Middle East Crisis: Who Backs an Immediate Cease Fire?

[celluloid_love]

Dumbasses. Should have left when they were told to.

[DeviousJ]

You are trolling right? Let us know so we can laugh along too

[celluloid_love]

yes.

[DeviousJ]

Well that's a relief. Let's all get milkshakes

[Andrew_Pakula]

Breaking News: An Israeli air raid struck a United Nations observation post and killed four U.N. observers in southern Lebanon, according to Lebanese security sources.

I guess they must have been part of Hezbollah's infrastructure right?

[TuralyonW3]

Originally Posted by Andrew_Pakula

Breaking News: An Israeli air raid struck a United Nations observation post and killed four U.N. observers in southern Lebanon, according to Lebanese security sources.

I guess they must have been part of Hezbollah's infrastructure right?

I just saw that on CNN. Of course it won't be on foxnews.

[DeviousJ]

Originally Posted by TuralyonW3

I just saw that on CNN. Of course it won't be on foxnews.

Well actually it's their lead story on the fox news website, if that counts for anything

[TuralyonW3]

Originally Posted by DeviousJ

Well actually it's their lead story on the fox news website, if that counts for anything

[talk show host]

Originally Posted by To Starla

I couldn't say if it were everyone or not. I cannot provide statistics regarding the numbers.

I'd hazzard at a guess that the kids losing their familes or their own lives aren't too keen. Just an idea.

Originally Posted by To Starla

It's common knowledge our "leaders" support Israel. (I personally do not. I don't support either side)

Seems hypocritical to me, for our "leader" to demand a cease fire when in turn he has waged war on Iraq. What about the innocents dying every day over there?

and...

If we can't place enough pressure on our govt to pull troops out of Iraq, how the fuck are we going to pressure them to enforce a cease fire on Hezbollah and Israel? And please tell me how we would FORCE them to cease fire? I'm intrigued.

You missed the part in my other post where I said I wanted to see peace, but in reality *I* know it won't be until the people who live there CHOOSE it for themselves. They rather kill each other over their religion and politics than learn to live harmoniously side by side despite their differences.

WE cannot force a people to live the way WE want them to. Haven't we learned this yet with Iraq?

You're missing my point. Israel is a different situation from Iraq in that America (+ others) provide weaponary to allow this crap to keep going. If the UN got it's shit together it could impose all kinds of sanctions which puts pressure on the countries invloved to try other solutions. Just because I'm saying America should get involved doesn't mean I'm advocating they invade and impose the great myth of western democracy on the region. No one was a bigger critic of the shit shambles in Iraq then I, so please don't make the mistake of thinking I advocate those types of measures at all. They can live however the fuck they want, I just don't think it's ok to stand back while people who don't have any say or choice die because of what's going on.

[Corganist]

Originally Posted by DeviousJ

You're right, this is a long-running conflict with a history of aggression from both sides, so don't try and paint it like Israel is only now reacting to attacks after decades of austerity. As part of the big picture, this campaign is still massively disproportionate - AND the people who are really suffering are the ordinary Lebanese people, not the terrorists. Even if Israel were acting in good faith (let's revisit that 'bomb Lebanon back 20 years' comment shall we), the idea that they can somehow kill hundreds of innocent people and destroy homes as some kind of insurance policy is incredibly tenuous, and isn't even borne out by intelligence, results, or even a basic knowledge of the region and how resistance movements work. There are alternatives, and they are better alternatives

If we're assuming Israel is acting in good faith we're assuming that their goal is to kill terrorists, not kill people and destroy homes. You still keep setting up the straw man that Israel is killing innocent people on purpose even when we're being hypothetical! Enough. At any rate, I still think getting into this talk about proportionality of response is silly because again, its pretty much just a self fulfilling prophecy. The established country is always going to be the bully in your view of things. If someone's kid gets stung by a bee, and the parent finds the beehive and destroys it I can just see you saying "Well, that was disproportionate."

So you agree that attacking a military patrol on the border and capturing armed soldiers doesn't fall under the banner of terrorism, cool. This is unprecedented progress!

Read what I quoted in that post again. It is terrorism if it occurs if there's not a state of military hostilities at the site. As far as I know, Israel was not in a state of military hostilities when the soldiers get kidnapped.

