Israel/Lebanon/Gaza conflict (continuation thread)

jar writes:Buz, you just keep making things worse for the Israelis. Directing responding fire at the location where rockets were, but are no longer, is simply terrorism. There is no other way to describe it.

jar writes:The smaller rockets can be carried in a car. They are not launched from a car. They can be carried and launched from a flatbed truck. But guess what Buz, the truck then drives away. By the time that Israel returns fire there is nobody there but Civilians.

jar writes:How successful will a duck hunter be who shoots where the duck was a few minutes ago instead of where the duck will be?

Holmes writes:Have you ever heard of the rule of law Buz? In international law you don't get to tell innocent people in neighboring countries, and especially not UN observers who have well defined positions, that they must leave because you have decided to blow up their location.I might point out that while Israel gave such an illegal blanket warning, they were also given a warning by the UN to stop shelling their position... ten times to be exact.Is Israel above the law?

Anne Bayefsky, a senior fellow at the Hudson Institute and at Touro College Law Center. She is also editor of www.EyeontheUN.org. writes: The Human Rights Council is now the U.N.’s lead human-rights body, and examples of egregious human-rights violations should not have been hard to find. In Darfur, there are three quarters of a million people beyond humanitarian reach, 2.5 million people displaced by the violence, 385,000 people in immediate risk of starvation, and over two million dead in 22 years of violence and deprivation. But it wasn’t genocide in Sudan that interested the Human Rights Council. Nor was it a billion Chinese without civil and political rights. Not 13 million women in Saudi Arabia whose lives depend on hiding from sight in public places and never being caught behind the wheel of an automobile. Not the dire human-rights conditions of 23 million people in North Korea. Not Iranian President Ahmadinejad’s incitement to genocide or his country’s legal system, which includes crucifixion, stoning and amputation.No; there was only one country singled out by the U.N. Human Rights Council, and that was Israel. The Council decided that the program for the first session should focus discussion on five issues; the first one being the “human rights situation in the occupied Arab Territories, including Palestine.” (The rest were “support for the Abuja Peace Agreement,” and three thematic subjects.) The Council placed criticism of Israel permanently on the agenda of all future sessions. It gave only the special investigator on Israel what amounted to a permanent mandate. On its final day, the Council passed just one resolution condemning human-rights violations by any of the 192 U.N. members, and directed it at Israel. When it was all over, the Council decided to hold its first special (emergency) session within a few days ” on Israel.

jar writes:Israel has turned down a mediated ceasefire.

Holmes writes:You didn't answer my questions. I think that is telling, don't you? There are international laws which govern (or are supposed to govern) the actions of NATIONS. Yes, terrorists do not as well as what are becoming referred to as "rogue nations". But legitimate nations are measured by their adherence to such laws.

Omni writes:How many Lebanese women and children stand between an unfettered Israel and peace? You believe Israel should just kill until they obtain an abject surrender? If that hasn't worked in Iraq--like it never worked in Vietnam--why do you think the slaughter of civilians can achieve peace in the Middle East?

clp writes:If, while attempting to kill these MUDEROUS CRIMINALS, you inadvertently kill 60 or so innocent women and children, is it still a righteous act?Is there an acceptable number of innocent people you can kill, as long as you were aiming at the bad guys?