Air campaign: Isreal=condemnation Nato=free pass

[chuckster]

Isreal has been heavily criticized for its bombing campaign against Hezbollah in Lebanon. The most recent count I am aware of is some 380 civilian deaths plus a good chunk of Lebanon's infrastructure. This action has been condemned by a good chunk of the World and International Media as a 'Disproportionate Response'.

NATO, on the other hand, gets a free pass for its bombing of Serbia in the late 1990's IN DEFENCE OF A MUSLIM PEOPLE AGAINST A CHRISTIAN PEOPLE. The best final casualty reports as a result of this action I have been able to find were some 5,000 civilians injured, 2000 civilians killed including 600 children, and 600 military and police killed. Also, all auto plants, pharmaceutical, rubber, and fertiliser factories, oil refineries, and fuel storage facilities were reportedly destroyed, not to mention many bridges, roads, and runways. Where was the negative media coverage or the cries of 'Disproportionate Response' when this campaign was going on?

So, what's the difference? Are Muslims more important in the World than Christians and Jews? Is is OK to bomb civilians only if the UN approves it? Or, does the international media have a knee-jerk negative reaction when someone somewhere in the World decided to stand up against Radical Islam?

[Pandy]

Isreal has been heavily criticized for its bombing campaign against Hezbollah in Lebanon. The most recent count I am aware of is some 380 civilian deaths plus a good chunk of Lebanon's infrastructure. This action has been condemned by a good chunk of the World and International Media as a 'Disproportionate Response'.

NATO, on the other hand, gets a free pass for its bombing of Serbia in the late 1990's IN DEFENCE OF A MUSLIM PEOPLE AGAINST A CHRISTIAN PEOPLE. The best final casualty reports as a result of this action I have been able to find were some 5,000 civilians injured, 2000 civilians killed including 600 children, and 600 military and police killed. Also, all auto plants, pharmaceutical, rubber, and fertiliser factories, oil refineries, and fuel storage facilities were reportedly destroyed, not to mention many bridges, roads, and runways. Where was the negative media coverage or the cries of 'Disproportionate Response' when this campaign was going on?

So, what's the difference? Are Muslims more important in the World than Christians and Jews? Is is OK to bomb civilians only if the UN approves it? Or, does the international media have a knee-jerk negative reaction when someone somewhere in the World decided to stand up against Radical Islam?

Hehehe,

I was wondering the samething, how is it a disproportionate response?

I was also wondering how Israel bombings' are disproportionate when Hezbollah launches missiles 'randomly' into Israeli cities. They are TRYING to kill civilians.

[DaveDash]

It's the final point. Its OK to bomb civilians if the U.N. says so.

There wasn't much outcry over Desert Storm either. Yet the coalition (and rightly so) ripped that country to shreds.

People have this misguided faith that the U.N. is the path to some sort of world utopia. So if the U.N. says it's OK to kill innocent people, then it's OK.

[gilgoul]

You get it, you can add French hypocrisy, replying to the bombing of its headquarter (military objective) by destroying completely Ivory Coast air force, and killing more than 320 people, most of them demonstrators.
Nobody condemned, and quite honestly, maybe they were right to shoot, even to shoot with 20mm guns to interdict the demonstrators and fighters to cross this bridge, but the fact no french or european media questionned the body count or the method shows the state of those supposed "free media".
Nobody ****unced the word "disproportionate", nor "war crime", "murder" etc..
But hey, lets not forget that only USA and Israel are ever criminals, violent, war mongers and cold blooded murderers.

[themacedonian]

So, what's the difference? Are Muslims more important in the World than Christians and Jews? Is is OK to bomb civilians only if the UN approves it? Or, does the international media have a knee-jerk negative reaction when someone somewhere in the World decided to stand up against Radical Islam?

well you should stop looking at the issues from a religion point of view.

There is a common factor to all that.

Serbia was a socialist country under Milosevic.
Iraq was a socialist (baath party) under Saddam with a touch of nationalist islam but it was never a full islamic country (now it is).

Syria is a socialist type of country (baath party).
Iran is a islamic fundamentalist teocracy which out of lack of allies is alligned with Syria.

Venezuela is a socialist country now under Chavez.

The aim is to finnish of socialist countries one way or another.

Israel calling for NATO to come on the northern border is not a suprised to people that come from former Yugoslavia. It seems that is the way things have been developing for the past 10 years.