[Starla]

Originally Posted by talk show host

You're missing my point. Israel is a different situation from Iraq in that America (+ others) provide weaponary to allow this crap to keep going. If the UN got it's shit together it could impose all kinds of sanctions which puts pressure on the countries invloved to try other solutions. Just because I'm saying America should get involved doesn't mean I'm advocating they invade and impose the great myth of western democracy on the region. No one was a bigger critic of the shit shambles in Iraq then I, so please don't make the mistake of thinking I advocate those types of measures at all. They can live however the fuck they want, I just don't think it's ok to stand back while people who don't have any say or choice die because of what's going on.

Point taken.

[Trotskilicious]

One of the reasons Israel is being so agressive is because they know thanks to the Zionist lobby in America, that the U.S. will always have their back. If they didn't have guaranteed American support, I strongly suggest that they would persue other avenues against Hezbollah.

[DeviousJ]

Originally Posted by Corganist

If we're assuming Israel is acting in good faith we're assuming that their goal is to kill terrorists, not kill people and destroy homes. You still keep setting up the straw man that Israel is killing innocent people on purpose even when we're being hypothetical! Enough. At any rate, I still think getting into this talk about proportionality of response is silly because again, its pretty much just a self fulfilling prophecy. The established country is always going to be the bully in your view of things. If someone's kid gets stung by a bee, and the parent finds the beehive and destroys it I can just see you saying "Well, that was disproportionate."

I'm the one setting up a straw man? I've said several times in this thread that I generally don't think Israel is killing innocent people for the sake of it, it's more that they don't care, and you insist on ignoring that and pretending I said something else. And dude, you were the one who suggested "Israel is acting out of a sincere and true belief that acting on such large scale will save many more innocent Israeli lives in the future than it costs innocent Lebanese lives in the present". Do I need to underline the part of that which says 'trade off Lebanese deaths and destruction as part of some tenuous insurance policy'? And hey guess what - a country doesn't have to go beat the shit out of a weaker country just because it can

And your bee analogy would be disproportionate, what the hell are you talking about? One bee stings a kid and the entire colony is wiped out? You don't seem to have a grasp of even basic concepts here. The difference, though, is that most people wouldn't care if the bees were wiped out, but oh wait we're talking about innocent human beings here there is a slight difference

Originally Posted by Corganist

Read what I quoted in that post again. It is terrorism if it occurs if there's not a state of military hostilities at the site. As far as I know, Israel was not in a state of military hostilities when the soldiers get kidnapped.

Hahaha, oh god. This is amazing. I've been wanting to say 'doublethink' for a while now but it seemed too tacky and clichéd, but there's no other phrase that covers it. This all has to be some kind of joke. You're holding two contradictory beliefs at the same time and just trotting out whichever one suits your argument at the time - I mean I've seen it before but this is probably the most blatant example. Tell me more about the lack of hostilities on the Israeli-Lebanon border, and also how "this whole thing didn't just start two weeks ago out of nowhere."

[Starla]

Looks like Bush is giving Israel their "two week notice". (note: I destest fox news)

NABATIYEH, Lebanon — The United States has given Israeli forces between 10 and 14 days to finish dealing Hezbollah "a strategic blow," a senior Israeli Foreign Ministry official told FOX News, as both Israeli forces and Hezbollah guerrillas continued to volley rockets across the Lebanon-Israel border.
While admitting that the Israeli Defense Forces (IDF) is working at a "slow pace," the official insisted the plan was constructed out of concern for human life.

"We could do it much faster if we would be willing to inflict high civilian casualties," the official said. "The decision was made to move in a methodical, slow way."

Israeli troops sealed off a Hezbollah stronghold and warplanes killed six people in a market city in southern Lebanon on Tuesday, while Beirut was pounded by new airstrikes. Guerrillas fired rockets at northern Israel, killing a girl, as the two-week-old crisis showed no signs of letting up, despite frantic diplomatic efforts.

Journalists covering the conflict were warned Tuesday by Hezbollah in Tyre, Lebanon, not to tape or broadcast live the source of outgoing rocket attacks, for fear of having guerrilla positions discovered by Israeli forces.

A second senior official told FOX News the IDF would need "another 10 days or so" to finish the job against Hezbollah. He continued to say that the U.S., European nations and moderate Arab nations that Israel is "doing the dirty job" for everyone in its attacks on Hezbollah.

(snip)
President Bush expressed concern for the civilians killed and harmed by Israeli bombs, but stopped short of calling for an immediate cease-fire that might not last.

