There are pictures all over the media of children killed during Isralei bobings.

Has Hezbollah caused no casualties in their attacks? Either they are lousy shots or someone is only presenting one side of the story.

I'm hesitent to call all those civilians innocent. I would guess some are. But ultimately if the Lebanese people wanted Hezbullah truely gone they wouldn't have the presence they do now. I'm not buying that all the people of Lebanon are hostages to Hezbullah.

But I guess in that crowd there are still some innocents and the discussion is still valid. It does change the numbers and the argument of disproportionate response though (if there is such a thing).

The critics of Israel’s “disproportionate response” apparently believe that a “proportionate response” would bring peace. Apparently these critics feel that the way to peace is that whenever Hezbollah fires rockets into Israeli cities and towns, then Israel should fire the same number of similar rockets back into Lebanese cities and towns. That when Hamas explodes a bomb in a crowed Israeli market, that Israel should explode a similar bomb in a crowed Palestinian market.

I get the feeling, however, that if Israel adopted such tactics, the current crop of critics would be among the first to castigate Israel for using such tactics. What amazes me are the number of liberals who have taken the side of the aggressors. You know, the ones who have openly stated their propose is the destruction of Israel.

I've never understood this "proportionate response" crap.

Should it go by numbers or percentages?

There's only a few million Israelis but hundreds of millions of Syrians, Saudis, Iranians, etc...who are calling for and aiding the destruction of Israel.

If a muslim extremist attack on Israel kills 10 people or .0001% of the population, should the Israelis kill ten muslim extremists (numbers) or 1000 muslim extremists (.0001%)?

Naturally, the anti-Western forces of the world are calling for a one-to-one response; since Israel is 100 times smaller than her enemies, she can literally be wiped out and the Islamists would barely feel a dent in their population.

As far as I'm concerned, Israel hasn't killed enough militant Islamists yet.

They take out one of yours, you take out 100 of theirs. That would be 'proportionate' in this particular fight.

Hmmmm.

Frankly if the liberals of the world don't wake the hell up and soon the "modern" concept of war will evolve into a form unrecognizable and absolutely dangerous for all peoples.

IMHO is a clear and absolutely proven point that the best way to fight a terrorist group is with another terrorist group.

What this means is a return to proxy wars where terrorist groups are used to fight battles and wars without the limitations imposed on nation-states that would otherwise employ disciplined and legally constrained armies.

By employing tame terrorist groups it would be possible for either Israel or America to conduct murderous attacks, torture prisoners and kidnap opposing clerics, businessmen & politicians without limit. The most valuable weapon in a terrorist insurgent group's arsenal, the willing accomplice that is the media, would be spiked almost completely. While the denouncing of a responsible nation-state has some value to terrorist groups, the media denouncing the actions of another terrorist group has little value.

Case in point is/was the shadow war between Fatah and Hamas. Both employ gunmen, kidnapping, extortion and murder in their attempts to gain the upper hand in Gaza, yet the media has been almost entirely neutralized there.

Another case in point was the effectiveness of the former USSR during the Cold War and it's employment of domestic European and international terror groups to instill social disorder and to target specific individuals. All without any significant downsides during that period.

Frankly I think any significant national power that does NOT have well trained and equipped set of regional and/or international terrorist groups is politically and militarily crippled.

Another case in point:

It is politically impossible for America to assassinate Al-Sadr in Iraq.

It is politically neutral for America to benefit from an "unknown terrorist group" to kidnap and murder Al-Sadr in Iraq.

The downside of all this is that murder will become commonplace and these proxy wars will last for decades because these terrorist groups will be unable to inflict knockout damage in any significant capacity.

Another downside is that you don't have to be a nation-state to sponsor these new-age terror groups. Wealthy individuals and corporations could do so as well. And reap the benefits of having such gunmen available along with the requisite plausible deniability that goes along with them.

Murder. The sport of the 21st century. **If** the ridiculous shackles currently forced onto the militaries of the West aren't quickly removed.

Hmmm.

Is there any question that Israel would not be getting the flak that it is now recieving *and* would benefit heavily if other "unknown" terrorist groups started operating openly in southern Lebanon and began targeting Hezbollah assets, supporters and financiers?

Is there any question that "unknown" terrorist groups operating in Saudi Arabia that targeted wealthy Saudis secretly financing AQ for kidnap, interrogation and death would heavily benefit America? And all without any onus on America whatsoever?

