Human Rights Watch accuses Israel of war crimes

[mhgaffney]

Human Rights Watch is not alone. Amnesty International released a similar report a few days ago. I suppose all of these folks are anti semitic? Oh please. Here's the link

http://informationclearinghouse.info/article14343.htm

Yesterday the Israeli government admitted there were no Hezbollah rocket
attacks coming from Qana. This was reported in Haaretz. It was a case of bombing civilians, pure and simple. And even though the US media is sparing us, you can be sure the rest of the world has seen the devastated bodies of the 37 children who died.

Other evidence includes numerous reports that Israel is intentionally hitting aid trucks and ambulances. Here's a video

http://informationclearinghouse.info/article14352.htm

At the founding of our country George Washington warned about the danger of entangling alliances. No one listened to that sound advice. We are now up to our neck in the mother of all entanglements: an incestuous relationship with the state of Israel that now makes critical thinking impossible. America has become impotent, incapable of acting in its own interests. We are bound hand and foot, and are being dragged step by step into a nightmare.

Of course it's a matter of perception who is using who. The Pakistani intelligence chief sees Washington using Israel for its grand designs. I see Israel using us, but probably both views are partly correct. This is the nature of entanglements. Goals and objectives become blurred until confusion reigns. That about sums it up.

[Hotrod]

Until you can prove that Israel actually bombed that building for the sole purpose of killing children your hot air is only doing futher damage to the ozone layer.

One key word here is "War" people will die during a war. All this tripe being spewed by people who are like minded as yourself is nothing more then pro-Arab goo.

[Rohirrim]

And Hizbollah is launching rockets into civilian areas without the slightest regard for where they land. In fact, I'm sure their concept is, the more civilians the better. This is war between insane people. Pick a side.

[Bronco_Beerslug]

And Hizbollah is launching rockets into civilian areas without the slightest regard for where they land. In fact, I'm sure their concept is, the more civilians the better. This is war between insane people. Pick a side.
Exactly!

[L.A. BRONCOS FAN]

The U.S. government has done more than to just pick a side - it's footing the bill for 20% of Israel's annual defense budget (your tax dollars at work.)

Israel, in turn, takes this $$ and purchases weapons and munitions from Lockheed Martin, Raytheon, Boeing, et al. (Cozy, huh?)

In other words, all those "precision-guided" bombs that keep "accidentally" blowing the sh*t out of civilian developments and infrastructure in Lebanon are stamped "made in America."

And people wonder why they hate us? :pity:

[L.A. BRONCOS FAN]

Who Is Israel's Friend?

Endorsing a misguided policy doesn't make Israel safer nor does it advance the interests of the United States. Indeed, there is a powerful argument that the violent course of action now being pursued by Tel Aviv and Washington will prove disastrous to both countries.

Waging war may satisfy short-term desires for revenge or relieve a few fears about the future, but the violence is taking the two nations in a far more dangerous direction, possibly past a point of no return. If the course is maintained much longer, endless war and widespread devastation may become inevitable.

Israel cannot escape one overpowering reality: it can never build buffer zones wide enough to protect itself from possible rocket attacks, anymore than the United States can prevent some future 9/11 atrocity by invading Arab countries and bombing every suspected terrorist target.

Continued:

http://consortiumnews.com/2006/073106.html

[L.A. BRONCOS FAN]

Shock & Awe

by Paul Krugman

One of the truly nightmarish things about the war in Lebanon has been watching Israel repeat the same mistakes Bush made in Iraq. It's as if Prime Minister Ehud Olmert has been possessed by the deranged spirit of Donald Rumsfeld.

The most compelling argument against an invasion of Iraq wasn't the suspicion many of us had, which turned out to be correct, that the administration's case for war was fraudulent. It was the fact that the real reason government officials and many pundits wanted a war was their belief that, if the United States used its military might to hit someone in the Arab world, never mind exactly who, it would shock and awe Islamic radicals into giving up terrorism was, all too obviously, a childish fantasy..

http://rozius.blogspot.com/2006/07/paul-krugman-shock-and-awe.html

[elsid13]

In other words, all those "precision-guided" bombs that keep "accidentally" blowing the sh*t out of civilian developments and infrastructure in Lebanon are stamped "made in America."

:

155M rounds are not precision guided muntions!!!!! What happens is the rockets are fired from an area, and the IDF respondes by bracket that area with artilley rounds, it the only way those system work. Since the rockets launcher are mobile, it not cost effective to fire a PG weapon at them.

[SteveTensi13]

Amnesty International? Human rights Watch? Sheesh, might as well lump in Al Jazeera as well! They are not exactly pro-American and are especially anti-Israel.

[footstepsfrom#27]

Amnesty International? Human rights Watch? Sheesh, might as well lump in Al Jazeera as well! They are not exactly pro-American and are especially anti-Israel.
HRW is an amalgamation of several other former HR groups, most of them decidedly leftist. AI donated campaign funds to Kerry and Teddy Kennedy and has ACLU lawyers on their staff...decidedly left of center. The vast majority of the international human rights reporting sector is like much of the large class NP and socially responsible biz sector...dominated by SF and Boston based think tank stars and liberal elites. Even if they weren't biased, it's impossible for observers on the ground to really know any more than the combatants tell them, and it's not likely Hezbollah will admit to anything since they want to embarass Israel more than they want to see Lebanese children kept from harm. I'd be willing to wager that most of the people confidently asserting Israeli "war crimes" have never been closer to a real war than CNN.

[L.A. BRONCOS FAN]

Even if they weren't biased, it's impossible for observers on the ground to really know any more than the combatants tell them...

???

Are you suggesting that observers on the ground couldn't possibly witness an attack on civilians?

[L.A. BRONCOS FAN]

155M rounds are not precision guided muntions!!!!! What happens is the rockets are fired from an area, and the IDF respondes by bracket that area with artilley rounds, it the only way those system work. Since the rockets launcher are mobile, it not cost effective to fire a PG weapon at them.

Good God, do you ever let up with the right-wing disinfo?

U.S. Speeds Up Bomb Delivery for the Israelis

WASHINGTON, July 21 — The Bush administration is rushing a delivery of precision-guided bombs to Israel, which requested the expedited shipment last week after beginning its air campaign against Hezbollah targets in Lebanon, American officials said Friday.

http://www.nytimes.com/2006/07/22/world/middleeast/22military.html?ex=1311220800&en=f256f1d08772835d&ei=5090&partner=rssuserland&emc=rss

Israel 'presses US on bomb sale'

Reports from the US suggest Washington has been asked to speed up a shipment of precision bombs sold as part of a deal with Israel last year.

According to a report in the New York Times, Israel made the request after it began its air assault on Hezbollah targets in Lebanon 12 days ago.

The weapons, including 5,000lb laser-guided bombs, are part of a sale signed last year.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/5207066.stm

[L.A. BRONCOS FAN]

Amnesty International? Human rights Watch? Sheesh, might as well lump in Al Jazeera as well! They are not exactly pro-American and are especially anti-Israel.

Right on cue:

Impugn the credibility of a source and pretend this is the same thing as disconfirming its facts or discrediting its claims.

When I read the crap you post I understand how propagandists and professional bullsh*t artists like Hannity and Oxycontin Boy are able to hoodwink people of your intellectual stature.

[SactownOrangeSunday]

The U.S. government has done more than to just pick a side - it's footing the bill for 20% of Israel's annual defense budget (your tax dollars at work.)

Israel, in turn, takes this $$ and purchases weapons and munitions from Lockheed Martin, Raytheon, Boeing, et al. (Cozy, huh?)

In other words, all those "precision-guided" bombs that keep "accidentally" blowing the sh*t out of civilian developments and infrastructure in Lebanon are stamped "made in America."

And people wonder why they hate us? :pity:

Well at least something made in America is being used!!!!! :thanku:

[L.A. BRONCOS FAN]

Well at least something made in America is being used!!!!! :thanku:

Yeah, what else can we offer them nowadays?

Tanning salon hours? Colonel Sanders chicken wings? A fixed-rate mortgage?

[elsid13]

[QUOTE=L.A. BRONCOS FAN]Good God, do you ever let up with the right-wing disinfo?

U.S. Speeds Up Bomb Delivery for the Israelis

WASHINGTON, July 21 — The Bush administration is rushing a delivery of precision-guided bombs to Israel, which requested the expedited shipment last week after beginning its air campaign against Hezbollah targets in Lebanon, American officials said Friday.

http://www.nytimes.com/2006/07/22/world/middleeast/22military.html?ex=1311220800&en=f256f1d08772835d&ei=5090&partner=rssuserland&emc=rss

Israel 'presses US on bomb sale'

Watch CNN, what is firing in the Background???? That a 155M Howitzer. It has a range about 20-28 miles, depending upon weather. IT IS NOT A PG WEAPON. They are using a mix of weapons system depend on the tactical mission. Most of the towns hit in South Lebanon are being hit with artillery fire which is not as accurate as PG system used by the IDF's F15. 155M shells are area weapons.

If you look at attacks in Beirut and limited damage being done to select targets those are PG system hits.

[Bronco_Beerslug]

As this goes on it galvanizes the religious fanatics of the world against us, creating more and more terrorists.

-------------------------------------------------------------
Israeli air raid kills 33 civilians in Lebanon
By Alistair Lyon, Special Correspondent 35 minutes ago

BEIRUT (Reuters) - An Israeli air strike killed at least 33 farm workers in northeastern Lebanon on Friday and Hizbollah fired scores of rockets into Israel in a worsening conflict that world powers have failed to halt.

Most of the dead and 20 wounded were taken to nearby
Syria after the raid near Qaa in the Bekaa Valley. At least three rockets hit a farm where workers, mostly Syrian Kurds, were loading plums and peaches on to trucks, local officials said.

It was the second deadliest strike in Lebanon after an air raid killed up to 54 civilians in the village of Qana on Sunday.

Israeli aircraft also destroyed four bridges on the main coastal highway north of Beirut, disrupting efforts to aid civilians displaced or trapped by the conflict in Lebanon.

With no action to end the 24-day-old war emerging from the United Nations, fierce fighting raged in the south as Israeli troops tried to expand seven small border enclaves they control.

Hizbollah guerrillas fired more than 100 rockets into northern Israel, killing three people and wounding several, medics said. Rockets killed eight Israelis on Thursday.

The bombing of bridges in the Christian heartlands north of Beirut cut off the coastal highway to Syria, which the United Nations called its "umbilical cord" for aid to Lebanon.

The bridge at Maameltein, north of Beirut, was split by a huge crater which partially engulfed a crushed minivan. Further north, another bridge lay in the valley it once spanned.

"The whole road is gone," said Astrid van Genderen Stort of the U.N. refugee agency. "It's really a major setback because we used this highway to move staff and supplies into the country."

Israel said it had destroyed the bridges to prevent Syria from rearming Hizbollah, which is also backed by
Iran.

The
European Commission said Israeli bombing of routes north of Beirut had made it harder to deliver humanitarian aid.

"We will need guarantees for the safety of our people on the ground if we are to successfully continue the provision of aid," said European Commissioner for Humanitarian Aid, Louis Michel.

The U.N. World Food Program called off planned convoys to the southern port city of Tyre after air raids on a Beirut suburb prevented drivers from reaching the assembly point.

CONT (http://tinyurl.com/z96k8)

[Antilles]

One of my best friends is a policy analyst for HRW and even he is the first to admit that, while not anti-Israel per se, HRW has a record of being highly critical of Israel.

Ironically, they are currently being accused of the exact opposite by the Egyptian Government. When critical of abuses in Egypt, HWR has to answer charges of being pro-Israel.

So I guess the take home lesson is, HWR (or any non-profit, policy organization, for that matter) is an unbiased, reliable source only as long as they are on your side?

[footstepsfrom#27]

As this goes on it galvanizes the religious fanatics of the world against us, creating more and more terrorists.

-------------------------------------------------------------
Israeli air raid kills 33 civilians in Lebanon
By Alistair Lyon, Special Correspondent 35 minutes ago

BEIRUT (Reuters) - An Israeli air strike killed at least 33 farm workers in northeastern Lebanon on Friday and Hizbollah fired scores of rockets into Israel in a worsening conflict that world powers have failed to halt.
Headlines screaming of another Israeli attack...but no mention of the number of Israeli dead here...only those killed in Lebanon...interesting.Most of the dead and 20 wounded were taken to nearby
Syria after the raid near Qaa in the Bekaa Valley.
No mention of where the Israeli casualties were takenAt least three rockets hit a farm where workers, mostly Syrian Kurds, were loading plums and peaches on to trucks, local officials said.
"Local officials" said? Of course they did...I know Israel is worried about the number of plums and peaches finding their way into Lebanon these days from Syria so obviously this is the truth.It was the second deadliest strike in Lebanon after an air raid killed up to 54 civilians in the village of Qana on Sunday.
No word still on how many Jewish people died? No report on that? Hmmm...wonder why?
Israeli aircraft also destroyed four bridges on the main coastal highway north of Beirut, disrupting efforts to aid civilians displaced or trapped by the conflict in Lebanon.
Disrupting aid to civilians but "obviously" having no impact on military movement of men and equipment, or surely that would have been reported too I guess.With no action to end the 24-day-old war emerging from the United Nations, fierce fighting raged in the south as Israeli troops tried to expand seven small border enclaves they control.
No word on what Hezbollah was trying to do?...Only Israel trying to "expand control"? I love the loaded language...perfect for people who don't think for themselves...
Hizbollah guerrillas fired more than 100 rockets into northern Israel, killing three people and wounding several, medics said. Rockets killed eight Israelis on Thursday.
Ah...FINALLY...buried deep in the story...a single obligatory line about Israeli casualties...where by this time most people have gone to something else.The bombing of bridges in the Christian heartlands north of Beirut cut off the coastal highway to Syria, which the United Nations called its "umbilical cord" for aid to Lebanon.

