Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Infinite_Loser
Killing innocents isn't plan A. You take the fact that civilians have been killed and blow it into a "Israel is purposely attacking civilians!" type of argument (Which is simply a lie). Israel isn't targetting civilians. They're targetting the social structure in order to weaken Hezbollah.
|
I consider the two linked. If one is able to bend their morality so as to allow them to kill inncent people for the 'greater good', then why bother with morals at all? Israel did purpously attack, and they knew they'd kill innocent civilians, so how is it so far fetched to say "Israel is purposely attacking civilians!"? Yes, of course they are targeting the infurstructure. They could have hit places like the runways at 3 AM, or vacant roads. They are trying to scare the Lebanese people. That's terrorism, btw.
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Infinite_Loser
I suppose that, following your logic, the United States tried to kill Japanese civilians when they dropped the atom bomb on Hiroshima or that allied forces tried to kill German civilians during WWII by bombing German civilians. Their aim was simply to kill civilians.
|
Dualistic purpous: kill Japanese, and scare the ones who survive. If the Japanese (who had already lost) saw that we were able to harness the power of the sun to destroy them, they were more likely to surrender.
The same thing was true with the Nazi forces, and the good Germans. The allied forces wanted to create terror that would cause confusion. War is the art of murder, let there be no doubt of that.
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Infinite_Loser
No matter what Israel does, civilians will die-- It's an inevitable part of war-- And you would still be criticizing Israel for their actions. It's smarter for Israel to bomb key social structures then it is to march soldiers into Lebanon and have many more civilian casualties.
|
If Isreal were at war with Lebanon, then I might be more understanding. Israel is at war with Hezbollah. While ther obviously is a history to the conflict, this specific strike was in response to two kidnapped soldiers. You make it sound like this is after years of Israeli pent up aggression they finally struck back. Not true. Israel fights back and even initiates all the time. This is just another attack by Israel.
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by OzOz
I seriously doubt that this is a realistic possibility in the current conflict. I doubt the Lebanese would have the capacity to do so, given that Hezbollah seems to effectively control southern Lebanon - and even if they did have the power to do so, do you really think they would? I don't see ANY group being rounded up quickly by the local authorities in the Middle East if one of their main promises is to attack Israel.
|
It's that gesture that would rally support from places like Russia and Europe. Making war on Lebanon is just another horrible Middle Eastern tragety. Trying to show respect would be viewed as understanding and evolved. Of course Lebanon doesn't have the power to stop Hezbollah, as proven by the fact that Hezbollah still operates in Lebanon. If hey had the necessary power, Hezbollah would have been expelled years ago, and Israel and Lebanon might be enjoying a very benificial and hopeful friendship.
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by OzOz
In all seriousness, what does "multilateral" have to do with anything at all? You want "multilateral", I'll give you a dodecagon. If you're responding to a real threat, then going it alone shouldn't have any impact whatsoever on whether your actions are just. Similarly, if you're carrying out a flagrantly illegal act of aggression with no justification, then having half the world supporting you with troops on the ground or in the air or at sea is not going to change the legality, or lack thereof, of your actions by one little bit.
|
Multilateral has a lot to do with my last point. The rest of the world sees the Middle East as a place that's been at war for generations, and shows no sign of improvement. A sign of change would be inviting others to help solve the situation. Israel is as much of a threat to Lebanon as Lebanon is to Israel. The difference is that whre as the Lebanese government has *some* Hezbollah representation, Israel's government as a whole decided to attack Lebanon.
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by OzOz
As for only shooting when you're shot at, why should it work like that? The whole premise of your argument is that you already HAVE been shot at!
|
The hypothetical situation posed supposes a terrorist group from Canada has already struck. Bottom line: Hezbollah does not represent the populace of Lebanon, so they do not deserve to take the brunt of the reciprication for the kidnappings and attacks.
[QUOTE=OzOz]And just how, exactly, should they do that?
Step 1) stop bombing Lebanese that had nothing to do with the Hezbollah.
Step 2) stop bulldozing Palestinian homes
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by OzOz
Dead innocent Israeli civilians, people also with no connections to Hezbollah, Fatah, Hamas, Islamic Jihad or any other such organisations, are also quite counterproductive.
|
Well no shit, but no one is arguing that Hezbollah was right in attacking Israel or kidnapping soldiers. If you read my posts, I am very clear in condemning the acts of the Hezbollah. I speak on behalf of the civilains of Lebanon. You are agruing it is right for Israel to have shot bombs into Lebanon knowingly killing inncent civilians. I couldn't disagree more.