How is it that I got turned into an anti-Semite? Oh right. By pointing out how they're part of the continuing the cycle of violence.
Neither side are victims in this stupid little play. The Islamists and Israelis both actively take measures to provoke each other, like to two siblings riding in the car on vaca.

You can presume quite a bit. You might consider quoting the entire sentence, even though one word out of context suits your purpose better.

It's just funny to hear the verse from Matthew quoted by the moral equivilance experts. I guess once you take the plunge, it's not a big leap from moral equivalance to moral inversion: the terrorists are not only no worse than their victims, they're actually morally superior.

I think we can consider rocket launchers aimed randomly into civilian populations to be "material".

I just ran into this from Kung-fu monkey:
Law of Modern Warfare #001: When you bomb people for their own good, they never, ever get your point in the way you hope.

I think that pretty much sums up my position really, really, really well.

Well, it *sounds* good, of course. But then I don't think anybody in this conflict is claiming they are "bombing somebody for their own good". The closest you get was Israel saying "It would really be better if you civilians didn't stand next to Hezbollah while we bomb them. And those Hezbollah fortifications adjacent to the UN OPs are problematic too."

There are laws of war, and it's pretty clear to me who's doing a better job of trying to observe them. You know: splinter, beam, etc.

Really? I thought part of the purpose of dropping large bombs in civilian populations was to remind the civvies that they shouldn't support 'terrorists.' Conversely, the purpose of exploding large human/car bombs in civilian populations was to try and convince civvies that they shouldn't support the government's policies vis a vis the 'occupation' of Lebanon/Palestine.
Were was that moral equivalence argument again? Oh yeah...back that a ways.

And laws of war are applicable between two states, not between a state and a non-state actor. Unfortunately, we enter into a whole world of legal fuzziness when combat like this occurs. What is, or is not, permissible within the rules when one side tosses the rules out the window by not even being within the conventions describing the major actors? They aren't like a militia or combat irregulars, because they aren't that organized.
The best description I've read is fourth generation warfare, wherein the application of military force must be extremely judicious, as the 'enemy' invariably will use overzealousness in said action as a propaganda point, increasing sympathy/support internally and/or externally.

I ask the question again: which side 'won' this little bout of assininity?

You just got done telling us that the conventional rules "don't apply". So what makes you think "won" means anything?

I think evaluating the outcome is premature, because we're still finding out which elements of the UNSC resolution will actually be implemented and which parts were meaningless bullshit signed by nations who had no intention of actually implementing them. Again.

Kinda like the Iranian uranium enrichment resolution. But then these two issues aren't exactly unrelated.

Don't mischaraterize what I said. I said the rules of war are not applicable to a conflict between a state and non-state actor (i.e., the definitions of acceptable behavior by the state military are blurred). That has nothing do with defining the potential risks/rewards as well as the goals of entering into combat.

Well, let´s leave it then to the moral equivilance expert here, you, to decide which side has the moral highground to bomb indiscriminately on civillian population. Which btw happen before in 1982 when the US halted delivery of cluster bombs to Israel, for a short while.
It should be, if it was there instead of playing children. Oops... I forgot you´re the moral expert here :rolleyes:

And then we apply reality. Those air attacks occurred long after the unguided (mostly irrelevant) rocket was launched AND long after the launchers had left. Second, Israeli pilots (asking that their identities not be included) noted how they could not see a rocket launcher even with a rocket on it. They were simply attacking (bombing) in the area that a rocket was reported launched (obvious another example of ineffective air power without boots on the ground). So they dropped cluster bombs in a large civilian area. No problem. They are all Arabs and therefore must be evil.

MaggieL forgets the reality. Pilots could not attack those rocket launchers. So the idea was to attach Lebanese civilians - including those in the most northern Lebanon province of Akkar. Clearly that also would stop rocket launching.

Cluster bombs can be used on military targets if Hezbollah had tanks and artillery. Obviously Hezbollah provides almost no useful targets for cluster bombs - " a matter of “consciousness”. " Cluster bombs were civilian terrorist weapons. Civilians attacked even in northern Akkar and south of the Latani River for same reasons.

The Economist defined why cluster bombs would be advocated against innocent civilians by a 'them is evil' general staff: So why bomb innocent Lebanese even in most northern Akkar province? Why use cluster bombs when targets just don't exist? " a matter of “consciousness”. " As if cluster bombs would cause Lebanese to blame Hezbollah. As predictable, the reverse has occurred. Cluster bombs on civilian did not cause Lebanese to rise up against Hezbollah.

Hezbollah apparently belived they did, since that's what they were doing. That's the great thing about being "the party of God", wnhatever you want to do is OK. Almost "angelic".

You can claim that Israel bombed indiscriminately, but that's not actually the case. You seem to be having a problem with meaning of the word "indiscriminate". Its meaning doesn't include "attempting to avoid collateral damage" or "operating under restrictions as to their use".

However, launching missiles with high-explosive shrapnel warheads and primitive or no guidance systems into a city does qualify as "indiscriminate".

This is another example of that element of tw's style I referred to earlier. HIs opinions are "facts", and his interpretation is "reality". I'm sure those killed by the Hezbollah bombardment will be comforted by the fact that they died in an attack that was "mostly irrelevant".

We'll have to get tw a t-shirt with that Adam Savage quote on it. I was so disppointed to learn Adam didn't originate it though.

From the Economist of 19 Aug 2006 and this really was not difficult to see long ago. It was entitled "Nasrallah wins the war": Meanwhile an almost irrelevant initial problem still exists. Two kidnapped Israeli soldiers remain kidnapped. What has changed? Israel is no longer demanding loudly that those soldiers be released. Just another fact from Israel's own actions that says Israel lost.

MaggieL still forgot reality to post that cluster bombs on civilians is justified; because a rocket launcher was once somewhere within miles of those innocent civilians. That is what she wants everyone to believe once we include facts she forgetst to mention. She *assumes* pilots could see and attack rocket launchers. She forgets reality. So now she will solve her logic with a tee shirt.

When those airplanes came to attack, the rocket launchers were long gone. That is reality. However maybe MaggieL will then claim the Israeli Air Force killed Hezbollah three times over. Its air power. It must have killed the enemy. Blessed be the foolish pilots who assume a big bomb only means combatants die. Then they won't feel guilty.

Next she will tell us that Israel won the war - reality be damned.

That's not exactly a unanimous opinion, see the link I posted a while back. There's a bigger struggle playing out here, and it's *far* from over.