Lebanese flotilla organizers found to have Hezbollah ties

[joergan]

So says Israel, but assuming this is the case it does not mean much of anything as attacking an embassy is perfectly legitimate, especially considering that there is most likely a spy in every single one. Hell, sometimes an embassy or consulate is staffed almost entirely by spies.

Ok, so then the israel can carpet bomb gaza since there are spies and terror supporters there. Do you think before you type?

 

[Demon of Light]

Ok, so then the israel can carpet bomb gaza since there are spies and terror supporters there. Do you think before you type?

Being a supporters of a group or government is far different and randomly attacking buildings because there might be a spy there is quite different from targeting installations of the government that almost always contain spies.

 

[Agent Ferris]

Hezbollah very much does wear uniforms,

No they very much do not, they may wear uniforms during parade but they dress as civilians during combat operations.

even the Israeli military acknowledges that they have identifiable uniforms. The notion that they hide behind civilians is just Israeli propaganda with no real basis in reality.

Interesting considering that I have a video warehouse here of Hezbollah firing rockets from densly populated civilian sectors:

Hezbollah does operate in cities, but guess what, so does the IDF. Only a completely reckless military leader would not station military forces in urban centers. Not only is it necessary to provide security for said urban centers, there is plenty of cover for retreat should your position come under fire.

Hezbollah uses human shields.

U.N. Chief Accuses Hezbollah of 'Cowardly Blending' Among Refugees - International News | News of the World | Middle East News | Europe News - FOXNews.com

So I take it you would agree if I said the U.S. and Israel have been long-time supporters of terrorism.

For example?

 

[Agent Ferris]

Though their rockets are not especially accurate they are accurate enough that if Hezbollah's intention was to maximize civilian casualties there would have been hundreds of dead Israeli civilians.

The bull**** never ends with you, Hezbollah has launched thousands of rockets into densly populated Israeli civilian sectors, the only reason why there are not more Israeli casualties is because every building built in Israeli within rocket range of Hamas and Hezbollah is mandated to contain a bomb shelter or a reinforced room. If it were not for the building codes and the advanced warning systems there would be thousands more Israeli civilian casualties.

 

[washunut]

Being a supporters of a group or government is far different and randomly attacking buildings because there might be a spy there is quite different from targeting installations of the government that almost always contain spies.

So in your mind it is OK to kill a hundred civilians because there may be a spy also. Are you saying that israel should destroy the Arab population in their country as there are certainly spies among them?? Sounds like something from WWII

 

[Demon of Light]

No they very much do not, they may wear uniforms during parade but they dress as civilians during combat operations.

They most certainly without question do wear uniforms during combat operations. I imagine Israel killed some Hezbollah who wore civilian clothes, they do have a home life after all and Hezbollah is not just a military organization, and some civilians with weapons that probably counted as Hezbollah, but no Hezbollah does wear uniforms and this is something noted by Israel's own military.

Interesting considering that I have a video warehouse here of Hezbollah firing rockets from densly populated civilian sectors:

What you have is a bunch of grainy videos showing vehicles and some buildings with someone claiming these are crowded civilian areas despite the lack of civilian crowds. We can't even tell what exactly these buildings are and we definitely don't see any people. If you're a soldier and someone is firing at you are you going to run around in the open until you find a military structure or will you take refuge in the nearest structure you can find?

Hezbollah uses human shields.

I don't care what some guy from the U.N. says because there is no actual evidence that this occurred. Not a single piece of proof has been provided for this BS propaganda.

For example?

:doh Did you really not get that I was taking a jab at your apparent standards for what constitutes a terrorist organization?

The bull**** never ends with you, Hezbollah has launched thousands of rockets into densly populated Israeli civilian sectors, the only reason why there are not more Israeli casualties is because every building built in Israeli within rocket range of Hamas and Hezbollah is mandated to contain a bomb shelter or a reinforced room. If it were not for the building codes and the advanced warning systems there would be thousands more Israeli civilian casualties.

Funny, because even those areas that were not known to be within range of these rockets did not see massive casualties. The reality is the vast majority of rockets did not hit populated areas and those that did were not targeted at anything specific save for strategic targets.

So in your mind it is OK to kill a hundred civilians because there may be a spy also. Are you saying that israel should destroy the Arab population in their country as there are certainly spies among them?? Sounds like something from WWII

Uh, no. Did I not make it obvious that there is a difference between targeting randomly because there might be spies and targeting embassies, which are government buildings, where spies are common.

 

[Agent Ferris]

They most certainly without question do wear uniforms during combat operations. I imagine Israel killed some Hezbollah who wore civilian clothes, they do have a home life after all and Hezbollah is not just a military organization, and some civilians with weapons that probably counted as Hezbollah, but no Hezbollah does wear uniforms and this is something noted by Israel's own military.

They most certainly with out question do not wear uniforms when conducting combat operations.

Thanks for playing.

What you have is a bunch of grainy videos showing vehicles and some buildings with someone claiming these are crowded civilian areas despite the lack of civilian crowds. We can't even tell what exactly these buildings are and we definitely don't see any people. If you're a soldier and someone is firing at you are you going to run around in the open until you find a military structure or will you take refuge in the nearest structure you can find?

What I have is irrefutable evidence that Hezbollah launches attacks from out of densly populated civilian sectors and proof positive that Hezbollah uses human shields and is a terrorist organization. You have the "grainy video" defense. :roll:

I don't care what some guy from the U.N. says because there is no actual evidence that this occurred. Not a single piece of proof has been provided for this BS propaganda.

No evidence whatsoever, not even clear cut video and photographic evidence. The only one providing propaganda is you.

Funny, because even those areas that were not known to be within range of these rockets did not see massive casualties.

That's funny because the vast majority of rockets hit targets that were known to be within rocket range only 6% of the 4,000 rockets fired were of the longer range variants.

The reality is the vast majority of rockets did not hit populated areas

All Hezbollah rockets have been fired into populated areas, 23% of which were fired into densly populated areas.

and those that did were not targeted at anything specific save for strategic targets.

So civilians are to be considered strategic targets now? You're sick. The reality is that all Hezbollah rockets have been indiscriminately fired into Israeli towns and villages.

 

[Demon of Light]

They most certainly with out question do not wear uniforms when conducting combat operations.

You provide a picture from an Israeli apologist site, without actually citing where it comes from, that they apparently claim to be a picture of Hezbollah and expect me to buy that? Here is something I found:

MJT: Did you actually see this yourself? Hezbollah wearing Israeli uniforms?

Eli: Yes.

MJT: Really. How many Hezbollah soldiers did you see wearing Israeli uniforms?

Eli: Once they hit us with a few anti-tank missiles. And I saw straight away like six of them.

MJT: Was it just the one time that you saw this?

Eli: I’m not the only one who has seen this happen in Lebanon. There are lots of other people from lots of other units who have seen this. It’s, it’s guerilla warfare.

MJT: Where do you suppose they get the uniforms? Do they make them themselves? Or are they stealing them?

Eli: Well, all of them are probably stolen. When Israel left Lebanon in 2000 they left a ton of army supply stuff.

MJT: They claim that they have their own uniforms.

