Pine Barrens Mafia Posted August 1, 2006 Share Posted August 1, 2006 I was not the one who brought up the matter of "cowardice", I simply replied to JSP's post where he raised the matter. There's little in modern warfare that is actually "fair". 732684[/snapback] Indeed. That's why the world should get off Israel's back about civilian casaulties. If Hezbollah's hiding among civilians, they'vwe got every right to kill said civilians in order to get to Hizbollah. Surgical strikes don't work. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Alaska Darin Posted August 1, 2006 Share Posted August 1, 2006 Not actually being in Lebanon, I don't know for sure any more than you do that that is definitely the case. 732776[/snapback] Yeah, because that'd be a new tactic. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
chicot Posted August 1, 2006 Share Posted August 1, 2006 Because previous versions of warfare were more fair? Trust me, if this war was being fought 100 or more years ago, Lebanon would be on it's way to being a footnote in history. 732785[/snapback] That's a fair point Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Crap Throwing Monkey Posted August 1, 2006 Share Posted August 1, 2006 I was not the one who brought up the matter of "cowardice", I simply replied to JSP's post where he raised the matter. There's little in modern warfare that is actually "fair". 732684[/snapback] There's little in any warfare that's "fair". Personally...I think fighting a war "fairly" is inhumane and criminal. As I've said numerous times...fight a war to end it quickly, not to be "fair". Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GG Posted August 1, 2006 Share Posted August 1, 2006 From my anti-semetic, terrorist-supporting perspective, that is an amazingly bad article. The other shows a mobile anti-aircraft gun. Since Israel is bombing Beirut constantly, I don't think it's that suprising that anti-aircraft guns should be positioned in Beirut. Where exactly can you position anti-aircraft guns to protect Beirut from aerial attack without putting them in Beirut? Again, it's not as if this weapon is going to be used to fire into Northern Israel. 732609[/snapback] Man those are some snazzy uniforms that the Lebanese army is wearing in those photos. Oh wait, it's not the army? (Let's not lose track of the major point that Hez has a need to "protect" a sovereign nation) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Helmet_hair Posted August 1, 2006 Share Posted August 1, 2006 Gee, I could be wrong but I thought the last time the US carpet bombed civilians with full intent was WWII over Germany??? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
chicot Posted August 1, 2006 Share Posted August 1, 2006 Gee, I could be wrong but I thought the last time the US carpet bombed civilians with full intent was WWII over Germany??? 733119[/snapback] My bad. Substitute "heavy" for "carpet". Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Crap Throwing Monkey Posted August 1, 2006 Share Posted August 1, 2006 Gee, I could be wrong but I thought the last time the US carpet bombed civilians with full intent was WWII over Germany??? 733119[/snapback] Actually, over Japan. The US at least maintained the image of "aiming" at industrial targets in Germany throughout the war (though with the technology of the day, aiming at anything larger than a city with a bomber at 25k feet was wishful thinking). In Japan, though...though the purpose was still to dislocate Japanese manufacturing, given the "cottage industry" nature of much of Japanese industry in 1945 (people were making aircraft parts in their homes, for example), Lemay changed the doctrine of the XX Bomber Command to night firebombing of the most flammable residential suburbs of Japanese cities. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cromagnum Posted August 1, 2006 Share Posted August 1, 2006 From my anti-semetic, terrorist-supporting perspective, that is an amazingly bad article. Of the 3 photos that supposedly "damn Hizbollah", 2 of them are of exactly the same scene, shot from a different angle, so there is only really 2 images. Of these, one shows a fat bloke with a Kalashnikov. So what? What is this supposed to prove? Is he intending to fire his long-range AK47 into northern Israel from East Beirut, where, it is stated, these images came from? The other shows a mobile anti-aircraft gun. Since Israel is bombing Beirut constantly, I don't think it's that suprising that anti-aircraft guns should be positioned in Beirut. Where exactly can you position anti-aircraft guns to protect Beirut from aerial attack without putting them in Beirut? Again, it's not as if this weapon is going to be used to fire into Northern Israel. And then we have the image that supposedly "depicts the remnants of a Hezbollah Katyusha rocket in the middle of a residential block blown up in an Israeli air attack", or rather we don't, as the article strangely leaves out the most relevant photo. According to the blurb: "Hezbollah came in to launch their rockets, then within minutes the area was blasted by Israeli jets," he said. But hang on a minute, the article stated that the images were taken in East Beirut. So Hizbollah are somehow launching Katyushas from East Beirut into Israel?! Hizbollah may or may not be launching rockets from residential areas, as the articles states, but the "photos that damn Hizbollah" prove nothing of the sort. 732609[/snapback] I grabbed the link from a discussion I was reading, I also posted 2 links with a lebanese perspective....Again reinforcing my dem title as terrorist sympathizer unpatriotic commy. Tough to find nuetral ground in the free world, with that and providing links I'm going back to the bunker, cuz the artillery will be coming in the war on christmas Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts