Hizbollah's tactics denounced as war crimes

[Banquo's Ghost]

Amnesty International has quite rightly censured the Hizbollah attacks on Israel (http://news.independent.co.uk/world/middle_east/article1578722.ece) by using indiscriminate rocketing as war crimes.

Hizbollah rocket attacks on Israelis 'war crimes'
By Patrick Cockburn in Beirut
Published: 14 September 2006

Amnesty International has accused Lebanon's Hizbollah movement of committing war crimes by deliberately targeting Israeli civilians with its rockets.

The 4,000 rockets it fired into northern Israel during the war in Lebanon killed 43 civilians, seriously wounded 33 and forced hundreds of thousands of others to live in shelters.

The Amnesty report is the latest review of the 34-day war, for which the winners and losers are still trying to justify their conduct and avoid blame. At least 1,000 Lebanese civilians died and whole villages were pulverised by Israeli bombs.

The Israeli Prime Minister, Ehud Olmert, fighting for his political life after failing to eliminate Hizbollah, has played down Israeli losses. He bluntly told the Knesset foreign affairs and defence committee: "Half Lebanon is destroyed. Is that a loss?"

Amnesty says Hizbollah fired "some 900 inherently inaccurate Katyusha rockets into urban areas" and packed them with ball bearings lethal at 300 metres. This was out of a total of 3,970 rockets fired.Israel's inability to suppress the rocket fire was seen as a serious failure.

Irene Khan, Amnesty International's secretary general, said: "The scale of Hizbollah's attacks on Israeli cities, towns and villages, the indiscriminate nature of the weapons used, and statements from the leadership confirming their intent to target civilians, make it all too clear that Hizbollah violated the laws of war."

Hizbollah's leader, Hassan Nasrallah, said that shelling northern Israel was in reprisal for the shelling of Lebanese civilians. Israel says 12,000 buildings were damaged by Katyusha fire, but Amnesty says serious damage was much less.

In general terms Israel lost the war, which has left Hizbollah stronger and more confident. In Palestinian towns of the West Bank, Hizbollah DVDs showing Israeli tanks being destroyed are a hot seller.

Hassan Nasrallah defined victory as Hizbollah avoiding defeat. Israel's prolonged bombing campaign, far from turning Lebanon against Hizbollah, won it support.

Now that peace has returned, Hizbollah may not have quite so easy a time as Lebanese politics returns to its old sectarian divisions. Many Christians and Sunni blame Hizbollah for the war.

Hassan Nasrallah attacked Tony Blair's visit to Beirut this week, and said that if Mr Blair was invited it was "a national disaster". In an interview on al-Jazeera television, he said Mr Blair was "an associate in the murdering".

Israel's military superiority has not changed. There is no Arab power which can challenge it, and it has had unprecedented support from the US and Britain. Even so, its inability to defeat Hizbollah has reduced its military deterrent. This may tempt it into another round in Lebanon, a war in which it would hope to avoid any further mistakes.

Amnesty International has accused Lebanon's Hizbollah movement of committing war crimes by deliberately targeting Israeli civilians with its rockets.

The 4,000 rockets it fired into northern Israel during the war in Lebanon killed 43 civilians, seriously wounded 33 and forced hundreds of thousands of others to live in shelters.

The Amnesty report is the latest review of the 34-day war, for which the winners and losers are still trying to justify their conduct and avoid blame. At least 1,000 Lebanese civilians died and whole villages were pulverised by Israeli bombs.

The Israeli Prime Minister, Ehud Olmert, fighting for his political life after failing to eliminate Hizbollah, has played down Israeli losses. He bluntly told the Knesset foreign affairs and defence committee: "Half Lebanon is destroyed. Is that a loss?"

Amnesty says Hizbollah fired "some 900 inherently inaccurate Katyusha rockets into urban areas" and packed them with ball bearings lethal at 300 metres. This was out of a total of 3,970 rockets fired.Israel's inability to suppress the rocket fire was seen as a serious failure.

Irene Khan, Amnesty International's secretary general, said: "The scale of Hizbollah's attacks on Israeli cities, towns and villages, the indiscriminate nature of the weapons used, and statements from the leadership confirming their intent to target civilians, make it all too clear that Hizbollah violated the laws of war."

Hizbollah's leader, Hassan Nasrallah, said that shelling northern Israel was in reprisal for the shelling of Lebanese civilians. Israel says 12,000 buildings were damaged by Katyusha fire, but Amnesty says serious damage was much less.

In general terms Israel lost the war, which has left Hizbollah stronger and more confident. In Palestinian towns of the West Bank, Hizbollah DVDs showing Israeli tanks being destroyed are a hot seller.

Hassan Nasrallah defined victory as Hizbollah avoiding defeat. Israel's prolonged bombing campaign, far from turning Lebanon against Hizbollah, won it support.

Now that peace has returned, Hizbollah may not have quite so easy a time as Lebanese politics returns to its old sectarian divisions. Many Christians and Sunni blame Hizbollah for the war.

Hassan Nasrallah attacked Tony Blair's visit to Beirut this week, and said that if Mr Blair was invited it was "a national disaster". In an interview on al-Jazeera television, he said Mr Blair was "an associate in the murdering".

Israel's military superiority has not changed. There is no Arab power which can challenge it, and it has had unprecedented support from the US and Britain. Even so, its inability to defeat Hizbollah has reduced its military deterrent. This may tempt it into another round in Lebanon, a war in which it would hope to avoid any further mistakes.


Full report here (http://web.amnesty.org/library/Index/ENGMDE020252006)

[Shaun]

Duh, ofcourse hezbollahs dastardly tactics of attacking and firing rockets indiscrimintely into civilains are war crimes!
But people forget that that is exactly the same tactics as Isreal, except that Isreal killed ten times as much civilians as hezbollah, yet they are getting off with it.
In this war they were both the terrorists.

[L'Impresario]

Then Amnesty International doesn't recognize Hezbollah as a terrorist organisation. Which brings us to the value of designating their actions as "war crimes", when their opponent (as well as the US) states that they are a terrorist organisation. The Laws of war apply to states, and I don't think Hezbollah can qualify as a Geneva Conventions signatory party, nor can we actually say that this was a war between the states of Lebanon and Israel, and that Hezbollah was acting in the same capacity with a lebanese defensive force.

[Samurai Waki]

Yeah, but the thing is, is that Israel has an international voice in politics, Hezbollah only has a regional voice. So obviously politicians are going to side with the big thug rather than the little one.

[Xiahou]

Good to hear them criticizing the other side for a change. :yes:

[Gawain of Orkeny]

But people forget that that is exactly the same tactics as Isreal, except that Isreal killed ten times as much civilians as hezbollah, yet they are getting off with it.


What a load of crap. Are you the same Shaun as the one over at TWC? Please at least learn how to spell Israel. Its not how many civilians you kill that makes you a terrorist. Its the intent.

[Ironside]

Good to hear them criticizing the other side for a change. :yes:

Good to hear a news agency to report that they're doing thier regular habit of criticizing the other side when they feel it's needed.

It's not like they have a file on every country... :book:

[Scurvy]

Please at least learn how to spell Israel. Its not how many civilians you kill that makes you a terrorist. Its the intent.

The spelling hardly matters if you understand what he's saying....:2thumbsup:

i think both Hezbollah and Israel use "war crime" tactics, but i suspect all nations violate the geneva conventions at war anyway, so as long as both do, its entirely fair (in the case of war crimes, the number of killings is surely irrelevant)

its interesting that Geneva doesnt recognise Hezbollah as a terrorist organization (however justified their cause is, i'd certainly count them as terrorists) what are the guidelines for recognizing a "terrorist organization"

[yesdachi]

Comparing the number of civilian fatalities is a poor way to evaluate the war. Israel encouraged their civilians to evacuate and helped to defend them whereas the hezbos used them as shields and wouldn’t allow them to leave.

Israel’s Tank = Merkava

Hizbollah's tank = family of 4

[Scurvy]

Comparing the number of civilian fatalities is a poor way to evaluate the war. Israel encouraged their civilians to evacuate and helped to defend them whereas the hezbos used them as shields and wouldn’t allow them to leave.

Israel’s Tank = Merkava

Hizbollah's tank = family of 4

thats unfair, Israels army has both a duty, and means to protect civilians, and if they didnt would have huge complaints from its own people....

many of the civilians in Lebanon would agree with the Hezbollah war, and Hezbollah has no way of evacuating civilians themselves, and so used them to advantage, Israel certainly wasnt picky when choosing targets... Hezbollah let red cross and other aid in to civilians, when Israel at times seemed very hostile

[yesdachi]

thats unfair, Israels army has both a duty, and means to protect civilians, and if they didnt would have huge complaints from its own people....

many of the civilians in Lebanon would agree with the Hezbollah war, and Hezbollah has no way of evacuating civilians themselves, and so used them to advantage, Israel certainly wasnt picky when choosing targets... Hezbollah let red cross and other aid in to civilians, when Israel at times seemed very hostile
I don’t even think you realize how crazy your words are. Are you actually defending Hezbos use of civilians as shields?!?! (bolded area in your post)

Israel was announcing which villages/towns they were coming to; they even dropped flyers on the areas to warn civilians, written in 2 or 3 different languages. The Hezbos wouldn’t allow the citizens to leave and actually setup operations in civilian houses. And of course they allowed Red Cross to enter, they wanted their supplies and in some cases they even traveled in Red Cross vehicles and ambulances to mask their locations and movement from Israel. Hezbos even used old destroyed ambulances to try and fake out the media to sway popular opinion to their side.

Israel had every right to be hostel; these lunatics kept firing missals at them!

Condemning Israel’s heavy hand is one thing but defending people (used loosely) who target civilians and then use their own as shields is just nuts.

[Crazed Rabbit]

I think Amnesty's problem with Hezbollah is not indiscriminate fire so much as fire targeted only at civilains:

Amnesty International has accused Lebanon's Hizbollah movement of committing war crimes by deliberately targeting Israeli civilians with its rockets.

Crazed Rabbit

[Scurvy]

I don’t even think you realize how crazy your words are. Are you actually defending Hezbos use of civilians as shields?!?! (bolded area in your post)

Israel was announcing which villages/towns they were coming to; they even dropped flyers on the areas to warn civilians, written in 2 or 3 different languages. The Hezbos wouldn’t allow the citizens to leave and actually setup operations in civilian houses. And of course they allowed Red Cross to enter, they wanted their supplies and in some cases they even traveled in Red Cross vehicles and ambulances to mask their locations and movement from Israel. Hezbos even used old destroyed ambulances to try and fake out the media to sway popular opinion to their side.

Israel had every right to be hostel; these lunatics kept firing missals at them!

Condemning Israel’s heavy hand is one thing but defending people (used loosely) who target civilians and then use their own as shields is just nuts.

But Israel is still proved to have destroyed real red-cross ambulances, they should only attack if they are absolutely certain...

The leaflets are in many cases useless, many people dont want to leave their homes, and if they did would come back to find houses destroyed - many would have no means of evacuation anyway....

Of course Hezbollah would set-up in civilian houses, they are a terrorist organization, so their is no state building or office for them to use, the whole point is they are (or were, depending on point of view) civilians

[Keba]

Israel was announcing which villages/towns they were coming to; they even dropped flyers on the areas to warn civilians, written in 2 or 3 different languages. The Hezbos wouldn’t allow the citizens to leave and actually setup operations in civilian houses. And of course they allowed Red Cross to enter, they wanted their supplies and in some cases they even traveled in Red Cross vehicles and ambulances to mask their locations and movement from Israel. Hezbos even used old destroyed ambulances to try and fake out the media to sway popular opinion to their side.

Sure, Israel warned people ... then it also told them that any vehicles moving on roads were fair targets and would be destroyed.

So, what do you prefer? Dying at home, or dying on a road in the middle of nowhere?

Hesbollah is a terrorist organization ... Israel is not, therefore, their actions are inexcusable.

Keep in mind the weaponry as well, the Katyusha is unreliable and imprecise, it scatters it's load pretty much randomly ... Israeli weapons are high-precision that can hit a target two meters large.

Hesbollah used pretty much standard guerilla and terrorist tactics ... but that is expected, they are a terrorist organization. Israeli bombing of civilian areas qualifies as a war crime ... and it should be treated as such. The commanding officers and politicans responsible (or even in a position of knowing and not stopping such outright illegal targets) should be tried as they deserve.

[Tribesman]

It's not like they have a file on every country...


Oooooo nasty Ironside , don't be mean :laugh4:

Its not how many civilians you kill that makes you a terrorist. Its the intent.
Interesting , so which intent makes you a terrorist ?
Political intent , ideological intent , economic intent ?

[Seamus Fermanagh]

Hesbollah is a terrorist organization ... Israel is not, therefore, their actions are inexcusable.

This statement implicitly condones Hizbollah's actions -- even Amnesty International (not exactly fans of Israel) didn't do that.


Keep in mind the weaponry as well, the Katyusha is unreliable and imprecise, it scatters it's load pretty much randomly ... Israeli weapons are high-precision that can hit a target two meters large.

So we have are supposed to judge Hizbollah by WW2 targeting standards and the IDF by USA media standards?:inquisitive: :inquisitive:


Hesbollah used pretty much standard guerilla and terrorist tactics ... but that is expected, they are a terrorist organization.

Again, your phrasing implies approval -- I assume that was not your intent.


Israeli bombing of civilian areas qualifies as a war crime ... and it should be treated as such. The commanding officers and politicans responsible (or even in a position of knowing and not stopping such outright illegal targets) should be tried as they deserve.

So any bombing of a civilian area is a war-crime, regardless of intent or the presence of enemy forces firing at you? If that truly is your position, I have little empathy for it.

Try this analogous and hypothetical example on for size:

A Norfolk, Virginia police officer, on foot patrol, observes a burglary in progress, calling on the alleged criminals to stop. They turn and fire their weapons at her and she responds in kind. They miss, as does she. Unfortunately, her bullet travels past her target, through the front window of a nearby home, and kills a child watching TV. Your approach to war crimes would have her on trial for manslaughter as though she had purposely targeted the child!

Even in a police situation -- normally viewed as being under TIGHTER rules of engagement constraints than actual combat -- the shooter is unlikely to be brought up on charges, yet you would hold combat soldiers to this virtually impossible higher standard. I can't agree.


Did the IDF kill Lebanese civilians -- yes.
Did the IDF attack damage Hamas enough to be worth the cost in lives and general "agitation" on the Arab street -- very debatable.
Could the IDF have done a better job of minimizing civilian casualties even in difficult circumstances -- quite possibly.

That does not rise to the level of war crimes.

[Pannonian]

Did the IDF kill Lebanese civilians -- yes.
Did the IDF attack damage Hamas enough to be worth the cost in lives and general "agitation" on the Arab street -- very debatable.
Could the IDF have done a better job of minimizing civilian casualties even in difficult circumstances -- quite possibly.

That does not rise to the level of war crimes.
Israel's stated purpose was to bomb the Lebanese back 20 years and incite the Lebanese people against Hezbollah. That means targeting the civilian infrastructure, and if they were nearby, Lebanese civilians as well.

To correct your analogy, it would be like the police declaring a certain area, filled with civilians, to be a holdout for a gang, tell the civilians within to evacuate while actively hindering their efforts at doing so, then bombing the heck out of the area while civilians were known to be still inside. Yet even that would involve more restrained targeting than Israel showed in Lebanon, as they openly stated that their intention was to make the Lebanese civilians suffer.

[Redleg]

Israel's stated purpose was to bomb the Lebanese back 20 years and incite the Lebanese people against Hezbollah. That means targeting the civilian infrastructure, and if they were nearby, Lebanese civilians as well.

Are you attempting to argue that infrastructure is not a valid military target?



To correct your analogy, it would be like the police declaring a certain area, filled with civilians, to be a holdout for a gang, tell the civilians within to evacuate while actively hindering their efforts at doing so, then bombing the heck out of the area while civilians were known to be still inside. Yet even that would involve more restrained targeting than Israel showed in Lebanon, as they openly stated that their intention was to make the Lebanese civilians suffer.

Incorrect correction on Seamus analogy. :oops:

[yesdachi]

But Israel is still proved to have destroyed real red-cross ambulances, they should only attack if they are absolutely certain...
I have actually heard about… 1) ambulances being blown up because they did indeed contained Hezbos and 2) previously destroyed ambulances being used in a PR attempt to make Israel look bad.


The leaflets are in many cases useless, many people dont want to leave their homes, and if they did would come back to find houses destroyed - many would have no means of evacuation anyway....
Anyone that is warned that their house will be destroyed and chooses to stay are fools, anyone that is warned but is forced to stay as a human shield is a regrettable civilian loss that should be counted among the civilian casualties caused by the Hezbos. It is not an easy decision but you cannot let an enemy hide behind a civilian, especially a terrorist who are so difficult to locate.

As far as a means to evacuate, are their feet broken? If walking is what it took to save my family I would have done it and I’ll bet most of them would have too. Why wouldn’t they? The Hezbo guns pointed at them.


Of course Hezbollah would set-up in civilian houses, they are a terrorist organization, so their is no state building or office for them to use, the whole point is they are (or were, depending on point of view) civilians
The minute they picked up a weapon against Israel they gave up their “civilian” status. If they operate out of a civilian’s house that house is no longer a house it is an enemy tank and should be treated as such.

[Seamus Fermanagh]

Israel's stated purpose was to bomb the Lebanese back 20 years and incite the Lebanese people against Hezbollah. That means targeting the civilian infrastructure, and if they were nearby, Lebanese civilians as well.

To correct your analogy, it would be like the police declaring a certain area, filled with civilians, to be a holdout for a gang, tell the civilians within to evacuate while actively hindering their efforts at doing so, then bombing the heck out of the area while civilians were known to be still inside. Yet even that would involve more restrained targeting than Israel showed in Lebanon, as they openly stated that their intention was to make the Lebanese civilians suffer.

A distinct difference -- very WW2ish thinking if so (and prone to morale backfire as were almost all city "we'll break their morale" bombings of that war). Source for these statements of IDF intention? Not being snide, Pan-man, it would not be the first time something "slipped past" USA media reportage (and/or my reading of it).

[Scurvy]

I have actually heard about… 1) ambulances being blown up because they did indeed contained Hezbos and 2) previously destroyed ambulances being used in a PR attempt to make Israel look bad.

As far as a means to evacuate, are their feet broken? If walking is what it took to save my family I would have done it and I’ll bet most of them would have too. Why wouldn’t they? The Hezbo guns pointed at them.

The minute they picked up a weapon against Israel they gave up their “civilian” status. If they operate out of a civilian’s house that house is no longer a house it is an enemy tank and should be treated as such.

But you do admit at least some real red cross ambulances have been hit (and presumably over-publicised), of course it all adds to PR, but Israel is doing the same thing in towns that have been rocketed, half the war is fought in the media

walking, especially in the kind of hot weather there, would be horrible, especially in what is effectively a war-zone, with large families, many who would be emotionally attatched to their homes, it would be impossible...