Eli: Yeah, they have like a kind of a dark khaki colored, like dark American colors. They have camouflage and stuff like that. But they’re also wearing, they’re people walking around towns, with weapons, who aren’t wearing uniforms. They look like civilians. I mean, in every civilian house in Lebanon there is a shotgun. And that’s not because they’re against the IDF or because they’re against Israel, it’s that most people in the small villages, they’re hunters. They hunt for food. But we also saw people walking around with AK-47s and hand guns and stuff. There are definitely Hezbollah people in, in civilian clothes.

MJT: So, okay, what’s the most common appearance for a Hezbollah fighter in South Lebanon during a war? Do most wear civilian clothes? Hezbollah uniforms? Israeli uniforms?

Eli: It changes all the time.

Source: Michael J. Totten's Middle East Journal

There was something I remember reading, though it would probably take a while to find, saying that Hezbollah uniforms were generally worn by the active members of Hezbollah while reservists typically wore anything they had. Of course, if you read the rest of that interview a few interesting points are made like that most civilians had left these areas and those that stayed probably were helping Hezbollah and may very well have been armed. I noted in other discussions that this may partly account for Israel's inflated figures of Hezbollah casualties in that they were counting any civilian with a gun as Hezbollah.

What I have is irrefutable evidence that Hezbollah launches attacks from out of densly populated civilian sectors and proof positive that Hezbollah uses human shields and is a terrorist organization. You have the "grainy video" defense.

It is not irrefutable and calling it evidence is an insult. You can only see some buildings, Hezbollah militants or vehicles, and nothing else. There are no signs of civilians to be found.

No evidence whatsoever, not even clear cut video and photographic evidence. The only one providing propaganda is you.

It's not evidence. It purports to be evidence and a lot of people sympathetic to the argument believe it to be evidence, but it is not evidence. It proves that Hezbollah has used military personnel and weapons within urban areas. So has Israel. So has pretty much every military in the history of mankind. Israel has deployed military forces into populated urban centers as has pretty much every country that has ever been at war. This does not amount to using human shields or hiding behind civilians.

That's funny because the vast majority of rockets hit targets that were known to be within rocket range only 6% of the 4,000 rockets fired were of the longer range variants.

Yeah, and that's a lot of rockets to not cause a lot of deaths. The rockets didn't even cause a lot of serious injuries. Most "injuries" on the Israeli side were basically shock and nothing more.

All Hezbollah rockets have been fired into populated areas, 23% of which were fired into densly populated areas.

I suppose it depends on how you define "populated area" since I know for a fact some Hezbollah rockets did not land in any city, town, or village. It is interesting looking into it though, because it seems a good portion of the civilians that died were Arabs and I honestly doubt you think Hezbollah intends to kill them. Several civilians died of heart attacks and in Kiryat Shmona, hit with about a quarter of the rockets, no one died at all. On a side note I also noticed that a lot of Israeli military bases seem to be near kibbutz and one rocket attack that killed a dozen Israeli soldiers hit near a kibbutz. Indeed, it sort of harms your claim as well since if 77% of attacks were in less-populated areas and those are the areas where there are more likely going to be military facilities then it would probably mean Hezbollah was mostly targeting military facilities. Considering the 6% long-range rockets were more accurate and targeted at larger population centers with lots of strategic targets, then it means you can at best claim 17% of Hezbollah's rocket attacks were really intended for civilians.

So civilians are to be considered strategic targets now? You're sick.

How'd you get that you of what I said? I was clearly saying rockets that hit populated were not targeting anything specific except for strategic targets. That is to say, they were not specifically targeting any civilians, but they were targeting specific strategic targets.

 

[Agent Ferris]

You provide a picture from an Israeli apologist site, without actually citing where it comes from, that they apparently claim to be a picture of Hezbollah and expect me to buy that? Here is something I found:

I don't give a **** what you say, Hezbollah does not wear uniforms when conducting military operations, the photographic evidence is concrete and indisputable, they may wear uniforms sometimes, but they do not wear uniforms ALL THE TIME, which is why they are a terrorist organization.

Oh and those photos come from Australia's Sunday Herald;

Photos that damn Hezbollah | Herald Sun

But we understand that all evidence damning the Islamo-Nazi Hezbollah and Hamas definitately comes from the evil JOOS and must be disregarded.

Source: Michael J. Totten's Middle East Journal

Holy ****, your own article states that Hezbollah walks around dressed like civilians but goes further to say that they wear the uniforms of Israeli soldiers, the former proves my point and the latter proves that they're guilty of yet another war crime.

There was something I remember reading, though it would probably take a while to find, saying that Hezbollah uniforms were generally worn by the active members of Hezbollah while reservists typically wore anything they had. Of course, if you read the rest of that interview a few interesting points are made like that most civilians had left these areas and those that stayed probably were helping Hezbollah and may very well have been armed. I noted in other discussions that this may partly account for Israel's inflated figures of Hezbollah casualties in that they were counting any civilian with a gun as Hezbollah.

Hezbollah conducts combat operations dressed as civilians, they are a terrorist organization.

It is not irrefutable and calling it evidence is an insult. You can only see some buildings, Hezbollah militants or vehicles, and nothing else. There are no signs of civilians to be found.

It is irrefutable evidence of Hezbollah using civilian sectors from which to launch attacks, the evidence is clear, any assertion to the contrary is a lie.

It's not evidence.

It is irrefutable evidence.

It purports to be evidence and a lot of people sympathetic to the argument believe it to be evidence, but it is not evidence. It proves that Hezbollah has used military personnel and weapons within urban areas. So has Israel. So has pretty much every military in the history of mankind. Israel has deployed military forces into populated urban centers as has pretty much every country that has ever been at war. This does not amount to using human shields or hiding behind civilians.

The video evidence proves conclusively that Hezbollah intentionally stages attacks from densly populated civilian sectors, any assertion to the contrary is a lie, you sir are a liar AND a Jihadist supporter who condones the murder of civilians and the use of human shields, sick sick sick.

Yeah, and that's a lot of rockets to not cause a lot of deaths. The rockets didn't even cause a lot of serious injuries. Most "injuries" on the Israeli side were basically shock and nothing more.

Building codes and advanced early warning systems prevented more casualties. Hezbollah intentionally targets civilians, Hezbollah uses human shields, Hezbollah does not wear uniforms, these are not debatable points.

I suppose it depends on how you define "populated area" since I know for a fact some Hezbollah rockets did not land in any city, town, or village.

Populated areas are cities, villages, and towns, Hezbollah targeted all 3, 23% of all targeted areas were densley populated.

It is interesting looking into it though, because it seems a good portion of the civilians that died were Arabs and I honestly doubt you think Hezbollah intends to kill them. Several civilians died of heart attacks and in Kiryat Shmona, hit with about a quarter of the rockets, no one died at all. On a side note I also noticed that a lot of Israeli military bases seem to be near kibbutz and one rocket attack that killed a dozen Israeli soldiers hit near a kibbutz. Indeed, it sort of harms your claim as well since if 77% of attacks were in less-populated areas and those are the areas where there are more likely going to be military facilities then it would probably mean Hezbollah was mostly targeting military facilities. Considering the 6% long-range rockets were more accurate and targeted at larger population centers with lots of strategic targets, then it means you can at best claim 17% of Hezbollah's rocket attacks were really intended for civilians.

