Yea, but the one fly in that particular ointment is that in 1948, Israel specifically asked the people living in the lands that became Israel to stay and enjoy full citizenship. Some stayed and that’s what they have. Others left to get out of the way and facilitate the extermination of the Jewish state by the righteous armies of Allah. Heh. And now they blame the Israelis for not being pushovers.
Are you kidding me? Do you honestly believe this is an accurate description of the truth? Or are you just repeating some piece of Israeli propaganda?
Granted, Weirddave’s assessment is light on facts and glosses over quite a bit (and exaggerates a bit as well)…but the core seems reasonably accurate to me. After all, he wasn’t really attempting to give a historical disertation on the '48 conflict and the various parts played on all sides…just a quick and dirty couple of lines.
Which part specifically are you having a problem with? (not that this specifically touches on the OP, but I’m curious on your own take on ‘history’…if this glossy look at the high points is ‘propaganda’ to you). Is it the full citizenship thing? Thats definitely overstated. But Israel DID ask the proto-Palestinians (i.e. Arabs living in the region) to stay, and did claim they would make provision for them. In addition, some of those Arabs who stayed ARE citizens today (you did know, I’m sure, that there are Israeli citizens of Arab decent). The majority chose to flee towards the liberating Arab armies in the hopes that they would smash Israel and they would live happily ever after (yeah, I’m exaggerating too :)). It didn’t quite work out well for them though…
(not that I’m of the opinion that even if the combine Arab armies HAD smashed Israel that those proto-Palestinians would have reaped vast rewards in any case)
-XT
There ought to be a Rule of War that the a country loses and must surrender when it first sheds the blood of one too young to know the meaning of the equivalent of picnic and kiss.
Based on the ratio of soldiers to civilians killed, one could easily speculate that their targets are military, and the rest are “collateral damage” (hate that phrase).
Certainly one could…if one chose to be willfully ignorant of the details behind those facts, such as the weapons systems and tactics used by Hezbollah…and Israel. The devil, however, is in those very details…
-XT
While I don’t actually have any idea if Hezbollah is trying hard to aim at military targets, I haven’t seen anything that would prove that that’s not the case. If they are aiming at civilians, they sure do suck at it. If they are aiming at military targets, they are doing a better job of hitting the target than their counterparts on the other side.
Do you have any evidence, other than guesswork, that they are aiming for civilians specifically?
So the physical impossibility of aiming their rockets with any degree of precision, at all, doesn’t fill the bill of ‘anything’ that would show you Hezbollah isn’t trying hard to aim at military targets?
Physical impossiblity doesn’t suggest the probability of a claim?
Let me guess, you haven’t been reading the news, have you? Is there any particular reason, without knowing thing one about the rockets Hezbollah uses, why you can hold forth on their aiming capabilities?
I’m serious, and you lack of knowledge is obvious to anybody reading along in this thread who isn’t ignorant of what’s going on.
Why play this game?
:rolleyes:
Cite?
And no, not simple statistics since there are multiple sources which confirm that Hezbollah blends into the general population making any precision targeting, or tally of the dead, virtually impossible.
Do you, for instance, know how many Hezbollah fighters have been killed? You don’t, do you? Can you tell a dead civilian wearing civilian clothes from a dead Hezbollah member wearing civilian clothes? Then how can you possibly claim that Israel hasn’t hit as many of them as Hezbollah has hit Israeli soldiers?
Do you have any reason, other than being difficult, to enter a debate without having read a single news report on the subject you’re trying to debate? You didn’t even know that katushas are impossible to aim with any degree of precision, and yet, you think your appraisal of Hezbollah’s targeting is valid… why?
Certainly I can produce this evidence…but you are already aware of it most likely. You simply haven’t put the pieces together of what you already know. If, after my explaination here, you would like me to dig up the cites for what I’m saying, I’ll be happy too do so (probably tomorrow). Fair?
First off, you know that Hezbollah has fired off literally hundreds of rockets toward Israel. Yet, these rockets have had little effect. Why? Well, thats easy…the rockets themselves are highly inaccurate and meant to be fired in volleys, en masse. Not from a single rocket launcher (even a single launcher firing multiple rockets, which is actually how many of them are fired) who fires and then moves to avoid counter fire. IOW, Hezbollah is using a highly inaccurate launcher system in a tactically incorrect way…which pretty much explains why, though they have launched hundreds of attacks at Israel, they have as yet failed to actually hit many Israeli civilians. To back this up would require two cites…one showing that Israel has fired hundreds of rockets, one showing the capabilities of the rockets in question. Do I need to back this up for you?
