Hizboll'ah Billboard in Windsor

[Black Dog]

That's all very fine an dandy but no where in that does it say there main target is either infrastructure or that opinion of the lebanese people. The General could and probably did mean the strikes would continue until Israel no longer needed to unhold lebanese sovereignty and lebanon would do it herself. Of course Israel would continue to strike at hezbollah targets which include what ever assets Hezbollah uses.

"If Hezbollah fires Katyushas, we have to deliver a severe blow to Lebanon's infrastructure, black out Beirut, cut off electricity, turn off the water, destroy bridges, halt industry and flatten entire villages. If there is horrible damage in Lebanon, they will say, 'The Jews are crazy.'"

...

"If one has to choose between hurting the Israeli home front or the Lebanese home front, I prefer that the Lebanese get hurt. It hurts me to see civilians hurt by our air force, but there is no choice. We cannot be bleeding hearts while our citizens are being hurt. If Lebanese citizens pay the price, they will rise up against Hezbollah."

-Eli Yishai, vice prime minister

link

[M.Dancer]

link

I have proposed that we damage infrastructure and flatten villages because Hezbollah personnel must know they are not immune. We should have made it clear to them that all the residents in villages from which firepower is launched at IDF soldiers, will be warned and required to leave their homes within 48 hours. And later these villages will be bombed from the air. That policy would have assured that Lebanese citizens would not permit Hezbollah to live next to them," Yishai says.

This is rhetoric. Propaganda even. His proposals were sound but not nearly as far as they should have gone. Notwithstanding the rhetoric. Israel had every right to target the infrastucture as it was being used by Hezbollah.

I seriously doubt that 48 hours after a village was warned, any villages were bombed. Not when they were actually bombed minutes after a hezbollah attack,

[jazzer]

Then how do you explain Truman's decision to kill - with full intent - hundreds of thousands of civilians in Nagasaki and Hiroshima?

Not. Read Truman's diary of July 25, 1945. He clearly did not want civilians targeted in his decision to drop the bomb.

I have told the Sec. of War, Mr. Stimson, to use it so that military objectives and soldiers and sailors are the target and not women and children. from the diary

[cybercoma]

link

I simply can't see how anyone can argue otherwise, it is quite clear that the Prime Minister had made a choice to use excessive force against civilian targets. This should be unacceptable to anyone with an ounce of moral and ethical decency.

[cybercoma]

This is rhetoric. Propaganda even. His proposals were sound but not nearly as far as they should have gone. Notwithstanding the rhetoric. Israel had every right to target the infrastucture as it was being used by Hezbollah.

I seriously doubt that 48 hours after a village was warned, any villages were bombed. Not when they were actually bombed minutes after a hezbollah attack,

Hezbollah also breathes the air in Lebanon, does that make it acceptable to use airborne toxins? Not at all, nor is it acceptable to target crucial infrastructure used by everyday citizens.

forget the infrastructure, targeting the people themselves to make their lives miserable so that they might be forced to rise up against Hezbollah is patently absurd. It is quite obvious that Israel, instead of finding allies, is creating more enemies and resentment.

[jbg]

It is the intent that matters most of all. I think any lawyer would agree with me here.

I certainly do.

[jbg]

Then how do you explain Truman's decision to kill - with full intent - hundreds of thousands of civilians in Nagasaki and Hiroshima?

There was little doubt that civilians were to join in the effort to repulse any land invasion.

However, a more compelling answer is that a land invasion would have killed far more Japanese than the atomic strikes did. Not to mention American and Canadian troops who had parents, wives and in some cases children. A country has a duty to try to minimize the deaths of those who, through choice or compulsion are fighting for it. Hezbollah, on the other hand, is killing for the sake of killing.

[jbg]

Look, your fascination of typo's aside....

Usually we agree, but you did mis-spell "armored". You added a "u" to the word, making it non-English.

[August1991]

Not. Read Truman's diary of July 25, 1945. He clearly did not want civilians targeted in his decision to drop the bomb.

I have told the Sec. of War, Mr. Stimson, to use it so that military objectives and soldiers and sailors are the target and not women and children. from the diary

You give the impression that Truman passed the buck to the military. Nothing could be further from the truth, and if you know anything about Truman, you'd undersand this.

Truman wrote that this was not a decision taken lightly or alone. He did it in consultation with many others and after long thought. They considered dropping it on an isolated place first but decided that the only way the Japanese would be convinced was if it was dropped on a major city of military importance. They considered Hiroshima, Kokura, Nagasaki and Niigata.

Truman has given the justification, noted in this thread, that the atomic bombs saved lives because it shortened the war and eliminated the need to invade Japan. Truman wrote to his sister: "It was a terrible decision. But I made it. And I made it to save 250,000 boys from the United States, and I'd make it again under similar circumstances."

There's more, IMV. The fact that the US dropped two bombs is illustrative. The purpose was to show the Japanese (and the world) that the US had this power and that it was not afraid to use it. IOW, Truman and his advisors understood that they were making a threat, and a threat is only good if it's credible. All US presidents since Truman have followed this principle.

And this partly joins up with the topic of this thread.

Hezbollah also breathes the air in Lebanon, does that make it acceptable to use airborne toxins? Not at all, nor is it acceptable to target crucial infrastructure used by everyday citizens.

forget the infrastructure, targeting the people themselves to make their lives miserable so that they might be forced to rise up against Hezbollah is patently absurd. It is quite obvious that Israel, instead of finding allies, is creating more enemies and resentment.

Israel is not trying to make friends among Hizballah supporters, anymore than Truman was trying to make friends in the Japanese military. Israel wants to show that it has the power to cause destruction and that it is not afraid to use this power.

-----

In all of this, I have yet to see a clear argument that would justify clearly why the US is justified in dropping atomic weapons on cities whereas Al-Qaeda is not. For make no mistake: this is the fear of everyone. (Indirectly, this question refers similarly to Israeli use of force compared to Hizballah's use of force.)

It seems to me that there are three or four possible arguments (some admittedly specious and not mutually exclusive).

First, our side is right.

Second, our use of force will prevent less mayhem in the future.

Third, we attempt to restrict our use of force to military targets.

Fourth, we only respond to prior attacks. IOW, we prefer to preserve the status quo (changing it only through civilized negotiation).

[incidentally, on the night of 9 March 1945, as many as 100,000 people were killed in Tokyo because of firebombing of the city. An area of 6 km by 6 km was destroyed in one night. Tokyo buildings were made of wood and the American planes dropped napalm.]

Edited August 17, 2007 by August1991

[cybercoma]

Israel is not trying to make friends among Hizballah supporters. Israel wants to show that it has the power to cause destruction and that it is not afraid to use this power.

Making friends is not the point August. The prime minister clearly stated he wants to cause as much harm to the general population so that they rise up against Hezbollah. This obviously has not been an effective tactic, which is evident by the billboard posted in Windsor, since Hezbollah is made up of Lebanese people. It is the family, friends and neighbours of the general public that Israel wants to rebel. Instead of rebelling, the public is showing support for Hezbollah.

Aside from the fact that it is a poor tactic, because really that's beside the point, it is a completely immoral and unethical one. They're causing death and harm to the general population to try and get back at the terrorists among them. Murdering people is the absolute worst thing you can do as a human being and using the general public as pawns against Hezbollah is grossly immoral and should never be done.

Hezbollah is just as guilty by hiding behind the general population to launch their attacks, but the quotes that Black Dog posted, clearly show that Israel is not trying to minimize collateral damage. Instead, Israel is trying to maximize damage and harm to the Lebanese population and anyone with a conscience should be thoroughly disgusted.

[Bonam]

Instead, Israel is trying to maximize damage and harm to the Lebanese population and anyone with a conscience should be thoroughly disgusted.

Do you honestly think that, if Israel was trying to MAXIMIZE damage and harm to the Lebanese population, that in 34 days, they would only have managed to kill some 1100ish people? Israel could have leveled Beirut in a week, killing hundreds of thousands, if it was trying to "maximize" harm.