The rockets do not discriminate between civilians and soldiers, that is an act of terrorism. Intent follows the bullet..

How'd you get that you of what I said? I was clearly saying rockets that hit populated were not targeting anything specific except for strategic targets. That is to say, they were not specifically targeting any civilians, but they were targeting specific strategic targets.

Cities, villages, and towns are now to be considered "strategic targets"? WTF???

 

[Demon of Light]

I don't give a **** what you say, Hezbollah does not wear uniforms when conducting military operations, the photographic evidence is concrete and indisputable, they may wear uniforms sometimes, but they do not wear uniforms ALL THE TIME, which is why they are a terrorist organization.

Not wearing uniforms all the time does not a terrorist make. By that logic any civilian defending his or her self against a foreign invader would be a terrorist. Hezbollah has uniforms and wears them in combat. Not every members wears said uniforms, but then again, not every member is an active member of Hezbollah. Hezbollah has reserve forces too and they do not get as many supplies.

Oh and those photos come from Australia's Sunday Herald;

Photos that damn Hezbollah | Herald Sun

Maybe it's just me, but I don't see the photos.

But we understand that all evidence damning the Islamo-Nazi Hezbollah and Hamas definitately comes from the evil JOOS and must be disregarded.

Wow, you just keep getting more absurd in your comments.

Holy ****, your own article states that Hezbollah walks around dressed like civilians but goes further to say that they wear the uniforms of Israeli soldiers, the former proves my point and the latter proves that they're guilty of yet another war crime.

So the rules of war are the same as soccer? Two opposing teams can't wear the same color jersey? They didn't let them think they were Israeli soldiers they fired on them before they were even seen. If you read the article it seems they wore these uniforms simply because they are uniforms they had available. Many Hezbollah members have formal uniforms that they were in combat.

It is irrefutable evidence of Hezbollah using civilian sectors from which to launch attacks, the evidence is clear, any assertion to the contrary is a lie.

Are you serious?

The video evidence proves conclusively that Hezbollah intentionally stages attacks from densly populated civilian sectors, any assertion to the contrary is a lie, you sir are a liar AND a Jihadist supporter who condones the murder of civilians and the use of human shields, sick sick sick.

Huh? Dude, seriously, I pointed out rather clearly and anyone can see that there is no indication that there are any civilians in that video. Indeed, if you read the article I posted about uniforms they mention how Hezbollah would take over abandoned homes and use those to launch attacks.

Building codes and advanced early warning systems prevented more casualties. Hezbollah intentionally targets civilians, Hezbollah uses human shields, Hezbollah does not wear uniforms, these are not debatable points.

That alone doesn't explain it. How can a city of 20,000 people hit by 1,000 rockets not suffer a single casualty while other smaller ones hits with far fewer suffer several if Hezbollah were trying to kills as many civilians as possible?

Populated areas are cities, villages, and towns, Hezbollah targeted all 3, 23% of all targeted areas were densley populated.

So 77% were not sparsely populated, meaning Hezbollah either really sucks at targeting civilians or they were not actually targeting civilians. Honestly, this discussion has only convinced me that Hezbollah was not even indiscriminately targeting civilians, but simply engaging in the equivalent of carpet bombing because their weapons are so inaccurate.

The rockets do not discriminate between civilians and soldiers, that is an act of terrorism. Intent follows the bullet..

Intent follows the bullet? So Israel intentionally kills civilians?

Cities, villages, and towns are now to be considered "strategic targets"? WTF???

How can I explain something to you twice and you still repeat the same crap? There are strategic targets in populated areas. Meaning Hezbollah only ever targeted something specific if it was a strategic target and other than that fired without any clear target.

 

[Agent Ferris]

Not wearing uniforms all the time does not a terrorist make. By that logic any civilian defending his or her self against a foreign invader would be a terrorist.

No civilians are allowed to spontaneously take up arms against an invading force so long as they abide to the laws of war, Hezbollah has neither spontaneously taken up arms or abide by the laws of war.

Hezbollah has uniforms and wears them in combat. Not every members wears said uniforms, but then again, not every member is an active member of Hezbollah. Hezbollah has reserve forces too and they do not get as many supplies.

So they wear uniforms except when they don't. :roll:

Maybe it's just me, but I don't see the photos.

That's the original source for the photos. Here's a link to the article with the pcitures still up:

The Photos That Damn Hezbollah - Truthdig

So the rules of war are the same as soccer? Two opposing teams can't wear the same color jersey? They didn't let them think they were Israeli soldiers they fired on them before they were even seen. If you read the article it seems they wore these uniforms simply because they are uniforms they had available. Many Hezbollah members have formal uniforms that they were in combat.

OMFG, wearing the uniform of an enemy soldier is a violation of the laws of war. Hezbollah wasn't wearing Israeli uniforms to distinguish themselves from civilians they were wearing Israeli uniforms to fool the IDF, I mean you can't be ****ing serious can you???

Are you serious?

Yes the video evidence clearly and irrefutably proves that Hezbollah fired rockets from densly populated civilian sectors.

Huh? Dude, seriously, I pointed out rather clearly and anyone can see that there is no indication that there are any civilians in that video. Indeed, if you read the article I posted about uniforms they mention how Hezbollah would take over abandoned homes and use those to launch attacks.

Huh? Dude, seriously, the video evidence proves that Hezbollah based rocket batteries in civilian sectors in contradiction to the laws of war.

From your article:

Eli: Did they use populated areas to fire? It was clear that they did. Except Israel also dispersed flyers ordering all the civilian population of South Lebanon to leave. So it was in those villages after the, I don’t remember the date, except anyone who was in those villages was probably helping Hezbollah fighters.

Thanks for posting your article which proves that Hezbollah both wore the uniforms of the IDF in flagrant breach of the laws of war and used populated areas to launch attacks.

That alone doesn't explain it. How can a city of 20,000 people hit by 1,000 rockets not suffer a single casualty while other smaller ones hits with far fewer suffer several if Hezbollah were trying to kills as many civilians as possible?

What the hell are you talking about? Do you even try to make sense? First of all the advanced warning systems would have been far less effective in the Kibbutz areas, but regardless as you said the majority of rockets were not fired into cities. 23% of rockets were fired into densly populated areas, and all rockets were fired into populated areas.

So 77% were not sparsely populated, meaning Hezbollah either really sucks at targeting civilians or they were not actually targeting civilians. Honestly, this discussion has only convinced me that Hezbollah was not even indiscriminately targeting civilians, but simply engaging in the equivalent of carpet bombing because their weapons are so inaccurate.

Carpet bombing entire cities is a violation of the laws of war. Katusha rockets can not be fired discriminately, likewise carpet bombing can be discriminate as those doing the carpet bombing knew what they were trying to hit and did their best to hit it.

s
Intent follows the bullet? So Israel intentionally kills civilians?