[Bert]

Yes. Jews are not allowed to kill other people in self-defense. You know, preferably to the world leaders, they'd be disarmed. Jews are untermensch, you know.

However, Olmert is calling for a buffer force of EUFOR or NATO, with battle experience.. Do you really think the media would CARE if NATO were the ones fighting the Hezbollah?

[signatory]

Wow someone's memory is pretty damn short.

ridiculous

[Atlantic Friend]

You get it, you can add French hypocrisy, replying to the bombing of its headquarter (military objective) by destroying completely Ivory Coast air force, and killing more than 320 people, most of them demonstrators.[

First, these are two different occurences. The Ivorian air force was destroyed with minimal loss of life after it bombed French troops - also killing an American relief worker in the process - which were trying to establish a buffer zone in the middle of a civil war.

As for the demonstrators - or shall we say the popular militia armed and sent their by the Ivoirian government, let's keep in mind they were about to storm a zone used to shelter Westerners civilians who had endured looting, violence and rape in the previous weeks.

What was criminally stupid in the French deployment there was to have Marine infantry units guarding the safety zones, while Gendarmes, equipped with mostly non-lethal weapons, would have been more appropriate, backed with a Marine Infantry QRF as a last resort.


Nobody condemned, and quite honestly, maybe they were right to shoot, even to shoot with 20mm guns to interdict the demonstrators and fighters to cross this bridge, but the fact no french or european media questionned the body count or the method shows the state of those supposed "free media".

Nobody condemned or questioned the body count ? Are you kidding ? It made big news in France, big news in Europe, and big news in the world.

Make a short Google research to read all the papers that were published about it, from the Washington Times to the BBC to the Tapiei Times to African newspapers to the French mdedia itself to Intyernet News Blogs...

Here are the results with these few word "French killed protesters Ivory Coast" :

http://www.google.fr/search?hl=fr&q=french+protestors+killed+ivory+coast&btnG=Recherche+Google&meta=

And that's only the English-speaking media.

[Mr. Nielsen]

There were something on the Kosovo-Lebanon comparison some days ago:


The Brookings Institution's Michael O'Hanlon said the Israeli campaign most closely resembles the U.S.-led NATO bombardment of Serbia in 1999, in which a victory was achieved without a land invasion.

But the 78-day NATO bombardment of Serbia had clear international legitimacy and was more gradual. Air crews targeted Serbian military and communications sites first, and when that didn't persuade the Serb military to pull out of Kosovo, planes hit civilian and government targets.

Targeting was far more discriminatory. Despite tens of thousands of sorties, NATO is thought to have killed 500 civilians in the 2- 1/2 month campaign. By contrast, Israel has killed more than 250 Lebanese in eight days.

And the Serbian actions that triggered NATO's airstrikes were far larger than anything launched from Lebanon, Dobbins said.

"The Serbian government was responsible for the ethnic cleansing in Kosovo that drove a million people from their homes," Dobbins said, "while the Lebanese government is not responsible for the rocket attacks upon Israel."
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20060720/ap_on_re_mi_ea/mideast_fighting_strategic_bombing

[2Sheds_Jackson]

War is not about parity, or applying equal force. In order to win, you want disproportionate response. Israel gave, and continues to give, ample warning to those in affected areas - for the life of me I have no idea why civilians are remaining behind, other than to serve themselves up as fodder for the media. Israel's civilians on the other hand, have never been given any quarter by Hezbollah.

[caridon]

War is not about parity, or applying equal force. In order to win, you want disproportionate response. Israel gave, and continues to give, ample warning to those in affected areas - for the life of me I have no idea why civilians are remaining behind, other than to serve themselves up as fodder for the media. Israel's civilians on the other hand, have never been given any quarter by Hezbollah.

Playing the devils advocate here.

Then You dont understand why Israeli civilians stay behind in israel when Hizbolla has clearly warned them ?

Your argument cuts both ways.

Neither Israel OR Hizbolla has the right to hit civilians warning or no warning.
That fig leaf wont do.

/C

[c62]

Playing the devils advocate here.

Then You dont understand why Israeli civilians stay behind in israel when Hizbolla has clearly warned them ?
Hezbollah hasn't clearly warned them, maybe in the most general way possible, but they aren't "calling their shots" like the Israelis. The Hezbollah are using unguided(or something close to it) rockets, and the Israelis are using smart munitioins.



