Tweet
Originally posted by Sirotnikov
Of course there is a difference.
Of course there is a difference.
The difference being that Hezbullah is intentionally hitting plain civilian areas in hope to kill civilians. This is while it is capable of rather precisely targetting only Israeli military facilities and posts (as it did).
wait, so Hezbollah has great control on the targets they hit? As there is an ever increasing amount of rockets reaching Israel (I practically read everyday they it's a new high), hitting mostly empty space then probably Hezbollah is mostly interested at hitting Israeli soil instead of citizens.
Israel on the other hand, is not so lucky when selecting its targets. Hezbullah posts, commands and warehouses are unmarked and usually intentionally hidden next to sensitive areas such as hospitals, schools and UN posts.
what is near? 5 meter?, 50?, 500? There seem to be conflicting reports as to how near the Hezbollah was to the UN, and there have also been conflicting reports as to wether in Qana there was any nearby Hezbollah activity.
It's easy to attribute all civilian casualties to the cowardly hiding of Hezbollah. I doubt the claims made by Israel to this respect.
As such Israel is entitled to target said civilian areas since the existance of military positions there has anulled its status of 'civilian area'.
No, it's not. Like it's been said here before, the area doesn't loose it's status of civilian area. Indescrimanate targeting of such an area is criminal.
[q]Hezbullah wants to hold the rope at both ends - have military positions and have them secure from Israeli fire, by placing them next to non-targets.[q/]
Likewise, Israel wants to hold both end as well: claiming they do everything to avoid civilian casualties, but at the same time targeting the civilians as militairy targets (like you just explained how they become one) as well.
This strategy is illegal and should not be allowed to work.
indeed
I'm terribly sorry for all the innocent people who lost their lives. I hope Hezbullah will stop putting civilian areas in danger.
I hope Israel will stop doing the same as well. I'm also sorry for the soldiers who have lost their lives in this play for power
On the issue of hitting UN posts or whatever Israel wasn't supposed to hit but hit on accident:
...In another incident, a brigade commander himself directed artillery fire at an IDF outpost, and then sent apaches to make sure it was "clear".
...In another incident, a brigade commander himself directed artillery fire at an IDF outpost, and then sent apaches to make sure it was "clear".
Compared to the sheer number of Israeli raids on Hezbullah targets located in civilian areas - I'd say its a miracle we've killed only 500 people (without knowing how many of them are Hezbullah militia).
Now, this is just rich. And I'm actually saddened to read it. If this is the mindset with which Israel goes to war, then all the outcry on it's actions is fully justified.
500 dead civilians are a miracle...
Israel has said it is sorry.
Intelligence is often false or incomplete - assessment is often wrong. But you have to make a choise.
Exactly. And what matters is not that you have made a choice, but WHAT choice.
I also think that the reaction to Kfar-Qana is mostly lead by emotion - not logic
And what's wrong with that?
I presume that you mean by emotion that in this case there is disgust, sorrow and dumbness. I'll take those emotions every day above the logic of war.
True - we accidentally killed several dozen innocent people. But we accidentally killed much more before that. What suddenly makes people angry is the large amount in a small time frame.
Either you're always against hitting civilians no matter what the circumstances are (which I disagree with, but can understand the logic behind) or you agree to see that civilians can't always be avoided in a true military action - and then this incident, while very very despairing and sad, is just a bigger mistake than usually.
Either you're always against hitting civilians no matter what the circumstances are (which I disagree with, but can understand the logic behind) or you agree to see that civilians can't always be avoided in a true military action - and then this incident, while very very despairing and sad, is just a bigger mistake than usually.
Do you think that all those who are now vocal about this massacre didn't care when just a few fell to the same causes? I think you're wrong. I think your logic is getting in the way: one doesn't whine over one dead civilian? Then one shouldn't whine over 30.
The bigger the crime, the more difficult it is to shy away from it. I'm pretty sure that anybody who is vocal about this now felt uneasy when the first few victims fell as well.
If the lebanese decided to recklessly spend the night in a severly attacked building waiting to collapse on its inhabitants - then its their own fault.
This is just gross.
You have gone to great length to 'explain' the civilian losses as 'accidents', but when a bunch of civilians end up under the rubble of a building in a war zone, they should have been more carefull and the fault is theirs.
Comment