SamurAchzar
Platinum Member
- Feb 15, 2006
- 2,422
- 3
- 76
Where has anyone blamed anyone else here for being Anti-semitic? In all my time here I haven't seen even one argument degrade to that. Nice to share your alternative reality with us, though.
This has already been discussed many times over -- those were textbook targets, while those that weren't, were made targets when Hezbollah used them.
It can be said that it hasn't been managed properly, but Israel was also fighting with one hand behind its back, since it was held to a higher stadard, while Hezbollah unhindered by such matters, launching 4,000 rockets directly at civilians.
Israel should've flattened entire towns in order to take care of Hezbollah's logistcs, thus deny them easy access to food & water, as well as to the weapons they had stashed in houses, shops, mosques, and any other possible place.
Really? Anything to back that up?
I thought Hezbollah didn't release any numbers as for their losses, and Hezbollah fighters don't exactly wear a uniform, so, when one dies, well, take away the gun and you a poor "innocent" civilian killed by Israel, all ready for the meadie feast.
SamurAchzar
Platinum Member
- Feb 15, 2006
- 2,422
- 3
- 76
It's a sad fact of war - and I don't say it with any cynicism - but you have to remember that many of the Lebanese towns and cities were used for firing at Israel.
ProfJohn
Lifer
- Jul 28, 2006
- 18,161
- 7
- 0
Newsflash: American soldiers used phosphorus grenades against Germans during World War 2, guess that makes out soldiers and leaders guilty of war crimes?
Anyone who compares the use of phosphorus munitions with the use of sarin and nerve gas is a total idiot.
Here are some nice details for you:
Protocol III of the Convention on Certain Conventional Weapons prohibits the use of white phosphorous against civilians or in civilian areas. However, the use against military targets outside civilian areas is not explicitly banned by any treaty. (Which is what Israel did)
Phosphorous is also NOT a chemical weapon:
There is a non-binding debate on whether white phosphorus should be considered a chemical weapon and thus be outlawed by the Chemical Weapons Convention (CWC) which went into effect in April of 1997. The convention is meant to prohibit weapons that are "dependent on the use of the toxic properties of chemicals as a method of warfare" (Article II, Definitions, 9, "Purposes not Prohibited" c.). The convention defines a "toxic chemical" as a chemical "which through its chemical action on life processes can cause death, temporary incapacitation or permanent harm to humans or animals".(CWC, II). Because its effects are physical and not chemical, WP was not included in the CWC's original annex listing chemicals that fell under this definition for purposes of verification
Why don't you guy just save he rest of us the BS and post "Death to Israel" as your thread and let us move on.
And Fornax, please back up your "ratio of civilians to military killed by Israel is about 100:1" claim with a link so we can all see how awful Israel really is
Anyone who compares the use of phosphorus munitions with the use of sarin and nerve gas is a total idiot.
Here are some nice details for you:
Protocol III of the Convention on Certain Conventional Weapons prohibits the use of white phosphorous against civilians or in civilian areas. However, the use against military targets outside civilian areas is not explicitly banned by any treaty. (Which is what Israel did)
Phosphorous is also NOT a chemical weapon:
There is a non-binding debate on whether white phosphorus should be considered a chemical weapon and thus be outlawed by the Chemical Weapons Convention (CWC) which went into effect in April of 1997. The convention is meant to prohibit weapons that are "dependent on the use of the toxic properties of chemicals as a method of warfare" (Article II, Definitions, 9, "Purposes not Prohibited" c.). The convention defines a "toxic chemical" as a chemical "which through its chemical action on life processes can cause death, temporary incapacitation or permanent harm to humans or animals".(CWC, II). Because its effects are physical and not chemical, WP was not included in the CWC's original annex listing chemicals that fell under this definition for purposes of verification
Why don't you guy just save he rest of us the BS and post "Death to Israel" as your thread and let us move on.
And Fornax, please back up your "ratio of civilians to military killed by Israel is about 100:1" claim with a link so we can all see how awful Israel really is
Very few historians of the war doubt it. Just the firebombing of Dresden should have put some of ours and British generals and rulers on the gallows. There are many other examples. We recently learned that during the war the British were running secret torture chambers which even the Gestapo would have found disturbing.
Why am I not surprised that you advocate war crimes? Exactly this is expressly forbidden. What you describe would be Ahmaninejad's wet dream if applied to Israel. Of course, rules of war have never been concern for Israel. Held to higher standard? When virtually all targets were civilian infrastructure and housing? Who is kidding whom?
That's lots of hot-air fornax, yet you did not provide a link to backup the kill ratio you asserted.
Good to see you're resuming the heart-wrenching rhetoric of yours, while obviously ignoring facts, like the ones that Hezbollah operated from civilian areas (example), thus making the area legitimate targets, and their responsibility. If we apply your standards, I doubt anything would've qualified as a military target.
As for advocating war crimes, don't put the cart before the horse: the population should be warned to evacuate (as they had been, via radio and leaflets), then they'd be given some time to leave, and then the are should be bombed. Whoever does not leave, does so at their own risk. That's the only solution when you have a militia that uses the civilian infrastructure for its operation, and is supported by the civilian population -- you create a buffer zone.
Good to see you're resuming the heart-wrenching rhetoric of yours, while obviously ignoring facts, like the ones that Hezbollah operated from civilian areas (example), thus making the area legitimate targets, and their responsibility. If we apply your standards, I doubt anything would've qualified as a military target.
