The story is presently showing on the BBC web site, for a very brief period only, I wonder did their various
news channels pick it up for peak time news reports, doubt it ..

 http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/6075408.stm

Human Rights Watch reported that Hezbollah also fired Cluster munitions at Israeli civilian areas.

 http://www.hrw.org/english/docs/2006/10/18/lebano14412.htm

Whilst accusing the UK Press of ignoring what Israel did - even though phosphorus bombs are not illegal - it's quite telling that you completely ignore the behaviour of Hezbollah terrorists

Um, if you read the report carefully, you'll note that HRW's only source for that particular allegation is Israel. Not exactly credible.

But this is a Distraction from Israel's deliberate War Crimes, in a war planned long before the Mossad murdered Hariri, and blamed Syria ...

All indiscriminate attacks are war crimes. Dropping white phosphours on a civillian area is quite definitely indiscriminate and illegal.

Jordan "I'm not a racist but..."

AFAIK HRW use only eyewitness reports/documents that can be corroborated. I can't see anything from the report that suggests this isn't the case. I suppose Mossad shot the boy with ball bearings and got his family to lie to HRW?

Sounds a lot like "I fell arse-first on the sauce bottle changing a light bulb with no pants on doctor..."

I suppose next you'll accuse HRW as being pro-Israeli and anti-Lebanon. Go on I dare you!

Your signature speaks volumes about your dehumanisation of Jews.

If you have evidence that disproves the HRW report- which actually makes a point of mentioning how Israel's illegal strikes far outnumber Hizbollah's.

And this is coming from someone who going on trial for preventing Israeli munitions passing through my local airport.

Fuck off.

You are blatently transparent.

If you think you can equate the use of 113 cluster TYPE munitions targeted at the military artillery emplacements surrounding the shelterless Arab villages within israel occupied territory with 1 000 000 actual cluster munitions deliberately dropped on civilian areas and agricultural land designed only to maim and destroy the economic viabilty of land that israel; coverts ...

... then you are a deathcult worshipping racist supreamacist settler anti-semite.

Fact is that the 113 munitions used by the Lebanese national resistance were designed to explode and cause maxiumum damage immeadiately ... such additional materials like ball bearings etc don't make a pretty impression, but they aren't designed to sit around for up to 10 years and go off when the first child attracted to its strange colours touches it.

And this is without even mentioning the phosphorus, the deliberate targeting of civilian infrastucture, the destruction of power supplies and the pollution of international waters, the targeting of internation peacekeepers and observers and the deliberate targeting of world heritige sites of ancient origin.

Now fuck right off.

Um, I totally agree with everything you say 100%. Perhaps, I didn't express myself properly.

I am sneering at one of our Jew-hating trolls who seems to think all Jews are lying conspirators.

I have read 3 extensive reports on the Israeli attacks and the Lebanese response as part of my defence. It's quite clear that Israel seized the opportunity to commit numerous warcrimes and thet Hizbollah largely attacked military targets- and largely beat them back against all odds.

I do however regard whoever fired the indiscriminate ordinance at the Israeli civillians as war criminals. I try not to keep double standards. Double standards like are precisely the dehumanisation that turns people into war criminals.

The US and UK are complicit in the Israeli war crimes by supplying and helping to supply muntions knowingly to be used in war crimes.

That clear enough?

... perhaps ...

... but could you tell me why, in a time of warfare, replying to attacks on your land with munitions designed to take out the guns aimed at you, this is 'indiscriminate ordinance'?

The figures (which I will endevour to mug up on and pass on) suggest that the Lebanese national resistance took every step possible ... given the impossible position they were placed under by indifferent and, sometimes, coniving international powers following the false flag assasination of Hari and the subsequent removal of the protection of the Syrian army ... to reply on military targets using military weapons.

The bombardment of Hafia however, seems like a more likely candidate for inspection ... given that this port was the underlying reason that this planned aggression was carried out (its importance in the oil economy israel wants to develop with oil pumped from the iraq[sic] fields) and that therefore it was strategically necessary to ensure that the message that Hafia was vunerable was delivered ... this does not excuse the Lebanese national resistance from the accusation that they engaged in collective punishment.

Then again, no one attempted to promote the trial of Bomber Harris after WWII, even though his was a similar tactical manouver ... the reason being, I suppose, aggressors should know that total warfare is an invite to equivalance and this should, therefore, act as a deterant!

Equating the objection to zionism with hatred of jews is morally bankrupt ... and another way for these killers to hide within the civilian population.

I don't buy that "They started it!" is a convinving defence. I recognise Harris as a war criminal. The reason he didn't get tried was because no-one with any influence was interested.

Go ask the old pensioners of Hamburg, the Ruhr Valley, Berlin and Dresden if they think that Harris is a hero.

I have no sympathey for prople with dehumanised double standards and if you sign up to the Geneva Convention what is your excuse to completey ignore it and become a war criminal yourself.

