Israel Deliberately Attacks UN Post

[fossten]

You know how to win a war? You take away your enemies ability to wage war on you. Airports, roads, highways, byways, bridges were all being used by Hezbollah to transport arms and soldiers (aka terrorist). I'm no military expert, not even remotely close to being one; but I absolutely kick ass at games like 'Risk' and 'Axis & Allies' by doing exactly that, taking away my enemies ability to wage war on me.

As Calabrio mentioned, common sense would dictate, if Israel didn't care about civilian casualties or was in fact targeting them, there would be ten's of thousands of civilian deaths, not the few hundred.

Actually I said that.

Good post by the way.

 

[TheDude]

Actually I said that.

Good post by the way.

My bad... Credit goes to Fossten.

 

[RRocket]

Fossten,

Well...I guess we'll continue to disagree about most everything. Hey Fossten, I think the only thing we've ever agreed on is that Saudi Arabia is the main breeding ground and the "mecca" of world terrorism. Have we agreed on anything else??

 

[fossten]

Fossten,

Well...I guess we'll continue to disagree about most everything. Hey Fossten, I think the only thing we've ever agreed on is that Saudi Arabia is the main breeding ground and the "mecca" of world terrorism. Have we agreed on anything else??

Don't remember. But here, chew on this:

Israel Investigates Blogger Allegations of Qana Staging

Posted by Matthew Sheffield on August 2, 2006 - 10:39.
The Jerusalem Post reports today that the Israeli Defense Force (IDF) is investigating arguments, first raised by bloggers, that Hamas may have staged the alleged "atrocity" that occurred when building collapsed in the Lebanese city of Qana.

As reported by NewsBusters and elsewhere, significant doubts are being raised as to whether the building's collapse was caused by Israeli bombs or was deliberately destroyed by Hamas to gin up anti-Israeli sentiment.

Mentioned prominently in the article is NewsBuster Bob Owens's blog, Confederate Yankee, which in the fine MSM tradition of accuracy, is called "Conservative Yankee" by the Post. (See Bob's response post here.)

An excerpt from the JP article is after the jump...

The IDF is looking into allegations raised over the past few days by several pro-Israel, Jewish and conservative Weblogs that Hizbullah may have staged aspects of the Kana tragedy on Sunday, in which some 60 Lebanese bodies [edit: That's inaccurate - the actual count is 27] were removed from a building that collapsed seven hours after being hit in an Israel Air Force strike.

The dead were mainly children, women and elderly people.

The International Committee of the Red Cross Mission in Israel said Tuesday that it would inform its Swiss headquarters about the allegations and seek to clarify the questions raised.

Israel has acknowledged hitting the building, and said 150 Katyushas had been fired from the village in the previous 20 days, with Hizbullah hiding rocket launchers in civilian buildings there. Israel said it did not know civilians were inside the building and expressed sorrow over the tragedy.

In a speech on Monday night, Prime Minister Ehud Olmert said he deeply regretted the deaths of civilians there. "We did not seek to harm them, we did not want their death," he said. "They were not our enemies, they were not the target of our aircraft."

At a press conference on Sunday night, Air Force Chief of Staff Brig.-Gen. Amir Eshel said the building was struck by IAF missiles a little after midnight, but only collapsed seven hours later, at about 7 a.m.

Eshel said he could not explain what caused the structure to collapse so many hours after it was hit, and speculated, while stressing that he had no conclusive evidence, about whether Hizbullah had played a role in what had transpired, perhaps by firing on the building itself. [...]

According to the blogs, perhaps the most suspicious element in the Kana affair was the fact that the dead children whose photographs appeared in the media displayed virtually no signs of blood, bruises or broken bones and, with one exception, were not caked with debris or pulverized cement.

For example, according to the antiliberal Conservative Yankee blog, "The child in the photo shows no signs of injuries - no blood, no disfigurement or crushing wounds consistent with a building collapse. The two men [carrying the child] show no signs of having been digging in rubble. Their clothes are unbelievably clean, especially the black fatigues that would so easily shown concrete dust."

Israel Insider cited a CNN report that, it said, noted the victims had died in their sleep. It seemed highly improbable, the piece asserted, that people could have slept "through thunderous Israeli air attacks. Rescue workers equipped with cameras," it went on, "were removing the bodies from the same opening in the collapsed structure.

