Israel Wants Apology For Bombing UN Building

[velik_m]

Fixed. I've never heard one of those organizations state that their mission is to scare every non-muslim.

they don't even have 1 kill per rocket, it would be stupid to expect great casualties from such inacurate weapons.

[Yonivore]

they don't even have 1 kill per rocket, it would be stupid to expect great casualties from such inacurate weapons.

It would be stupid to believe an organization whose stated purpose for even existing is to annihilate the Jews and destroy Israel aren't trying to do just that.

[Obstructed_View]

they don't even have 1 kill per rocket, it would be stupid to expect great casualties from such inacurate weapons.

The fact that people are sleeping in bomb shelters doesn't somehow change the intentions of Hezbollah, and I don't recall anyone accusing them of having an abundance of brains.

[Yonivore]

STOLEN AND PARAPHRASED FROM GREG RICHARDS AT THE AMERICAN THINKER:

The world’s media are once again filtering warfare through their idiosyncratic perspectives. Most of them are shocked to discover that civilians are injured when terrorists locate military facilities in apartment houses, mosques, and other civilian locales. And they are doubly outraged when a missile or a s goes off course injuring or killing innocents. But this is just one of the reasons that Sherman said that “war is .” That is why sensible people seek to avoid it. However, that does not relieve the observer of making judgments.

Herewith a primer to help with those judgments:

• When you attack a country that is at peace, you are the aggressor. Aggression is a disruption of the civil order. It is not measured solely in the quan ative terms of the specific engagement. For instance, the significance of Pearl Harbor did not reside in the specific number of bombs the Japanese dropped on our ships. It also resided in the alteration of the relations between the two countries by force. It called forth a response on the part of the U.S. that was not, and was not intended to be, proportional to that attack. The response it called forth was to establish under whose power the citizens of each country were going to live.
  
  In the Israel/Hizbullah War, Hizbullah is the aggressor. Israel was at peace with its neighboring country Lebanon. Out of the territory of Lebanon, Hizbullah undertook acts of war. Like the Japanese, they did not declare war, they undertook war.

• Once war is initiated, then the question is not proportionality, but victory. The question to be decided is under whose power are the citizens of each country going to live?
  
  The policy of the U.S. toward countries that attempt to bring our citizens under their power is “unconditional surrender.” This means that the U.S. expects to deliver to our enemy as much devastation in as compressed a timeframe as possible until the leadership of the country surrenders unconditionally to our power. That determines under whose power the citizens of each country are going to live: ours.
  
  In the case of the Israel/Hizbullah War, the question is whether Israel will live under the power of Hizbullah or whether Hizbullah is going to live under the power of Israel. In that sense, whatever the vocabulary, Israel is now fighting for the unconditional surrender of Hizbullah, or what amounts to the same thing, its complete destruction. We can expect that Israel will deliver the maximum amount of damage against Hizbullah of which it is capable in as compressed a timeframe as possible.

• However, as Pyrrhus showed two millennia ago, and Europe demonstrated again in World War I, it is possible to conduct a war so that victory is as devastating as defeat. Therefore, we can expect that Israel will also exercise economy of force so that the casualties that it experiences are not beyond the capability of its society to absorb. We can expect Israel to subs ute technology for personnel to the extent possible while bending every effort to find out the weak points of Hizbullah

• Once a country is attacked by an enemy, there is no subs ute for victory or the attack will continue. No society accepts that condition. There are only two outcomes – victory or defeat. We can assume that Israel is planning on victory and we can expect to see it expend the necessary force to achieve that.

• During this period there is going to be violence. That is what war means. You can photograph it from every conceivable angle, and do ent every casualty. That does not change the fact that there is an aggressor – Hizbullah – and a defender – Israel. The end game of war is when the defender goes on the offensive to destroy the aggressor. The final stage of a war is when the defender appears to be the aggressor as it moves into the territory of the aggressor and burns out its black heart. That will be the final stage of the war. Then there will be peace.