"I support a sustainable cease-fire that will bring about an end to violence," Bush said.

Read it's entirety here Source

[DeviousJ]

Originally Posted by talk show host

If the UN got it's shit together it could impose all kinds of sanctions which puts pressure on the countries invloved to try other solutions.

The (or a) big problem with the UN is the veto system, I reckon. Usually when the UN fails to act it seems to be because one of the veto states has some kind of 'special relationship' with the target of the action. There's absolutely no way the US is going to allow the UN to impose sanctions on Israel unless things change drastically, and even then it's not a sure thing

[Trotskilicious]

Originally Posted by DeviousJ

it's more that they don't care, and you insist on ignoring that and pretending I said something else.

Hey, he's a republican. That's their whole game!

[Corganist]

Originally Posted by DeviousJ

I'm the one setting up a straw man? I've said several times in this thread that I generally don't think Israel is killing innocent people for the sake of it, it's more that they don't care, and you insist on ignoring that and pretending I said something else. And dude, you were the one who suggested "Israel is acting out of a sincere and true belief that acting on such large scale will save many more innocent Israeli lives in the future than it costs innocent Lebanese lives in the present". Do I need to underline the part of that which says 'trade off Lebanese deaths and destruction as part of some tenuous insurance policy'?

My bad. I think I just misread you. But I would say that I don't really agree with your characterization of my hypothetical you quoted there as "trading off Lebanese deaths" as insurance. That still makes it sound like Israel is purposefully trying to buy its safety with innocent Lebanese blood instead of (again, purely as part of the hypothetical) making a good faith effort to do what it thinks needs to be done for its own people with as little collateral damage as possible. Maybe you don't mean it to sound that way. So like I said, my bad.

But the point of the whole "maybe Israel is acting in good faith" argument was just meant to bring the subjective aspect of this stuff to the forefront and try and get you away from this "bigger explosions = badder people" mentality you've been showing.

And hey guess what - a country doesn't have to go beat the shit out of a weaker country just because it can

Are there any circumstances that would justify a stronger country attacking a weaker country in your book? I mean, sure, no one has to go bomb the shit out of a weaker country just because they can...but does that they can't do it at all or that they have to hold themselves to some kind of "only kill as many their people as they of killed ours" rule?

Hahaha, oh god. This is amazing. I've been wanting to say 'doublethink' for a while now but it seemed too tacky and clichéd, but there's no other phrase that covers it. This all has to be some kind of joke. You're holding two contradictory beliefs at the same time and just trotting out whichever one suits your argument at the time - I mean I've seen it before but this is probably the most blatant example. Tell me more about the lack of hostilities on the Israeli-Lebanon border, and also how "this whole thing didn't just start two weeks ago out of nowhere."

Fine. What military was Israel in hostilities with in that region? Yes, there were tensions in the region because of terrorists making incursions across the border, but if terrorists could ignite "military hostilities" just by sheer virtue of coming across the border and assaulting the first unwitting soldier they see, then the term would be completely meaningless. I doubt the US would have bothered to interpret "noncombatant" in such a way to include attacks against armed soldiers if "military hostilities" was really given as broad a meaning as you seek to give it.

[DeviousJ]

Originally Posted by Corganist

My bad. I think I just misread you. But I would say that I don't really agree with your characterization of my hypothetical you quoted there as "trading off Lebanese deaths" as insurance. That still makes it sound like Israel is purposefully trying to buy its safety with innocent Lebanese blood instead of (again, purely as part of the hypothetical) making a good faith effort to do what it thinks needs to be done for its own people with as little collateral damage as possible. Maybe you don't mean it to sound that way. So like I said, my bad.

Look, just stop it. Even when I've said outright that 'I don't generally think Israel targets civilians for the sake of killing civilians' you still twist it around until you're called out on it, then say 'oops looks like we got our wires crossed somewhere down the line!' I said trading off lebanese deaths AS PART OF some tenuous insurance policy. As in 'if we do this action it will make us safer but kill all these people, shall we do it?'

Originally Posted by Corganist

But the point of the whole "maybe Israel is acting in good faith" argument was just meant to bring the subjective aspect of this stuff to the forefront and try and get you away from this "bigger explosions = badder people" mentality you've been showing.

Look, we've been through this ages ago - I explained the whole deal about there being a line you don't cross, and hopefully you agreed (you never actually addressed it) that Israel nuking Lebanon would be BAD. Even if they were acting 'in good faith' and it was the only way they believed they could stop Hizbollah, it would not be acceptable. Claims of 'acting in good faith' are not carte blanche

Originally Posted by Corganist

Are there any circumstances that would justify a stronger country attacking a weaker country in your book? I mean, sure, no one has to go bomb the shit out of a weaker country just because they can...but does that they can't do it at all or that they have to hold themselves to some kind of "only kill as many their people as they of killed ours" rule?

There are actually already rules in place about this stuff, it has been considered before. Humanitarian Law, definitions of legitimate action and war crimes... Also you're switching 'Lebanon' and 'Hizbollah' interchangeably as it suits your argument, the Lebanese military didn't attack Israel so 'their people' refers to Hizbollah personnel, not Lebanese civilians. Hizbollah is a terrorist group, remember? Are you honestly saying Israel has the right to kill a certain number of innocents because a bunch of terrorists went and killed innocent Israelis?

Originally Posted by Corganist

Fine. What military was Israel in hostilities with in that region? Yes, there were tensions in the region because of terrorists making incursions across the border, but if terrorists could ignite "military hostilities" just by sheer virtue of coming across the border and assaulting the first unwitting soldier they see, then the term would be completely meaningless. I doubt the US would have bothered to interpret "noncombatant" in such a way to include attacks against armed soldiers if "military hostilities" was really given as broad a meaning as you seek to give it.

This is awesome. So one minute you're saying that Israel is justified in bombing the shit out of Lebanon because of all the past hostilities, the next minute you're saying those hostilities are basically a bunch of guys 'making incursions' across the border, not even worth calling 'military hostilities' really! Meanwhile Israel is sending armed patrols along the border to search for missing pets or something - not because there are 'military hostilities' or anything. Yes, surely the US wouldn't have meant to incclude attacks against armed soldiers in their interpretation of 'noncombatant', especially since it says the term "noncombatant" is interpreted to include in addition to civilians, military personnel who at the time of the incident are unarmed or not on duty, yes clearly armed soldiers are in there, oh wait it says 'unarmed', that means 'not armed' prefix fans. My amazing 'broad definition' also says that armed patrols contain soldiers who are both armed AND on duty, possibly carrying out some sort of patrol!

[talk show host]

Originally Posted by DeviousJ

The (or a) big problem with the UN is the veto system, I reckon. Usually when the UN fails to act it seems to be because one of the veto states has some kind of 'special relationship' with the target of the action. There's absolutely no way the US is going to allow the UN to impose sanctions on Israel unless things change drastically, and even then it's not a sure thing

Very true, and this frustrates the hell out of me

[Corganist]

Originally Posted by DeviousJ

Look, just stop it. Even when I've said outright that 'I don't generally think Israel targets civilians for the sake of killing civilians' you still twist it around until you're called out on it, then say 'oops looks like we got our wires crossed somewhere down the line!' I said trading off lebanese deaths AS PART OF some tenuous insurance policy. As in 'if we do this action it will make us safer but kill all these people, shall we do it?'

You didn't say that whole AS PART OF thing in the first post where you started characterizing my hypothetical as an insurance policy. You said "the idea that they can somehow kill hundreds of innocent people and destroy homes as some kind of insurance policy." Maybe you left out the "part of" part there, but nevertheless I got the wrong impression from it and that impression carried over a couple posts until I figured out what you really meant. You know, sometimes people actually do get their wires crossed.

Look, we've been through this ages ago - I explained the whole deal about there being a line you don't cross, and hopefully you agreed (you never actually addressed it) that Israel nuking Lebanon would be BAD. Even if they were acting 'in good faith' and it was the only way they believed they could stop Hizbollah, it would not be acceptable. Claims of 'acting in good faith' are not carte blanche

I never said that good intentions would give Israel carte blanche, but I'm just trying to see if I can get the "line" that Israel has crossed to move a little bit. Right now it seems like you think they've already crossed that line, good faith or not. And you never really answered the question I posed earlier about whether or not Israel's actions would be justified if they had a good faith belief it was necessary for the safety of its people. I don't want to know whether or not you think they'd be right in that belief, I just want to know if you'd still hold them as the party that's holding the bigger part of the moral blame for what's happening.

There are actually already rules in place about this stuff, it has been considered before. Humanitarian Law, definitions of legitimate action and war crimes... Also you're switching 'Lebanon' and 'Hizbollah' interchangeably as it suits your argument, the Lebanese military didn't attack Israel so 'their people' refers to Hizbollah personnel, not Lebanese civilians. Hizbollah is a terrorist group, remember? Are you honestly saying Israel has the right to kill a certain number of innocents because a bunch of terrorists went and killed innocent Israelis?

No, I'm just trying to wrap my head around this idea of proportionality you keep talking about. It seems like you're telling me that because Israel is fighting Hizbollah, any attack Israel makes upon Hizbollah in Lebanon is automatically disproportionate if it kills or harms innocent Lebanese people. How could Israel respond to Hezbollah at all if that were the case?

This is awesome. So one minute you're saying that Israel is justified in bombing the shit out of Lebanon because of all the past hostilities, the next minute you're saying those hostilities are basically a bunch of guys 'making incursions' across the border, not even worth calling 'military hostilities' really! Meanwhile Israel is sending armed patrols along the border to search for missing pets or something - not because there are 'military hostilities' or anything.

So by that logic, the southwest United States is an area where military hostilities are taking place. Afterall, Bush sent the National Guard down there. Obviously soldiers on patrol near the border = state of military hostilities.

Yes, surely the US wouldn't have meant to incclude attacks against armed soldiers in their interpretation of 'noncombatant', especially since it says the term "noncombatant" is interpreted to include in addition to civilians, military personnel who at the time of the incident are unarmed or not on duty, yes clearly armed soldiers are in there, oh wait it says 'unarmed', that means 'not armed' prefix fans. My amazing 'broad definition' also says that armed patrols contain soldiers who are both armed AND on duty, possibly carrying out some sort of patrol!

Did you not read the other part I so helpfully put in bold type in that passage? Its kinda important.

We also consider as acts of terrorism attacks on military installations or on armed military personnel when a state of military hostilities does not exist at the site, such as bombings against US bases in Europe, the Philippines, or elsewhere.

[DeviousJ]

Originally Posted by Corganist

You didn't say that whole AS PART OF thing in the first post where you started characterizing my hypothetical as an insurance policy. You said "the idea that they can somehow kill hundreds of innocent people and destroy homes as some kind of insurance policy." Maybe you left out the "part of" part there, but nevertheless I got the wrong impression from it and that impression carried over a couple posts until I figured out what you really meant. You know, sometimes people actually do get their wires crossed.

You're right, I didn't say it the first time, but I did the second time when I was clarifying things - and yet you still claimed I was making it sound like that, even though you'd actually quoted me saying 'as part of' and were responding to that quote. I can understand the initial confusion I guess but holy shit

Originally Posted by Corganist

I never said that good intentions would give Israel carte blanche, but I'm just trying to see if I can get the "line" that Israel has crossed to move a little bit. Right now it seems like you think they've already crossed that line, good faith or not.

Well we've been over this. Everything they're doing is showing a lack of this 'hypothetical good faith' you keep trumpeting - you do know we're actually talking about a real, ongoing situation and not a hypothetical one right? Here's an example of that 'good faith' from another thread:
"All those now in south Lebanon are terrorists who are related in some way to Hezbollah". It's sickening

Originally Posted by Corganist

And you never really answered the question I posed earlier about whether or not Israel's actions would be justified if they had a good faith belief it was necessary for the safety of its people. I don't want to know whether or not you think they'd be right in that belief, I just want to know if you'd still hold them as the party that's holding the bigger part of the moral blame for what's happening.

If you want to spin off into these tangential hypothetical situations then you're going to have to say specifically what you mean by 'necessary for the safety of its people' - are you talking about everyone in Israel dying, or 50%, or what? Because it's all relative to that line

Originally Posted by Corganist

No, I'm just trying to wrap my head around this idea of proportionality you keep talking about. It seems like you're telling me that because Israel is fighting Hizbollah, any attack Israel makes upon Hizbollah in Lebanon is automatically disproportionate if it kills or harms innocent Lebanese people. How could Israel respond to Hezbollah at all if that were the case?