Neither Israel OR Hizbolla has the right to hit civilians warning or no warning.
No one is saying it is right to hit civilian targets. I look at the intent of the actions when civilians are hit. Did the firing person(s) make a reasonable effor to warn civilians(before) and avoid hitting them in combat(during)? Civilians, unfortunately, get caught in the middle of armies all the time, so I think it is important to use some context when looking at civilian deaths.

For example: Israel makes a good faith effort to avoid civilian casualties, that doesn't mean there are zero civilian casualties, rather a tremendous effort is made to minimze them to the lowest possible count. Hezbollah, using their rockets appear to be aiming for civilians. They appear to be attempting to maximize the civilian death toll. If one side is minimizing civilian casualties and the other is maximizing how can anyone equate those two? We don't live in a perfect world, there will most likely be civilian casualties, but looking at the efforts and the intent of both parties you can see a significant differance between the two.

[annihilation]

Neither Israel OR Hizbolla has the right to hit civilians warning or no warning.
That fig leaf wont do.

/C

Who says? Really when it comes down to war, are there really any rules are there any targets off limit. Everything has a military value. Sure we try to civilize war to some degree but in the end it has no bounds, no limits and no morals except for what we make of it. Even in those cases, thats even put a side to win.

[chuckster]

Then You dont understand why Israeli civilians stay behind in israel when Hizbolla has clearly warned them ?



/C


Maybe it's because the Isreali Jews have nowhere to evacuate to because they are surrounded by enemies and can only tread water in the Medeterranian for so long.

[chuckster]

Playing the devils advocate here.

Then You dont understand why Israeli civilians stay behind in israel when Hizbolla has clearly warned them ?



/C

Maybe it's because Isreal has nowhere to retreat to, being surrounded by enemies and all. And they can only tread water in the Medeterranian for so long.

[caridon]

Hezbollah hasn't clearly warned them, maybe in the most general way possible, but they aren't "calling their shots" like the Israelis. The Hezbollah are using unguided(or something close to it) rockets, and the Israelis are using smart munitioins.

No one is saying it is right to hit civilian targets. I look at the intent of the actions when civilians are hit. Did the firing person(s) make a reasonable effor to warn civilians(before) and avoid hitting them in combat(during)? Civilians, unfortunately, get caught in the middle of armies all the time, so I think it is important to use some context when looking at civilian deaths.

well it ishard to "call your shot" when you dont know where it is hitting :)

The point i am trying to make is that A warning wont absolve the agressor.
It is wrong to hit civilian targets and both sides are doing this far to much, no matter the intent.
you know "the road to hell is paved with good intentions"

/C

[caridon]

Who says? Really when it comes down to war, are there really any rules are there any targets off limit. Everything has a military value. Sure we try to civilize war to some degree but in the end it has no bounds, no limits and no morals except for what we make of it. Even in those cases, thats even put a side to win.

I can agree with this but then you will have to agree with me that there is NO moral high ground.
Because what i object to is the (in my opinion) idiotic resoning "Israel warned them so it is their own fault"

/C

[caridon]

Maybe it's because the Isreali Jews have nowhere to evacuate to because they are surrounded by enemies and can only tread water in the Medeterranian for so long.

but the Lebanese can thread watter in the mediteranian for ever ?

All of Israel is not under fire. All of Lebanon is.

/C

[Lazy Lob]

I do not quite understand the much lauded concept of proportionality in war. We have the media, the UN and other groups going on about the disproportionate Israeli response. So Hizbollah throws missiles and kidnaps Israeli soldiers from Israeli territory and the Israelis can only respond so much and no more?

What if Hizbollah chucked a few chemical warheads over? Is the Israel allowed to respond with so much and no more? So what the UN, the media etc is saying that Hizbollah can do what they want with relative impunity?

From what I understand this conflict is asymmetric which, in theory takes into account and equalises the superior Israeli military strength. In many situations Hizbollah are using civilian centres as launching areas and command and control. Does that mean Israel cannot target these areas?

If you provoke a war expect that something nasty is going to come your way. I know that if I was a civilian and I had a bunch of bearded guys firing rockets from the parking lot next to my house I would do a runner and not wait for a response.

But the amazing aspect is that Hizbollah’s rockets are ALL being fired at non military targets directly into heavily populated areas and the media and UN concentrates on how bad the Israelis are.

