Wednesday, October 21, 2009

The High Cost of Relativity

As far as I know, there's only been one country in the history of contemporary warfare (the last 100 years or so) that HASN'T indiscriminately dropped bombs on an enemy's city (targeting civilians) in retaliation for that same action being done to them. And, yes, folks, believe it or not, that country is Israel..........................................................................................I mean, come on, think about it for a minute. The United States has done it. The British have done it. The Russians have done it. The French have done it. Obviously, the Germans did it in spades. Only Israel hasn't (they actually go out of their way to reduce civilian casualties - often opting for urban "operations" that are far, far, riskier for their own soldiers). But who in the hell is it that the world community constantly pisses upon? Yep, you got it.

7 comments:

Voltron said...

Speaking of dropping bombs, I notice O/Soro's may be turning his back on our men and women in Afghanistan but at least he's fully engaged in the war on FOX news...

(I wonder how his private meeting with Olbermann and Maddow went today?)

Good thing they don't have a perspective...

Vigilante said...

You forgot (or forgave) the 2006 Israeli strikes on Lebanon:

Israel responded to Hezbollah provocations with massive airstrikes and artillery fire on targets in Lebanon that damaged Lebanese civilian infrastructure, including Beirut's Rafic Hariri International Airport

Israel's Air Force flew more than 12,000 combat missions, its Navy fired 2,500 shells, and its Army fired over 100,000 shells.[73] Large parts of the Lebanese civilian infrastructure were destroyed, including 400 miles of roads, 73 bridges, and 31 other targets such as Beirut's Rafic Hariri International Airport, ports, water and sewage treatment plants, electrical facilities, 25 fuel stations, 900 commercial structures, up to 350 schools and two hospitals, and 15,000 homes. Some 130,000 more homes were damaged.

Amnesty International called on both Hezbollah and Israel to end attacks on civilians during the conflict, and criticized attacks against civilian villages and infrastructure by Israel.[136] They also highlighted IDF use of white phosphorus shells in Lebanon.

Amnesty International identified the destruction of entire civilian neighborhood and villages by Israeli forces, attacks on bridges with no apparent strategic value, and attacks on infrastructure indispensable to the survival of the civilian population,[136] and questioned whether the "military advantage anticipated from destroying" civilian infrastructure had been "measured against the likely effect on civilians."[155] They also stated that the Israeli actions suggested a "policy of punishing both the Lebanese government and the civilian population."

Of course, if you want to go back in history, you'll have to forget (forgive) the 1st Israeli invasion of Lebanon (1982) for creating Hezbollah in the 1st place.

And if you want to look through a larger historical lens, you will have to concede that the one power in the Middle East which has not attacked/invaded another country, in my lifetime at least, is Iran.

Will "take no prisoners" Hart said...

I'm on the record, Vig, of being highly critical of Israel's actions against Hizbollah, the overreaction regarding it, etc.. But, unlike what the Arab countries have consistently done to them since 1929, Israel did not target population centers. And the fact that they hit the airport was because that was how Hizbollah was getting its armaments. There's a big difference between "infrastructure" and a crowded pizza restaurant. As for the 1982 Lebanon operation, even though it was justified, I (along with a huge portion of the Israeli public) disagreed with that as well. But again, the Israelis DID NOT target population centers.

Will "take no prisoners" Hart said...

The terrorists are cowardly, Vig. They blend completely into the civilian areas. And they obviously do this on purpose, too. Ergo, THEY are the ones most responsible for the deaths of their own civilians. Amnesty International? They've (along with the UN) had a long standing bias against Israel. Why don't these groups do something about the Kurds, the Tibetans, The Basques, the Armenians. These displaced populations have a much stronger case for nationalism than the Palestinians (a group whose leadership supported the Nazis in WW2 - the frigging Nazis, for Christ!).

Vigilante said...

I believe the Palestinians should have their own nation-state. At the same time I would argue that no national liberation movement that I can think of has had more dysfunctional leadership than have the Palestinians.

OTOH, Are civilian Israelian settlers in the West Bank not part of the problem?

Or do you consider them part of a solution?

Will "take no prisoners" Hart said...

I'm against the settlemets. And, yes, Vig, I, too, support a two-state solution.

Will "take no prisoners" Hart said...

Hey, Volt, I have to admit it. I've been kind of having a war with Fox, too. But, BUT (and I hope you've noticed), I think I've been just as hard on MSNBC/Olbermann. I really try to be fair, TRY being the operant word.