If Israel's intent was to murder people rather than killing terrorists then yes. Hezbollah, doesn't wear uniforms, they indiscriminately target civilian populations with their rockets, and they use human shields, they are the quintessential example of a terrorist organization.

How can I explain something to you twice and you still repeat the same crap? There are strategic targets in populated areas. Meaning Hezbollah only ever targeted something specific if it was a strategic target and other than that fired without any clear target.

I understand that you consider indiscriminate rocket fire into densly populated civilian sectors to be "strategic" you're a sick human being.

 

[Demon of Light]

No civilians are allowed to spontaneously take up arms against an invading force so long as they abide to the laws of war, Hezbollah has neither spontaneously taken up arms or abide by the laws of war.

Neither would make them a terrorist organization, though like I said Hezbollah does have uniforms and they have been seen in combat wearing them. Here is another instance from 2008:

Western Beirut neighborhoods, until now controlled largely by forces opposing Hezbollah, was overrun by Hezbollah gunmen today. The gunmen, many wearing uniforms, reportedly took up positions on the main street of western Beirut's Muslim sector, acting as security forces by stopping cars and searching for weapons.

Source: World Net Daily

The reports of them wearing IDF uniforms in situations where they did not take advantage of it suggests they wore them because they were uniforms that separate them from civilians. I have read of this, though it's from years ago and hard to locate, where Hezbollah just doesn't have enough uniforms for all their members and only the most elite soldiers get uniforms.

That's the original source for the photos. Here's a link to the article with the pcitures still up:

The Photos That Damn Hezbollah - Truthdig

I just realized, at least one of them appears to be wearing camo and has some sort of military vest.

OMFG, wearing the uniform of an enemy soldier is a violation of the laws of war. Hezbollah wasn't wearing Israeli uniforms to distinguish themselves from civilians they were wearing Israeli uniforms to fool the IDF, I mean you can't be ****ing serious can you???

If it was to fool the IDF why would they not try to fool the IDF? The soldier being interviewed in the article didn't seem to notice the uniforms until after they came under fire. What is the advantage if they clearly distinguish themselves as hostile before they are noticed?

Yes the video evidence clearly and irrefutably proves that Hezbollah fired rockets from densly populated civilian sectors.

How? Where are the civilians? All I see is a Hezbollah vehicle and some buildings that may or may not be abandoned.

Thanks for posting your article which proves that Hezbollah both wore the uniforms of the IDF in flagrant breach of the laws of war and used populated areas to launch attacks.

Read the quote again:

Eli: Did they use populated areas to fire? It was clear that they did. Except Israel also dispersed flyers ordering all the civilian population of South Lebanon to leave. So it was in those villages after the, I don’t remember the date, except anyone who was in those villages was probably helping Hezbollah fighters.

In other words he is saying the populated areas were largely abandoned and those that remained were probably helping Hezbollah. He also remarks on several occasions that Hezbollah seemed to always be operating from abandoned buildings. In other words there were still people in the town and cities Hezbollah was operating in, but they consistently operated out of buildings were there were no civilians.

What the hell are you talking about? Do you even try to make sense? First of all the advanced warning systems would have been far less effective in the Kibbutz areas, but regardless as you said the majority of rockets were not fired into cities. 23% of rockets were fired into densly populated areas, and all rockets were fired into populated areas.

The Israeli military does have bases close to or around populated areas you know. I also doubt they had no soldiers in the cities, especially under the circumstances. Never mind there are more strategic targets in cities. The point is that despite being hit with a quarter of the rockets there were no deaths at all in Kiryat Shmona. If Hezbollah were trying to kill as many civilians as possible I would think they would be more capable than that.

Carpet bombing entire cities is a violation of the laws of war.

The Allies did it all the time in World War II. That is total war.

If Israel's intent was to murder people rather than killing terrorists then yes.

Are you serious? Apparently intent follows the bullet, unless it's an Israeli bullet.

Hezbollah, doesn't wear uniforms, they indiscriminately target civilian populations with their rockets, and they use human shields, they are the quintessential example of a terrorist organization.

Even if that were true, and I've clearly pointed out how this is not true, it does not make them a terrorist organization.

I understand that you consider indiscriminate rocket fire into densly populated civilian sectors to be "strategic" you're a sick human being.

I keep repeating, but you keep ignoring that I was not saying this at all. What I was saying is that there are strategic targets in such areas and that Hezbollah would discriminate against such targets, but not against any specific non-strategic target. Of course, in total war even civilians can be considered strategic targets, especially in Israel where men and women are required to serve in the military at a certain age.

 

[Agent Ferris]

Neither would make them a terrorist organization, though like I said Hezbollah does have uniforms and they have been seen in combat wearing them. Here is another instance from 2008:

Ya they wear uniforms except when they don't, they, also, violate the laws of war by dawing the uniforms of enemy soldiers which is a war crime in and of itself. Even your article says "many" indicating that they were not all wearing uniforms.

The reports of them wearing IDF uniforms in situations where they did not take advantage of it suggests they wore them because they were uniforms that separate them from civilians. I have read of this, though it's from years ago and hard to locate, where Hezbollah just doesn't have enough uniforms for all their members and only the most elite soldiers get uniforms.

Yep they wore IDF uniforms to differentiate themselves from civilians and not to blend in with the IDF. :roll: Good god you're beyond hope.

I just realized, at least one of them appears to be wearing camo and has some sort of military vest.

A) That's not a uniform.

B) 1 out of 6? You're kidding right?

If it was to fool the IDF why would they not try to fool the IDF? The soldier being interviewed in the article didn't seem to notice the uniforms until after they came under fire. What is the advantage if they clearly distinguish themselves as hostile before they are noticed?

Holy **** maybe they had the opportunity to fire on IDF soldiers and took it. The bottom line is they were wearing IDF uniforms, that is a ****ing war crime, it is not done to distinguish between combatants and non-combatants it is done to blend in with IDF forces.

How? Where are the civilians? All I see is a Hezbollah vehicle and some buildings that may or may not be abandoned.

All I see is several videos of Hezbollah rocket batteries in residential districts which is a ****ing war crime.

Read the quote again:



In other words he is saying the populated areas were largely abandoned and those that remained were probably helping Hezbollah. He also remarks on several occasions that Hezbollah seemed to always be operating from abandoned buildings. In other words there were still people in the town and cities Hezbollah was operating in, but they consistently operated out of buildings were there were no civilians.

Eli: Did they use populated areas to fire? It was clear that they did. Except Israel also dispersed flyers ordering all the civilian population of South Lebanon to leave. So it was in those villages after the, I don’t remember the date, except anyone who was in those villages was probably helping Hezbollah fighters.
The Israeli military does have bases close to or around populated areas you know. I also doubt they had no soldiers in the cities, especially under the circumstances. Never mind there are more strategic targets in cities. The point is that despite being hit with a quarter of the rockets there were no deaths at all in Kiryat Shmona. If Hezbollah were trying to kill as many civilians as possible I would think they would be more capable than that.

Thanks for playing.

The Allies did it all the time in World War II. That is total war.

The allies picked targets and did everything in their power to hit those targets, they didn't randomly drop bombs on German cities.

Even if that were true, and I've clearly pointed out how this is not true, it does not make them a terrorist organization.