War is war, there's no crying to mummy when you get a bloody knee.

[Atlantic Friend]

I do not quite understand the much lauded concept of proportionality in war. We have the media, the UN and other groups going on about the disproportionate Israeli response. So Hizbollah throws missiles and kidnaps Israeli soldiers from Israeli territory and the Israelis can only respond so much and no more?

Well, I'm afraid that is the idea - taking circumstances into account. The only other option is to launch an all-out attack with your deadliest available weapons at the slightest attack against you or your interests, and it is neither practical nor palatable by modern standards.

Based on real-life examples, it'd be something like :

- NK attacks and capture the USS "Pueblo" -> answer : nuke Pyongyang
- Israel bombs and strafes the USS "Liberty" -> answer : nuke Tel Aviv
- NATO warplanes bomb the Chinese embassy in Belgrade -> answer : nuke Brussels, Washington, London, Berlin, Rome, Paris....
- IRA group goes into hiding in Ireland after an attack against the UK -> answer : nuke Dublin.


What if Hizbollah chucked a few chemical warheads over? Is the Israel allowed to respond with so much and no more?

Again, yes, that'd be the case. But chemical warheads are considered by most Western nations as weapons of mass destruction, particularly when targeting civilians, so it would open the possibility to reply in kind...


So what the UN, the media etc is saying that Hizbollah can do what they want with relative impunity?

No. Proportionality is not impunity. If I get a gun in Texas and kill 2 people, I'm eligible to a lethal injection. If I embezzle money, I'll go to jail. Punishment is supposed to be proportional to the crime. If it isn't, then that indirectly favors the worst criminal.


From what I understand this conflict is asymmetric which, in theory takes into account and equalises the superior Israeli military strength. In many situations Hizbollah are using civilian centres as launching areas and command and control. Does that mean Israel cannot target these areas?

Isn't that a moot point, as residential areas have already been targeted ? But yes, the idea is to prevent civilian deaths as much as possible. Feel free to lament it, others will laud it, but that has become one of the rules of modern war.

[Argyll]

Why do the Local Lebanese stay......quite simple, it's their home, it's all their worldly belongings, it's their lives for the past X amount of years....it's not easy to leave a place you've lived in , that you own, where your kids were born, your sanctuary......for another loction where there is uncertainty....

I would stay in my home with my family as well, it's all I have in this world, and I wouldn't stand by and let some Foreign Invading force take it from me either, and I'm pretty sure most of you would feel the same way under the same circumstances.

If their homes are destroyed, then it's been targeted deliberately, and that's against the rules of war and the GC......

Imagine you did decide to leave, and all your worldy possesions get stolen because you left your home, what then.....a simple case of "Oh well, start again?".....for the old and frail that's not so easy.

Many of you here have openly declared you'd not hesitate to defend your property and family from those who wish to commit acts of crime against you, ie shooting burglars, or intruders.......are those humble Lebanese any different from you or I when it comes down to the crunch?

[Lazy Lob]

Well, I'm afraid that is the idea - taking circumstances into account. The only other option is to launch an all-out attack with your deadliest available weapons at the slightest attack against you or your interests, and it is neither practical nor palatable by modern standards.

Based on real-life examples, it'd be something like :

- NK attacks and capture the USS "Pueblo" -> answer : nuke Pyongyang
- Israel bombs and strafes the USS "Liberty" -> answer : nuke Tel Aviv
- NATO warplanes bomb the Chinese embassy in Belgrade -> answer : nuke Brussels, Washington, London, Berlin, Rome, Paris....
- IRA group goes into hiding in Ireland after an attack against the UK -> answer : nuke Dublin.


That's not what I'm getting at. Stop taking cheap shots. Israel has not nuked Lebanon but they have targeted cities and in many cases (not all) Hizbollah launching sites or command and control. Yet the media and the UN call this disproportionate.

This is what I'm getting at. Not nukes.

Also the UN is far less vociferous about the Hizbollah rockets being targeted directly at civilians in Haifa.





If their homes are destroyed, then it's been targeted deliberately, and that's against the rules of war and the GC......

It's not that back and white. What are the Israelis meant to do if the rockets are coming out this home's courtyard? It's a difficult issue as these poor guys may not even support Hizbollah. But what do you do in a situation such as this? Personally I would run to save my childrens lives.

