Israel's legacy of death in Lebanon

An army can only have legitamacy from being the army of an elected government ot a sovereign power. In this case Hizbollah is NOT an army it is a terrorist organisation being supplied directly by an outside party. If the people all supported it then they would stand for election and would form the government. Then they could use the Lebanese Army to attack Israel. If they did this then Israel would be able to attack all the people in Lebanon as it was their own army. Whichever way you look at this, the Hizbollah terrorists had the option of not firing on Israeli civilians and even handing over their weapons and surrendering. They choose to keep atacking Israel so they are party to all the deaths.

An army can be

a large body of persons trained and armed for war.

In the case of Hizbollah, they enjoy the support of the people which was clearly and abundantly evident in the interviews given by the public during the Israeli aggression.

You keep on repeating the words terrorist, but the fact of the matter is that the lebanese people dont view them as terrorists and neither do the vast majority of the "international community" (with the exception of those countries which support Israel)

not all the deaths

Thousands of cluster bomblets landed in farms and villages, some 30-40% of which failed to explode at the time

but no, Israel doesn't target civilians. Those manipulative terrorists moved the villages onto the bomb sites after the bombs had been dropped.

. Those manipulative terrorists moved the villages onto the bomb sites after the bombs had been dropped.

Actually those manipulative terrorsists fired on civilian targets in Israel from within or near Lebanese villages. They must have known that the response would also injure their own civilians. One of the ways that you can clearly tell is an organisation is a terrorist organisation is that they not only try to kill their enemies civilians, but they also have no concern for their own people, aside from their propaganda value. In attacking civilian targets in Israel they will have known that it would not stop Israel in any way, it was bound to make things worse, and would result in the death of their own people. They didn't care about this. This is a million miles for a peoples' army defending against a foreign army on their own territory.

An army can only have legitamacy from being the army of an elected government ot a sovereign power. In this case Hizbollah is NOT an army it is a terrorist organisation being supplied directly by an outside party. If the people all supported it then they would stand for election and would form the government. Then they could use the Lebanese Army to attack Israel. If they did this then Israel would be able to attack all the people in Lebanon as it was their own army. Whichever way you look at this, the Hizbollah terrorists had the option of not firing on Israeli civilians and even handing over their weapons and surrendering. They choose to keep atacking Israel so they are party to all the deaths.

The Israelis did in fact attack all of the people of southern Lebanon and destroyed much of the infastructure, but that isn't the argument here.

What cannot be justified is the indiscriminate use of cluster bombs which they knew to be faulty when they knew they had just a few days left in which to continue the bombardment, and which they knew would leave the area littered with with what are in effect anti-personnel mines, targetting not Hizbollah terrorists, but innocent civillians returning to their farms and villages hoping to recover their normal lives.

From a further report in the Independent today it seems these munitions were manufactured well before 1974 !!

http://news.independent.co.uk/world/americas/article1621755.ece

Actually those manipulative terrorsists fired on civilian targets in Israel from within or near Lebanese villages. They must have known that the response would also injure their own civilians. One of the ways that you can clearly tell is an organisation is a terrorist organisation is that they not only try to kill their enemies civilians, but they also have no concern for their own people, aside from their propaganda value. In attacking civilian targets in Israel they will have known that it would not stop Israel in any way, it was bound to make things worse, and would result in the death of their own people. They didn't care about this. This is a million miles for a peoples' army defending against a foreign army on their own territory.

just so we're clear on this, are you saying that every village and civilian location that was bombed by the Israeli's, was used by Hizbollah to fire rockets into Israel ?????

They must have known that the response would also injure their own civilians.

True. but was hizbollah to know that Israel would use phosphorus and cluster bombs on the Lebanese, hardly weopons of precision.

One of the ways that you can clearly tell is an organisation is a terrorist organisation is that they not only try to kill their enemies civilians, but they also have no concern for their own people, aside from their propaganda value.

Not entirely true the number of Israeli soldiers killed by Hizbollah was more than the civilians they killed.

the rockets used for damaging the ships were the zalzal so we were told, they didn't use these on Israel for killing civilians as you have stated given the power of these zalzal to the katoosha they would have been more effective it if this is what Hizbollah wanted.