All of that is true. What exactly would qualify them as a terrorist organization in your opinion? Hezbollah targets civilians, they don't wear uniforms, they violate all laws and customs of war etc etc et al.

I keep repeating, but you keep ignoring that I was not saying this at all. What I was saying is that there are strategic targets in such areas and that Hezbollah would discriminate against such targets, but not against any specific non-strategic target.

Hezbollah fires rockets into major population centers indiscriminately. That is terrorism.

Of course, in total war even civilians can be considered strategic targets, especially in Israel where men and women are required to serve in the military at a certain age.

Holy ****ing hell "civilians can be considered strategic targets" you are out of your mind. If Israel was engaged in total war then you might have a point, but they are not so you don't.

 

[Demon of Light]

Ya they wear uniforms except when they don't, they, also, violate the laws of war by dawing the uniforms of enemy soldiers which is a war crime in and of itself. Even your article says "many" indicating that they were not all wearing uniforms.

Don't you wonder why any of them are wearing uniforms? I mean, if not wearing uniforms was a tactic it wouldn't make a lot of sense to have people in uniform around people who aren't. Unless, the real reason is they just don't have uniforms for everyone.

Yep they wore IDF uniforms to differentiate themselves from civilians and not to blend in with the IDF.

Considering they apparently didn't even try to blend in with the IDF then it makes a lot more sense that it was just a uniform to separate themselves from civilians.

A) That's not a uniform.

So it has to be nice and fancy like Israel's to be a uniform? He is wearing full camo and clearly wearing a military vest. Unless he's pretending to be a rather aggressive hunter I doubt there would be much question about whether or not he's a civilian.

B) 1 out of 6? You're kidding right?

Considering there are thousands of members of Hezbollah, I think even showing that one in a small group is in a combat outfit is enough, especially since other sources not more people in uniform.

Holy **** maybe they had the opportunity to fire on IDF soldiers and took it. The bottom line is they were wearing IDF uniforms, that is a ****ing war crime, it is not done to distinguish between combatants and non-combatants it is done to blend in with IDF forces.

The funny thing is, there are many mentions of them wearing such uniforms even in situation where they would not be blending in. Actually, now that I've bother to look into the subject it seems clear Hezbollah would not be engaging in war crimes at all even if they didn't wear uniforms:

Art 37. Prohibition of Perfidy

1. It is prohibited to kill, injure or capture an adversary by resort to perfidy. Acts inviting the confidence of an adversary to lead him to believe that he is entitled to, or is obliged to accord, protection under the rules of international law applicable in armed conflict, with intent to betray that confidence, shall constitute perfidy. The following acts are examples of perfidy:
(a) the feigning of an intent to negotiate under a flag of truce or of a surrender;
(b) the feigning of an incapacitation by wounds or sickness;
(c) the feigning of civilian, non-combatant status; and
(d) the feigning of protected status by the use of signs, emblems or uniforms of the United Nations or of neutral or other States not Parties to the conflict.

2. Ruses of war are not prohibited. Such ruses are acts which are intended to mislead an adversary or to induce him to act recklessly but which infringe no rule of international law applicable in armed conflict and which are not perfidious because they do not invite the confidence of an adversary with respect to protection under that law. The following are examples of such ruses: the use of camouflage, decoys, mock operations and misinformation.

Source: International Committee of the Red Cross

So it would seem even if they used IDF uniforms in such a manner it would be allowed and so long as they do not pretend to be civilians in order to lull the IDF into a false sense of security it is also not a war crime. Even if they wore civilian clothing intentionally to allow them to blend back into the civilian population it would not be a war crime.

All I see is several videos of Hezbollah rocket batteries in residential districts which is a ****ing war crime.

If that's a war crime then every military engaged in a conflict is guilty of war crimes because every military in history when engaged in a conflict has operated in cities and sought to secure or protect every part of the city. Never mind the fact that if said buildings are abandoned it is as much a war crime as war itself.

Thanks for playing.

How is that I pointed out the exact parts where he clearly says this was after most civilians left, with those remaining supporting Hezbollah, and you just ignore that?

The allies picked targets and did everything in their power to hit those targets, they didn't randomly drop bombs on German cities.

The Allies intentionally bombed residential areas and that is a fact. In total war everything is fair game because everything can be an asset for the enemy, including innocent civilians.

What exactly would qualify them as a terrorist organization in your opinion? Hezbollah targets civilians, they don't wear uniforms, they violate all laws and customs of war etc etc et al.

Hezbollah does wear uniforms, though as I pointed out it is not actually a war crime to not wear them, and it is quite possible they don't even target civilians, but simply go after strategic targets with inaccurate weapons.

Hezbollah fires rockets into major population centers indiscriminately. That is terrorism.

That isn't terrorism, no matter how much you want to stretch the definition of terrorism.

Holy ****ing hell "civilians can be considered strategic targets" you are out of your mind. If Israel was engaged in total war then you might have a point, but they are not so you don't.

Israel knowingly bombed schools. They targeted water and sewage treatment facilities and countless other civilian targets that would provide them with no strategic benefit against Hezbollah. Naturally, they have a long list of excuses, but it seems like they just look for a way to claim they are not engaging in total war. Indeed, Israel made a point of saying that nothing was safe in Lebanon.

Also, way to deliberately leave off the part where I said this was "in total war" that civilians can be considered strategic targets, that is, a war where the industrious elements of society or any potential sources of manpower are targets.

 

[Agent Ferris]

Don't you wonder why any of them are wearing uniforms? I mean, if not wearing uniforms was a tactic it wouldn't make a lot of sense to have people in uniform around people who aren't. Unless, the real reason is they just don't have uniforms for everyone.

Not wearing uniforms means that they are not lawful enemy combatants they are terrorists.

Considering they apparently didn't even try to blend in with the IDF then it makes a lot more sense that it was just a uniform to separate themselves from civilians.

Considering that they dawned the uniform of a belligerent they committed a war crime. The assertion that they were trying to distinguish themselves from civilians by dressing like the IDF is just ridicilous.

So it has to be nice and fancy like Israel's to be a uniform? He is wearing full camo and clearly wearing a military vest. Unless he's pretending to be a rather aggressive hunter I doubt there would be much question about whether or not he's a civilian.

Considering there are thousands of members of Hezbollah, I think even showing that one in a small group is in a combat outfit is enough, especially since other sources not more people in uniform.

Ya they wear uniforms except when they don't and some of them wear uniforms except the ones that don't. :roll: THEY ALL HAVE TO WEAR UNIFORMS.

The funny thing is, there are many mentions of them wearing such uniforms even in situation where they would not be blending in. Actually, now that I've bother to look into the subject it seems clear Hezbollah would not be engaging in war crimes at all even if they didn't wear uniforms:



Source: International Committee of the Red Cross

Dawning the uniform of the belligerent while engaged in actual defense or attack is not a legal ruse of war and is explicitly prohibited under the Hague Convention:

Article 23 of the Annex of the Hague Convention, No. IV, 1907, says: " In addition to the prohibitions provided by special conventions it is especially forbidden . . . (f) to make improper use of a flag of truce, of the national flag, or of the military insignia or uniform of the enemy, as well as the distinctive badges of the Geneva Convention ".