Journalists were not allowed near the collapsed building... Israelis steeled to scenes of carnage from Palestinian suicide bombings and Hizbullah rocket attacks could not help but notice that these victims did not look like our victims. Their faces were ashen gray. While medical examination is clearly called for to arrive at a definitive dating and cause of their deaths, they do not appear to have died hours before. The bodies looked like they had been dead for days."

 

[RRocket]

Fossten,

I'll use the same argument I've seen you use a million times. You've posted a news story from a source friendly to the situation (Jerusalem Post). I've seen you chastise many posts because the news source was from some newspaper/magazine/think tank that supports the view. Would you expect the Jerusalem Post to have a different stance? Likewise, if I posted a news excerpt from a Lebanon press source, I'm sure you'd believe every word of it, right? And as far as "bloggers" go, I think we can both agree that after all the BS that was on the Net from bloggers during your US election (for both political parties) that they may not be the most reliable news sources. For every pro-Israel bloggers, it's likely that I could post a pro-Lebanese blog. Again...how likely would you believe anything from a pro-Lebanese blog? I think we both know the answer to that one.

FWIW, when it was initially reported, Israel responded by saying they did not hit the building, but it was the blast radius that caused the damage (they said they had targeted a launcher NEAR the building). Now they say they DID target the building (because of weapons inside), but were unaware of people inside the building. It's unlikely that we'll ever know the real story.

Oh...and I found out why so many people refuse to leave their homes. Apparently, there is some type of "squatters rights" law there. If you abandon your home for X amount of time, someone can move in and have rights to the place. For many people in Lebanon (and here I suppose too!), their house is their greatest and sometimes only asset. Couple that with the extensive damage to the roads, it's easy to see why these people stay.

 

[decibels5]

Fossten,

I'll use the same argument I've seen you use a million times. You've posted a news story from a source friendly to the situation (Jerusalem Post). I've seen you chastise many posts because the news source was from some newspaper/magazine/think tank that supports the view. Would you expect the Jerusalem Post to have a different stance? Likewise, if I posted a news excerpt from a Lebanon press source, I'm sure you'd believe every word of it, right? And as far as "bloggers" go, I think we can both agree that after all the BS that was on the Net from bloggers during your US election (for both political parties) that they may not be the most reliable news sources. For every pro-Israel bloggers, it's likely that I could post a pro-Lebanese blog. Again...how likely would you believe anything from a pro-Lebanese blog? I think we both know the answer to that one.

FWIW, when it was initially reported, Israel responded by saying they did not hit the building, but it was the blast radius that caused the damage (they said they had targeted a launcher NEAR the building). Now they say they DID target the building (because of weapons inside), but were unaware of people inside the building. It's unlikely that we'll ever know the real story.

Oh...and I found out why so many people refuse to leave their homes. Apparently, there is some type of "squatters rights" law there. If you abandon your home for X amount of time, someone can move in and have rights to the place. For many people in Lebanon (and here I suppose too!), their house is their greatest and sometimes only asset. Couple that with the extensive damage to the roads, it's easy to see why these people stay.

i read a news story online where a lebanon father was interviewed, he pulled out his stash of weapons which included a 9mm all the way up to a grenade launcher. he said he was ready to go to war and fight israel if called upon, he said his whole town was loaded and ready to go. so these innocent civilians that keep coming up (other than SOME of the children)are not fully innocent

 

[fossten]

Fossten,

I'll use the same argument I've seen you use a million times. You've posted a news story from a source friendly to the situation (Jerusalem Post). I've seen you chastise many posts because the news source was from some newspaper/magazine/think tank that supports the view. Would you expect the Jerusalem Post to have a different stance? Likewise, if I posted a news excerpt from a Lebanon press source, I'm sure you'd believe every word of it, right? And as far as "bloggers" go, I think we can both agree that after all the BS that was on the Net from bloggers during your US election (for both political parties) that they may not be the most reliable news sources. For every pro-Israel bloggers, it's likely that I could post a pro-Lebanese blog. Again...how likely would you believe anything from a pro-Lebanese blog? I think we both know the answer to that one.

FWIW, when it was initially reported, Israel responded by saying they did not hit the building, but it was the blast radius that caused the damage (they said they had targeted a launcher NEAR the building). Now they say they DID target the building (because of weapons inside), but were unaware of people inside the building. It's unlikely that we'll ever know the real story.