The bridge at Maameltein, north of Beirut, was split by a huge crater which partially engulfed a crushed minivan. Further north, another bridge lay in the valley it once spanned.

"The whole road is gone," said Astrid van Genderen Stort of the U.N. refugee agency. "It's really a major setback because we used this highway to move staff and supplies into the country."

Israel said it had destroyed the bridges to prevent Syria from rearming Hizbollah, which is also backed by
Iran.

The
European Commission said Israeli bombing of routes north of Beirut had made it harder to deliver humanitarian aid.

"We will need guarantees for the safety of our people on the ground if we are to successfully continue the provision of aid," said European Commissioner for Humanitarian Aid, Louis Michel.

The U.N. World Food Program called off planned convoys to the southern port city of Tyre after air raids on a Beirut suburb prevented drivers from reaching the assembly point.

CONT (http://tinyurl.com/z96k8)
Yup...an entire story about the conflict and you have ONE LINE about Israeli casualties...probably minimized drastically since it's tough to see 100 rockets killing only 3 people...and reams of stuff about the damage to Lebanon...all this from the leftist Salon.com

And you wonder why I think this is a bunch of crap? Please...

[Meck77]

The U.S. government has done more than to just pick a side - it's footing the bill for 20% of Israel's annual defense budget (your tax dollars at work.)

Israel, in turn, takes this $$ and purchases weapons and munitions from Lockheed Martin, Raytheon, Boeing, et al. (Cozy, huh?)

In other words, all those "precision-guided" bombs that keep "accidentally" blowing the sh*t out of civilian developments and infrastructure in Lebanon are stamped "made in America."

And people wonder why they hate us? :pity:

Exactly....Not only are my tax dollars and yours funding the madness I'm expecting a nice act of terrorism in the United States within the next 6-12months as a result.

It's going to be a sad day when it comes. We'll pull our American Flags out, hang them on our cars and drive around again and wonder why it happened. Only difference is I think more Americans might think differently as to why we got hit again.

[Rigs11]

[/COLOR]
Yup...an entire story about the conflict and you have ONE LINE about Israeli casualties...probably minimized drastically since it's tough to see 100 rockets killing only 3 people...and reams of stuff about the damage to Lebanon...all this from the leftist Salon.com

And you wonder why I think this is a bunch of crap? Please...
Here is this a better source for ya?Sheesh..

[Bronco_Beerslug]

[/color]
Yup...an entire story about the conflict and you have ONE LINE about Israeli casualties...probably minimized drastically since it's tough to see 100 rockets killing only 3 people...and reams of stuff about the damage to Lebanon...all this from the leftist Salon.com

And you wonder why I think this is a bunch of crap? Please... Please try and keep your facts straight. Your bias for Israel is more than apparent but don't invent "truths". The link is from Reuters and the story is on every network.

[defenseman]

I see the "ostriches" have their heads in the ground again. These terrorists aren't going away unless you make them go away, simple as that. Doesn't matter what course of action is taken by anyone in the free world. Get used to it...dman

[Rohirrim]

I see the "ostriches" have their heads in the ground again. These terrorists aren't going away unless you make them go away, simple as that. Doesn't matter what course of action is taken by anyone in the free world. Get used to it...dman


http://www.hasbro.com/common/images/products/40509_imageMain200.jpg

[mhgaffney]

Here is another report about Israeli war crimes. This one comes from Jews in Israel who are horrified by what is happening in their name.

This is no isolated case. Gaza is now under attack no less than Lebanon. It's very clear that Israel's war was long planned. The capture of the Israeli soldiers was merely a pretext for what had been in the works for months. Of course the US media spins this as Israel defending itself. But the facts are very different. What we are witnessing is a scorched earth policy. Folks this is state terrorism. So who are the terrorists?

July 12, 2006:
Killing of 9 members of the Abu Selmiyeh family in Gaza bombing: Grave suspicion of a war crime

http://www.btselem.org/english/firearms/20060712_Family_killed_in_Gaza_Shelling.asp


At about 4:00 a.m. on July 12, an Israeli air force plane bombed a three-story building in the Sheikh Radwan neighborhood in Gaza city. The bomb caused the building to collapse and killed Nabil and Salwah Abu Selmiyeh , who lived in the building that was bombed, and seven of their children: Nasrallah, age 4; Aya, age 7; Yihya, age 9; Ayman, age 12; Huda, age 14; Sumayah, age 16; and Basma, age 17. Another son, 'Awad, age 19, was moderately injured. In addition, another 40 people who lived in the adjacent buildings were injured.

According the IDF Spokesperson's statement, the house that was shelled "served as a hideout for senior activist in the Hamas military wing, including Muhammad Deif who was in the building at the time of the attack. At the time, those  present were planning the continued military activity of Hamas." According to media reports, the father of the family, Nabil Abu Salmiya, who was killed, was a lecturer at the Islamic University and a Hamas activist. However, the IDF statement does not mention Nabil or Salwah Abu Selmiyeh by name, nor any of their seven children killed in the bombing. As in similar cases in the past, the military has not provided evidence or additional details to explain or justify the killing of innocent civilians.

Considering the location of  the building in the heart of a crowded neighborhood, the fact that the building itself housed a family of ten, and the time chosen for the attack - in the early hours of the morning - those who planned the bombing should have known that widespread harm to civilians was inevitable.

The principle of proportionality, a central pillar of international humanitarian law to which Israel is obligated, prohibits conducting an attack, even against a legitimate military target, if it is known that the attack will cause harm to civilians that is excessive compared to the anticipated military advantage. Israel bears the burden of proof that a particular attack was expected to achieve a military advantage significant enough to justify harming civilians. This burden of proof also requires proof that there was no reasonable alternative to the attack. Violation of the principle of proportionality is defined as a war crime, and therefore carries individual criminal liability for those responsible.

