McGentrix wrote:old europe wrote:I'll have to break that down....
Foxfyre wrote:old europe wrote:In fact, until you can provide links to the posts of several members who have said that "Israel could not do ANYTHING in self defense whether sanctioned by the Geneva Convention or not", I will call this above statement of yours yet another straw man.
I don't have to provide links.
Of course you don't have to. It kind of makes your statement suspicious, but you certainly don't have to provide links....
Can't really provide links to posts that haven't been made. You don't seem to understand what a strawman is either. Look it up.
It is encouraging to see that McG recognizes that Fox is peddling BS when she claims that people have said that "Israel could not do ANYTHING in self defense, etc."
I'm sure OE appreciates your support and your recognition that Fox just makes this **** up.
Fox's latest propaganda effort implies that all of the 1200 Lebanese dead (and one must assume, the wounded as well) were being used as "human shields" by Hezbollah. I'd be interested to know if she thinks there is a credible source for that line of crap.
You cite the 1200 dead on the Lebanese side and far fewer on the Israeli side. But you pointedly ignore the reality that most of those 1200 were what appear to be civilians and Hizbollah intentionaly put them at risk hoping to draw Israeli fire to them and thus being able to use people like you to condemn Israel.
Israel, conversely, put their civilians into bunkers and out of harms way as much as possible. And they did not launch military operations from civilian neighborhoods. Thus they took far fewer casualities.
According to members criticizing Israel on this thread, Israel could not do ANYTHING in self defense whether sanctioned by the Geneva Convention or not.
Foxfyre wrote:You cite the 1200 dead on the Lebanese side and far fewer on the Israeli side. But you pointedly ignore the reality that most of those 1200 were what appear to be civilians and Hizbollah intentionaly put them at risk hoping to draw Israeli fire to them and thus being able to use people like you to condemn Israel.
The IDF bombed and killed civilians in Beirut. Are you claiming that even one single Hezbollah rocket was fired from Beirut into Israel? Beirut airport was bombed. Lebanese roads, bridges and power plants were bombed. Are you claiming that Hezbollah fighters were hiding there, or firing rockets into Israel from Beirut International Airport?
Foxfyre wrote:Israel, conversely, put their civilians into bunkers and out of harms way as much as possible. And they did not launch military operations from civilian neighborhoods. Thus they took far fewer casualities.
Those are two reasons. Another reason is that Hezbollah was using inaccurate Katyusha rockets. Another reason is that Hezbollah wasn't using cluster bombs. Another reason is that Hezbollah didn't have fighter planes available. And yet another reason is that Hezbollah didn't send an army into Israeli territory.
There are still more reasons that would explain the difference in magnitude.
Setanta wrote:Fox's latest propaganda effort implies that all of the 1200 Lebanese dead (and one must assume, the wounded as well) were being used as "human shields" by Hezbollah. I'd be interested to know if she thinks there is a credible source for that line of crap.
Probably the fact that 1200 were killed because Hezbollah parked their weapons in their neighborhoods and used them as human shields then had their photog's and reporters come in and spread their propaganda. Do you really need a source for that? You claim to read the news, surely you read about it before.
Another poor effort of "gotcha" Setanta. Why not discuss the issue instead of the words?
You were "gotten" because you responded idiotically to OE's post, McG.
Foxfyre wrote:According to members criticizing Israel on this thread, Israel could not do ANYTHING in self defense whether sanctioned by the Geneva Convention or not.
Fox made a claim. OE asked for evidence. Fox replied she didn't have to supply links, and OE acknowledged the truth of that, pointing out that it beggars her argument if she can't demonstrate her claim.
So you jump in, knight in shining armor to rescue the poor, harrassed and inarticulate, but morally immaculate, young conservative damsel. Only problem is, you step on your dick in the process. You point out that she can't link what's not there.
That's right, the posts aren't there to link, because contrary to Fox's claim, members in this thread criticizing Israel have not stated or implied that Israel could not do anything in self defense whether sanctioned by the Geneva Convention or not. You, being the stumblebum you are, reinforce the point that Fox cannot back up her claim, in your silly attempt to defend her.
