This statement implicitly condones Hizbollah's actions -- even Amnesty International (not exactly fans of Israel) didn't do that.Originally Posted by Keba
So we have are supposed to judge Hizbollah by WW2 targeting standards and the IDF by USA media standards?Originally Posted by Keba
![]()
![]()
Again, your phrasing implies approval -- I assume that was not your intent.Originally Posted by Keba
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.Originally Posted by Keba
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.
Bookmarks