The circumstances of this incident, and the consequences raise the grave suspicion that the bombing was a disproportionate attack, of a nature defined as a war crime. B'Tselem turned to the Israeli Judge Advocate General requesting that he immediately initiate a Military Police Investigation against those responsible for this bombing, including the IDF Chief of Staff and the Commander of the Air Force.

[W*GS]

The ethics of war

Mind those proportions
Jul 27th 2006
From The Economist print edition

As the war in Lebanon shows, there are several ways to make a moral judgment

“Yes, Israel has a right to exist and defend itself, but bombing houses, roads and utilities and killing hundreds of civilians is surely far out of proportion to the offence it suffered.” “But doesn't it make a difference that our enemy in Lebanon, with its arsenal of rockets standing at 12,000, wants to destroy our state? Consider all that, and surely our response (which falls well short of our potential and tries to minimise civilian deaths) is restrained: proportionate, in fact, to the threat we face.”

An argument on just those lines is going on between Israel and its detractors in the world. Both sides in the argument presume that proportionality in war has some broadly accepted meaning which rational people can discuss, refine and apply to real situations. Are they right?

If it is a question about the state of philosophical debate on the morals of war, the answer is yes. Most Western thinking about military ethics has its roots in Augustine, the sainted Christian writer from North Africa whose elaborate theory of “just warfare” has provided a framework for debate over the 16 centuries since his death. And for philosophers in the Augustinian tradition, proportionality is one of the things you should consider when contemplating war. Others are the probability of success and whether warfare is a last resort: have all the other options been tried? In this context, the proportionality question is judged by the destruction which the war will cause, weighed against the good it may do.

Put like that, proportionality is a concept that most Israelis can live with. They would argue that the good which might be achieved by smashing Hizbullah (and the threat it poses not only to Israel but also to Lebanon and other states) does outweigh the travails of Lebanon's civilians.

But proportionality in that Augustinian sense covers only half of the modern debate about military force. What today's Augustinians are talking about is jus ad bellum, in other words whether it is right to be fighting at all. Since 1945, there has been a new emphasis in diplomacy and jurisprudence, and in the language of human-rights lobbies, on the other big dilemma in military ethics: jus in bello—literally, law in war. The question here is this: once the bullets are flying and you are a belligerent, by what methods and weaponry is it legitimate to wage your war? How careful must you be to spare civilians and non-combatants, such as prisoners and wounded?

That is what the four Geneva Conventions (extensively revised in 1949, though born of a process that began 80 years earlier) and their three “additional protocols” are all about. The Hague war-crimes tribunal, which was set up to punish the enormities of the Balkan wars, has a similar emphasis; it has little remit to consider the cause in which atrocious acts were committed. And Human Rights Watch (HRW), a New York-based group that monitors wars and other abuses all over the world, is even blunter about its area of concern: it consciously blocks out questions about jus ad bellum and concentrates its efforts entirely on jus in bello.

Using these narrow criteria, HRW did an extensive audit of the American-led campaigns against Serbia in 1999 and against Iraq in 2003—and found that both times the attacking coalition infringed humanitarian law by failing to take enough care to distinguish between military and civilian targets. These rebukes stopped short of denouncing the campaigns in general; from HRW's point of view, that was for others to decide.

But in the case of Iraq, in particular, certain specific misdeeds were identified: using cluster munitions in populated areas, and attacking electric-power facilities in the city of Nasiriya, which, though of some military use, were also vital to civilian welfare. In other respects, HRW found, the coalition tried quite hard to spare civilians.

One of the tests that human-rights analysts use to make these judgments is that of proportionality, albeit in a slightly different sense from the one Augustinians use. For those who monitor human rights, a key piece of language is Article 51 of the first additional protocol to the Geneva Conventions. This outlaws attacks that “may be expected to cause incidental loss of civilian life” which would be “excessive in relation to the concrete and direct military advantage”. Even in situations such as Lebanon today, where most of the 1949 Conventions are technically inapplicable because Hizbullah is not a state, the Geneva language is seen as a guide to the spirit of customary humanitarian law.

The trouble is that measuring civilian woes against military gain is a tall order, especially in a densely populated place like Lebanon. For one thing, they are hard to separate: almost any piece of “infrastructure”—a road, a power plant, a reservoir—can serve some military purpose but also helps keep civilians alive.

Critics of Israel's campaign in Lebanon (and Gaza) have been framing their attack in the language of jus in bello. Indeed, HRW has already deplored Israel's use of anti-personnel cluster bombs—as well as Hizbullah's firing into Israeli towns of Katyusha rockets, “dirty” weapons that are too crude to discriminate between soldiers and civilians. The lobby group says other aspects of the campaign need more time to assess. Others are saying that there is no military advantage that could outweigh the harm caused to Lebanese innocents who have been killed or forced to flee their homes in terrifying conditions and seen their livelihoods destroyed.

Indeed, it is not clear, judging by the latest reports, that the Israeli army is achieving its declared aim of removing Hizbullah's military threat to Israel's security. So the killing of some 400 civilians and the displacement of perhaps 800,000 of them cannot even be weighed in the moral balance. By this criterion, Israel's actions will surely be adjudged disproportionate in effect, if not by intention.

But the calculus of military advantage versus human cost, suggested in the Geneva formula, could still be used to justify some of Israel's recent tactics. For example, using large bombs to assassinate terrorist leaders, in the knowledge that civilian bystanders will also be killed. When the military gain is so big, Israeli hawks argue, some “breaking of eggs” may be inevitable. That, of course, is no comfort to the families thus bereaved.

In the end, some philosophers think, debate about the ethics of war will have to reintegrate two ancient questions—about the right to go to war, and the methods that may be used—which have become artificially separated in modern times. To put it more simply, nobody will be impressed with a line that goes: “We didn't start this war, so our cause is just—but now that it's begun, we'll fight as dirty as we like.” Augustine saw the questions of jus ad bellum and jus in bello as intertwined—and so, probably, should modern man.

Copyright © 2006 The Economist Newspaper and The Economist Group. All rights reserved.

[Rohirrim]

I wonder what Augustine would think of those who specifically target civilians, and then hide among civilians to thwart retribution, or even sacrifice civilians for propaganda purposes?