I also believe like the convention that all people are of equal value.

So, I take it by your reasoning the Red Army had every right to carry out rape missions against German females? After all, the Germans soldiers were doing it to them first.

That Japan has the right to nuke a couple of cities in the US... and Germany for providing the technology? How about Vietnam napalming a load of American villages and skinning a few kids alive?

Sounds to me like the same fucked up sophistry that has perpetuated every intractable national war.

I don't buy that "They started it!" is a convinving defence. I recognise Harris as a war criminal. The reason he didn't get tried was because no-one with any influence was interested.

Go ask the old pensioners of Hamburg, the Ruhr Valley, Berlin and Dresden if they think that Harris is a hero.

I have no sympathey for prople with dehumanised double standards and if you sign up to the Geneva Convention what is your excuse to completey ignore it and become a war criminal yourself.

I also believe like the convention that all people are of equal value.

So, I take it by your reasoning the Red Army had every right to carry out rape missions against German females? After all, the Germans soldiers were doing it to them first.

That Japan has the right to nuke a couple of cities in the US... and Germany for providing the technology? How about Vietnam napalming a load of American villages and skinning a few kids alive?

Sounds to me like the same fucked up sophistry that has perpetuated every intractable national war.

... war is bad, hmmm ok?
... drugs are bad, hmmm ok?
... bad things are bad hmmm ok?

What are you a character from south park?

Now explain, if you can, just exactly the 'correct' response to preplanned aggression from a superior military power ... that keeps you smelling of roses!

Would you not want your family to be protected from being targetted by inaccurate weapons just because your country has broken international law?

I suppose you'd be pretty distraught if you came home to find your kids splattered all over a wall. Especially when your country has signed up to a convention that forbids human shields and the targetting of human shields when there is no of guaranteeing the safety of the people near the military installation .

So, I guess you support the PIRA, the UDA, suicide bombers, general pinochet... and theoretically you should be supporting Israel.

But I reckon the nub of the problem is your racism that lets you permit the targetting of civillians of one country (Israel) and not the other?

Which makes you a hypocrite.

 http://www.icrc.org/ihl.nsf/7c4d08d9b287a42141256739003e636b/f6c8b9fee14a77fdc125641e0052b079

Part IV. Civilian Population

Section I. General Protection Against Effects of Hostilities

Chapter I. Basic rule and field of application

Art 48. Basic rule

In order to ensure respect for and protection of the civilian population and civilian objects, the Parties to the conflict shall at all times distinguish between the civilian population and combatants and between civilian objects and military objectives and accordingly shall direct their operations only against military objectives.


Art 49. Definition of attacks and scope of application

1. "Attacks" means acts of violence against the adversary, whether in offence or in defence.

2. The provisions of this Protocol with respect to attacks apply to all attacks in whatever territory conducted, including the national territory belonging to a Party to the conflict but under the control of an adverse Party.

3. The provisions of this section apply to any land, air or sea warfare which may affect the civilian population, individual civilians or civilian objects on land. They further apply to all attacks from the sea or from the air against objectives on land but do not otherwise affect the rules of international law applicable in armed conflict at sea or in the air.

4. The provisions of this section are additional to the rules concerning humanitarian protection contained in the Fourth Convention, particularly in part II thereof, and in other international agreements binding upon the High Contracting Parties, as well as to other rules of international law relating to the protection of civilians and civilian objects on land, at sea or in the air against the effects of hostilities.

Chapter II. Civilians and civilian population

Art 50. Definition of civilians and civilian population

1. A civilian is any person who does not belong to one of the categories of persons referred to in Article 4 (A) (1), (2), (3) and (6) of the Third Convention and in Article 43 of this Protocol. In case of doubt whether a person is a civilian, that person shall be considered to be a civilian.

2. The civilian population comprises all persons who are civilians.

3. The presence within the civilian population of individuals who do not come within the definition of civilians does not deprive the population of its civilian character.


Art 51. - Protection of the civilian population

1. The civilian population and individual civilians shall enjoy general protection against dangers arising from military operations. To give effect to this protection, the following rules, which are additional to other applicable rules of international law, shall be observed in all circumstances.

2. The civilian population as such, as well as individual civilians, shall not be the object of attack. Acts or threats of violence the primary purpose of which is to spread terror among the civilian population are prohibited.

3. Civilians shall enjoy the protection afforded by this section, unless and for such time as they take a direct part in hostilities.

4. Indiscriminate attacks are prohibited. Indiscriminate attacks are:
(a) those which are not directed at a specific military objective;
(b) those which employ a method or means of combat which cannot be directed at a specific military objective; or
(c) those which employ a method or means of combat the effects of which cannot be limited as required by this Protocol;

and consequently, in each such case, are of a nature to strike military objectives and civilians or civilian objects without distinction.

5. Among others, the following types of attacks are to be considered as indiscriminate:
(a) an attack by bombardment by any methods or means which treats as a single military objective a number of clearly separated and distinct military objectives located in a city, town, village or other area containing a similar concentration of civilians or civilian objects;

and

(b) an attack which may be expected to cause incidental loss of civilian life, injury to civilians, damage to civilian objects, or a combination thereof, which would be excessive in relation to the concrete and direct military advantage anticipated.

6. Attacks against the civilian population or civilians by way of reprisals are prohibited.

7. The presence or movements of the civilian population or individual civilians shall not be used to render certain points or areas immune from military operations, in particular in attempts to shield military objectives from attacks or to shield, favour or impede military operations. The Parties to the conflict shall not direct the movement of the civilian population or individual civilians in order to attempt to shield military objectives from attacks or to shield military operations.

8. Any violation of these prohibitions shall not release the Parties to the conflict from their legal obligations with respect to the civilian population and civilians, including the obligation to take the precautionary measures provided for in Article 57.

Chapter III. Civilian objects

Art 52. General Protection of civilian objects

1. Civilian objects shall not be the object of attack or of reprisals. Civilian objects are all objects which are not military objectives as defined in paragraph 2.

2. Attacks shall be limited strictly to military objectives. In so far as objects are concerned, military objectives are limited to 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.

3. In case of doubt whether an object which is normally dedicated to civilian purposes, such as a place of worship, a house or other dwelling or a school, is being used to make an effective contribution to military action, it shall be presumed not to be so used.

____

Your question of how to counter a superior force makes little sense as Hizbollah won the conflict (beat them to a standstill or ejected them from their territory) despite Israel's massive war crimes; Lebanon's numerically minor number of cluster bombs hitting civillians are still however war crimes and the person responsible should be prosecuted as should the responsible Israelis, US and UK people who facilitated the munitions supplies.

The likelihood of either side fulfilling those obligations are pretty slim.

... lets leave the hypothesising and strawman arguments aside for a moment and get back to the issues.

No one - including me - who valuse the concept of human rights etc, likes to see warfare.

To attempt to posit equidistance in this conflict is either a well rehearsed line in disinformation or just plain nievity.

For all you dramatic and emotionally charged examples, you have failed to answer the basic question put to you:

How would you have responded to the preplanned aggression against [your] nation, and one designed to achieve an objective not stated for the staged tear jerk show of 'kidnapped' soilders, but for territorial absorbtion and the wholesale destruction of resistance to israeli 'absolute' power in the region?

Bearing in mind that this tactic involves the collective punishment and terrorisation of a population in order to cleave them away from the distinct and democratic path of national unity and resistance to zionist regional aims ...

... should the Lebanese national resistance have sat on its hands and the weapons it had to protect itself ... or at least ensure that the israeli aggression had a price, politically if not militarily, to pay?

The tactic YOU employ, to attempt to imply that by not giving my support to the concept of EQUAL responsibility to the attacked and the attcker, makes me a 'racist/anti-semite/dehumaniser' is silly.

Quite simply, the israeli war machine is racist and anti-semitic and dehumanisises civilian populations every day, as a matter of course and operational necessity ... there is no equality to be drawn from its actions and the actions of those who resist it.

That is my final position at the end of the day, although I would like to say that:

... your research is very good
... your point is valid from a compassionate human centred approach and I appreciate it more than my stupid hubris has allowed me to show
... and that I apologise for any intemperate and irrational words directed towards you personally, rather than at he concepts you are using.

Please do write back and perhaps if you keep banging away at my thick head we might reach some aggreement to the advancement of both of us.

Your line, I will state yet again, is self-contradictory. Hizbollah WON the conflict with very few war crimes in comaprison to Israel. You've already answered that for yourself.

As to what you should when an opposing force uses human shields: that has been answered in the excerpt from the Geneva Conventions Protocol 1 above. You never target civillians.

Both States of the conflict are signitaries to the Convention (however, I'm not sure that Hizbollah are technically bound to it?).

It's simple as that. If civillian, don't shoot. You think that civillians are legitimate targets? You think you and your family deseve to get blown to shit whilst watching the telly and posing no threat to anyone?

You can't bang on about the crrimes of Israel against the civillians in Lebanon and say "Who gives a shit about a few dead Jews" when it comes to the flipside of the coin.

... er ... war is bad, mmm ok

Yet again the term 'jew hatred' is thrown into the ring ... how limiting ... how boring ... how transparent.

End of communication.

Where did I make any value judgements on virtue of war. (Note the rehtorical question). I have a rather neutral outlook on the matter, it'll happen whatever your outlook, but unlike you I don't look upon killing as some sort spectator sport, and am not so glib about other people's suffering.

If I was a mean spirited person I'd wish that someone close to you became "collateral damage" just to give you the good slap you need. But I wouldn't wish that even on my enemies- notional or real.

I suspect it's going to take someone cleverer than I to disabuse you of your childish racial stereotypes.

Must truly be blissfull to be ignorant judging by how tenaciously the stupid cling to their oversimplified worldview.