[Atlantic Friend]

That's not what I'm getting at. Stop taking cheap shots. Israel has not nuked Lebanon but they have targeted cities and in many cases (not all) Hizbollah launching sites or command and control. Yet the media and the UN call this disproportionate.

I'm not aiming at cheap shots, I just want to say that governments have many, many tools in their toolbox when it comes to resolve conflicts. You have covert action, you have selected assassination, you have limited military action, you have ground occupation, you have airstrikes...and more importantly you have a wide variety of targets to apply these methods to.

The more tools and options available to you, the better - that's the neat things about graduate response. There's a French saying I particularly like : when the only tool you have is a hammer, all your problems begin to look like nails.

Israel is in the middle of a danger zone. Some neighboring nations are openly hostile, some are not but harbor a lot of anti-Israeli sentiment, a few could even be partners. I think that, regardless of our personal choices and preferences, the more the IAF bombs Beirut, the more difficult Israel's situation will be in the immediate future, politically, diplomatically, even militarily. And the more the neutral or favorably disposed nations will be destabilized by their own public opinion, carefully nurtured by Islamist organizations such as Hezbollah and Hamas.

Lebanon is one of the most "Westernized" nations in the NE/ME - there is (or there was) the possibility of working with Lebanon in an attempt to make the NE/ME more Western- and Israeli-friendly area. Presently, one fifth of the lebanese population which has been displaced by the conflict - and I fail to see what we (the West, and Israel, collectively) are supposed to be gaining from it. The highways, the bridges, the airport that have been struck penalize Lebanese much more than the Hezbollah, as they mainly penalize trade - when it comes to move the kind of military supplies Hezbollah uses, I think small bridges and little roads can do the trick just as well.

The strikes in Southern Lebanon, on the Hezbollah's bunkers, camps, vehicles and rocket-firing areas, on the other hand, are a completely different matter, and you won't find as many people actually condemning them. But there, it seems that Israel remembers the hardships of post-"Peca ein Galilea" and does not want to have a go at another 20 years of foreign deployment. The brigade-sized land force which is supposed to securize the buffer zone seems too modest for the neutralization of one fourth of Lebanon.

[Lazy Lob]

When you have an organisation like Hizbollah with over 10.000 rockets and over 1000 (estimated) fighters who are entrenched in the civilian population (including in Beirut itself) I think selective assassination would pose a rather complex problem. Even if you just kill Nasrallah himself.

I am not there but having seen and added plenty of salt to the media reports I think the Israelis have a very difficult task ahead. Horrific, yes. Disproportionate, no, at least in the majority of cases.

[Lt. James Anderson]

When you have an organisation like Hizbollah with over 10.000 rockets and over 1000 (estimated) fighters who are entrenched in the civilian population (including in Beirut itself) I think selective assassination would pose a rather complex problem. Even if you just kill Nasrallah himself.

I am not there but having seen and added plenty of salt to the media reports I think the Israelis have a very difficult task ahead. Horrific, yes. Disproportionate, no, at least in the majority of cases.

And all that from a guy who would "personally run to save his childrens lives". :roll: Tough words for somebody who doesn't have guts to fight for his own. Have you ever seen a shot fired in anger? Read Argyll's answer at least 5 more times (or as many times as it takes) till tou finally get it.

[Lazy Lob]

And all that from a guy who would "personally run to save his childrens lives". :roll: Tough words for somebody who doesn't have guts to fight for his own. Have you ever seen a shot fired in anger? Read Argyll's answer at least 5 more times (or as many times as it takes) till tou finally get it.

What can I say...guts, children, fights. Was that an insult? But enough of me what would you do?

[Lt. James Anderson]

No, it’s not an insult. I just think you are hypocrite. You can talk the talk but you can't walk the walk. What would I do? Fight of course ... over the time I started to respect anybody who fights for what they believe in (that includes the people I fought in Afghanistan and Iraq).

[Lazy Lob]

No, it’s not an insult. I just think you are hypocrite. You can talk the talk but you can't walk the walk. What would I do? Fight of course ... over the time I started to respect anybody who fights for what they believe in (that includes the people I fought in Afghanistan and Iraq).

But that's not what I was referring to. Try and distinguish between two very simple things if you can.

