Hezbollah night-vision gear manufactured in Britain

[tw]

MaggieL still forgot reality to post that cluster bombs on civilians is justified; because a rocket launcher was once somewhere within miles of those innocent civilians. That is what she wants everyone to believe once we include facts she forgetst to mention. She *assumes* pilots could see and attack rocket launchers. She forgets reality. So now she will solve her logic with a tee shirt.

When those airplanes came to attack, the rocket launchers were long gone. That is reality. However maybe MaggieL will then claim the Israeli Air Force killed Hezbollah three times over. Its air power. It must have killed the enemy. Blessed be the foolish pilots who assume a big bomb only means combatants die. Then they won't feel guilty.

Next she will tell us that Israel won the war - reality be damned.

[headsplice]

I just ran into this from Kung-fu monkey:
Law of Modern Warfare #001: When you bomb people for their own good, they never, ever get your point in the way you hope.

I think that pretty much sums up my position really, really, really well.

[MaggieL]

Originally Posted by headsplice

I just ran into this from Kung-fu monkey:
Law of Modern Warfare #001: When you bomb people for their own good, they never, ever get your point in the way you hope.

I think that pretty much sums up my position really, really, really well.

Well, it *sounds* good, of course. But then I don't think anybody in this conflict is claiming they are "bombing somebody for their own good". The closest you get was Israel saying "It would really be better if you civilians didn't stand next to Hezbollah while we bomb them. And those Hezbollah fortifications adjacent to the UN OPs are problematic too."

There are laws of war, and it's pretty clear to me who's doing a better job of trying to observe them. You know: splinter, beam, etc.

[headsplice]

Really? I thought part of the purpose of dropping large bombs in civilian populations was to remind the civvies that they shouldn't support 'terrorists.' Conversely, the purpose of exploding large human/car bombs in civilian populations was to try and convince civvies that they shouldn't support the government's policies vis a vis the 'occupation' of Lebanon/Palestine.
Were was that moral equivalence argument again? Oh yeah...back that a ways.

And laws of war are applicable between two states, not between a state and a non-state actor. Unfortunately, we enter into a whole world of legal fuzziness when combat like this occurs. What is, or is not, permissible within the rules when one side tosses the rules out the window by not even being within the conventions describing the major actors? They aren't like a militia or combat irregulars, because they aren't that organized.
The best description I've read is fourth generation warfare, wherein the application of military force must be extremely judicious, as the 'enemy' invariably will use overzealousness in said action as a propaganda point, increasing sympathy/support internally and/or externally.

I ask the question again: which side 'won' this little bout of assininity?

[MaggieL]

Originally Posted by headsplice

I ask the question again: which side 'won' this little bout of assininity?

You just got done telling us that the conventional rules "don't apply". So what makes you think "won" means anything?

I think evaluating the outcome is premature, because we're still finding out which elements of the UNSC resolution will actually be implemented and which parts were meaningless bullshit signed by nations who had no intention of actually implementing them. Again.

Kinda like the Iranian uranium enrichment resolution. But then these two issues aren't exactly unrelated.

[tw]

Originally Posted by headsplice

I ask the question again: which side 'won' this little bout of assininity?

From the Economist of 19 Aug 2006 and this really was not difficult to see long ago. It was entitled "Nasrallah wins the war":

Israel's prime minister set himself an absurd aim - the complete demolition of Hizbullah's power in Lebanon - and failed to achieve it. The shrewder Mr Nasrallah said victory would consist merely of surviving, and Hizbullah, however battered, did survive. On the last day, it was not just standing, it also fired a record 246 rockets into Israel. ...

Israel being what it is, Mr Olmert's political foes lost no time denouncing the prime minister's failings as Israelis sank into a collective despond about the disappointing showing of their army and the blunting of their country's long-term deterrent power.

... the likelihood of the Lebanese army or a UN force trying to disarm Hizbullah against its will is zero. ...

Mr Olmert has no interest in concessions that reinforce the idea that he led his warrior nation to defeat. Israelis feel they dare not let their country look weak. And now come ominous signs that it does.

Meanwhile an almost irrelevant initial problem still exists. Two kidnapped Israeli soldiers remain kidnapped. What has changed? Israel is no longer demanding loudly that those soldiers be released. Just another fact from Israel's own actions that says Israel lost.

[MaggieL]

Originally Posted by tw

It was entitled "Nasrallah wins the war":

That's not exactly a unanimous opinion, see the link I posted a while back. There's a bigger struggle playing out here, and it's *far* from over.

[tw]

Originally Posted by MaggieL

That's not exactly a unanimous opinion, see the link I posted a while back. There's a bigger struggle playing out here, and it's *far* from over.

Yes the war is far from over. But this battle - which is we call a war and that was really nothing more than Israel's seventh invasion of Lebanon - goes to Hezbollah. Hezbollah that exists only because Israel invades Lebanon and because Israel even made enemies of their Shi'ite friends in Lebanon. Hezbollah that exists because the protagonists will not even negotiate - a 'them is evil' attitude that only means more battles - which we will then call wars.

The victor this year is Hezbollah. A victory was so obvious that the Olmert government may fall early to Likud.

[tw]

Originally Posted by MaggieL

That's not exactly a unanimous opinion, see the link I posted a while back.

Your cited editorial is in direct contradiction to what BBC reporters in those Lebanese towns reported. People with whole towns destroyed blamed Israel and praised Hezbollah. It rather surprised those BBC reporters and it in direct contradiction to what you editorial is based on. Your cited editorial says the innocent Lebanese blamed Hezbollah. Yes, BBC did find some with the opinion. But most all praise Hezbollah - in direct contradiction to a fundamental assumption in your cited editorial.

Meanwhile your editorial also has another problem. It assumes the classic propaganda that Iran had a big part in that Israel / Hezbollah battle. They did not. That Iranian connection is hyped only by US and Israeli propagandists. Just another assumption in that editorial that exposes it as misguided and more typical of someone's propaganda.

Once the report implies all kinds of Iranian government control and intervention, then it is obviously propaganda. Iran is nothing more than a supplier - as Nigeria is a major oil provider for the US.

[9th Engineer]

I'm supprised that Israel hasn't just snapped and issued an ultimatum to Lebanon to the tune of 'unless you immediately disarm and disband Hizbollah we will concider you complicit in their actions. If you refuse to cooperate we will be forced to declare war on the Lebanese state itself". At least then they can do this like a normal war. Does anyone have any idea as to WHY Lebanon would not at least demand that Hizbollah change their objective to something that can actually be accomplished like "the removal of Israeli citizens and forces from all post-1947 Lebanese territory". Israel is NOT GOING ANYWHERE, so as long as anyone is dedicated to their complete destruction this is never going to end.

[MaggieL]

Originally Posted by tw

Your cited editorial is in direct contradiction to what BBC reporters in those Lebanese towns reported.

Oh, now there's a big fucking surprise. BBC, eh...how authoritative and unbiased.

Did you perhaps notice who wrote the editorial in question?

[MaggieL]

Originally Posted by tw

Once the report implies all kinds of Iranian government control and intervention, then it is obviously propaganda. Iran is nothing more than a supplier - as Nigeria is a major oil provider for the US.

Ah....your sources are facts, any that contradict must be propiganda. Your reasoning is logic, other's reasoning is hysteria.

Can you tell the difference between a supplier/customer relationship and belligerent/surrogate one?

We pay Nigeria for oil....that makes us a customer. Hezbollah gets their weapons (and crews for them) from Iran, for free, with a cash subsidy besides. And then is expected to use them when and where Iran directs.

Like when Iran wants a distraction from their nuclear program. Or when Iran wants a credible capability to retaliate against a strike on the facilities that make up that program. How nice to be able to hold Haifa hostage, if you're going to thumb your nose at UNSCR 1696 as you did at 1559.

A victory was so obvious that the Olmert government may fall early to Likud.

We'll see. A lot of that may depend on how much spine is shown in the coming weeks and months to resist any one-sided implementation of the ceasefire resolutions.

[headsplice]

Don't mischaraterize what I said. I said the rules of war are not applicable to a conflict between a state and non-state actor (i.e., the definitions of acceptable behavior by the state military are blurred). That has nothing do with defining the potential risks/rewards as well as the goals of entering into combat.

[Hippikos]

It's just funny to hear the verse from Matthew quoted by the moral equivilance experts. I guess once you take the plunge, it's not a big leap from moral equivalance to moral inversion: the terrorists are not only no worse than their victims, they're actually morally superior.

Well, let´s leave it then to the moral equivilance expert here, you, to decide which side has the moral highground to bomb indiscriminately on civillian population. Which btw happen before in 1982 when the US halted delivery of cluster bombs to Israel, for a short while.

I think we can consider rocket launchers aimed randomly into civilian populations to be "material".

It should be, if it was there instead of playing children. Oops... I forgot you´re the moral expert here

[MaggieL]

Originally Posted by Hippikos

Well, let´s leave it then to the moral equivilance expert here, you, to decide which side has the moral highground to bomb indiscriminately on civillian population.

Hezbollah apparently belived they did, since that's what they were doing. That's the great thing about being "the party of God", wnhatever you want to do is OK. Almost "angelic".

You can claim that Israel bombed indiscriminately, but that's not actually the case. You seem to be having a problem with meaning of the word "indiscriminate". Its meaning doesn't include "attempting to avoid collateral damage" or "operating under restrictions as to their use".

However, launching missiles with high-explosive shrapnel warheads and primitive or no guidance systems into a city does qualify as "indiscriminate".