Oh...and I found out why so many people refuse to leave their homes. Apparently, there is some type of "squatters rights" law there. If you abandon your home for X amount of time, someone can move in and have rights to the place. For many people in Lebanon (and here I suppose too!), their house is their greatest and sometimes only asset. Couple that with the extensive damage to the roads, it's easy to see why these people stay.

Sounds like a bunch of desperate spin to me. You are going through massive contortions in order to support the Hezbollah viewpoint of this war, and that speaks volumes for your bias against Israel. You have assumed the position opposite that of pro-Israel, regardless of your so-called evidence. With every word you continue to illuminate your anti-Israel views.

 

[RRocket]

So when you use the same argument as I do in a future thread, we'll assume that it's desperate spin, OK? I am aghast at the Lebanese civilians casualties. If that makes me anti-Israel, and pro-Hezbollah, so be it. You seem not to care, so I guess you're anti-Arab? As I said a million times before...how was the US able to limit casualties doing the same type of bombing in Afghanistan with the same type of circumstances?? (ie. the enemy sometimes hiding among civilians) Maybe since Israel has been terrorized by Hezbollah much in the past, I think they simply don't give a $hit about ANY casualty in Lebanon, Hezbollah or otherwise.

Oh..just to clarify. I don't like it when the Arabs from Detroit come over to Windsor and turn our downtown upside down with fights, gun pulling etc..on our weekends. Does that make me anti-Arab? I just need to know in case that puts me in conflict of interest with being pro-Hezbollah. I also need to know so I can keep track of all the labels I've aquired from this board.

So to review I am a:

Bush-Hater
Liberal
Pacifist
Anti-Semite
Anti-Israel (same thing I guess as above)
Pro-Hezbollah
Anti-Arab (under review by Fossten)

I think there's a few more I got from here..am I missing anything??

 

[Calabrio]

Just for the record- do you actually know what the civilian casualties in Afghanistan were?

And second, how can you compare the two? Compared to Afghanistan, Lebanon is an urban area with a much higher population density.

 

[RRocket]

The US had complained repeatedly about the same thing in both Afghanistan AND Iraq. The population of Kabul is 1-1.5 million (no recent sensus for exact number, though it did swell to approx. 2 million after the US invasion) The population of Beirut is 1.8 million. What the US realized, was that air power alone wouldn't do it and flattening the city wouldn't win the hearts and minds of the people, so they brought in ground troops. Israel can't bring in ground troops like the US did, so they continue to bomb. So the US DID really care to cut down on casualties. Obviously they couldn't avoid all casulaties, and there were a few mistakes.To be fair, there have been more civilian casualties in Afghanistan than Lebanon (so far), though the conflict in Afghanistan is approaching several years now.... I stand by my comment that the US took greater care to avoid civilian casualties than Israel has.

 

[Calabrio]

The US had complained repeatedly about the same thing in both Afghanistan AND Iraq. The population of Kabul is 1-1.5 million (no recent sensus for exact number, though it did swell to approx. 2 million after the US invasion) The population of Beirut is 1.8 million. What the US realized, was that air power alone wouldn't do it and flattening the city wouldn't win the hearts and minds of the people, so they brought in ground troops. Israel can't bring in ground troops like the US did, so they continue to bomb. So the US DID really care to cut down on casualties. Obviously they couldn't avoid all casulaties, and there were a few mistakes.To be fair, there have been more civilian casualties in Afghanistan than Lebanon (so far), though the conflict in Afghanistan is approaching several years now.... I stand by my comment that the US took greater care to avoid civilian casualties than Israel has.

So what you're saying is that you don't know.

In case you wondered, I've seen similar anti-Western sources say that there were about 3400 civilian deaths during the six months of the war (Oct-March 2002)

 

[RRocket]

Well certainly I don't have exact figure of the population...but Kabul and Beirut have very similar populations...They do know that the population swelled to close to 2 million as the bombs started to fall once the US got there...And there are 1.8 million in Beirut. Pretty close IMO.

 

[Calabrio]

But neither war took place exclusively in Beirut or Kabul.

And you acknowledge that the American's tried to limit civilian casualties, but some still claim there were still as many as 3,400 of them in Afghanistan.

