your posts indicate that it is quite safe for me to assume that your access to information about what is happening in Lebanon is propoganda rather than any real news.

Show me a credible link to where Israel launched missiles indiscriminately.

__________________
843rd Bomb Wing - Strategic Air Command
"Peace is our Profession"

"Human law must rest its authority ultimately upon the authority of that law which is Divine. . . . Far from being rivals or enemies, religion and law are twin sisters, friends, and mutual assistants.
" - James Wilson, U. S. Supreme Court Justice and Signer of the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution

This is a credible link to where Israel launched missiles indiscriminately:

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/newspap...282992,00.html

The Times July 24, 2006

Fleeing civilian vehicles hit by Israeli missiles
By Nicholas Blanford in Tyre and Ned Parker in Jerusalem

Two quotes from that article:

"The narrow roads that meander through the valleys and undulating chalky hills east of Tyre were a place of terror and death yesterday as Israeli helicopters attacked civilian vehicles fleeing Israel’s 11-day onslaught in south Lebanon. [. . .]

the evidence yesterday suggested that cars were being attacked regardless of their occupants and direction of travel."

If this is not indiscriminately, then how would you define indiscriminately?

This is merely one example.

Not proof, but troubling none-the-less. Thanks for the link.

Also from the Times:
This is why Hezbollah continues to hide under civilian skirts.

__________________
843rd Bomb Wing - Strategic Air Command
"Peace is our Profession"

"Human law must rest its authority ultimately upon the authority of that law which is Divine. . . . Far from being rivals or enemies, religion and law are twin sisters, friends, and mutual assistants.
" - James Wilson, U. S. Supreme Court Justice and Signer of the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution

Why is this not suffucuent to convince you of indiscriminate Israeli bombings? Please give me an example of what kind of proof you would like to see.


This is the nature of irregular warfare. But to call it "hiding under civilian skirts" is dishonest, and the arrogant language of the occupiers. Are you opposed to irregular warfare in principle? Would you say that Lehi (aka "the Stern Gang") hid under civilian skirts? What about Jewish partisans in WW II? Would you say that they hid under civilian skirts? http://www.ushmm.org/outreach/jpart.htm That was the arrogant language of the occupiers, but would you too say so? If not, then please don't pretend as though you have objections "in principle".

No, I am not comparing the politics of Hezbollah with those of other guerilla movements; I am talking of warfare tactics in principle.

Reread the article. It stated "the evidence yesterday suggested that cars were being attacked regardless of their occupants and direction of travel."
If the author wasn't certain, how can the reader be certain?
No
There's a difference between hiding amongst the population during an occupation and launching a missile attack from a neighborhood, mosque or similar, knowing that they would be targeted. In the first instance, civilians aren't deliberately placed in harm's way. Hezbollah and the other Islamofascists literally hide behind civilians while attacking their enemies, using them as human shields. That's what I object to.
See above. There's a difference between mixing in with the population and hiding behind them as you attack.

__________________
843rd Bomb Wing - Strategic Air Command
"Peace is our Profession"

"Human law must rest its authority ultimately upon the authority of that law which is Divine. . . . Far from being rivals or enemies, religion and law are twin sisters, friends, and mutual assistants.
" - James Wilson, U. S. Supreme Court Justice and Signer of the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution

why do many persons dislike Isarel?Chinese government dislike Isarel,but most ordinary Chinese like that country

__________________
Your pain is my pain,your sadness is my sadness.your smile is my happiness.

I am not saying that you are wrong, and I am not saying that you are right - simply because I am as keen on exactitude as you claim to be regarding the report on indiscriminate Israeli bombings of civilians as I showed you. However, anyone would find it hard to believe that a group like the shiite militia Hezbollah would deliberately use its own people, its own families, as human shields. Without waterproof evidence, such a claim has to be dismissed as wartime Greuel propaganda. Not because of sympathy for Hezbollah (which I have none), but because of what we know of the deep roots of Hezbollah into the shiite community in Lebanon.

From a strictly military POV, I think that it is just as dishonest to claim that Hezbollah is using its own people as human shields only because it is involved in street-to-street fighting or launching missiles from an overall denseley populated southern Lebanon, as it would be to accuse the heroic resistance fighters in the Warsaw ghetto in 1943 of the same thing.

Please forgive me for the travesty: Show me a credible link which would make any honest reader "certain" that the shiite militia Hezbollah cynially is using its own people as human shields. Unless you are able to do that, you have no reason to believe in the Greuel propaganda from one of the warring sides.

Chinese don't have a history of anti-semetism like most of the West and Arab worlds do.

You guys can't spare anymore hatred, seeing as how much you have for the Japanese.

Sorry if I join that off topic thing here....

Well, as far as I know were the SS Panzer divisions among the last ones standing. Effectively in the region I come from in the last days of the war, it was mostly SS troops that were left fighting the allied on both sides (the west and east front were only about 50 km from each other apart).
They for sure were more than solely infantry. In fact with their fanatism they caused some losses to the allied that hurted as far as I know and considerably postponed the unpreventable victory of the allieds (With their tactics of burned earth etc.)

I am not that expert, but the Wehrmacht was the German army, and the other way round. The SS was not part of it. The SS was an independant organisation and part of the NSDAP. Somewhat it was the private army of the NSDAP, while the Wehrmacht never was part of the party and included many generals that were pure technocrats and did keep some distance to the idiology. As far as I know the Wehrmacht even feard that the SS might become a competition to it, it took place than however that the SS divissions fought with Wehrmacht und the Oberkommando of the Wehrmacht.
I have to admit that it confuses me a bit. But in the end the SS troops were not really part of the Wehrmacht. And after 1943 they were realigned and acted as full brigades.


Ok, having that said, it does not change much. It does not excuse anyone from the most terrible crimes ever committed.
I agree with you that also the Wehrmacht committed war crimes, shooted jews and filled mass graves with them...

But IMO Wehrmacht soldiers have to be judged by what they really did, to convict them all automatically guilty of being massmurderous Holocaust helpers, is nothing else than saying that every single German was a massmurder.

PS:
Interestingly the SS stood above the law in Nazi Germany. Yes also the Third Reich had laws, and the Wehrmacht had to care about them, the SS not. (Thats because the a town official sued the SS for shooting jews in the KZ without a cause or a trial, after intervention on highest level, the SS was freed from any conventions to obey the law)

__________________
When the Nazis came for the communists I remained silent, I was no communist.
When the Nazis came for the Unionists I remained silent, I was no Unionist.
When the Nazis came for the Social Democrats I remained silent, I was no Social Democrat.
When the Nazis came for the Jews I remained silent, I was no Jew.
When the Nazis came for me, there was no one left who could protest.

Why is that so hard to believe? We've seen it in Iraq, we've seen women and children used as suicide bombers in Israel, Iraq and elsewhere.
Again, Islamofascists have attacked from inside of Mosques, occupied houses and other buildings many, many times. It is part of their standard tactics. I wasn't presenting anything that wasn't already generally known.
That's a reasonable request. I will look.

http://www.imra.org.il/story.php3?id=30101

http://hrw.org/english/docs/2003/02/20/iraq5320.htm in Iraq

I'll look for more later....

__________________
843rd Bomb Wing - Strategic Air Command
"Peace is our Profession"

"Human law must rest its authority ultimately upon the authority of that law which is Divine. . . . Far from being rivals or enemies, religion and law are twin sisters, friends, and mutual assistants.
" - James Wilson, U. S. Supreme Court Justice and Signer of the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution

Oh, please come on!

First you say: “Show me a credible link to where Israel launched missiles indiscriminately.”

That is something which everyone can respect, and which gives you respect. A credible link is an un-biased source.

Then when I show you such a credible source, you say: “Not proof, but troubling none-the-less. Thanks for the link.”

I asked you why the source does not convince you, you answer: ”Reread the article. It stated ‘the evidence yesterday suggested that cars were being attacked regardless of their occupants and direction of travel.’ If the author wasn't certain, how can the reader be certain?”

That gives the impression that you are very keen on exactitude, which of course gives you respect.

Then when you claim that Hezbollah cynially is using its own people as human shields, I follow your pattern and ask: “Show me a credible link which would make any honest reader "certain" that the shiite militia Hezbollah cynially is using its own people as human shields.”

So far, the discussion has been honest and conducted on a high level. But when you are asked to provide us with such evidence, you resort to biased sources which you yourself would laugh at:

The first source you refer to is a war propaganda statement by one of the warring sides. (“In a presentation broadcast live this afternoon from Haifa, Defense Minister
Amir Peretz declared that Israel would not honor human shields in Lebanon.”)
http://www.imra.org.il/story.php3?id=30101

No, that does in no way fulfill the demands for a credible source which would convince any honest reader, and due to your previous posting, we know that you are aware of that.

The second source is even worse:
1. First of all it has nothing to do with the Shiite militia Hezbollah, but deals with Iraq during Saddam Hussein’s Sunni-dominated regime.

2. Secondly, your own objection that a source has to be “certain” can be applied to this source, since it isn’t certain that even Saddam Hussein used civilians as human shields:

"If Iraq uses people as human shields, that is a war crime," said Kenneth Roth, executive director of Human Rights Watch. "But Secretary Rumsfeld told only half the story yesterday. If the United States attacks targets that are shielded by civilians without demonstrating an overwhelming military necessity to do so, that would be a war crime, too."

Why didn’t you apply your own objection to this so-called (and totally invalid) source: “If the author wasn't certain, how can the reader be certain”?
http://hrw.org/english/docs/2003/02/20/iraq5320.htm

Your third source is a mixture which renders it invalid:

1. First of all there is a biased statement by one of the warring sides, which alone is invalid due to all scientific standards (“The IDF announced” etc).

2. Secondly, it is just as invalid, according to your own objection, because nowhere does it contain an independent statement which for certain asserts that the Hezbollah is using human shields.

3. Thirdly, should its statement in principle – “Deploying military forces within populated areas is a violation of international humanitarian law” – be employed to the letter (as you seem to imply), it would mean that the stationing of IDF forces in the recently occupied Lebanese village of Maroun al-Ras, or even any town in Israel or Gaza or the West Bank, constitutes a violation of international humanitarian law. Do you consider the presence of Israeli soldiers in any town or residential area as a violation of international humanitarian law? Or is the presence of US forces in any Iraqi town in itself a violation of international humanitarian law? Of course not! So why use such a source which you yourself consider as invalid if applied on IDF or US forces?
http://hrw.org/english/docs/2006/07/20/lebano13786.htm

Your fourth source is just as invalid, according to your own objection: If the author wasn't certain, how can the reader be certain?”
http://hrw.org/english/docs/2006/07/17/lebano13748.htm

That is all you’ve got.

In other words, you have nothing but war Greuel propaganda to back up your totally wild assertions.

Why bother to discuss at all when you apply double standards? If you haven’t got anything clever to say, it’s better to let others speak. All you have done is to convince the doubtful that there is no evidence that Hezbollah is using human shields. That only harms your cause. Isn’t that principle obvious to you?

I said that I'd look for more later. I was multitasking while typing at lunchtime from work and didn't have time to do a thorough search. The article about Iraq was to support my statement that Islamofascists have been known to use their own people as human shields. I don't know much about the Human Rights organization so I can't speak for its veracity, yet.

__________________
843rd Bomb Wing - Strategic Air Command
"Peace is our Profession"

"Human law must rest its authority ultimately upon the authority of that law which is Divine. . . . Far from being rivals or enemies, religion and law are twin sisters, friends, and mutual assistants.
" - James Wilson, U. S. Supreme Court Justice and Signer of the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution

Evidently, HRW is consiidered a pro-Hezbollah organization.