1) Fighting.

and

2) Getting your under age family members out of the way of an incoming artillery barrage. They obviously have track back technology and Hizbollah have just been firing a salvo of rockets from your court yard.

One has nothing to do with the other. But considering your ongoing insults please tell me what you would do in the second on the above points. Would you leave them in the way of that barrage? Hypocrisy? I would just be doing what millions of other people have done throughout the ages.


... over the time I started to respect anybody who fights for what they believe in (that includes the people I fought in Afghanistan and Iraq).

That's a pretty broad statement.

[oldsoak]

If I am prepared to put my possessions or my politics or beliefs above the safety of my family, can I blame my enemy if he does the same
to my family ?

[andrew_rsa]

i think they point you are all overlooking is that serbia was a country and a military they bombed whereas now Israel is bombing a terrorist organisation who doesnt wear uniforms or such.

I think the media and the rest of the world condemn what Israel is doing is because they are not bombing a clear-cut enemy, whereas NATO was bombing the hell out of Milosovic's military and infrastructure and that was a defineable target

[Lt. James Anderson]

I think it a little bit more complex than that. In this situation both 1 and 2 fall under 1. And where is half a million or one million people suppose to go? Lebanon is a poor country, you know. Who is gonna feed that many people? Where you gonna shelter them? Have you ever seen anything like that (I have and it is a big headache at best)?

[moneyCrew]

the thing that strikes me is how calculated the IDF....they don't strike hezbolla but they tend to systematically attack civilians .....the thing is they know that they were doing this and it is without regret..... so can we called them terrorist? all of this things could backfired to the whole jewish state....eventually....
war is not count by how many kills you made but by the objectives you achieved.....
those 2 soldiers....

[Lt. James Anderson]

i think they point you are all overlooking is that serbia was a country and a military they bombed whereas now Israel is bombing a terrorist organisation who doesnt wear uniforms or such.

I think the media and the rest of the world condemn what Israel is doing is because they are not bombing a clear-cut enemy, whereas NATO was bombing the hell out of Milosovic's military and infrastructure and that was a defineable target

What? Like bridges, city markets (using cluster bombs), refugee columns, TV nad radio stations, schools, hospitals etc. ?

[Lazy Lob]

I think it a little bit more complex than that.

No **** Sherlock



In this situation both 1 and 2 fall under 1

No they don't. The second one is a moment in time where common sense dictates the rules.



And where is half a million or one million people suppose to go? Lebanon is a poor country, you know. Who is gonna feed that many people? Where you gonna shelter them? Have you ever seen anything like that (I have and it is a big headache at best)?

I have already said this is a horriifc situation and I have not been in one but this does not give you the right to try and demean and insult. Even though I think I am butch enough to take it.

[Zeev]

but the Lebanese can thread watter in the mediteranian for ever ?

All of Israel is not under fire. All of Lebanon is.

/C

rofl rofl rofl rofl rofl rofl

thats why supermarkets in beirut are open and that you can find all the clothes, food, etc etc that you need inside.... thats what I call a destroyed country.... continue on this way and you will tell us soon that this place is worse than somalia

MWAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA SO FUNNY rofl rofl

[Lt. James Anderson]

I'm not trying to insult you. If you have never been in a situation like that you have no way of knowing, do you? That's all I'm trying to say.

[cinoeye]

To TheMacedonian-Serbia was not a Socialist country since 1989, but skinny developing democracy.
Milosevic was a Socialist Party Leader, and he regulary won the election.
Ofcourse, then when he gained power, he was mainipulating laws to stay longer on power. HE changed election law from majority to percentage system(thats how he survived with 35% of votes for him).
He was a hero in 1995, but butcher in 1999.
I mean all citizens where unhappy in that fake democracy, but
Albanians where very clever to use situation, becuase Serbia alreday had a bad reputation.
During the war in x-yu, international community had a policy of keeping internal borders. Those borders wher not base on history and ethnic structure, but on dictator Tito's idea to make small nations within Yugoslavia happy.
That have make some totaly new republics (macedonia), nations(Muslims), some where bigger(Croatia), and some where shrinked and divaded on Autonomus regions(Serbia to Kosovo and Voivodina).

So international community had a strict policy to keep those inside Borders.
Serb Kraina Republic in Croatia is crushed, Republic of Srpska is integrated in Bosnia, so no problem there, thats the way to solve the problem.

