Page 6 of 20 FirstFirst ... 234567891016 ... LastLast
Results 101 to 120 of 387

Thread: Israel v Lebanon

  1. #101
    Commercial Operator Gus's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2002
    Location
    York
    Posts
    5,203
    Rep Power
    13

    Re: Israel v Lebanon

    Quote Originally Posted by bigdjiver
    Can I point out that in this country the law considers the slaughter of the guilty to be a barbaric act too, there is no death penalty here.
    Aye, but if those who like lobbing missiles into civilian areas or bombing the tube network wound up dead ... would you truly shed a tear? (Can see me derailing my own thread here )

  2. #102
    Registered User El Salsero Gringo's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2005
    Location
    London
    Posts
    4,881
    Rep Power
    12

    Re: Israel v Lebanon

    Quote Originally Posted by Gus
    Well, I think I should let someone who actually is informed about the situation (and lets face it, that sure isn't you) state the OFFICIAL UK position.
    Are you quite as impressed with the OFFICIAL UK position on, for instance, coat-tailling the US into war in Iraq? Or WMD? One of the benefits of living in an open society is the freedom to differ from the OFFICAL position of one's government.

    On the subject of being informed: perhaps you should read a bit more widely than just the Independent on Sunday before coming to the conclusion that you understand everything.
    Quote Originally Posted by gus
    "If they are chasing Hizbollah, then go for Hizbollah. You don't go for the entire Lebanese nation."
    I agree. If the Israeli army was going for the entire Lebanese nation, you'd certainly have something to complain about. Incidentally, Lebanon *is* at war with Israel, and has been since the Lebanese declared themselves to be so in 1948.
    Last edited by El Salsero Gringo; 23rd-July-2006 at 10:29 AM.

  3. #103
    Registered User
    Join Date
    Jul 2004
    Location
    Worcester, UK
    Posts
    4,157
    Rep Power
    12

    Re: Israel v Lebanon

    About 360 Lebanese civilians - many of them children - have been killed in 10 days of {Israeli} shelling and bombing
    If Will's still keeping score, I believe the death toll from Hezbollah's rockets in this conflict stands at 17 civilians, in the recent conflict. So, the score is 360-17 currently. This makes each Israeli life worth approximately 21 Lebanese lives.

    Source: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2006_Is...banon_conflict

    Wikipedia is about as biased as every other source on this unholy mess. Only more schizoid.

  4. #104
    Formerly known as DavidJames David Bailey's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2005
    Location
    Norf Lundin
    Posts
    17,001
    Blog Entries
    1
    Rep Power
    18

    Re: Israel v Lebanon

    Quote Originally Posted by Gus
    After following the debate from a distance it seems that the original point I have tried to make has been missed. REGARDLESS OF PROVOCATION any Nation that wishes to be seen as civilised has to follow certain humanitarian rules .... and attacking non-combatants in the hope that some of them may be bad guys is NOT civilised.
    I'm fairly sure Israel is not targetting civilians deliberately. And I'm fairly sure that Hiz/Hezbullah is, and has been doing so for some time now. That difference seems quite important to me.

    Quote Originally Posted by Gus
    ...my parody of the UK using a similar justification to Israel to nuke Eire.
    This was the analogy that first occurred to me too; I thought the Israeli action was OTT, unjustified, disproportionate and driven mainly by the desire of the Israeli PM and Defence Minister to look tough - i.e. politically-motivated.

    But then I read a bit more, and I found out a bit more, and I got a bit of perspective through not being in the country, and I changed my mind.

    I still think the actions against Hamas in Gaza are definitely OTT, unjustified and disproportionate - Hamas are just a bunch of thugs with a terrorist wing and a few Kalasnikovs, so an analogy with the IRA is possibly more appropriate there. And, just maybe, at some point in the past year there may have been a chance of dialog with Hamas - after all, Israel did evacuate the Gaza Strip, Hamas did observe a ceasefire - there was maybe some room for negotiation with Hamas at some stage...

    However, Hizbullah are a different organisation. They're a state-within-a-state, better-armed, equipped and trained than the Lebanese army, they're camped on Israel's borders, they're sponsored by two of the nastiest regimes in the world, and they're dedicated to the destruction of Israel. So comparisons of Hamas with any European terrorist organisation are not even close.

