How can Hizbollah use civilians as Shields?

[Carl21014]

I've heard this again and again from Israeli spinmiesters as a justification for the civilians Israel keeps killing. But it makes no sense because for as long as Isreal has been on this earth they have never not blown up a building because it had civilians in it. They don't give a wit - it could be a hospital filled with half dead, women, children, and a small group of american activists standing in front waving flags, a reporter filming the place and a UN compound overlooking the region. The IDF would drop bombs using the Red Cross for a target, run the Americans over with a bulldozer, shoot the reporter, and bomb the UN compound for 8 hours.

Then on the evening news justify the dead babies, smashed americans, shot reporter, and destroyed UN compound by simply saying Hizbollah, or Hamas was hiding rockets somewhere in the town.

Civilian Shields are only shields if they stop or even give pause to the attacks. That is not the case with the IDF, never has been.

[Warren Stupidity]

1. Same way that the VC did: they don't.

This is bullshit used to justify free fire zones. Guerrilla forces are composed of the people of the region in which they operate. Regular armed forces, frustrated by the ability of the irregular army to survive despite inferior weapons, lack of training, poor uniforms, etc. eventually decide that the only way to beat them is to terrorize the population supporting them. The justification is any one of several variations on the human shield bullshit.

Actually I am just making that up. Hezbollah straps little children on top of their cars and trucks. Really. I'm sure there are pixs somewhere.

[ChairmanAgnostic]

2. you say quite clearly what the MSM misses

they swallow whole the IDF and AIPAC PR.

[pelsar]

3. you should try asking...

I've heard this again and again from Israeli spinmiesters find some israelis who have been in gaza or lebanon or americans who have been in iraq....they might explain what you dont seem to understand (though i would question if your interested in actually learning about it, or just prefer to rant out of ignorence...)

[Carl21014]

5. Feel free to explain it yourself...

It's a simple question, "How are they shields if the IDF bombs anyway"? It's like calling standing out in the rain a "shelter".

[pelsar]

8. its pretty simple actually...

as "cruel" as it sounds there is a limit to the amount of damage and civilian causulties that any army wants to cause, be it NATO, the US army or the IDF when there are choices.

Hence bridges are bombed at night when there is less traffic, homes that are known to have many civilians may not be flattened, shooters, when the pilot sees that the next building has people outside are not always bombed (depending on whats happening on the ground), etc.

hence the fact that civilians are in the area are taken into account, obviously no army will not shoot just because they are in the area and many will be killed, since that would abort the mission, but just the fact that they are in the area changes tactics.....the result being a less lethal attack.

for instance....if there are civilians in a building, and its questionable, grenades are not always tossed in first (as in the movies) with the soldiers going in shooting..even though it does endanger the soldiers. Pilots have scrubbed missions if there are too many civilians around...

On the other hand, if there is ground battle and the soldiers are underfire from building A....the civilians or anybody else (UN) will not be a factor, there is a "pecking order" during a war or any other times of stress involving life and death (and if you dont think so, i'll be happy to give you some examples that happen everyday in cities....)

Like most things in war, its hardly black and white. A amount of ordance used will change dramatically if a soldier is wounded and needs to get medivaced out...

hope that helps a bit....if you were actually interested in understanding.

(one final notation: during a war, civilian presence will not stop the mission, it will just postpone it, depending upon a multitude of factors)

[idontwantaname]

9. but...

some maijor bridges in lebanon were bombed during the early morning "rush hour" time... or so i heard.

[Carl21014]

11. IDF doesn't care!

They have shown again and again they don't care who they kill. They had a choice in Qana and they chose to murder children. It's a choice I've seen them make repeatedly over the years. They chose to bomb the UN compound for 8 hours. After the UN repeatedly ask them on the phone to stop bombing the UN compound the IDF chose to continue for hours.

[mtice]

19. Blood libel

"They had a choice in Qana and they chose to murder children."

This is called blood libel. Anyone who knows anything about the Israeli mind and behavior knows that Israel goes to extreme lengths to prevent the bloodshed of innocents, far greater lengths than does any other nation in the world. Moreover, the more we learn about what actually happened at Qana, the more it is becoming clear that the original story was nothing more than a Hezbollah propaganda operation.

In the context of Hezbollah firing hundreds of rockets every day at Israeli civilians hoping that they kill children, that statement is absolutely obscene.

[Carl21014]

22. Bull pucky!

Anyone who knows anything about the Israeli mind and behavior knows that Israel goes to extreme lengths to prevent the bloodshed of innocents


Ha! That's the biggest lie I've seen in a very long time!

[breakaleg]

12. answer me this....

"Hence bridges are bombed at night when there is less traffic, homes that are known to have many civilians may not be flattened, shooters, when the pilot sees that the next building has people outside are not always bombed (depending on whats happening on the ground), etc.

hence the fact that civilians are in the area are taken into account, obviously no army will not shoot just because they are in the area and many will be killed, since that would abort the mission, but just the fact that they are in the area changes tactics.....the result being a less lethal attack."

Can you tell me how they knew the homes were (or in this case we know were NOT) empty when bombing from the air? What intelligence did they have?

[pelsar]

15. during an actual war...

the intelligence is very limited..and the longer it goes on, the quality of the intelligence drops as well......

and to make it more complicated much "intelligence" is time limited, so decisions are made quickly without the "full picture" being known...but this is quite typical of war.

At this point, with everybody in constant motion "intelligence" will at best be extremly limited based on guess work, assumptions, recon etc...none of which is so reliable....furthermore the further away from the front the less reliable the info is.....

war is a very very messy inexact thing....

i read somewhere where the ISM wants to go down to s. lebanon.......that would be a very foolish thing to do.....the IDF soldiers are not carrying tear gas grenades nor batons, furthermore Hezballa is quite busy setting up ambushs, so no soldier will be standing around as they do in the westbank.....they're wont be much patience for the ISM in the middle of a very hot war zone.

[breakaleg]

16. first you said that the fact that civilians are takin into account

when deciding how to approach apartment buildings and such - as in whether to throw in grenades etc. The implication being, they make attempts to see if civilians are around.

When I asked you to show me evidence of how they checked such things, you said war is messy and inexact.

Either they check for civilians or they don't. It seems we agree that in this case, they don't.

And as usual, when faced with a question you can't answer, you go off topic.

[pelsar]

17. depends..

like i said its messy:

have one of your guys get shot while entering a home....you'll probably toss 5 grenades in the next one and order artillary on it as well.

have everyone alive and seeing a family huddled in a corner of a house you entered, you'll be more reluctant to blow up the next house. It also depends upon the make up of the villages in lebanon, some are more christian (less hostile) some more, so that also factors in, as well as the immediate history of the battles in that area.

thats how it is.......dependant upon personalities and events. Just the fact that it is considered, talked about is part of the discussion means that its taken into account by the soldiers in the field. Also the intensity of the fighting also factors in to how much a commander will risk his soldiers lives.
_______________________

I'm afraid i dont have any "evidence" for you...just experience and histories...but as i mentioned earlier, if your really interested in understanding how it works, find some other soldiers with that experience and you'll hear similar stories. (go to the military sites, and ask.....)

how did i go off topic?....if your ask perhaps more precisly i'll anwer what i understand

[TomClash]

4. Here's another question

How do you hide behind civilians on open bridges and open roads?

[elias7]

6. just keep trashing Israel...

I am amazed how strong the anti-Israeli sentiment is around here. People have formed such strong judgements, some informed, some not. Reminds me of apartheid activists thinking that South Africa was a black-white racial issue...

[Name removed]

7. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Waya]

10. Second that...........

[MrPrax]

13. Being an former apartheid activist...

You didn't think it was a 'black and white' issue (poor choice of words, no?)...What pray tell were the issues that made it...um...'grey'? Or complicated?

(If you decide to reply, this a mandatory in your reply -- you brought it up...so please enlighten me...what was the 'thinking'?)



Optional replies (which will be ignored if you don't answer the first question -- your not going to wiggle off of this one and re-smear in other words)

If you found 'how strong the anti-Israeli sentiment is around'...then why did you donate and start posting.

I find Free Republic is be 'anti-Democratic', and that's why I don't bother giving them money or replying to their idiotic freeper blood-crazy anti-UN pro Bush/Neo-Con gibberish?

People have formed such strong judgements, some informed, some not. ???

Of course this includes you (strong judgement) and without really getting to know you, I will hazard a guess that your informed, but others aren't and that's why you need to correct the disinformation? Right?

How much credibility did you think you have with 44 posts?

[breakaleg]

14. Interesting choice to compare the sentiment around here towards

the Israeli situation to Apartheid. Because that's exactly what Israel is doing to the Palestinians. You nailed it.

[mtice]

18. Here's the logic of it

1 - Hezbollah uses Lebanese civilians as cover while firing unguided missiles at Israeli civilians
2 - Israel fires at Hezbollah position either not knowing or not caring about the civilians present
3 - Hezbollah-friendly media turn every justly deserved retaliatory strike into an Israeli "massacre", peddle dead bodies for cameras, stage heart-rending scenes for gullible and compassionate Westerners
4 - Resulting propaganda causes "international concern" and pressure on Israel to stop attacking Hezbollah
5 - Israel restrains itself so as not to have more such propaganda windfalls for their enemies
6 - Israeli restraint results in Hezbollah having more freedom to fire unguided rockets at Israeli civilians.

Rinse and repeat, until every Jew on earth is dead.

Don't fall for it!

[Recursion]

20. Because they *are* civilians, and they count their own dead

Hezbollah militants *are* civilians most of the time. That's how guerillas work. An air strike that kills 6 militants and 12 non-militant civilians, and destroys a cache of rockets, on the media is a massacre of 18 civilians in a house. And I agree that "shield" is a bad term, since it implies they hope it will deter an attack. Hezbollah hopes Israel will kill as many Lebanese as possible just like the Israeli right hopes Hezbollah will kill as many Israelis as possible. They're human targets, not human shields.

*shrug* I'm not happy with what Israel has done, but I'm not going to criticize Israel until someone comes up with a plan that hasn't been tried for the past 3 decades and isn't hopelessly naive vis a vis the irredentism and militancy of Hezbollah.

[Little Star]

21. That argument is a crock of crap. They are the civilians.

[Lithos]

23. Locking per I/P guidelines

Not based on a recent news or op-ed article.

Lithos
DU Moderator