The above is a link to the images. My intent was to create a gallery, of sorts. But I was reminded of dial-up.

[ 16 July 2006: Message edited by: Frustrated Mess ]

They help prevent apathy.

xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx

By the way, I found the most disturbing images not those of dead Lebanese civilians but rather the images of laughing young Israeli schoolgirls, writing messages on the bombs that would kill other school age children in Lebanon.

[ 20 July 2006: Message edited by: N.Beltov ]

quote:

---

Orginally posted by N.Beltov:
By the way, I found the most disturbing images not those of dead Lebanese civilians but rather the images of laughing young Israeli schoolgirls, writing messages on the bombs that would kill other school age children in Lebanon.

---

You are absolutely right as a former Israeli who served; I am embarrassed and ashamed that incidents like these occur. I hope that, the officers that allowed this to occur, get severely reprimanded and are forced to go to these girls school to explain them why this sort of behavior is very wrong.

However equally disturbing are kids in Palestinian schools or at Hamas rallies glorifying suicide bombers, calling the dead martyrs and chanting death to the Jews. As well as being dressed up in military fatigues holding guns, I’m sure this occurs in schools and community organization that are run by the Hezbollah as well, just because you use some money to open a school doesn’t automatically change you from a terrorist organization to a charity.

quote:

---

By the way, I found the most disturbing images not those of dead Lebanese civilians but rather the images of laughing young Israeli schoolgirls, writing messages on the bombs that would kill other school age children in Lebanon.

---

Absolutely disturbing. Of course, any conditioning of children towards military revenge is wrong and bloodrthirsty. Yes, that should include the Palestinian children, but they live under apathaied conditions in the meantime.

This reminds me about taunts that US pilots wrote on bombs that were bound to fall on Yugoslavia during 1999 NATO aggression.
The taunts said: "Happy Easter", and were a direct insult to Eastern Orthodox, whose Easter normally happens 2 weeks after the Western one.
Needless to say this insulted the Orthodox around the world. Some may argue it was even a racist action.

quote:

---

SIR - Irrespective of the rights and wrongs of the situation, am I alone in feeling somewhat sickened at the way in which various messages had been shown scrawled on the weapons? To wish someone "a happy Easter" and deliver that wish on a weapon that at best will destroy property and at worst will destroy life is beyond belief,
(A letter to the editor, April 1999, Daily Telegraph)

---

This is a related topic. Eastern Orthodox(not just Serb ones) were insulted over such insensitivity during the criminal spring 1999 bombing campaign. Be sure that Yugoslavs wont forgive US for this barbarity for many years.

Muslims have also had their mosques blown up in Iraq and Aphganistan, their clerics harassed. Their faith humiliated in Abu Graib and many other locations.
Since Israeli methods and contempt for enemies mirror that of the Americans, how do you expect the non-Western conutries view these endless insults?????

[ 20 July 2006: Message edited by: BetterRed ]

quote:

---

Yes, that should include the Palestinian children, but they live under apathaied conditions in the meantime.

---

Apartheid is your definition and your point of view. I won’t deny that the conditions there living in are harsh and unfair. My personal opinion is that it is wrong compare to apartheid. But lets not talk about that here that would cause the thread to drift.

quote:

---

these other places children still don’t hate as much nor are the encouraged too.

---

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lord's_Resistance_Army

I think when they realize what we have done to their planet, our children and grandchildren will hate us. Hate and love are two of our strongest emotions and hate is so easily stirred.

You know, though, Arabs and Jews live together, here, and socialize as equals and one does not threaten the other. The same is true for Irish Catholics and Protestants, and many others who have fled violence in other parts of the world.

The problem is not people and it is not religion and it is not ethnicity. It never has been. The problem is imperialism, money and politics and the willingness of those who hold power to manipulate people through their beliefs and ignorance.

If you remove the generals, the politicians, the businessmen, and the economists, the Palestinian and Israeli people would probably find peace very quickly and they would probably find they have no reason for borders, or fences, or fear of each other.

[ 20 July 2006: Message edited by: Frustrated Mess ]

No children deserve that fate, I don't give a fuck who their adults are or what they do.

What if those pictures contained images of US Solders proudly posing over dead Iraqi Troops? They would be declared monsters. But for some reason it's acceptable for Arab civilians to empty out body bags in front Westerner's with camera's?

I remember one story Ian MacDonald of CBC broadcast a few years ago when the Second Intifada got underway. There was a Red Crescent ambulance with casualties racing away from the predictable aftermath of a Palestinian stone throwing mob vs. highly trained IDF forces. When the ambulance saw The CBC crew it pulled over to the side of the road and the driver jumped out, flung open the back doors (this was all on camera) and dumped the corpses at the feet of the cameramen. I've never seen anything like it. Hopefully there wasn't anyone in the ambulance needing medical attention.

Indeed during that conflict, and this one, showing us the horrifying results of civilians deaths is part of the terrorist psychological warfare. They know we are peace loving, they know we don't raise our children as suicide bombers. This is why they plan, prepare and launch attacks from civilian areas (again, another Geneva Convention violation).

quote:

---

In the midst of its campaign against Hizbollah and Hamas "terrorists", Israel has been accused by Britain of feting Jewish "terrorists" whose bomb attack killed 28 Britons 60 years ago today.

The accusation, which reopens the debate about the use of politically-inspired violence in the region, follows the unveiling of a plaque commemorating the attack on the King David hotel in Jerusalem on July 22, 1946, by the Irgun Jewish "resistance" to British mandate rule in Palestine. The 28 Britons were among 91 people killed.

---

The pictures don't say

"These civilians were not targeted by the IDF, those bombs were meant for trained killers of Hezbollah"

"Hezbollah is committed to the destruction of Israel. No withdrawal, no appeasement by Israel will change their minds."

quote:

---

Originally posted by EriKtheHalfaRed:
What really creeps me out is guys like you who crawl out of the woodwork to defend every last outrage. 'We care' more than 'Hizbollah' does, what does that even Mean? Since when is showing the very real casualities of 'our' war another act of 'terrorism'? No, don't bother answering, I no longer expect rational responses from apologists for arbitrary power. Why there are so many nowadays I'll never understand.

---

It means that when Hezbollah launches attacks on Israeli civilian area's it does so from Lebanese civilian area's. At once this drags in those innocent Lebanese into their own war with Israel. That is a major injustice (and a violation of the Geneva Convention), and shows callousness on Hezbollah's part to endanger their fellow Arab. Or do you agree with these actions?

quote:

---

The pictures don't say

"These civilians were not targeted by the IDF, those bombs were meant for trained killers of Hezbollah"

"Hezbollah is committed to the destruction of Israel. No withdrawal, no appeasement by Israel will chan

---

Those messages convey a truth far greater and more meaningful than any university trained "communications specialist" could possibly deliver. I can understand why those who approve of such "measured" responses would prefer the images were never viewed.

[ 22 July 2006: Message edited by: Frustrated Mess ]

quote:

---

Originally posted by Frustrated Mess:

They don't say that because it isn't true. What they say is Israelis are dropping bombs on innocent people, utterly destroying lives physically and spiritually, to avenge, ostensibly, one captured soldier.

Those messages convey a truth far greater and more meaningful than any university trained "communications specialist" could possibly deliver. I can understand why those who approve of such "measured" responses would prefer the images were never viewed.

[ 22 July 2006: Message edited by: Frustrated Mess ]

---

In any case, yes, I do believe that Israeli forces are killing civilians on purpose. Check out this article by Robert Fisk:

http://www.informationliberation.com/?id=13339

"It will be called the massacre of Marwaheen. All the civilians killed by the Israelis had been ordered to abandon their homes in the border village by the Israelis themselves a few hours earlier. Leave, they were told by loudspeaker; and leave they did, 20 of them in a convoy of civilian cars. That's when the Israeli jets arrived to bomb them, killing 20 Lebanese, at least nine of them children. The local fire brigade could not put out the fires as they all burned alive in the inferno. Another 'terrorist' target had been eliminated."

mas·sa·cre : The act or an instance of killing a large number of humans indiscriminately and cruelly.