Bombing that infrastructure effectively cuts off rearming the enemy.
One would wonder why Hezbollah would try to attack Israel then if they had such poor weaponry and manpower. Why do you suppose they would do such a thing?
I am going to put Revel and Freeduck's vote down as Israel is not allowed to do anything. So far neither of them have acknowledged that Israel was allowed to do anything and they don't seem to understand that Israel was not bombing Lebanon at the time the rocket attacks started.
It would seem to me that the reasonable way to look at this is that if Hezbollah had not fired rockets at Israel, Israel would not have bombed Lebanon. It would seem to me that Israel was going about its business and wasn't bothering anybody until Hizbollah initiated hostilities.
But somehow, some people are simply not capable of seeing that simple truth.
If Israel had not attempted to rescue its kidnapped soldiers, then there would have been no problem.
And there you have it. It was all Israel's fault from the beginning.
Foxfyre is referring to this post when she made her claim.
No one bothered to answer her questions directly and that would imply they had no answer or were unwilling to answer.
Foxfyre is more then capable of defending herself and my posting has nothing to do with your hyperbolic rhetoric.
The posts aren't there, which makes her point. No one has been able to come up with an alternative. If you can do so, please do, otherwise her point remains. Despite you claim otherwise.
According to members criticizing Israel on this thread, Israel could not do ANYTHING in self defense whether sanctioned by the Geneva Convention or not.
Mostly the Fourth Geneva Convention and Protocol I relating to the Protection of Victims of International Armed Conflicts. Do you need more details?
Article 3
In the case of armed conflict not of an international character occurring in the territory of one of the High Contracting Parties, each party to the conflict shall be bound to apply, as a minimum, the following provisions:
1. Persons taking no active part in the hostilities, including members of armed forces who have laid down their arms and those placed hors de combat by sickness, wounds, detention, or any other cause, shall in all circumstances be treated humanely, without any adverse distinction founded on race, colour, religion or faith, sex, birth or wealth, or any other similar criteria.
To this end the following acts are and shall remain prohibited at any time and in any place whatsoever with respect to the above-mentioned persons:
(a) Violence to life and person, in particular murder of all kinds, mutilation, cruel treatment and torture;
(b) Taking of hostages;
Article 58.-Precautions against the effects of attacks
The Parties to the conflict shall, to the maximum extent feasible:
(a) Without prejudice to Article 49 of the Fourth Convention, endeavour to remove the civilian population, individual civilians and civilian objects under their control from the vicinity of military objectives;
(b) Avoid locating military objectives within or near densely populated areas;
(c) Take the other necessary precautions to protect the civilian population, individual civilians and civilian objects under their control against the dangers resulting from military operations.
Foxfyre wrote:I am going to put Revel and Freeduck's vote down as Israel is not allowed to do anything. So far neither of them have acknowledged that Israel was allowed to do anything and they don't seem to understand that Israel was not bombing Lebanon at the time the rocket attacks started.
It would seem to me that the reasonable way to look at this is that if Hezbollah had not fired rockets at Israel, Israel would not have bombed Lebanon. It would seem to me that Israel was going about its business and wasn't bothering anybody until Hizbollah initiated hostilities.
But somehow, some people are simply not capable of seeing that simple truth.
If Israel had not attempted to rescue its kidnapped soldiers, then there would have been no problem.
And there you have it. It was all Israel's fault from the beginning.
Foxfyre's post is based on a false premise, which, as she conceeds, is itself based on an assumption, saying, "it would seem to me that Israel was going about its business and wasn't bothering anybody until Hizbollah initiated hostilities."
According to George Monbiot of the UK's Guardian in his August 8 article, "Israel responded to an unprovoked attack by Hizbullah, right? Wrong"
"Since Israel's withdrawal from southern Lebanon in May 2000, there have been hundreds of violations of the "blue line" between the two countries. The United Nations Interim Force in Lebanon (Unifil) reports that Israeli aircraft crossed the line "on an almost daily basis" between 2001 and 2003, and "persistently" until 2006. These incursions "caused great concern to the civilian population, particularly low-altitude flights that break the sound barrier over populated areas". On some occasions, Hizbullah tried to shoot them down with anti-aircraft guns.