 

[fossten]

So when you use the same argument as I do in a future thread, we'll assume that it's desperate spin, OK? I am aghast at the Lebanese civilians casualties. If that makes me anti-Israel, and pro-Hezbollah, so be it. You seem not to care, so I guess you're anti-Arab? As I said a million times before...how was the US able to limit casualties doing the same type of bombing in Afghanistan with the same type of circumstances?? (ie. the enemy sometimes hiding among civilians) Maybe since Israel has been terrorized by Hezbollah much in the past, I think they simply don't give a $hit about ANY casualty in Lebanon, Hezbollah or otherwise.

Oh..just to clarify. I don't like it when the Arabs from Detroit come over to Windsor and turn our downtown upside down with fights, gun pulling etc..on our weekends. Does that make me anti-Arab? I just need to know in case that puts me in conflict of interest with being pro-Hezbollah. I also need to know so I can keep track of all the labels I've aquired from this board.

So to review I am a:

Bush-Hater
Liberal
Pacifist
Anti-Semite
Anti-Israel (same thing I guess as above)
Pro-Hezbollah
Anti-Arab (under review by Fossten)

I think there's a few more I got from here..am I missing anything??

You are aghast at the Lebanese casualties, but you seem not to care about the fact that they are the fault of Hezbollah. Nor do you seem to care that all the Israeli casualties are the fault of Hezbollah.

As far as being anti-Arab, you can't make that claim because I have not taken an anti-Arab position. I haven't criticized the Lebanese people for not being able to evacuate. But you have yet to place any blame on Hezbollah for being the instigator here. You are falling for their propaganda campaign.

You are obviously not a student of history. Civilian casualties are a norm of war. I guess if you'd been around in 1945, you'd have been screaming bloody murder about Hiroshima and Nagasaki. Good thing we had people in charge with some guts back then. Those two bombs saved millions of lives that would have been lost in a Japanese invasion.

It's amazing to see the moral equivalence here. Israel is defending itself, but somehow they are the terrorists in your eyes. You criticize them because they don't have bombs that are designed to fly around civilians. What a crock.

By the way, in response to your claim that Israel can't go in with ground troops, do you even watch the news? That's almost all they are doing now. You have no credibility when you make easily refutable claims.

 

[taylor414ce2003]

Perhaps the term terrorist should be defined. I've never understood it to refer to a nations military operating in the open.

. If a population doesn't wish to become embroiled in a military operation where people will be getting killed perhaps it should expel those the military is seeking to kill, or if this is not possible, leave the area of operations. If you shelter and support terrorist you are a terrorist also and can expect to share their fate.



where do you expect the civilians to go?

 

[fossten]

Perhaps the term terrorist should be defined. I've never understood it to refer to a nations military operating in the open.

. If a population doesn't wish to become embroiled in a military operation where people will be getting killed perhaps it should expel those the military is seeking to kill, or if this is not possible, leave the area of operations. If you shelter and support terrorist you are a terrorist also and can expect to share their fate.



where do you expect the civilians to go?

Actually I defined terrorism here:

http://www.lincolnvscadillac.com/showthread.php?t=24771&highlight=terrorist+definition

The civilians should go north, since Israel is heading north. That keeps them out of reach. But they can't go anywhere unless the Hezbos let them go.

 

[RRocket]

Yes..they have ground troops in Lebanon, but we can't compare it to the group offensive that the US had in Afghanistan or Iraq. At best, you could say the ground offensive in Lebanon for the most part as "limited". And for sure they COULD go north, but Israel has bombed the gas station, so no gas. They bombed the CIVILIAN transit/bus lines, so that won't work. Many roads and bridges are ruined. (My friend just came back from Lebabon, and he told me about the roads. He said they were so bad you could hardly walk on them).

And since the destruction of civilian infrastructure contravenes the Geneva Conventions, that makes some of the targets unlawful, which makes it terrorism by Israel. In addition, the collective punishment of Lebanese society by Israel for what Hezbolla has done is also illegal and constitutes terrorism.

Oh..and in several posts I said the Hezbolla ARE terrorists. It's just that Israel has responded with terrorist tactics of their own...

 

[Calabrio]

Afghanistan barely had an infastructure.

But bombing gas stations, bridges, and roads is a way to limit the ability of terrorists to wage war, while SAVING THE LIVES OF THE CIVILIANS by limiting the amount of force necessary. It is inconvient for the citizens, but it will save their lives.

 

[TheDude]

RRocket....

So how do you suppose Israel should go about protecting itself? If it is unlawful to destroy and/or target civilian structures and Hezbollah operates strictly out of such structures, what is Israel to do? And please remember, while you're strategizing a plan; Hezbollah is constantly lobbing rockets aimed at Israeli civilian targets.