    I don't like what Israel is doing, and it does smack of strategic bombing rather than tactical targetting - but then, that's what NATO did to Serbia a few years back, and that more-or-less worked... But, I think I can understand Israel's actions, and I think the majority of the blame for this particular conflict is with Hizbullah (well, Iran, probably).

    Quote Originally Posted by MartinHarper
    If Will's still keeping score, I believe the death toll from Hezbollah's rockets in this conflict stands at 17 civilians, in the recent conflict. So, the score is 360-17 currently. This makes each Israeli life worth approximately 21 Lebanese lives.
    Firstly, the fact that the Israeli military is better at death-dealing than Hizbullah shouldn't have any bearing on moral legitimacy, should it? Many more Germans died in WWII than British - does that make Churchill more evil than Hitler?

    Secondly, Hizbullah clearly and deliberately stores their weapons in civilian areas (such as hospitals and private apartments), partially for camouflage and partially for the wonderful publicity they get when these places are attacked. So civilian casualties are inevitable and are probably welcomed by Hizbullah.

    Lastly, how on earth can the numbers of Lebanese civilian casualties be trusted? The Wikipedia article states:

    Quote Originally Posted by Wikipedia, hey, I still love it
    According to various media, between 350 and 390 people are reported dead. Additionally, there have been between 480 and 600 people wounded, and over 700,000 have been made refugees, with an unknown number of missing civilians in the south.
    In other words - no-one knows. Could be 360, could be 3,600, could be 36. But the media likes to keep score, because numbers are easier to tell than actual useful information.

  5. #105
    Registered User stewart38's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2003
    Location
    Ambrosden it gets
    Posts
    7,480
    Rep Power
    13

    Re: Israel v Lebanon

    Quote Originally Posted by Gus
    Hmmmmm , what worries me significantly is that (as usual) the Forum seems intent on arguing on the minutae rather than agreeing with a basic point of human rights, i.e. you dont deserve to be bombed/shot/killed because someone in your proximity is doing bad things. Does the Forum really believe that Israel is justified to kill innocents because they can't kill the people who are actually attacking them?
    When ‘we’ bomb Dresden in feb 1945 and conservatively killed 35,000 + civilians in one night , was that justified ?

    I think 33,000,000 civilians were killed in 2nd world war , was that justified ?

    War is war

  6. #106
    Commercial Operator Gus's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2002
    Location
    York
    Posts
    5,203
    Rep Power
    13

    Re: Israel v Lebanon

    Quote Originally Posted by DavidJames
    I'm fairly sure Israel is not targetting civilians deliberately. And I'm fairly sure that Hiz/Hezbullah is, and has been doing so for some time now. That difference seems quite important to me.
    So the fact that they bomb an area in the hope it kills a few bad guys (and fail) makes that ok?

    Quote Originally Posted by DavidJames
    Firstly, the fact that the Israeli military is better at death-dealing than Hizbullah shouldn't have any bearing on moral legitimacy, should it? Many more Germans died in WWII than British - does that make Churchill more evil than Hitler?
    Ahem ... there were a few other parties involved don't ya know. Think the Nazis managed to demise a fair few French, Yanks, Poles, Jews, etc etc.

    Quote Originally Posted by DavidJames
    Lastly, how on earth can the numbers of Lebanese civilian casualties be trusted?
    Seen the front of the Metro? Want to talk in terms of numbers? Sorry, but sometimes the some of the attitudes expressed, that can so calmly ignore the real suffering of innocents, makes me sick. The pendants come out and argue about how to spell Arabic words and what the true body count is and tries to be experts on the socio/political and historical circumstances that led to this awful position. When the UN and the governments of most of Europe all put out a call for the end of these hostilities, doesn't that tell you something? Or do you still think you know something they don't?

  7. #107
    Formerly known as DavidJames David Bailey's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2005
    Location
    Norf Lundin
    Posts
    17,001
    Blog Entries
    1
    Rep Power
    18

    Re: Israel v Lebanon

    Quote Originally Posted by Gus
    So the fact that they bomb an area in the hope it kills a few bad guys (and fail) makes that ok?
    Nope - and I agree that the bombing looks more like strategic bombing than targetting of Hezbullah-specific targets. Unfortunately, however, Hezbullah ("e" this time ) are an integral part of the population in the area.