[defenseman]

http://www.hasbro.com/common/images/products/40509_imageMain200.jpg


Present methods, while inefficient, eventually the desired outcome is reached. They are dead and unable to perform their cowardly acts on the free world forever. I'll acknowledge a better "mouse trap" is required wrt today's scenario's and the slow but sure destruction of the terrorists regimes and the groups that support them. However, I'll say it again, they are not going away not matter what course of action the free world takes. If allowed , their cowardly mantra of death will continue to haunt us all. They will go away, if, we make them go away, simple as that. This fact will never change. To deny this, is simply shooting ones' self in the foot..dman

[Bronco_Beerslug]

Present methods, while inefficient, eventually the desired outcome is reached. They are dead and unable to perform their cowardly acts on the free world forever. I'll acknowledge a better "mouse trap" is required wrt today's scenario's and the slow but sure destruction of the terrorists regimes and the groups that support them. However, I'll say it again, they are not going away not matter what course of action the free world takes. If allowed , their cowardly mantra of death will continue to haunt us all. They will go away, if, we make them go away, simple as that. This fact will never change. To deny this, is simply shooting ones' self in the foot..dman
Maybe I'm missing something? Can you show any facts or figures that there is ANY destruction of ANY terrorist regimes or groups happening and in fact, their numbers are not growing?

[defenseman]

Maybe I'm missing something? Can you show any facts or figures that there is ANY destruction of ANY terrorist regimes or groups happening and in fact, their numbers are not growing?

Can anyone? I can tell you what will happen if we back off and allow them free reign to spread their sick disease to every corner of the free world, you'll end up with an AK-47 either up your back side OR to your temple, shortly thereafter removing any gray matter existing between your ears and depositing them on the deck. This will happen to you or someone like you. I gaurantee it. Enjoyable consequence for sticking ones head in the sand, I'm sure...dman

[Bronco_Beerslug]

Can anyone? I can tell you what will happen if we back off and allow them free reign to spread their sick disease to every corner of the free world, you'llend up with an AK-47 either up your back side OR to your temple, shortly thereafter removing any gray matter existing between your ears and depositing them on the deck. This will happen to you or someone like you. I gaurantee it. Enjoyable consequence for sticking ones head in the sand, I'm sure...dman
You're avoiding the question. You're advocating killing as many people as possible. I want you to show me how this is defeating terrorism and not creating it. Now you're one saying this is the only way to beat terrorism, show something, anything that proves you're right. I'll buy into it if that's actually true.

--------------------------------------------------
Terrorist Recruitment
As both the 9/11 Commission and the Senate Intelligence Committee found, there were no operational ties between al Qaeda agents and Saddam Hussein prior to the U.S. invasion. While no Iraqi terror threat previously existed, a National Intelligence Officer for Transnational Threats at the CIA said in January 2005 that the Iraq War has now provided terrorists with “a training ground, a recruitment ground, the opportunity for enhancing technical skills.”

Others at the CIA agree. A May 2005 assessment says Iraq may prove to be an even more effective training ground for Islamic extremists than Afghanistan was.

Experts from the non-partisan London think tank, Chatham House, wrote in July 2005, “[The Iraq War] gave a boost to the al-Qaeda network’s propaganda, recruitment and fundraising, caused a major split in the coalition, provided an ideal targeting and training area for al-Qaeda-linked terrorists and deflected resources andassistance that could have been deployed to assist the Karzai government and to bring bin Laden to justice.”

While foreign fighters are seen as the most violent groups in Iraq, their numbers have been estimated to be around 1,000 out of a resistance ranging between 16,000
and 40,000. Instead of being long-term mercenaries, new investigations by the Saudi Arabian government and an Israeli think tank found that the majority of foreign fight-
ers are not former terrorists and instead became radicalized by the war itself a troubling statistic given that according to the Bush administration, one major goal of thiswar is to stem future terrorism.

The American public shares the view that the Iraq War has made America less safe. In a July 2005 poll, nearly half of the public say that the war in Iraq has hurt the war
on terrorism, the highest percentage expressing that view since the war began in 2003. And 45 percent believe that the war has raised the chances for terrorist attacks
in the U.S., up from 36 percent in the Fall of 2004.

Data collected by the State Department and the National Counterterrorism Center confirms these fears. The number of “significant” attacks in 2004 reached 655, three
times the previous record of 175 in 2003. Terrorist incidents in Iraq also increased by a factor of nine—from 22 attacks in 2003 to 198 in 2004.

http://www.ips-dc.org/iraq/quagmire/IraqQuagmire.pdf

[footstepsfrom#27]

???

Are you suggesting that observers on the ground couldn't possibly witness an attack on civilians?
No, I'm suggesting that 1) some things that are meant to look like civilian rather than military to the casual eye are not ("farmers" unloading "plums and peaches" from trucks entering from Syria for example, when in reality they're probably guerillas unloading weapons and ammunition..."ambulances" with red crosses painted on the roofs that are really transporting mobile rocket lanchers, etc...), 2) observers have no way of knowing if the attack was intended to hit the target it hit, or if it went off course, particulary in the case of "dumb" artillery shells, and 3) Hezbollah fighters hide in the midst of civilians...that makes civilian casualties inevitable. Observers witness only the end result, not the things that define whether the attack was intended to target civilians.

Interesting that almost every Israeli attack mentioned in the press kills Lebanese civilians...I guess the Israelis are the worst shots on earth...they've not struck a true military target since this whole war began. They've done great wiping out "farmers" and kids and puppy dogs but not a Hezbollah terrorist has suffered so much as a hangnail resulting from all these smart bombs they're dropping.

What a bunch of idiots! How'd they ever win 5 middle east wars against overwhelming odds?

[L.A. BRONCOS FAN]

No, I'm suggesting that 1) some things that are meant to look like civilian rather than military to the casual eye are not ("farmers" unloading "plums and peaches" from trucks entering from Syria for example, when in reality they're probably guerillas unloading weapons and ammunition..."ambulances" with red crosses painted on the roofs that are really transporting mobile rocket lanchers, etc...

I'm not denying that things like these happen.

However, this doesn't change the fact that Israel is also indiscriminately, and, in some cases, deliberately, targeting and killing innocent civilians.

In any case, Israel's actions have gone far beyond mere self defense.

What a bunch of idiots! How'd they ever win 5 middle east wars against overwhelming odds?

Actually, Israel was defeated by Hezbollah in south Lebanon in the late 90s.

[L.A. BRONCOS FAN]

If you look at attacks in Beirut and limited damage being done to select targets those are PG system hits.

Ah, so you're now backing away from your original denial that PG bombs were being used?

[elsid13]

Ah, so you're now backing away from your original denial that PG bombs were being used?

My post wasn't that the PG system weren't being used. I was stating the fact that most of the damage in the south is coming for artillery shells, which aren't PG systems. You can continue to post all you want to about PG systems but, you need to realize that they are not the weapons that are causing the major destruction in the towns in the south.

