That video shows a truck which may or may not have rockets.. then the truck gos into a building which may or may not be a house. You can't make out anything in that video... I'm not saying your wrong about it, but how can you tell whats going on with video like that?
I've edit my post, check it out (the last video). It's so clearly and you must be blind if you don't see it.
And pierce armored tanks. http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20060804/ap_on_re_mi_ea/mideast_fighting_hezbollah_s_missiles I asked you if you would fire if there were civilians...you said no. People don't expose rocket/missile unless they're preparing to launch... Those are the options. Name a reputable third one, that could be done on such a large scale.... 1519....the mandate that Lebanon have no militias and that it's military is the monopoly in their land. Even answering your question you show me how much of a failure the UN is. It's this same organization that stops conflict and starts it again and again.
Not exactly a global threat then... Resolution 237: " . . . 'urges' Israel to allow return of new 1967 Palestinian refugees". Resolution 285: " . . . 'demands' immediate Israeli withdrawal form Lebanon". Resolution 317: " . . . 'deplores' Israel's refusal to release Arabs abducted in Lebanon". Resolution 337: " . . . 'condemns' Israel for violating Lebanon's sovereignty". Resolution 446 (1979): 'determines' that Israeli settlements are a 'serious obstruction' to peace and calls on Israel to abide by the Fourth Geneva Convention".. Israeli settlements in the occupied territories thus declared illegal. Resolution 452: " . . . 'calls' on Israel to cease building settlements in occupied territories". Resolution 469: " . . . 'strongly deplores' Israel's failure to observe the council's order not to deport Palestinians". Resolution 605: " . . . 'strongly deplores' Israel's policies and practices denying the human rights of Palestinians. Perhaps if Israel were to follow any of the resolutions against it the arab world might not continue to support attacking them all the time.
roiei, It's well known they're by civilians... the arguement is that it doesn't justify Israel's use of missiles.
Tell me something, it's a war or game? These missiles that Israel is firing it's just to stop the Katyusha from falling in Israel. The Hezbollah missiles is for killing only!!! BTW Israel warn civilians before they bomb the area (On populated area with houses and people), I don't remember USA doing that in Iraq or Afghanistan.
http://www.janes.com/security/international_security/news/jwit/jwit060726_1_n.shtml The military wing of Hezbollah is considered to be the most capable non-state armed group in the Middle East. "Islamic Resistance guerrillas are reckoned to be amongst the most dedicated, motivated and highly trained of their kind. Any Hezbollah member receiving military training is likely to do so at the hands of IRGC [the Islamic Revolutionary Guards Corps], either in southern Lebanon or in camps in Iran. The increasingly sophisticated methods used by IRGC members indicates that they are trained using Israeli and US military manuals; the emphasis of this training is on the tactics of attrition, mobility, intelligence gathering and night-time manoeuvres."---Janes World Insurgency and Terrorism Your points are circular, and completely avoids my initial assertions. Again this had nothing do specifically with size, but with whether or not it was possible to chose between incidentally killing their civilians or allowing your civilians to die. Remember it doesn't matter the scale of war, it matter whether it's practical or not. An ultra pc mentality of war is impractical and dangerous. Waiting for your third option...... Don't hold your breath. LMAO....sure. And a young handicapped girl was killed in Iran because stupid bs...while many in the region still stone each other over things adultery or not faithful following the koran. The UN is full of anti-semites...whom do jack-shit about terrorism. Routinely they create avenues that actually end-up support terrorists **The U.N. has never initiated any inquiry into Yasir Arafat and the Palestinian Authority's role in aiding and abetting terrorists, or passed one resolution condemning any terrorist organization operating against Israel. What fuckin joke... The United States was kicked off the U.N. Commission for Human Rights in May 2001, despite being one of the most outspoken advocates for human rights and a founding member of the Commission. It was replaced by Sierra Leone and the Sudan, both of which have records of abuses of human rights, including slavery and the forced use of children as soldiers. The United States recently regained its seat after a yearlong absence.
I've already told you and we've already been through this. Ground Troops , Ground Troops , Ground Troops. How many times need I repeat myself? Don't worry, I'm not. I know Israel's track record of continuously violating human rights, the geneva conventions, killing civilians and persecuting Palestinians. I don't see any changes coming from them now... I didn't know the UN could make resolutions against Non-States.. against groups and organizations. Wouldn't surprise me after all the human rights violations the United States has broken in Guantanamo Bay, Abu Ghraib, Iraq, Afghanistan and anywhere else the military gos. According to Wiki they're part of the Human rights commission and Bush decided not to be on the Human Rights Council:
Wiki again, is not a completely verified source. Some items on that website have been, and can be, distorted.
care to share the stats that how many civilians have been killed by HezbAllahs rockets all over these years and how many have been killed by israel in last 20 days ?
If you want to dispute anything on the wiki page then go right ahead, otherwise quit your whining. It's just as good a source as any, they even provide their references right on the page.
me--'Name a reputable third one, that could be done on such a large scale....' I was looking for a reputable method. They did that same thing with Hamas, and that end-up with a huge scandal where Israel was suspected of human rights violations....subsequently that lead to the 'road to peace' via US pressure on Israel. It's never wise to deploy troops in till you think most civilians are not present...unless you truely have to. Ground troops...lol. That sort of deployment without strategic supplying is unfeasible. You can't just throw a bunch of guys in an area the moment you find a missile and then pick them up afterwards (especially with those numbers). These missile were in multiple areas, and what you asking for is impossible. Your idealogy doesn't work, if it's not balanced with practicality. Your idealogy blinds you. The world couldn't exist on black and white terms....because evil assholes would dominate the world if it were like such. The gray (yes, the US), is absolutely necessary, otherwise will all end-up like France. Would you stick to your idealogy of no civilian deaths in world war 2....had you been the leader of that time? Or does the scale of war change it for you?....We killed a lot of civilians, and mostly intentially, but we also destroyed their morale and their industrial base. German might and Japanese military strength could have held their fronts had we not literally destroyed their infrastruture. And in many cases that meant killing civilians. Many things like this...they do it often. Resolution 1617 (July 29, 2005) The Security Council has adopted a US-sponsored resolution that extends the current travel ban and arms embargo against al-Qaeda and the Taliban, for the first time specifying those who are considered associates of these terrorist groups and therefore subject to the sanctions. The resolution, noting that no member states had reported violations of the travel ban, also calls for a monitoring team to assess member states’ compliance with sanctions implementation. Resolution 1390 (January 16, 2002) Resolution 1390 extends existing sanctions on Al Qaeda and the Taliban for another 12 months and calls on all Member States to respect previous resolutions by freezing all funds and financial assets owned or controlled by either of the organizations. The Council further extends the arms embargo and urges Member States to cooperate in the travel ban imposed on Al Qaeda or the Taliban members. Chief, this happened in may 2001, before any of that crap even happened. You're just denouncing the US to denounce it...
Why do people keep coming up with this egalitarian-like philosophy on war? Since when has it become moral that one must lose just as many people in conflicts? War is self-interest and survival, not a trade of suffering. We killed the living shit out Japan citizens...far more than they did to us....so do we have to kill Americans to equalize that moral philosophy (equalization as good)? *shrug*
its important because you seem to ignore what israel has been doing since last 50 years or so hardly a day passes when palestinians are not killed by israeli forces but all you can remember that 'hezb is firing rockets in israel ' thousands of arabs are suffering in israeli jails ..but you just overlook that
I don't overlook/ignore shit. I think the whole situation is lame, and all sides have done bad shit...but I don't delude myself in thinking being anti-israel is going to do anything. A good/reformed UN would be the best solution on many if not all international conflicts or interests. Otherwise you got two boys in the backyard that are going to continuely fight each other. me:
I wouldn't have left pearl harbor wide open for an attack I knew was going to happen. I wouldn't have dropped nuclear bombs on cities full of women and children. It's not like they were hiding behind them. Nothing you say justifies these things. You act like people from another country are sub-humans not equally as important as Americans. The "winning" at any cost isn't winning at all. I just showed you that bush didn't want in. How were they "kicked out" ?
Why not take a policy of not provoking Japan? FDR was doing such. That's a conspiracy theory of him knowing before hand....no viable proof, to my knowledge. At bit suspicous, though. Actually they killed far more people in carpet-bombing. This disabled their aviation industry among many others. You'd never make it off the beach of normandy. Civilians died all over the place. Russia AT BEST would dominated most of Europe, and far more would die from starvation and Commie killing...preceding the following years, if the Germans actually failed. We helped alot by destroying industry which killed a lot of civilians. A great deal of the Japanese citizens pledged to fight to death if the US got to their mainland, but that would have never happened with your method of war (we'd never reach the mainland). People aren't subhumans, nor is any of this ideal or better than the other....but I refuse to live in a world where the worst of idealogies reigns-free....and I'm willing to live with the fact that my leaders may make chose that kill innocent people. Personally, I'd rather they do methods that keep that down to the minimum, but still keep it practical. A zero-sum mentality is impossible and dangerous. Research...buddy. I'm sorry, but you're wrong. http://archives.cnn.com/2001/US/05/03/us.human/
It goes to show that hezbollah are cowards and hide behind women and children to conduct their war. And if they had actually trained for the war they wanted and received, they might be able to accurately fire those rockets and kill the civilians they are intended to kill. One more reason to be disappointed with hezbollah. That is, of course, if one is a terrorist supporter.