Secondly, one can look at exactly what Hezbollah HAS fired those rockets at. This is fairly easy, as the tracks of many of those rockets are dectectable by the Israeli’s, and also you can look at where those rockets are impacting. By and large, the majority of those rockets have been fired at the towns and enclaves in Northern Israel. THese are not concentration points for the IDF…in fact, the majority of these towns don’t have a military presence (well, wrt the invasion into Lebanon). They also don’t act as major logistics centers for the most part. This would be a legitimate area for you to ask for a cite if you like.
Finally, we have to look at HOW the majority of the IDF casualties have occured. Now, Red cited a rocket attack that hit IDF personnel. This was a complete fluke though. The vast majority of IDF personnel killed or wounded thus far have been killed in direct fire ground fighting…not by rocket attack. This one is fairly easy to prove, but I’ll do so if you need a cite.
Added all up, yes…they do a better job of aiming at military targets, simply because they are engaging the IDF (from fixed defenses btw…which is why the heavy IDF casualties thus far) in ground combat. Their rockets are pretty much worthless against mobile military targets, except for a fluke…like the one Red cited where a bunch of reservists being activated just happened to be in the wrong place at the wrong time.
Their rocket attacks certainly ‘suck’ as you say…but that doesn’t negate the fact that they are firing them at Israeli civilians. It just means that they are wasting most of their rockets. If they had better rockets and were firing hundreds of them at the northern enclaves, then Israel’s civilian casualties would be very heavy indeed. That its light isn’t from want of trying on Hezbollah’s part however.
As for Israel and Lebanese casualties, this is due to a few factors. First off, Israeli weapons are much more powerful than Hezbollah is firing. This means, when they hit something they generally kill it…even if what they are hitting isn’t what they WANTED to hit. In addition, Hezbollah is stashing weapons and more importantly munitions in civilian facilities. What this means is, when Israel hits such stashes they go off, well, like a bomb…with a MUCH more powerful explosion than the original one from the guided bomb or missile. This is called a secondary explosion…you’ll hear the term quite a bit if you start digging into the events as they unfold.
Since Hezbollah has chosen (or has no choice but to adopt the tactic) to fight from within the screen of their own civilian population, that means when those more powerful Israeli weapons hit a target that has civilians in it, it tends to be hugely destructive. Especially if Hezbollah has stashed a few dozen rockets in said building.
Its really no big mystery why Lebanese civilian casualties are much much higher than Israeli…it has directly to do with Israel’s military capabilities vs Hezbollah’s, and with the different tactics both sides are employing to prosecute this war.
If you need cites for what I’ve said above, I’ll be happy to see what I can dig up tomorrow, work permitting. Though pretty much everything I’ve said is easily available (except for the second point…that would probably take some digging).
-XT
Certainly.
Nope, I was aware of this.
I’m aware of most of this, but might or might not need a cite for the bolded portion depending on the answer to the next question.
If you have a cite for this, then you can forego the one above. The deaths have been peacemeal, so I wasn’t aware that the vast majority were from ground fighting.
[QUOTE]
Added all up, yes…they do a better job of aiming at military targets, simply because they are engaging the IDF (from fixed defenses btw…which is why the heavy IDF casualties thus far) in ground combat. Their rockets are pretty much worthless against mobile military targets, except for a fluke…like the one Red cited where a bunch of reservists being activated just happened to be in the wrong place at the wrong time.
I’ll not quote the rest of your post as I’m on the same page with you there.
I still don’t consider any of the above to be proof that Hezbollah is targetting civilians, but if you show that the vast majority of Israeli soldier deaths were indeed caused by ground fighting, then I’ll definitely concede that they are not likely choosing only military targets. I personally guess that they are just shooting “in the general direction of Haifa”, for instance, and not specifically at military or civilian targets, which is what my original point was anyway.
Either way, thanks for engaging in an actual debate, instead of foaming at the mouth as some other posters do on this topic. I find this topic saddening from when looked at from a “people are dying on both sides” perspective, but still worthy of debate from a “How should Israel deal with terrorism?” angle. Unfortunately, it brings out the same level of vitriol as many abortion debates, which stifles the actual debate itself.
Just because one has an inaccurate weapon doesn’t mean that they aren’t attempting to hit a specific target.
Who held forth on their aiming capabilities? It certainly wasn’t me.
Are you reading the news? Hezbollah, for whatever reason, is certainly killing a higher ratio of military to civilians than the IDF.
According to CNN, 95 Israelis have died so far, 38 of them civilians. 706 Lebanese have died so far. In order to match Hezbollah’s ratio,
423 of those would have had to have been Hezbollah members. I know of no news source, even biased ones, who have made such a claim. If you don’t have evidence that 423 of them were, then it’s all just speculation, which was my point in the first place. You don’t know. I don’t know. I’m not willing to make any factual claims about something which neither of us know. You are.
Once again, I am not appraising their targetting, as I don’t know exactly what they are shooting at, which puts me in the same boat as you.
Let me make it very clear for you.
[ul][li]I have no idea what Hezbollah is actually trying to hit. You have no idea what Hezbollah is actually trying to hit.[/li]
[li]Hezbollah has currently killed more soldiers than civilians. Israel has currently killed more civilians than soldiers. [/li]
[li]This doesn’t make Hezbollah the good guys (they’re not. In fact, I strongly condemn their actions that prompted this latest go-round).[/li]
[li]This doesn’t make Israel the bad guys (they’re not, but that could change depending on how this plays out down the road). I think Israel is in a tough place, and fully support their right to react. I just think they overreacted, and are being less discriminate than I would like in their target selection.[/li][/ul]
I hate civilian deaths, no matter who is doing the killing, and no matter how much one tries to avoid them. There is a line between “not one civilian death, no matter the cost” and “kill them all and let God sort them out”. I just prefer to lean towards the former as far as humanly possible.
If a weapon cannot be aimed at a specific target than that kind of limits it from being aimed at a specific target.
Your post used the words ‘aim’ or ‘aiming’ four times, and started by shifting the burden of proof by saying that although you didn’t know if they were aiming at military targets, you hadn’t seen anything saying that they weren’t aiming at military targets. You then went on to say that if they were aiming at military targets they were doing a better job than the IDF. Ignoring, for instance, that Hezbollah hides among civilians and thus the death toll of civilian deaths will almost always rise whenever Israel hits a Hezbollah position.
Yes, that’s how I know that virtually every report about the katushas mentions that they are unguided.
Shifting the goalposts. You did not claim that the ratio of civilians to soldiers/gueriallas was different, but that if Hezbollah were aiming at military targets, they were more efficient at targeting military assets than the IDF.
The correct comparison would be what percentage of Hezbollah unguided rockets were targeted at military targets (0% as they cannot be targeted at anything other than a large geogrphic area), vs what percent of IDF guided missiles/bombs were targeted at military targets ( greater than 0% as we know for a fact via video confirmation of IDF strikes on rocket emplacements) A number greater than zero is larger than zero. This should tell us whose rocket/missile attacks are better at targeting military assets.
You can also not handwave away the factors and context that contribute to this situation as ‘whatever reasons’. They’re tremendously important, not irrelevant.
No, it’s an irrelevancy and you’re attempting to change the subject. You did not claim that Israel killed more civilians than Hezbollah, you claimed that Hezbollah, if they were targeting military targets, was better at it than Israel was. Israel can have a 99% success rate for hitting Hezbollah targets, but because they’re hiding among civilians, virtually all of those strikes will end up killing civilians as well.
If they’re hiding in densely populated areas the ratio will be even higher. The ratio itself tells us nothing about whether or not the strikes were directed at military targets.
Common sense, however, tells us that if the IDF was striking targets that they believed were not military, deliberately, in order to strike random targets or deliberately strike civilians, that there would be no two stones standing together in all of Lebanon. Indicriminate bombing with Israel’s arsenal would be carpet bombing.
Unless the IDF is just horribly lazy, and they just fire off a missile every now and again at some random location instead of actually fighting a war.
You were the one who claimed that if Hezbollah was targeting military targets, than they were better at it than the IDF. That’s a factual claim, albeit predicated on an if-then statement. Do you retract it?
You don’t know what percent of IDF strikes hit Hezbollah members, and yet you claim that if Hezbollah is targeting Israeli military assets, they’re better at it. Even though you have no idea how many IDF strikes have hit Hezbollah members. That’s a factual claim based on things that you do not know, even though you say you don’t do that, and only I do.
However, as Israel has released video of several missile strikes targeting rocket launchers, thus providing proof… we know that they are infinitely better at targeting military targets with missile strikes than Hezbollah is at targeting military targets with rocket strikes. After all, any number is infinite when divided by zero.
