8 canadians killed in south lebanon.

[Kuciwalker]

Originally posted by asleepathewheel
Everytime I invite a terrorist leader over for a bbq, I keep in the back of my mind that my house might get levelled at any moment. It kind of goes with the territory.

I take special care when I invite them to use my basement as a war room.

[GePap]

Originally posted by Jaguar

Where I come from, (Maryland) "analysis" is not a synonym for "putting my own opinions into someone else's mouth."

You and Kuci have not even made an attempt to analyze the quote. Kuci served it up as if it were proof of his position. You seem to agree it is. But it isn't, because again, all it says is that you can hit a site even if there are civilians there.

Now its up to one of you (or you, if you are trully the very same person) to say why that fits what Kuci is trying to claim while at the same time not saying that any target is valid, something I assume we all know to be true (do you and Kuci, or YOU, know that not all targets are militarily valid, right?)

I on the other hand offered the distinction that mattered. A target must have some military significance. The mere precence of militants does not make a site a target UNLESS they are carrying out activities related to military matters at the site. If they just happen to be visiting friends, that is not a valid target.

Can you offer a counterarguement?

[Kuciwalker]

You and Kuci have not even made an attempt to analyze the quote. Kuci served it up as if it were proof of his position. You seem to agree it is. But it isn't, because again, all it says is that you can hit a site even if there are civilians there.

Which is the entire argument. Israel can hit the home even though there are civilians there.

[Jaguar]

Originally posted by GePap
I on the other hand offered the distinction that mattered. A target must have some military significance. The mere precence of militants does not make a site a target UNLESS they are carrying out activities related to military matters at the site. If they just happen to be visiting friends, that is not a valid target.

Can you offer a counterarguement?

I don't accept your distinction. Why do I need to?

[Kuciwalker]

I on the other hand offered the distinction that mattered. A target must have some military significance.

Hezbollah leaders aren't of military significance?

Is the Israeli PM?

And even normal militants are, in a war. If the militants are sleeping in a barracks, they're still perfectly valid targets.

If they just happen to be visiting friends, that is not a valid target.

Right. All these Hezbollah leaders were just having a barbeque.

[GePap]

Originally posted by Jaguar

I don't accept your distinction. Why do I need to?

As I said, offer a counterarguement.

The fact you disagree is fine. Its also rather uninteresting and not worth speaking about. I mean, who gives a **** about your opinion? Offer something more than an opinion, offer an arguement.

[asleepathewheel]

Originally posted by GePap
If they just happen to be visiting friends, that is not a valid target.

Why is that not a valid target? At the bare, bare minimum these people are a level above mere terrorist sympathizers.

[Kuciwalker]

Originally posted by GePap
As I said, offer a counterarguement.

The fact you disagree is fine. Its also rather uninteresting and not worth speaking about. I mean, who gives a **** about your opinion? Offer something more than an opinion, offer an arguement.

You first.

[chequita guevara]

Originally posted by Kuciwalker
Except, of course, that we're in the right.

That depends entirely upon where you stand.

[Spiffor]

Originally posted by chegitz guevara

Originally posted by Kuciwalker
Except, of course, that we're in the right.

That depends entirely upon where you stand.

He is trolling you

[Kuciwalker]

Originally posted by chegitz guevara

Originally posted by Kuciwalker
Except, of course, that we're in the right.

That depends entirely upon where you stand.

Such deep insight.

[chequita guevara]

Originally posted by asleepathewheel
At the bare, bare minimum these people are a level above mere terrorist sympathizers.

Not necessarily.

[Jaguar]

Originally posted by GePap


As I said, offer a counterarguement.

The fact you disagree is fine. Its also rather uninteresting and not worth speaking about. I mean, who gives a **** about your opinion? Offer something more than an opinion, offer an arguement.

All you offered was an opinion. I don't accept your opinion. Why? It's absurd.

If he's taking a nap at his civilian buddy's house, he's not a valid target. If he whips out his blackberry and starts emailing other terrorist leaders for an hour or two, then he is during that window?

[GePap]

Originally posted by Kuciwalker

I on the other hand offered the distinction that mattered. A target must have some military significance.

Hezbollah leaders aren't of military significance?

Is the Israeli PM?

And even normal militants are, in a war. If the militants are sleeping in a barracks, they're still perfectly valid targets.

1. A military barracks is a military installation, always a valid target. We are not talking about military installations, are we?

2. A political leader is a target of political significance, but limited military significance, and the mere precense of a leader does not make a location a valid military target.

Right. All these Hezbollah leaders were just having a barbeque.

"All these leaders?" Since when does one guy become plural?

[chequita guevara]

Well, the lives of Arabs mean nothing, so a valid target remains valid.