 

[RRocket]

Oh, there is no question that Hezbollah is committing terrorism. Any my argument has never been otherwise. Nor have I said that Israel shouldn't protect itself. My whole rant was about Israel attacking civilian sites, and doing little to minimize civilian casualties. But it's a convenient argument for Israel to say "Terrorists use ________ so we bomb it". Gas stations, public transportation, roads, bridges, personal vehicles, hospitals, apartment buidlings, houses, airports, farm vehicles, TV stations, etc..There is little NOT being targeted. And certainly, if you are targeting civilian sites, you KNOW you are going to kill civilians. Does Hezbollah kill/fire on civilian sites? Yep. And it's wrong, and a terrorist attack. But that doesn't make it OK for Israel to do it either.

With their 220+ missile launches yesterday, Hez. killed a single civilian (thus far reported). And naturally, it's horrific, and people should be pissed about it. But no one is saying anything about all the civilians being killed in Lebanon. Is anyone pissed about it, except for me? Thus far, the children fatalities in Lebanon are far greater than ALL of the civilian AND military casualties in Israel. Call me anything you want...criticize me all you want...label me, whatever...but I just can't get on board with Israel with all the civilians being slaughtered in Lebanon.

 

[fossten]

Oh, there is no question that Hezbollah is committing terrorism. Any my argument has never been otherwise. Nor have I said that Israel shouldn't protect itself. My whole rant was about Israel attacking civilian sites, and doing little to minimize civilian casualties. But it's a convenient argument for Israel to say "Terrorists use ________ so we bomb it". Gas stations, public transportation, roads, bridges, personal vehicles, hospitals, apartment buidlings, houses, airports, farm vehicles, TV stations, etc..There is little NOT being targeted. And certainly, if you are targeting civilian sites, you KNOW you are going to kill civilians. Does Hezbollah kill/fire on civilian sites? Yep. And it's wrong, and a terrorist attack. But that doesn't make it OK for Israel to do it either.

With their 220+ missile launches yesterday, Hez. killed a single civilian (thus far reported). And naturally, it's horrific, and people should be pissed about it. But no one is saying anything about all the civilians being killed in Lebanon. Is anyone pissed about it, except for me? Thus far, the children fatalities in Lebanon are far greater than ALL of the civilian AND military casualties in Israel. Call me anything you want...criticize me all you want...label me, whatever...but I just can't get on board with Israel with all the civilians being slaughtered in Lebanon.

Blah blah blah...

You STILL haven't answered Deville's question. Shall we fill in the blank for you?

 

[RRocket]

I know what your answer is...drop the bombs and screw the civilians...But what's the right answer?? Who knows. But just because there is no "right" answer, it doesn't make what they are doing any less criminal...

 

[biglou71]

Ya know what? who cares? The Lebonese had thier chances to take care of the Hezebolah and didnt do it. Now Israel is. If civilians get killed in the process, such is the price of war. I dont feel one bit sorry for them.

I feel sorry for people who live in a dream world where wars are fought without any civilian deaths and no civilian infrastructure damage... Cause you are living in a world that does not and can not exsist.

 

[RRocket]

If civilians get killed in the process, such is the price of war.

So the next time Al Quaeda rams an airplane into a building and kills a few thousand more civilians you'll shrug your shoulders and say "Such is the price of war"? I mean you ARE at war with terrorists and radical Islam...Or will you feel differently because it's YOUR civilians that are dead this time?

At any given time, there are several thousand Americans in Israel for work or for pleasure. No doubt there are some there still. Would you also say the same thing if a few were killed by a Hezbollah rocket?

 

[fossten]

So the next time Al Quaeda rams an airplane into a building and kills a few thousand more civilians you'll shrug your shoulders and say "Such is the price of war"? I mean you ARE at war with terrorists and radical Islam...Or will you feel differently because it's YOUR civilians that are dead this time?

At any given time, there are several thousand Americans in Israel for work or for pleasure. No doubt there are some there still. Would you also say the same thing if a few were killed by a Hezbollah rocket?

Hey Ron,

Where is your outrage at 8 Israeli civilians being killed yesterday? Hmm? In case you haven't noticed, little or no Lebanese civilians have died in several days. And Israel is mounting a ground offensive.

Definitely pokes a big hole in your "Israel is the true terrorist" premise, doesn't it?