Skeptic Friends Network

Username:
Password:
Save Password
Forgot your Password?
Home | Forums | Active Topics | Active Polls | Register | FAQ | Contact Us  
  Connect: Chat | SFN Messenger | Buddy List | Members
Personalize: Profile | My Page | Forum Bookmarks  
 All Forums
 Our Skeptic Forums
 Politics
 AmnestyInt'l condemns targeting Leb infrastructure
 New Topic  Topic Locked
 Printer Friendly Bookmark this Topic BookMark Topic
Next Page
Author Previous Topic Topic Next Topic
Page: of 4

beskeptigal
SFN Die Hard

USA
3834 Posts

Posted - 08/24/2006 :  12:13:51  Show Profile Send beskeptigal a Private Message
The Hersh article on the Israeli strategy of attacking civilian infrastructure in order to turn the Lebanese people against Hezbollah is further supported by the Amnesty International report that was just published.

Evidence Points to Israel's Policy of Deliberate Destruction of Lebanese Infrastructure, According to Amnesty International
quote:
A new 22-page report shows how Israel's destruction of thousands of homes, strikes on numerous bridges and roads as well as water and fuel storage plants was an integral part of Israel's military strategy in Lebanon, rather than "collateral damage" resulting from the lawful targeting of military objectives....

...The evidence presented in this publication includes the following:

* Massive destruction by Israeli forces of whole civilian neighborhoods and villages
* Attacks on bridges in areas of no apparent strategic importance
* Attacks on water pumping stations, water treatment plants and supermarkets despite the prohibition against targeting objects indispensable to the survival of the civilian population
* Statements by Israeli military officials indicating that the destruction of civilian infrastructure was indeed a goal of Israel's military campaign designed to press the Lebanese government and the civilian population to turn against Hizbullah.



I already mentioned Bush corroborated the Hersh article with his statements such as the following claiming people will eventually see he was right and the world will change their opinion to his.

Text of President George W. Bush's statement on the Mideast; 08-15-06
quote:
BUSH: First of all, you know, if I were Hezbollah, I'd be claiming victory too. But the people around the region and the world need to take a step back and recognize that Hezbollah's action created a very strong reaction that unfortunately caused some people to lose their lives, innocent people to lose their lives. But on the other hand, it was Hezbollah that caused the destruction.

People have got to understand, and it will take time, it will take time for people to see the truth that Hezbollah hides behind innocent civilians as they attack.

While he refers to the claim Israel was only targeting Hezbollah, the evidence is that it was infrastructure, not hiding militants that were targeted.

And the following analysis from the end of July in the WA Post shows Bush et al just cannot learn from his failed approach.

Returning to Old Approach, U.S. Faces Risky Path Ahead; 07-30-06
quote:
But now, analysts said, the administration is effectively back endorsing all-out force again, in defiance of allies, as part of its policy of trying to rid the Middle East of militants and radicals, or the "drain the swamp" policy.

In his weekly radio address, President Bush placed the Lebanon crisis in the context of Iraq and the broader U.S. war on terrorism. "As we work to resolve this current crisis, we must recognize that Lebanon is the latest flash point in a broader struggle between freedom and terror that is unfolding across the region," Bush said.

Rice has described the ongoing fighting as not just between Israel and Hezbollah but as part of the "birth pangs" of the "new" Middle East.



It is frightening to think nothing is going to stop this administration from carpet bombing Iran before Bush's term is up. (See the Hersh article in the NYorker for the dot connections here to this last sentence.)





Edited by - beskeptigal on 08/24/2006 12:16:23

BigPapaSmurf
SFN Die Hard

3192 Posts

Posted - 08/24/2006 :  12:26:46   [Permalink]  Show Profile Send BigPapaSmurf a Private Message
[sarcasm]Its a Zoinist Conspiracy![/sarcasm].... Oh wait it IS a Zionist Conspiracy, NM.

"...things I have neither seen nor experienced nor heard tell of from anybody else; things, what is more, that do not in fact exist and could not ever exist at all. So my readers must not believe a word I say." -Lucian on his book True History

"...They accept such things on faith alone, without any evidence. So if a fraudulent and cunning person who knows how to take advantage of a situation comes among them, he can make himself rich in a short time." -Lucian critical of early Christians c.166 AD From his book, De Morte Peregrini
Go to Top of Page

Dude
SFN Die Hard

USA
6891 Posts

Posted - 08/24/2006 :  17:42:41   [Permalink]  Show Profile Send Dude a Private Message
Infrastructure that supports enemy combatants is a valid military target.


