Israeli missiles strike lebanese village.... (1 Viewer)

[ProudAmerican]

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,206259,00.html

This is what happens when you support terrorists.

I suppose now someone is going to act like the lebanese civilians in this town had no idea terrorists were among them.

I guess no one saw the rockets being fired huh?

 

[Joby]

Yes! The 19 Children who died are guilty because they didn't pick up AK's and stop the militants. Guilty by Association, they should have known Terrorsts were in the area and they deserved to die because it's now been proven that every lebanese, just like every Iraqi, supports the terrorists.

If they were innocent they would have left by Plane or Boat long ago.

:roll:​

 

[ProudAmerican]

why should future innocent Israelis die because terrorists set up shop among lebanese civilians with no worries?

typical. always drum up sympathy by bringing up "the children"

I submit innocent Israeli children shouldnt have to die because you are concerned with innocent lebanese children.

the lebanese children had parents that SAW THOSE ROCKETS BEING LAUNCHED and did NOTHING.

so, life sucks. good riddance to future terrorist supporters.

 

[Gardener]

Yes! The 19 Children who died are guilty because they didn't pick up AK's and stop the militants. Guilty by Association, they should have known Terrorsts were in the area and they deserved to die because it's now been proven that every lebanese, just like every Iraqi, supports the terrorists.

If they were innocent they would have left by Plane or Boat long ago.

:roll:​

Not every Lebanese supports Hisb'Allah, as one out of every 15 Lebanese does support their disarmament (Zogby poll). That means, only 14 out of every 15 Lebanese supports them.

As far as children are concerned, they are always victims. The real question is who is victimizing them. Is it the 14 out of 15 Lebanese who refuse to support the disarmament of a hate group intent upon genocide or those who are the targets of such hatred?

I say it is the former. If you are to claim the latter, your argument is tantamount to saying the German people were victims of Allied aggression in WW2. Perhaps you think that, because there were certainly children who died in Germany and that is very tragic. It is ALWAYS tragic when children die. The German government of the time shared one thing very much in common with today's Hisb'Allah, however, and this Government was supported in varying degrees by the German people of the time -- again, much like today's support for Hisb'Allah. Sure, there were those who did not supoprt the genocidal aims of the National socialists, or were unaware of the extent to which they had put their rhetorec into action, but the supoprt was there. All those "good germans" oft he time who looked away as Jewish people were being herded into box cars like cattle. Your sympathiesmay be with these "good germans", but mine aren't. I certainly do not use the tragic deaths of their children so as to provide support for their point of view.

 

[Hobbes]

Not every Lebanese supports Hisb'Allah, as one out of every 15 Lebanese does support their disarmament (Zogby poll). That means, only 14 out of every 15 Lebanese supports them.

As far as children are concerned, they are always victims. The real question is who is victimizing them. Is it the 14 out of 15 Lebanese who refuse to support the disarmament of a hate group intent upon genocide or those who are the targets of such hatred?

I say it is the former. If you are to claim the latter, your argument is tantamount to saying the German people were victims of Allied aggression in WW2. Perhaps you think that, because there were certainly children who died in Germany and that is very tragic. It is ALWAYS tragic when children die. The German government of the time shared one thing very much in common with today's Hisb'Allah, however, and this Government was supported in varying degrees by the German people of the time -- again, much like today's support for Hisb'Allah. Sure, there were those who did not supoprt the genocidal aims of the National socialists, or were unaware of the extent to which they had put their rhetorec into action, but the supoprt was there. All those "good germans" oft he time who looked away as Jewish people were being herded into box cars like cattle. Your sympathiesmay be with these "good germans", but mine aren't. I certainly do not use the tragic deaths of their children so as to provide support for their point of view.

This is not WWII however. The important thing to discuss here is the effectiveness of the bombing by Israeli. Did the military goal outweigh the lives of the people. Forget blame, human life should only be sacrficed when it is truly necessary. So lets discuss the effectiveness of Israel's current strategy. It seems current public opinion in Israel is that it is not effective enough as rockets are still being fired. Heavier, more indiscriminate bombing seems be gaining favor. But what is the end goal? Israel cannot destroy Hezbollah simply by bombing them. A land force of some sort is necessary at some point to actually disarm Hezbollah and keep shipments from coming in from Syria. Israel does not want to go in on land, so some other force will eventually have to be brought in. The actual disarming and preventing of future problems will be solved by a land force so whats the point of the bombing. It technically weakens Hezbollah, but it also creates support for it and therefore more volunteers in the future. So then how effective is the bombing by Israel? If a ceasefire is negotiated, then the rockets stop coming into Israel where as at least right now, they have not stopped them yet. With a ceasefire, the disarmament of Hezbollah can begin. You can devalue the lives of the Lebanese all you like, but in the end the bombing isn't even going to resolve the crisis. If killings civilains was a necessary step in this process then so be it, yet it certainly seems it could be avoided.

 

[Jay R]

the lebanese children had parents that SAW THOSE ROCKETS BEING LAUNCHED and did NOTHING.

so, life sucks. good riddance to future terrorist supporters.

You don't kill the son for the crimes of the father. Children, certainly infants, can be reeducated, they are only potential terrorists if they are raised in a society that wishes to shape them into such things. This was demonstrably achieved by the de-Nazification of Germany post WW2, including the generation raised by Hitler and his indoctrinal youth groups. There is no call for this sort of attitude.

A moments consideration for 19 children please?

As to why they are dead it isn't because an Israeli strike hit them, suprisingly. True, that was the metod of their deaths, but not the cause. The cause of death was what brought those Israeli strikes down on Lebanon in the past few weeks, the cause of their deaths is the actions of Hezbollah in provoking the Israelis into a Lebanese conflict. That situation did not exist a month ago, it did not exist since 2001 and Israels withdrawl from Lebanon. But the actions of a terrorist group dedicated to the extermination of all Israeli's, irrespective of age by the way, caused the conflict, that launched the jet, that dropped the bomb, that killed those children.

If Hezbollah hadn't have attacked Israel, those children would not be dead now.

 

[ProudAmerican]

they are only potential terrorists if they are raised in a society that wishes to shape them into such things.

I agree. and IMO, a society that allows terrorists to set up shop, and fire missiles at Israeli civilians, without fear, without worry, is a society that wishes to shape them into such things.

If the parents support terrorists, what in the world would make us think they will raise their children to do anything but.

 

[Gardener]

This is not WWII however. .

The analogy is apt because Hisb'allah advances the same goals as did the National socialists -- namely, the genocide of the Jewish people.

You may wish to accuse me of "devaluing" those who share in this goal, but most rational people recognize which lives are being devalued here.

 

[Billo_Really]

Originally posted by ProudAmerican:
I suppose now someone is going to act like the lebanese civilians in this town had no idea terrorists were among them.

I have to admit, you are an expert on having "no idea!"

 

[Billo_Really]

Originally posted by ProudAmerican:
I agree. and IMO, a society that allows terrorists to set up shop, and fire missiles at Israeli civilians, without fear, without worry, is a society that wishes to shape them into such things.

If the parents support terrorists, what in the world would make us think they will raise their children to do anything but.

What about the terrorists we support? Like the one we've given safe haven too that downed an airliner that killed 73 people. Whatcha got to say to that, Mr. Wizard?

 

[Hobbes]

The analogy is apt because Hisb'allah advances the same goals as did the National socialists -- namely, the genocide of the Jewish people.

You may wish to accuse me of "devaluing" those who share in this goal, but most rational people recognize which lives are being devalued here.

Really? I was trying to present a rational argument. What was irrational about my post? Taking snips at a very small part of my post proves nothing.

 

[nkgupta80]

Israel is just hurting itself more through these bombings. It completely destroyed the progress made in Lebanon (probably one of the most promising countries in the muslim world) for the actions of criminal groups like Hezbollah. All this will probably create is more resentment, and more troops for the terrorist organization. Actually, scratch the probably... it WILL.

So.. what this means is that one hundred orphaned lebanese teenagers are ready to strap a bomb to their chest and kill innocent Israelis. Assuming 10 acheive their goal, we have another 100 israeli civilian casualities.. GREAT.

 

[taxedout]

What about the terrorists we support? Like the one we've given safe haven too that downed an airliner that killed 73 people. Whatcha got to say to that, Mr. Wizard?

Different topic, and a diversion.

Are you saying we deserve a missle attack too, or are you saying two wrongs make a right ?

 

[Jay R]

What about the terrorists we support? Like the one we've given safe haven too that downed an airliner that killed 73 people. Whatcha got to say to that, Mr. Wizard?

I'd tell you not to continue doing so, both in future and in relation to previous actions. Hand him over to Cuba, better to start getting into the people's good books before Castro hands over to his brother Raul.

 

[Goobieman]

Yes! The 19 Children who died are guilty because they didn't pick up AK's and stop the militants. Guilty by Association, they should have known Terrorsts were in the area and they deserved to die because it's now been proven that every lebanese, just like every Iraqi, supports the terrorists.

What horseshi'ite.

Fact of the matter is these people died because Hezboulha hid behind them as they attacked the Israelis.

I fail to understand why normally intelligent people continue to blame Israel for their deaths.

 

[easyt65]

Yes! The 19 Children who died are guilty because they didn't pick up AK's and stop the militants. Guilty by Association, they should have known Terrorsts were in the area and they deserved to die because it's now been proven that every lebanese, just like every Iraqi, supports the terrorists.