As for advocating war crimes, don't put the cart before the horse: the population should be warned to evacuate (as they had been, via radio and leaflets), then they'd be given some time to leave, and then the are should be bombed. Whoever does not leave, does so at their own risk. That's the only solution when you have a militia that uses the civilian infrastructure for its operation, and is supported by the civilian population -- you create a buffer zone.
I will admit that Israel has a right to exist IF and ONLY IF it can defend itself without the assistence of any outside power, otherwise, nature should take her natural course and she should be destroyed. This goes for any other nation on Earth. Why exist when you're nothing more than an artificual abberation? We see that in Africa (the Africans are actually trying to apply the laws of nature with their countless civil wars), where Europeans phuked things up so bad that millions may die before a "correction" settles in.
The same is true for Israel. Jews were literally given a country overnight. They didn't conquer it or nothing. Of course, they've done a commendable job defending it for 50 years, but unless they lower the temperature in their neigborhood, Israel is destined to face the problems of political Africa, where she is constantly attacked because her tribe claims dominance over a strip of land that'll mean nothing a million years from now.
The same is true for Israel. Jews were literally given a country overnight. They didn't conquer it or nothing. Of course, they've done a commendable job defending it for 50 years, but unless they lower the temperature in their neigborhood, Israel is destined to face the problems of political Africa, where she is constantly attacked because her tribe claims dominance over a strip of land that'll mean nothing a million years from now.
In Lebanon: 1184 Lebanese (virtually all of them civilians), about 1/3 of them children. Hizbollah casualties: 184 (accurate figures are possible because the funerals are very public). Keep in mind that the millions cluster bomblets that Israel left behind will continue claiming civilian lives.
In Israel: 44 civilians killed (mostly from rockets), and about 150-180 soldiers and reservists killed. This is the only Israeli war I know about where military casualties on both sides were roughly equal. As virtually all observers noted, IDF met their match (and more) during this war. As always, Israel has enormous advantage in killing unarmed civilians and children.
It's a pity the Israeli airforce didn't follow your logic, as they bombed and strafed columns of refugees trying to leave. A lot of the Lebanese civilian casualties were from such raids.
But I'm sure Hamas and Hizbollah would love your thinking. All they need to do is warn Israeli citizens to leave Israel. Whoever does not leave, does so at their own risk. Therefore the militias will have complete freedom and will be fully justified in your eyes to bomb and shell the hell out of all Israel territories they can reach. I mean, they gave the warning, right? By your logic, after the first Hizbullah rocket, whatever civilians remained in Hizbullah's range have only themselves to blame.
really? so telling people to leave while you blow up their homes, and then blow up their van when they are on the road to homelessness?
palehorse
Lifer
- Dec 21, 2005
- 11,521
- 0
- 76
so wait, the OP is comparing incindiaries (weapons that make things, and people, catch fire...ooooOOO) used against a militia to cyanide gas attacks done against civlians to wipe out entire villages?!
bah.. what a joke. THIS is why we will never win another war decisively... someday we'll be politically forced to use rubber bullets against tanks, AK's, and RPG's!
bah.. what a joke. THIS is why we will never win another war decisively... someday we'll be politically forced to use rubber bullets against tanks, AK's, and RPG's!
The difference is that Hez will never issue such a warning because their intent is to kill civilians while Israel's intent is to kill militia; and, in terms of maintaining the supposed "moral high ground," intent is everything. In fact, this is the definitive difference between the West and the fanatics we are warring against every day.
- Oct 30, 2000
- 42,589
- 5
- 0
If you wish to apply those type of rules for Israel as long as you will also apply it to their opponents.
Remove Syria, Iran, and others from the equation that you laid out in my sub-quote of yours. Israel should be able to stand on her own if others choose to leave her alone.
The Hamas and Hezbollah can not stand on their own and are willing proxies for others.
I personally don't really care. We have our own war's to worry about crimes in. And the people we are fighting are continuously violating them.
Funny, there's been others in the past that have appied Darwin's theory in such a twisted manner; history doesn't remeber them favorably.
As for surviving on your own, you're forgetting that the USSR was a close ally to all Middle East countries, supplying them with weapons and military training. How ever, Israel went through periods of arms embargo, and was even required to reverse engineer the French Mirage plane in order to make its own version.
Seems like they've done fairly well when they were on their own.
Yeah, because there were so many incidents like that.
Still, seems a little bit more considerate than firing 4,000 rockets at their homes without any prior warning, but that's what people like you do: ignore inconvenient details.
Let the hate-fest continue.....
Hah, that's good to know that some warming few hours before you do anything absolve you from using banned stuff. I guess it's now open season to use anything and everything including nuclear weapon as long as you drop some leaflets and tell people to leave.
TRENDING THREADS
-
Discussion Zen 5 Speculation (EPYC Turin and Strix Point/Granite Ridge - Ryzen 9000)- Started by DisEnchantment
- Replies: 20K
-
Discussion Intel current and future Lakes & Rapids thread- Started by TheF34RChannel
- Replies: 23K
-
Discussion Intel Meteor, Arrow, Lunar & Panther Lakes Discussion Threads
- Started by Tigerick
- Replies: 12K
-
Discussion Speculation: Zen 4 (EPYC 4 "Genoa", Ryzen 7000, etc.)- Started by Vattila
- Replies: 13K
-
Facebook
Twitter