[cybercoma]

Do you honestly think that, if Israel was trying to MAXIMIZE damage and harm to the Lebanese population, that in 34 days, they would only have managed to kill some 1100ish people? Israel could have leveled Beirut in a week, killing hundreds of thousands, if it was trying to "maximize" harm.

Clearly they showed an iota of restraint, in the sense that they didn't completely annihilate Beirut, since they would be condemned by the world's nations for that type of aggressive action. However, the Prime Minister's point is unmistakable, "we have to deliver a severe blow to Lebanon's infrastructure, black out Beirut, cut off electricity, turn off the water, destroy bridges, halt industry and flatten entire villages. If there is horrible damage in Lebanon, they will say, 'The Jews are crazy.

If Lebanese citizens pay the price, they will rise up against Hezbollah."

He clearly supports making "Lebanese citizens pay the price," and I don't care what Hezbollah did, that is completely unacceptable. Unless of course, the quote is fabricated, but no one has argued that.

[Black Dog]

This is rhetoric. Propaganda even. His proposals were sound but not nearly as far as they should have gone. Notwithstanding the rhetoric. Israel had every right to target the infrastucture as it was being used by Hezbollah.

Lookit those goalposts move! Earlier you said: "That's all very fine an dandy but no where in that does it say there main target is either infrastructure or that opinion of the lebanese people." The vice PM's statement clearly belies that claim. And so now you're saying he was talking only about "infrastructure used by Hizbullah." Which, in the full context of the quote, is clearly not the case.

I also really like how you've attempted to retrospectivly turn bombed infrastructure into "infrastructure used by Hizbullah". How do we know it was used by Hizbullah? Why, because it was bombed!

Usually we agree, but you did mis-spell "armored". You added a "u" to the word, making it non-English.

Oh, just shut up already.

[cybercoma]

Black Dog, you've brought some interesting information to light about the attacks in Lebanon.

I agree that Israel has a right to defend herself against terrorist attacks and protect its citizens from being murdered; however, it is quite clear from the information you provided that Israel has gone beyond that.

In a street fight, it is one thing to defend yourself against someone who starts swinging at you, it is quite another thing to beat the crap out of their friends and smash their car. Why would anyone do that? Hopefully the original attacker's friends will turn on him for being so stupid to attack you in the first place.

Not bloody likely.

[White Doors]

Black Dog, you've brought some interesting information to light about the attacks in Lebanon.

I agree that Israel has a right to defend herself against terrorist attacks and protect its citizens from being murdered; however, it is quite clear from the information you provided that Israel has gone beyond that.

In a street fight, it is one thing to defend yourself against someone who starts swinging at you, it is quite another thing to beat the crap out of their friends and smash their car. Why would anyone do that? Hopefully the original attacker's friends will turn on him for being so stupid to attack you in the first place.

Not bloody likely.

It gave Lebanon incentive to maintain their sovereignty as a country.

It gave the UN incentive to send in peacekeepers.

[Black Dog]

It gave Lebanon incentive to maintain their sovereignty as a country.

It gave the UN incentive to send in peacekeepers.

Ah White Doors: glad you showed up. See the only reasn I brought the whole thing up was your earlier remark asserting the importance of the rules of war. I wonder: is attacking a state or people in hopes of coercing them to take action against a third party allowable under the rules of war? I ask because if one is to assert rules are important in wartime, its a good idea to know going in what those rules are.

Edited August 17, 2007 by Black Dog

[Rue]

Primarily responsible?

Yes he bears some responsibility for the war that took place last summer, but that responsibility is equally shared by Olmert.

Andrew

That is absurd. You are saying the victim of a rape shares equal responsibility with the rapist.

You are mixing up moral and ethical culpability with questionable war management.

Hezbollah started the war and has 100% moral culpability since it started the war and deliberately used civilians, hospitals, community centres, schools and civilian apartments and sites to launch its missiles. It deliberately placed civilians in harm's way.

For you to suggest Israel should sit back and not fight back is idiotic. It has a moral responsibility to defend its people and yes if need people kill innocent civilians in other nations to defend its people if there is no other means to protect its citizens from attacks it did not start.

