Targetiness.

[Eagler]

Originally posted by Toad
It's not politically correct to say it but there's something seriously defective there. Something that, IMO, may well be as great a threat to the species as anything we have seen in the last 100 years.

imo it is the fact they value dying for their cause more than living itself

we ran into a similiar mindset in 1945. In the end, it may require the same solution. I hope and pray it does not.

[Edbert1]

Originally posted by Eagler
imo it is the fact they value dying for their cause more than living itself

In the case of the Islamofascists...I'm only happy to oblige.

[deSelys]

my 2 yurocents:

- hiding rocket launchers behind a 'civilian shield': evil

- flattening rocket launchers sites without any regard for civilian losses: evil

- using 'surgical strikes' to attack the launchers sites: a little less evil b/c everybody knows that there will be civilian casualties anyway

- for the civilians, not leaving the area and go to somewhere else: I dunno, there are a lot of factors involved (they are supporters of Hezbollah, or they will face a food/shelter problem if they leave, or there is an heavy social pressure or they are life-threatened by Hezbollah if they try to leave) and we don't know the situation there


That being said, I think that Israel is playing the game of Hezbollah right now: during years, Hez made skirmishes inside Israel territory with close to zero military results but drawing a lot of attention... Israel answers with an all-out war, killing civilians (even if they try to avoid it) and drawing critics and hurting the support given to them by other nations while Hezbollah is raking points and new recruits (those who got their lives shattered by the war).

Israel is right to defend itself but covert ops would have been preferable IMO.

[lazs2]

I agree with edbert...  there may be no difference in how you die to the the dead and their families but...

The difference to the world is the targeting.  If you target rocket launchers that are aimed at your country and killing your people and by doing so you hit civilians... that is much less bad than the muslims who are lauching the rockets at civilians...

Actually targeting civilians...

It is also a factor if you are harboring the terrorists.   There is no other way to put it... there is no effort to root out these terrorists in lebanon and indeed... they are a large part of the population and government.

The terrorist's stated goals are to wipe israel off the face of the map and lebanon seems fine with that.   They seem fine with the rocket launchers.

To put it in perspective....

What would our government do if the minutemen on our border started launching rockets into mexican border towns with the justification that mexico was ruining our economy with illegals and "invading"?

How frigging fast do you think we would stop them?

lazs

[Thrawn]

Originally posted by Maverick
That seems to be a rather weasely way of neither condemming the act of placing the weapons in civilian areas

No, it's it condemning it and explaining what I mean by it.  You haven't.

By a very loose definition Canada could be condemned for put a valid military target amongst civilians.  The Governor General's Foot Guard deploy from a drill hall every day (and before any Canucks tell me that the Goo Goo Foo Goos are cerimonial, they are in the military, are in uniformed and are armed.  By any definition they are valid military targets).  This drill hall is situated beside Lisgar Collegiate Institute, a public highschool.

nor the deliberate rocketing of a civilian city with no military targets in it.

It's immoral.  I'm sorry for not expliciately said it, but I sure implied it.

So in order to satisfy you there must be undeniable prrof that there was no other reason to place the rockets there and fire them other than to cause a negative public reaction.

I wouldn't say undeniable, just reasonable.  If a nation attacked Canada and said that Canada practices human shielding because of the example up above I would say they are full of ****.  By the same token if a country is attacked by a nation that destroys civil infrastructure than I wouldn't condemn them for human shielding if they placed weapons near that civil infrastructure.

Sorry but you have no moral high ground at all with that contention. There is no way you could convince me the act of placing the rockets inside of a city neighborhood is anything but an act of cowardice by using human shields in order to try and hold back counter battery fire.

It would depend on the context.  Say a country is defending against a war of aggression.  A(some) defending military unit(s) have retreat to a city because they are surrounded or what have you.  If they fire thier weapons at the enemy is it they who are at fault?  Or is it the aggressive nation who started the war in the first place.

Now if it must be determined on a case by case basis.  And if you want to talk about Hezbollah, firing rockets show me on a map where they fired thier rockets from and please use a non biased sources.

[Maverick]

Thrawn,

You are still being weasily and you damn well know it.

Your first example is a straw man. The foo goo's (your term not mine) are not at the present time launching unguided rockets from the location of the school are they? If they were they would have just turned that location into a valid military target. One would hope that the personell in the school would vacate the premisis as soon as the rocket folks showed up and set up the rockets.

You certainly don't seem to have any trouble condemming return fire yet are only able to imply  the folks who started shooting unguided rockets at a civilian city from Lebanon first. How fair and balanced of you.

Third example you have it turned around. A nation that attacks another nation and in that process uses people as a human shield to do so either as a means of generating publicity or simple because they are cowards to hide behind innocent civilians has in fact committed immoral acts. Period. It would seem to me that launching unguided rockets into a city population center is in fact attempting to destroy the infrastucture by killing the population.

Last example also does not apply as the hezbolah cowards didn't retreat to the city, they started there to begin with. They never came out to initiate hostilities in the open, just launch their unguided rocket at Isreali city from within the neighborhood of their own people.

As to the map, use a device called TV. You can see the reporting of rocket fire in real time as the reporters and other news crew seek shelter from rockets landing in Haifa. It seems that the ME situation has top billing on the national news. At least I can find it broadcast, hell I can't get away from the broadcasts. Perhaps if you turned your TV on to the news you could see it as well.

[Thrawn]

Originally posted by Maverick
Thrawn,

You are still being weasily and you damn well know it.

Really?  I'm speaking in generalities, you are seeing everything I say though a Hezbollah/Israel filter.

Your first example is a straw man.

No it's not, you're dragging this thead that was about targeting generalities into a specific case was a strawman.

The foo goo's (your term not mine) are not at the present time launching unguided rockets from the location of the school are they? If they were they would have just turned that location into a valid military target.

I don't care if anyone launching unguided rockets from that location.  It's a valid military target regardless.  Unless you wish to contend that a military building, filled with miltary personal, in uniform, carrying weapons isn't a valid military target.

One would hope that the personell in the school would vacate the premisis as soon as the rocket folks showed up and set up the rockets.

One would hope, but it wouldn't invalidate the fact that the Government of Canada has seen fit to put a valid military target a few feet away from a public highschool.

You certainly don't seem to have any trouble condemming return fire yet are only able to imply  the folks who started shooting unguided rockets at a civilian city from Lebanon first.  How fair and balanced of you.

Killing civilians with the foreknowedge that your actions will result in thier deaths is as bad as targeting civilians.

Killing civilians with the foreknowedge that your actions will result in thier deaths is bad.


The reason I didn't explicitately state targeting was explicitly bad was bacause it was the moral baseline to begin with.

Third example you have it turned around. A nation that attacks another nation and in that process uses people as a human shield to do so either as a means of generating publicity or simple because they are cowards to hide behind innocent civilians has in fact committed immoral acts. Period.

We aren't fundamentally disagreeing here.  

We both agee that intent is paramount.  Intent is stated in your sentance, "uses people as".  I agree with that, what I'm saying differently is that not all cases of valid military targets being amongst the civil population is a case where they are using the civil population as a human shield.  

Now before you type "But Hezbollah...." remind youself that I'm speaking in generalities.

It would seem to me that launching unguided rockets into a city population center is in fact attempting to destroy the infrastucture by killing the population.

Yep.

Last example also does not apply as the hezbolah cowards didn't retreat to the city, they started there to begin with. They never came out to initiate hostilities in the open, just launch their unguided rocket at Isreali city from within the neighborhood of their own people.

Stop it with the Hezbollah already. I wasn't speaking about Hezbollah, you are speaking about Hezbollah.  Cripes you won't shut up about Hezbollah.  Hezbollah are bunch of evil terroist, I spit on the grave of Hezbollah.  I wish Hezbollah to be cursed for eternity...shall I go on?    Hell if we want to talk about Hezbollah we can do it in the other thread.  If fact, that's what I'll do.
 

As to the map, use a device called TV.

I live in basement appartment, I don't have a medium called cable.  I have a dial up connection to the internet.  And more importantly in discourse it behooves the maker of a statement to support it.