155M howitzer are area effect weapons which mean things in the area get destroyed.

[L.A. BRONCOS FAN]

My post wasn't that the PG system weren't being used.

Your original post cointained no acknowledgement that PG bombs were being used at all.

In your next post you finally acknowledged that such was the case.

I was stating the fact that most of the damage in the south is coming for artillery shells, which aren't PG systems.

According to who?

You're not really trying to pretend that you have some sort of comprehensive knowledge about what munitions are being used when and where, are you?

[footstepsfrom#27]

I'm not denying that things like these happen.

However, this doesn't change the fact that Israel is also indiscriminately, and, in some cases, deliberately, targeting and killing innocent civilians.

In any case, Israel's actions have gone far beyond mere self defense.
I've just offered up several reasons why that information is basically unknowable at this time and your argument is negated on that basis. State how you can prove that apart from the highly questionable reports of HRW that I've already said are a biased source of information.
Actually, Israel was defeated by Hezbollah in south Lebanon in the late 90s.
They chose to leave South Lebanon after years of occupation, which doesn't really equate to being defeated. They chose to pull out because of the cost of staying, but it's not like Hezbollah conquered them militarily. If they had they'd have come across the border and invaded Israel itself, which they did not. Would you think that victory meant staying indefinitely? I doubt they ever considered that. Isreal has no interest in usurping Arab territory, just creating security for what they already have. They hold the so called pre-1967 territory because it's strategic in nature and vital to their security.

In any case, how does this answer the argument that Israel has nothing to gain by using million dollar missiles to blow up farms and fruit trucks? How does it address the point that the press inevitably covers almost every Israeli attack as having been designed to kill civilians. As I said before...one would think that this military, which by all accounts has the best trained forces in the world and the best intelligence anywhere, is so inept...so incompetent...so completely unable to locate and destroy military targets that they're constantly bombing huge targets that they mistake for military...schools, hospitals, libraries, food markets...and they never kill a Hezbollah guerilla in the process...right?

Common sense should tell you that makes NO sense.

[L.A. BRONCOS FAN]

I've just offered up several reasons why that information is basically unknowable at this time and your argument is negated on that basis. State how you can prove that apart from the highly questionable reports of HRW that I've already said are a biased source of information.

You're saying that the fact that >400 Lebanese civilians were killed in the first two weeks is "unknowable?" ???

They chose to leave South Lebanon after years of occupation, which doesn't really equate to being defeated. They chose to pull out because of the cost of staying, but it's not like Hezbollah conquered them militarily.

This is the same spin a lot of people try to put on the American retreat from Vietnam. A defeat is a defeat - whether it's brought about by military or other means.

Would you think that victory meant staying indefinitely?

According to Israel's long term objectives, yes.


Isreal has no interest in usurping Arab territory, just creating security for what they already have.

Just the opposite is true. Israel has yet to formally declare its borders, and its track record is one of constant expansionism.

In any case, how does this answer the argument that Israel has nothing to gain by using million dollar missiles to blow up farms and fruit trucks? How does it address the point that the press inevitably covers almost every Israeli attack as having been designed to kill civilians. As I said before...one would think that this military, which by all accounts has the best trained forces in the world and the best intelligence anywhere, is so inept...so incompetent...so completely unable to locate and destroy military targets that they're constantly bombing huge targets that they mistake for military...schools, hospitals, libraries, food markets...and they never kill a Hezbollah guerilla in the process...right?

Common sense should tell you that makes NO sense.

Who ever said the current Israeli leader had any sense?

He is a moron - the Israeli equivalent of George W. Bush.

In response to your other questions, the idea that all civilian deaths in Lebanon and all targeting and destruction of civilian infrastructure by Israel can be justified or rationalized by claiming that "Hezbollah might be hiding there" is just the sort of pro-Israel spin that prevents America from being an honest broker in conflicts like these.

As for the question of what Israel has to gain, you have to consider Israel's objective, i.e., to destroy Lebanon as a state - not merely to defend itself.

[L.A. BRONCOS FAN]

apart from the highly questionable reports of HRW that I've already said are a biased source of information....

I gave you credit for more intelligence than the right-wingers on this board who constantly employ this sort of fallacious reasoning.

Simply impugning HRW's credibility doesn't disconfirm its facts or discredit its claims in any or every specific instance. Even Fox News gets it right sometimes.

[SteveTensi13]

[/COLOR]
Yup...an entire story about the conflict and you have ONE LINE about Israeli casualties...probably minimized drastically since it's tough to see 100 rockets killing only 3 people...and reams of stuff about the damage to Lebanon...all this from the leftist Salon.com

And you wonder why I think this is a bunch of crap? Please...

Thwack! footstepsfrom#27 sends one out of the park over the heads of LABF, mhgaffney(sieg heil) and Spider!!

[footstepsfrom#27]