If 20 civillians counts a a massacre, what would you describe the deaths of aprox. 3000 Americans on 9/11?

quote:

---

Originally posted by Michael Nenonen:
Taylor, the question of whether or not Israel is killing civilians "on purpose" is ethically irrelevant in this situation.

---

Oh no it isn't. Intent is so much of what makes up our civilisation. That's why we have degree's of murder convictions, and corresponding punishments. Example:

Scenario 1: Man is angry at Corner store worker for sleeping with his wife. Man wants to kill worker, so he enter's the store, shoots worker dead. Man is convicted of 1st degree murder (intent to kill) and goes to jail for 25 years.

Scenario 2: Man robs corner store for money to support drug habit. During robbery he shoots and kills store owner. Man is convicted of 2nd degree murder (intent was to steal money, but a deadly weapon was used, murder happened during attempt). Man goes to jail for 15 years.

Scenario 3: Man is drunk and runs over store owner while he was walking home from work. (intent was to go home, yet done while drunk - thus illegal). Man is convicted of manslaughter, 5 years in jail.

So my friend - all that to say since our judicial system takes intent into consideration, so should we who pass judgement on Israel.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Cueball:
Well, if the machines are so fallible and the pilots so gutless or immoral as not to be able to tell their superior officers that the will not fly missions that are very unlikely to succeed, and may very well result in mass collateral damage, they should be shot down.

---

Yes - Rogue Fighter Pilot's flying hi-tech weapons of war, making decisions all on their own, based on limited intel. I can imagine the chaos’s now.

The specific operation method which Israel is using today is a direct decendent of the operational method first concieved of by Giulio Douhet and put into practice Luftwaffe in the Battle of Britian, and later continued by the mass murderers at the allied air command in their bombing campaigns over Germany.

quote:

---

Douhet believed in the morale effects of bombing. Air power could break a people's will by destroying a country's "vital centers". Armies became superfluous because aircraft could overfly them and attack these centers of the government, military and industry with impunity. Targeting was central to this strategy and he believed that air commanders would prove themselves by their choice of targets. These would vary from situation to situation, but Douhet identified the five basic target types as: industry, transport infrastructure, communications, government and "the will of the people".

---

Thing is Douhet was wrong, as proven both by the Blitz over London, and by strategic bombing campaign over Germany. In the first case the will of the British people was not undermined but rather galavanized, and in the second German war production was not impacted, and in fact increased under the tutelage of everyones favourite Nazi Albert Speer.

Further, US army psychologists studied the impact of the ariel campaign over Germany only to discover that German civilian moral and psychological state was barely impacted by the startegic bombing campaign.

Ask the Vietnamese. After 1970 there was not a single undamaged concrete structure existant in North Vietnam, except for a thin 10km zone along the Chinese border. Did that achieve anything? Nothing at all, in fact, many reports indicate that the bombing only encouraged enlistment.

So it is not an issue of wether or not these type of mission are "unlikely to succeed," in achieving the stated goal, but in fact that they are clearly proven to be counter-productive, to those goals, so assuming that IAF are not completely daft we have to assume that the real goal is other than the stated goal.

Now of course the people in the IAF are not stupid and they have studied all of this, so what are they up to?

Seriously, if one was really interested in aiding the ability of the Lebanese army to take over the Hezbollah positions in south Lebanon, why would attack their capacity to do that by blowing up key infrastructure and attacking thier bases and killing thier soldier. Same old shell game. Just like when they said they were trying to get the PA to take on Hamas, by blowing up the PA police stations, their court houses, their jails, thier vehicles and killing their security people.