That said, I would concur, Olmert's failure was in not properly taking the time to respond in a more measured manner that could have avoided undue civilian deaths.

Olmert's decision to rely on an air war and not consider a combination of a series of strategic precision missile attacks and commando raids came about because of his refusal to listen to the IDF and because he panicked and did not want to take the time to plan before responding.

Did Olmer'ts ineptitude expose civilians to unecessary death, yes probably but to say he is morally on the same level as Hezbollah is bull. No one excuses Olmert for being an inept military commander but to suggest he is on the same moral level as Hezbollah ignores how ethics is determined. Ethics for culpabiliuty for decisions originates and ends with the person initiating the unethical action.

What Olmert did is questionable but not morally. He did not deliberately choose to kill Lebanese civilians. In is bungling mind, he thought the air war would in the long run prevent more deaths by demonstrating Israel would not allow Hezbollah to hide behind civilians. He honestly felt if he did not make the big air show he did, Hezbollah would be tempted to hide behind civilians over and over again which in the long term would expose even more to death.

Hezbollah on the other hand do what they do for one reason-to exterminate Israel and kill Israelis and Jews. That is their mission.

Olmert failed in that his air war relied to heavily on fighter jets and did not use helicopters.

Israel could not use tanks. Hezbollag which consists of numerous engineers constructed an elaborate maze of anti-tank tracks and mobile missile launchers that could be hidden after picking off tanks. This also made them mobile anti-tank missile launchers on disguised track invisible to fighter jets. What was needed were commando units to spot the missile tracks and then helicopters coming in taking them out. Such a war would require months if not a year of planning and Olmert did not feel he could wait that amount of time.

Some of us believe small commando units of 10 to 15 operating as eyes and ears for swift precision helicopter attacks is the preferred method of anti-terrorist warfare. Others believe in shock and awe air war (its the old Vietnam mentality where fire bombing was felt the way to beat guerillas).

As for you Andrew, when someone rapes you and you fight back and then are put on the stand and the lawyer for the rapist states you committed battery on his client, we shall see how your react.

[Rue]

Back to the topic. Hezbollah has been outlawed as an international terrorist organization. As a result freedom of speech is not an issue. Placing a poster of an outlawed international terrorist organization is the issue. If we placed a poster of a mass murderer on the loose on a billboard and it stated the mass murderer was a good person is this freedom of speech?

What next, someone place a poster of Paul Bernardo up extolling his virtues?

This poster was not about expressing political opinions it was about importing to Canada political views sympathizing with an international terrrorist organization.

Yes this country is a democracy and yes democraciess limit freedom of speech when idiots come to this country and think freedom of speech means openly screaming fire in a crowded theatre.

Terrorism has no place in our democractic society precisely because we are democratic.

Keep this shit and hatred out of Canada. This has nothing to do with peacefully expressing political opinions and everything to do with thinking freedom of speech protects those who wish to preach hatred and violence.

Wait, next we will place child porn pictures on billboards or posters advocating rape. After all its freedom of expression. Never mind what we are advocating is criminal.

Edited August 17, 2007 by Rue

[Rue]

Ah White Doors: glad you showed up. See the only reasn I brought the whole thing up was your earlier remark asserting the importance of the rules of war. I wonder: is attacking a state or people in hopes of coercing them to take action against a third party allowable under the rules of war? I ask because if one is to assert rules are important in wartime, its a good idea to know going in what those rules are.

Black Dog I honestly do not think Olmert thought he was pressuring the Lebanese government. I truly believe he thought he was showing Hezbollah he would risk world alienation and unpopularity rather then let Hezbollah think they could hide behind civilians and Israel would not fight back.

More to the point Balck Dog there are no rules of war when one of the parties is a terrorist organization that will not follow rules of war. You keep talking as if Hezbollah's initial actions were honourable and legal and simply acts of war.

It once again shows you have no clue what it is you are depicting. Hezbollah is not an army. It is a cooperative of middle aged men, many highly educated engineers. They stay together because of their common theocratic extremist beliefs and hatred of and desire to rid Israel. They do not and have never engaged in civilian war. They attack innocent civilians not soldiers and they deliberately use Lebanese as shields and covers and deliberately get them killed. They take great care planning how to expose as many civilians as possible to death. They plan the number of deaths.