    As I said, the Israeli actions look very much like a strategic bombing campaign, as with the NATO bombing of Serbia in 1999 - remember, NATO bombed bridges, factories, power plants and TV stations. Not to mention the Chinese embassy.

    But Israel aren't trying to kill civilians, they're conducting a bombing campaign against strategic targets. If Israel wanted to kill civilians, there'd be a lot more dead Lebanese.

    And Hezbullah regularly do target civilians - that's why they're called terrorists.

    Now, I can see a case for saying that a strategic bombing campaign is excessive, but that's a different argument.

    Quote Originally Posted by Gus
    Ahem ... there were a few other parties involved don't ya know. Think the Nazis managed to demise a fair few French, Yanks, Poles, Jews, etc etc.
    The point I was making is that "better military forces" does not mean "more evil". It's grossly unreasonable to imagine that relative casualty rates in a military conflict have any relationship to moral equivalence. And the media propagate such a view by "keeping score".

    To go back to the NATO campaign, NATO lost maybe a handful of troops, and Serbia lost 2,500 - 5,000 civilians. Did that make NATO 1,000 X more evil than Serbia? Or just better-armed?

  8. #108
    Registered User
    Join Date
    Mar 2003
    Location
    bedford
    Posts
    4,899
    Rep Power
    13

    Re: Israel v Lebanon

    Quote Originally Posted by stewart38
    When ‘we’ bomb Dresden in feb 1945 and conservatively killed 35,000 + civilians in one night , was that justified ?

    I think 33,000,000 civilians were killed in 2nd world war , was that justified ?

    War is war
    O.T. I worked with an M.A. in math who claimed that he had worked on the mathematics of fire-storms during the war. He claimed that Dresden had been selected as a target because it was a historic town, with lots of narrow streets and wooden structure in the buildings. It was as close as they could get in Europe to a typical Japanese town. One reason Dresden was selected was to confirm their math and to practise fire-bombing such cities as a prelude to the bombing of Japan and the later use of nuclear weapons.

  9. #109
    Formerly known as DavidJames David Bailey's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2005
    Location
    Norf Lundin
    Posts
    17,001
    Blog Entries
    1
    Rep Power
    18

    Re: Israel v Lebanon

    Quote Originally Posted by bigdjiver
    O.T. I worked with an M.A. in math who claimed that he had worked on the mathematics of fire-storms during the war. He claimed that Dresden had been selected as a target because it was a historic town, with lots of narrow streets and wooden structure in the buildings. It was as close as they could get in Europe to a typical Japanese town. One reason Dresden was selected was to confirm their math and to practise fire-bombing such cities as a prelude to the bombing of Japan and the later use of nuclear weapons.
    Hmmm.... sounds a bit conspiracy-theory to me - got a cite for that? Dresden was hardly the first firestorm created - there'd been over a dozen German cities firestormed beforehand I believe. But yes, it's a bit OT

  10. #110
    Registered User El Salsero Gringo's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2005
    Location
    London
    Posts
    4,881
    Rep Power
    12

    Re: Israel v Lebanon

    Quote Originally Posted by Gus
    {yada yada yada}
    Gus, if your indignation is quite so righteous and upstanding on behalf of the innocent, why is it that we only ever hear from you on behalf of the victims of Israeli weapons? Nothing about any other conflicts anywhere in the world? Should I look on the Forum for your essays about the victims of US air assaults in Iraq? Darfur? Chinese opression in Tibet? Indian bombing (or was it Pakistan) in Kashmir? More problems in Aceh? Nothing to say on those topics? It doesn't diminsh the strength of your arguments, such as they are, but I was just wondering if there was a reason? (Apart from the fact that in your opinion the world's only Jewish state is the root of all evil on this planet, obviously..)
    Quote Originally Posted by Gus
    The pendants come out
    Yep, that's me, a pendant.
    Last edited by El Salsero Gringo; 25th-July-2006 at 05:31 PM.

  11. #111
    Commercial Operator Gus's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2002
    Location
    York
    Posts
    5,203
    Rep Power
    13

    Re: Israel v Lebanon

    Quote Originally Posted by El Salsero Gringo
    Gus, if your indignation is quite so righteous and upstanding on behalf of the innocent, why is it that we only ever hear from you on behalf of the victims of Israeli weapons? Nothing about any other conflicts anywhere in the world? Should I look on the Forum for your essays about the victims of US air assaults in Iraq? Darfur? Chinese opression in Tibet? Indian bombing (or was it Pakistan) in Kashmir? More problems in Aceh? Nothing to say on those topics? No, I thought not. Why *is* that? (Apart from the fact that in your opinion the world's only Jewish state is the root of all evil on this planet, obviously..)Yep, that's me, a pendant.
    Hmmmm .... think you need to lie down on a couch and discuss. If you read what I wrote earlier I was concerned about the Jewish innocent casualties as much as the Lebonese. But then I applaud that once more you've never let fact be something to come between you and another irrational rant

  12. #112
    Registered User El Salsero Gringo's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2005
    Location
    London
    Posts
    4,881
    Rep Power
    12

    Re: Israel v Lebanon

    Quote Originally Posted by Gus
    Hmmmm .... think you need to lie down on a couch and discuss. If you read what I wrote earlier I was concerned about the Jewish innocent casualties as much as the Lebonese.
    After prompting, yes. But where are your essays on any of the other innocent victims of violence in the world? Help me out with a few links, will you? I know I'm crap, but I just can't seem to find them.

  13. #113
    Formerly known as DavidJames David Bailey's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2005
    Location
    Norf Lundin
    Posts
    17,001
    Blog Entries
    1
    Rep Power
    18

    Re: Israel v Lebanon

    Quote Originally Posted by El Salsero Gringo
    Help me out with a few links, will you? I know I'm crap, but I just can't seem to find them.
    Stop being such a pendant, and think of the Lebonese for a second, huh?

    Actually, I do feel sorry for them - it must be a nightmare living there, invaded and bombed from both ends, country controlled by warlords and militias - like Afghanistan with better cafes, I guess.

    Perhaps the US - err, sorry, the "umbrella"* of countries - should invade. After all, it's worked so well in Iraq and Afghanistan...

    * Apparently, "umbrella" is now preferred to "coalition", as for some reason "coalition" is somewhat discredited as a term. I'm not making this up.
    Last edited by David Bailey; 25th-July-2006 at 07:13 PM.

  14. #114
    Registered User El Salsero Gringo's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2005
    Location
    London
    Posts
    4,881
    Rep Power
    12

    Re: Israel v Lebanon

    Quote Originally Posted by DavidJames
    Stop being such a pendant, and think of the Lebonese for a second, huh?

    Actually, I do feel sorry for them - it must be a nightmare living there, invaded and bombed from both ends, country controlled by warlords and militias
    I completely agree. Just because I'm arguing with Gus - and keen on a more in-depth analysis than that of which he appears capable - doesn't mean I'm blind to the results of war.

  15. #115
    Registered User
    Join Date
    Mar 2003
    Location
    bedford
    Posts
    4,899
    Rep Power
    13

    Re: Israel v Lebanon

    Quote Originally Posted by El Salsero Gringo
    I completely agree. Just because I'm arguing with Gus - and keen on a more in-depth analysis than that of which he appears capable - doesn't mean I'm blind to the results of war.
    I am not knowlegable enough to do an in-depth analysis, and, unfortunately, I do not know of anybody who is.

    In my simple mind some guys in Lebanon are firing rockets ito Israel, and they the fact that those kill innocents, like two year old children, does not stop them.

    Some guys in Israel are firing all sorts of munitions into Lebanon, and the fact that those kill even more two year old children does not stop them.

    The theory appears to be that the death of innocents will deter those that quite plainly are not deterred by the death of innocents. That the other side are inferior beings that can be terrified out of fighting what they believe is a just cause, whilst their own side are courageous and resolute and will never bow to terror.

    This has been tried before, and that did not avert the situation where those parties are driven to trying it again, with no explanation that I have heard why it is going to work this time.

    And the history that generated this situation is being repeated.

    Part of my ignorance is that I do not know if anybody has asked the Lebanese Government if it wants to gain control of its own country, and, if so, what help they need to do it.

    There is space for a conspiracy theory here.

