|
|
|
beskeptigal
SFN Die Hard
USA
3834 Posts |
 Posted - 08/10/2006 : 13:47:04 [Permalink]
|
Just what facts have I presented that weren't supported, Dude? Our conclusions may differ but I have supported the facts I presented.
The Human Rights Watch report says civilians are deliberately targeted. They supported their claims. You and many others don't believe the report. Myself and many others do believe the report. You can criticize the report all you want and present your evidence. So far all I've seen in the way of contradictory evidence is the claims of the Israeli military. Yet HRW documented some cases where Israel admitted to the HRW claims such as using cluster bombs.
Where do you get the information "There are, literally, thousands of people involved in all the target selection and decisions to fire being made daily there now"? So tell me if you know, just how is Israel identifying targets and how do you know that? Unless one answers that one cannot say what was deliberate.
As far as deliberate or not, two things are always ignored when the, "we don't target civilians and they do" justification is given. One is Hezbollah doesn't exactly have the options Israel has. What are they supposed to do against overwhelming force, just give up? (This is not on comment on right or wrong with the overall grievances, just if you hypothetically accept the fact there is a reason to fight, to then condemn the tactics of one side of an incredibly uneven fight just doesn't give one the moral high ground claimed.)
And the second issue ignored is weighing the value of 10 or more civilian deaths from collateral bombing against 1 death from targeting civilians. Lots of people can excuse the 10 deaths. If it were my child who died, I certainly wouldn't see Israel's actions as moral and just. Especially if I had no control over where Hezbollah chose to store rockets. And Israel's claims of doing everything to spare civilians seems disingenuous from the targets they have chosen and the air power they aren't using to patrol and fire right after rockets are fired. Instead they bomb the sites hours or days later. That is revenge or show of force, not taking out rockets they know are no longer there.
|
 |
|
|
H. Humbert
SFN Die Hard
USA
4574 Posts |
Posted - 08/10/2006 : 14:40:29 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by beskeptigal
One is Hezbollah doesn't exactly have the options Israel has. What are they supposed to do against overwhelming force, just give up?
What are you talking about?
Israel for years maintained that they had to occupy Lebanon in order to protect their own security. People cried that this was a sham and that Israel was only occupying Lebanon because it was a "land grab" or some other such alterior purpose. So Israel pulls out and says fine, wait and see what happens. Sure enough, as soon as they've had time to re-arm and re-supply, Hezbollah starts firing rockets across the border and abducts two Israeli soldiers. The exact same thing happened when they pulled out of Gaza.
Israel is not the aggressor here. Hezbollah had options, one of which was to accept a truce and live peacefully alongside Israel. It's clear that they find this unacceptable.
You say you want Israel to make peace, but who with? None of these groups will even admit Israel's right to exist. Israel has tried extending the olive branch. No one will take it. Even the Palestinians elected a terrorist group to power with a history of waging war against Israel in their first Democratic elections. Does it sound like they want peace?
I'm being serious. I want you to explain to me exactly why Hezbollah--who enjoys the full support of the Lebonese citizenry--had no options left to them but to launch rockets into Israel and abduct soldiers. Because right now I can't even begin to see how you've arrived at your current point of view.
|
"A man is his own easiest dupe, for what he wishes to be true he generally believes to be true." --Demosthenes
"The first principle is that you must not fool yourself - and you are the easiest person to fool." --Richard P. Feynman
"Face facts with dignity." --found inside a fortune cookie |
|
|
|
marfknox
SFN Die Hard
USA
3739 Posts |
Posted - 08/10/2006 : 15:25:06 [Permalink]
|
Humbert wrote: quote:
Israel is not the aggressor here. Hezbollah had options, one of which was to accept a truce and live peacefully alongside Israel. It's clear that they find this unacceptable.
While I agree with many of the criticisms of Israel, and I don't quite buy that they are completely just extending an olive branch, you are totally right here that Hezbollah was the aggressor who started this recent conflict. Their actions (violent aggression) and motivations (to do away with Israel) are IMO completely undefendable except to point to the sheer ignorance and lack of education of most of their followers.
quote:
Even the Palestinians elected a terrorist group to power with a history of waging war against Israel in their first Democratic elections. Does it sound like they want peace?
While you have made a good point and defending it well, I just wanted to add what I've read in Foreign Policy and elsewhere about how part of the support for Hamas is due to their providing of desperately needed social services where the previous government had failed. From wikipedia: quote:
Hamas has also established an extensive network of welfare programs throughout the West Bank and Gaza Strip, further adding to its popularity.