They know exactly how many civilians will die by shooting a missile from an apartment, or hospital window or school. That is what they want.

Stop acting like Rudyard Kipling discussing war over tea.

Hezbollah are terrorists. They don't fight conventional war and never will. So talk all you want about how Israel should follow conventional rules of war, but it shows you just don't get it.

As for criticism of Olmert, its deserved but for military reasons not because he didn't follow proper rules. In fact he did. Your belief that civilian deaths in aerial war is not conventional is nonsense. It is undesireable, unfortunate, horrible, and tragic but its actually a well known tactic of war.

Tell me you think civilians in Lebanon are the first ones to die in a war? You make it sound like Israel is the only nation when faced with anhiliation that has killed civilians in another country it is faced trying to fight the enemy.

In this case can you please once and for all understand, Hezbollah disguises itself as civilians. By so doing, it is not a conventional army. It also initiates the attacks on civilians. Hezbollah will never wear an identifiable uniform and simply limit its actions to strikes against the IDF. It never has and never will. The Arab world fought to conventional wars and lost them both and has stated it will never again engage in conventional war.

These terrorist cells openly state they will never fight conventional wars. Get over it. THey have.

[White Doors]

Ah White Doors: glad you showed up. See the only reasn I brought the whole thing up was your earlier remark asserting the importance of the rules of war. I wonder: is attacking a state or people in hopes of coercing them to take action against a third party allowable under the rules of war? I ask because if one is to assert rules are important in wartime, its a good idea to know going in what those rules are.

War is merely the pointy end of the political stick.

Changing minds is always a good strategy of war and factors into it.

Whatever you may feel about it, Israel, even with their aggressive waging of this war did not intentionally target civilians. I would hope when the targets are placed deliberately by human shields that the population would rise up against the perpetrators of this illegal tactic.

Hoping that the enemy loses favour with the populace because they are committing war crimes, is not a war crime.

[Black Dog]

Black Dog I honestly do not think Olmert thought he was pressuring the Lebanese government.

How do explain, then, the statments by senior officials to that effect?

I truly believe he thought he was showing Hezbollah he would risk world alienation and unpopularity rather then let Hezbollah think they could hide behind civilians and Israel would not fight back.

Fine theory, but based on what?

More to the point Balck Dog there are no rules of war when one of the parties is a terrorist organization that will not follow rules of war. You keep talking as if Hezbollah's initial actions were honourable and legal and simply acts of war.

I'll concede that the rules of war get murky when dealing with fourth generation combatants. But does that mean they go out the window entirely? To illustrate this point, would Israel be justified in using poison gas on civilian areas where Hizbullah was suspected of operating? If you want to argue that all bets are off, fine. Just know that there can then be no more condemnation of rocket attacks on civilian areas, suicide bombings, etc. The reason these acts are so hinous and condemnable is because they are contrary to the norms of what we westerners dem civilized warfare. The fact that "we" still ascribe to those norms is a crucial difference between our sides.

Put another way: that one side of a conflict chooses not to follow our rules is not a compellimg reason to join them in the muck.

It once again shows you have no clue what it is you are depicting.

Bit of an aside here, but must you be such a jerk?

Hezbollah is not an army. It is a cooperative of middle aged men, many highly educated engineers. They stay together because of their common theocratic extremist beliefs and hatred of and desire to rid Israel. They do not and have never engaged in civilian war. They attack innocent civilians not soldiers and they deliberately use Lebanese as shields and covers and deliberately get them killed. They take great care planning how to expose as many civilians as possible to death. They plan the number of deaths.

And they have a secret headquarters on Skull Island....

Seriously, I know what Hizbullah is and how it operates. I'm aware that, like guerilla groups since time immemorial, they fight in civilian areas. But all of that is neither here nor there. We're not talking about that. We're talking about the calculated targetting of infastructure that is not of direct military value for the purpose of coercing Lebanon and its people to act against Hizbullah.

[Black Dog]

War is merely the pointy end of the political stick.