Does a single house justify destroying a whole village? or eve part of a densely populated city?

[Crazed Rabbit]

But you do admit at least some real red cross ambulances have been hit (and presumably over-publicised), of course it all adds to PR, but Israel is doing the same thing in towns that have been rocketed, half the war is fought in the media.


No, you are incorrect. No ambulances were hit. It was a lie by Hezbollah, who were helped by useful idiots in the media.

For a thorough breakdown, see here:
http://www.zombietime.com/fraud/ambulance/


Keep in mind the weaponry as well, the Katyusha is unreliable and imprecise, it scatters it's load pretty much randomly ... Israeli weapons are high-precision that can hit a target two meters large.

Note that Hezbollah aimed them at civilian centers, and filled them with ball berrings to cause maximum damage to humans. Such shrapnel would have little affect on infrastructure. As an aside, those that missed and hit the countryside of Israel caused many fires and huge devastation of the environment.

The only reason Israel bombed cities was because Hezbollah used the Lebanese as expendable human shields, and built schools ontop of their bunkers. Had Hezbollah located their bases in remote areas, Lebanese civilian causulties would have been much less. The same is not true the other way around, in regards to Israel's bases and Hezbollah's targets.

Crazed Rabbit

[Pannonian]

Are you attempting to argue that infrastructure is not a valid military target?

Targeting infrastructure supporting the civilian population has long been regarded as unfair. Check out the historical view of poisoning wells and springs.

[Pannonian]

A distinct difference -- very WW2ish thinking if so (and prone to morale backfire as were almost all city "we'll break their morale" bombings of that war). Source for these statements of IDF intention? Not being snide, Pan-man, it would not be the first time something "slipped past" USA media reportage (and/or my reading of it).
Start with wiki and go on from there.



http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Military_operations_of_the_2006_Israel-Lebanon_conflict#_note-severe_and_harsh

According to CNN:

The Israeli Cabinet authorized "severe and harsh" retaliation on Lebanon . . . Israel's chief of staff, Lt. Gen. Dan Halutz, told Israel's Channel 10, "If the soldiers are not returned, we will turn Lebanon's clock back 20 years."[65]

According to the Washington Post:

But retired Israeli army Col. Gal Luft, a former commander in the town of Ramallah, said, "Israel is attempting to create a rift between the Lebanese population and Hezbollah supporters by exacting a heavy price from the elite in Beirut. The message is: If you want your air conditioning to work and if you want to be able to fly to Paris for shopping, you must pull your head out of the sand and take action toward shutting down Hezbollah-land."[66]

Prime Minister of Israel Ehud Olmert declared the attack by Hezbollah’s military wing an “act of war”, and promised Lebanon a “very painful and far-reaching response.”[67] Israeli Defense Minister Amir Peretz also said that “the State of Israel sees itself free to use all measures that it finds it needs, and the Israeli Forces have been given orders in that direction.”[68]

Googling for Olmert, Peretz, Halutz and Lebanon brings up 135,000 results, so I'm not bothering to filter them out, but starting with the wiki links and comparing their statements with what the IAF hit will bring more light to the matter. If you feel the US media isn't covering things sufficiently, try the BBC and Guardian, which are supposedly the most popular news sites on the web (by some distance) outside the portals.

[Scurvy]

No, you are incorrect. No ambulances were hit. It was a lie by Hezbollah, who were helped by useful idiots in the media.


Note that Hezbollah aimed them at civilian centers, and filled them with ball berrings to cause maximum damage to humans. Such shrapnel would have little affect on infrastructure. As an aside, those that missed and hit the countryside of Israel caused many fires and huge devastation of the environment.

The only reason Israel bombed cities was because Hezbollah used the Lebanese as expendable human shields, and built schools ontop of their bunkers. Had Hezbollah located their bases in remote areas, Lebanese civilian causulties would have been much less. The same is not true the other way around, in regards to Israel's bases and Hezbollah's targets.

Crazed Rabbit

There have been other incidents where ambulances or civilian cars etc have been attacked wrongly (although i suspect this was simply flaws in intelligence rather than deliberate targeting)

The Israeli bombs are just as destructive as the Hezbollah rockets, especially as the Israelis are targetting a neutral country,

That in no way justifies Israel bombing areas of high density population, why bomb if they know there is a high risk of mass civilian death, surely if they know the location of the militants they can track them or target more isolated groups,

[Keba]

This statement implicitly condones Hizbollah's actions -- even Amnesty International (not exactly fans of Israel) didn't do that..

Firstly, I don't approve of Hesbollah or any other terrorist organization, I simply do not hold them to any standards ... they are a bunch who thinks no means are too low or immoral enough, therefore, I do not even attempt to put morals in their actions. The IDF claims moral high ground, therefore, I judge them by the position they seek and claim.



So we have are supposed to judge Hizbollah by WW2 targeting standards and the IDF by USA media standards?:inquisitive: :inquisitive:


No, I am merely stating fact ... the Hesbollah can only hope to hit a big target with their weapons ... the only one they are presented with are cities. I do not even attempt to imagine what they would do with more advanced weaponry. Like I said, they use guerilla and hit-and-run tactics, they do so by ensuring that no-one feels safe ... they have succeeded, and additionally, they managed to make the IDF to stand down. IDF was fighting a war of military strength, where they win, Hesbollah was waging psychological warfare ... and the Hesbollah won.



So any bombing of a civilian area is a war-crime, regardless of intent or the presence of enemy forces firing at you? If that truly is your position, I have little empathy for it.

Yes.


Try this analogous and hypothetical example on for size:

A Norfolk, Virginia police officer, on foot patrol, observes a burglary in progress, calling on the alleged criminals to stop. They turn and fire their weapons at her and she responds in kind. They miss, as does she. Unfortunately, her bullet travels past her target, through the front window of a nearby home, and kills a child watching TV. Your approach to war crimes would have her on trial for manslaughter as though she had purposely targeted the child!

Manslaughter means a non-intentional killing ... and yes, I would bring her up on charges. Intentional or not, she has commited her act. The alleged criminals would also be brought up for attempted murder, as well as burglary.



Even in a police situation -- normally viewed as being under TIGHTER rules of engagement constraints than actual combat -- the shooter is unlikely to be brought up on charges, yet you would hold combat soldiers to this virtually impossible higher standard. I can't agree.

Nevertheless, I would hold not only soldiers, but their officers as well to this ... as you say, nigh-impossible standard. The fact of the matter may be that a dumb civilian poked his head out at the wrong moment and ate a bullet, but I was mostly refering to unrestricted bombing campaigns the likes of which were used by the IDF (and, to an extent, the USA in certain situations).



Did the IDF kill Lebanese civilians -- yes.
Did the IDF attack damage Hamas enough to be worth the cost in lives and general "agitation" on the Arab street -- very debatable.
Could the IDF have done a better job of minimizing civilian casualties even in difficult circumstances -- quite possibly.

That does not rise to the level of war crimes.

But the bombardment of civilan areas ... as well as the prevention of supplies, aid, and evacuation ... that does constitute crimes against humanity and war crimes as well.

A war crime can be as simple as killing ten people ... or as complex as nuking a city. A crime against humanity can be as simple as you stopping an ambulance from passing through a check-point to an all-out campaign of genocide.

Therefore, the IDF is guilty of war crimes.

[AntiochusIII]

Hizbollah's actions denounced as war crimes; people are defending Israel.

:inquisitive:

It's a war, get over it. They're all a bunch of bastards anyway, and the Lebanese suffer. "Oh we're justified in blowing towns to pieces!" "Oh it's our righteous cause to shoot rockets into cities!" "Oh we want to screw each other to death and manipulate the average Lebanese like expendables!"

Whatever.

[Dâriûsh]

Oh Amnesty International, better late than never, eh? :juggle2:

[Redleg]

Targeting infrastructure supporting the civilian population has long been regarded as unfair. Check out the historical view of poisoning wells and springs.

Poisoning wells and springs is indeed part of the supporting infrastructure, but aside from your attempt at emotional appeal, you don't have much ground to stand on in your attempt here. population.

You might want to check out the history of modern warfare, and definitions of infrastructure of a nation. Here is a little help from Wikipedia

Infrastructure, most generally, is a set of interconnected structural elements that provide the framework supporting an entire structure. The term has diverse meanings in different fields, but is perhaps most widely understood to refer to roads, sewers, and the like, the infrastructure of a city or region. These various elements may collectively be termed civil infrastructure, municipal infrastructure, or simply public works, although they may be developed and operated as private-sector or government enterprises. In other applications, infrastructure may refer to information technology, informal and formal channels of communication, software development tools, political and social networks, or shared beliefs held by members of particular groups. Still underlying these more general uses is the concept that infrastructure provides organizing structure and support for the system or organization it serves, whether it is a city, a nation, or a corporation.

The word seems to have originated in 19th century France, and throughout the first half of the 20th century was used to refer primarily to military installations. The term came to prominence in the United States in the 1980s following publication of America in Ruins (Choate and Walter, 1981), which initiated a public-policy discussion of the nation’s “infrastructure crisis,” purported to be caused by decades of inadequate investment and poor maintenance of public works.

That public-policy discussion was hampered by lack of a precise definition for infrastructure. A U. S. National Research Council (NRC) committee cited Senator Stafford, who commented at hearings before the Subcommittee on Water Resources, Transportation, and Infrastructure; Committee on Environment and Public Works; that “probably the word infrastructure means different things to different people." The NRC panel then sought to rectify the situation by adopting the term "public works infrastructure," referring to "...both specific functional modes--highways, streets, roads, and bridges; mass transit; airports and airways; water supply and water resources; wastewater management; solid-waste treatment and disposal; electric power generation and transmission; telecommunications; and hazardous waste management--and the combined system these modal elements comprise. A comprehension of infrastructure spans not only these public works facilities, but also the operating procedures, management practices, and development policies that interact together with societal demand and the physical world to facilitate the transport of people and goods, provision of water for drinking and a variety of other uses, safe disposal of society's waste products, provision of energy where it is needed, and transmission of information within and between communities." (Infrastructure for the 21st Century, Washington, DC: National Academy Press, 1987)

In subsequent years the word has grown in popularity and been applied with increasing generality to suggest the internal framework discernable in any technology system or business organization. The term “critical infrastructure” has been widely adopted to distinguish those infrastructure elements that, if significantly damaged or destroyed, would cause serious disruption of the dependent system or organization. Storm or earthquake damage leading to loss of certain transportation routes in a city (for example, bridges crossing a river), could make it impossible for people to evacuate and for emergency services to operate; these routes would be deemed critical infrastructure. Similarly, an on-line reservations system might be critical infrastructure for an airline.

Here is a decent article on targeting infrastructure in two recent conflicts.

http://www.ciaonet.org/pbei/winep/policy_2003/2003_725.html

Infrastructure Targeting and Postwar Iraq

The Washington Institute for Near East Policy

By Michael Knights

PolicyWatch #725
March 14, 2003

Using new operational concepts in concert with rapidly maturing strike technologies, the U.S. military will attempt to seamlessly dovetail the destructive process of warfare with the reconstructive effort of nation building in any future air operations against Iraq. Lessons learned from air campaigns conducted in Iraq during the 1990s have laid the foundation for a more finessed approach to infrastructure targeting.



Changes in Targeting from Desert Storm to Desert Fox

In Operation Desert Storm, a ground offensive was supported with extensive air strikes on every significant element of Iraq's dual-use power, communications, transportation, and industrial sectors. In a war that had the potential to become protracted, it made sense to destroy Iraq's ability to refine oil and produce ammunition, as well as its stockpiled reserves. At the same time, U.S. Air Force planners sought to cause only temporary damage to Iraq's economic infrastructure by precisely targeting easy-to-replace elements of key facilities rather than destroying such facilities outright.

Yet, these plans were thwarted by standard operating procedures that were deeply ingrained in the military community. Wary of underestimating Iraq, Desert Storm planners inflicted massive damage on the country's economic infrastructure. For example, instead of targeting rapidly replaceable electricity transformer yards and refined oil storage sites, U.S. forces destroyed hard-to-replace generator halls and cracking (distillation) towers. Initially, Tomahawk cruise missiles were used to dispense carbon graphite filaments over power stations, minimizing permanent damage while still causing blackouts. Yet, these sites were later used as bomb dumps for carrier-based aircraft returning to ship, rendering the less-destructive effects of the cruise missile strikes meaningless. Desert Storm also highlighted the unforeseen consequences of disrupting the highly interconnected critical infrastructure of a modern industrialized country, as attacks on dual-use power facilities caused cascading damage throughout the water purification and sanitation systems, exacerbating a public health crisis.

In the years following Desert Storm, these lessons were rapidly incorporated into targeting policy. During the four-day Operation Desert Fox in December 1998, the military took great pains to focus its strikes on Saddam Husayn's regime rather than on dual-use infrastructure. While numerous Ba'ath security, intelligence, and military targets were destroyed, power and telephone systems were spared. The sole economic target, authorized after hard bargaining by Desert Fox planners, was an oil refinery linked to smuggling. This target was temporarily crippled in a strike designed by the Joint Warfare Analysis Center, which engineered a targeting solution that disabled the site for six months while minimizing pollution. Five months after Desert Fox, new types of carbon graphite munitions were used to disable Serbian electrical networks during Operation Allied Force, greatly reducing permanent damage. Moreover, current reports indicate that radio frequency (RF) devices that use electromagnetic pulse effects to disrupt advanced electronics are being weaponized for deployment in cruise missiles and guided bombs in the event of a new war in Iraq.



Targeting Iraq in 2003

Given the fact that the Iraqi military has been greatly reduced, U.S. Air Force planners recognize that the current operational problem is how to quickly overcome a static Iraqi defense in support of a high-intensity ground war that would likely begin nearly simultaneously with an air campaign. In such a situation, slowly maturing attacks on Iraqi dual-use industrial infrastructure would not be particularly useful from a military point of view. Military planners now recognize that targeting certain forms of infrastructure (e.g., the national electrical grid or public telecommunications) causes more disruption to civilians than to the enemy military and hence may not meaningfully reduce the risk to allied forces. Moreover, such attacks may cause collateral damage -- a particularly sensitive issue given Washington's uncertain mandate for war. According to a February 5, 2003, Pentagon briefing, strikes against dual-use facilities are now automatically considered to cause collateral damage, and thus require special authorization.

Moreover, according to the U.S. Agency for International Development's (USAID's) "Vision for Post-Conflict Iraq," the United States will strive to ensure that critical infrastructure remains operational following a war, with most transport links and water, sanitation, and electrical services functioning, especially in urban areas. Within eighteen months after a war, USAID plans to rebuild Iraqi infrastructure completely, even improving on prewar conditions. This will require limited infrastructure targeting in each sector:

Power. Strikes against Iraq's electricity grid will probably be limited, focusing on power transmission to specific government and military facilities. RF and other nonkinetic weapons are likely to be used to minimize permanent damage.

Water/Sanitation. USAID is preparing to deploy generators to key water and sanitation facilities in case of disruption, while personnel from the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers and firms such as Contrack and Morganti will be on hand within sixty days of war's end to operate Iraq's ten major facilities.

Transportation. Iraq's transportation network is unlikely to be dismembered as it was in 1991, when over forty road and rail bridges and all major airports were destroyed. For one thing, transport nodes are necessary for allied offensive and logistical operations. In addition, more precise twenty-four-hour, all-weather intelligence, surveillance, reconnaissance, and strike technologies will allow on-call air forces to interdict Iraqi movement without destroying basic infrastructure such as bridges. Moreover, an intact transportation network will be required immediately after a war, as USAID aims to restore humanitarian access to major seaports (e.g., Umm Qasr), airports (e.g., Basra), and the rail network in order to ensure rapid resumption of UN Oil-for-Food deliveries and domestic fuel distribution.

Petrol, Oil, and Lubricants. The need for a functioning transportation system and an expedient return of Iraqi oil to market following a war make it unlikely that facilities such as oil refineries will be extensively targeted. Initially, damage to downstream oil industry infrastructure will likely be tended to by the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers and civilian contractors Kellogg, Brown, and Root, Inc.

Communications. Certain types of telecommunications facilities have already been extensively targeted (e.g., microwave relay, tropospheric scatter, fiber-optic). The public telephone network has been spared in all air strikes since 1991 and is unlikely to be comprehensively targeted in the future. Yet, Iraq's radio and television jamming and transmission facilities will likely be destroyed in order to open the airwaves for extensive U.S. psychological operations. RF weapons may be used in attacks on government communications infrastructure, leaving large (yet isolated) segments of the system undamaged but functionally dead.



Implications

U.S. forces will face many wild cards. For example, Iraqi sabotage of oil infrastructure and bridges could reverse the effectiveness of finessed U.S. targeting policies, while a prolonged conflict could necessitate wider strikes on industrial facilities or infrastructure defended by the regime. Nevertheless, current U.S. targeting plans represent an unprecedented attempt to move seamlessly from war to reconstruction. In fact, psychological operations may be the only U.S. military measures that directly target the Iraqi public and key constituencies in the Iraqi regular military and militia (as distinct from the Republican Guard). As in the Desert Fox strikes, the regime's leadership, security forces, and weapons of mass destruction materiel will constitute a large share of the preplanned targets. Such a strategy will help spare infrastructure and avoid the overkill wrought by Desert Storm.

Michael Knights is joining The Washington Institute as a military fellow.







In other words your attempt here is based more on emotional appeal then fact.

[Tribesman]

Are you attempting to argue that infrastructure is not a valid military target?

Interesting , so next time some nutter blows up some element of a public transport system it is a valid military target then .

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

Redleg, that might be a valid arguement in a war with Lebenon but that wasn't what Israel was supposed to be doing. The obliteration of the infastructure of a non-hostile nation can only be seen as unfair, if not an actual war crime.

But then we all know Isael doesn't give a toss.

[rory_20_uk]

I imagine that regarding infrasstructure as a valid target stems from the Allies firebombing Japanese cities and levelling square miles at a time. If people are a miitary resource - which is effectively what that applies, then you can destroy whatever you like.

Pearl Harbour was a despicable attack - hitting a naval base like that.

Locking up all people of Japenese descent in concentration camps and forcing them to sell their houses is fine, as is firebombing cities.

Yes, every country is a bunch of hipocrites. Most place the lives of their citizens above the lives of others.

~:smoking:

[Evil_Maniac From Mars]

Israel was announcing which villages/towns they were coming to; they even dropped flyers on the areas to warn civilians, written in 2 or 3 different languages.

At the same time, as I'm sure somebody already pointed out, they bombed the roads. But as you North Americans say, I suppose life's full of trade-offs. :juggle2:

[Redleg]

Are you attempting to argue that infrastructure is not a valid military target?

Interesting , so next time some nutter blows up some element of a public transport system it is a valid military target then .


Here is a clue for you to follow before you go off on your tangent.


Israel's stated purpose was to bomb the Lebanese back 20 years and incite the Lebanese people against Hezbollah. That means targeting the civilian infrastructure, and if they were nearby, Lebanese civilians as well.

My response


Are you attempting to argue that infrastructure is not a valid military target?


It seems you are once again attempting the old strawman

[Redleg]

Redleg, that might be a valid arguement in a war with Lebenon but that wasn't what Israel was supposed to be doing. The obliteration of the infastructure of a non-hostile nation can only be seen as unfair, if not an actual war crime.

Someone that is actually thinking about the subject. :2thumbsup:

You are indeed correct IMO - the correct question to ask is wether or not Israel's actions in Lebanon are valid in its pursuit of Hezabollah in a non-hostile nation. Not that they targeted infrastructure. Infrastructure has been long held as a valid military target in war between two opposing nations. Pannonian's initial claim in that regards is incorrect.




But then we all know Isael doesn't give a toss.

Agreed.

But then neither does Hezbollah.

[The Black Ship]

How can Lebanon be considered non-hostile when a part of their government, in control of a large swathe of territory, deliberately provoked this military action?:dizzy2:

[Redleg]

How can Lebanon be considered non-hostile when a part of their government, in control of a large swathe of territory, deliberately provoked this military action?:dizzy2:

That is indeed a good question. Afganstan demonstrates that a nation that harbors an organization that carries out attacks on nation-states is subject to attack if that nation refuses to comply with the international community. So if such an attack was valid against AQ in Afganstan, is it not also valid elsewhere?

One must ask themselves, did Israel give Lebanon enough time to respond to the criminal element actions before beginning its military operation?

[kataphraktoi]

If anyone bothered to read the Christian Lebanese views of the war, they are more livid at Hezbollah than Israel despite Israel bombing and targetting Maronite installations (communications).

To summarise it:
1) They blame Hezbollah for provoking Israel
2) THey hate Hezbollah for launching mortars on Maronite property...which what else leads Israel to think Maronite property is Hezbollah territory
3) Hezbollah using the homes of Maronites as if it was theirs

So in this regard, Israel did actually get the Lebanese to hate Hezbollah albeit the Maronite Lebanese, not sure about the Sunnis, so not going to assume anything about them.

[Reenk Roink]

Actually, I don't think that's correct...

http://www.csmonitor.com/2006/0728/p06s01-wome.html


The stakes are high for Hizbullah, but it seems it can count on an unprecedented swell of public support that cuts across sectarian lines. According to a poll released by the Beirut Center for Research and Information, 87 percent of Lebanese support Hizbullah's fight with Israel, a rise of 29 percent on a similar poll conducted in February. More striking, however, is the level of support for Hizbullah's resistance from non-Shiite communities. Eighty percent of Christians polled supported Hizbullah along with 80 percent of Druze and 89 percent of Sunnis.

Lebanese no longer blame Hizbullah for sparking the war by kidnapping the Israeli soldiers, but Israel and the US instead.

And support was low for Hezbollah across Druze, Christian, and Sunni lines before the conflict...

http://www.beirutcenter.info/default.asp?contentid=692&MenuID=46

[Soulforged]

Yes, every country is a bunch of hipocrites. Most place the lives of their citizens above the lives of others.You think that because you're confusing country with state. The country is more related to the territory of the creation of espontaneus relationships between THE PEOPLE. The state, however, is created by will, and as such it has to respect that original will, in the sense that it has to care for the same people who emitted that will, their descendants and other people who adquire political nationality. As such it's just natural that the Federal State of United States of America, in an international conflict, cares more for americans than for anybody else, the same goes to Israel and Lebanon. The community is a different story.

It's a war, get over it. They're all a bunch of bastards anyway, and the Lebanese suffer. "Oh we're justified in blowing towns to pieces!" "Oh it's our righteous cause to shoot rockets into cities!" "Oh we want to screw each other to death and manipulate the average Lebanese like expendables!"Come on man. It has nothing to do with establishing rules of the game, is more like rules of fair play. The purpose of War regulation is not only to minimize civilian casualties, wich doctrinarily don't belong to the war wich are fought by two antagonist military powers or more, but also to minimize wars themselves so they happen less frequently. This is done by the application of penalties. Saying "War crime" isn't saying it is not more War but another thing, it implies that though it's war it's an unfair War because some countries established it by convention sometime ago and those conventions reserve respect. Modern states, democratic ones, function over the principle of consent, not only is the state said to have its origins on consent, but all people accept their functions by consent. The military, all its body, consented with the rest of society that they'll be the ones to take the bullets and die instead of civilians, therefore, in War, it's unfair to kill civilians, while it's equally regreatable that any of the two dies.

So if such an attack was valid against AQ in Afganstan, is it not also valid elsewhere?I'm a little confused. Wich convention or custom made the attack on AQ in Afghanistan valid? Or is it from an ethic perspective you're arguing.
If there's no convention then I'll say that by custom many states made other states responsable, in their enterity, for the actions of a few members. But I'll risk my judgement and say: No it's not valid, and the attack on Afghanistan for the same reason wasn't valid.

[Redleg]

I'm a little confused. Wich convention or custom made the attack on AQ in Afghanistan valid? Or is it from an ethic perspective you're arguing.

Both.



If there's no convention then I'll say that by custom many states made other states responsable, in their enterity, for the actions of a few members. But I'll risk my judgement and say: No it's not valid, and the attack on Afghanistan for the same reason wasn't valid.

:book:

[Major Robert Dump]

Isreal showed incredible levels of self restraint to the point of even suprising the likes of me.

Hezbollah wants Lebanese civilians to die. They need a victim class to claim to be fighting for instead of the ole religion vs religion intent they really have

I still find it incredible AA doesn't consider Hez a terrorist organization,

[Tribesman]

It seems you are once again attempting the old strawman
Not at all , it ties in with the earlier post .
Its not how many civilians you kill that makes you a terrorist. Its the intent.

Interesting , so which intent makes you a terrorist ?
Political intent , ideological intent , economic intent ?


So for your respomse to pannonians
Israel's stated purpose was to bomb the Lebanese back 20 years and incite the Lebanese people against Hezbollah. That means targeting the civilian infrastructure, and if they were nearby, Lebanese civilians as well.
which covers political , ideological and economic intent .
Are you attempting to argue that infrastructure is not a valid military target?

You seem to say that targetting infrastructure is not terrorism since it is a valid military target . Is that correct ?
If so then that means that if someone blows up elements of a countries infrastructure then it is not terrorism .
Unless of course the "terrorists" have no political ideological or economic intent .

[Vladimir]

http://littlegreenfootballs.com/weblog/pictures/pork-on-the-wing.jpg

bump (squeal)

[Redleg]

It seems you are once again attempting the old strawman
Not at all , it ties in with the earlier post .

Nice try but still a strawman.



Its not how many civilians you kill that makes you a terrorist. Its the intent.

Interesting , so which intent makes you a terrorist ?
Political intent , ideological intent , economic intent ?


That never was my postion. My postion is the simple question of is infrastructure a valid military target?



So for your respomse to pannonians
Israel's stated purpose was to bomb the Lebanese back 20 years and incite the Lebanese people against Hezbollah. That means targeting the civilian infrastructure, and if they were nearby, Lebanese civilians as well.
which covers political , ideological and economic intent .
Are you attempting to argue that infrastructure is not a valid military target?

You seem to say that targetting infrastructure is not terrorism since it is a valid military target . Is that correct ?

Read what is written, the statement is clear. My intent was not what the question was addressing now was it?

The question is and was is infrastructure a valid military target?



If so then that means that if someone blows up elements of a countries infrastructure then it is not terrorism .
Unless of course the "terrorists" have no political ideological or economic intent .

Nice attempt at using the strawman.

[Seamus Fermanagh]

RE: post #26, this thread

Keba:

While I too, share little in the way of surprise that Hezbollah does not feel itself to be bound by the "rules of war," your position on the IDF and other nations in the use of force is impracticable.

You assert that the bombing of civlian areas or the attack of civilian transport -- even when those attacks were made in the reasonable belief that an "enemy" was the intended target -- are criminal. You reinforced this with your response to my hypothetical scenario. While this may be correct on a moral level -- and folks have been debating that one for years -- the practical application of this is to allow Hezbollah and the criminals to win.

If force cannot be used save in those rare instances where there is virtually or absolutely zero chance of an unintended target gettting hit, then any entity that feels bound by that constraint will be unable to employ force in a vast majority of instances. Since, as you yourself note, terrorist/criminal forces seldom feel such restraint and since they are smart enough to quickly perceive the reticence of "official" forces to do so, you will rapidly engender a situation where the official forces can line up to be shot but not return fire.

Using the recent example of Israel's attacks on Hezbollah in Lebanon, your version would have them simply sitting there taking rocket hits and doing nothing since any and all retaliation would put innocents at risk.

All of our police already give up the opportunity to fire first (correctly) and often cease/hold off on the use of force if they have any reasonable concern that an innocent will be harmed (correctly) -- your standard puts this beyond the bound of rationality.

[AntiochusIII]

Come on man. It has nothing to do with establishing rules of the game, is more like rules of fair play. The purpose of War regulation is not only to minimize civilian casualties, wich doctrinarily don't belong to the war wich are fought by two antagonist military powers or more, but also to minimize wars themselves so they happen less frequently. This is done by the application of penalties. Saying "War crime" isn't saying it is not more War but another thing, it implies that though it's war it's an unfair War because some countries established it by convention sometime ago and those conventions reserve respect. Modern states, democratic ones, function over the principle of consent, not only is the state said to have its origins on consent, but all people accept their functions by consent. The military, all its body, consented with the rest of society that they'll be the ones to take the bullets and die instead of civilians, therefore, in War, it's unfair to kill civilians, while it's equally regreatable that any of the two dies.Do you really think I find killing civilians tasteful, or even justifiable?

To hell with war, that's what I'm saying. Both sides are murderers; I'd like to add "not all of them" and all that but I don't think that's really necessary. I don't need crappy ideologically-driven "justifications" for taking human life. The theoretical issues you are presenting mean squat the moment the bullet hits the heart, or a man is thrown forward and told to kill.

It's also quite sad to be able to trace partisan opinions of this conflict in such well-defined lines in the same manner -- and the same people -- as other, wide-ranging ideological issues constituted as conservative and liberal in the USA. Where is the variety of opinion? Are thought processes work in two well-defined ways only or something?

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

It seems you are once again attempting the old strawman
Not at all , it ties in with the earlier post .
Its not how many civilians you kill that makes you a terrorist. Its the intent.

Interesting , so which intent makes you a terrorist ?
Political intent , ideological intent , economic intent ?


So for your respomse to pannonians
Israel's stated purpose was to bomb the Lebanese back 20 years and incite the Lebanese people against Hezbollah. That means targeting the civilian infrastructure, and if they were nearby, Lebanese civilians as well.
which covers political , ideological and economic intent .
Are you attempting to argue that infrastructure is not a valid military target?

You seem to say that targetting infrastructure is not terrorism since it is a valid military target . Is that correct ?
If so then that means that if someone blows up elements of a countries infrastructure then it is not terrorism .
Unless of course the "terrorists" have no political ideological or economic intent .

You know you really are arguementative. Not that that's an inherently bad thing.

Attacking infastructure is terrorism when the intent is to create terror. Infastructure is a valid military target when denying said infastructure to the enemy hampers their operations.

As such Israel's attacking of over-land transport links could be seen as legitimate. However, the wholesale destruction was unnessessary. Israel could have cut links to Syria while still allowing the Lebonesse Civilians to flee. While this would have afforded Hezbollah a limited amount of mobility within the country the proper remedy to that problem would be effective ground operations.

The destruction of Civilian airports, mass transports links and power supplies cannot be justified as Hezbollah can get around all these problems, being a highly organised and trained militia.

Mithrandir:edited language

[Scurvy]

Do you really think I find killing civilians tasteful, or even justifiable?

To hell with war, that's what I'm saying. Both sides are murderers; I'd like to add "not all of them" and all that but I don't think that's really necessary. I don't need crappy ideologically-driven "justifications" for taking human life. The theoretical issues you are presenting mean squat the moment the bullet hits the heart, or a man is thrown forward and told to kill.

I

I agree entirely that both sides are murderers, but it doent explain whether thay are war rimes or not :2thumbsup:

[Keba]

A bit too long for a proper qute ...

The thing is, there is no justification ... if the terrorists and criminals win by using such tactics, then they win. If the IDF or any military or law-enforcement force stoops as low as to use such tactics, then it is no better than the people they are supposed to hunt down and destroy. In fact, despite the destruction of such persons (if we assume a victory for the 'good guys') will yield absolutely no result. Why? For the simple reason that you taught a new generation the same tactics.

I do not complain on the individuals coming into line of fire ... though your previous example, which I responded to, might have indicated so. What I do oppose is large-scale operations utilising heavy firepower in civilian areas. The occasional individual can be caught in the line of fire ... but bombarding a city off the map should not be allowed.

A victory in this kind of warfare is meaningless ... it is like fighting a hydra. No matter how many heads you cut off, it will grow two for each one that you did manage to sever. This is not a conventional war of military might ... if it were, it would be long over. It is a war of the people and their hearts and sympathies. If one side shows clear moral superiority, and stands by such ideas, in spite of pressure from other sides, it has won, despite perhaps losing on the field of battle. As it is, this is a war of moral high-ground. While you may argue that terrorists do not have claim on moral high ground ... well, the conflict in Lebanon conveniently handed them that, they are now protectors, fighting against the agressive Israel.

In this case, Israel lost their moral high ground ... and thereby, lost the war. It will now be challenged by every faction around, precisely because of this. They can flaut Israeli atrocites and illegal and unjustifiable actions and gain the moral high ground of their own. So, perhaps, Israel did cripple Hesbollah (unlikely, but a possibility), but they just lost all possibilty of winning the war.

[Soulforged]

Do you really think I find killing civilians tasteful, or even justifiable?No. What I mean is that this regulations exist for a reason and are not just another data from reality to ignore...

Both.Nice Red, now we could take another step and say what convention we're talking about and describe wich custom also, by this time it would be pretty damn hard for that custom not to be already written in some form of convention, but let's see.

Also what does this ":book: " means in this context?

[Redleg]

Nice Red, now we could take another step and say what convention we're talking about and describe wich custom also, by this time it would be pretty damn hard for that custom not to be already written in some form of convention, but let's see.


You asked a question you got the answer. If you wanted specifics you should of asked.

Now if you want specifics then asked the specific questions. Such as is it the Geneva Conventions, the Hague Conventions, NATO Treaty, United Nations Resolutions, etc... Give you a simple hint - NATO does not apply to either Israel or Lebanon last time I checked.

Customs of warfare we could go into even futher details and exambles. Such as the Roman way of war, and many other cultures to include the ones involved in that region of the world.



Also what does this ":book: " means in this context?

It means your on the right track in my opinion. You can also refer this to the same subject as the previous question.

[Gawain of Orkeny]

Its not how many civilians you kill that makes you a terrorist. Its the intent.

Interesting , so which intent makes you a terrorist ?
Political intent , ideological intent , economic intent ?

The intent to target strictly civilians for any of those reasons makes you a terrorist.


One must ask themselves, did Israel give Lebanon enough time to respond to the criminal element actions before beginning its military operation?

I would imagine 6 years is long enough.

[Tribesman]

The intent to target strictly civilians for any of those reasons makes you a terrorist.

So they are not terrorists then Gawain since they do not target strictly civilians .

[Gawain of Orkeny]

So they are not terrorists then Gawain since they do not target strictly civilians .

When the fire rockets at Israeli cities they have only civilian targets in mind. That makes them terrorists.

[Pannonian]

When the fire rockets at Israeli cities they have only civilian targets in mind. That makes them terrorists.
Have you got figures for the number of civilian deaths on both sides between 2000 and 2006?

[Gawain of Orkeny]

Have you got figures for the number of civilian deaths on both sides between 2000 and 2006?

Im sure either of us could find them easily enough. I hate to say it but their irrellevant as to who is the terrorist if thats what your driving at.

[Papewaio]

Have you got figures for the number of civilian deaths on both sides between 2000 and 2006?

Intent is a vital part of what needs to be considered. Also is someone less of a terrorist if they kill less people or are otherwise thwarted?

[Soulforged]

You asked a question you got the answer. If you wanted specifics you should of asked. Sorry, I thought it was perfectly clear: "Wich convention or custom made the attack on AQ in Afghanistan valid?" - Me in the first post.

Now if you want specifics then asked the specific questions. Such as is it the Geneva Conventions, the Hague Conventions, NATO Treaty, United Nations Resolutions, etc... Give you a simple hint - NATO does not apply to either Israel or Lebanon last time I checked.There's a lot to check then. Tell you what I'll check them and try to come with an answer. Thanks.

Customs of warfare we could go into even futher details and exambles. Such as the Roman way of war, and many other cultures to include the ones involved in that region of the world.Then my question should be: Wich of this customs creates law or in other words wich of this customs is a source of law valid today?

It means your on the right track in my opinion. You can also refer this to the same subject as the previous question.Thanks for that :2thumbsup: . I never understood the meaning of that damned smiley.

[Redleg]

Sorry, I thought it was perfectly clear: "Wich convention or custom made the attack on AQ in Afghanistan valid?" - Me in the first post.
There's a lot to check then. Tell you what I'll check them and try to come with an answer. Thanks.


In doing this you will most likely discover why I stated both.



Then my question should be: Wich of this customs creates law or in other words wich of this customs is a source of law valid today?

That is a good question. Start with the Hague Conventions and work your way to today. I believe you will discover that customs created the initial conventions, but the conventions have also created some war customs.



Thanks for that :2thumbsup: . I never understood the meaning of that damned smiley.

I am not sure about the meaning myself - but I use that definition for it.

[KafirChobee]

The Israel is being charged with war crimes in Lebanon. Why? They dropped cluster bombs in (on) civilian areas - which is against the Geneva accords.

Hezbollah? Ya know, they atleast admit that what happened to provoke the Israeli response was more a prank than a plan. Had the people perpetrating it realized their folks homes, lives, lifes, etc would be destroyed - well, they probably wouldn't have done it. Two Jews, thAt was it - sent a nation (an ally) over the top. Two soldiers get kidnapped and a nation goes to war? What's wrong with this scerario?

It's simple, Lebanon was becoming stable - with or without Hezbollah. Lebanon was out performing Israel in tourism, financial institutions, and new immigrants (educated ones). Israel was looking for an excuse to set Lebanon back, nothing fancier than that.

When nations go to war on the premise losing of 2 citizens, or 3,000 - generally, the administration has a hidden agenda.

That was the case here, and with the US in Iraq. Where, officials in the present administ5ration could, and should be held up to scrutiny for committing warcrimes. Not that it will happen ... but, history will judge them. Unless of course the religious-right wins, in which case we'll have new DC monuments - Nixon on a cross, Reagan blessing the rich, and Bush43 pushing the button for armagedan (with halo).

Warcrimes are in the eye of the beholder ... and the powerful.

[Incongruous]

What a load of crap. Are you the same Shaun as the one over at TWC? Please at least learn how to spell Israel. Its not how many civilians you kill that makes you a terrorist. Its the intent.

Are you seriuos?

I'm fairly sure that old lady shot through the head by a sniper outside a hospital in Palestine was an intentional act of murder by an Israeli soldier.

Isreal has commited far worse acts in Lebbanon, remember the Phalngists and Sharon in thos horroble (death) camps?

To find evidence of Israels crimes against humanity one only need to look at operation defensive shield. What a disgusting act of terrorism.

[Pannonian]

Intent is a vital part of what needs to be considered. Also is someone less of a terrorist if they kill less people or are otherwise thwarted?
If we can see the figures for Israeli dead, civilian and military, we can see how much intent Hezbollah had of targeting Israeli civilians. Surely if Hezbollah has been targeting civilians all this time, the civilian deaths would outnumber the military deaths, or at least not be wildly out of proportion.

[Seamus Fermanagh]

The Israel is being charged with war crimes in Lebanon. Why? They dropped cluster bombs in (on) civilian areas - which is against the Geneva accords.

Hezbollah? Ya know, they atleast admit that what happened to provoke the Israeli response was more a prank than a plan. Had the people perpetrating it realized their folks homes, lives, lifes, etc would be destroyed - well, they probably wouldn't have done it. Two Jews, thAt was it - sent a nation (an ally) over the top. Two soldiers get kidnapped and a nation goes to war? What's wrong with this scerario?

It's simple, Lebanon was becoming stable - with or without Hezbollah. Lebanon was out performing Israel in tourism, financial institutions, and new immigrants (educated ones). Israel was looking for an excuse to set Lebanon back, nothing fancier than that.

When nations go to war on the premise losing of 2 citizens, or 3,000 - generally, the administration has a hidden agenda.

That was the case here, and with the US in Iraq. Where, officials in the present administ5ration could, and should be held up to scrutiny for committing warcrimes. Not that it will happen ... but, history will judge them. Unless of course the religious-right wins, in which case we'll have new DC monuments - Nixon on a cross, Reagan blessing the rich, and Bush43 pushing the button for armagedan (with halo).

Warcrimes are in the eye of the beholder ... and the powerful.

You never cease to amaze me.

You see imperialism in any and all uses of force by a Western nation. Your comments seem to suggest that no provocation is sufficient cause and no regime that does not disavow violence and demilitarize can be trusted. There is always a hidden agenda of conquest.

Its refreshing to know that you consider me, a more-or-less middle of the road example of traditional US culture, as the true source of evil in the modern world.

Have you ever thought what life would be like if we really were as effeciently evil and self aggrandizing as your hyperbolic statements claim? You, my fellow orgah, would long since have been put up against a wall somewhere as a subversive. We simply are not the jack-booted thugs you'd like us to be.

You should consider script-writing as a career -- your flights of fancy are nothing if not entertaining, and fiction truly is your art form.

[KafirChobee]

You never cease to amaze me.

You see imperialism in any and all uses of force by a Western nation. Your comments seem to suggest that no provocation is sufficient cause and no regime that does not disavow violence and demilitarize can be trusted. There is always a hidden agenda of conquest.

Its refreshing to know that you consider me, a more-or-less middle of the road example of traditional US culture, as the true source of evil in the modern world.

Have you ever thought what life would be like if we really were as effeciently evil and self aggrandizing as your hyperbolic statements claim? You, my fellow orgah, would long since have been put up against a wall somewhere as a subversive. We simply are not the jack-booted thugs you'd like us to be.

You should consider script-writing as a career -- your flights of fancy are nothing if not entertaining, and fiction truly is your art form.


You prove my point, when in doubt or without a true arguement on a subject - attack the naysayers as being subversive. Or, even better use the term evil as often as need be to prove how patriotic you are and unpatriotic they are. Be sure to over-exagerate and simplify the arguements by simply dismissing those that oppose yours as being "hyperbole", while your own are the true path to enlightenment and political correctness.

Question: Have warcrimes been committed in Lebanon by Israel?
Answer: Yes.

[Scurvy]

very simply, both Hezbollah and Israel have commited war crimes

[Tribesman]

If we can see the figures for Israeli dead, civilian and military, we can see how much intent Hezbollah had of targeting Israeli civilians. Surely if Hezbollah has been targeting civilians all this time, the civilian deaths would outnumber the military deaths, or at least not be wildly out of proportion.

Well that would depend Pannonian .
Note the words Gawain uses....The intent to target strictly civilians for any of those reasons makes you a terrorist.
.......did the rocket and mortar barrages target strictly civilians ?
Nope , so by Gawains own definition it is not terrorism .
Though that makes no sense since some of it was undoubtably terrorism , terrorism is a very hard thing to define isn't it .
So I think Scurvey sums it up well in his last post .

BTW Pannonian if you want to have a bit of fun pushing Gawain on his reluctance to consider the relevance of civilian/military casualties ask him for the IDFs own figures from the Northern front for the years 2000-04 , I know he has seen them ~;)

[Redleg]

Be sure to over-exagerate and simplify the arguements by simply dismissing those that oppose yours as being "hyperbole", while your own are the true path to enlightenment and political correctness.


Ah the hyprocrisy in this statement is just to damn funny.

[Vladimir]

ALERT ALERT

http://littlegreenfootballs.com/weblog/pictures/pork-on-the-wing.jpg http://littlegreenfootballs.com/weblog/pictures/pork-on-the-wing.jpg


They're flying in pairs now.


Human Rights Watch on Monday criticized the new UN Human Rights Council for its one-sided attacks on Israel and disproportionate attention to the Middle East.
http://www.jpost.com/servlet/Satellite?cid=1157913657154&pagename=JPost%2FJPArticle%2FShowFull

[Seamus Fermanagh]

You prove my point, when in doubt or without a true arguement on a subject - attack the naysayers as being subversive. Or, even better use the term evil as often as need be to prove how patriotic you are and unpatriotic they are. Be sure to over-exagerate and simplify the arguements by simply dismissing those that oppose yours as being "hyperbole", while your own are the true path to enlightenment and political correctness.

Actually, I was dismissive of your argument(more particularly its tone), not all arguments and my postings record should show that I am usually willing to address the substantive arguments of my fellow orgahs. I did not and do not question your patriotism. In point of fact, most US citizens who attack the policies and efforts of the USA in international affairs do so because they believe that they are serving a higher patriotic goal.

Your evocative imagery -- the crucified Nixon and sanctified Bush43 -- was no more and no less an exageration than were my references to jack booted thugs and use of the term evil. Note that there was no inference that you were evil in my post -- nor do I believe you to be.

I disagree vehemently with the underlying "givens" of your argument. Perhaps it is simplistic of me to label as "evil" individuals who behead my fellow citizens as a way of "making a statement." It is also, no doubt, very old-fashioned of me to view the taking of more than 2,000 of my fellow citizens lives as an act of war worthy of a violent response. I should be more enlightened, realize all the pressures I have put them under and sympathize with them, maybe just cope with the murders since, after all, 10 times that number die in accidents on our highways each year. It's just something I'll have to put up with since my imperialistic nation has spent so much of its time and effort subjugating other nations and peoples. :no: POPPYCOCK!!!!!!

Set labels aside if you wish. Set aside good v evil. I see it as us or them and I choose us. If that is somehow wrong than so be it. Stephen Decatur had it right...“Our country—In her intercourse with foreign nations may she always be in the right, and always successful, right or wrong.”

The first half of the quotation is the goal for which we should always strive, the second half speaks to the practicalities of existence.

[Shaun]

very simply, both Hezbollah and Israel have commited war crimes

Exactly.

[Banquo's Ghost]

They're flying in pairs now.

Vlad, I'm intrigued that you appear to think that Amnesty has only recently started exposing human rights abuses on 'the other side'.

It is not an uncommon perception, but very untrue. We get riled when it impugns our interests, and shrug away AI when they confirm our pre-conceptions.

Amnesty gets flak from just about every government round the world, which tells me that they are doing their job.

Seamus, your refutation of Kafir's post was passionate and I agreed with much of what you said, but I am slightly concerned by your use of this quote:


Stephen Decatur had it right...“Our country—In her intercourse with foreign nations may she always be in the right, and always successful, right or wrong.”

Are you actually saying 'my country, right or wrong' or perhaps something more subtle, which I am missing? I would be surprised if it were the former, as you always seem to present a balanced view of the shortcomings of government.

Just curious.

:inquisitive:

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

Well that would depend Pannonian .
Note the words Gawain uses....The intent to target strictly civilians for any of those reasons makes you a terrorist.
.......did the rocket and mortar barrages target strictly civilians ?
Nope , so by Gawains own definition it is not terrorism .
Though that makes no sense since some of it was undoubtably terrorism , terrorism is a very hard thing to define isn't it .
So I think Scurvey sums it up well in his last post.

I think terrorism is very easy to define. The intent is to cause terror in the target population.

[Seamus Fermanagh]

Are you actually saying 'my country, right or wrong' or perhaps something more subtle, which I am missing? I would be surprised if it were the former, as you always seem to present a balanced view of the shortcomings of government.

That is the substance of the 2nd half of the quotation. Push comes to shove, I am going to defend my family and country even when its screwed up something. Please note that the striving to be right portion is just as important -- running around like a group of thugs is not what we should be about.

[Vladimir]

Vlad, I'm intrigued that you appear to think that Amnesty has only recently started exposing human rights abuses on 'the other side'.

It is not an uncommon perception, but very untrue. We get riled when it impugns our interests, and shrug away AI when they confirm our pre-conceptions.

Amnesty gets flak from just about every government round the world, which tells me that they are doing their job.


Here timing and publicity (which is related to timing) are critical. You saw AI immediately jump on the band wagon saying that Israel was committing war crimes. How long after the recent conflict occurred did it take them to say the same thing on Hezbo's actions? This DESPITE the fact that they were committing these actions LONG before Israel invaded. They quietly let slip: "Oh yea, I guess the terrorists are committing war crimes too.", MONTHS (maybe a full year?) after they began committing such actions while Israel is immediately chastised. No, this looks like spin and an effort to debunk some critics (such as me) who think they're naive, ignorant, or just plain biased.

As for the anti-Israel bias in the UN, they're a decade or two late on that one.

Getting flack from just about every government can also mean that they’re incompetent. If you apply that reasoning to US foreign policy than you must think we’re gods among men!

. :bow:

[Banquo's Ghost]

Here timing and publicity (which is related to timing) are critical. You saw AI immediately jump on the band wagon saying that Israel was committing war crimes. How long after the recent conflict occurred did it take them to say the same thing on Hezbo's actions? This DESPITE the fact that they were committing these actions LONG before Israel invaded. They quietly let slip: "Oh yea, I guess the terrorists are committing war crimes too.", MONTHS (maybe a full year?) after they began committing such actions while Israel is immediately chastised. No, this looks like spin and an effort to debunk some critics (such as me) who think they're naive, ignorant, or just plain biased.

As for the anti-Israel bias in the UN, they're a decade or two late on that one.

Getting flack from just about every government can also mean that they’re incompetent. If you apply that reasoning to US foreign policy than you must think we’re gods among men!

. :bow:

Yeah, that's what I thought you'd say. :bow:

[Banquo's Ghost]

That is the substance of the 2nd half of the quotation. Push comes to shove, I am going to defend my family and country even when its screwed up something. Please note that the striving to be right portion is just as important -- running around like a group of thugs is not what we should be about.

Thanks for clarifying. I am now troubled, but at least I know where you're coming from.

:bow:

[Tribesman]

Here timing and publicity (which is related to timing) are critical. You saw AI immediately jump on the band wagon saying that Israel was committing war crimes. How long after the recent conflict occurred did it take them to say the same thing on Hezbo's actions? This DESPITE the fact that they were committing these actions LONG before Israel invaded. They quietly let slip: "Oh yea, I guess the terrorists are committing war crimes too.", MONTHS (maybe a full year?) after they began committing such actions while Israel is immediately chastised. No, this looks like spin and an effort to debunk some critics (such as me) who think they're naive, ignorant, or just plain biased.

Well Vlad , thats the system for you , if you want them to investigate human rights violations then you as an individual or your government as a state has to ask them , and unless it is brought under the special circumstances provision like the two cases presented as examples of bias(which may take months) it will take a full year .
So......
Human Rights Watch on Monday criticized the new UN Human Rights Council for its one-sided attacks on Israel and disproportionate attention to the Middle East.
....if you it want to focus its attention outside the middle east then someone has to raise questions about countries outside the mid-east , like for example Honduras , Cuba , Guatemala , Kyrgyzstan , Myanamar , Afghanistan , Maldives , United States , Sudan.....plus others which are current .
But if its disproportionate focus apart from those previously mentioned happens to be middle eastern like Israel , Jordan ,the occupied territories ,Lebanon , Lebanon again and Lebanon once more it is because members or individuals have put those subjects on the table .

Strange how it works isnt it .

If its attention is not placed on places that have not been raised then its mandate means that it cannot focus on them until someone raises them , if someone raises lots of questions on one region then that region will get attention proportional to the number of times it is raised .

So if you want to make it less focused on the Middle -East then get someone to complain about other regions more .
Simple isn't it .

[Mooks]

War is war. And anyone who has fought in a war will say war is horrible. Horrible sh*t happens in wars, get over it.

[ezrider]

Some of you may already have read this but I thought it might be relevant:


War crimes
(http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/5276626.stm)

Lets just say they're all war criminals or none of them are. Who cares what Amnesty say anyway. Neither side will have to face charges.

[Banquo's Ghost]

Lets just say they're all war criminals or none of them are. Who cares what Amnesty say anyway. Neither side will have to face charges.

I care, and very much. Just because it may be difficult or impossible to do something about it, doesn't mean it shouldn't be revealed in the full light of day.

That's what dictators and criminals all over the world hope - individuals will feel powerless and give up trying to change things.


All it takes for evil to flourish is for good men to do nothing.

[ezrider]

I fully back the power of the individual to stand up to their government and or other governments, but what I question is the credibility of the organisation "Standing up".

As an honest question to you: in your opinion, have Amnesty given confusing signals by describing the actions of both sides as war crimes? Do you think it undermines them in any way?

I think it is actually good that they have highlighted the fact that there are war criminals on both sides. That reasoning can also be brought to bear on all conflicts. A populace that can scrutinise the methods of their Armed Forces and voice its opposition to those methods, is an empowered populace indeed.
But does Amnesty play lead resistance? I think token.

[Banquo's Ghost]

I fully back the power of the individual to stand up to their government and or other governments, but what I question is the credibility of the organisation "Standing up".

As an honest question to you: in your opinion, have Amnesty given confusing signals by describing the actions of both sides as war crimes? Do you think it undermines them in any way?

I don't see how that gives confusing signals. As Tribesman noted previously, Amnesty investigates by request the actions of governments and organisations that may violate human rights. The fact that both sides have committed war crimes merely underlines the brutality of the conflict. Abuses of human rights are rarely the province of just 'the bad guys', not leats because different sides have different views on who the 'bad guys' are.

That's largely why Amnesty gets flak from all sides. No-one like to have the faults of their friends or themselves brought up.

Just as you stated in your next paragraph:


I think it is actually good that they have highlighted the fact that there are war criminals on both sides. That reasoning can also be brought to bear on all conflicts. A populace that can scrutinise the methods of their Armed Forces and voice its opposition to those methods, is an empowered populace indeed.

But does Amnesty play lead resistance? I think token.

I am somewhat confused about your last question, as I don't understand what you mean by 'playing lead resistance.'

Nothing about my twenty-odd years as a member of Amnesty has been token. If you mean that they make a lot of publicity to highlight abuses, well there I'd agree. It is invariably reported by partisan media - ie when it's a report about a right-wing regime transgresses, the left-leaning media wave the report about loudly, and vice versa. Since few people actually go to Amnesty's website to read the reports unless they have a personal point to prove, each side gets the impression Amnesty has a left or right wing agenda.

There are even people who dismiss the whle idea of human rights and international law, to whom Amnesty is at best an irrelevance, at worst the agent of whichever Satan is personal to them.

Having said all that, Amnesty is not objective. It reflects the concerns of its members and focusses all of its work through the lens of a belief in universal human rights.

It's a campaigning organisation, and thus will work to make itself heard and influential. That requires provoking people to action, even if it is fury at what they say - at least it is not ignored.

[ezrider]

I am somewhat confused about your last question, as I don't understand what you mean by 'playing lead resistance.'


I mean: DO Amnesty play the lead role in motivating public opinion in countries with governments who commit war crimes, or do they represent token opposition. There is no implication from me that their efforts are token, I use the word in the sense that Amnesty's media attention is treated as token liberal opposition by said governments.
In the end its how the public perceives and supports Amnesty's standpoint that changes things. IF the public don't hear about it or aren't bothered by it then it does really become token.


off topic:
Is there a rift in Amnesty over the abortion issue? An answer coming from a member would mean more than from the Beeb.

[Reenk Roink]

All it takes for evil to flourish is for good men to do nothing.

Banquo quoting Edmund Burke? :inquisitive:

What is this world coming to?

*sorry for picking on ya

[Banquo's Ghost]

I mean: DO Amnesty play the lead role in motivating public opinion in countries with governments who commit war crimes, or do they represent token opposition. There is no implication from me that their efforts are token, I use the word in the sense that Amnesty's media attention is treated as token liberal opposition by said governments.
In the end its how the public perceives and supports Amnesty's standpoint that changes things. IF the public don't hear about it or aren't bothered by it then it does really become token.

Ah, I see your point. Yes, it could be said to be token resistance - but I don't think so. Even one voice can shake consciences and embarrass. It's funny, but even the nastiest of dictators can be swayed by embarrassment - perhaps because they usually have colossal egos.



off topic:
Is there a rift in Amnesty over the abortion issue? An answer coming from a member would mean more than from the Beeb.

Yes, there is. Currently there is no position on abortion, but this may change at the upcoming International Committee Meeting next year. To that end, there is a consultation going on. There is quite some pressure from the pro-choice side to make Amnesty campaign for abortion rights. Personally, I think this is wrong for many reasons, and I am generally pro-choice.

It is a politically motivated step beyond the mandate of the organisation and will reduce our neutrality, IMO. Many members of Amnesty are religious and this may well alienate them. There's enough injustice to campaign on. The pro-life side could quite reasonably argue that the right to life is the most important human right there is, and Amnesty should champion that more than the right to abortion.

There's a pretty good and well-reasoned argument from the Pro-life side here (http://www.spuc.org.uk/lobbying/amnestyinternational/).

[Banquo's Ghost]

Banquo quoting Edmund Burke? :inquisitive:

What is this world coming to?

*sorry for picking on ya

:bounce:

Hey, he's an Irishman and an anti-imperialist. What's not to love? :balloon2: