Latest Israeli Leaflet Drop Boasts of "Collective Punishment"
Posted August 9th, 2006 by ringverse
in
Sky News are reporting the latest leaflet drop on Tyre. The following isn't an accurate transcript, just my paraphrasing of what Sky are reporting.
Hassan Nasrallah plays with fire and Lebanon burns.
Hezbollah plays with your future, now you play the price.
signed - The Israeli State
Hezbollah plays with your future, now you play the price.
signed - The Israeli State
Can anybody explain the above as anything other than collective punishment?
Meanwhile, the Beruit Institute for Research is reporting support for Hezbollah as jumping from around 50% to around 90% amongst the Lebanese population...
In our house support for
In our house support for HizBollah has jumped from 0% to 100%.
Hezbollah has some 27 seats
Hezbollah has some 27 seats in the lebanese parliament. Presumably they are there because a significant number of Lebanese voted for them to be there. Therefore it is reasonable to assume that Hezbollah has a substantial following in Lebanon. Generally countries get the governments they desrve in a democracy. The Lebnaese government has allowed Hezbollah to build up its strength and resources in the south, presumably for this event we are all witnessing. In fact the Lebanese government made no move to stop Hezbollah from day 1 of their efforts to kill Israeli citizens with their rockets and bombs. Even now the Lebanese government is supporting them. So it it clear to all that the Lebanese ar content to have Hezbollah in their country rocketing and bombing their neighbour. So why shouldn't the Israeli punishment of Lebanon just be as collective as the Lebanese support for what they are doing? Which other war was selective about who got hurt and how was that achieved? Lebanon failed to remember that you only get to kick a sleeping tiger once, and they are now paying the price. Of course, we all know that this is really the US bashing Syria and Iran by proxy because it can't really have a go at them in its own name, but it matters not a jot on the ground.
Lebanese government made no
Lebanese government made no move to stop Hezbollah from day 1
That's because they are the only viable force that have stopped Israeli invasion of the south.
...their efforts to kill Israeli citizens with their rockets and bombs.
Well, they seem to have managed to kill a lot more IDF than civilians. Unlike Israel.
So why shouldn't the Israeli punishment of Lebanon just be as collective as the Lebanese support for what they are doing?
err, because it's illegal, counter-productive, barbaric, unjust and in-human.
Lebanon failed to remember that you only get to kick a sleeping tiger once, and they are now paying the price
Make your mind up is it Lebanon or Hezbollah? Since when has Israel been "sleeping" - as far as I recall there have been many Israeli incursion over the border since they pulled back in 2000.
I think 'casual observer' is
I think 'casual observer' is one of those troll thingys.
The reason I say that is because a number of days ago the BBC stopped numbering Israeli casualties as X no. IDF and X no. of civilians and decieded to lump them altogether as 'Israeli citizens', no doubt on orders from some Israeli Governmnet propoganda unit.
Maybe this is an attempt to disguise Hezbollahs considerable success against the IDF and feed the lie of Hezbollah 'deliberately targetting civilians' - how exactly do you do that with a WWII rocket btw?
Hezbollah are kicking the IDFs arses big time and they don't like it, like a petulant little child that can't get his own way they scream with their shrill voices to silence the critics.
In our house support for
In our house support for HizBollah has jumped from 0% to 100%.
Hey 'casual observer', should the IDF blow the shit out of Anonymous @ 11:54 now? Wanker.
Casual observer is clearly
Casual observer is clearly unaware as to how very similar that "argument" is to this:
Your democratically elected governments continuously perpetuate atrocities against my people all over the world. And your support of them makes you directly responsible, just as I am directly responsible for protecting and avenging my Muslim brothers and sisters.
Until we feel security you will be our targets and until you stop the bombing, gassing, imprisonment and torture of my people we will not stop this fight. We are at war and I am a soldier. Now you too will taste the reality of this situation.
How bloody depressing all round.
For the casual
For the casual observer:
By collective punishment, the drafters of the Geneva Conventions had in mind the reprisal killings of World Wars I and II. In the First World War, Germans executed Belgian villagers in mass retribution for resistance activity. In World War II, Nazis carried out a form of collective punishment to suppress resistance. Entire villages or towns or districts were held responsible for any resistance activity that took place there. The conventions, to counter this, reiterated the principle of individual responsibility. The International Committee of the Red Cross (ICRC) Commentary to the conventions states that parties to a conflict often would resort to "intimidatory measures to terrorize the population" in hopes of preventing hostile acts, but such practices "strike at guilty and innocent alike. They are opposed to all principles based on humanity and justice."
Gary, you beat me to the point that 'collective punishment' is a common theme, from al qaeda to the IRA...
And there is also the
And there is also the Nuremberg Charter, particularly Principle VI:
The crimes hereinafter set out are punishable as crimes under; international law:
1. Crimes against peace:
1. Planning, preparation, initiation or waging of a war of aggression or a war in violation of international treaties, agreements or assurances;
2. Participation in a common plan or conspiracy for the accomplishment of any of the acts mentioned under (i).
2. War crimes:
Violations of the laws or customs of war which include, but are not limited to, murder, ill-treatment or deportation to slave-labor or for any other purpose of civilian population of or in occupied territory, murder or illtreatment of prisoners of war, of persons on the seas, killing of hostages, plunder of public or private property, wanton destruction of cities, towns, or villages, or devastation not justified by military necessity.
3. Crimes against humanity:
Murder, extermination, enslavement, deportation and other inhuman acts done against any civilian population, or persecutions on political, racial or religious grounds, when such acts are done or such persecutions are carried on in execution of or in connection with any crime against peace or any war crime.
Principle VII should be of interest to Tony Blair:
Complicity in the commission of a crime against peace, a war crime, or a crime against humanity as set forth in Principles VI is a crime under international law.
And here are some of the
And here are some of the orders, which sound curiously contemporary despite being issued 66 years ago, that fell foul of the Nuremburg Charter:
'Against localities from which troops have been attacked in a deceitful or treacherous manner, collective coercive measures will be applied immediately upon the order of an officer of the rank of at least battalion, etc., commander, if the circumstances do not permit a quick identification of individual perpetrators.'
Such harsh measures were justified because 'In this fight, leniency and considerations of International Law are out of place in dealing with these elements. They constitute a danger for [our troops'] own safety and the swift pacification of the conquered territories.'
They are at war for God's
They are at war for God's sake.
General George Patton said in 1942 "You don't win wars by dying for your country. You win wara by the getting the other guy to die for his country" That's what they are both try to do. That's what anyone engaged in an all-out war would do. No point in coming second.
Rule #1 in war: Do whatever you have to do to win before the other side do it to you.
Rule #2 in war: Remember Rule #1 at all times.
QED
Now that is what I call
Now that is what I call circular reasoning.
They are at war for God's
They are at war for God's sake
I think you missed a significant comma out of that. Or perhaps not. In any case, you forgot Rule #3:
Don't do what your opponent would like you to do
Neglect of this has been a common fault of the leaders of the War on Terror, who are more interested in headlines at home and strengthening their power base than defeating Islamic terrorism. To whit:
1) Invading Iraq. Took the eye off Afghanistan, split your focus, reinforced the 'West against Islam' conspiracy theory.
2) Guantanamo, Abu Graibh and numerous massacres. Sends the message that you Arabs are worth nothing to us.
3) Claiming superiority on the basis of our 'values'. See 2) for the refutation
4) Anti-terror legislation designed with both eyes on the tabloids and then unfairly (and illegally) targetted. Followed by another outbreak of 3).
5) Allowing Israel carte blance to maim and murder, followed by another outbreak of 3).
6) Constant bigging up of the threat ('worst since Hitler/Stalin/Genghiz Khan' talk, yes, I'm looking at you, John Reid). Excellent free advertising.
7) Lying. Repeatedly. Leads to wild conspiracy theories being believed (see 1)) instead of the governments that should be protecting *all* their people and have a moral duty to be honest about mortal threats.
Result - alienation, more terrorists, huge costs, less stability, forces bogged down, prospect of defeat everywhere and draconian PR stunts across the board to try and conceal it. Only the rise of a set of strong leaders with clear vision instead of the weak, vacuous cowards we have now will help.