"In October 2000, the Israel Defence Forces shot at unarmed Palestinian demonstrators on the border, killing three and wounding 20. In response, Hizbullah crossed the line and kidnapped three Israeli soldiers. On several occasions, Hizbullah fired missiles and mortar rounds at IDF positions, and the IDF responded with heavy artillery and sometimes aerial bombardment. Incidents like this killed three Israelis and three Lebanese in 2003; one Israeli soldier and two Hizbullah fighters in 2005; and two Lebanese people and three Israeli soldiers in February 2006. Rockets were fired from Lebanon into Israel several times in 2004, 2005 and 2006, on some occasions by Hizbullah. But, the UN records, 'none of the incidents resulted in a military escalation'.
"On May 26 this year, two officials of Islamic Jihad - Nidal and Mahmoud Majzoub - were killed by a car bomb in the Lebanese city of Sidon. This was widely assumed in Lebanon and Israel to be the work of Mossad, the Israeli intelligence agency. In June, a man named Mahmoud Rafeh confessed to the killings and admitted that he had been working for Mossad since 1994. Militants in southern Lebanon responded, on the day of the bombing, by launching eight rockets into Israel. One soldier was lightly wounded. There was a major bust-up on the border, during which one member of Hizbullah was killed and several wounded, and one Israeli soldier wounded. But while the border region "remained tense and volatile", Unifil says it was "generally quiet" until July 12."
Yes, I think more details woould be needed
Part III : Status and treatment of protected persons #Section I : Provisions common to the territories of the parties to the conflict and to occupied territories
ARTICLE 33
No protected person may be punished for an offence he or she has not personally committed. Collective penalties and likewise all measures of intimidation or of terrorism are prohibited.
Pillage is prohibited.
Reprisals against protected persons and their property are prohibited.
To all:
Foxfyre has repeatedly failed to acknowledge (her text underlined):
1. Hizbollah entered Israel and kidnapped two soldiers, which had been done in the past, and which had resulted in prisoner exhanges by Israel--for example, the United States State Department writes:
Quote:As a result of secret mediation by the German Government, Israel released a number of Lebanese prisoners held by Israel in early 2004 in exchange for Elhanan Tannenbaum, an Israeli reservist abducted by Hizballah in late 2000.
Source at the State Department web site--the quote comes near the bottom of that page, and the end of the section under the rubric "Foreign relations."
Therefore, Fox continually ignores that such kidnappings had happened in the past, Israel had agreed to prisoner exchanges in the past, and this would have been an effective means of dealing with the situation, without involvin Israel in a war which put her citizens at risk.
2. Israel pursued Hizbollah into Lebanon in an attempt to resuce the two soldiers, and immediately declared that the entire nation of the Lebanon would be held responsible, immediately began air strikes against the Lebanon, including the against the airport in Beirut, and including a blockade of the Lebanease coast, which did not distinguish between evactuation efforts and the arrival of humanitarian aid for days, until the international community leaned on Israel.
3. Hizbollah immediately began firing rockets into Israeli neighborhoods hoping to injure, maim, and/or kill Israeli citizens, which rocket attacks, an extemely ineffective attack with unreliable weapons, was launched against the backdrop of massive attacks by fighter-bombers, and artillery, both missiles and conventional artillery, and involving the use of cluster bombs both by the fighter-bombers and in the artillery shells.
Over a period of several weeks Hizbollah fired up to 4000 such rockets, during which time the massive air and artillery attacks continued.
4. Israel commenced a massive counteroffense targeted at rocket launchers, weapon stockpiles, and the means to resupply them., and commenced those attacks the day after the two IDF members were snatched, and commenced those measures before the rocket attacks against Israel had fairly gotten underway. Fox would have us believe that Israel had been hit by "thousands of rockets" (this is a quote of one of her posts), before the Israelis responded--which just isn't true.
5. Hizbollah intentionally placed their rocket launchers in civilian neighborhoods knowing full well this would draw fire into those neighborhoods, to which Isreal responded by massive attacks on villages in which they themselves acknowledged the Hezbollah fighters were no longer located, and in general attacks in the south of Lebanon, and in Beirut in areas from which they never claimed that rockets had been launched. We can call this the "human shield" dodge now popular with rightwingnuts, who wish us to believe that all the Lebanese casualties resulted from such circumstances.
6. Israel did not use civilians as shields for their weapons and did what they could to protect the civilians from hostile fire, a claim which Fox makes completely without substantiation, and which contradicts the testimony of observers on the ground at the time.
7. Israel has been consistently criticzed, condemned, maligned, and excoriated for their part in this battle, as has Hezbollah, and the criticisms of them both are justified.
8. In comparison very mild and infrequent criticism has been directed at Hizbollah or Hizbollah's actions have actually been defended by the anti-Israel group (i.e. those who are actively criticizing Israel), claims which can only be made by ignoring criticism of Hezbollah which have been made from the outset. I personally started a thread on this topic before this thread was even begun, the first post of which reads:
Setanta wrote:Hezbollah militia attacked an Israeli outpost, operating from the Lebanon. Seven Israelis were killed, and two kidnapped. Israel has riposted with missile and helicopter gunship attacks, and says that the Lebanon will be held responsible for the fate of the hostages.
The National Post (Canada, conservative)
The Israelis have described this as "an act of war."
ABC Online (US, moderate) (Their source is Reuters)
It has been reported that Israeli Defense Force units have now entered Lebanese territory.
Zaman Daily News (Turkey, ?)
Note that one the very day the war began, these news sources reported that Israel had responded with attacks by fighter-bombers, helicopter gun ships and missiles, and this before Hezbollah had any opportunity to fire "thousands of rockets."
Finally, of course, Fox is attempting to introduce one of her favorite slurs of those with whom she disagrees, which is that anyone who criticizes the actions of the Israeli government is anti-Israeli. She has consistently failed to support such a contention.
9. Civilians died on both sides of the border. Lebanese citizens died by in advertently being caught in the line of fire and were never targeted. Israeli citizens were targeted and Hizbollah freely admits that, which ignores that international observers reported from the very beginning that Israelis were indiscriminately bombing and shelling civilian areas--in short, her claim that Lebanese civilians were never targeted.
10. Hizbollah inflicted as much damage on Israel as they had the capability to do. Which was pretty damned paltry compared to the thousands killed and wounded in the Lebanon and the hundreds of thousands made homeless, many thousands of whom remain homeless because of the cluster bombs littering south Lebanon.
11. Israel in no way inflicted as much damage on Lebanon as they had the capability to do. I'm sure that's great consolation to the survivors of the 1200 hundred dead (insert appropriate rolly-eyed emoticon here)
12. To this day, the anti-Israel group (definition above) is condemning Israel as the greater villain who violated the Geneva convention. Strawman, not demonstrated.
13. There is nowhere near the anger and contempt directed toward the Hizbollah terrorists. Strawman, no baseline is established to measure the alleged anger and contempt, and this constitutes an unsubstantiated and subjective judgment about which it can only be said with certainty that it is convenient to Fox's hatred for anyone who disagrees with her.
14. And nobody on the anti-Israel side (definition above) has yet to provide a single credible suggestion as to what Israel could have done differently other than do nothing at all when Hizbollah attacked. This is a lie. It has been said since very early on that Israel could have responded with a prisoner exchange, which is not unprecedented in Israeli relations with the Palestinians and Hezbollah. It was a conscious decision of the Olmert government to respond immediately with massive military action. Fox consistently peddles the inferential (and sometimes outright) lie that Hezbollah had launched massive rocket attacks before Israel responded. That is a lie which she has never been able to substantiate.
Quote:Footnote: Every single one of these claims is supported by at least one source posted in this thread or is evident by the postings in the thread itself.
Bullshit.
...
Maybe. But failure to come up with a better solution does not make criticism invalid.
...