I don't see this as a defense for Hamas's overwhelming violent traits nor do I deny that it is an organization that has widely supported terrorism. But it seems to me that part of the problem in Western perceptions about the Middle East (and other parts of the world for that matter) is that we focus entirely on democracy and freedom, to the neglect of providing the means for survival: healthcare, food, shelter, and education. That stuff has to come first because without those things, citizens are more likely to support violent rebellion, and without security, freedom and democracy are pipe dreams. |
"Too much certainty and clarity could lead to cruel intolerance" -Karen Armstrong
Check out my art store: http://www.marfknox.etsy.com
|
|
|
|
Dude
SFN Die Hard
USA
6891 Posts |
Posted - 08/10/2006 : 16:49:13 [Permalink]
|
beskeptigal said:
quote:
The Human Rights Watch report says civilians are deliberately targeted. They supported their claims.
The HRW report offers accounts of bombs hitting civilians. Are you seriously trying to say that you think this crackpot report (it scores, because it states that nobody has contradicted their claim) holds up to legitimate evidantiary standards?
You WANT to believe Israel is deliberately targeting civilians, so you grab this particular annecdote and run with it.
You also make the claim that it is the official policy of Israel to deliberately target civilians, based on nothing more than the fact that some ordinance has landed on some civilians. When I ask you to provide some evidence, you fall back on the ridiculous HRW annecdote.
quote:
Where do you get the information "There are, literally, thousands of people involved in all the target selection and decisions to fire being made daily there now"? So tell me if you know, just how is Israel identifying targets and how do you know that? Unless one answers that one cannot say what was deliberate.
I have served in the US Army. I have worked closely with artillery, armor, and air cav (helecopter assault) units. I have a passing familiarity with the procedure to fire weapons and the number of people that have to sign off on every round that goes down range. There are easily a dozen people involved in the firing of every round, from target selection, permission to engage, and the people pulling the trigger. Multiply that by two or three divisions worth of artillery, armor, helecopters, and a squadron or two of bombers. Multiply that by the two or three shifts per day it takes to run continious ops, and you have a very high number of people involved in the process of dropping bombs. Even for Israel's "little" war now.
quote:
So tell me if you know, just how is Israel identifying targets and how do you know that?
Target aquisition is done several ways. Usually by forward observers. They identify enemy assets, relay the position and call for artillery/air strikes, and in some instances paint the target (for laser guided bombs). The new UAVs are also used to ID targets. Satellite intel is also used, but mainly to give your observes and UAVs a place to go look for specific targets.
What is Israel's specific policy for target selection? I'm not privvy to that information. And neither are you. But is ludicrous to jump to the comclusion that you have and claim Israel intentionally targets civilians.
quote:
And the second issue ignored is weighing the value of 10 or more civilian deaths from collateral bombing against 1 death from targeting civilians. Lots of people can excuse the 10 deaths. If it were my child who died, I certainly wouldn't see Israel's actions as moral and just.
Don't change the subject. This conversation is about your claim that Israel is deliberately targeting civilians. I'm not following this red herring and getting into a debate about the morality of war with you (a subject we would probably agree on, on most points) until you concede that you have zero evidence to support your claim of deliberate targeting of civilians as policy.
|
Ignorance is preferable to error; and he is less remote from the truth who believes nothing, than he who believes what is wrong.
-- Thomas Jefferson
"god :: the last refuge of a man with no answers and no argument." - G. Carlin
Hope, n.
The handmaiden of desperation; the opiate of despair; the illegible signpost on the road to perdition. ~~ da filth |
|
|
|
|
beskeptigal
SFN Die Hard
USA
3834 Posts |
Posted - 08/11/2006 : 22:56:07 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by H. Humbert
quote:
Originally posted by beskeptigal
One is Hezbollah doesn't exactly have the options Israel has. What are they supposed to do against overwhelming force, just give up?
What are you talking about?
Israel for years maintained that they had to occupy Lebanon in order to protect their own security. People cried that this was a sham and that Israel was only occupying Lebanon because it was a "land grab" or some other such alterior purpose. So Israel pulls out and says fine, wait and see what happens. Sure enough, as soon as they've had time to re-arm and re-supply, Hezbollah starts firing rockets across the border and abducts two Israeli soldiers. The exact same thing happened when they pulled out of Gaza.
Israel is not the aggressor here. Hezbollah had options, one of which was to accept a truce and live peacefully alongside Israel. It's clear that they find this unacceptable.
You say you want Israel to make peace, but who with? None of these groups will even admit Israel's right to exist. Israel has tried extending the olive branch. No one will take it. Even the Palestinians elected a terrorist group to power with a history of waging war against Israel in their first Democratic elections. Does it sound like they want peace?
I'm being serious. I want you to explain to me exactly why Hezbollah--who enjoys the full support of the Lebonese citizenry--had no options left to them but to launch rockets into Israel and abduct soldiers. Because right now I can't even begin to see how you've arrived at your current point of view.
I don't want to rehash the whole issue here of Zionism and Palestinian history. So for the sake of the argument, whether you agree with Hezbollah's motives or not they themselves are clearly no match militarily with Israel. Regardless of all the who is right, who is just, who did what to whom, who did it first, who has a reason to retaliate and on and on... if Hezbollah chooses to fight a battle they hardly have the same options as Israel. |
| Edited by - beskeptigal on 08/11/2006 22:56:41 |
|
|
|
beskeptigal
SFN Die Hard
USA
3834 Posts |
Posted - 08/11/2006 : 23:07:14 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by Dude
Don't change the subject. This conversation is about your claim that Israel is deliberately targeting civilians. I'm not following this red herring and getting into a debate about the morality of war with you (a subject we would probably agree on, on most points) until you concede that you have zero evidence to support your claim of deliberate targeting of civilians as policy.
This discussion is also going on at JREF but rather than rehashing the whole mess (Go there if you choose) let me repeat a point I've been making there.
Israel claims to be aiming at only Hezbollah targets. Yet they are unable to stop 100-200 katyusha rockets a day being fired back at them. And reports are being made Hezbollah hasn't suffered a severe blow so far.
So, if they are not hitting Hezbollah effectively one has to wonder what they are aiming at?
And I'm sorry but it does matter that Israel is killing such a large number of civilians. This idea it's OK because they aren't aiming doesn't make it OK as far as my values go. (Even Kil in his support of Israel says it's reckless.) That may be justified in many people's minds. If it were my child that was dead, I wouldn't give a damn that you thought it was justified.
|
|
|
|
beskeptigal
SFN Die Hard
USA
3834 Posts |
Posted - 08/11/2006 : 23:18:38 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by marfknox
...But it seems to me that part of the problem in Western perceptions about the Middle East (and other parts of the world for that matter) is that we focus entirely on democracy and freedom, to the neglect of providing the means for survival: healthcare, food, shelter, and education. That stuff has to come first because without those things, citizens are more likely to support violent rebellion, and without security, freedom and democracy are pipe dreams.
Not to mention the hypocrisy of claiming we are for democracy and freedom but almost always acting in our own (not speaking for myself as I don't agree) best interest, democracy being irrelevant. I think we would have less "blowback" as it has been called if we had really worked for that democracy and freedom we claimed we have worked for. In fact, I think if we had, the poverty and all its trappings would have decreased considerably. |
|
|
|
H. Humbert
SFN Die Hard
USA
4574 Posts |
Posted - 08/11/2006 : 23:46:49 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by beskeptigal
That may be justified in many people's minds. If it were my child that was dead, I wouldn't give a damn that you thought it was justified.
And if just the day before you had watched the Hezbollah militia men roll a rocket into your village, cheered them on as they set it up, gave them a meal and a bed for the night, then you shouldn't exactly be surprised when you find a smoking crater in your street the next day either. When you support the war-makers you invite the consequences of retaliation.
Hezbollah isn't a terrorist group, remember? That's what we keep being told. They are acting with the full support of the Lebanese citizenry. Guess any mother that loses a child either hasn't thought things through or has already weighed the possibility and deemed it an acceptable risk. If they cared for the safety of their children at all they wouldn't support launching rockets into Israel in the first place.
|
"A man is his own easiest dupe, for what he wishes to be true he generally believes to be true." --Demosthenes
"The first principle is that you must not fool yourself - and you are the easiest person to fool." --Richard P. Feynman
"Face facts with dignity." --found inside a fortune cookie |
| Edited by - H. Humbert on 08/11/2006 23:50:39 |
|
|
|
beskeptigal
SFN Die Hard
USA
3834 Posts |
Posted - 08/12/2006 : 00:29:44 [Permalink]
|
| But HH, then you are claiming the civilians are all guilty, they all support Hezbollah, and they all knew the rockets and or Hez members were nearby, they had some control over the situation and/or they had the chance to leave. If those are your assumptions how is it Israel claims there even are any civilians in the area? |
|
|
|
Dude
SFN Die Hard
USA
6891 Posts |
Posted - 08/12/2006 : 16:21:15 [Permalink]
|
beskeptigal said:
quote:
And I'm sorry but it does matter that Israel is killing such a large number of civilians. This idea it's OK because they aren't aiming doesn't make it OK as far as my values go. (Even Kil in his support of Israel says it's reckless.) That may be justified in many people's minds. If it were my child that was dead, I wouldn't give a damn that you thought it was justified.
