" to fire rockets into Israel, says a former UN commander in Bosnia.

Those words, written in an e-mail dated just nine days ago, offer a possible explanation as to why the post -- which according to UN officials was clearly marked and known to Israeli forces -- was hit by Israel on Tuesday night, said retired Maj.-Gen. Lewis MacKenzie yesterday.

The strike hit the UN observation post in the southern Lebanese village of El Khiam, killing Canadian Maj. Paeta Hess-von Kruedener and three others serving as unarmed UN military observers in the area.

Just last week, Maj. Hess-von Kruedener wrote an e-mail about his experiences after nine months in the area, words Maj.-Gen. MacKenzie said are an obvious allusion to Hezbollah tactics.

"What I can tell you is this," he wrote in an e-mail to CTV dated July 18. "We have on a daily basis had numerous occasions where our position has come under direct or indirect fire from both (Israeli) artillery and aerial bombing.

"The closest artillery has landed within 2 meters (sic) of our position and the closest 1000 lb aerial bomb has landed 100 meters (sic) from our patrol base. This has not been deliberate targeting, but rather due to tactical necessity."

Maybe some of you Hezbollah toadies will read and learn.

[jdobbin]

Maybe some of you Hezbollah toadies will read and learn.

Harper asked why the U.N. observers remained in place throughout this. The simple answer is that they were soldiers and unarmed. It was their very job to record what was happening.

If there were orders to have them removed, it should have come from a motion on the floor of the U.N. or the Security Council. This is something that Harper should have done given that former Conservative candidate Lewis MacKenzie was aware that the unit was under fire.

[Charles Anthony]

Those words, written in an e-mail dated just nine days ago, offer a possible explanation as to why the post -- which according to UN officials was clearly marked and known to Israeli forces -- was hit by Israel on Tuesday night, said retired Maj.-Gen. Lewis MacKenzie yesterday.

I would like to see that specific email instead of reading Major-General Politician Lewis MacKenzie's interpretation.

Just last week, Maj. Hess-von Kruedener wrote an e-mail about his experiences after nine months in the area, words Maj.-Gen. MacKenzie said are an obvious allusion to Hezbollah tactics.

Again, I would like to see that specific email instead of being told by Major-General Politician Lewis MacKenzie what is obvious.

Oh! Here is the email:

"What I can tell you is this," he wrote in an e-mail to CTV dated July 18. "We have on a daily basis had numerous occasions where our position has come under direct or indirect fire from both (Israeli) artillery and aerial bombing.

"The closest artillery has landed within 2 meters (sic) of our position and the closest 1000 lb aerial bomb has landed 100 meters (sic) from our patrol base. This has not been deliberate targeting, but rather due to tactical necessity."[/i]

Hmmm....

Where does Lewis MacKenzie get the "obvious allusion to Hezbollah tactics"???????? There is nothing in that quote that suggests his interpretation.

For those who may not remember, retired Major General Lewis MacKenzie was the commander of the UN forces when Serbs over-ran Bosnia with the help of a United Nations arms embargo in their favor. His neutrality and credibility is dubious.

Former U.N. Leader MacKenzie Speaks on Behalf of Serb Forces

By Dele Olojede and Roy Gutman

Newsday

UNITED NATIONS

The former U.N. commander in Bosnia has participated in a speakers tour funded by a Serbian-American advocacy group that seeks to dispel the internationally accepted view that Serb fighters were principally responsible for the mass killings, rape and ethnic cleansing that has destroyed the former Yugoslav republic.

In an interview with Newsday, retired Canadian Maj. Gen. Lewis MacKenzie said he has done nothing unethical or improper in connection with last month's tour. MacKenzie last week acknowledged in a telephone conversation from Ottawa that his tour was funded by the group, SerbNet, but said he does not know how much he was paid. In his public appearances, including congressional testimony last month, MacKenzie never disclosed SerbNet's financial support.

http://www-tech.mit.edu/V113/N29/serbs.29w.html

[GostHacked]

1. Israel is not in occupied territories and this shows your complete and utter ignorance as to what is going on. Israel unilaterally pulled out of Gaza, The West Bank and Lebanon.

There are still illegal Jewish settlements in both the Gaza strip and West bank.

http://www.twnside.org.sg/title/2411.htm

Security Council resolution 242 (1967), which is the bedrock of the peace process and of any future peace settlement, is anchored in the principle of the inadmissibility of the acquisition of territory by war. The old and deceptive argument that the resolution calls for withdrawal from 'territories' and not 'the territories' not withstanding (in fact, the French text of the resolution does contain the article 'the'). The call in the resolution for the withdrawal of Israel can only be read within the context of the above-mentioned principle.

Since the onset of the Israeli occupation in 1967, and in response to established, illegal policies and practices of the occupying Power, the Security Council has adopted 26 resolutions that affirmed the applicability of the Fourth Geneva Convention to the territories occupied by Israel. Of those resolutions, several deal directly with the issue of Israeli settlements and several also specifically deal with Israeli violations in Occupied East Jerusalem.

Ok fine this is from 2002, but why did it take over 50 years for Israel to do ANYTHING? And the illegal occupation of East Jerusalem still goes on to this day. That is considered part of the West Bank.

http://www.stop-us-military-aid-to-israel.net/

And now you have an illegal occupation of Southern Lebanon on top of this whole mess. Not to mention to Golan Heights are still unresolved. Hmm.

QUOTE(planetx @ Jul 27 2006, 06:01 PM) *

of course they have an option!

pull out of all occupied territories!

Every time they do that they get rockets and mortars fired across their borders.

Rockets are not being fired into quite Jewish Nebourhoods. They are being fired into illegal Jewish settlements. Get. It. Right.

2. There are no prisoners of war. Israel has captured terrorists who are NOT prisoners of war because they are not conventional military soldiers fighting a conventional war.

I recall something like this from Bush in relation to enemy combatants. Therefore no rights granted. (To bad rights cannot be granted to someone, it is inherent in all of us.)

Recall this?? http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/4804424.stm

This sparked alot of kidnappings by militants. But this was an ok operation then? As long as we get the bad guys, who cares what methods we use, correct? Cowboy Diplomacy.

I also bet on Israel expanding and solidifying the border to the north in south Lebanon. Annexation in the works. 2010 watch out.

[Army Guy]

Charles Anthony:

Hmmm....

Where does Lewis MacKenzie get the "obvious allusion to Hezbollah tactics"???????? There is nothing in that quote that suggests his interpretation.

Maybe you should read the quote again,

This has not been deliberate targeting, but rather due to tactical necessity."[/i]

It was not deliberate targeting of the UN post, but rather of Tactical necessity meaning the hezbullah have strong postions around the UN OP, suggesting that the Hezbullah was in fact using it as a form of shield.

For those who may not remember, retired Major General Lewis MacKenzie was the commander of the UN forces when Serbs over-ran Bosnia with the help of a United Nations arms embargo in their favor. His neutrality and credibility is dubious.

Perhaps you can show me and the others were your proof of the BS you are posting here.

Show us where is neutrality and credibility is broken..

Because he has spoken out to the world and saying that the serbs were not the only people commiting war crimes, to correct a perception of what the world has ,including yourself.

No where does he say that the serbs did not commit any crimes just that they were not the only ones.

I spent 3 tours of duty in Bosina and served under Retired Maj General Mackenzie for one of them. Unless you served in Bosina and seen first hand what the facts are then your comments are coming out your ass.

Even to suggest that his neutrality and credibility are questionable is unproven slander of a man whom has served his country with honour and pride.