If they were innocent they would have left by Plane or Boat long ago.

:roll:​

It is extremely unfortunate that civilians are having to pay the price for the U.N.'s ineptness and the terrorists' crimes against humanity.

The U.N. passed a resolution calling for the disarming of Hezbollah back in 2001, did nothing about it, and has sat back and watched Iran and Syria fly in plane loads of missiles daily, arm, fund, and man Hezbollah and its mission of Israeli/Jewish Genocide, enslaving Lebanon, and using it as a launching point for its attacks against Israel. Now the U.N., who told the U.S. to butt out of Iraq in order to save Hussein, is now demanding that we butt IN - not to come to the rescue of the Lebonese people but to the rescue of Hezbollah, demanding we sit down and negotiate with the terrorists and the country funding/arming them (Syria) to call off Israel's military in the defense of their nation.

Just as the Iraqi people were not only the vicitms of Hussein's raping, torture, and murder, they were also victims of the U.N.'s 12-year black marketing/Oil-for-Food scandal during which the U.N. stole millions of money from them while propping up the 'Butcher of Baghdad who preyed upon them.

Now, just as the Lebonese people are vicitims of the terrorist Hezbollah group, funded by Islamic Extremist Syria and Iran, who has enslaved them and turned their country into a battle ground on which the Hezbollah are using the Lebonese people - women and children - as human shields, they are also victims of the U.N. who have abandoned them, who have sat back and allowed terrorists prey on 2 nations (Lebanon AND Israel), and who have not only ensured the status quo but have fostered/allowed the violence to escalate to this point!

It is a shame that the Lebonese people have had to become vicitms of BOTH the Hezzbollah terrorists AND the worthless U.N.!

 

[Goobieman]

The important thing to discuss here is the effectiveness of the bombing by Israeli. Did the military goal outweigh the lives of the people.

Israel's military goal is to protect the life of Israeli citizens.
So, given that their actiom here was to that end, and every reasonable precaution was taken to limit civilian casualties -- yes, it did.

Forget blame, human life should only be sacrficed when it is truly necessary.

The question you need to ask then:
Was it truly necessary for Hezboulha to hide among these civilians?

It seems current public opinion in Israel is that it is not effective enough as rockets are still being fired.

So.. a strategy isn't effective because it hasnt yet achieved its objective?
This is silly. But then, for people used to instant gratification, its not a surprise.

Heavier, more indiscriminate bombing seems be gaining favor.

According to whom?
Show that the Israelis have moved toward more general and less specific targteting.

But what is the end goal? Israel cannot destroy Hezbollah simply by bombing them. A land force of some sort is necessary at some point to actually disarm Hezbollah and keep shipments from coming in from Syria.

That's probably true.
But, killing as much as you can from the air before you send in the ground troops makes all tjhe military sense in the world.

The actual disarming and preventing of future problems will be solved by a land force so whats the point of the bombing.

You REALLY have to ask that?

Gulf War I:
6 weeks of bombings, 100 hours of ground war.
The principle here is the same, and just as valid.

It technically weakens Hezbollah, but it also creates support for it and therefore more volunteers in the future.

If your family was killed in an Israeli attack on a HB position because HB deliberatly endangered you by putting its assets in your back yard - why do you blame Israel and supprt HB?

 

[Stinger]

Israel is just hurting itself more through these bombings. It completely destroyed the progress made in Lebanon (probably one of the most promising countries in the muslim world) for the actions of criminal groups like Hezbollah. All this will probably create is more resentment, and more troops for the terrorist organization. Actually, scratch the probably... it WILL.

So.. what this means is that one hundred orphaned lebanese teenagers are ready to strap a bomb to their chest and kill innocent Israelis. Assuming 10 acheive their goal, we have another 100 israeli civilian casualities.. GREAT.

So they should just let Hezbollah just shoot rockets on ISRAELI women and children.

Why not the same outrage over Hezbollah PURPOSELY targeting women and children? Want a cease fire, then have Hezbollah stop firing and there will be a cease fire, simple.

 

[Goobieman]

So.. what this means is that one hundred orphaned lebanese teenagers are ready to strap a bomb to their chest and kill innocent Israelis. Assuming 10 acheive their goal, we have another 100 israeli civilian casualities.. GREAT.

I asked before and I will ask again:
If your family was killed in an Israeli attack on a HB position because HB deliberatly endangered you by putting its assets in your back yard - why do you blame Israel and support HB?

 

[Dogger807]

What horseshi'ite.

Fact of the matter is these people died because Hezboulha hid behind them as they attacked the Israelis.

I fail to understand why normally intelligent people continue to blame Israel for their deaths.