Aren't the Israelis still occupying territories given to the Palestinians in 1948?And haven't they taken more and more land over the intervening years?And aren't they in breach of 68 UN Resolutions?

Aren't the Israelis still occupying territories given to the Palestinians in 1948?And haven't they taken more and more land over the intervening years?And aren't they in breach of 68 UN Resolutions?

in a short answer YES. However these facts are not important enough because Israel is a "democracy". A democracy can commit any illegal acts against non democratic and non Europeans.

(Even if they are democratic but non European then their being non European takes precedence.)

in a short answer YES. However these facts are not important enough because Israel is a "democracy". A democracy can commit any illegal acts against non democratic and non Europeans.

 

(Even if they are democratic but non European then their being non European takes precedence.)

I don't suggest that the Israelis haven't done anything wrong or that they did not act in a barbaric way. I simply point out that the terrorists they were fighting are also to blame and could also have stopped things, in fact they were more able to do things. The terrorists also did not have any legitamacy whatsoever as they were operating inside a country which also had an army so they could not pretend to be defenders. The fact that Israel has done terrible things doesn't in any way excuse the Hizbolla terrorists from the terrible things they have done.

I don't suggest that the Israelis haven't done anything wrong or that they did not act in a barbaric way. I simply point out that the terrorists they were fighting are also to blame and could also have stopped things, in fact they were more able to do things. The terrorists also did not have any legitamacy whatsoever as they were operating inside a country which also had an army so they could not pretend to be defenders. The fact that Israel has done terrible things doesn't in any way excuse the Hizbolla terrorists from the terrible things they have done.

however by placing your emphasis on the Lebanese and claiming that the wholescale destruction of Lebanon was a supposedly targetted response of terrorists (not the lebanese population) hardly gives the impression of the Israeli's being "barbaric".

Lets agree that both sides have committed "crimes". Who in your opinion has committed the greater crimes ?

however by placing your emphasis on the Lebanese and claiming that the wholescale destruction of Lebanon was a supposedly targetted response of terrorists (not the lebanese population) hardly gives the impression of the Israeli's being "barbaric".

 

Lets agree that both sides have committed "crimes". Who in your opinion has committed the greater crimes ?

If Israel is attacked by rockets then they have to destroy the rockets, their supply routes and any supporting infrastructure. This means that there will be death an destruction around any of the terrorists positions, and also around areas used for supply. As an ex member of the artillery I can tell you that the way it works is that you hide yourself in a wood or a village, fire at a target and then run away. The way that you fight against artillery is to quickly destroy them as they are trying to escape and when they attempt to move or to be re-supplied. You also attack and destroy any targets which are part of the supply route or along which information could pass. In the first gulf war, for example, we destroyed the fire optic cables along which the target information was sent to the scud missiles.

In my opinion the only way that Israel could fight against a widespread terrorist attack was to attack many targets of different types. It is also easy to decide which side has committed the greatest crimes because Israel has not committed any. The Israelis have behaved in a way which is unnacceptable to most people but isn't actualy illegal. The terrorists on the other hand have no legal standing so everything they did was a crime.

If Israel is attacked by rockets then they have to destroy the rockets, their supply routes and any supporting infrastructure. This means that there will be death an destruction around any of the terrorists positions, and also around areas used for supply. As an ex member of the artillery I can tell you that the way it works is that you hide yourself in a wood or a village, fire at a target and then run away. The way that you fight against artillery is to quickly destroy them as they are trying to escape and when they attempt to move or to be re-supplied. You also attack and destroy any targets which are part of the supply route or along which information could pass. In the first gulf war, for example, we destroyed the fire optic cables along which the target information was sent to the scud missiles.

 

In my opinion the only way that Israel could fight against a widespread terrorist attack was to attack many targets of different types. It is also easy to decide which side has committed the greatest crimes because Israel has not committed any. The Israelis have behaved in a way which is unnacceptable to most people but isn't actualy illegal. The terrorists on the other hand have no legal standing so everything they did was a crime.

So by your argument, how were Hizbollah wrong to target northern Israeli cities ? If those cities were at all being used by the Israeli military to transport troops or ammunition, they therefore become legitimate targets.

You also attack and destroy any targets which are part of the supply route or along which information could pass.

That basically means that when you're at war, nearly any part of the opponents territory becomes a fair target.

Inwhich case no-ones committed a crime!