We're at the beginning of a very dangerous path. One where all of the limitations imposed on structured armies are making them more and more ineffective compared to the absolute freedom of action allowed to terrorist groups.

Either the moral equivalency given to terrorist groups must be removed and they treated as they should be, subject to summary execution, and/or the limitations imposed on national armies removed, or we'll start seeing new terrorist groups crop up that will be employed to accomplish specific objectives.

Way too many people on this thread are making the assumption that we could maintain this program for 10 minutes without our fifth column publishing it in the NYT.

Ed..We've already tried this approach, funding fanatical militants like this one and we've seen the unintended consequences. Death squads have been just as counter productive...

If the story that the collapsed house collapsed 8 hours after the missile attack is true, perhaps we could get some of the 9/11 conspiracy folks to construct the scenario of the controlled demolition of that house WITH LIVE CIVILIANS IN IT by HB.

Ed..We've aready tried this approach, funding fanatical militants like this one and we've seen the unintended consequences. I hope you are not advocating a return to openly permitting death squads which can be just as counter productive and also target moderates.

Hmmmm.

@ Steve Crickmore

Ed..We've already tried this approach, funding fanatical militants like this one and we've seen the unintended consequences. Death squads have been just as counter productive...

1. Oh for Christ's sake.

The CIA didn't create OBL, AQ or the Taliban, the Pakistani ISI, amongst others, did. Not the US.

Frankly I'm not going to waste my time explaining this crap for the ten thousandth time. Search the archives for the relevant text.

2. My point is that death squads are never desirable, which is why liberals have to stop pretending that war is somehow subject to civil law.

On the tv news yesterday I watched, absolutely shocked, that a CNN reporter was actually talking about **evidence** in the qana bombing.

Liberals have applied the civil court system to every single aspect of GWOT to the ridiculous point where military operations are now becoming subject to civilian legal restrictions.

The logical response to this idiotic crap is to form death squads, which are not subject to oversight, in order to regain effectiveness.

...those members of Hezbollah who have put their own survival and their own political ends above any and all sense of compassion, responsibility, or integrity.
That description sounds remarkably similar to the Democrat party.

"The choice between right and wrong is sometimes easy. But far too many times the choice is between two bad choices, and we have to decide which will not lead to the most good, but cause the least long-term harm."

Well said. It seems to me that both Israel facing Hezbollah and the US facing Iraq are in situations where there is no such thing as a good choice. Damned if you do, damned if you don't - not just in public opinion, but in cold, hard reality.

On the tv news yesterday I watched, absolutely shocked, that a CNN reporter was actually talking about **evidence** in the qana bombing.

Liberals have applied the civil court system to every single aspect of GWOT to the ridiculous point where military operations are now becoming subject to civilian legal restrictions.

So evidence is only relevant to civil lawsuits? Not criminal lawsuits, or scientific hypotheses, or forensic analysis, or plain old observation of phenomena? Nope, if you mention evidence you are only talking about suing someone for money, right ed?

And who, exactly, is suing whom based on this evidence you heard the CNN reporter talking about? How are "liberals" turning war into a civil lawsuit? What about the rockets Hezbollah has fired into Israel? If the Israelis have evidence that those rockets came from Iran, does that mean they're going to sue them? Or does it just mean that evidence is how you figure out what the fuck is going on?

Since our armed forces (and Israel's) have a code of military justice, and are not subject to prosecution in any other forum (excluding appeal), one wonders what justification you could possibly give to forming lawless "death squads". Since you seem to be justifying it entirely on what you imagine the viewpoint of "liberals" to be, I think the evidence shows that you're an idiot. I think I'll sue.

This is Jenin redux - a manufactured "atrocity." Civilians in Kana were warned to leave. More than 24 hours later, after more rockets were launched from the village, the IAF attacked at 1 a.m. The building collapsed at 8 a.m.

Prepare to hear a lot of baloney like "the civilians couldn't get out." If they couldn't, it was because Hizbollah prevented them from leaving. Certainly the international media had no problem getting there quickly once notified of an "Israeli atrocity."

While elected Democrats are holding fast in support of Israel, the same is not true of their moonbat base. Read this: Kos, Hezbollah, and Israel.

the IAF attacked at 1 a.m. The building collapsed at 8 a.m.

The deaths occured at 1am. What time the remaining rubble shifted and fell is irrelevant.

Don't drink the Fox News kool-aid... it's there for entertainment value only. Fox News is not "news" - it's propoganda.

Little argument with your essay, Jay, except this part:

The way Israel seems to see it is that if they demonstrate that they will not be deterred by Hezbollah hiding behind the innocent, and in fact it is a losing tactic (it ties Hezbollah to a fixed position, and limits their ability to hide or flee), they will stop doing it. In the long run, they think, it will save more lives than it will cost. It's an arguable position.

If I understand you correctly, you're saying that while the tactic of hiding behind civilians works in Hezbollah's favor (ok, you didn't say that, but it does), if Israel keeps taking the bait enough times Hezbollah will stop using the tactic? What possible reason could these terrorists have for abandoning the tactic which a) makes their enemies hesitant to attack, and b) when they do attack, draws sympathy for the suffering civilians and criticism and ire for Israel. Is your hypothesis that the civilians will get so sick of getting blown up that they will turn on Hezbollah? Don't you think it more likely they will blame the people doing the bombing, who they hate to begin with?

But maybe you're ignoring the reaction of anyone but Hezbollah to this strategy. They will, after being attacked in a static position enough times, adopt a new tactic and what, wander out in the open far from civilians? Find another static position not near civilians? Both of these options seem inferior, strategically and long-term, to the current one. Blending among civilians is the best bet for fighters who are severely outgunned; it is the tactic used by all terrorists and guerrilla forces from Algeria to Vietnam to Iraq. They will not stop doing it, and Israel will lose their nerve long before Hezbollah is wiped out.

It's a sad truth and I wish there were a way to destroy Hezbollah with military force, and even if there is, another group will simply sprout up in its place, with neighbor states happily funding it as well.

reposting a comment I made on an older post...

"Lee,"

"Glad to see that you understand that TV propaganda and public opinion are being exploited by Hezbollah. We agree."

They are indeed being exploited, and the US and Israel are doing the same thing as well. It's SOP. The US propoganda machine that feeds Fox News is an example of this system honed to a fine art. At this point Hezzbollah appears to be winning on this front Internationally.

The Republicans in Washington have run our international politcal "sway" into the ground with their "who gives a f*ck what other nations and the UN says" attitude. Yes, Hezzbollah is kicking the US and Israel's asses in the "International Public Opinion" battle -- they are exploiting our weakness in that area.

Rice being sent home with her tail between her legs is another example.

"Would this include, in your opinion, shooting rockets from near a building where there are lots of women and children, knowing that Israel will figure the origin point and bomb? Would not this play right into the above strategy if they were, in fact, bombed? This would indeed be a win for Hezbollah, true?"

Yes, the Hezzbollah appear to me to be trying to draw Israel into a ground war, but making the air attack by Israeli expensive in a "public relations" sense. That's my guess.

"And if true, is it not also true that all who follow along this Hezbollah line are being played as chumps?"

I dont think of anyone as chumps. Everyone pretty much follows very predictable patterns in these kinds of situations -- the UN, Lebananon, the MSM. Propoganda machines like Fox will spin the news in support of the US, but other MSM will report the facts in an unbiased manner - and the inbiased facts (children dying) support Hezbollah.

I was serious when I said above that Asymmetrical Warfare is hell - it really is. The winner has to be smarter than their opponent, not just more powerful, better equipped, have a better air force, etc.

In the past the fact that the United States is involved and standing on Israel's side would have spoken volumes towards the legitimatacy of Israel's effort. The Republican administration has pissed that intertnational political goodwill into the ground. We and Israel are paying the price for that now.

Mantis,
What possible reason could these terrorists have for abandoning the tactic which a) makes their enemies hesitant to attack, and b) when they do attack, draws sympathy for the suffering civilians and criticism and ire for Israel. Is your hypothesis that the civilians will get so sick of getting blown up that they will turn on Hezbollah? Don't you think it more likely they will blame the people doing the bombing, who they hate to begin with?
---------------------------------------------------
So it is the more despicable for people like Anan, the UN, and the anti-Israel crowd in the west to provide more incentives for the Hezbollah to use this tactic. Instead of condemnation in the strongest terms, these despicable people use moral equivalency with passing mention of Hez using civilians for human shields and focusing their condemnation on Israel.

If the terrorists are hiding behind their women/children (who hates you and your women/children to begin with), to blow up your women and children, what would you do? You need to kill them first before they blow up your women/children. That 's what the military solution is for. YOu know better than that.

I dont think of anyone as chumps. Everyone pretty much follows very predictable patterns in these kinds of situations -- the UN, Lebananon, the MSM. Propoganda machines like Fox will spin the news in support of the US, but other MSM will report the facts in an unbiased manner - and the inbiased facts (children dying) support Hezbollah.
---------------------------------------------------
Good point on the UN and MSM: showing their usual despicable behavior of legitimizing the imhumane terrorists.

The unbiased fact is that the Hez terrorists deliberately putting their women/children in danger for propaganda purpose. Without reporting clearly and loudly on this point is biased in the very least.

QUESTION -

If a member/s of a terrorist group commits an act of murder, is the entire group guilty, or just the ones who do the killing?

mantis
Since you seem to be justifying it entirely on what you imagine the viewpoint of "liberals" to be, I think the evidence shows that you're an idiot.
---------------------------------------------------
Again using personal insults to score cheap point again. We don't need to imagine what the viewpoint of "liberals" to be, their actions show who they are already. THe NYT, CNN are showing their liberal viewpoints clearly for all to see.

The logic of moral equivalency conveniently justifying the terrorists 's tactics while demanding perfection from the Is/US will lead to the covert use of terrorist tactics with plausible deniability.

Lee says "I was serious when I said above that Asymmetrical Warfare is hell - it really is."

Lee, that the most honest thing you've ever said about your schizophrenia, ever. Good for you. Keep on those meds.

"The unbiased fact is that the Hez terrorists deliberately putting their women/children in danger for propaganda purpose"

So is that really a fact? Has it been proven? Is there evidence or proof - or just a lot of rightwing bloggers saying it is so....

By the way, Lee, does that mean symetrical war is bliss?

Lee
"The unbiased fact is that the Hez terrorists deliberately putting their women/children in danger for propaganda purpose"

So is that really a fact? Has it been proven? Is there evidence or proof - or just a lot of rightwing bloggers saying it is so....
----------------------------------------------------
THis is from a left or right wing Lebanese blog?
http://www.ouwet.com/n10452/editorials/free-ain-ebel-from-hezbollah-invasion/

http://www.news.com.au/heraldsun/story/0,,19955774-5007220,00.html
Photos that damn Hezbollah

So what are you saying? Hezbollah didn't use civilians as human shields?

BTW, you don't count the NYT and CNN as reliable sources, do you? What are your reliable sources besides these lying propaganda organs?

"So what are you saying? Hezbollah didn't use civilians as human shields?"

No, but i am saying you haven't presented credible, source-verifiable proof that they are. A blog post and an unsourced photo doesn't prove anything.

Lee says "i am saying you haven't presented credible, source-verifiable proof that they are. A blog post and an unsourced photo doesn't prove anything."

Lee, if you've been sodomized once, are you always gay or do you need more verification?

So what are you saying? Hezbollah didn't use civilians as human shields?"

No, but i am saying you haven't presented credible, source-verifiable proof that they are. A blog post and an unsourced photo doesn't prove anything.
--------------------------------------------------
The link for the photo and the story is from one major daily newspaper in Australia and you still don't want to believe it. Given that major leftist sources like BBC, NYT ... can lie to you, this fact jives with your common sense if you still have any.

Hmmm.

@ Lee

No, but i am saying you haven't presented credible, source-verifiable proof that they are. A blog post and an unsourced photo doesn't prove anything.

How about an IDF video showing a Hezbollah truck trundling up to the same residential building that collapsed in Qana, launching several rockets and then driving away?

Or are you unwilling to accept IDF video? And if not video from them, then who?

Some work FOR the terrorists, so their JOB is to defend them unto death. May that point come soon for them all.

Here's a good sequence from EU Referendum.

Hmmmm.

@ mantis

Since our armed forces (and Israel's) have a code of military justice, and are not subject to prosecution in any other forum (excluding appeal), one wonders what justification you could possibly give to forming lawless "death squads". Since you seem to be justifying it entirely on what you imagine the viewpoint of "liberals" to be, I think the evidence shows that you're an idiot. I think I'll sue.

You should try and stop using strawman arguments sometime. Read what I wrote, not what you'd like to think I wrote.