• All recent history shows that there is no role for a “peacekeeping” force in a situation of military antagonism. The oldest of illusions is that the “presence” of a third force will in some way provide a deterrent factor – wrong. Wrong when there was a UN force in Sinai before the 1967 War. Wrong when we put Marines in Lebanon in 1983. Wrong when we put unsupported troops in Mogadishu. Wrong when whatever grotesquely ineffective force was put in southern Lebanon by the UN defaulted on its duty. Why? Because the peacekeeping force is not playing for keeps while the aggressor is. So it cannot work. The only solution is the destruction of the aggressor. Otherwise the logic of the aggressor is to keep up the aggression. The aggressor doesn’t want peace, he wants victory. The only way to block that is to inflict defeat on him. There is no third way.

[velik_m]

^^Doesn't change the fact that rockets have more fear factor than kill factor.

[Yonivore]

Doesn't change the fact that rockets have more fear factor than kill factor.

If the Israelis had positioned their military in Haifa and then, placed their weapons caches in private residences, and further, did not allow the residents to seek shelter -- they'd be more of a kill factor.

You're kidding yourself if you believe every time Hezbollah launches a rocket they exclaim "That'll scare 'em!" instead of "Die you Jew s !"

[Obstructed_View]

^^Doesn't change the fact that rockets have more fear factor than kill factor.

That's only because a half million people have moved out of range of the rockets.

[Obstructed_View]

If the Israelis had positioned their military in Haifa and then, placed their weapons caches in private residences, and further, did not allow the residents to seek shelter -- they'd be more of a kill factor.

The above would only be true if Hezbollah had precision weapons and tried NOT to kill civilians. If they had precision weapons they would be aiming for the largest population centers in order to kill as many people as possible.

[ChumpDumper]

Has anyone else found these official Arab denunciations of Hezbollah?

[Obstructed_View]

Has anyone else found these official Arab denunciations of Hezbollah?

Some of those governments were in ially critical of the kidnapping of the soldiers, but as CNN continues to show Hezbollah-friendly news and the Bush haters latch onto any enemy of the US to support, there has been no need for any of them to even make a show of being critical of Hezbollah. The fact that they risked making the initial statements is surprising, as the citizens of all those countries are overwhelmingly anti-Israel and anti-US.

[velik_m]

"The policy of the U.S. toward countries that attempt to bring our citizens under their power is “unconditional surrender.” This means that the U.S. expects to deliver to our enemy as much devastation in as compressed a timeframe as possible until the leadership of the country surrenders unconditionally to our power. That determines under whose power the citizens of each country are going to live: ours. "

the US has no control over Afginistan and Iraq, no control over Serbia either. times have changed. you cannot win a war anymore.

"All recent history shows that there is no role for a “peacekeeping” force in a situation of military antagonism. The oldest of illusions is that the “presence” of a third force will in some way provide a deterrent factor – wrong. Wrong when there was a UN force in Sinai before the 1967 War. Wrong when we put Marines in Lebanon in 1983. Wrong when we put unsupported troops in Mogadishu. Wrong when whatever grotesquely ineffective force was put in southern Lebanon by the UN defaulted on its duty. Why? Because the peacekeeping force is not playing for keeps while the aggressor is. So it cannot work. The only solution is the destruction of the aggressor. Otherwise the logic of the aggressor is to keep up the aggression. The aggressor doesn’t want peace, he wants victory. The only way to block that is to inflict defeat on him. There is no third way."

well it's hard to peacekeep when the most powerfull force in the world is behind one of the sides and protects them from any action.

"The final stage of a war is when the defender appears to be the aggressor as it moves into the territory of the aggressor and burns out its black heart. That will be the final stage of the war. Then there will be peace."

No there won't be.

[velik_m]

Some of those governments were in ially critical of the kidnapping of the soldiers, but as CNN continues to show Hezbollah-friendly news and the Bush haters latch onto any enemy of the US to support, there has been no need for any of them to even make a show of being critical of Hezbollah. The fact that they risked making the initial statements is surprising, as the citizens of all those countries are overwhelmingly anti-Israel and anti-US.

yes, i'm pretty sure the arabs form their opinion based on CNN reports.

[ChumpDumper]

Some of those governments were in ially critical of the kidnapping of the soldiers, but as CNN continues to show Hezbollah-friendly news and the Bush haters latch onto any enemy of the US to support, there has been no need for any of them to even make a show of being critical of Hezbollah. The fact that they risked making the initial statements is surprising, as the citizens of all those countries are overwhelmingly anti-Israel and anti-US.

You mean that those governments have the most to lose in a widespread Islamic fundamentalist movement that could be brought about or helped along by an Israeli invasion of a muslim country?

Wow.

[Obstructed_View]

yes, i'm pretty sure the arabs form their opinion based on CNN reports.

Um, since when do you think the "arabs" as you call them have an opinion other than "death to Israel"? The only reason those GOVERNMENTS made the initial statements is because they have decent relations with the non-muslim world and are trying to walk the balance beam between international relations and their CITIZENS, who want to wipe out Israel and the rest of the non-muslim world. Once they saw that the UN, as well as public opinion, driven in large part by CNN, were not overwhelmingly in favor of the country who has been attacked from two different sides in a coordinated attack to kidnap soldiers and kill civilians with rockets, they figured they didn't have to keep up the charade anymore.

[Obstructed_View]

You mean that those governments have the most to lose in a widespread Islamic fundamentalist movement that could be brought about or helped along by an Israeli invasion of a muslim country?

Wow.

Are you agreeing with me?

By the way, I think you mean "brought about or helped along by an Israeli reaction to aggression by two muslim groups, with the cooperation of three muslim countries."

[ChumpDumper]

By the way, I think you mean "brought about or helped along by an Israeli reaction to aggression by two muslim groups, with the cooperation of three muslim countries."

I described how the citizens of those Arab countries would see it.

You guys act like none of this has happened before.

[Obstructed_View]

I described how the citizens of those Arab countries would see it.

You guys act like none of this has happened before.

It's funny, you say something that I agree with, and then you follow it up with a smart assed comment that sounds confrontational.

[ChumpDumper]

It's not smart-assed, it's all happened before -- Including bombing a UN position. Hezbollah is playing to its base, and I haven't seen anything that's weakening its support at this point. Even the Iraqi leader can't bring himself to say anything against Hezbollah.

[Obstructed_View]

It's not smart-assed, it's all happened before -- Including bombing a UN position. Hezbollah is playing to its base, and I haven't seen anything that's weakening its support at this point. Even the Iraqi leader can't bring himself to say anything against Hezbollah.

Dude, American muslims won't say anything against Hezbollah. No muslim will take sides with a kafir over a fellow Muslim. Ever. I'm not sure why anyone is surprised by that. I am surprised that people still fall for parading civilian casualties to the media after someone bombs the terrorists in the same building as the civilians.

[ChumpDumper]

Terrorists were in the UN bunker?

[ChumpDumper]

I'll have to see more pictures, but from the BBC video it's difficult to see how the Israelis could accidentally s a white building on top of a hill with the letters "UN" in black paint on the highest part of the building, mush less call in an accidental precision airstrike on the same building.

[violentkitten]

terrorist fan club in full effect

[ChumpDumper]

I'm a fan of terrorists if I have questions about Israelis killing Finnish, Chinese, Canadian and Austrian observers?

What's your take on s ing and bombing the big white UN building on the top of a hill?

The Israelis seem to have learned nothig from the past - you'd think they'd be more careful.

[ChumpDumper]

Ok, now Fox News is saying that the Israelis have bombed Lebanese army bases and relay stations for state tv. I thought their beef was just with Hezbollah, right?

[jochhejaam]

The Israelis seem to have learned nothig from the past - you'd think they'd be more careful.

Saying they've learned nothing from the past is as wreckless a statement as Kofi's assertion that the bombing was deliberate. The relentless hostilities against their Nation over the past several decades has etched the reality into the minds of the Israeli's that they are going to be threatened and attacked by terrorists and M/E Countries without cessation for a time not less than "as long as they exist".


And do you seriously believe that in war accidents don't happen in spite of being careful?