" As regards the use of the national flag, the military insignia and the uniforms of the enemy, theory and practice are unanimous in prohibiting such use during actual attack and defence since the principle is considered inviolable that during actual fighting belligerent forces ought to be certain of who is friend and who is foe ". -- Oppenheim-Lauterpacht (International Law, Vol. II, paragraph 163)

So it would seem even if they used IDF uniforms in such a manner it would be allowed and so long as they do not pretend to be civilians in order to lull the IDF into a false sense of security it is also not a war crime.

Dawing the uniform of a belligerent during actual defense or attack is a war crime.

Even if they wore civilian clothing intentionally to allow them to blend back into the civilian population it would not be a war crime.

You have no freaking clue what you are talking about, dressing as civilians is a war crime.

Your own god damn article states that "the feigning of civilian, non-combatant status," is prohibited you even ****ing bolded it.

The article 4 of the 3rd Geneva Conventions clearly states that if they want to take part in the fighting that they need to have a fixed distinctive symbol visible at a distance which distinguishes them from civilians:

(2) Members of other militias and members of other volunteer corps, including those of organized resistance movements, belonging to a Party to the conflict and operating in or outside their own territory, even if this territory is occupied, provided that such militias or volunteer corps, including such organized resistance movements, fulfil the following conditions:
(a) that of being commanded by a person responsible for his subordinates;
(b) that of having a fixed distinctive sign recognizable at a distance;
(c) that of carrying arms openly;
(d) that of conducting their operations in accordance with the laws and customs of war.

If that's a war crime then every military engaged in a conflict is guilty of war crimes because every military in history when engaged in a conflict has operated in cities and sought to secure or protect every part of the city. Never mind the fact that if said buildings are abandoned it is as much a war crime as war itself.

Both Protocal 1 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 International Armed Conflict, Cambridge University Press, 2004, pp. 129-130).

Article 51 (7) of Protocal 1 states: "The presence or movements of the civilian population shall not be used to render certain points or areas immune from military operations, in particular attempts to sheild military objectives from attacks or to sheild, 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 Conflict, 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 operations is recognized as a war crime by Article (2) (b) (xxiii)". (Dinstein, p. 130)

How is that I pointed out the exact parts where he clearly says this was after most civilians left, with those remaining supporting Hezbollah, and you just ignore that?

Eli: Did they use populated areas to fire? It was clear that they did. Except Israel also dispersed flyers ordering all the civilian population of South Lebanon to leave. So it was in those villages after the, I don’t remember the date, except anyone who was in those villages was probably helping Hezbollah fighters.
The Israeli military does have bases close to or around populated areas you know. I also doubt they had no soldiers in the cities, especially under the circumstances. Never mind there are more strategic targets in cities. The point is that despite being hit with a quarter of the rockets there were no deaths at all in Kiryat Shmona. If Hezbollah were trying to kill as many civilians as possible I would think they would be more capable than that.

The Allies intentionally bombed residential areas and that is a fact. In total war everything is fair game because everything can be an asset for the enemy, including innocent civilians.

Germany and Japan were engaged in total war, Israel is not engaged in total war. Furthermore; there was an absence of positive humanitarian law concerning aerial bombardment during WW2. Carpet bombing civilian sectors has since been made a war crime.

Hezbollah does wear uniforms,

Except when they don't.

though as I pointed out it is not actually a war crime to not wear them,

Yes it is, blending in with civilians is not a legal ruse of war, your own article said so, you even bolded the portion that said it.

and it is quite possible they don't even target civilians, but simply go after strategic targets with inaccurate weapons.

Yes firing rockets indiscriminately into densly populated civilian sectors is "strategic". You sir are simply beyond help.

That isn't terrorism, no matter how much you want to stretch the definition of terrorism.

Ya targeting civlians, not wearing uniforms, blending in with civilians, dawning the uniforms of belligerents during attack and defense, are definitately not what makes a terrorist a terrorist. You sir simply have no clue what you're talking about.

Israel knowingly bombed schools.

Hezbollah and Hamas knowingly use schools as bases of operations yet another war crime.

They targeted water and sewage treatment facilities and countless other civilian targets that would provide them with no strategic benefit against Hezbollah. Naturally, they have a long list of excuses, but it seems like they just look for a way to claim they are not engaging in total war. Indeed, Israel made a point of saying that nothing was safe in Lebanon.

Also, way to deliberately leave off the part where I said this was "in total war" that civilians can be considered strategic targets, that is, a war where the industrious elements of society or any potential sources of manpower are targets.

Israel is in no way engaged in total war. Not even close. You seriously need to learn the definition of terms before using them.

 

[Demon of Light]

Not wearing uniforms means that they are not lawful enemy combatants they are terrorists.

It doesn't mean that at all.

Considering that they dawned the uniform of a belligerent they committed a war crime. The assertion that they were trying to distinguish themselves from civilians by dressing like the IDF is just ridicilous.

They didn't appear to take advantage of having the uniforms.

Ya they wear uniforms except when they don't and some of them wear uniforms except the ones that don't. :roll: THEY ALL HAVE TO WEAR UNIFORMS.

What hell are you talking about? There is absolutely nothing stating that they all have to have jerseys!

Dawning the uniform of the belligerent while engaged in actual defense or attack is not a legal ruse of war and is explicitly prohibited under the Hague Convention:

Actually it explicitly prohibits "improper use" and given that Hezbollah made their belligerent status clear without ever having used the uniforms to mislead the other side it does not apply under the circumstances.

Dawing the uniform of a belligerent during actual defense or attack is a war crime.

That's what someone said of it, but not what the treaty itself says.

You have no freaking clue what you are talking about, dressing as civilians is a war crime.

Prove it. There is nothing in the treaty whatsoever that says merely wearing civilian clothes is forbidden. It would be absurd to do so because any resistance movement or militia is not guaranteed to all have uniforms.

Your own god damn article states that "the feigning of civilian, non-combatant status," is prohibited you even ****ing bolded it.

Do you know what "feigning" even means? I thought of underlining that word because it is quite important.

The article 4 of the 3rd Geneva Conventions clearly states that if they want to take part in the fighting that they need to have a fixed distinctive symbol visible at a distance which distinguishes them from civilians:

That is not what it says at all. It says in order to be considered prisoners of war they must have such a symbol and nowhere does it mention uniforms.

Both Protocal 1 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 International Armed Conflict, Cambridge University Press, 2004, pp. 129-130).

Article 51 (7) of Protocal 1 states: "The presence or movements of the civilian population shall not be used to render certain points or areas immune from military operations, in particular attempts to sheild military objectives from attacks or to sheild, 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 Conflict, 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 operations is recognized as a war crime by Article (2) (b) (xxiii)". (Dinstein, p. 130)

Like I said, having soldiers in a civilian area is not the same thing as using human shields. Intent is of overriding importance. Using weapons while in a populated area is not a war crime.

Eli: Did they use populated areas to fire? It was clear that they did. Except Israel also dispersed flyers ordering all the civilian population of South Lebanon to leave. So it was in those villages after the, I don’t remember the date, except anyone who was in those villages was probably helping Hezbollah fighters.

