Another log for the fire

it's easy.

states that desire respect should do everything they can to manage and mitigate "collateral damage."

if you're syria, china, even russia, you don't care about killing innocents. if you're the US, or israel, or western europe, and you're in the business of assuming the moral high ground and claiming to fight "the bad guys," best be playing the game a little more carefully.

because only the bad guys intensively and indiscriminately bomb areas with high levels of non-combatants in them.

so, again, we're back to...

"durandals in highly urbanized areas in beirut." and that is absolutely unexcusable, punitive, and "bad guy" in nature.

for those of you unfamiliar with what a duradal is...

"The Durandal weighs about 195 kilograms (430 pounds) and is parachute-retarded after low-level drop. Once it achieves a nose-down attitude, it fires a rocket booster that slams it into the ground, where it explodes and blasts out the runway. It can penetrate up to 40 centimeters (16 inches) of concrete, and leaves a crater with an area of about 200 square meters (2,150 square feet). USAF F-111s could carry up to 12 of these weapons at a time, while French Mirage 2000s could handle a total of 8." (source - http://www.vectorsite.net/twbomb2.html)

so, yeah, that's cool. anti-runway weapon plopped into population centers.

that's not a "good guy" tactic.
 
Same link:


"In operative paragraph 1 of its 19 October 2000 Resolution, the U.N. Human Rights Commission then: “Strongly condemns the disproportionate and indiscriminate use of force in violation of international humanitarian law by the Israeli occupying Power against innocent and unarmed Palestinian civilians...including many children, in the occupied territories, which constitutes a war crime and a crime against humanity;...” And in paragraph 5 of its 19 October 2000 Resolution, the U.N. Human Rights Commission: “Also affirms that the deliberate and systematic killing of civilians and children by the Israeli occupying authorities constitutes a flagrant and grave violation of the right to life and also constitutes a crime against humanity;...” Article 68 of the United Nations Charter had expressly required the U.N.’s Economic and Social Council to “set up” this Commission “for the promotion of human rights.”
 
Enough of this silliness.

If the UN did their job & forced Lebanon to adhere to Sec Resolution 1559, which puts Lebanese military forces on teh Leb/Israel border none of this would have happened.

If the UN did their job & forced Iraq to comply with 12 Security Resolutions, we wouldn't be in Iraq.

If the UN did their job & followed through with anything, a lot of thngs would be different. They don't, they won't & they should be renamed The League of Nations because the only thing one gets from the United Nations is diplomatic :bs:

Even when they yell at Israel it's over Israels response to attacks or threats. How does one win a war? By killing more of the enemy than the enemy kills of you.

When Hezbollah & Hamas, among others, are disbanded & their respective countries are willing to live alongside Israel, in peace, then & only then will this end. (say, isn't Hezbollah funded by IRAN???)
 
Gonz said:
Enough of this silliness.

If the UN did their job & forced Lebanon to adhere to Sec Resolution 1559, which puts Lebanese military forces on teh Leb/Israel border none of this would have happened.

If the UN did their job & forced Iraq to comply with 12 Security Resolutions, we wouldn't be in Iraq.

If the UN did their job & followed through with anything, a lot of thngs would be different. They don't, they won't & they should be renamed The League of Nations because the only thing one gets from the United Nations is diplomatic :bs:

Even when they yell at Israel it's over Israels response to attacks or threats. How does one win a war? By killing more of the enemy than the enemy kills of you.

When Hezbollah & Hamas, among others, are disbanded & their respective countries are willing to live alongside Israel, in peace, then & only then will this end. (say, isn't Hezbollah funded by IRAN???)
Click to expand...

Or if the UN did their job and forced Israel to their resolutions and Israel was willing to withdraw from illegally occupied territories and live along side other countries this might end. If the US cut of all funding to either side until which time both are in compliance things might even speed up.

See, there you go ignoring half the problem and blaming one side again.
 
Gonz said:
Enough of this silliness.
Click to expand...


yeah. fuck this shit. let's never question what's going on and accept the opinions of armchair ideologists!

maybe we should just find out what rush limbaugh is thinking on this and adopt it as policy.
 
Argue with Gonz all you want, but he will never accept the sky isn't pink.

;)
 
varvel21046960060717.gif
 
Luis G said:
Argue with Gonz all you want, but he will never accept the sky isn't pink.

;)
Click to expand...
*went down there and put tinted lenses in his glasses when he wasn't looking*
 
Leslie said:
*went down there and put tinted lenses in his glasses when he wasn't looking*
Click to expand...

too much, it made him see red.

I mean the ONLY thing he is right about is the Israel thing

*runs away*

j/k
 
Gonz said:
I'm right about damned near everything & correct about it too :p
Click to expand...

Says the daltonic gringo ;)
*adjusts Gonz' hue

But hey, from time to time, the sky looks in fact, pink.
 
2minkey said:
it's easy.

states that desire respect should do everything they can to manage and mitigate "collateral damage."

if you're syria, china, even russia, you don't care about killing innocents. if you're the US, or israel, or western europe, and you're in the business of assuming the moral high ground and claiming to fight "the bad guys," best be playing the game a little more carefully.

because only the bad guys intensively and indiscriminately bomb areas with high levels of non-combatants in them.

so, again, we're back to...

"durandals in highly urbanized areas in beirut." and that is absolutely unexcusable, punitive, and "bad guy" in nature.

for those of you unfamiliar with what a duradal is...

"The Durandal weighs about 195 kilograms (430 pounds) and is parachute-retarded after low-level drop. Once it achieves a nose-down attitude, it fires a rocket booster that slams it into the ground, where it explodes and blasts out the runway. It can penetrate up to 40 centimeters (16 inches) of concrete, and leaves a crater with an area of about 200 square meters (2,150 square feet). USAF F-111s could carry up to 12 of these weapons at a time, while French Mirage 2000s could handle a total of 8." (source - http://www.vectorsite.net/twbomb2.html)

so, yeah, that's cool. anti-runway weapon plopped into population centers.

that's not a "good guy" tactic.
Click to expand...

So what's your point? I don't see a valid one in there anywhere. I also don't see any alternative to the durandel as any other bomb...which explodes at ground level, would do more damage, and would most likely not completely destroy the target, requiring another bombing run.

Now we'll discuss legal targets. Do you know what a legal target is?
 
Gato_Solo said:
So what's your point? I don't see a valid one in there anywhere. I also don't see any alternative to the durandel as any other bomb...which explodes at ground level, would do more damage, and would most likely not completely destroy the target, requiring another bombing run.

Now we'll discuss legal targets. Do you know what a legal target is?
Click to expand...

this is not a tough concept: israel is well known to use excessive force and not give much of a shit about "collateral damage." why is that so hard to understand?

actually i don't really see a point in anything you've said thus far either. and i don't really care what a "legal target" is.
 
spike said:
Legal says who? Don't say the UN or Geneva convention as we know Israel doesn't follow their definition of legal.
Click to expand...

I'd like to see some evidence for that, and something more substantial than a UN resolution. Pictures and news sites would be nice.

2minkey said:
this is not a tough concept: israel is well known to use excessive force and not give much of a shit about "collateral damage." why is that so hard to understand?
Click to expand...

Once again, you don't know what you're talking about. You can quote weapons system statistics all you like, but you'll never get it right until you also look at the alternatives.

2minkey said:
actually i don't really see a point in anything you've said thus far either. and i don't really care what a "legal target" is.
Click to expand...

But you sure have an opinion when it comes to 'excessive force', dontcha? I think I smell a good dose of hypocrisy.
 
2minkey said:
this is not a tough concept: israel is well known to use excessive force and not give much of a shit about "collateral damage." why is that so hard to understand?
Click to expand...

Now we're at the core of the problem. Excessive force? What, exactly is excessive force? Killing the enemy is ugly & brutal. It must be in order to be effective. That's why its called war & nor a walk in the park.

Excessive force...did you know that the US military lost aproxiamtely 98000 men in WW2 in the Asian theater.Compare that to Japan who lost over 1.4 million. Excessive force? Looks like it's the entire point to war. KIll more of them than they kill of you.

When the enemy hides it war machine & weapons caches among civilians, there will be, unfortuantely, collateral damage. Would I be pissed if it was me & mine? Of course I would. I would also be pissed at my side putting weapons caches in Bear Shits in the Woods estates instead of on the frigging base. Oh wait...sorry-terrorists don't have bases except civilian neighborhoods so guess who's gonna get blown up.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top