Changing minds is always a good strategy of war and factors into it.

What rot. We're not talking about a propaganda campaign here. I think how Israel decided to try and "change minds" is relevant.

Whatever you may feel about it, Israel, even with their aggressive waging of this war did not intentionally target civilians.

Of course they did: how else were they going to change their minds? Or are you saying they had a deliberate strategy centred around *accidentally* hitting civilians?

[White Doors]

What rot. We're not talking about a propaganda campaign here. I think how Israel decided to try and "change minds" is relevant.

Of course they did: how else were they going to change their minds? Or are you saying they had a deliberate strategy centred around *accidentally* hitting civilians?

Speaking of being a jerk, you should take your own advice.

You picked out only the parts you wanted eh?

Israel KNEW that Hezbollah was going to hide among the civilians, they always have the cowards. They knew that no matter what when they struck back there would be civilians dying because of this so they were hoping that the civilians would blame the perpetrators of this war crime, Hezbollah, not Israel.

How else can you explain Israel doing commando raids in apartment buildings instead of just levelling the whole building? They could have. Weird that they would drop pamphlets warning civilians to evacuate if they were inentionally targeting civilians.

You are being obtuse because you have a pretty quote.

Propoganda is an integral part of warfare, always has been. In fact, it's one of Hezbollah's primary weapons. It is certainly effective in the west on the 'useful idiots'.

Don't get angry with me just because you are one of them.

Edited August 17, 2007 by White Doors

[Black Dog]

Speaking of being a jerk, you should take your own advice.

You picked out only the parts you wanted eh?

???

Israel KNEW that Hezbollah was going to hide among the civilians, they always have the cowards. They knew that no matter what when they struck back there would be civilians dying because of this so they were hoping that the civilians would blame the perpetrators of this war crime, Hezbollah, not Israel.

That's an incredibly lame theory and it certainly doesn't square with the statements by Israeli officials I quoted earlier. Again:

If Hezbollah fires Katyushas, we have to deliver a severe blow to Lebanon's infrastructure, black out Beirut, cut off electricity, turn off the water, destroy bridges, halt industry and flatten entire villages. If there is horrible damage in Lebanon, they will say, 'The Jews are crazy.'"...

"If one has to choose between hurting the Israeli home front or the Lebanese home front, I prefer that the Lebanese get hurt. It hurts me to see civilians hurt by our air force, but there is no choice. We cannot be bleeding hearts while our citizens are being hurt. If Lebanese citizens pay the price, they will rise up against Hezbollah."

-Eli Yishai, vice prime minister

Sounds pretty calculated.

Your theory would have more credibility if israel's strikes were confined to areas where Hizbullah units were active. But the pattern and nature of the damage to Lebanon's infrastructure (not to mention the size of the bombing campaign) suggest a much much broader scope.

How else can you explain Israel doing commando raids in apartment buildings instead of just levelling the whole building? They could have.

And did. Frequently.

Weird that they would drop pamphlets warning civilians to evacuate if they were inentionally targeting civilians.

It's not a black and white proposition you know. They didn't carpet bomb Beirut or nuke teh Bekka valley either, but that doesn't mean they weren't going after civlian targets.

You are being obtuse because you have a pretty quote.

Please explain how I'm being obtuse. I don't think you know what the term means.

Edited August 17, 2007 by Black Dog

[White Doors]

look at the facts. The facts of what happen are what is important. Quotes discussing strategy is not what it relevent. The facts of what happened are.

I don't care what you think about me BD. Your ego is getting the best of you.

You are sticking to your quote and that's it eh? That's fine but there is no sense in continuing if you will not move on from that and get more detailed in our discussion.

I'm not suprised as you like to keep the discussion very limited in scope and range as suits you best. I will not allow you to twaddle on like this and try and convince me that you are interested in a serious discussion of the issue.

You obviously are not.

Israel is not guilty of any war crimes in last summers war. No one with any credibility on the issue and no agenda, thinks that they they did.

So there you have it - you either have no credibility on this issue or you have an agenda with an anti-israel bias.

You pick.

toodles.

Edited August 17, 2007 by White Doors