I keep telling you that the rest of the paragraph clarifies what he means and it is clear he is saying most civilians had left already and those that stayed were helping Hezbollah.

Germany and Japan were engaged in total war, Israel is not engaged in total war. Furthermore; there was an absence of positive humanitarian law concerning aerial bombardment during WW2. Carpet bombing civilian sectors has since been made a war crime.

I am not saying it isn't a war crime, but it is something that has been done countless times before.

Yes firing rockets indiscriminately into densly populated civilian sectors is "strategic". You sir are simply beyond help.

How many times do I have to repeat that is not what I am saying before it sinks in? I was specifically saying that if Hezbollah targeted something specific it was because it was a strategic and that they did not specifically target civilians.

Ya targeting civlians, not wearing uniforms, blending in with civilians, dawning the uniforms of belligerents during attack and defense, are definitately not what makes a terrorist a terrorist.

That's exactly right. Terrorist is not a catch-all term for any group that doesn't play by the rules.

Hezbollah and Hamas knowingly use schools as bases of operations yet another war crime.

So says Israel, who has every reason to say that in order to excuses its actions. I don't recall any evidence whatsoever of Hezbollah using schools as bases of operations.

Israel is in no way engaged in total war. Not even close. You seriously need to learn the definition of terms before using them.

Actually Israel has gone further even embracing the concept of total war for future wars with Hezbollah threatening to destroy any villages Hezbollah launches weapons from. This doctrine is even named for the area hit hardest by Israel during the 2006 war, acknowledging they did engage in total war.

 

[Agent Ferris]

It doesn't mean that at all.

Yes it does as the laws of war are clear, lawful combatants must wear uniforms or a fixed insignia visible at a distance.

They didn't appear to take advantage of having the uniforms.

When conducting actual defense or attack dawning of a belligerents uniform is a war crime.

What hell are you talking about? There is absolutely nothing stating that they all have to have jerseys!

Actually it does, the 3rd Geneva Conventions Article 4 section 2(B) states clearly that they must all wear a fixed insignia recognizable at a distance.

Actually it explicitly prohibits "improper use" and given that Hezbollah made their belligerent status clear without ever having used the uniforms to mislead the other side it does not apply under the circumstances.

Improper use is dawning the uniform of a belligerent when engaged in actual defense or attack.

That's what someone said of it, but not what the treaty itself says.

No that's what Oppenheim-Lauterpacht (International Law, Vol. II, paragraph 163) says. That's a law book it's not some guy.

Prove it. There is nothing in the treaty whatsoever that says merely wearing civilian clothes is forbidden. It would be absurd to do so because any resistance movement or militia is not guaranteed to all have uniforms.

3rd Geneva Conventions Article 4 Section 2(B)

Do you know what "feigning" even means? I thought of underlining that word because it is quite important.

It means to give a false appearance.

That is not what it says at all. It says in order to be considered prisoners of war they must have such a symbol and nowhere does it mention uniforms.

OMFG I'm done with you, those who are to be considered prisoners of war are those who are lawful enemy combatants, if you are not a lawful enemy combatant you are an unlawful enemy combatant IE a terrorist.

Like I said, having soldiers in a civilian area is not the same thing as using human shields. Intent is of overriding importance. Using weapons while in a populated area is not a war crime.

Staging offensive attacks in populated areas is a war crime. And actually putting weapons on or near civilian structures, and/or hiding weapons caches in or near civilian structures is a war crime.

Article 58. Precautions against the effects of attacks

The Parties to the conflict shall, to the maximum extent feasible:

(a) without prejudice to Article 49 of the Fourth Convention, endeavour to remove the civilian population, individual civilians and civilian objects under their control from the vicinity of military objectives;

(b) avoid locating military objectives within or near densely populated areas;

(c) take the other necessary precautions to protect the civilian population, individual civilians and civilian objects under their control against the dangers resulting from military operations.

Library Document

I keep telling you that the rest of the paragraph clarifies what he means and it is clear he is saying most civilians had left already and those that stayed were helping Hezbollah.

He clearly says that Hezbollah used populated areas from which to stage attacks.

I am not saying it isn't a war crime, but it is something that has been done countless times before.

So they're war criminals just not terrorists?

How many times do I have to repeat that is not what I am saying before it sinks in? I was specifically saying that if Hezbollah targeted something specific it was because it was a strategic and that they did not specifically target civilians.

Towns, villages, and cities are not strategic targets.

That's exactly right. Terrorist is not a catch-all term for any group that doesn't play by the rules.

Terrorism is defined as the unlawful use of force perpetrated by non-state actors in order to influence a government or a society. Hezbollah is a terrorist organization.

So says Israel, who has every reason to say that in order to excuses its actions. I don't recall any evidence whatsoever of Hezbollah using schools as bases of operations.

So says the video evidence:

Actually Israel has gone further even embracing the concept of total war for future wars with Hezbollah threatening to destroy any villages Hezbollah launches weapons from. This doctrine is even named for the area hit hardest by Israel during the 2006 war, acknowledging they did engage in total war.

Israel is not engaged in total war, not even close, you don't even know the definition of total war, Israel's war is not limitless in scope and they have not mobilized all of their available resources. Not only is Israel not engaged in total war they are engaged in low intensity conflict with a very limited scope which is the exact opposite of total war.

 

[Demon of Light]

Yes it does as the laws of war are clear, lawful combatants must wear uniforms or a fixed insignia visible at a distance.

It doesn't mention uniforms at all and it doesn't concern whether a group is a terrorist organization or not.

No that's what Oppenheim-Lauterpacht (International Law, Vol. II, paragraph 163) says. That's a law book it's not some guy.

Fine, it's a law book by some guy. It is not a legal treaty.

It means to give a false appearance.

It means to pretend, meaning to pretend to be a civilian. Specifically pretending to be a civilian in order to launch an attack.

OMFG I'm done with you, those who are to be considered prisoners of war are those who are lawful enemy combatants, if you are not a lawful enemy combatant you are an unlawful enemy combatant IE a terrorist.

That is not what the term terrorist means. Stop making up definitions.

Staging offensive attacks in populated areas is a war crime. And actually putting weapons on or near civilian structures, and/or hiding weapons caches in or near civilian structures is a war crime.

It is not a war crime if there are no civilians in said structures and if attacks launched from populated areas are not done to shield the attacker. The U.S. had conducted operations in populated cities and has thus launched attacks on enemy positions from areas in said cities. This does not mean the U.S. is guilty of war crimes because it is necessitated by the circumstances of the battle. There is not nearly as much cover for Hezbollah's forces outside the cities and they can't be expected to leave themselves out in the open, just because they might dive for cover behind a building people are in.

So they're war criminals just not terrorists?

That would be a fair assessment, of course this would apply to Israel as well.

Towns, villages, and cities are not strategic targets.

Last time I'm going to say this: I never said they were strategic targets, but that there are strategic targets within them. Soldiers will operate in or near these areas for a variety of reason and infrastructure critical to the war effort will often be based in populated areas.

