Why Hezbollah was victorious
- Thread starter Caleb-Dain Matton
- Start date
Re: RE: Why Hezbollah was victorious
Respectfully you are misinformed.
Israel did try to anihilate Hezbollah and their "rat's nests". But these efforts were ineffective as Hezbollah emerged from the fighting stronger than before.
Israel never gave civilians in southern Lebanon a chance to get out of the way and in fact targetted civilian convoys attempting to escape southern Lebanon.
Israel targetted Lebanese civilians for 24 hours from one end of the country to the other before Hezbollah fired its first rocket at a Israeli civilian target.
Israel targetted Lebanese civilians for two days before Hezbollah declared "open warfare".
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/5179434.stm
I can understand why you are misinformed. Our news coverage of this war conveniently ignores these facts and others:
This battle was part of an ongoing dispute between Hezbollah (Lebanon) and Israel.
Israel continues to hold Lebanese POWs in violation of past agreements with Lebanon to release them.
http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/nationworld/2003168928_lebswap02.html
Until Israel and Lebanon sign a formal peace agreement, technically they are still in a state of war. Acts of war in that context are legal.
Therefore:
On July 12, 2006 Hezbollah committed a legal act of war when it captured two Israeli soldiers and killed several others in a commando style raid.
Israel's initial response to send soldiers into Lebanon to attack Hezbollah and rescue their soldiers was also a legal act of war. (Unfortunately for Israel, many Israeli soldiers died in that raid and Israel was forced to retreat.)
Hezbollah's killing of Israeli soldiers invading Lebanon was a legal act of self defense.
>>>>
If Israel had continued to focus on Hezbollah and Hezbollah military targets, I doubt many people would blame Israel for defending itself.
Instead Israel chose to escalate the conflict by deliberately targeting Lebanese civilians and civilian infrastructure unrelated to the war and why the UNHRC is investigating Israel.
Hezbollah may have been justified to target Israeli civilians in response, depending on the scale of Israel's war crime and the UN's response to Israel's war crimes.
When Israel escalated this conflict to include innocent civilians, they had to expect that Hezbollah would respond in kind.
Israel's war crimes against innocent Lebanese civilians probably were a result of their frustration at not being able to pentrate or weaken Hezbollah militarily.
Israel's war crimes were a message to Hezbollah:
"Maybe we (Israel) can't beat you (Hezbollah) militarily, but we can kill your friends and families."
If Hezbollah had launched rockets at Israeli civilian targets first, that would have been a war crime.
Instead it appears Hezbollah fired a single rocket at Haifa as a message to Israel to stop deliberately attacking Lebanese civilians. Two days into the conflict after Israel had killed about 50 Lebanese civilians, Hezbollah declared "open war", meaning they would start targeting Israeli civilians.
Since Israel started killing innocent civilians first, the UN was either unable or unwilling to stop Israeli war crimes, Hezbollah's declaration of open war was justified. Since Hezbollah killed fewer innocent civilians than Israel, Hezbollah probably did not commit war crimes.
If Hezbollah had not resorted to targeting Israeli civilians what would be Israel's motivation to stop killing innocent Lebanese civilians?
If Israel had not suffered any civilian casualties, its likely this battle would still be raging and Israel would still be killing Lebanese civilians.
Given Israeli war crimes and UNSC inaction, Hezbollah's response could be considered reasonable and measured.
iARTthere4iam said:
Respectfully you are misinformed.
Israel did try to anihilate Hezbollah and their "rat's nests". But these efforts were ineffective as Hezbollah emerged from the fighting stronger than before.
Israel never gave civilians in southern Lebanon a chance to get out of the way and in fact targetted civilian convoys attempting to escape southern Lebanon.
Israel targetted Lebanese civilians for 24 hours from one end of the country to the other before Hezbollah fired its first rocket at a Israeli civilian target.
Israel targetted Lebanese civilians for two days before Hezbollah declared "open warfare".
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/5179434.stm
I can understand why you are misinformed. Our news coverage of this war conveniently ignores these facts and others:
This battle was part of an ongoing dispute between Hezbollah (Lebanon) and Israel.
Israel continues to hold Lebanese POWs in violation of past agreements with Lebanon to release them.
http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/nationworld/2003168928_lebswap02.html
Until Israel and Lebanon sign a formal peace agreement, technically they are still in a state of war. Acts of war in that context are legal.
Therefore:
On July 12, 2006 Hezbollah committed a legal act of war when it captured two Israeli soldiers and killed several others in a commando style raid.
Israel's initial response to send soldiers into Lebanon to attack Hezbollah and rescue their soldiers was also a legal act of war. (Unfortunately for Israel, many Israeli soldiers died in that raid and Israel was forced to retreat.)
Hezbollah's killing of Israeli soldiers invading Lebanon was a legal act of self defense.
>>>>
If Israel had continued to focus on Hezbollah and Hezbollah military targets, I doubt many people would blame Israel for defending itself.
Instead Israel chose to escalate the conflict by deliberately targeting Lebanese civilians and civilian infrastructure unrelated to the war and why the UNHRC is investigating Israel.
Hezbollah may have been justified to target Israeli civilians in response, depending on the scale of Israel's war crime and the UN's response to Israel's war crimes.
When Israel escalated this conflict to include innocent civilians, they had to expect that Hezbollah would respond in kind.
Israel's war crimes against innocent Lebanese civilians probably were a result of their frustration at not being able to pentrate or weaken Hezbollah militarily.
Israel's war crimes were a message to Hezbollah:
"Maybe we (Israel) can't beat you (Hezbollah) militarily, but we can kill your friends and families."
If Hezbollah had launched rockets at Israeli civilian targets first, that would have been a war crime.
Instead it appears Hezbollah fired a single rocket at Haifa as a message to Israel to stop deliberately attacking Lebanese civilians. Two days into the conflict after Israel had killed about 50 Lebanese civilians, Hezbollah declared "open war", meaning they would start targeting Israeli civilians.
Since Israel started killing innocent civilians first, the UN was either unable or unwilling to stop Israeli war crimes, Hezbollah's declaration of open war was justified. Since Hezbollah killed fewer innocent civilians than Israel, Hezbollah probably did not commit war crimes.
If Hezbollah had not resorted to targeting Israeli civilians what would be Israel's motivation to stop killing innocent Lebanese civilians?
If Israel had not suffered any civilian casualties, its likely this battle would still be raging and Israel would still be killing Lebanese civilians.
Given Israeli war crimes and UNSC inaction, Hezbollah's response could be considered reasonable and measured.
zoofer said:
From above:
The newspapers are better, but it depends which ones. Sorry but I will take the word of Amnesty International and Human Rights Watch over these sources every time.
I will listen to subjective sources too. But I listen to all subjective sources, not one side. That's why I listen to the Jerusalem Post and Islam Online, CNN and al Jazeera. That way I can consider all perspectives. I would also listen to your arguments and consider their value. I would hope you would do the same, otherwise, why are you here?
Also I noticed most people who disagree with me are unable to back their viewpoints up with references, let alone references to objective sources.
{Also I noticed most people who disagree with me are unable to back their viewpoints up with references, let alone references to objective sources.}
We could sit here for weeks on end posting countering references and take up space better used in general discussion. We all know where to get information and we all interpret it as we see fit. I prefer to give my own opinions based in common sense and plain as the nose on your face facts as opposed to regurgitated agenda driven half truths. You must see that these organizations MUST find controversy or cease to exist. Sensational stories bring sensational funding. Why let the truth get in the way of some good sales pitch.
We could sit here for weeks on end posting countering references and take up space better used in general discussion. We all know where to get information and we all interpret it as we see fit. I prefer to give my own opinions based in common sense and plain as the nose on your face facts as opposed to regurgitated agenda driven half truths. You must see that these organizations MUST find controversy or cease to exist. Sensational stories bring sensational funding. Why let the truth get in the way of some good sales pitch.