You're saying that the fact that >400 Lebanese civilians were killed in the first two weeks is "unknowable?" ???
Nope...I'm saying you can't know WHY they were killed...whether Israel deliberately went after them or Hezbollah was hiding in their midst. We already know for an absolute FACT...indisputable...not even open for debate...that Islamic extremists use human shields and set up in places they think their enemies will not want to fire on. They've done this against Israel, against the US, and against each other. The problem for Hezbolah in S. Lebanon is that Israel isn't "playing by the rules" they want them to. They're going after Hezbollah guerillas wherever they believe them to be. THAT is not the same as deliberately trying to kill civilians.
This is the same spin a lot of people try to put on the American retreat from Vietnam. A defeat is a defeat - whether it's brought about by military or other means.
Nonsense. The US was driven out of South Viet Nam. We were scrambling to beat the VC before they entered Saigon. Israel simply packed up and left. They will do so again when the current conflict is over.
According to Israel's long term objectives, yes.
More nonsense. They're long term objective has always been defensive. Israel didn't precipitate the previous conflicts, the Arabs did.
Just the opposite is true. Israel has yet to formally declare its borders, and its track record is one of constant expansionism.
Revisionist history if I've ever heard it...Israel won the so called "occupied territories" in 1967 when Egypt closed the Suez Canal, got the UN to remove peace keepers in the Sinai and prepared to invade Israel, publicly stating that intention. Israel just beat them to the punch and struck first out because they had no choice. That's been portrayed as "Israeli expansion", which is pure Bullcrap. Israel has only kept land it had to keep...the Golan Heights for example, where Syrian gunners could fire down onto Israeli towns. For pete's sake...look at a map. They occupy 1/6 of 1% of the land in the middle east. That's what you call "constant expansion"? Israel is a tiny dot in an ocean of Arab rage and hatred. I posted it elsewhere...if the US were surrounded by a similiar force given our relative size, we'd be looking at facing 180 BILLION enemies (30 times the entire population of the earth) surrounding us on land that's 168 times the size of the entire land surface of the planet. Israel is less than 1/8 the size of Syria, 1/20th the size of Iraq...Iran is 75 times the size of Israel and Saudi Arabia is over 100 times the size of Israel. Switzerland and Belgium are larger than Israel. This is what you call "constant expansion". Israel's 5 million Jews live on 8,500 square miles, a country so small that there are places in Israel where the country is 3 miles wide. "Constant expansion"? LOL...Gimme a break.
In response to your other questions, the idea that all civilian deaths in Lebanon and all targeting and destruction of civilian infrastructure by Israel can be justified or rationalized by claiming that "Hezbollah might be hiding there" is just the sort of pro-Israel spin that prevents America from being an honest broker in conflicts like these.
Explain to me why you consider roads and bridges "civilian infrastructure"? Military supplies and troops move over this "civilian infrastructure". Do you not understand what Lebanon is? Lebanon has a weak central government that either can't or won't kick Hezbollah terrorists out of their country. South Lebanon IS Hezbollah...they are essentially nothing more than clients of Iran and Syria. Hezbollah is running South Lebanon. Your charachterization of Israel attacking targets because "Hezbollah might be hiding there" is nonsensical and absurd. Israel has the best intelligence force in the world, particuarly on the ground...in the middle east. They're going after targets they believe are military in nature. Can you prove they are not? If so please do so. You keep repeating the same stuff...but where is your proof?
As for the question of what Israel has to gain, you have to consider Israel's objective, i.e., to destroy Lebanon as a state - not merely to defend itself.
You have it backwards. The Arabs have tried to destroy Israel for almost 60 years running now. If Israel wanted to destroy Lebanon they could have done so years ago. Again...you need to understand that S. Lebanon is nothing more than a Syrian/Iranian client state...Hezbollah IS S. Lebanon.

Israel has every right to use whatever methods they need to to protect themselves and ensure their survival. It's tragic that civilians are dying, more so because Hezbollah WANTS that to happen, which is why they place their fighters where it will happen. They know the court of world opinion will condemn Israel when civilians die.

Do you think for one moment that if the roles were reversed, if Hezbollah had the ability to sustain a ground war and had an air force like Israel's that they would not be savagely targeting Israeli civilians?

Please...

[footstepsfrom#27]

I gave you credit for more intelligence than the right-wingers on this board who constantly employ this sort of fallacious reasoning.

Simply impugning HRW's credibility doesn't disconfirm its facts or discredit its claims in any or every specific instance. Even Fox News gets it right sometimes.
Do I need to run a search on this forum and find out how many times you have discredited information based on it's source? I'm not "impugning HRW's credibility". I'm simply stating facts. HRW is a leftist oriented organization. Most human rights groups are; it's just a fact. The problem with all this is that at the end of the day...you can not prove that Israel is targeting civilians. HRW propaganda is susceptible to criticism because they're not balanced, and it's a stone cold fact that Arab guerillas concentrate their forces where civilians will be killed.

Two FACTS that you can not dissprove.

[mhgaffney]

Israel won the so called "occupied territories" in 1967 when Egypt closed the Suez Canal, got the UN to remove peace keepers in the Sinai and prepared to invade Israel, publicly stating that intention. Israel just beat them to the punch and struck first out because they had no choice.

You have it backwards. The Arabs have tried to destroy Israel for almost 60 years running now.



All Footsteps can do is mouth the standard history. It's what people hear on US TV -- there's only one problem. It's not accurate.

The 1967 war is the key event -- because that's when Israel occupied the crucial West Bank that continues to be the main source of the Palestinian-Israeli conflict. So who started the 67 war?

The spin doctors tell us Israel defended itself by attacking Egypt. But US aerial photos of Sinai showed that Nasser's troops had taken up defensive positions. Egypt was not about to attack Israel. In fact these photos were shown to the Israeli ambassador in Washington hours before the war in a US attempt to prevent it. But it was too late. Israel knew it was going to win an easy victory and they couldn't resist. After the war Israeli generals admitted this.

Thus, the 1967 war a land grab, pure and simple. This is why the UN Security Council refused to sanction Israel's occupation. The principle it cited in passing resolutions 242 and 338 is that territory siezed via aggression does not confer ownership or legitimacy. Thus, the pre 67 borders or green line is the border to which Israel must withdraw to if there is to be peace.

As for Arabs trying to destroy Israel, that another canard. The fact is that in 2002 Saudi Arabia offered Israel not jujst recognition but a full peace treaty, including full trade and cultural exchanges, i.e., an end to the conflict, if Israel would abide by the Security Council resolutions. The offer had broad support in the Arab world -- it had been drafted at an Arab League summit. But Israeli PM Sharon never even bothered to reject it. He simply ignored it.

When you don't respond to peace offers from the other side you should not be surprised by continuing conflict and violence. All of this has been obfuscated by a US press that is so biased toward Israel that the actual facts are almost ever stated. The rest of the world understands pretty clearly -- but Americans are completely buffaloed.

The conflict only started in the twentieth century with the rise of Zionism. It has never been about religion or anti semitism, despite what the Zionist spin doctors tell us. It's always been about land, real estate. The formula for a political settlement remains: land for peace. Officially this is the US position. We agreed to the UN Sec Council resolutions that call for Israel to withdraw (242 and 338). But de facto US policy is to ignore the resolutions and allow Israel a free hand.

And with a Prez who hears voices from heaven there's little chance this will change soon. Only an informed American public can make the difference. The only alternative to peace is continuing war and probably armageddon. It's for us to decide.

[W*GS]

Explain to me why you consider roads and bridges "civilian infrastructure"?

Ahhh, because they are?

OK, perhaps one can call them "dual-purpose", but it's pretty obvious that roads and bridges aren't strictly for military (or terrorist) use only.

[alkemical]

Oh,

For those of you that wish to learn more about Fundamentlist Zionists - please look up JDL and check out their activities -

[W*GS]

HRW pisses off the Left and Right, generally, so they're probably correct.

[SteveTensi13]

As this goes on it galvanizes the religious fanatics of the world against us, creating more and more terrorists.

-------------------------------------------------------------
Israeli air raid kills 33 civilians in Lebanon
By Alistair Lyon, Special Correspondent 35 minutes ago

BEIRUT (Reuters) - Israeli aircraft also destroyed four bridges on the main coastal highway north of Beirut, disrupting efforts to aid civilians displaced or trapped by the conflict in Lebanon.