Terrorism is defined as the unlawful use of force perpetrated by non-state actors in order to influence a government or a society. Hezbollah is a terrorist organization.

That is not what terrorism, though I am sure you can find someone who says the opposite since it has been abused so much. The root terrorism is terror not law.

So says the video evidence:

That concerns Hamas not Hezbollah, the group we're talking about.

Israel is not engaged in total war, not even close, you don't even know the definition of total war, Israel's war is not limitless in scope and they have not mobilized all of their available resources. Not only is Israel not engaged in total war they are engaged in low intensity conflict with a very limited scope which is the exact opposite of total war.

Total war is not an absolute term. However, Israel did mercilessly attack countless civilian targets that had no connection to Hezbollah and the only reason they did not mobilize all their resources is because they didn't need to mobilize them. Israel does seem to have fully embraced the idea of total war for any future war, however.

Also, calling the 2006 Lebanon War a low-intensity conflict with very limited scope is just absurd. If it had been such a conflict I would not be so critical of Israel, but it was definitely not.

 

[Agent Ferris]

It doesn't mention uniforms at all and it doesn't concern whether a group is a terrorist organization or not.

Terrorism is the unlawful use of force by a subnational or non-state actor, not wearing a uniform during combat operations is the unlawful use of force and Hezbollah is a subnational actor.

Fine, it's a law book by some guy. It is not a legal treaty.

Dawning the uniform of a belligerent during actual attack or defense as a war crime is established international law.

It means to pretend, meaning to pretend to be a civilian. Specifically pretending to be a civilian in order to launch an attack.

Yes and dressing as a civilian while conducting military operations is feigning the appearance of a civilian. Is this really that hard for youto understand? You can't be serious.

That is not what the term terrorist means. Stop making up definitions.

Terrorism is the unlawful use of force by subnational and/or non-state organizations and/or individuals in order to influence a government or a society. Hezbollah conducts the unlawful use of force and is a subnational actor.

It is not a war crime if there are no civilians in said structures and if attacks launched from populated areas are not done to shield the attacker. The U.S. had conducted operations in populated cities and has thus launched attacks on enemy positions from areas in said cities.

It is the enemy that has used the populated cities as cover, international law is quite clear that the use of populated sectors as cover is the war crime and that it does not make them immune from counterattack.

This does not mean the U.S. is guilty of war crimes because it is necessitated by the circumstances of the battle. There is not nearly as much cover for Hezbollah's forces outside the cities and they can't be expected to leave themselves out in the open, just because they might dive for cover behind a building people are in.

No like Hezbollah it is the insurgency that was guilty of the war crime for using the civilian sectors as bases of operations, counterattacking these areas which the enemy has utilized is not the war crime, the use of these civilian sectors for cover is the war crime.

That would be a fair assessment, of course this would apply to Israel as well.

No actually it wouldn't apply to Israel.

Last time I'm going to say this: I never said they were strategic targets, but that there are strategic targets within them.

And Katusha rockets are can not discriminate which means that their use is an act of terrorism and a war crime.

Soldiers will operate in or near these areas for a variety of reason and infrastructure critical to the war effort will often be based in populated areas.

The use of weapons which can not discriminate between civilians and combatants is a war crime. Katushas can not be used to strategically target anythings, the only thing which they can target are entire cities, villages, and towns, there use is an overt act of terrorism and a war crime.

That is not what terrorism, though I am sure you can find someone who says the opposite since it has been abused so much. The root terrorism is terror not law.

How would you define terrorism? Because every definition of terrorism I have ever seen involves the unlawful use of force by subnational and non state actors, usually directed against non-combatants, Hezbollah meets the definition to the letter, they do not wear uniforms, and their use of rockets to target entire cities, villages, and towns is a war crime, and they are subnational actors.

That concerns Hamas not Hezbollah, the group we're talking about.

I have already posted several videos in which Hezbollah can be seen clearly using population centers to station their rocket batteries and even firing off rockets.

Total war is not an absolute term. However, Israel did mercilessly attack countless civilian targets that had no connection to Hezbollah and the only reason they did not mobilize all their resources is because they didn't need to mobilize them. Israel does seem to have fully embraced the idea of total war for any future war, however.

Once again making up your own definitions of words to suit your agenda. Israel is not engaged in total war by any definition of the term. They are engaged in low intentensity warfare with a very limited scope that is the exact antithesis of total warfare. You fail again sir.

Also, calling the 2006 Lebanon War a low-intensity conflict with very limited scope is just absurd. If it had been such a conflict I would not be so critical of Israel, but it was definitely not.

If it did not have a limited scope then Israel would have completely depleted Lebanon's capacity to wage warfare. Their entire country would be in ruins, there would have been nothing left, they would have been wiped off the map. You do not even know what total war even means.

 

[kaya'08]

Anyone's surprised?

Considering the source you linked, no. It was an expected conclusion. :roll:

 

[Apocalypse]

Considering the source you linked, no. It was an expected conclusion. :roll:

Take your propaganda eslewhere, YNET is a center-left source that usually shows its bias against the government.
The only issue you have with it is that it is an independent source that is maintained by Israelis.
Says a lot about you.

 

[Vader]

Anyone's surprised?

More proof that Nesrallah needs a dirt nap.

 

[kaya'08]

Take your propaganda eslewhere, YNET is a center-left source that usually shows its bias against the government.
The only issue you have with it is that it is an independent source that is maintained by Israelis.
Says a lot about you.

My propaganda? Who's been whining like a little girl all month about Turkey in the ME thread? I dont remember once ever opening a thread to deliberately bash Israel. Look in the mirror once in a while.

Im just making a valid observation. The western media outlets have failed to back "YNET's" information or sources.

 

[Apocalypse]

My propaganda? Who's been whining like a little girl all month about Turkey in the ME thread?

If it has to be one of us, and I know it wasn't me, then you may complete the rest.

Im just making a valid observation.

No you're not, you're calling a freaking leftist independent newspaper "Israeli propaganda", merely because it's being managed by Israelis.
That's just bigoted and unacceptable, you can't declare an independent newspaper biased based on its managers' nationality.
If you wish to base your claim that YNET promotes some form of a pro-Israeli agenda then do so the legitimate way, cite its articles and prove there is a pattern of biased news reports, not simply referring to the fact that it's an Israeli independent newspaper.

 

[kaya'08]

If it has to be one of us, and I know it wasn't me, then you may complete the rest.

Did you just write a sentence that doesn't make sense because your English is bad or is this your little way of admitting to your propaganda machine?

No you're not, you're calling a freaking leftist independent newspaper "Israeli propaganda", merely because it's being managed by Israelis.

I didn't call it propaganda. Now your just making things up. I said it was an unreliable source.

That's just bigoted and unacceptable, you can't declare an independent newspaper biased based on its managers' nationality

That's funny. I could have sworn you where doing the same with Al-Jazeera not far back. :roll:

If you wish to base your claim that YNET promotes some form of a pro-Israeli agenda then do so the legitimate way, cite its articles and prove there is a pattern of biased news reports, not simply referring to the fact that it's an Israeli independent newspaper.

OK. Evidence number 1:

Unfounded article with no sources. Done.