Do you support the goals of Hamas and Hezbollah?

[Laila]

Given that the terrorists like to hide behind civilians, its no surprise that so many were killed.

Israel did not care if they killed civilians in that war because it was not their people on the recieving end.

In its third report on the conflict, the human rights group said Israeli forces were guilty of "indiscriminate and disproportionate attacks on a large scale."

"These include the sustained artillery bombardment of south Lebanon and, in particular, the widespread use of cluster bombs in civilian areas in the last days of fighting, leaving a lethal legacy which continues to blight civilian lives," the report said.

It was murder on a large scale not collateral damage.
They knew cluster bombs would more likely kill civilians not miltants yet they still chose to drop it on civilian areas.

 

[Goobieman]

Israel did not care if they killed civilians in that war because it was not their people on the recieving end.

You say this like it is suppotable, and even if so, it is supposed to mean something. In any case, it doesnt invalidate the collateral damage argument.

After all -- its not up to the USAAF to make sure Germany's tank factories are empty before the B17s flaten them.

 

[Laila]

It is almost certaintley true.

Life means nothing unless it is their countries Civilians on the recieving end.
Why do you think media latch onto Soldiers dying but not thousands of children every day?

They knew cluster bombs would more likely kill civilians not miltants yet they still chose to drop it on civilian areas.

?
Does that not consitute as pre meditated? They prepared to deliberately drop weapons in civilians areas.

 

[Goobieman]

It was murder on a large scale not collateral damage.

If you were standing next to a military target when a bomb from the opposing side lands on it, you were not murdered. Period.

 

[Laila]

If you were standing next to a military target when a bomb from the opposing side lands on it, you were not murdered. Period.

Oh yes because the miltary is so pathetic to not know it is homes it is bombing :/

 

[Goobieman]

It is almost certaintley true...

...and even if so, [you say it as if] it is supposed to mean something.
In any case, it doesnt invalidate the collateral damage argument.

After all -- its not up to the USAAF to make sure Germany's tank factories are empty before the B17s flaten them.

Life means nothing unless it is their countries Civilians on the recieving end.

You'll be hard pressed to find anything in my posts that supports this statement.

That you have to make these things up only illustrates that you understand the true fragility of your point of view..

 

[Goobieman]

Oh yes because the miltary is so pathetic to not know it is homes it is bombing :/

This statement does nothing to negate the validity of what I said.

 

[Laila]

Have i said you stated that? No.

 

[Laila]

This statement does nothing to negate the validity of what I said.

If Israeli miltary deliberatey targeted civilian homes or areas that hold heavily populated civilians and civilians died as a result. It is not colleteral damage they are doing but coldblooded murder.

If Israel targeted a base that held miltants and civilians died accidentally, then it is colleteral damage.

Israel did the first more than the second.

 

[Laila]

Who is "ACE"?

No idea, i checked a few other sources and it seems similar.

 

[Goobieman]

If Israeli miltary deliberatey targeted civilian homes or areas that hold heavily populated civilians and civilians died as a result. It is not colleteral damage they are doing but coldblooded murder.

Absent a legitimate military target, yes.

If Israel targeted a base and miltants and civilians also died accidentally, then it is colleteral damage.

Glad that you finally understand.

Israel did the first more than the second.

Not according to the HRW source posted earlier.
Perhaps you have something that supports your statement?

 

[shiznit770]

If you were standing next to a military target when a bomb from the opposing side lands on it, you were not murdered. Period.

This was not the case in the Lebanon Conflict 2006. Israel announced it would attack a target and then treated all people in the vicinity as combatants. In some cases there was no military objective present. Do you believe telling people you're going to bomb their homes ahead of time relinquishes you of the burden of targeting military objectives?

 

[Laila]

Perhaps you have something that supports your statement?

You mean like Amnesty's report?

 

[Goobieman]

This was not the case in the Lebanon Conflict 2006. Israel announced it would attack a target and then treated all people in the vicinity as combatants

Show this to be true.
And, even if so - did they attack legitimate military targets?
If so, then combatant or not, if a civilian died in the attack, it eas collateral damage.

In some cases there was no military objective present

Show this to be true.

Do you believe telling people you're going to bomb their homes ahead of time relinquishes you of the burden of targeting military objectives?

You haven't shown that they did not go after military targets
But even if so - giving civilians fair warning before an attack is fair warning.
And, if you've been given warning to leave, and you then chose to stay...?

 

[Goobieman]

You mean like Amnesty's report?

Whatever you think you have....
Please post the source that shows that Israel more often than not attacked civilians rather than military targets.

 

[shiznit770]

Show this to be true.
And, even if so - did they attack legitimate military targets?
If so, then combatant or not, if a civilian died in the attack, it eas collateral damage.


Show this to be true.


You haven't shown that they did not go after military targets
But even if so - giving civilians fair warning before an attack is fair warning.
And, if you've been given warning to leave, and you then chose to stay...?

Our research during 2006 concluded that the IDF attacks responsible for a majority of the civilian deaths in Lebanon were indiscriminate; that is, they failed to distinguish between civilian and military targets. Many of the attacks in which civilians died took place at times when there was no evidence that Hezbollah fighters or weapons were in the vicinity, despite IDF claims that the high proportion of civilian deaths in Lebanon was due to Hezbollah hiding its rockets and fighters in villages and towns. While the IDF often warned civilians to evacuate areas in southern Lebanon, it then acted in many cases as if its warnings gave it license to treat all persons who did not flee as combatants. In southern Lebanon, many people remained even after warnings because of age, infirmity, responsibility for livestock and crops, inability to afford exorbitant taxi fares charged for evacuation, or fear of becoming another roadside casualty of IDF bombing. Thus, the IDF's indiscriminate bombardments had devastating consequences for civilians.