The bombing of bridges in the Christian heartlands north of Beirut cut off the coastal highway to Syria, which the United Nations called its "umbilical cord" for aid to Lebanon.

The bridge at Maameltein, north of Beirut, was split by a huge crater which partially engulfed a crushed minivan. Further north, another bridge lay in the valley it once spanned.

"The whole road is gone," said Astrid van Genderen Stort of the U.N. refugee agency. "It's really a major setback because we used this highway to move staff and supplies into the country."

Israel said it had destroyed the bridges to prevent Syria from rearming Hizbollah, which is also backed by
Iran.

The
European Commission said Israeli bombing of routes north of Beirut had made it harder to deliver humanitarian aid.

"We will need guarantees for the safety of our people on the ground if we are to successfully continue the provision of aid," said European Commissioner for Humanitarian Aid, Louis Michel.

The U.N. World Food Program called off planned convoys to the southern port city of Tyre after air raids on a Beirut suburb prevented drivers from reaching the assembly point.

CONT (http://tinyurl.com/z96k8)

Hmmm, I don't seem to recall the libs or the UN being up in arms over Clinton bombing all the bridges and power plants in Kosovo and Bosnia. Oh wait, those were christians he was bombing not muslims so that's ok. Can you say double standard.

[Spider]

Hmmm, I don't seem to recall the libs or the UN being up in arms over Clinton bombing all the bridges and power plants in Kosovo and Bosnia. Oh wait, those were christians he was bombing not muslims so that's ok. Can you say double standard.
you say that like bombing christians is a bad thing ..........Besides why do you care about Christians , when you fly the Israel flag ? do you even grasp the concept of the Jewish faith ?

[SteveTensi13]

you say that like bombing christians is a bad thing ..........Besides why do you care about Christians , when you fly the Israel flag ? do you even grasp the concept of the Jewish faith ?

So am I to assume just as I figured that you are a Muslim? If bombing Christians is a good thing. America is built upon a Judeo-Christian faith. So in you world bombing America was or is a good thing. You must have been jumping for joy during 9-11 and especially the smoldering wreck of the Pentagon.

[footstepsfrom#27]

All Footsteps can do is mouth the standard history. It's what people hear on US TV -- there's only one problem. It's not accurate.

The 1967 war is the key event -- because that's when Israel occupied the crucial West Bank that continues to be the main source of the Palestinian-Israeli conflict. So who started the 67 war?

The spin doctors tell us Israel defended itself by attacking Egypt. But US aerial photos of Sinai showed that Nasser's troops had taken up defensive positions. Egypt was not about to attack Israel. In fact these photos were shown to the Israeli ambassador in Washington hours before the war in a US attempt to prevent it. But it was too late. Israel knew it was going to win an easy victory and they couldn't resist. After the war Israeli generals admitted this.
Mark, normally I would probably address your idiocy with facts, but I recognize two fundamental problems here; 1) you're a Jew hater, and 2) you're not terribly bright. That makes it a waste of time IMO, and I consider my time valuable. I suppose I can spare 60 seconds to laugh at you though...if you are seriously telling me that a nation that can rely on only 2 million people as it's pool of available military personel deliberately launched a premtive strike against a surrounding force that easily outnumbered it 100 to 1 in manpower and was far and away superior in military equipment, then I'll have to say "not very bright" is way to kind. There are so many ways to blow you out of the water it would be tough to choose. Basicaly, you're a complete numbskull. Whatever you paid for that CSU education...it was to much. See if you can get a refund.

Everything you post in here reveals you for what you really are...somebody who for whatever reason, hates' Jews. I don't care to know why...it's not important...but know this;

You are utterly and completely transparent.

[footstepsfrom#27]

Ahhh, because they are?

OK, perhaps one can call them "dual-purpose", but it's pretty obvious that roads and bridges aren't strictly for military (or terrorist) use only.
You seem to be laboring under the erroneous assumption that Hezzbolah is not an organized army, but just a rag tag group of poorly equipped terrorists. They're not. The US bombed bridges and roads in World War II because the Germans needed them to move men and equipment over them to supply their war machine. Sorry, that doesnt' equate to war crimes. It's standard part and parcel of how you win wars. It happens in every military conflict where the battle ground is urban. Classifying critical infrastructure as "civilian", and thus out of bounds, is nonsense. Try again.

[SteveTensi13]

Mark, normally I would probably address your idiocy with facts, but I recognize two fundamental problems here; 1) you're a Jew hater, and 2) you're not terribly bright. That makes it a waste of time IMO, and I consider my time valuable. I suppose I can spare 60 seconds to laugh at you though...if you are seriously telling me that a nation that can rely on only 2 million people as it's pool of available military personel deliberately launched a premtive strike against a surrounding force that easily outnumbered it 100 to 1 in manpower and was far and away superior in military equipment, then I'll have to say "not very bright" is way to kind. There are so many ways to blow you out of the water it would be tough to choose. Basicaly, you're a complete numbskull. Whatever you paid for that CSU education...it was to much. See if you can get a refund.

Everything you post in here reveals you for what you really are...somebody who for whatever reason, hates' Jews. I don't care to know why...it's not important...but know this;

You are utterly and completely transparent.

Damn! ANOTHER home run hit by footsteps!

[footstepsfrom#27]

Damn! ANOTHER home run hit by footsteps!
I wonder if anyone else in here gets propped by both Steve and LABF? LOL

[L.A. BRONCOS FAN]

Thwack! footstepsfrom#27 sends one out of the park...

Damn, can't you come up with your own material?

Do you really have to steal mine?

(Nevermind.)

[L.A. BRONCOS FAN]

Do I need to run a search on this forum and find out how many times you have discredited information based on it's source?

Yes, you do.

Yes, I poke fun at outlets like Faux and MoonieMax, but I also challenge their claims and/or facts. I don't just say "that's a biased source" and leave it at that (as if this somehow ended the discussion.)


The problem with all this is that at the end of the day...you can not prove that Israel is targeting civilians.

???

This has to be one of the nuttiest things I've ever heard.

All you have to do is point to the the people and places Israel has targeted which have no military significance (and, no, you can't use the blanket excuse "Hezbollah might be holed up there.")

HRW propaganda is susceptible to criticism because they're not balanced...

But claiming that a source is "not balanced" isn't the same thing as discrediting its specific claims or facts in a specific instance. That would be like me trying to say that the heliocentric model of the solar system was suspect because Fox News reported on it.