Israel/Lebanon/Gaza conflict (continuation thread)

Actually both sides share responsibility. When one side masquerades as civillians and uses civillian services to transport weapons, they must accept the consequences of doing that: civillian deaths.Indeed, people like Hezbollah not only accept the consequences...they plan for them. They do it not just to protect themselves, but to endanger others. When the enemy starts killing lots of civillians, they become unpopular which helps swell their ranks (and thus pockets).Israel are responsible because better than anybody, they should know this. However, constantly facing this kind of combat has seemingly numbed them to it. They have repeated the mantra that it is the other sides fault for putting the civillians in danger so often that they believe it. Imagine a police officer in a hostage situation simply gunning down thirty hostages to kill three hostage takers (who were also active shooters).Israel is 100% responsible for these deaths, but so is Hezbollah. Black and white has never applied to the Middle East.

So let's get this straight, you know about this tactic. Hezbollah know about this tactic. But the IDF are ignorant of it? I don't think so. The IDF know very well that by the time the artillery attack comes in, Hezbollah are likely to be long gone. Did the IDF confirm the target was a hostile before attacking? Or did they fire deadly weapons at a certain area without checking there'd be a medical convoy coming through?It would be very easy for Hezbollah to set up a missile strike just ahead of a convoy - fire the missiles and get the hell out of there. Timed just right so the retaliation comes just as the convoy arrives. Blown up medical convoy, Geneva convention broken, everyone hates Israel, score for Hezbollah.Do you consider the IDF stupid enough to fall for that glaringly obvious tactic? Their precision retaliations are only good as long as the enemy hasn't got a counter tactic - and there has been one for a long time (make sure you aren't near the attack site).Looks to me like Hezbollah has been underestimated and have exploited the Israeli's aggression and rapid indiscriminate (ie without double checking the target area) response .

I never said that Hezbollah fired the rocket from the convoy. I said the opposite:

quote:

---

It would be very easy for Hezbollah to set up a missile strike just ahead of a convoy - fire the missiles and get the hell out of there. Timed just right so the retaliation comes just as the convoy arrives. Blown up medical convoy, Geneva convention broken, everyone hates Israel, score for Hezbollah.

---

The have a stationary vehicle ahead of the known arrival time of the convoy. They fire missiles x minutes before convoy arrives from their stationary position. They get the hell out of there. The convoy arrives at the same time as the airstrike and BOOM! Israel get to be the bad guys. Israel can also say 'but we detected a missile launch in that area', and lead people to think that the covoy was firing missiles.

All the hall marks of a good troll. Question: are children also guilty of storing weapons for hezbollah? Are they guilty by association?

If you can find any evidence that someone deliberately put their children in the line of fire, by all means present it. Until the only parties that have put the children in the line of fire are Hezbollah and Israel.Not everybody in Lebanon can be in on 'it'.

Israel had a responsibility to make sure the area was clear. Perhaps they could have aided the evacuation, or recommended the UN aid the evacuation. Once again, not all of south Lebanon is in on 'it'. Good question. As a comparison - which country do you think has a better infrastructure. The USA, or Lebanon? Relevant because of the New Orleans/hurricane disaster. Why are they left there? Are they able to leave? Are their parents negligent, unable to leave, dead, or afraid of packing up the truck for fear of being bombed by Israel?Parents are universally selfless. Not all parents, but globally parents will always try to get their kids out of danger - even if they themselves believe in Hezbollah's cause. I'd imagine then that most of the parents are not negligent/evil. Instead they are frightened of leaving after Israel's warning about any vehicles being viable targets. They could already be dead OR their exits are blocked (no bridges/roads). Indeed - I wouldn't be surprised if Hezbollah goaded Israel into making a publicity blunder. And I wouldn't be surprised if Israel fell for it.Edited by Modulous, : No reason given.

Interestingly, a poll was carried out:

quote:

---

According to a poll released by the Beirut Center for Research and Information, 87 percent of Lebanese support Hizbullah's fight with Israel, a rise of 29 percent on a similar poll conducted in February. More striking, however, is the level of support for Hizbullah's resistance from non-Shiite communities. Eighty percent of Christians polled supported Hizbullah along with 80 percent of Druze and 89 percent of Sunnis.

---

Of course, they aren't true Christians so you can ignore that, but I thought you might like the stats for your anti-Islam discussions...I'm sure you are sure they are true Muslims. Or, more likely, Israel was fooled into thinking it was a Hezbollah stronghold by tactical disinformation.

The Jewish Virtual Library are actually twisting the truth there. Just a warning about soorces:

quote:

---

Throughout his tenure, Kofi Annan has shown no reluctance to condemn Israeli actions while simultaneously refusing to criticize the terror that provokes them

---

Which is totally false. Annan says things like:

quote:

---

failing to utter the word “terrorism” to describe that actions of Hizballah

---

Is unnecessary. Kofi Annan has to speak on behalf of the UN. Only the US, Canada and Israel consider Hezbollah as terrorists - and the United Kingdom, Netherlands and Australia consider the ESO to be terrorist.
The EU agrees that Hezbollah engage in terrorist activities and that its senior intelligence officer is a terrorist.So it's not so cut and dried, and for Kofi Annan making a statement one way or another on the issue (which is a political minefield) would be ill-advised and not diplomatic in the slightest.

So - one of your sources has said things which are demonstratably false, but you still trust them because they share the same biases as you...or 'The way they report it is the way I see it.'No problem.

The bit where they said 'Annan refuses to do x', which is not true since Annan does not refuse to do it all. Annan has condemned anti-Israel terrorism on a number of occasions.

The difference between Hezbollah and Hamas etc and Israel, is that Israel is a member state of the UN. If Annan condemns Israel's actions more it is because they should be held to higher standards than murdering terrorists.That said, the JVL were clearly not telling the whole truth. Their obvious bias meant that they omitted material facts about the situation and said something which is basically false. Annan does condemn terrorism - just because he condemns members of the UN more does not change the fact that he condemns terrorism.To use your own opinion on his sincerity is called bias. Just because you don't believe him does not mean that he does not condemn them. SourceElsewhere on the site: elsewhere You don't have to believe him, you can think him insincere, but that doesn't mean that you should report as fact that he has not condemned terrorism even when it is against Israel.