I don't understand the two wrongs make a right attitude here. It seems to me that your saying that innocent bystanders are fair game if they are innocent bystanders in the wrong area. Me ..... I tend to think noncombatants in the line of fire as hostages not targets. It amazes me how people who claim to hold the moral high ground can always justify killing.... and killing innocents at that.

Neither side is showing concern for whom they hit , both are wrong in this and neither is justified. But hey... since killing is so easy for military reasons I say we drop a couple nukes on the whole region, Israel and the Lebanese both.... that would stop the circle of violence.:shoot

go go senseless violence

 

[Goobieman]

I don't understand the two wrongs make a right attitude here.

There aren't two wrongs here.
Its wrong for HB to hide behind lebanese civilians when attacking Israeli civilians.
Its NOT wrong for Israel to attack HB, knowing that civilians will die in the process.

Me ..... I tend to think noncombatants in the line of fire as hostages not targets.

Israel isnt targeting the civilians. What's your point?

 

[Hobbes]

Israel's military goal is to protect the life of Israeli citizens.
So, given that their actiom here was to that end, and every reasonable precaution was taken to limit civilian casualties -- yes, it did.


The question you need to ask then:
Was it truly necessary for Hezboulha to hide among these civilians?


So.. a strategy isn't effective because it hasnt yet achieved its objective?
This is silly. But then, for people used to instant gratification, its not a surprise.


According to whom?
Show that the Israelis have moved toward more general and less specific targteting.



That's probably true.
But, killing as much as you can from the air before you send in the ground troops makes all tjhe military sense in the world.


You REALLY have to ask that?

Gulf War I:
6 weeks of bombings, 100 hours of ground war.
The principle here is the same, and just as valid.


If your family was killed in an Israeli attack on a HB position because HB deliberatly endangered you by putting its assets in your back yard - why do you blame Israel and supprt HB?

The air strikes have accomplished nothing. They have NOT stopped the missiles attacks in over two weeks of bombing. And now a ceasefire is going to be negotiated to disarm Hezbollah. Israel isn't sending in their own ground troops for a large scale invasion or occupation so I fail to see your logic there. They're just bombing and bombing , ineffectively at that. Please show me how the air strikes have improved the situation, the real resolution is the diplomacy, for which the bombings do not help. You're trying to apply the logic from other situations to this one, except this one is unique , as most are , and requires its own unique resolution not that of desert storm, or Iraq, or whatever else. Try to think about what will actually help to resolve this conflict most effectively.

http://seattlepi.nwsource.com/national/1107AP_Mideast_Lowered_Expectations.html

The question you need to ask then:
Was it truly necessary for Hezboulha to hide among these civilians?

You're getting bogged down in the situation, not the resolution. The important question is: How do we actually disarm the Hezbollah ( Israel's bombings sure havent worked yet) ?

So.. a strategy isn't effective because it hasnt yet achieved its objective?
This is silly. But then, for people used to instant gratification, its not a surprise.

Whats silly is clinging to unnecssary military action when diplomacy can resolve it.

 

[Deegan]

Whats silly is clinging to unnecssary military action when diplomacy can resolve it.

You mean like it has in the past, or even when we try to put unarmed soldiers there to protect the peace, yeah, that has been a real winner!:roll:

 

[Hobbes]

You mean like it has in the past, or even when we try to put unarmed soldiers there to protect the peace, yeah, that has been a real winner!:roll:

I thought it was clear I was talking about the Israeli-Lebanon conflict, if not , now you know. And I mean a ceasefire should have been the emphasis for Israel and the US. Roll your eyse now, we'll see if this conflict is resolved by force or diplomacy. Then try to defend unnecessary military action during the conflict.

 

[BudLizard101]

The air strikes have accomplished nothing. They have NOT stopped the missiles attacks in over two weeks of bombing. And now a ceasefire is going to be negotiated to disarm Hezbollah. Israel isn't sending in their own ground troops for a large scale invasion or occupation so I fail to see your logic there. They're just bombing and bombing , ineffectively at that. Please show me how the air strikes have improved the situation, the real resolution is the diplomacy, for which the bombings do not help. You're trying to apply the logic from other situations to this one, except this one is unique , as most are , and requires its own unique resolution not that of desert storm, or Iraq, or whatever else. Try to think about what will actually help to resolve this conflict most effectively.

http://seattlepi.nwsource.com/national/1107AP_Mideast_Lowered_Expectations.html

You're getting bogged down in the situation, not the resolution. The important question is: How do we actually disarm the Hezbollah ( Israel's bombings sure havent worked yet) ?

Whats silly is clinging to unnecssary military action when diplomacy can resolve it.

http://haaretz.com/hasen/spages/744719.html

Looks like all these IAF attacks actually DID accomplish something.