Confused? Take heart, you are not the only punter who is confused:

quote:

---

"These have not been surgical strikes. It's very, very difficult to understand the kind of military tactics that have been used. You know, if they're chasing Hizbollah, then go for Hizbollah. You don't go for the entire Lebanese nation."

---

The British Foreign Office minister Kim Howells,

There is another agenda obviously.

I suggest to you that Israel is engaged in a deliberate act of provocation as brinksmanship intended to polarize, rather then to defuse tensions in the region, as they are desperately trying to avoid a situation in which the US will negotiate a settlement with Iran on the nuclear fuel issue.

A negotiated setllement? My god that would be a crime against war itself, as Rab Hacohen put it in this his clever disection of Israeli preverication over previous Syrian peace overtures.

[ 23 July 2006: Message edited by: Cueball ]

..and this one-such an (ass)holy man:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Taylor_Riel:
[QB]From Answers.com:

mas·sa·cre : The act or an instance of killing a large number of humans indiscriminately and cruelly.

If 20 civillians counts a a massacre, what would you describe the deaths of aprox. 3000 Americans on 9/11?"

QB]

---

So, Taylor, if my friends and I went out and burned twenty people alive, including at least nine children, that wouldn't count as a massacre?

You've also rather conveniently ignored the evidence I've provided that Israeli forces have, in this documented case, specifically targetted civilians...in fact, they lured these civilians into an ambush.

By the way, has anyone on this board ever described 9-11 as anything besides a massacre? You've erected a straw man in a clumsy attempt to divert attention away from the flaws in your argument.

And regarding the ethical distinction you're drawing between intentionally killing civilians and knowingly killing civilians, here's an article written by philosophy professor Michael Neumann:

http://www.counterpunch.org/neumann1121.html

"Take the claim that shooting children at point-blank range is morally equivalent to bombing them from a great height. You might object that the latter, as practiced in, say, Afghanistan, is accidental. But it isn't quite. Certainly the people who planned the campaign in Afghanistan knew that children would be killed with as much certainty as the attacker at the Metzer Kibbutz knew this. Or, as the Michael Lerners of the world might put it, they knew with certainty that innocent children would be blown apart, torn limb from limb. They did not want to kill any particular child, but they intended to do something they knew full well would kill children. Even from an ivory tower, that doesn't seem so different from intending to kill the kids."

But let's ignore for a moment the evidence Neumann marshalls against your argument, and turn to the contradictions within your argument. In your hypothetical cases 2 and 3 the criminals did not set out with the knowledge that they would kill innocent people; furthermore, in both of these cases the criminals were either addicted or intoxicated when they committed their crimes. Neither of these conditions holds for the Israeli forces: they set out knowing full well they would kill innocents--in fact, lots of innocents--and they set out to do so after extensive, fully lucid military planning.

But, again ignoring all of this evidence against your case, let's assume for a moment that Israel can't be condemned for manslaughter in this instance because war is legal. If so, then they can't be condemned for murder, either. If this is the case, then neither can Hezbollah be condemned for either manslaughter or murder; after all, they're waging a war against Israel, because war, as you've said, is "legal". The sword that you're using cuts both ways.

Unfortunately, there are problems with this part of your argument, too, as not all wars are "legal". Wars of aggression are considered the gravest violation of international law, and are explicitly illegal. As the evidence is mounting that this is a war of aggression on the part of Israel, your assertion that this war is "legal" loses a great deal of traction.

[ 23 July 2006: Message edited by: Michael Nenonen ]

[ 23 July 2006: Message edited by: Michael Nenonen ]

quote:

---

Are you saying then "Fustrated", that Israel is trying to civillians on purpose? That would only bring international presure upon themselves. You don't give the Israeli's much credit, do you? Don't you think they are trying to be more strategic in the millitary actions?

---

Look at the posting just above this one. It is about the way they dress. No doubt next we will hear from Israeli supporters that is the smell of the strange dishes they ook that makes them evil.

[ 23 July 2006: Message edited by: Frustrated Mess ]