I'm making a new topic for this subject because I think it's a shame we can't discuss it anymore.

Anyway, over 70 civilians died by Israeli bombings today. The death toll so far is more than 300 civilian casualties, and not many noticeable successes in striking Hezbollah.

Over half a million people on the run in a country where everything that had just been rebuilt from previous wars is now in ruins once more. Needless to add that the Lebanese economy is devastated.

Israel is asking the Lebanese government to stop Hezbollah, which is something they simply can't, because Hezbollah is the only real military power in the country.

I think Israel is crossing the line here. Sure, they're saying they're only attacking Hezbollah, but they're hitting civilian targets all the time.

This is what Al Jazeera had to say:

[quote=Al Jazeera]

“Civilians”, according to the 1949 Geneva Conventions, and their 1977 Protocols, are all those who are not active participants in an armed conflict.

Under Article 51 of Protocol I

"The civilian population as such, as well as individual civilians, shall not be the object of attack. Acts or threats of violence the primary purpose of which is to spread terror among the civilian population are prohibited."

This proves that Israel’s attack in Lebanon on July 15 targeting a minibus carrying civilians trying to flee the village of Marwahin in the South, resulting in 18 deaths, constituted a breach of international law.

Also Article 28 of the Fourth Geneva Convention states:

"The presence of a protected person may not be used to render certain points or areas immune from military operations,"

And Article 48 of Protocol I states that "the presence within the civilian population of individuals who do not come within the definition of civilians does not deprive the population of its civilian character."

This indicates that the presence of military targets in civilian areas of Beirut and in villages in the South of Lebanon does not make those areas acceptable military targets.[/quote]

(Source)

Thoughts? (Let's try to stay on topic ;))

Am I the only one who has deja vu?

The Lebanese governemnt should make every effort it can to help Israel. Israel as every right to go after Hezbollah.

Even when they book little success, while the death toll of civilian casualties is high and rising?

yes otherwise they sit back and take it. civilians should know damn well that they arent safe in an area like the middle east and they should be willing to accept the possible consequences.

Israel was taking rockets up the ***. Should they just sit back and continue to let Hezbollah commence rocket attacks and cross into Israel territory and kidnap Israeli soldiers?

No, I think it's justified to do something about Hezbollah. However, according to the Geneva convention they can't attack civilian areas where enemies are hiding.

And we cannot help but notice that civilians are all they seem to be hurting.

Says the person whose home isn't getting bombed.

Maybe Britain should have "just took it" in 1939. They should have just moved away from Hitler. And chose not to be born near him in the first place.


The thing is, the civilians aren't hostages, and their using other people's desire not to kill civilians to aid their cause. We had to kill a lot of civilians to win World War II, just cause we didn't have lazer bombs of uberness. It's one thing to not kill civilians, but I have to say that the civilian willingness to take advantages of the enemies good will, make them non-civilians. And besides, they are at war. Civilian deaths will happen.

It's dumb how people war has to be uber regulated and perfect, like every other aspect of their modern sheltered lives. It's war, it's not going to be perfect and pretending it's going to be is just delusional. It's just not going to be like peace.

There will always be civial casulaties, unfortunately. And when dealing with a terrorist group you can't distingush between civilians and terrorist fighters.

Yes you can. (Note: I didn't say it was easy, so don't even TRY to put words in my mouth. )

Yes, you can, at great risk to your own forces.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2005/11/20/nsas20.xml&sSheet=/news/2005/11/20/ixhome.html
I know that doesn't always happen, just throwing that out there.

Kind of warped to be sacrificing civilians for the sake of protecting soldiers, methinks.

To automatically assume that civilians are innocent in all cases is pretty warped too.

To me it seems necessary to assume civilian innocence in order to avoid gratuitous civilian death. Protecting soldiers means harming civilians, and vice versa. However, soldiers signed up for the job of a soldier. They are better trained to handle risks and they are willing to undergo the risk. Therefore, the soldier should be put at risk in lieu of the civilian.

In a perfect world, it would work that way.

The reason it's not done that way, defined more specifically than imperfect, is because military commanders look at warfare with a resource-protecting perspective. They'd rather keep their soldiers intact by minimizing their risk. This way, they reduce training costs and maintain a more effective force.

From a humanitarian perspective, soldiers would be placed at increased risk in order to decrease the overall body count. Whereas a commander with the 'resource-protecting' perspective would see less military casualties, the overall loss of human life will be greater because bombs aren't as discerning as soldiers are.

Israel should just start a superoperation and keep their word in turning Lebanon's clock back 20 years.

Would be interesting.

Looks like that's exactly what they're doing.

If we took all of Hezzbullah's weapons away, the fighting would stop.

If we took all of Isreal's weapons away, every Isreali would be slaughtered.

Yeah, but no one is going to sacrifice their entire army to save a few lives in an enemy infested neighborhood. But yes I agree that excess civilian death should be avoided.

This post is 100% correct.

Who cares?

-GC

Because everytime I see this thread title I inadvertadly read it as "Lesbian Crisis"...

<shrug>

Even though Hezbollah provoked this situation, I think Israel is using excessive violence.

The problem is that brute force is not going to solve this situation. Hezbollah is among the people, it's going to be impossible to take them out without enormous amounts of innocent civilian casualties.

An entire country is laid to ruin and paying the price for this situation. It's not fair. We can't just sit back and allow this to happen. The cost is too high, human lives cannot be sacrificed this lightly.

It's time for a ceasefire. Then we can send in an international UN peaceforce that will assist the Lebanese government and force Hezbollah to lay down their weapons.

I'm glad atleast one other person here can see the obviouse.

It certainly is, and I imagine Israel will be happy to put down their guns when Hezbollah puts down theirs. All it takes to ruin a ceasefire is for one side to keep shooting.

A UN action will be carppy and half assed just like all it's recent peacekeeping actions.

I don't think anyone objects to Israel trying to take out Hezbollah. I think they object to taking out Lebanon in the process.

On an interesting note, a Saudi imam has issued a fatwa stating that all Sunnis should condemn the actions of Hezbollah. That was nice to see.

Too bad it's only words. I'd love to see some of these Arab countries step up to the plate and work to rid their countries of these terrorist groups.

A whosit issued a whatsit stating that bajmxzbuxo should whaaa?

A Saudi imam issued a fatwa commanding all Sunnites to condemn Hezbollah.

Now that would be neat.

Gah, ever since CaptBevvil said that I see it too. >.<

Haha UN. Seriously people need to stop looking towards the UN. They're a hapless bunch of inept fools. I'll give them some credit to helping relieve world woes but as far as dealing with "those who don't play nice" HA.

UN peace keeping mission tend to leave when things even get remotely hot. And they always tie the hands of the military leaders involved.

Since everybody is saying this, they're planning on sending an 'able' force this time. (No idea what they have in mind though)

Perhaps you guys prefer Israel to occupy South Lebanon? The Lebanese government already warned that, in that case, the Lebanese army will fight against Israel.

Or perhaps you could think of another solution that does not include laying waste to the entire country?

'OMQ UN FOOLZ LOLOL!!!1111!!!!!one'. I mean sure, you can have a laugh at the UN, but let's hear your genius plans then.

It looks like Israel could be gearing up for an invasion according to a couple articles I read, but they haven't confirmed it yet.

You have way too much faith in the UN.

Nah, it's more that I can't think of anything better.

Again, let's hear your solutions.

Perhaps you think the US army would do a better job?