8 canadians killed in south lebanon.

[Kuciwalker]

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

What about troops

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

So bin Laden isn't a valid military target?

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

Since the incident I mentioned involved a meeting of several Hezbollah leaders.

[GePap]

Originally posted by Jaguar

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

What I offered was an arguement, not an opinion.

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, then he is? That's the stupidest thing I've ever heard.

I am glad to know you are young enough ot find the world so funny. BUt yes, that IS the distinction.

There must be a valid reason for the rigths of protected persons to be ignored in your act. The place you target must have some military significance. An enemy just sleeping in a private home is not a threat, Him just eating, and socializing does not make him a threat.

If he starts engaging in activities that lead to the organization of military actions against you, THEN he is a threat, and you have the right to try to stop him, a right that at that point supersedes the inherent rights of the protected individuals to be protected. But unless you can show that some sort of military activity or organization is going on, no, you can;t just violate the rights of the other individuals in the room

Good help us all if you become a cop. One can only imagine how many rights you would violate with your mentality.

[chequita guevara]

Originally posted by Kuciwalker
So bin Laden isn't a valid military target?

Maybe from an emotional standpoint, but the more I learn about the guy, he was just the moneybags. Pretty useless now. Zuwahiri is apparently the actual leader of al-Qeada.

[Jaguar]

Originally posted by chegitz guevara

Originally posted by Kuciwalker
So bin Laden isn't a valid military target?

Maybe from an emotional standpoint, but the more I learn about the guy, he was just the moneybags. Pretty useless now. Zuwahiri is apparently the actual leader of al-Qeada.

That seems about right. Most of his tapes are incoherent ramblings. It wouldn't surprise me at all if he did none of the actual planning.

[chequita guevara]

As insane as it sounds, GePap is correct. You aren't allowed to kill unarmed troops in their barricks, for example.

[GePap]

Originally posted by Kuciwalker

So bin Laden isn't a valid military target?

That is not the issue. The issue is, if we know that Bin Laden will attend a weeding party, do we have the right to bomb that party and kill all the other people there? The answer is NO, we don;t have the right to kill all the other people there. We would have the right to kill him en route, or after the party, or we would be right to set up an operation to capture him. But the mere fact that Bin Laden is somewhere would not remove the inherent protected status of the people in the weeding party.

Since the incident I mentioned involved a meeting of several Hezbollah leaders.

If they were planning strategy, then it was a valid target.

[chequita guevara]

Doesn't mean I wouldn't like to see bin Laden thrown to a mob of WTC widows.

[Jaguar]

Originally posted by chegitz guevara
As insane as it sounds, GePap is correct. You aren't allowed to kill unarmed troops in their barricks, for example.

I totally would. Troops are troops.

[GePap]

Originally posted by Jaguar

I totally would. Troops are troops.

You are a male of fighting age. Your family contributes ot the economic activity that funds the military.

Are you and your family valid targets?

[chequita guevara]

Originally posted by Jaguar

I totally would. Troops are troops.

You would be committing a war crime.

[Jaguar]

Originally posted by GePap


You are a male of fighting age. Your family contributes ot the economic activity that funds the military.

Are you and your family valid targets?

Well, the idea is to hope that your military is good enough to protect you, and hope that your leaders are smart enough not to get you into a war that threatens your homeland in the first place. America's pretty good about that. On a more personal level, if you don't want to get killed, then you stay away from likely targets and stay out of the military.

[notyoueither]

Originally posted by Kuciwalker
I think - based on the analyses I've read in several WaPo articles - that this stands a decent chance of defeating Hezbollah. What needs to follow is aid, from some combination of Europe, Israel, and the US, for the reconstruction of Lebanon's infrastructure.

xpost*2

edit: I emphasize the WaPo reference because I really don't have any individual expertise in the subject, so my predictions are really just repeating the predictions of others who seem most credible to me.

That's what I think we hope for.

The IDF breaks or weakens Hezbollah, and the international community lends Lebanon support for it's army to take over the south and quick rebuilding of damage.

[chequita guevara]

Originally posted by Jaguar
America's pretty good about that.

Yes, we were very clever to surrounder ourselves with three oceans.

[Kuciwalker]

Originally posted by chegitz guevara
As insane as it sounds, GePap is correct. You aren't allowed to kill unarmed troops in their barricks, for example.

Maybe not run in and gun them down, but bomb them? Sure you can.

[Jaguar]

If you can run in there with ground troops and take them by surprise, obviously then a capture is possible and preferable.