Civilians under Assault

So you believe that if you give civilians fair warning, no military target is necessary?

 

[Laila]

Whatever you think you have....
Please post the source that shows that Israel more often than not attacked civilians rather than military targets.

Amnesty International details Israeli war crimes in Lebanon

The report pointed out that international law governing the conduct of war prohibits any direct attack on civilian objects, as well as indiscriminate attacks that fail to distinguish between military and civilian targets.

It also disputed Israeli claims that civilian facilities were legitimate military targets, because of their potential use by Hezbollah.

Amnesty International delegates visiting towns and villages in south Lebanon found that in village after village houses had been subject to heavy artillery shelling as well as having been destroyed by precision-guided, air-delivered munitions

 

[Goobieman]

Amnesty International details Israeli war crimes in Lebanon

Ah yes. AI. :roll:

The report pointed out that international law governing the conduct of war prohibits any direct attack on civilian objects, as well as indiscriminate attacks that fail to distinguish between military and civilian targets.

This isnt news.

It also disputed Israeli claims that civilian facilities were legitimate military targets, because of their potential use by Hezbollah.

Amnesty International simply disputing Israeli claims at to their objectives isnt proof.

Amnesty International delegates visiting towns and villages in south Lebanon found that in village after village houses had been subject to heavy artillery shelling as well as having been destroyed by precision-guided, air-delivered munitions

And this proves... what?

 

[Laila]

So you believe that if you give civilians fair warning, no military target is necessary?

Don't mean to be a bitch but if he believes that, it can work for anything ... a pre warning i mean.

Case in point.
Ex-employee says FAA warned before 9/11 - USATODAY.com

 

[Laila]

So you believe that if you give civilians fair warning, no military target is necessary?

Don't mean to be a bitch but if he believes that, it can work for anything ... a pre warning i mean.

Case in point.
Ex-employee says FAA warned before 9/11 - USATODAY.com

 

[jin1776]

Amnesty International details Israeli war crimes in Lebanon

International Law is clear on the matter that once one launches attacks from civilian sectors to launch attacks they become legitimate military targets:

Both Protocol I and Article 28 of the Geneva Convention (IV) make clear that "the deliberate intermingling of civilians and combatants, designed to create a situation in which any attack against combatants would necessarily entail an excessive number of casualties is a flagrant breach of the Law of International Armed Conflict," according to international law scholar Yoram Dinstein (see his The Conduct of Hostilities under the Law of International Armed Conflict, Cambridge University Press, 2004, pp. 129 - 130).

Article 51(7) of Protocol I states: "The presence or movements of the civilian population or individual civilians shall not be used to render certain points or areas immune from military operations, in particular attempts to shield military objectives from attacks or to shield, favour or impede military operations." And the Geneva Convention (IV) holds that "The presence of a protected person may not be used to render certain points of areas immune from military operations." (Geneva Convention Relative to the Protection of Civilian Persons in Time of War, 1949, Laws of Armed Conflicts, 495, 511.)

Moreover, the Rome Statute is clear that "utilizing the presence of civilians or other protected persons to render certain points, areas or military forces immune from military operations is recognized as a war crime by Article 8 (2) (b) (xxiii)". (Dinstein, p. 130)

 

[jin1776]

Don't mean to be a bitch but if he believes that, it can work for anything ... a pre warning i mean.

Case in point.
Ex-employee says FAA warned before 9/11 - USATODAY.com

Oh give me a break there was no warning that 9-11 was about to happen AQ didn't tell us to evactuate the buildings before they carried out their attack, this was the FAA warning that we needed to bolster airport security.

 

[jin1776]

Hamas has killed civilians.
Hezbollah has killed civilians.
Israel has killed civilians

All 3 have done a measure of good and bad. Hezbollah funded hospitals and schools and gave aid to Lebanese.

No option for all 3?

Only two of the three intentionally targets civilians, Israel targets Hezbollah and Hamas fighters who hide amongst civilians and use civilian sectors from which to launch attacks, and once a civilian sector is used to launch an attack it becomes a legitimate military target:

Both Protocol I and Article 28 of the Geneva Convention (IV) make clear that "the deliberate intermingling of civilians and combatants, designed to create a situation in which any attack against combatants would necessarily entail an excessive number of casualties is a flagrant breach of the Law of International Armed Conflict," according to international law scholar Yoram Dinstein (see his The Conduct of Hostilities under the Law of International Armed Conflict, Cambridge University Press, 2004, pp. 129 - 130).

Article 51(7) of Protocol I states: "The presence or movements of the civilian population or individual civilians shall not be used to render certain points or areas immune from military operations, in particular attempts to shield military objectives from attacks or to shield, favour or impede military operations." And the Geneva Convention (IV) holds that "The presence of a protected person may not be used to render certain points of areas immune from military operations." (Geneva Convention Relative to the Protection of Civilian Persons in Time of War, 1949, Laws of Armed Conflicts, 495, 511.)

Moreover, the Rome Statute is clear that "utilizing the presence of civilians or other protected persons to render certain points, areas or military forces immune from military operations is recognized as a war crime by Article 8 (2) (b) (xxiii)". (Dinstein, p. 130)

 

[jin1776]

It does not matter, civilians still die.

In almost every conflict Israel engages in, it ends up killing more civilians than the groups every time :/

Then blame Hamas and Hezbollah for violating the laws of war by using human shields.

 

[jin1776]

I think all 3 are as bad as each other in one sense.

And why can i not blame Israel Miltary for targeting civilian areas?

Because they don't target civilians they target terrorists who hide amongst civilians.