RecordSage, you have said nothing that contradicts what I clipped here. The blogger was referring to conspiracy theories that the IAF strike did not cause the deaths of the 28 individuals who lived in the Qana building--even the IDF is brushing these conspiracy ideas aside.

The blogger, Marc Cooper, also acknowledges that the IDF is justifying its attack by referring to Hezbollah.

Marc Cooper said:

the IDF takes responsibility for the tragedy. At least, sort of. There's the usual verbiage about Hezbollah using civilian shields, but the IDF doesn't fudge the basic facts. The Israeli Air Force attacked the building in which the hapless civilians were taking shelter and that is what kille...

RecordSage, you have said nothing that contradicts what I clipped here. The blogger was referring to conspiracy theories that the IAF strike did not cause the deaths of the 28 individuals who lived in the Qana building--even the IDF is brushing these conspiracy ideas aside.

The blogger, Marc Cooper, also acknowledges that the IDF is justifying its attack by referring to Hezbollah.

Marc Cooper said:

the IDF takes responsibility for the tragedy. At least, sort of. There's the usual verbiage about Hezbollah using civilian shields, but the IDF doesn't fudge the basic facts. The Israeli Air Force attacked the building in which the hapless civilians were taking shelter and that is what killed them.

Finally, RecordSage, you said:

You got the damn link it there - READ IT!

Good advice. I think you should start following it.

Except the fact that you staged the clip to look as if it were more of something than it really was....

I have no idea what you mean. Some of Israel's defenders have been vigorously circulating conspriacy theories about how Israel's strike itself did not kill the Qana victims (e.g. inventing an alleged gap of 8 hours between the first IAF strike and the subsequent collapse of the building).

It's one thing to argue that yes, Israel killed the Qana victims but the moral responsibility lies with Hezbollah, which is what I take your position to be. It is quite another to claim that no one died as a direct result of the IAF airstrike, which is the argument this clip is addre...

Except the fact that you staged the clip to look as if it were more of something than it really was....

I have no idea what you mean. Some of Israel's defenders have been vigorously circulating conspriacy theories about how Israel's strike itself did not kill the Qana victims (e.g. inventing an alleged gap of 8 hours between the first IAF strike and the subsequent collapse of the building).

It's one thing to argue that yes, Israel killed the Qana victims but the moral responsibility lies with Hezbollah, which is what I take your position to be. It is quite another to claim that no one died as a direct result of the IAF airstrike, which is the argument this clip is addressing.

...the fact is they had the warnings and the intel.

If you read the news accounts (1 2 3) about the two families that were killed in the airstrike, they had very good reasons for not evacuating.

.MAYBE just MAYBE Hezbollah is actually not allowing them to just walk away and forcing them to pose as human shields?

Yeah, and MAYBE just MAYBE aliens forced them to pose as human shields too.

There is pretty much no evidence that Hezbollah was in the area at the time of the air strike (4).

And prove to me the 23 "citizens" weren't actually Hezbollah themselves....

The burden is on Israel to prove that the people they are killing are Hezbollah militants, ideally BEFORE they kill them.

essamz, you can keep feeding yourself this bull all day long. If the civilians were targeted in Lebanon, considering the weapons that Israel posseses - there would be NO civilians in Lebanon... why is it so hard for you to grasp? Why would anyone try to drop leaflets and ask people to leave, if they're the targets? I realize that you guys are behind the times on many things, but you must have some logic there somewhere or are you brainwashed so badly, that none of it exists any longer? Just THINK!

You could make an argument that katyushas are being fired at the soldiers, because they're sitting on the border and that's one of the main areas of attacks by them. The reality is it's not q...

essamz, you can keep feeding yourself this bull all day long. If the civilians were targeted in Lebanon, considering the weapons that Israel posseses - there would be NO civilians in Lebanon... why is it so hard for you to grasp? Why would anyone try to drop leaflets and ask people to leave, if they're the targets? I realize that you guys are behind the times on many things, but you must have some logic there somewhere or are you brainwashed so badly, that none of it exists any longer? Just THINK!

You could make an argument that katyushas are being fired at the soldiers, because they're sitting on the border and that's one of the main areas of attacks by them. The reality is it's not quite so, because these damn katyushas are also way behind the times and they're both inaccurate and have a short range, thus that's where they land, but you could still state that that's where most of the Israeli army is and that's where they hit. However, when one see rockets and drones flying to Haifa and beyond - it's strictly meant for civilian population - there's no question there.

As for what who killed in terms of percentages - you have no more accurate info on that than I do and I have none at my disposal. We will see exactly how many of whom were killed after the whole thing comes to a halt... whenever that actually happens.

And as for hezbollah's rockets, or to be more accurate, Iranian rockets, the ones that hit Haifa very much can target... the drone that Israelis shot out of the sky yesterday has a GPS onboard... so they have some that can target.

You're letting your ideology get the best of your brain's ability to reason... not a good thing.... but, to each his own... gotta run... meeting in San Francisco tonight... it's kind of like Seattle, but bigger

"If the civilians were targeted in Lebanon, considering the weapons that Israel posseses - there would be NO civilians in Lebanon."

That is ridiculous logic. If Al-Aqaeda said they weren't targetting civilians in the 9-11 attacks, they were just trying to destroy some buildings, and to prove this they said something "if we were trying to kill civilians there would have been no civilians left in New York" I somehow doubt you would agree with that.

The fact that Israel does not openly declare they are targeting civilians does not mean they are being honest. Human Rights Watch investigators on the ground in Lebanon have documented cases where Israel struck places with no clear military just...

"If the civilians were targeted in Lebanon, considering the weapons that Israel posseses - there would be NO civilians in Lebanon."

That is ridiculous logic. If Al-Aqaeda said they weren't targetting civilians in the 9-11 attacks, they were just trying to destroy some buildings, and to prove this they said something "if we were trying to kill civilians there would have been no civilians left in New York" I somehow doubt you would agree with that.

The fact that Israel does not openly declare they are targeting civilians does not mean they are being honest. Human Rights Watch investigators on the ground in Lebanon have documented cases where Israel struck places with no clear military justification, other than harming civilians.

I think this is the whole probem with trying to draw a huge distinction between Israel and Hezbollah. Hezbollah just does not bother to keep up the pretense of respecting civilian-life. Israel makes the effort to keep up the pretense, but its actions speak louder.

Although I profoundly disagree with essamz's views on civilian-killings (he, like you, seems to think they're excusable as long as its the "good guys" doing the killing) everything I have read is in general accordance with his figures.

Also, I don't buy that since Israel warns civilians in advance it is somehow absolved of all responsibility for civilian-deaths. First of all, Israel has killed fleeing civilians. Second, some civilians are too poor, too sick, too old, to make the move. Third, Palestinian militant groups like Hamas and Islamic Jihad have made it clear that civilians living in Israel are fair game to target. They could justify their atrocities the same way you are justifying Israel's--e.g. they knew in advance, they could leave, blah blah blah. These justifications ring hollow, regardless of who is doing the justifying.

I'm confused.

* Israel gives "fair" warning to leave areas they are going to attack, but days later warns any vehicles on the road will be targeted.

* people in groups seem to be suspicious (ie: teh farmers) so those people who do try and heed Isreal's warning, and can't use vehicles (see prior point) have to flee in small groups (2 or 3).

* how are people suppose to leave without vehicles? what about supplies? personal belongings? they carry them, what idf those items being carried are mistaked from teh air or long distances for weapons?

Israel has already broken a number of the geneva convetions:

agricultural areas:
Attacks against crops, livestock and agricultural areas...

I'm confused.

* Israel gives "fair" warning to leave areas they are going to attack, but days later warns any vehicles on the road will be targeted.

* people in groups seem to be suspicious (ie: teh farmers) so those people who do try and heed Isreal's warning, and can't use vehicles (see prior point) have to flee in small groups (2 or 3).

* how are people suppose to leave without vehicles? what about supplies? personal belongings? they carry them, what idf those items being carried are mistaked from teh air or long distances for weapons?

Israel has already broken a number of the geneva convetions:

agricultural areas:
Attacks against crops, livestock and agricultural areas needed for food production for the civilian population are prohibited. ( Protocol I, Art. 54 , Sec. 2)

area bombardments:
Area bombardments occur when a number of clearly separated military objectives are treated as a single military objective, and where there is a similar concentration of civilians or civilian objects. ( Protocol I, Art. 51 , Sec. 5a)
Area bombardments and other indiscriminate attacks are forbidden. ( Protocol I, Art. 57, Sec. 2b)
An indiscriminate attack affecting the civilian population or civilian objects and resulting in excessive loss of life, injury to civilians or damage to civilian objects is a grave breach of the Geneva Conventions. ( Protocol I, Art. 85, Sec. 3)

blockade:
Relief consignments, equipment and personnel must be able to pass rapidly and freely if the assistance is meant for the civilian population of the opposing side. This includes medicines, religious items, food and clothing. (Convention IV, Art. 23; Protocol I, Art. 70, Sec. 2)
An exception may be made if there is fear that the shipments would be diverted to help the military. (Convention IV, Art. 23)

civilian objects
Combatants must distinguish between civilian and military objects and attack only military targets. (Protocol I, Art. 48)
See places of worship,

hehe.. I knew you'd take that bait


Just because on group decided to ignore the convections, doesn't mean another should. The other point is that these groups do not represent a country nor are they the armies of a country (Hezbollah is a political entity, but is not the military wing of Lebanon, the insurgents/civil war parties in Iraq are not the Iraq army). That doesn't mean they are excused.

However, Israel's army IS the army of Israel. They are bound to the Geneva Convections. They also should not lower themselves to acting like terrorists. They do have superior numbers, firepower, communications gear, etc, etc. With their technology it should be the exception that civilian...

hehe.. I knew you'd take that bait


Just because on group decided to ignore the convections, doesn't mean another should. The other point is that these groups do not represent a country nor are they the armies of a country (Hezbollah is a political entity, but is not the military wing of Lebanon, the insurgents/civil war parties in Iraq are not the Iraq army). That doesn't mean they are excused.

However, Israel's army IS the army of Israel. They are bound to the Geneva Convections. They also should not lower themselves to acting like terrorists. They do have superior numbers, firepower, communications gear, etc, etc. With their technology it should be the exception that civilians are hit, not the rule.

FYI: Isreal signed into the GC on Aug 12, 1949 & ratified them (with a few reservations mainly aroun d the symbol used to identify thier medical corps) on Jun 17, 1951.