Uh no, that would be called 'an attack'. It's a 'disproportionate attack' when the damage to innocents is in excess, when there are far more civilian deaths than Hizbollah ones, when entire city blocks are razed with the intention of destroying a small weapons cache, when the ends don't come close to justifying the means. It's not as though these extremes are the only way of dealing with Hizbollah to any degree, and we've already been over this

Originally Posted by Corganist

So by that logic, the southwest United States is an area where military hostilities are taking place. Afterall, Bush sent the National Guard down there. Obviously soldiers on patrol near the border = state of military hostilities.

Did you not read the other part I so helpfully put in bold type in that passage? Its kinda important.

Tell me why Israel started this military action out of the blue again? You seem to be avoiding talking about it now. Shame all these 'military hostilities' sprung out of nowhere!

You know it doesn't exactly harm your credibility to concede that you were wrong on a point - definitely not as much as contradicting yourself over and over when it's pointed out to you. 'Military hostilities near the Israel-Lebanon border? As if!!'

[Corganist]

Originally Posted by DeviousJ

Well we've been over this. Everything they're doing is showing a lack of this 'hypothetical good faith' you keep trumpeting - you do know we're actually talking about a real, ongoing situation and not a hypothetical one right? Here's an example of that 'good faith' from another thread:
"All those now in south Lebanon are terrorists who are related in some way to Hezbollah". It's sickening

I keep bringing up the "hypothetical good faith" situation because I keep getting the vibe that you would think Israel is the bad guy in this thing no matter what, not because I think that they're really necessarily acting in good faith. You said that what Israel's disregard for human life is "more disturbing" than the acts of the terrorists they're fighting, and you've backed that up pretty much only with the fact that Israel has caused a lot of damage and death and therefore they've "crossed the line." I am willing to say that you might be right in saying Israel has crossed the line, but it all depends on what Israel is trying to accomplish. You, on the other hand, seem to be saying that it doesn't matter what they're trying to accomplish; if the proportion of innocent people killed to terrorists killed gets above a certain point, Israel automatically turns into the bad guy. I think its an overly simplistic view of things to assign moral blame in a situation like this based solely on a numbers game, and you seem to agree with that...but at the same time you don't seem amenable to considering any other factors in the equation.

I don't want to know if you think Israel is really acting in good faith. I don't even know if I think that. I just want to know whether or not you think that it would matter if they were. If it does, then I don't see how you could be so quick to equivocate Israel's actions to terrorism.

If you want to spin off into these tangential hypothetical situations then you're going to have to say specifically what you mean by 'necessary for the safety of its people' - are you talking about everyone in Israel dying, or 50%, or what? Because it's all relative to that line

I think the standard I used in an earlier post was to the effect of "saving more innocent Israelis than innocent Lebanese." So let's go with that.

Uh no, that would be called 'an attack'. It's a 'disproportionate attack' when the damage to innocents is in excess, when there are far more civilian deaths than Hizbollah ones, when entire city blocks are razed with the intention of destroying a small weapons cache, when the ends don't come close to justifying the means.It's not as though these extremes are the only way of dealing with Hizbollah to any degree, and we've already been over this

But like I asked earlier, isn't it almost always going to be the case that anytime Israel wishes to strike Hezbollah that they run the risk of causing "excess" damage to civilians just because of Hezbollah's very nature of hiding amongst civilians and whatnot?

Tell me why Israel started this military action out of the blue again? You seem to be avoiding talking about it now. Shame all these 'military hostilities' sprung out of nowhere!

You know it doesn't exactly harm your credibility to concede that you were wrong on a point - definitely not as much as contradicting yourself over and over when it's pointed out to you. 'Military hostilities near the Israel-Lebanon border? As if!!'

What point was I wrong on? You're the one who said an attack is not terrorism if the victims are soldiers, and suggested the the law backed you up. So I posted the law on how terrorism is defined according to US law and how its interpreted, and it clearly backs up my assertions. Remember what we're talking about here: terrorists coming into Israel and attacking Israeli soldiers before the current conflict started. Israel's soldiers weren't engaged in hostilities on the Lebanon border before the soldiers got kidnapped. Does that mean that it wasn't an area of tension? No, but tension does not equal hostilities.

Again, if terrorists could create a state of "military hostilities" just by attacking any group of armed soldiers it sees and by virtue of that take themselves out from under the definition of terrorism we're working under here, it'd render the interpretation of the law utterly meaningless. I admit I get out on a limb with some things, but I'm on pretty solid ground here. I think you might want to take your own advice about conceding a point.