Ignorance is preferable to error; and he is less remote from the truth who believes nothing, than he who believes what is wrong.
-- Thomas Jefferson

"god :: the last refuge of a man with no answers and no argument." - G. Carlin

Hope, n.
The handmaiden of desperation; the opiate of despair; the illegible signpost on the road to perdition. ~~ da filth
Go to Top of Page

beskeptigal
SFN Die Hard

USA
3834 Posts

Posted - 08/25/2006 :  13:20:43   [Permalink]  Show Profile Send beskeptigal a Private Message
If that were the case, Dude, you would be correct. But the conclusion by AI and HRW who both wrote investigative reports is the targets were not Hezbollah infrastructure, they were civilian infrastructure. And the reports back up Hersh's article in the New Yorker. Hersh has a reputation for writing accurate articles.

The goal was to bomb civilian targets in order to make the civilians angry at Hezbollah and to then blame them for bringing Israel's wrath. If that was the goal and you want to argue it was still a legitimate rationale for what was targeted, fine. But it's a big lie for the Israeli government to try to claim they were bombing Hezbollah targets who were positioning themselves in civilian areas. The evidence does not support the Israeli claim.
Go to Top of Page

Dr. Mabuse
Septic Fiend

Sweden
9677 Posts

Posted - 08/25/2006 :  14:23:56   [Permalink]  Show Profile  Send Dr. Mabuse an ICQ Message Send Dr. Mabuse a Private Message
quote:
Originally posted by beskeptigal
investigative reports is the targets were not Hezbollah infrastructure, they were civilian infrastructure.

Not only that, some were UN installations. And that is fucked up beyond belief.

Dr. Mabuse - "When the going gets tough, the tough get Duct-tape..."
Dr. Mabuse whisper.mp3

"Equivocation is not just a job, for a creationist it's a way of life..." Dr. Mabuse

Support American Troops in Iraq:
Send them unarmed civilians for target practice..
Collateralmurder.
Go to Top of Page

Dude
SFN Die Hard

USA
6891 Posts

Posted - 08/25/2006 :  20:00:21   [Permalink]  Show Profile Send Dude a Private Message

beskeptigal said:
quote:
The goal was to bomb civilian targets in order to make the civilians angry at Hezbollah and to then blame them for bringing Israel's wrath.


Ya know, I'd agree more with you on this topic if you stopped making these unevidenced and insane claims.

I generally respect the positions of Amnesty International, and have a favorable opinion of them overall...

But this, from your link:
quote:
"The widespread destruction of apartments, houses, electricity and water services, roads, bridges, factories and ports, in addition to statements by Israeli officials, suggests a policy of punishing both the Lebanese government and the civilian population to get them to turn against Hizbullah,
(bolding mine)

...is nothing more than an opinion.

I have scoured the AI site to find the full text of this report, which would include these statements from Israeli officials, and can find nothing.

I'll grant you that it would be a key piece of evidence, if it existed, to have documented statements from Israeli government officials in charge of military operations openly stating that they destroyed non-hizbollah civillian targets with the intention of making the Lebanese people angry with Hizbollah.

I'd argue with you about it some more, but you have proven immune to rational thinking on this subject.

Bring back some evidence, a link to these statements by Israeli officials stating their intention to punish the Lebanese people for example, and you have a chance of convincing me your position is more than just an emotional overreaction.


Ignorance is preferable to error; and he is less remote from the truth who believes nothing, than he who believes what is wrong.
-- Thomas Jefferson

"god :: the last refuge of a man with no answers and no argument." - G. Carlin

Hope, n.
The handmaiden of desperation; the opiate of despair; the illegible signpost on the road to perdition. ~~ da filth
Go to Top of Page

Dude
SFN Die Hard

USA
6891 Posts

Posted - 08/25/2006 :  20:07:45   [Permalink]  Show Profile Send Dude a Private Message
http://www.amnestyusa.org/countries/israel_and_occupied_territories/document.do?id=ENGUSA20060823001

quote:
According to Protocol I, Article 52 (1): "Civilian objects are all objects which are not military objectives." Article 52 (2) defines military objectives as ''those objects which by their nature, location, purpose or use make an effective contribution to military action and whose total or partial destruction, capture or neutralization, in the circumstances ruling at the time, offers a definite military advantage.''


That is what AI uses for definition of military targets.

So, if a Hizbollah squad puts a rocket launcher on top of a building that has 500 civillians inside it.... that building just became a military target. Same for the infrastructure that provides basic services (water/power/comm) to Hizbollah inhabited structures. Even if the same infrastructure also provides service to civillians. If Hizbollah is using it, its a military target.


Ignorance is preferable to error; and he is less remote from the truth who believes nothing, than he who believes what is wrong.
-- Thomas Jefferson

"god :: the last refuge of a man with no answers and no argument." - G. Carlin

Hope, n.
The handmaiden of desperation; the opiate of despair; the illegible signpost on the road to perdition. ~~ da filth
Go to Top of Page

Ghost_Skeptic
SFN Regular

Canada
510 Posts

Posted - 08/26/2006 :  00:24:08   [Permalink]  Show Profile Send Ghost_Skeptic a Private Message
Isreal's indiscriminate use of cluster bombs is probably illegal both in terms of where there were dropped and the failure rate of these bombs is in excess of that specified by the Geneva Convention.

quote:
Meanwhile, The New York Times is reporting that the U.S. State Department is investigating whether Israel's use of the American-made bombs violates secret agreements made between the two nations about how the weapons can be used.

"You can lead a horse to water but you can't make him drink. / You can send a kid to college but you can't make him think." - B.B. King

History is made by stupid people - The Arrogant Worms

"The greater the ignorance the greater the dogmatism." - William Osler

"Religion is the natural home of the psychopath" - Pat Condell

"The day will come when the mystical generation of Jesus, by the supreme being as his father in the womb of a virgin, will be classed with the fable of the generation of Minerva in the brain of Jupiter" - Thomas Jefferson
Go to Top of Page

Original_Intent
SFN Regular

USA
609 Posts

Posted - 08/26/2006 :  07:13:58   [Permalink]  Show Profile Send Original_Intent a Private Message
quote:
Originally posted by Ghost_Skeptic

Isreal's indiscriminate use of cluster bombs is probably illegal both in terms of where there were dropped and the failure rate of these bombs is in excess of that specified by the Geneva Convention.

quote:
Meanwhile, The New York Times is reporting that the U.S. State Department is investigating whether Israel's use of the American-made bombs violates secret agreements made between the two nations about how the weapons can be used.




Where in the Geneva Convention does it give allowable failure rates? I even checked the Convention on Prohibitions or Restrictions on the Use of Certain Conventional Weapons Which May be Deemed to be Excessively Injurious or to Have Indiscriminate Effects. Geneva of 1980.

The convention is pretty darn long. I used "fail" to search each article, but got nothing pertinent.

Joe

The Circus of Carnage... because you should be able to deal with politicians like you do pissant noobs.
Go to Top of Page

Dude
SFN Die Hard

USA
6891 Posts

Posted - 08/26/2006 :  08:57:57   [Permalink]  Show Profile Send Dude a Private Message
quote:
Isreal's indiscriminate use of cluster bombs is probably illegal both in terms of where there were dropped and the failure rate of these bombs is in excess of that specified by the Geneva Convention.



There is a prohibition against indiscriminate bombing in the Geneva Conventions, but nothing about failure rates for munitions.


While cluster bombs are not supposed to be used on civilian areas, they are allowed to be used on military targets.

And even by AI's definition an appartment building or residential neighborhood that is being used by armed enemy combatants is a military target.


Ignorance is preferable to error; and he is less remote from the truth who believes nothing, than he who believes what is wrong.
-- Thomas Jefferson

"god :: the last refuge of a man with no answers and no argument." - G. Carlin

Hope, n.
The handmaiden of desperation; the opiate of despair; the illegible signpost on the road to perdition. ~~ da filth
Go to Top of Page

marfknox
SFN Die Hard

USA
3739 Posts

Posted - 08/26/2006 :  14:54:25   [Permalink]  Show Profile  Visit marfknox's Homepage  Send marfknox an AOL message Send marfknox a Private Message
beskeptical and Dude, if anything this argument shows, to me at least, that there are some serious grey areas in how civilian and military targets are defined in a fight against a group like Hezbollah.

"Too much certainty and clarity could lead to cruel intolerance" -Karen Armstrong

Check out my art store: http://www.marfknox.etsy.com

Go to Top of Page

Dude
SFN Die Hard

USA
6891 Posts

Posted - 08/26/2006 :  17:06:08   [Permalink]  Show Profile Send Dude a Private Message
quote:
beskeptical and Dude, if anything this argument shows, to me at least, that there are some serious grey areas in how civilian and military targets are defined in a fight against a group like Hezbollah.


There is always grey.

But the fantastical claim of deliberate targeting of civilians (especually given the flexibility if AI's own definition of military targets) is unsupportable.

It is emotional overeaction.


Ignorance is preferable to error; and he is less remote from the truth who believes nothing, than he who believes what is wrong.
-- Thomas Jefferson

"god :: the last refuge of a man with no answers and no argument." - G. Carlin

Hope, n.
The handmaiden of desperation; the opiate of despair; the illegible signpost on the road to perdition. ~~ da filth
Go to Top of Page

Sago
New Member

USA
30 Posts

Posted - 08/26/2006 :  18:38:04   [Permalink]  Show Profile Send Sago a Private Message
quote:
Originally posted by beskeptigal

If that were the case, Dude, you would be correct. But the conclusion by AI and HRW who both wrote investigative reports is the targets were not Hezbollah infrastructure, they were civilian infrastructure. And the reports back up Hersh's article in the New Yorker. Hersh has a reputation for writing accurate articles.


How do you define civilian infrastructure? The new Yorker is your source of knowledge about war? So if a civilian building is used to store and fire war materials, it is still a civilian structure in your mind? How many "military" bases do you think Hizbullah had for the 4000 or so rockets they were firing at Israel?

quote:
The goal was to bomb civilian targets in order to make the civilians angry at Hezbollah and to then blame them for bringing Israel's wrath.



You must be joking?

You actually deduce that from an article in the New Yorker, or from watching any news anywhere else? I know, you must have watched the Green Helmet guy stage the bodies of dead children, and that gave you the insights.....
Go to Top of Page

Dave W.
Info Junkie

USA
26009 Posts

Posted - 08/26/2006 :  19:22:36   [Permalink]  Show Profile  Visit Dave W.'s Homepage Send Dave W. a Private Message
quote:
Originally posted by Sago

You actually deduce that from an article in the New Yorker, or from watching any news anywhere else? I know, you must have watched the Green Helmet guy stage the bodies of dead children, and that gave you the insights.....
You know, I would much rather see filthy quote someone saying "fuck" over and over and to view the same giant Richard Scary cartoon a zillion times than to see other members here personally and purposefully insulted in so childish a manner as you've done, above.

Wonderful first post, Sago. Welcome to the SFN.

- Dave W. (Private Msg, EMail)
Evidently, I rock!
Why not question something for a change?
Visit Dave's Psoriasis Info, too.
Go to Top of Page

Sago
New Member

USA
30 Posts

Posted - 08/26/2006 :  20:47:25   [Permalink]  Show Profile Send Sago a Private Message
People who can only say effing this or effing that when pretending to make a point do not deserve respect for their opinion, or rather lack of opinion. Perhaps you are one of those who put up with that from your children, but that doesn't mean adults need to put up with it from other adults without purposefully telling them so.

filthy obviously likes to spray this type of language; even his profile says as much, and I haven't had time to review many posts here yet; his just happened at the top of the list and I thought I would make it known what the first impression of this forum was.

We'll see if that is a generic theme, but you obviously think it's behaviour that should not be criticized, so the beginning is not good; but I'm a patient person.

Thanks for the welcome. :)

Go to Top of Page

Dave W.
Info Junkie

USA
26009 Posts

Posted - 08/26/2006 :  21:07:50   [Permalink]  Show Profile  Visit Dave W.'s Homepage Send Dave W. a Private Message
quote:
Originally posted by Sago

People who can only say effing this or effing that when pretending to make a point do not deserve respect for their opinion, or rather lack of opinion. Perhaps you are one of those who put up with that from your children, but that doesn't mean adults need to put up with it from other adults without purposefully telling them so.
Apparently, you missed my point, which was that beskeptigal's point was clearly based on much more than the New Yorker, and what some unnamed "Green Helmet guy" had to do with it is beyond me, but you felt it was "adult" to lambaste her with such obvious derision. If that's what you think is "respect," then you've got no room to be criticizing a few f-words.
quote:
filthy obviously likes to spray this type of language; even his profile says as much, and I haven't had time to review many posts here yet; his just happened at the top of the list and I thought I would make it known what the first impression of this forum was.
Your first impression isn't the first impression. My first impression of you was that you'll inform everyone that you don't like bad language, that you've never seen a Richard Scary book, and that you'll go out of your way to ridicule other people in childish ways. Is that the first impression everyone gets of you? I hope not.
quote:
We'll see if that is a generic theme, but you obviously think it's behaviour that should not be criticized, so the beginning is not good; but I'm a patient person.
My point was that you've obviously got some bad social behaviours of your own, so perhaps you should take care of them before you start with the "holier-than-thou" routine.

- Dave W. (Private Msg, EMail)
Evidently, I rock!
Why not question something for a change?
Visit Dave's Psoriasis Info, too.
Go to Top of Page
Page: of 4 Previous Topic Topic Next Topic  
Next Page
 New Topic  Topic Locked
 Printer Friendly Bookmark this Topic BookMark Topic
Jump To:

The mission of the Skeptic Friends Network is to promote skepticism, critical thinking, science and logic as the best methods for evaluating all claims of fact, and we invite active participation by our members to create a skeptical community with a wide variety of viewpoints and expertise.


Home | Skeptic Forums | Skeptic Summary | The Kil Report | Creation/Evolution | Rationally Speaking | Skeptillaneous | About Skepticism | Fan Mail | Claims List | Calendar & Events | Skeptic Links | Book Reviews | Gift Shop | SFN on Facebook | Staff | Contact Us

Skeptic Friends Network
© 2008 Skeptic Friends Network Go To Top Of Page
This page was generated in 0.61 seconds.
Powered by @tomic Studio
Snitz Forums 2000