Israel doesn’t have to have killed a greater percent of Hezbollah than civilians, they only have to have a greater percent of their strikes targeting Hezbollah than the percent of Hezbollah’s rocket strikes that target the IDF. As we’ve already established that 0% of katusha strikes are targeted at the IDF, obviously the IDF having one single guided missile strike on Hezbollah means that they’re better at targeting military targets.
No, it doesn’t. Virtually every report about katushas has mentioned that they are unguided. Something not guided cannot be said to be aimed at anything other than a rough direction and range. You can shoot at something in a very general area, but you can’t be said to be shooting at anything other than that general area. That’s why they are refered to, time and again, as weapons of terror. Precision targeting, or any meaningful targeting, is impossible.
If I fire a weapon that I know will land “somewhere in or around New York City”, I can’t be said to be targeting any street address in NYC.
Wrong. You have no idea what Hezbollah is actually trying to hit. I know that the rockets do not have the ability to target anything specific, so they cannot be trying to hit anything specific. You can’t be trying to hit something if it’s impossible to hit any specific thing/place that you’re trying to hit.
If I fire a rocket that I know will land “somewhere in or near New York City” I cannot then reasonably claim to be targeting the South Street Seaport. I cannot reasonably claim to be targeting any specific group of people. I cannot claim to be targeting anything except “the area in and around New York City”.
Relying on the statistics alone without context serves no purpose.
Cite?
Something other than the simple statistics? What evidence do you have that the IDF is being indiscriminate with its fire? The statistics tell us nothing specific. All it takes is one rocket launcher on top of an apartment building, and a strike that was without a doubt targeted at a military target will also kill a number of civilians. But the fact that one guerilla may be killed along with twenty civilians in the building doesn’t mean that the strike wasn’t targeted at the rocket launcher.
Fuck, posting when I’m this tired…
"If a weapon cannot be aimed at a specific target *rather * than a general area, that kind of limits it from being aimed at a specific target. "
Or
“If a weapon cannot be aimed at a specific target then that kind of limits it from being aimed at a specific target.”
Take your pick.
Now I need some sleep. I doubt there will be any real refutation unless it can be explained how a rocket that will hit “in or near New York City” could be said to be targeted at anything other than that entire area.
I trust that’s impossible enough that I can go to sleep now secure in the knowledge that my point has been made.
Well Gozu, the reason why you don’t know any rabid Moslem fanatics is because you choose not to associate with them.
I am quite prepared to accept that a heck of a lot of Moslems think Hezbollah and Hamas are a bunch of turds, and that they would rather like to see them exterminated.
I know a fair bit about Israel, as a non Jewish individual who has been going there on business since 1991.
There are several things you should know, about 20% of Israelis are not Jewish, they are all sorts of other things, some Moslem, some Christian, there are Druze and Samaritans.
Bedouins serve in the IDF.
Also Israel is /not/ a religious state, there are some religious political parties, but they are a minority.
Like you, I am choosy about my friends, most of the Israelis I know are pretty liberal, don’t think much of fanatics, regard orthodox Jews as freaks, and like nothing better than tucking into pork spare ribs in the suburbs of Tel Aviv.
I only know just one ardent Likud supporter, and she is a stupid cow, universally disliked in the large company that I deal with. My friends told me about her politics as a way of illustrating how thick she is.
As others said, in 1948, the Moslem Arabs were told to evacuate the place, by their leaders, which they did.
In 1967 the Israelis were pushed into war, and on paper they were very much the underdog. To their surprize they landed up conquering a lot more territory than they expected - next time I see my pals, who were in that shenanigins, I’ll ask them what the general idea actually was.
The Israelis are very tolerant of other religions, anyone who has seen the hordes streaming out of the Domes on the Rock on Friday afternoon would be quite surprized, even more so because they are mainly 5’ tall old men and the odour of hashish is overpowering ( last time no b*gger offered me a drag ).
Also, I was told that Israel /armed/ the PLO under Arrafat, and were disgusted to see those arms used against them.
Lebanon is interesting, about 25% of the population are Shi’ite, how many of those are Hezbollah is dificult to estimate, but because Hezbollah are well armed, well financed and impressively organized, they have a disproportionate influence on the country.
Israel is well aware that at least 75% of the Lebanese population want to have nothing to do with Hezbollah, and they have made a point of causing them minimum disruption.
According to everything I have heard on the BBC World Service, it is business as usual in Central Beirut.
The ‘infrastructure’ stuff has been aimed at making it difficult for Hezbollah to get supplies, by air, sea and by land from surrounding Syria. It is not aimed at 75% of the population, if anything it protects them.
To be honest, it is likely that very few Israelis particularly care whether the wives, children or mothers of Hezbollah ‘freedom fighters’ get killed, but they are acutely aware of World opinion, so they don’t want unpleasant pictures of corpses turning up.
It is very possible that 75% of Lebanese are not that keen on the refugees.
Another thing that is generally not understood it that the 1967 border stuff is totally unacceptable - there is no way Israel is going to give up East Jerusalem or the new suburbs that they built around it. They are too proud of it, you see in 1948 they got the new city which is rubbish, in 1967 they got the old city and they have spent a fortune restoring it. It is a remarkable place.
All the Israelis want is to be left in peace, they have no territorial ambitions and accept that Ghaza and the West Bank cannot be ‘occupied’, and that it is very difficult to prevent a minority of militants terrorizing the population.
Ideally they would like to revert to pre-Intifada days.
Personally I think the ‘Palestinians’ are nuts, if they had any sense they would simply demand Israeli citizenship - politely, but firmly.
If you can, and my guess is you have a US passport, go and look at the place, I would not recommend it as a holiday excursion for someone elderly, but for someone moderately canny who is interested in getting a feel for a rather unusual place that reeks of ancient history - then it is one of the most interesting places I’ve ever been.
Personally I would abolish religion, but this Israel stuff is not really about religion or race, it is really that Israel is an outpost of the West in the Middle East.
Any war is a terrible thing,name one war where innocent children and other innocent civilians were not killed. That is the price of war.
The mind set of the terrorists is; they hate the Jewish people more than they love their own families.This hatred is inbred in a lot of young children and keeps the hate and suspicion going from generation to generation.
The leaders of the terrorist movement get some ignorant person (usually a young uneducated person) to act as a suicide bomber the leaders such as Osama never go themselves because they are cowards and hide.
Why the Lebonese army didn’t stop Hezbollah is something I do not understand. They seem to back Hezbollah. just as the Taliban allowed Osama Bin Laden to operate in Aphganistan.
I don’t think that comparing the Taliban with the Lebanese army is that reasonable.
The Taliban liked Osama, he brought in money and appeared to share their rather peculiar views ( according to John Simpson the BBC world reporter the Taliban wear eye makeup, polished fingernails and gold high heeled sandals )
The Lebanese ‘army’ is sh*t scared of Hezbollah, but I would lay 10:1 that given a chance they will conduct a minor massacre.
In some ways the situation is similar to Eire and the IRA
How nice of you to come in here to educate me.
I’m sorry, but Israel is not acting like a state that’s trying to win over hearts and minds. The things they’re doing are bad. Doing more bad things or escalating the conflict helps nothing out.
Instead of being childish and getting heated over this, let me ask you a question. If there were a peace negotiation, and concessions had to be made, which side do you think would have to give more up and why?
Personally, I can’t see how ANY peace can be achieved if Israel doesn’t give up either all or a very large chunk of the land they’ve occupied over the years.
Yes, the definition of “moderate” would probably see some equal culpability.
I don’t say that Israel is completely to blame. Other factors make this wonderful shit soup.
I’m not Arab. I’m not a moderate Arab, either. Thanks for pushing your assumptions onto me as well.
So, Hizbollah, one day decided that it’d be a good reason to jump up and start kidnapping Jews and start killing civilians? You mean to tell me that they had nothing else BETTER to do? NOTHING happened that provoked a reaction (a horrible reaction, but a reaction nonetheless).
This is slowly turning into everyone beating their heads into walls, with nothing being gained on either side. Let’s face it, there’s really no cominbation of words that I can possibly say that can make you see my way. So far, I’m not convinced or swayed by any of your arguments either. Calling this a debate is mislabelling it at this point, no?
Quite a nasty “chicken or egg?” argument going on here.
Heh. He’s got a screenname but he’s too cheap to pay. I’ll pony up the 15 bucks for him to shut him up.
When gonzomax comes back in here, that’s good ol’ dad.
My apologies.
I’m glad you brought up the IRA, because it seems that the struggle in Ireland is analagous to the situation in Israel. Because Ireland is stable (as far as I’ve heard and know) that gives me optimism in this Palesraeli (my word, yes, you may borrow it) situation.