[DeviousJ]

Originally Posted by Corganist

I keep bringing up the "hypothetical good faith" situation because I keep getting the vibe that you would think Israel is the bad guy in this thing no matter what, not because I think that they're really necessarily acting in good faith. You said that what Israel's disregard for human life is "more disturbing" than the acts of the terrorists they're fighting, and you've backed that up pretty much only with the fact that Israel has caused a lot of damage and death and therefore they've "crossed the line." I am willing to say that you might be right in saying Israel has crossed the line, but it all depends on what Israel is trying to accomplish. You, on the other hand, seem to be saying that it doesn't matter what they're trying to accomplish; if the proportion of innocent people killed to terrorists killed gets above a certain point, Israel automatically turns into the bad guy. I think is an overly simplistic view of things to assign moral blame in a situation like this based solely on a numbers game, and you seem to agree with that...but at the same time you don't seem amenable to considering any other factors in the equation.

I'm not interested in establishing a hypothetical framework of how I would view Israel if X and Y were true, I'm talking specifically about what's happening now and what's happened in the past as a precedent. and you're saying I might be right that Israel has crossed the line, so you're tacitly agreeing that there *is* a line, that there is some point beyond which the costs of actions cannot be justified. Ignoring hypothetical possibilities, and focusing on this conflict (and past actions, if you want to talk about precedent for my opinion) I personally believe that Israel is not acting on good faith and has crossed the line - and this is based on things we've been over before in this thread: threats, results and analysis of the attacks, targetting fleeing civilian convoys, that statement that 'anyone remaining in Southern Lebanon must be a terrorist' (they're talking about razing villages to make things easier for themselves, obviously trying to pre-empt the civilian casualties) etc etc. If you want to disagree with these reasons and argue that they *are* acting in good faith then fine, but it's completely pointless to divert to some hypothetical 'well hey imagine if this were the case' scenario where this good faith is a given. Make another thread if you want to talk about the pure philosophy of war.

Originally Posted by Corganist

I don't want to know if you think Israel is really acting in good faith. I don't even know if I think that. I just want to know whether or not you think that it would matter if they were. If it does, then I don't see how you could be so quick as to equivocate Israel's actions to terrorism.

I wouldn't, and it would make me less critical to a degree, but again there are limits and ramifications and responsibility to consider. Again this is hypothetical and we've spent long enough on this tangent.

Originally Posted by Corganist

But like I asked earlier, isn't it almost always going to be the case that anytime Israel wishes to strike Hezbollah that they run the risk of causing "excess" damage to civilians just because of Hezbollah's very nature of hiding amongst civilians and whatnot?

Well that depends - when Israel was killing Palestinian militants by hitting cars with rockets, at least they only tended to kill 1 or 2 innocent bystanders. What's happening now is way beyond that - have you seen just how much destruction there is? 'Excess' is beyond that line we both agree exists. And like I keep saying, there are other ways to deal with terrorists, I even gave you a link to where diplomacy disarmed a major terrorist group and there are other examples.

Originally Posted by Corganist

What point was I wrong on? You're the one who said an attack is not terrorism if the victims are soldiers, and suggested the the law backed you up. So I posted the law on how terrorism is defined according to US law and how its interpreted, and it clearly backs up my assertions. Remember what we're talking about here: terrorists coming into Israel and attacking Israeli soldiers before the current conflict started. Israel's soldiers weren't engaged in hostilities on the Lebanon border before the soldiers got kidnapped. Does that mean that it wasn't an area of tension? No, but tension does not equal hostilities.

You said that the initial attack and soldier capture was a terrorist act. I told you it wasn't, then you posted a definition of terrorism that backed me up. You're obviously fully aware of this, because you're twisting in the wind like crazy trying to claim that there were no hostilities in the area, despite earlier claiming there were to justify Israel's massive campaign. You're full of shit, and you know it. Constant rocket attacks, incursions, suicide bombers, mines being laid by Hizbollah on the Israeli side, a mine-clearing vehicle being blown up by a rocket, a previous prisoner-taking incident... these are the kinds of things you were talking about I assume, which somehow don't qualify as 'military hostilities' while justifying a massive Israeli bombing campaign. Do tell what qualifies as 'tensions' and what qualifies as 'military hostilities', since you've picked this completely nebulous point of that definition to cling to.