  16. #116
    Registered User
    Join Date
    Jul 2004
    Location
    Worcester, UK
    Posts
    4,157
    Rep Power
    12

    Re: Israel v Lebanon

    Quote Originally Posted by DavidJames
    The fact that the Israeli military is better at death-dealing than Hizbullah shouldn't have any bearing on moral legitimacy, should it? Many more Germans died in WWII than British - does that make Churchill more evil than Hitler?
    The specific example you've chosen is lousy, WII involving multiple countries and an entirely different sort of conflict, so I'll skip that and try to address your general point.

    My contention is that if an armed force is "better at death-dealing", it should demonstrate that betterness by better targetting death onto those it needs to kill to achieve a military objective, and minimising unnecessary deaths. The Israeli forces are certainly more prolific at death-dealing, but the statistics suggest that they are no better at death-dealing than Hizbullah, and are possibly worse.

    Your comparison with NATO in Serbia is a better one. My feeling now, as it was at the time, is that the doctrine of Force Protection led to an excessive avoidance of risk that resulted in a vastly higher number of civilian casualties than was necessary to achieve the military objective. More "boots on the ground" would have achieved the same result at a lower cost.

    Even so, during the Serbian campaign, NATO spent a lot of time liasing with the media, discussing the precise measures they were using to minimise civilian casualties, the intelligence they were gathering, at what level the decisions were made to trade off risks to civlians versus military objectives. I personally have not seen the IDF doing the same thing, which leads me to doubt that they take the issue as seriously as NATO did. It may be that they do take the issue just as seriously, or even more so. I do not feel that the evidence points in this direction. I fear that sixty years of conflict has desensitised the armed forces of all sides.

    Quote Originally Posted by DavidJames
    Hizbullah clearly and deliberately stores their weapons in civilian areas.
    Well, yes: that is standard operating procedure. The French resistance did it, the IRA did it, and I'm sure all future military groups operating in similar circumstances will do the same. If you are fighting a guerilla campaign against a superior military force, you don't store all your weapons on the top of a secluded hilltop under a big sign marked "weapons depot".

    There's a lot to criticise about Hizbullah's actions, but I won't criticise that.

    Quote Originally Posted by DavidJames
    So civilian casualties are inevitable.
    It would be more accurate to say that Israel chose to act in a way that made civilian casualties inevitable. They didn't have to act in this way.

    Quote Originally Posted by DavidJames
    Lastly, how on earth can the numbers of Lebanese civilian casualties be trusted? ... In other words - no-one knows. Could be 360, could be 3,600, could be 36.
    I'm unclear how you get from "between 350 and 390 people" to "could be 3,600, could be 36". Of course there is fog of war, but not to that extent. The point I am making about the IDF attitude to the deaths of non-Israeli civilians holds regardless of whether 350 or 400 civilians have died as a result of their recent campaign.

    Quote Originally Posted by ESG
    Gus, why is it that we only ever hear from you on behalf of the victims of Israeli weapons? (yada yada yada)
    ESG, if your indignation is quite so righteous and upstanding on behalf of the victims of bigotry, why is it that we only ever hear this line of argument from you in relation to Israeli conflicts? Never used the same argument about any other conflicts anywhere in the world? Should I look on the Forum for your essays about the anti-Iraqi bigotry displayed by commentated on Iraq? Darfur? Chinese opression in Tibet? Indian bombing (or was it Pakistan) in Kashmir? More problems in Aceh? Nothing to say about the anti-Arab racism displayed in this topic? It doesn't diminish the strength of your arguments, such as they are, but I was just wondering if there was a reason? (Apart from the fact that the Jewish people got systematically butchered during WWII, obviously...)

    Despite the parody in my phrasing, it's a serious question. I get bored of random accusations of anti-Semitism. I'm equal opportunities bored, though: in another thread I get bored of random accusations of homophobia.

  17. #117
    Papa Smurf
    Join Date
    Jan 2002
    Location
    Planet Scathe
    Posts
    12,528
    Blog Entries
    6
    Rep Power
    18

    Re: Israel v Lebanon

    To be fair, ESG is simply responding to Gus's thread. If no one has so far has started any threads about the many other conflict hotspots around the world, why is ESG repsonsible for doing so?

  18. #118
    Registered User stewart38's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2003
    Location
    Ambrosden it gets
    Posts
    7,480
    Rep Power
    13

    Re: Israel v Lebanon

    Quote Originally Posted by DavidJames
    I'm fairly sure Israel is not targetting civilians deliberately. And I'm fairly sure that Hiz/Hezbullah is, and has been doing so for some time now. That difference seems quite important to me.
    DEATH Toll


    Lebanese Military 26 Civilians 375

    Israel Military 24 Civilians 19

    Hezbollah 27

    Statistics would support a reversal of you assumption ie that Israel is targeting civilians where other factions are not

  19. #119
    Formerly known as DavidJames David Bailey's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2005
    Location
    Norf Lundin
    Posts
    17,001
    Blog Entries
    1
    Rep Power
    18

    Re: Israel v Lebanon

    Quote Originally Posted by MartinHarper
    Your comparison with NATO in Serbia is a better one. My feeling now, as it was at the time, is that the doctrine of Force Protection led to an excessive avoidance of risk that resulted in a vastly higher number of civilian casualties than was necessary to achieve the military objective. More "boots on the ground" would have achieved the same result at a lower cost.

    Even so, during the Serbian campaign, NATO spent a lot of time liasing with the media, discussing the precise measures they were using to minimise civilian casualties, the intelligence they were gathering, at what level the decisions were made to trade off risks to civlians versus military objectives. I personally have not seen the IDF doing the same thing, which leads me to doubt that they take the issue as seriously as NATO did. It may be that they do take the issue just as seriously, or even more so. I do not feel that the evidence points in this direction. I fear that sixty years of conflict has desensitised the armed forces of all sides.
    I can't argue with this - whether this means that NATO (with the assistance, as I recall, of Alastair Campbell) were better at spin than Israel, or whether they simply care less, is debatable.

    In truth, I don't think that a strategic bombing campaign plus partial occupation will work - it didn't work 20 years ago, so it probably won't work now. "Buffer zones" just tend to make things worse - look at Korea. And a pie-in-the-sky UN peacemaker force is just wishful thinking.

    Quote Originally Posted by MartinHarper
    It would be more accurate to say that Israel chose to act in a way that made civilian casualties inevitable. They didn't have to act in this way.
    Actually, I agree - there was no necessity to start a full-scale military campaign in reaction to the abduction of two soldiers, and there's no necessity to continue it now.

    The "end point" is clear - a peaceful relationship between two stable democracies. How to turn Lebanon into a stable democracy is less clear, mainly because Hizbullah is the proxy force of Syria / Iran, and they're hardly likely to cooperate in peace-keeping. Syria is widely believed to be behind the assassination of the last Lebanese PM, remember.

    Some stronger public international support for Fouad Siniora (current Lebanese PM) could be a good starting-point though.

    Quote Originally Posted by stewart38
    Statistics would support a reversal of you assumption ie that Israel is targeting civilians where other factions are not
    Got a source?

  20. #120
    Registered User David Franklin's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2002
    Location
    London
    Posts
    3,426
    Rep Power
    14

    Re: Israel v Lebanon

    Quote Originally Posted by DavidJames
    Got a source?
    Seen this on a few sites claiming Associated Press (AP) as their source. I've slightly abridged to make it read easier:
    More than 464 people have been reported killed in Lebanon and Israel since fighting broke out July 12 between Israeli forces and Hezbollah guerrillas.

    In Lebanon: At least 422 have been killed and more than 1,500 wounded, according to Lebanese security officials. Among the dead are 20 Lebanese army soldiers and at least 27 Hezbollah guerrillas.

    Among the more than 375 civilian deaths are eight Canadians, two Kuwaiti nationals, one Iraqi, one Sri Lankan, one Jordanian.

    In Israel: Forty-two Israelis have been killed, including 24 members of the military, and 18 civilians, according to authorities. More than 30 soldiers have been wounded, and more than 300 civilians, according to rescue officials.
    The same report describes 2 Israelis killed in a helicopter crash as some of the latest casualties, so some of the 24 military casualties are not due to Hezbollah.

    Of course, latest news is the UN Observer post shelled 14 times by the Israelis and then bombed, killing 4 UN observers. I'm not sure what that says about the Israeli targetting - on the one hand it's very hard to believe it was done on purpose, because I think the consequences are going to bite them hard. But it's hard to call such a strike "surgical", either...

Thread Information

Users Browsing this Thread

There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)

Tags for this Thread

Bookmarks

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •