The man was obviously confused. He needs to read the New York Times more. Then he'd realize that he's a "disaffected youth," not a Muslim. He can still be American, though.
Stephen | 07.28.06 - 10:34 pm | #

1. Truly a real man. All six victims were women. Attention feminists- this could happen to you in other ways if this thug had his way.
2. Shooting happened at the Jewish equivalent of the United Way in Seattle. Went frontpage in the Jerusalem Post. Whose editors took .0076 seconds to connect dots with Israel's battles against Iran and its Hezbollah puppets.
3. Speaking of the Hezbos, the Chief Mullah and Bottlewasher has made himself scarce in past 48 hours. Might be hiding in the Iranian Embassy in Beirut. Clearly providing inspiration and support to the lads firing rockets from homes. Reports also that those rockets are running out quickly. Oh dear their PayPal account to MoscowMissiles.com doesn't work very well anymore.
4. Saw that one of our more sensitive thinkers, former U.S. AG turned International Cuckoo Ramsey Clark plans an anti-Israel rally in D.C. In cahoots with U.S.-based organizations claiming that the Hezbos and their allies are just misunderstood and don't really want to hurt anybody. For many moons, Ramsey has been one of those public figures who provides clarity to my poor confused life. When he zigs, I zag. Oh dear- the alleged Seattle shootist won't be coming to the confab. Prior commitments like preparing for murder trial.
4. There are some beneficial aspects of Israel Vs. Iran & Puppets skimish. It has lanced the public boil of anti-Semitism worldwide. From Ramsey Clark to Kofi Annan to yes even Pat Buchanan, practitioners of anti-Semitism have stepped up to the forefront. Very convenient and useful for future events.
5. Attention Catholics- you may not like the way Israelis are fighting this war. You may not even want to attend a seder any time soon. But understand this historic fact- When Catholics throw rocks at the Jewish people- like any force in history, Hezbos/Ratzis/KGB/Ramsey Clark/etc.- those rocks will loop around and boink you on the noggin. Pray for the peace of Jerusalem.
Gerard E. | 07.29.06 - 1:51 am | #

Gerard, I don't quite understand how your Catholics throwing rocks at the Jewish people relates to a self-proclaimed Muslim-American forcing his way into a Jewish organisation's building and blasting away at women, including one pregnant woman? I think a reality check is in order here!
thomps | 07.29.06 - 5:48 am | #

Gerard, latest info is that Nasrallah was spirited away to Damascus on Thursday, for a command performance before Assad.

I think someone should get Ramsey Clark and Cindy Sheehan together for a blind date (but only *after* verifying she is past menopause -- yikes, can you even imagine what those two might breed together?!!)
Cat Clinic | 07.29.06 - 6:05 am | #

"1. Truly a real man. All six victims were women. Attention feminists- this could happen to you in other ways if this thug had his way."

But if he'd gone hunting for them from an F-16 and blown them - and a few toddlers as well - to bits with a laser-guided bomb, would that have been a wonderful demonstration of advanced military technology and a legitimate act of state? And would it have shown him to be a real man, too?
Pavel Chichikov | Homepage | 07.29.06 - 8:23 am | #

Yes, Pavel, I am almost positive that is what GE was saying. Right...
John Henry | 07.29.06 - 10:16 am | #

Yeah, Israel is using it's F-16s to target old ladies and toddlers because they don't like Lebanon. Sure...

Reminds me of the Air America doofus who tried to equate the founders of America (Washington, Franklin, Revere, etc.) with the terrorists.
Squiboda | 07.29.06 - 10:23 am | #

"When Catholics throw rocks at the Jewish people ..."

Where did _that_ come from? I don't see any Catholics throwing rocks at Jewish people, either in this article, or on this forum. The gunman in the article identified himself as a "Muslim American", not a Catholic.

"Ramsey Clark to Kofi Annan to yes even Pat Buchanan, practitioners of anti-Semitism have stepped up to the forefront ..."

Of these people, the only one I know to be Catholic is Pat Buchanan. The term anti-Semite has been thrown about with such alacrity that it has lost its meaning almost entirely. Well-reasoned, dispassionate criticism of Israeli foreign policy cannot justifiably be equated with irrational, murderous prejudice against Jews. Pat Buchanan practices the former, but not the latter.