And than Kosovo happend.
Albanians are using weapons to fight not just against SLobodans non-democratic regime, but also to separate one part of the teritory and create second Albanian state in Balkans.
Most TV shows(like Military, History CHNL) and politicians talk about bombing of Kosovo. BUT whole Serbia was bombed!
Not just the army, but bridges, railroads, roads, TV station...lot of civilinas died.


Most people didn't care about the Serbs, we where laredy bad guys, killers.
Public opinion belived(feed form TV) that Serbia invaded "Kosovo", that those Serbs are agin doing somethin bad.....poor Kosovo Albanans are freedom fighters, they want democracy......
No body did'nt care about terrorist attacks on Police and Army, no body cares that was a holy Serbian land, no body talks about burneed churches, kidnaped people.....
Yes it is fact that because of historical conditions have huge polpulation of Albanians.
And now, they want to give them independence.

I don want to go off topic, or start flame wars, but why some conties can attack neighbouring country, or go across the world, just to defend them selfs, but we where bombed for taking action in our own ****ing country!?!?
Is it because of bad reputation we had(have), becuse bad PR and lobing to show what is happening, or world just have double standards?

THank you, and God bless you all.
vbmenu_register("postmenu_1802891", true);

[Lazy Lob]

I'm not trying to insult you.

For some one who isn't trying you're doing a great job. But I'm no shrinking violet.




If you have never been in a situation like that you have no way of knowing, do you?

Wow, that's a good one. That makes you the expert does it?

[Lt. James Anderson]

Expert? No. Just more aware of some things. And again, I wasn't trying to insult you in any way. I think we both stated our opinion so let's leave it at that.

[Lazy Lob]

Expert? No. Just more aware of some things. And again, I wasn't trying to insult you in any way. I think we both stated our opinion so let's leave it at that.

Good idea.

[Kaplanr]

Calm down gents. And you're not even Israeli or Lebanese.

Personally I think we've (IDF) gone too far in the air campaign, unless MI has information they aren't releasing that really shows where arms or other targets really are.

On the other hand, Lebanon made all this progress by ignoring what was happening in the South, maybe even tacitly encouraging it as a nation builder or unifier. The problem for us, is that is came at the price of normalcy on the northern border.

It remains to be seen how "involved" Syria and Iran are, but my guess is it's more not less. Beyond the tactical objectives, we're send word to the Lebanese government and people that their lives and country won't be normal, unless the south is part of that normalcy.

THere have been repeated posts andclaims that Hizb. is representative of the Lebanese and that it isn't. It doesn't matter if they are or aren't with the arsenal they have, and the seeming independence they have to use it. The threat (to us) doesn't need to be only existential before we respond to it. Nor do I believe in proportionality. It's why we don't read a whole lot about Russians being kidnapped overseas (Chechens aside) or our planes being hijacked.

[2Sheds_Jackson]

Playing the devils advocate here.

Then You dont understand why Israeli civilians stay behind in israel when Hizbolla has clearly warned them ?

Your argument cuts both ways.

Neither Israel OR Hizbolla has the right to hit civilians warning or no warning.
That fig leaf wont do.

/C

Israeli's can't flee the fighting, because Hezbollah has not declared any areas in Israel "off limits". There is no safe place. Israel has restricted it's operational area in order to give the Lebanese civilians a safe place to go. Israel could, if it chose to, march all the way to Damascus - the fact that they don't is proof of their restraint.

I'd have to say that equating hitting civilians as a "right" is a non-sequitir. Hitting civilians is, in modern warfare, and by all international agreements between states, an unintended consequence and to be avoided. War, by it's very nature, is a violation of all human decency - but even so, those of us who have emerged from the 11th century have made efforts to conduct war in the most civilized way possible.

Israel follows those rules and to the greatest extent possible, tries to avoid civilians. In pursuing that goal, they have formed a military that wears uniforms, identifies itself, operates out of identified bases, and identifies their vehicles. They conduct operations according to the various agreements Israel has signed.

Hezbollah, on the other hand, dress like civilians, and deliberately hide in civilian areas. They use ambulances to transport themselves around the battlefield. They build their bunkers and tunnels in and under suburban neighborhoods. All of these are contrary to the rules of war - precisely because it means fighting them will necessitate hitting civilian targets. In addition, they deliberately, not accidentally, target civilians, not only with rockets indiscriminately fired into neighborhoods, but with targeted suicide bombers who could just as easily have driven to the Israeli military base instead of the mall.

Equating the two is silly. Christ, even the UN has now called Hezbollah a bunch of lowlife cowards.

IMHO this entire mess, just like Iraq, can be laid at the feet of the UN who insisted on restraint then refused to enforce. Israel withdrew from Lebanon at the UN's urging - under the condition that the UN would ensure that the border area remained free of militants...and we see again how allowing the fox to watch the henhouse is a bad idea.

[Zeev]

I don want to go off topic, or start flame wars, but why some conties can attack neighbouring country, or go across the world, just to defend them selfs, but we where bombed for taking action in our own ****ing country!?!?
Is it because of bad reputation we had(have), becuse bad PR and lobing to show what is happening, or world just have double standards?


simply because serbia hadn't nukes,weapons of mass destruction or a giant army....

look at the pakistan, we all know that this is a place for many terrorists organisations, and we all know that there is a lot of al quaida terrorists in waziristan but... the USA and the other countries must be very careful with this state, because he has nukes...
same thing for iranians... they want to have nukes as soon as possible because they know very well that the day they will be a nuclear power, no one will be so crazy to strike them, even the first military power in this world

israel had nukes, officially not but everybody knows that its the case since 30 years

all the countries in this world which have nukes have a kind of non official immunity that will protect them of any ingerence or agression from an other country or a coalition...

if tomorrow irans got nukes, they will do evrything they wants, no one will have the balls (or the madness) to strike them..

[Lt. James Anderson]

simply because serbia hadn't nukes,weapons of mass destruction or a giant army....

True. If you don't have nukes youre fcuked.

[cinoeye]

True. If you don't have nukes youre fcuked.
I think Iranians just realised that;)

[Kilgor]

s

all the countries in this world which have nukes have a kind of non official immunity that will protect them of any ingerence or agression from an other country or a coalition...

if tomorrow irans got nukes, they will do evrything they wants, no one will have the balls (or the madness) to strike them..

true.. but state sponsored third parties such as Hezbollah can strike israel, but Israel cannot turn Iran into a ashtray.

[caridon]

rofl rofl rofl rofl rofl rofl

thats why supermarkets in beirut are open and that you can find all the clothes, food, etc etc that you need inside.... thats what I call a destroyed country.... continue on this way and you will tell us soon that this place is worse than somalia

MWAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA SO FUNNY rofl rofl

If you try to stay on topic instead of being a SH*****D Then you will find that the discussion was about wether pepole had somwhere to run to that was out of reach of the other partys military capabilities.

chuckster Insinuated that the Israelis had no place to go but the mediteranina and therefore asking them to evacuate was BS.

My statement pointed out that Israel has been attacking ALL of lebanon so the same reasoning applies to the lebanese pepole. there is no safe place for them to evacuate to (unlike the Israelis that can in theory evacuate south beyont the range of missiles.)

But plaese feel free to try and missinterpret my words, It will only make you lookmore like a I***T

/C

[caridon]

Israeli's can't flee the fighting, because Hezbollah has not declared any areas in Israel "off limits". There is no safe place. Israel has restricted it's operational area in order to give the Lebanese civilians a safe place to go. Israel could, if it chose to, march all the way to Damascus - the fact that they don't is proof of their restraint.

Realy. pleace give me a link to the areas Israel has designated as Safe ? And show me that Israel has left enough infrastructure (bridges come to mind) to enable the civilians to reach these safe places within a resonable time. If you cant then the argument is BS (and no you cant claim that it is hard to find or secret as this info must be easily found to be of any use)



I'd have to say that equating hitting civilians as a "right" is a non-sequitir. Hitting civilians is, in modern warfare, and by all international agreements between states, an unintended consequence and to be avoided. War, by it's very nature, is a violation of all human decency - but even so, those of us who have emerged from the 11th century have made efforts to conduct war in the most civilized way possible.

I did not equate hitting civilians as a rigth. I claimed that it is NOT a right. it is at best a tragic accident and most often a warcrime. (but as justice and truth are the first victims of war most of these crimes go unpunished)

<irrelevant talk snipped>
[/QUOTE]

You have still not answerd WHY the Lebanese civilians should evacuate (and i wonder to where and how as Israel is hiting the entire country and have destroyed much of the infrastructure)
while the Israeli civilians should not evacuate.

/C