Printable View
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.
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:
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:Quote:
Originally Posted by yesdachi
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tribesman
Here is a clue for you to follow before you go off on your tangent.
My responseQuote:
Originally Posted by Pannonian
It seems you are once again attempting the old strawmanQuote:
Originally Posted by Redleg
Someone that is actually thinking about the subject. :2thumbsup:Quote:
Originally Posted by Wigferth Ironwall
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.
Agreed.Quote:
But then we all know Isael doesn't give a toss.
But then neither does Hezbollah.
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?Quote:
Originally Posted by The Black Ship
One must ask themselves, did Israel give Lebanon enough time to respond to the criminal element actions before beginning its military operation?
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.
Actually, I don't think that's correct...
http://www.csmonitor.com/2006/0728/p06s01-wome.html
And support was low for Hezbollah across Druze, Christian, and Sunni lines before the conflict...Quote:
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.
http://www.beirutcenter.info/default...=692&MenuID=46
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.Quote:
Originally Posted by rory_20_uk
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.Quote:
Originally Posted by Antiochus III
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.Quote:
Originally Posted by Redleg
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.
Both.Quote:
Originally Posted by Soulforged
:book:Quote:
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.
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,
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 .
http://littlegreenfootballs.com/webl...n-the-wing.jpg
bump (squeal)
Nice try but still a strawman.Quote:
Originally Posted by Tribesman
That never was my postion. My postion is the simple question of is infrastructure a valid military target?Quote:
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 ?
Read what is written, the statement is clear. My intent was not what the question was addressing now was it?Quote:
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 ?
The question is and was is infrastructure a valid military target?
Nice attempt at using the strawman.Quote:
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 .
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.
Do you really think I find killing civilians tasteful, or even justifiable?Quote:
Originally Posted by Soulforged
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?
You know you really are arguementative. Not that that's an inherently bad thing.Quote:
Originally Posted by Tribesman
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
I agree entirely that both sides are murderers, but it doent explain whether thay are war rimes or not :2thumbsup:Quote:
Originally Posted by AntiochusIII
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.Quote:
Originally Posted by Seamus Fermanagh
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.
No. What I mean is that this regulations exist for a reason and are not just another data from reality to ignore...Quote:
Originally Posted by AntiochusIII
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.Quote:
Originally Posted by Redleg
Also what does this ":book: " means in this context?
You asked a question you got the answer. If you wanted specifics you should of asked.Quote:
Originally Posted by Soulforged
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.
It means your on the right track in my opinion. You can also refer this to the same subject as the previous question.Quote:
Also what does this ":book: " means in this context?
The intent to target strictly civilians for any of those reasons makes you a terrorist.Quote:
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 ?
I would imagine 6 years is long enough.Quote:
One must ask themselves, did Israel give Lebanon enough time to respond to the criminal element actions before beginning its military operation?
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 .
When the fire rockets at Israeli cities they have only civilian targets in mind. That makes them terrorists.Quote:
So they are not terrorists then Gawain since they do not target strictly civilians .
Have you got figures for the number of civilian deaths on both sides between 2000 and 2006?Quote:
Originally Posted by Gawain of Orkeny
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.Quote:
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?Quote:
Originally Posted by Pannonian
Sorry, I thought it was perfectly clear: "Wich convention or custom made the attack on AQ in Afghanistan valid?" - Me in the first post.Quote:
Originally Posted by Redleg
There's a lot to check then. Tell you what I'll check them and try to come with an answer. Thanks.Quote:
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.
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?Quote:
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.
Thanks for that :2thumbsup: . I never understood the meaning of that damned smiley.Quote:
It means your on the right track in my opinion. You can also refer this to the same subject as the previous question.
In doing this you will most likely discover why I stated both.Quote:
Originally Posted by Soulforged
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.Quote:
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?
I am not sure about the meaning myself - but I use that definition for it.Quote:
Thanks for that :2thumbsup: . I never understood the meaning of that damned smiley.