I am a cradle Catholic and an American by birth. I do not subscribe to the principle of "Israel, right or wrong" any more than I do to "America, right or wrong". And, while the Catholic Church, _qua_ Church, is indefectible, individual Catholics are not. We have, historically, committed sins, sometimes against Jews. So I don't subscribe to the notion of "Catholics, right or wrong, either."

Those historical facts are undeniable, and Pope John Paul II, of blessed memory, has quite publicly apologied for those sins. That is the act of a people confident enough to practice self-criticism and open themselves to public examination. But slinging the term anti-Semite at those with whom you disagree has become a propaganda device for shutting down rational discussion when such intellectual inquiry doesn't support your prefered conclusions. It is the act of a people who patently _don't_ want their history to be examined very closely. When someone tells me to "pay no attention to that man behind the curtain", I can't help but wonder what they are hiding.

I've noticed that even Jews are not immune from the charge of anti-Semitism. If someone of the Hebraic persuation criticizes Israeli foreign policy, they are labeled a "self-hating Jew", after which nothing they say need be examined. It won't do. In logic, this sort of thing effectively makes of Israeli foreign policy a "non-falsifiable proposition". Such propositions are _a_priori_ off the table, because they are not self-evidently true, and their truth value cannot be tested.

So, the only sensible response to this charge of anti-Semitism is: "Yeah, fine, whatever, everybody's an anti-Semite, even the Jews". In other words, to identify the charge as the smoke-screen it is, and ignore it. So far as I can see, the facts simply don't support the Israeli position in the current conflict. If you want to convince me otherwise, you're going to have to provide substative facts or argumentation. Name-calling does not constitute an argument.

To get back to the article itself, I share the sentiments of the Council on American-Islamic relations (though I am neither Arab nor Muslim personally), which apparently failed to register with you:

"We categorically condemn this and any similar acts of violence ... We pray for the safety and health of those injured and offer our heartfelt condolences to the family of the victims of this attack. We also hope that the perpetrator of this crime is brought to justice."
JJG | 07.29.06 - 10:43 am | #

"Yeah, Israel is using it's F-16s to target old ladies and toddlers because they don't like Lebanon. Sure..."

It's war, isn't it? Everything is permitted, and sooner or later carried out. Terrorization of civilians from the air is as old as air power, starting from WWI.

We can't know what the motive is for bombing civilian targets, unless we're general staff officers or highly-placed officials, but the results are inevitable, no?

Face the truth.
Pavel Chichikov | Homepage | 07.29.06 - 10:50 am | #

JJG,

I think you're right that SOME supporters of Israel wrongly denounce criticism of certain Israeli policies as "anti-Semitism". I'm a strong supporter of the right of Israel to exist and the healthiness of much of its democratic ethos, but there's no question in my mind that there are some policies that cannot be justified morally.

I'm happy to read CAIR's position, especially because some of their officials (if we're to believe Dhimmiwatch) in the past have been associated with terrorist groups.
Tom Haessler | 07.29.06 - 11:04 am | #

It's war, isn't it? Everything is permitted, and sooner or later carried out. Terrorization of civilians from the air is as old as air power, starting from WWI.

We can't know what the motive is for bombing civilian targets, unless we're general staff officers or highly-placed officials, but the results are inevitable, no?

Face the truth.


Pavel you are scaring me! Please stick to poetry.
Squiboda | 07.29.06 - 11:13 am | #

Pavel: "It's war, isn't it? Everything is permitted, and sooner or later carried out."

Well, you're the best illustration of the truth of that proposition if it's a war of words we're talking about, which I think is the only kind you can visualize yourself participating in.

As far as the Israelis go, these atrocities appear to be falling on the "later" rather than the "sooner" side. In fact, it's getting so late, I don't really expect to see them at all.
Anonymous | 07.29.06 - 11:22 am | #

"Well, you're the best illustration of the truth of that proposition if it's a war of words we're talking about, which I think is the only kind you can visualize yourself participating in."

Indeed? You know my life story? Tell me about it.
Pavel Chichikov | Homepage | 07.29.06 - 11:38 am | #

"Pavel you are scaring me! Please stick to poetry."

There's a bulletin just out that Iran radio has rejected the August 31 deadline and ultimatum.

*That's* scary.

Iran is really what this whole crisis is about, IMHO.
Pavel Chichikov | Homepage | 07.29.06 - 11:41 am | #

Tom,

"I'm a strong supporter of the right of Israel to exist"

As am I, if only as a matter of _Realpolitik_. The fact is that it _does_ exist, and peace will never be obtained in the Middle East unless the Arab world acknowledges that fact. Palestinian dreams of reclaiming the old homeland must be abandoned. Though Israel _could_ calm Arab fears by returning to the pre-1967 boarders without any further shilly-shallying. Otherwise, she looks to her neighbors like an expansionist power. Talk of Eretz-Yisrael "from the Nile to the Euphrates" doesn't help in this regard.

Theodore Hertzl, the "father of Zionism", (largely as a reaction to _l'affair_Dreyfus_ in France) had originally proposed Madagascar (among others) as the location for the Jewish state, apparently because he felt that locating it in Palestine would result in unending conflict. Which seems prescient in light of events the last 60 years. But Palestine was a British protectorate, Madagascar a French colony, etc., etc., etc., and here we are.

"... but there's no question in my mind that there are some policies that cannot be justified morally."

Which is, of course, the only point I was trying to make. But honest intellectual inquiry in order to determine which policies are moral and which are not cannot be allowed to be shut down by the overplayed charge of anti-Semitism.

Best wishes, Tom.
JJG | 07.29.06 - 11:59 am | #

Terrorization of civilians from the air is as old as air power, starting from WWI.

What proof do you have that Israel is intentionally targeting civilians? Hezbolla has been stationing military equipment in civilian areas, and forcefully preventing civilians from evacuating those areas. When civilians are used as human shields, the results are inevitable, no?

I think Instapundit summed it up nicely: "the difference is that Israel causes civilian casualties when it misses its targets, Hezbollah causes civilian casualties when it hits its targets."
Stephen | 07.29.06 - 12:05 pm | #

"So, we have to discount the eyeball reports of refugee
after refugee after refugee.

"We have to discount the pictures of destroyed homes,
neighborhoods, cars, trucks, families.

"We are to disbelieve video from the scene."

- private communication

However, if you have proof that Israel never targets civilians, please present it. A neutral source would probably be more believable. Black Room bromides are cheaper by the dozen.

The damage in Lebanon is so widespread, that the only rationalization for it is that the entire country supports Hezbollah or is under its influence, so that the entire country must be leveled. That would be reminiscent of Bomber Harris, who was at least an honest exponent of terror bombing - no hypocrite.

And why would the Israel demand that the Lebanese armed forces control Hizbollah, whiile at the same time it destroys the Lebanese Army and Air Force?

It would seem contradictory, no?

I believe that I'm speaking objectively here. I do get a bit emotional when I see, on both sides, children torn to bits by HE. Aiming katushas at civilian areas is also abhorrent. But one side has the vast preponderance of military strength.

What about you? Are you writing objectively, or do you come with a bias on one side?
Pavel Chichikov | Homepage | 07.29.06 - 12:26 pm | #

"the difference is that Israel causes civilian casualties when it misses its targets, Hezbollah causes civilian casualties when it hits its targets."

I would submit, then, that Hezbollah has made a jolly poor showing of it. When last I saw the numbers, it was 41 Israeli casualities versus about 400 Lebanese.

I do think those numbers speak for themselves, but no doubt you'll provide some explanation of how 10:1 is actually "proportional". Which begs the question, "Are Israeli lives ten times as valuable in the site of God as Lebonese lives?"
JJG | 07.29.06 - 12:28 pm | #

"What proof do you have that Israel is intentionally targeting civilians? Hezbolla has been stationing military equipment in civilian areas, and forcefully preventing civilians from evacuating those areas. When civilians are used as human shields, the results are inevitable, no?"

Stephen:

I forgot to ask: Are you on the scene? Are you writing from Lebanon, or are you taking part in the action? If so, your opinion gains eye-witness credibility.
PavelChichikov | 07.29.06 - 12:50 pm | #

So now this is about Israel supposedly "targeting "civilians?

Silly me, I thought it was about a Jihadi who walked into a Jewish center and shot a bunch of people.

Thanks for clearing that up Pavel. What is your point, exactly?
Janjan | Homepage | 07.29.06 - 1:10 pm | #

I would submit, then, that Hezbollah has made a jolly poor showing of it. When last I saw the numbers, it was 41 Israeli casualities versus about 400 Lebanese.

I'm not saying that Israel's actions satisfy proportionality, but your calculations are wrong-headed. The test isn't whether revenge kills more on the other side than the other side has killed on yours. Revenge isn't a legitimate use of military force and so is the entirely wrong way to look at it. No, proportionality is whether the military action causes greater evils than those it is intended to prevent. So the cost in lives has to be measured against the military objective, not how many Hezbollah has already killed. I think this mistake of yours leads directly to your practical pacifism in a previous thread (when you said that no wars can fulfill the proportionality requirement).
Publius | Homepage | 07.29.06 - 1:33 pm | #

I should have quoted this so that my reply would make more sense:

I do think those numbers speak for themselves, but no doubt you'll provide some explanation of how 10:1 is actually "proportional". Which begs the question, "Are Israeli lives ten times as valuable in the site of God as Lebonese lives?"
Publius | Homepage | 07.29.06 - 1:35 pm | #

The "weighing" involved in proportionality calculus does not give a certain finite weight to the loss of human life (every life, including that of terrorists, is precious and the loss of even only one is the demise of a whole world), but seeks always to limit evil (yes, the death of those prosecuting an unjust aggression is an evil).

I have fully acknowledged my own bias from the beginning of this discussion (strong support for Israel, a love for the Jewish people). But because of the new opportunity opened by Hezbollah's agreement (prodded by non-Hezbollah elements in the Lebanese government) to an international force with a mandate to disarm all militias in Lebanon, and because of the substantial ecological damage caused by the oil spill in the Mediterranean, and because of the great evil of intensification of regional hatreds caused by the Israeli military response, and because of the danger of Iran continuing to gain from this, I now believe that the US is morally obliged to call an immediate cease fire (along with European allies and the Holy See).
Tom Haessler | 07.29.06 - 1:53 pm | #

" So now this is about Israel supposedly "targeting "civilians?

Silly me, I thought it was about a Jihadi who walked into a Jewish center and shot a bunch of people.

Thanks for clearing that up Pavel. What is your point, exactly?"

"1. Truly a real man. All six victims were women. Attention feminists- this could happen to you in other ways if this thug had his way."

'But if he'd gone hunting for them from an F-16 and blown them - and a few toddlers as well - to bits with a laser-guided bomb, would that have been a wonderful demonstration of advanced military technology and a legitimate act of state? And would it have shown him to be a real man, too?'

That's what I said. My point is that we all know that gunning down innocent unarmed bystanders is cowardly, assuming the gunman is competent and not merely a lunatic who thinks he's shooting starship troopers.

But we assume that if the bystanders are atomized by expensive military equipment and highly trained technicians that is somehow nobler.

I've met people who might have been responsible for vaporizing whole cities. One was an American ICBM launch officer, one was the commander of a SLBM submarine, one was the commander of a Soviet strategic missile unit. I've also met the man who targeted Soviet cities for the DOD.

I doubt that most of them, or any of them would have described their duties as 'noble' and themselves as 'real men'.

In the case of a military pilot, there is always the possibility of weapon-caused damage to the aircraft or flame-out or other mechanical difficulties. In that case, the pilot may be killed outright or eject into the midst of an infuriated mob whose kids have just been torn to bits by his fire.

Is he brave? Yes. Is he a 'real man' if and when he targets civilians? I think that's a matter of opinion.

By its own admission, the IAF targets civilians. It says it operates against obstructed military targets.

If someone is on the ground and can testify for or against this assertion, please do so.

I'm not asking for a moral defense, since war itself is in most cases, in a practical, operational sense, ammoral.










I agree, there is some element of risk involved the second case. If a military aircraft suffers a flame-out or other damage and the pilot is forced to eject, he may find himself in the midst of an infuriated mob whose dependents have just been blown to bits by his weapons.
Pavel Chichikov | Homepage | 07.29.06 - 2:11 pm | #

Some mix-up of drafts, above. Sorry.

One again, if you have any evidence from the scene that only obstructed targets have been attacked, please present it.
Pavel Chichikov | Homepage | 07.29.06 - 2:14 pm | #

If I could interrupt this insightful political discussion to get back to the original story....

Apparently, according to my brother, who lives in West Seattle and is a member of the Temple, the local Sikhs guarded the area last night and are coming back today.
Naomi | 07.29.06 - 3:15 pm | #

The term anti-Semite has been thrown about with such alacrity that it has lost its meaning almost entirely.

I myself believe the word "alacrity" is being thrown about here with far too much celerity. It is quickly losing its punch.
cricket | 07.29.06 - 8:19 pm | #

</i>
cricket | 07.29.06 - 8:29 pm | #

I hate to see just war theory conflated with the UN's conventions of less than 60 year of age.

( I hate to see anything conflated actually)

...


(I really hate conflation).
cricket | 07.29.06 - 8:32 pm | #

Sorry, I'm not actually sure what "conflate" means.
cricket | 07.29.06 - 8:32 pm | #

Sorry, I'm not actually sure what "conflate" means.

Siamese zeppelins.
Anonymous | Homepage | 07.29.06 - 8:40 pm | #

Above rotten joke was mine.
Pavel Chichikov | Homepage | 07.29.06 - 8:41 pm | #

As these sad and terrifying events go on, I have often heard persons cite Hezbollah's abduction of two Israeli soldiers as the beginning of the conflict.

However, before the abduction took place, Hezbollah INVADED Israel in order to do so.

It is still valid to question the intensity of Israel's response.

However, we need to remember that it is a response not merely to an abduction, but to an invasion.
Fr. Stephanos, O.S.B. | Homepage | 07.29.06 - 8:56 pm | #

Yes, Father, there was an incursion, but what about this question from a friend:

"I am a bit puzzled by all this actually. Israel stated early on in the
conflict that one of its stated aims was to recover the two kidnapped
soldiers. Yet Israel in indiscriminately bombing Hizbollah targets and
moving vehicles without any consideration that their soldiers may be
present. Yet they also have said they bombed the roads and bridges to
prevent these soldiers being moved out of Lebanon. So they appear to
consider that the kidnapped soldiers may be in vehicles being moved around
the country. They claim to attack ambulances because Hizbollah may be using
them for nefarious purposes. Yet they don't seem to consider that these
nefarious purposes could be the transport of prisoners."

Has anyone an explanation?
Anonymous | Homepage | 07.30.06 - 3:22 am | #

Sorry about that - Haloscan again. The comment above is by Pavel.
Pavel Chichikov | Homepage | 07.30.06 - 3:24 am | #

"...But we assume that if the bystanders are atomized by expensive military equipment and highly trained technicians that is somehow nobler. "

Who assumes that? Who has stated or inferred it?

Classic straw man.

"Yet Israel in indiscriminately bombing Hizbollah targets and
moving vehicles without any consideration that their soldiers may be present."

Really? Any consideration? How do you know what intelligence has led them to hit one target or another?

Do your initial comments not seek to establish moral equivalency between this murdering Jihadist and the actions of Israel?

If so, you will need to demonstrate that Israel is intentionally targeting civilians as primary - heck, as the ONLY - targets.
Tim J. | Homepage | 07.30.06 - 11:33 am | #

It says it operates against obstructed military targets.

How about this:

THIS is the picture that damns Hezbollah. It is one of several, smuggled from behind Lebanon's battle lines, showing that Hezbollah is waging war amid suburbia.

The images, obtained exclusively by the Sunday Herald Sun, show Hezbollah using high-density residential areas as launch pads for rockets and heavy-calibre weapons.

Dressed in civilian clothing so they can quickly disappear, the militants carrying automatic assault rifles and ride in on trucks mounted with cannon.

The photographs, from the Christian area of Wadi Chahrour in the east of Beirut, were taken by a visiting journalist and smuggled out by a friend.

...

The images include one of a group of men and youths preparing to fire an anti-aircraft gun metres from an apartment block with sheets hanging out on a balcony to dry.

Others show a militant with AK47 rifle guarding no-go zones after Israeli blitzes.

Another depicts the remnants of a Hezbollah Katyusha rocket in the middle of a residential block blown up in an Israeli air attack.

The Melbourne man who smuggled the shots out of Beirut and did not wish to be named said he was less than 400m from the block when it was obliterated.

"Hezbollah came in to launch their rockets, then within minutes the area was blasted by Israeli jets," he said.

"Until the Hezbollah fighters arrived, it had not been touched by the Israelis. Then it was totally devastated.
Stephen | 07.30.06 - 12:25 pm | #

"Until the Hezbollah fighters arrived, it had not been touched by the Israelis. Then it was totally devastated.

Just wanted to make sure nobody missed that last bit.
Stephen | 07.30.06 - 12:26 pm | #

There's more from this post at the Volokh Conspiracy, including links.

many commentators in the Israeli media believe that the eight Israeli soldiers killed and dozens wounded a few days ago would not have met this fate if, instead of going house to house to search for Party of God fighters, Israel had leveled the buildings they were hiding in. So the Party of God got at least a partial military victory. Today, Israel leveled a building they were hiding in, which unfortunately also turned out to house many innocent children. So the Party of God gets a propaganda victory. Those who relexively condemn Israel when the Party of God's strategy works (and Israel inadvertantly kills civilians) are being worse than naive; they are encouraging not just the Party of God, but other terrorist groups, to use human shields in the future, as it proves to be an effective strategy.
Stephen | 07.30.06 - 12:32 pm | #

"Today, Israel leveled a building they were hiding in, which unfortunately also turned out to house many innocent children."

I suppose the word 'unfortunately' is supposed to convey compunction.

As I hope to follow Jesus, I would rather die than kill children.

"The images, obtained exclusively by the Sunday Herald Sun, show Hezbollah using high-density residential areas as launch pads for rockets and heavy-calibre weapons."

I wouldn't doubt that Hezbollah are using civilians as shields, although I find it impossible to believe that the IAF knows infallibly when they are and when they aren't. Still:

As I hope to follow Jesus, I would rather die than kill children.

But then, I'm a Catholic and have known His mercy and seen His glory. May the Lamb of God, who was a little child, be honored and glorified forever and ever. Amen.
Pavel Chichikov | Homepage | 07.30.06 - 1:22 pm | #

"...and Israel inadvertantly kills civilians)...."

It knows Hezbollah is there, but it doesn't know that the chldren are there?
People like Arthur Harris and Curtis LeMay, not to mention Winston Churchill, were not so mealy-mouthed. They believed in terror and in killing as many civilians as possible. I respect them for their honesty, though not for the drinking of human blood.
Pavel Chichikov | Homepage | 07.30.06 - 2:07 pm | #

Pavel, I'm sure you mean well. But the trolling you've done on this thread has caused me to lose a great deal of my respect for you.

If you have any sense left, you'll realize that grieving folks from Seattle are probably reading this thread. And you are not doing your cause any good, either.

So put down the keyboard, back away from the computer, and go compose yourself.
Maureen | Homepage | 07.30.06 - 2:38 pm | #

"If you have any sense left, you'll realize that grieving folks from Seattle are probably reading this thread. "

I haven't been writing about Seattle.

Do you look at the grieving parents in Qana with the same emotion as you do when you look at Seattle? You should. When it comes to grief, Seattle and Qana are the same.

Now I'll quit this thread, because it brings up some of my own grief.
Pavel Chichikov | Homepage | 07.30.06 - 4:21 pm | #

No comment, just: Thank God!

http://www.breitbart.com/news/20.../ D8J6I0980.html
Pavel Chichikov | Homepage | 07.30.06 - 5:40 pm | #

Hezbollah is using civilians as human shields precisely because the stunt works on people like Pavel. I recognize that the sovereign state of Israel has a right to defend itself, so obviously Pavel would think that I don't hope to follow Jesus. I recognize that Hesbollah is the bad guy for using children as human shields, not Israel; I guess to Pavel that means I'm not Catholic.
Stephen | 07.30.06 - 7:52 pm | #

"We will not negotiate until the Israeli war stops shedding the blood of innocent people," he told a gathering of foreign diplomats.

My God. Is this man capable of wearing pants? With grapefruits that big, he must be forced to walk around with a kilt on. Israel is at fault for shedding the blood of innocent people??? Hezbollah has the unmitigated gall to hide behind women and children, and then blames Israel when it doesn't work?

Excuse me, I take that back. It's worked perfectly. Israel has defended themselves against Hezbollah attacks by attacking Hezbollah military targets, and the world turns against Israel as a result. I can't say this enough: Israel is attacking military targets. M-I-L-I-T-A-R-Y targets. The fault lies 100% with Hezbollah lining those military targets (which are legitimate targets in war) with women and children. They did that knowing that a decent society (which Israel is but Hezbollah is not)would either not attack such a target, or they would get vilified for doing so. The latter has happened just like Hezbollah wanted, and now Israel has suspended air strikes as a result. Bravo Hezbollah. Your strategy worked perfectly. Don't bother moving out of the civilian areas, since the UN (and the nonsensical like Pavel) will blame the whole thing on Israel.

Seriously: where are the condemnations for Hezbollah for using civilians as shields? For dressing "soldiers" as civilians? Pavel, you have written, by my count, 15 comments on this thread. You've said things like "Aiming katushas at civilian areas is also abhorrent." Not ONCE that I've found have you condemned Hezbollah for hiding military weapons in civilian areas (even when photographic evidence forced you to grudgingly almost admit "I wouldn't doubt that Hezbollah are using civilians as shields").

And Hezbollah's evil tactics are being rewarded by people like Pavel. They are getting exactly the reaction that they want. It's sick. Sick sick sick sick sick. If you want to stop the suffering of women and children in this war, then pray that Israel does their job of crushing Hezbollah quickly. Because as long as Hezbollah is around, this BS is going to continue.

(by the way, Pavel, you asked for eyewitness reports and I gave them to you. Happy?)
Stephen | 07.30.06 - 8:31 pm | #

Stephen,

I think you've misunderstood my position.

If your own kids were being used as human shields, would you approve of the authorities blowing them to bits so as to get at the captors?
Pavel Chichikov | Homepage | 07.30.06 - 9:00 pm | #

Pavel,

I don't believe the authorities are simply targeting "captors." They are targeting missiles, aimed at civilian areas, and killing children too.

Is it really a slam dunk for you that a pilot should never destroy a weapon if civilians might be killed in the strike?

No matter how dangerous that weapon is to the pilot's countrymen...including women and children?
Rick | 07.30.06 - 9:50 pm | #

BTW, the Pope has appealed for an immediate cease-fire. He used the world 'immediate' twice.

"In this moment I cannot help but think of the situation, ever more grave and more tragic, that the Middle East is going through: hundreds of dead, so many wounded, a huge number of the homeless and refugees, houses, cities and infrastructure destroyed," Benedict said. "These facts demonstrate clearly that you cannot re-establish justice, create a new order and build authentic peace when you resort to instruments of violence."

Do you think he is also a dupe of Hezbollah?
Pavel Chichikov | Homepage | 07.30.06 - 9:50 pm | #

"Is it really a slam dunk for you that a pilot should never destroy a weapon if civilians might be killed in the strike?"

If I were an air force general I'd probably want the whole country leveled, no matter who got killed.
Pavel Chichikov | Homepage | 07.30.06 - 10:08 pm | #

Update: 18 posts from Pavel without a denunciation of Hezbollah.
Stephen | 07.31.06 - 1:01 am | #

Oh, and there's this:

Messages sent by the Canadian UNIFIL officer killed in the Israel Air Force attack on a UN post in Lebanon last week indicate that Hezbollah had been firing rockets at Israel from a location near the post "on a daily basis" prior to the IAF attack.

So when Hezbollah isn't using kids as human shields, it's drawing fire to UN outposts.
Stephen | 07.31.06 - 1:05 am | #

"Update: 18 posts from Pavel without a denunciation of Hezbollah."

Along with the Holy Father (see his statement on the news services), most Catholics would like both sides to stop what they're *doing* - immediately - which means the cessation of rocketing of Israel and the use of human shields, and the cessation of the bombing campaign against Lebanon. Even Israel now sees that is necessary - at least for the next 48 hours.

Stephen, you've now become more ultra than the Israeli government itself.

I note you choose not to answer my question, above. I don't blame you.
Pavel Chichikov | Homepage | 07.31.06 - 5:02 am | #

A strategic air campaign against an entire country as retaliation for an incursion and capture of two soldiers was, as Putin said, 'puzzling', unless there was a greater motive. I believe it has much more to do strategically with Iran and Syria than with the initiating incident, or even with Hezbollah. It's also obvious that the air campaign was planned in advance.

OK, that's what nations do. But Israel, which is not my country but which I wish the best, is sowing more dragon's teeth, not solving her problems. I think she has taken bad advice and added her own bad counsel.

As an American, I resent the reported statement of an Israeli public voice that Israel is now acting as the long arm of the United States. It's a stupid thing to say and does no favor either to Israel or us.

I had a very modest part in the downfall of the SU. It was accomplished without direct warfare between the two sides, thank God. Problems between nations *can* be solved without recourse to violence.

Listen to the Holy Father.
Pavel Chichikov | Homepage | 07.31.06 - 5:20 am | #

As said Menachem Begin:

"Christianity is a religion that requires Jews to turn the other cheek."
Dave | 07.31.06 - 11:13 am | #

Some conflicts can be solved without violence. What about this particular conflict?

Imagine that you are the PM of Israel. How would you solve the conflict between Israel and Hezbollah without violence?
Dave | 07.31.06 - 11:14 am | #

Pavel, according to you, the only acceptable military action is one where is no possibility of children being killed.


Can you name just one Christian army in history that ever followed this rule?

Just once?
Dave | 07.31.06 - 11:15 am | #

The latest round of fighting began when Hezbollah attacked Israeli forces on 12 July

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zar...ha% 60b_incident


Do you seem it "proportionate", Paul?

Is it acceptable to kill eight men, injure eleven and kidnap and torture two in order to gain few thousand acres of land?
Dave | 07.31.06 - 11:30 am | #

Hezbollah's official "casus belli" is Israeli occupation of Shebaa Farms, a 20 km2 strip of land. Hezbolah claims it as ancient Lebanese land.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/She...ki/ Shebaa_Farms

The latest round of fighting began when Hezbollah attacked Israeli forces on 12 July

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zar...ha% 60b_incident

Do you seem it "proportionate", Paul?

Is it acceptable to kill eight men, injure eleven and kidnap and torture two in order to gain few thousand acres of land?
Dave | 07.31.06 - 11:31 am | #

I am now definitively out of this discussion, unless someone acccuses me of torturing puppies, or of wanting to be the Emperor of Japan.
Pavel Chichikov | Homepage | 07.31.06 - 12:44 pm | #

I believe that the IDF should attack only those persons wearing the Hezbollah
unifrom.
Tom O'Brein | 07.31.06 - 4:45 pm | #

s/unifrom/uniform/
Tom O'Brein | 07.31.06 - 4:46 pm | #

the local Sikhs guarded the area last night and are coming back today

The Khalsa group of Sikhism (where the men have to wear turbans, etc.) was founded precisely to defend Sikhs from funamentalist Muslims.
Christine | 07.31.06 - 9:27 pm | #

As said Menachem Begin:

"Christianity is a religion that requires Jews to turn the other cheek."

Actually, the person who first told people to turn the other cheek was a Jew, speaking to fellow Jews. More than that, he was the long-awaited king of Israel, the son of David, the Messiah who fulfiled all the prophecies about a successor to David who would institute a messianic kingdom.
Seamus | 08.01.06 - 2:37 pm | #