Help ATS with a contribution via PayPal:
learn more

Hezbollah 'proud of being US enemy'

page: 3
4
<< 1  2    4  5  6 >>

log in

join

posted on Jan, 14 2008 @ 02:51 PM
link   
reply to post by budski
 


And of those 85,000-95,000, 95+% having been caused by IEDs, rockets, mortars, executions.

As for the Geneva Conventions and Laws of Land Warfare, here's some food for thought.

findarticles.com...

"Military necessity" could constitute a valid defense only for those acts which, while on their surface are cruel, are nevertheless legal under the law. For example, in besieging a defended place the attacker may or may not permit the civilian populace to leave. Normally he will allow them to evacuate as the humane thing, but if he feels it necessary, he may force civilians to remain inside-to increase his opponent's logistical burden, to further reduce the supplies available to the defending force and so speed capitulation"

/2ntevx

www.globalsecurity.org...

"The use of flame weapons, such as Fougasse, the M202A1 Flash, white phosphorous, thermobaric, and other incendiary agents, against military targets is not a violation of current international law. They should not, however, be employed to just cause unnecessary suffering to individuals."

The Law of Armed Conflict rests on fundamental principles of military necessity, unnecessary suffering, proportionality, and distinction (discrimination) which will apply to targeting decisions.

The principle of military necessity justifies those measures not forbidden by international law, and which are indispensable for securing the complete submission of the enemy as soon as possible.
The principle of unnecessary suffering forbids the employment of arms, projectiles, or material calculated to cause unnecessary suffering. This concept also extends to unnecessary destruction of property.
The principle of proportionality requires that the anticipated loss of life and damage to property incidental to attacks must not be excessive in relation to the concrete and direct military advantage expected to be gained.
The principle of discrimination requires that combatants be distinguished from non-combatants, and that military objectives be distinguished from protected property or protected places. Parties to a conflict must direct their operations only against combatants and military objectives."


In otherwords so long as disproportionate force isn't used, with regard to military necessesity, collateral damage doesn't constitute a violation of the Geneva Convention. The standard is that all precautions be taken to limit civilian casualties, that civilians not be directly targeted, and the necessity needs to exist. The Geneva Convention recognizes that it's impossible to have zero civilian casualties and suffering. That's why it's a war crime for combatants to use civilians and protected areas as a base of operations(or as human shields).




posted on Jan, 14 2008 @ 02:54 PM
link   
reply to post by budski
 


I'm not happy about civilian suffering, but you're incorrect in your assumption that more than a distinct minority of the deaths have been caused by the US and UK vs. insurgents.



posted on Jan, 14 2008 @ 02:56 PM
link   
reply to post by BlueRaja
 

So cluster munitions are being carefull?

You can justify the slaughter of innocents in any way you choose.

I choose to condemn it as the barbarous act I believe it to be.

Which is still beside the point - in an illegal war, any civilian death is murder.



posted on Jan, 14 2008 @ 02:57 PM
link   
reply to post by budski
 


When have cluster munitions been dropped on a city, or directly on civilian targets? Illegal by whose decree? Yours?



posted on Jan, 14 2008 @ 03:00 PM
link   
reply to post by _Phoenix_
 


Ah.. okay. Thanks for that clarification. There was more than one way to interpret that sentence... I chose the wrong one.



posted on Jan, 14 2008 @ 03:04 PM
link   
reply to
post by budski

 


Yes Israel, whether they've got American backing or not doesn't mean a thing in this case. If anything that means they should take more care not to provoke a conflict. I also don't recall using the word terrorist. I happen to agree that the term terrorist can be relative to an observers point of view.

As far as the Continental Army using the same tactics as Hezbollah, I don't think so. The Americans fielded an army to fight the British in the field, after the British invaded, when the left the war ended. Israel left Lebanon in 2000, but the war continues.



posted on Jan, 14 2008 @ 03:04 PM
link   

Originally posted by Beachcoma
reply to post by _Phoenix_
 


Ah.. okay. Thanks for that clarification. There was more than one way to interpret that sentence... I chose the wrong one.

It's all good. No problem.



posted on Jan, 14 2008 @ 03:06 PM
link   
reply to post by Rasputin13
 


I see, when the US/UK/Israel murder civilians it's called colatteral damage, which is just dandy apparently and perfectly acceptable.
Let us also not forget such things as false flag operations, designed to point the finger of guilt at innocent parties. As for the marine barracks bombing in Beirut, that was a military target was it not? What is the difference then between that event and the US dropping tons of bombs on suspected enemies? Violent death is not pretty so what makes it ok to kill others but get all whiney when our side gets a bloody nose.

Do I believe my government when it says someone is a threat to me? Hell no! Why should I when they lie persistently and are responsible for so much death and suffering.

As for the terrorist sympathiser accusation, I have been called a lot worse over the years



posted on Jan, 14 2008 @ 03:10 PM
link   
reply to post by BlueRaja
 


The bombing by whatever means of civilian targets is contrary to the geneva convention, and frankly, I tire of making the same point.
But, one more time, just for you



Since World War II air power has been key to the American way of warfare--and civilian casualties have been a constant result, from Japan and Korea to Southeast Asia and now Afghanistan and Iraq. This year a seeming surge in airstrikes has led to a corresponding spike in civilian casualties. For example, in a two-day span in May, an airstrike in southern Afghanistan killed at least twenty-one civilians, while a US helicopter attack north of Baghdad killed five civilians, including two children. Yet very little is known about the air war. Due to an apparent disregard by the mainstream media, with a few notable exceptions, the full story remains one of the best-kept secrets of the Iraq War.

What we do know is that since the major combat phase of the war ended in April 2003, the United States has dropped at least 59,787 pounds of cluster bombs in Iraq--the very type of weapon that Marc Garlasco, the senior military analyst at Human Rights Watch (HRW), calls "the single greatest risk civilians face with regard to a current weapon that is in use." And expert opinion argues that rocket and cannon fire from US aircraft may account for most coalition-attributed Iraqi civilian deaths. The Pentagon has restocked hundreds of millions of dollars' worth of these weapons in recent years.

source

and


Article 48 of the Geneva Conventions clearly states: "The Parties to the conflict shall at all times distinguish between the civilian population and combatants." Article 50 dictates that "The presence within the civilian population of individuals who do not come within the definition of civilian does not deprive the population of its civilian character."

source

The point is that according to bush/blair we were supposed to be the good guys who were helping promote freedom.

Kind of hard to be free when you're dead.

Both countries are signatories of the geneva convention - both leaders have spat on it.

[edit on 14/1/2008 by budski]



posted on Jan, 14 2008 @ 03:12 PM
link   
I see a lot of debate on this forum about the amount of Iraqi civillian deaths.
It is important, but I think it's more important to forget about numbers and remember them as individuals.

Be it 100 or 1 million dead, it's still a tragedy! It's still wrong.

If a local gang killed just 1 person of your family trying to kill another gang. It would be a tragedy, you would be so furious and upset, compare that to the war in Iraq.



[edit on 14-1-2008 by _Phoenix_]



posted on Jan, 14 2008 @ 03:12 PM
link   

Originally posted by Desert Dawg
I wonder if some aspects of the speech were designed to elicit a response from terrorists who - while quite proud - remain hidden?

It could make it easier to find them since they would want to respond while the speech is still fresh in the mind of the pubic.


Yes, Bush's superior intellect has just ratted out the lines of communication, and locations of the enemy nests. They can now be more easily targeted by covert ops. There will be infilltration, deception, assassination and confiscation of funding. Their pride will be their downfall.
The World's condemnation and outward unease at Bush's remarks is all a precontrived response by the Western powers. Govts. never publically anounce or make moves off the cuff, they are carefully orchestrated dances.



posted on Jan, 14 2008 @ 03:13 PM
link   
reply to post by Rasputin13
 


Hmm, the Beirut truck bombing occurred when, about 26 years ago?
And you know Hezbollah didn't even form until after that attack, right?

Hezbollah seems to mind it's own business when the Israelis aren't invading Lebanese territory. At one point they almost certainly were a terrorist organization, now it's not quite so simple - they're one of the largest political parties in Lebanon and the only domestic entity capable of defending Lebanon from Israeli invasions - which sadly are a fairly regular event, invading Lebanon seems to be the Israeli national pastime.

The loony right would have you believe that Hezbollah = Hamas = Al Quaeda, all acting in a unified front with the sole purpose of destroying Mother, Apple Pie, and the Flag


Of course, the only problem is, it's not true.
While I have little use for Islamic fundamentalism (or any form of religious fundamentalism, really), these are vast differences between these groups.

They have different agendas, use different tactics, & have very different ideologies.

Q: when was the last time Hezbollah attacked a US target of any kind?
If you can find anything within the last decade, I'll give you a cookie


The fact is, Hezbollah will almost certainly never be a friendly organization, but it is one that can be reasoned & negotiated with. Same for Hamas, at this point. Both organizations have had to abandon much of their extremist behavior and tactics, now that they are assuming the duties of civilian governing.

Al Quaeda is a different matter entirely - there can be no negotiating or compromise with them - we kill them first, or they kill us.

But Hezbollah and even Hamas are a very different kettle of fish.


Israel left Lebanon in 2000, but the war continues.


Insert a whole page of
here...

Israel was launching cross-border incursions almost daily according to UNIFIL, murdering, among others, a 13 year old Lebanese shepherd boy and a French officer serving with UNIFIL, which is how their troops got captured in the first place.

Every bit of pain Israel has suffered at the hands of Hezbollah, they have richly earned...


[edit on 1/14/08 by xmotex]



posted on Jan, 14 2008 @ 03:18 PM
link   

Originally posted by Britguy
reply to post by Rasputin13
 


I see, when the US/UK/Israel murder civilians it's called colatteral damage, which is just dandy apparently and perfectly acceptable.
Let us also not forget such things as false flag operations, designed to point the finger of guilt at innocent parties. As for the marine barracks bombing in Beirut, that was a military target was it not? What is the difference then between that event and the US dropping tons of bombs on suspected enemies? Violent death is not pretty so what makes it ok to kill others but get all whiney when our side gets a bloody nose.

Do I believe my government when it says someone is a threat to me? Hell no! Why should I when they lie persistently and are responsible for so much death and suffering.

As for the terrorist sympathiser accusation, I have been called a lot worse over the years


I would like to quote this part,
"ok to kill others but get all whiney when our side gets a bloody nose"
I pay particular close attention to "our side"
You claim to be on one side but argue against it. That is self defeatism. You are really acting out as an agent of the enemies that would do harm to "our side", presumably where your heritage calls home.



posted on Jan, 14 2008 @ 03:18 PM
link   
reply to post by budski
 


Did you even read my post? There is no provision stating that there is a zero tolerance of civilian casualties in any treaty, or in the Law of Land Warfare. You're ignoring anything that is contrary to your opinion, and stating what you think the rule should be.



posted on Jan, 14 2008 @ 03:19 PM
link   
mis

[edit on 14-1-2008 by Rahl Darc]



posted on Jan, 14 2008 @ 03:21 PM
link   
reply to post by _Phoenix_
 


I don't see anyone saying that civilian deaths aren't a tragedy. The complaint is when grossly inflated numbers are thrown around with a definite political agenda, trying to paint a picture that just doesn't exist in reality.



posted on Jan, 14 2008 @ 03:25 PM
link   

Originally posted by danwild6

As far as the Continental Army using the same tactics as Hezbollah, I don't think so. The Americans fielded an army to fight the British in the field, after the British invaded, when the left the war ended. Israel left Lebanon in 2000, but the war continues.



Do you mean the war of independence.. how do you define this invasion exactly ?

The australians want to know too, they want to accuse the english of invasion .

[edit on 14-1-2008 by Rahl Darc]



posted on Jan, 14 2008 @ 03:25 PM
link   

Originally posted by xmotex

Q: when was the last time Hezbollah attacked a US target of any kind?
If you can find anything within the last decade, I'll give you a cookie




Youtube Hezbollah in Iraq 1

Youtube Hezbollah in Iraq 2

Originally posted on Hebollah's now defunct website.

Theres lots more evidence than this. Where's my cookie?



posted on Jan, 14 2008 @ 03:27 PM
link   
Well from an America perspective we were fighting a foreign invader. We had declared independence as any subject nation has a right too do.



posted on Jan, 14 2008 @ 03:28 PM
link   
reply to post by SectionEight
 


I don't claim to be on any side. Violence breeds violence in an endless spiral and the only people who benefit are those behind it making a tidy profit from death. Those same people care nothing for the people who die as long as they continue to reap the profits, power and influence.
I served in the British forces many years ago but was able to see that the concept of fighting for ones country was an illusion. What the military are there to fight for is corporate power and greed and I want no part of it.
My "heritage" as you put it has no bearing on the issue. I get the impression you may think I'm some dark skinned foreigner with a beef against whitey.
I'm actually a whitey, from a long line of whities with Scottish and English parents.
I'll fight tooth and nail to protect myself and those I love from harm, whether that threat is domestic or foreign, but will not do the bidding of the elitist warmongers. Their perceived enemies are not mine.






top topics



 
4
<< 1  2    4  5  6 >>

log in

join