Israel/Lebanon/Gaza conflict (continuation thread)

What you say about parents is certainly generally true, but remembmer that some Muslim parents, quite a few really, consider it a great honor for their children to sacrifice themselves to kill Jews for Allah, so I'm not sure we can assume anything about motives. But I wasn't thinking particularly of parents, I was thinking of just anybody who would know that Hezbollah is in the neighborhood and is a target and would have the humanity to remove civilians and children from harm's way. Move them across town, walk if necessary. For all we know these children were smack on a Hezbollah nest. We won't know for some time if ever of course.

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.

A map of Beirut to give some perspective on just how specific Israel's attacks have been:http://thewildhare.org/Beirutareaseffectedasof21.jpgSome more background on the supposed attack on the UN post:The UN Failure in Lebanon DEBKA report on Qana:— - DEBKAfile And another report from DEBKA on the same incident:DEBKAfile - Political Analysis, Espionage, Terrorism, Security Pessimistic prediction of the outcome of this war, at Front Page Magazine:Inside Every Progressive Is A Totalitarian Screaming To Get Out - David Horowitz

Yes, perhaps the children were of Christian families, it hasn't been said that I know of, but Lebanon is primarily a Christian nation, at least nominally. I do find it odd that Arab Christians support the terrorists but I'm not unaware that that is the case. That same statistic is reported at Front Page today, as a matter of fact, but I don't remember if it was in what I just posted or not.israel's intelligence is very good. They know where Hezbollah hangs out.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

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.

Riiiight because AOL is so liberal and anti-Israel. I guess if you believe the lie of the "liberal media" then nearly everything you see, hear or read will appear biased. Well, I can't seem to find any archived photo galleries from the Haifa attacks on the AOL site, so I went looking elsewhere. I found that two of the bastions of the "liberal media," The NYTimes and The BBC both had articles and videos concentrating on the Haifa attacks without interspersing them with images of Lebanese victims (the NYT video is titled Smoke and Tears and the BBC's is called Hezbollah's strike into Haifa in northern Israel). The NYTimes site also has a complete coverage section on the Middle East with articles about both sides and many photo galleries including day by day reports representing the news from both sides of the border.Also, uber-liberal CBSnews.com has an extensive archive of videos reporting on the attacks on Haifa.On top of the above, other sites such as MSNBC (citing a Washington Post article) have print articles that describe the attacks in Haifa without inserting any information about the retaliatory actions by Israel or their effects.And there are plenty more where those came from.So much for that argument. The section on "latest news" from your AOL site was not only aout Qana (I know I brought up the point that it was about Qana, but it does, in fact, cover other subjects. I apologize) and the pictures also depicted the protests in Beirut. I do question the inclusion of the smoking soldier's picture because it isn't particularly newsworthy, even though the caption states that he is newly returned home from "an incursion into Lebanon (I don't find it "sinister" but, rather, the close-up nature and the fact that he is dirty and obviously tired shows a humanity and normality to the viewer that can then extend to all the Israeli soldiers), but the photo of the soldiers returning home is part of the "latest news" theme because it happened on Saturday and the patrol and the soldier setting up the explosive are in the village of Maroun al-Ras which was captured by Israeli forces on Satuday. So the images are not just arbitrary counter points to the images of death and ruin in Qana.So much for that argument. Ahhh, but it is covered.From NYTimes article on Haifa refugees
Emphasis mine NYTimes article on Haifa refugees and how they are copingReuters AlertNet article on Israeli hotels being packed with refugeesBoston Globe article mentioning "Whole families sleeping on mats"Sydney Morning Herald article describing tent cities and mentioning bomb sheltersCBS affiliate site reporting on Israelis heading to bomb shelters earlier in the conflictSalon.com article about plumbers being dispatched to an Israeli shelterNPR audio link entitled "Rockets Drive Israelis Into Bomb Shelters"San Francisco Chronicle article about a couple getting married in a bomb shelterAlso the MSNBC article I mentioned above describes refugees as does one of the CBS videos - Israel shelters up.So much for that argument. I agree that showing "wailing sufferers" is presented in order to evoke an emotional response from the viewer, but it happens on both sides (for example, see Smoke and Tears video above and look up old video from suicide attacks in Israel). However, seeing the effects of war on other human beings is news and, besides, that is not all that is shown. Do you think that news organizations showing videos of Katrina victims took away from the fact that the preparation and response was horribly inadequate or did it highlight that fact? Do you think that showing images of famine victims in Africa disallows one from looking at the situation objectively? How about images of Hiroshima?Showing images of death, misery and destruction is not necesarily showing bias and it definitely is not bias if both sides are presented and, as I have already shown, they are.So much for that argument. No, the point is that there are 10+ times as many Lebanese victims as there are Israeli victims and they also tend to happen in larger numbers at once in Lebanon. The Haifa attacks and the emotional aftermath were and are covered as well as other Israeli casualties, including military casualties. So stop pretending that the media are ignoring the Israeli side because that is a bogus claim.As for the supposed insinuation that it's "all Israel's fault," I will say that sometimes it just may be. I do not believe that there can be any justification for attacking a civilian convoy after Israel tells them to evacuate or for attacking clearly marked rescue vehicles or civilian cars fleeing a besieged area or shelling a known UN outpost. As I have stated in a previous post, it does not matter if Israel believes that an attack originated from that area. They have the surveillance capability to scope out the area before they launch a counter attack and make sure that they are not targeting innocent civilians. I do agree that accidents happen, but Israel does not seem to be taking all the appropriate measures to avoid them and are shifting the blame to Hezbollah instead of using some sense. An ambulance should NEVER be a target no matter if they are suspected of carrying enemies or weapons.And the number of deaths is definitely part of the story. Just because the US doesn't like to tally civilian casualties does not mean it should not be done. See above. from a timesonline.co.uk article
Emphasis mineThe article mentions both sides being in danger of war crimes charges. I also abhor Hezbollah's indiscriminate killing of civilians (wether or not they are actually targeting civilians is another story...they may just have bad aim and are missing the oil depots in Haifa), Israel is claiming the moral high ground and is a signatory of the Geneva Conventions (many of whose provisions are based on the war crimes perpetrated against the European Jews) and also has the technology to bomb with near perfect precision and the duty not to target an area where there will be assured civilian casualties if the "near perfect" isn't perfect enough.And I did read your link and have been researching the claims made. I have to do more research on the 1982 invasion in order to respond (I'll probably respond to the post containing the link), but I do have some articles to counter this claim:

quote:

---

The press is also spending a great deal of time talking to Lebanese civilians and their relatives in the United States and highlighting the difficult conditions they are enduring. This is no doubt the case since they are living in a war zone; however, the media has spent almost no time talking to the Israelis living under the constant threat of rocket attacks. Few reporters have gone into the bomb shelters to interview the frightened Israeli families. No one seems interested in how the relatives of Israelis in the United States feel about their loved ones being under siege.

---

NYTimes article presenting support from both Jewish and Arab AmericansArizona Republic article reporting fears from Americans on both sidesPalm Peach Post article reporting on Israel support ralliesMSNBC article reporting Newsweek interviews of youths returning from Israel and LebanonMSNBC article about Americans moving to Israel despite the conflictLA Daily News article about American teens in IsraelHouston Chronicle article about the important role the Internet is taking in the lives of Israelis staying in bomb sheltersBBC article about a Haifa resident having to take refuge in his apartment's bomb shelterBBC article entitled In the Israeli Army - relatives speakOne in a daily series of BBC articles entitled Voices from the conflictMSNBC article citing kids responses to the conflict while in bomb shelters (there is also a video in which the correspondent is witness to a fatal strike)Well, that along with a few from earlier in this post pretty much refute that claim. I'll get to work on the others soon. I don't have any personal military experience, but I have family and friends in the military who can answer my questions and I also work with a man who is Israeli and, of course, served in the Israeli military and, while we differ somewhat ideologically, he is happy to answer my questions as well. I do not believe that Israel currently has "smart bombs" in their arsenal (although the US is expediting a shipment of these and "bunker busters" to Israel).That said, I expect the bombs to be precise enough to avoid hitting ambulances, clearly marked UN outposts, civilian convoys and the like. The Qana incident may very well have been an accident, but when you have a recent history of hitting civilian cars that are evacuating and targeting roads and bridges you cannot expect people to trust that they will not be killed while fleeing and you should be aware that there are still civilians in the area and take more caution. Also, what about the people who cannot afford to leave or do not have a car or are too sick or old to leave? Do they deserve to die? Why? Because I don't think that civilian casualties should be shrugged off as "collateral damage" when their deaths could be avoided? I think I've proved my point well enough.

Very liberal. Hardly a day goes by that they aren't taking a poke at Bush. I don't "believe" anything. I see it for myself. I'm always glad when others also see it.But you don't and have gone to impressive lengths to try to prove it. I don't know if I will get through your list, but if all you are trying to show is that there IS coverage of Israel's side of things at times, that isn't under dispute. It's a matter of emphasis.MSNBC usually is OK as far as balance goes so we don't have an argument there anyway. AOL Is terrible. Most of what they do is spun left. But of course no record is perfect and occasionally they will show the other side as do other media. It can't be helped.I hope to get to the bulk of your post later.

I see no twisting. The way they report it is the way I see it. Of COURSE he says things like that. Everybody says things like taht. And the bias is in the "excessive use of force" statement. Excessive compared to what? They haven't even eliminated Hezbollah and may not. But that's what they should be doing, taking it out absolutely.And the only RIGHT statement anyone could make on this would be to condemn Hezbollah in no uncertain terms. They should be condemned over and over again by the UN and the world, and then Israel might not have to take military measures as much as they have to. But the world treats these terrorists as if they were legtimate rather than criminals, and THAT is the bias that is fundamentally evil. The UN SHOULD condemn them absolutely outright. Instead they are always finding fault with Israel's attempts to deal with them. That is the unconscionable bias, this siding with criminal organizations, believing their outright lies and always judging against Israel. How very odd, Mod, Annan's statements are VERY one way in this poltiical minefield just as the JVL notes. It's obvious to many of us.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

of course the sources you agree with are accuratei, however, am interested in your call for the annihilation of a group based solely on their personal convictions. clearly that is the only difference between they who shell a nation of civilians and the israelis who are shelling a nation of civilians.of course, i'm under the bizarre impression that we revere freedom of thought. what a damned fool i am, eh?Edited by brennakimi, : No reason given.

Really, the quantity of your links proves nothing. The emphasis in the media is always against Israel whether there are reports on Israel or not. Just showing a distraught man carrying a dead child is an indictment of Israel, though the man may be acting, may be unrelated to the child, the child may even have been hit by Hezbollah fire -- this has happened though it's been attributed to Israel, and so on, and the fact that they were warned to leave is played down. This was the headline on AOL all day yesterday.Your last line is: No, because you believe that account covers it, based on nothing but first impressios. Deaths could have been avoided according to what criterion? Apparently some emotional feeling of your own buttressed by the slanted news reports. Why weren't the civilians evacuated when they were warned? They WERE warned. Hezbollah strongholds ARE in those areas, and those ARE the target, and the civilian casualties could have been avoided if Hezbollah hadn't put them in harm's way and if Israel's warnings were heeded. My first comment on your rush to judgment was correct: That is, you look no deeper than the emotional images and the spin attached to them. Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

There is such a thing as a criminal organization that has no legitimate status and should not be recognized. The Canadian general at the audio link in Message 92 mentions the wrongness of supporting such an organization, one that is not recogznied by Canada in this case. Yes, they should be wiped out. They have no legitimate grievance. You are talking from the usual Leftist sentimental foolishness that mindlessly equates criminality with legitimate causes. Edited by Faith, : No reason given.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

You all rush to judgment based on the flimsiest most superficial emotion-charged impression you get. The Jewish Virtual Library is a pretty good source. DEBKA is pretty good too. You all should spend some time reading through their offerings.I'm astonished at the general inability to appreciate what is at stake here, the prejudice that rules your minds, the lies you fall for, the media spin to the left you can't see for what it is. Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

you mistook what i said, as usual. i'm not suggesting that they be treated like ladies at a tea party. but to go out with the intent of killing them all with impunity is disgusting.

ENDING THEIR ABILITY TO PERFORM TERRORIST ACTS IS THE POINT. That doesn't necessarily involve killing them all. Taking out all their arsenals, their rockets etc, may be all that is necessary. And what's wrong with killing murderous criminals anyway?Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

It's downright naive to think that this can ever be achieved this way. Israel will never be able to eradicate Hezbollah with violence. Each Israeli act of violence will instill hatred into people who may not have been supporters of Hezbollah yet, but become just that because of it. If anything can be learned from what has happened in the Middle East since 1948, it's that violence always breeds counter-violence. You'd think that those people over there would have noticed the downward spiral by now, but no.I'm not defending Hezbollah, I think it's a criminal organization all right, but I don't think that one crime justifies another, and I think that what Israel is doing in Lebanon is a just as much a war crime as Hezbollah's firing rockets into Israel is. What's wrong with it is that by doing so, you become murderous yourself and you're therefore well on your way to becoming what they are.Edited by Parasomnium, : No reason given.

---

"Ignorance more frequently begets confidence than does knowledge: it is those who know little, not those who know much, who so positively assert that this or that problem will never be solved by science." - Charles Darwin.