See, there you go again making assumptions about what my opinion on this situation is. None of this is even remotely relevant to your claim that Israel is intentionally targeting civilians with bombs.
In an effort to get you to stop doing this, I'll just go ahead and state my opinion as clearly as I can. I didn't want to, but here it is:
The entire state of affairs between Israel, Palestine, and Lebanon is one of the major human tragedies of the last 100 years. The current fighting is ridiculous. The number of deaths that have resulted from one ignorant group provoking another ignorant group into massive retaliation are unforgivable. Both sides need to remove their heads from their asses and stop killing one another.
Hope that clarifies my opinion for you. You know, the one you said you were able to detect by some nuance of language.
Now, concede that you have no credible evidence to support your ridiculous claim of intentional targeting of civillians by Israel, and then we might be able to hold a reasonable conversation on the topic of this fucked up little war.
|
Ignorance is preferable to error; and he is less remote from the truth who believes nothing, than he who believes what is wrong.
-- Thomas Jefferson
"god :: the last refuge of a man with no answers and no argument." - G. Carlin
Hope, n.
The handmaiden of desperation; the opiate of despair; the illegible signpost on the road to perdition. ~~ da filth |
|
| Edited by - Dude on 08/14/2006 15:30:41 |
|
|
|
Dude
SFN Die Hard
USA
6891 Posts |
Posted - 08/14/2006 : 15:32:45 [Permalink]
|
So.... you aren't even going to acknowledge your catastrophically wrong interpretation of my opinion here, are you?
Typical.
|
Ignorance is preferable to error; and he is less remote from the truth who believes nothing, than he who believes what is wrong.
-- Thomas Jefferson
"god :: the last refuge of a man with no answers and no argument." - G. Carlin
Hope, n.
The handmaiden of desperation; the opiate of despair; the illegible signpost on the road to perdition. ~~ da filth |
|
|
|
|
beskeptigal
SFN Die Hard
USA
3834 Posts |
Posted - 08/14/2006 : 20:14:27 [Permalink]
|
If that last post is directed my way, it was premature. I am trying to get my taxes done and I do have a business to run, a house to maintain and a son I am trying to teach how to drive. I did not see your post until now.
I believe that clarifies your opinion and the nuances I referred to had to do with similar comments as HH recently made where people are lumping everyone into categories everyone does not belong in. However, just as I seem to be accused of supporting terrorism because I don't support the military actions, I take it I have made some kind of similar assumption about your position. So if it was in error, I do apologize. I will go with your clarification.
As to targeting civilians however, I have been asking all along just what was Israel targeting when they blew up all the roads, bridges, power and water plants and the airport because it sure didn't look like they were targeting Hezbollah. If you go to my last post on the Galloway thread I have a link to Seymour Hersh's interview on Democracy Now. Hersh explains the reason for targeting the infrastructure and whether you think that isn't targeting civilians because it is aiming at their livlihood instead of their person, it certainly wasn't targeting Hezbollah. The goal was to make the civilians suffer so much they would blame Hezbollah for bringing the bombs upon them.
So much for military strategy and I'd say it's a gray area to aim at everything but people while still aiming at everything they own or need to live. Either way, the goal failed.
|
|
|
|
Dude
SFN Die Hard
USA
6891 Posts |
Posted - 08/14/2006 : 20:49:22 [Permalink]
|
quote:
The goal was to make the civilians suffer so much they would blame Hezbollah for bringing the bombs upon them.
As opposed to the destruction of infrastructure that Hizbollah is using against them, to support their military arm.
You take consequences and project them into intent. In other words, you have a bad case of confirmation bias.
Yeah, it is pretty clear that there is no possibility of having a rational conversation with you on this topic.
|
Ignorance is preferable to error; and he is less remote from the truth who believes nothing, than he who believes what is wrong.
-- Thomas Jefferson
"god :: the last refuge of a man with no answers and no argument." - G. Carlin
Hope, n.
The handmaiden of desperation; the opiate of despair; the illegible signpost on the road to perdition. ~~ da filth |
|
|
|
 |
|
|
|
Topic Locked