Originally Posted by Corganist

Again, if terrorists could create a state of "military hostilities" just by attacking any group of armed soldiers it sees and by virtue of that take themselves out from under the definition of terrorism we're working under here, it'd render the interpretation of the law utterly meaningless. I admit I get out on a limb with some things, but I'm on pretty solid ground here. I think you might want to take your own advice about conceding a point.

And conversely, if a group could arbitrarily decide the 'start of a conflict' and claim that anything prior to that was an act of terrorism it would also render the definition meaningless. Your whole argument seems to hinge on that small print, the 'exceptions to the rule' which basically says 'oh it's also terrorism if we consider that to be the case'. We could (and should) have an entire thread dedicated to states' individual interpretations of terrorism and how they're turned to cover attacks by them against us, but it doesn't matter - the idea that there was no state of military hostilities on the Israel-Lebanon border is totally ludicrous. Nobody is that stupid

[Corganist]

Originally Posted by DeviousJ

I'm not interested in establishing a hypothetical framework of how I would view Israel if X and Y were true, I'm talking specifically about what's happening now and what's happened in the past as a precedent. and you're saying I might be right that Israel has crossed the line, so you're tacitly agreeing that there *is* a line, that there is some point beyond which the costs of actions cannot be justified. Ignoring hypothetical possibilities, and focusing on this conflict (and past actions, if you want to talk about precedent for my opinion) I personally believe that Israel is not acting on good faith and has crossed the line[/i]

That's fine and all, but I still don't see where you've even come close to justifying the idea you so boldly put forth earlier that what Israel is doing is more disturbing than what Hezbollah does. I mean, sure, I agree that there's a "line" a country can cross in responding to attacks against it, but that line is not measured in quantifiable terms like people killed or buildings destroyed. That's what I'm trying to get across, but you for some reason keep swatting that point away by telling me it doesn't matter here. You seemingly won't even indulge a hypothetical world where Israel might not be acting with a totally reckless disregard for human life. The only reason I'm pressing the point is because you're so strongly holding out against Israel for what's going on, and barely giving Hezbollah their fair share of the blame. Instead we get stuff like "Oh sure, the terrorists target civilians on purpose....but that just shows they know the value of civilian lives!" and "Kidnapping = capture!" I'm just trying to get you to be a little more even-handed here, and you seem resistant to it for some reason.

Let me ask you this: Do you personally believe Hezbollah has crossed the "line" when it comes to their dealings with Israel?

You said that the initial attack and soldier capture was a terrorist act. I told you it wasn't, then you posted a definition of terrorism that backed me up. You're obviously fully aware of this, because you're twisting in the wind like crazy trying to claim that there were no hostilities in the area, despite earlier claiming there were to justify Israel's massive campaign. You're full of shit, and you know it. Constant rocket attacks, incursions, suicide bombers, mines being laid by Hizbollah on the Israeli side, a mine-clearing vehicle being blown up by a rocket, a previous prisoner-taking incident... these are the kinds of things you were talking about I assume, which somehow don't qualify as 'military hostilities' while justifying a massive Israeli bombing campaign

I never said there were military hostilities in the area. I suggested that maybe the scale of Israel's response may have had more to do with the long running nature of the terrorist threat they've been facing than it did the particular kidnapping of the two soldiers. Somehow you've twisted that into me saying there were military hostilities in the area. What the hell?

And conversely, if a group could arbitrarily decide the 'start of a conflict' and claim that anything prior to that was an act of terrorism it would also render the definition meaningless. Your whole argument seems to hinge on that small print, the 'exceptions to the rule' which basically says 'oh it's also terrorism if we consider that to be the case'. We could (and should) have an entire thread dedicated to states' individual interpretations of terrorism and how they're turned to cover attacks by them against us, but it doesn't matter - the idea that there was no state of military hostilities on the Israel-Lebanon border is totally ludicrous. Nobody is that stupid

Oh come on. If someone had said two months ago, "Given the military hostilities on Israel's northern border, I think Israel should invade Lebanon," you would have rightly said "WTF? What military hostilities?"

Really man, it'd be one thing if you just disregarded the terrorism definition I provided, or if you disagreed with the US's inclusion of attacks on armed soldiers outside military hostilities in their interpretation of the law. Reasonable minds can differ on things such as the definition of terrorism. But you seem to be at least grudgingly accepting the legitmacy of the definition for the purpose of argument and saying that it supports your point. That'd be well and good if that point wasn't the exact opposite of what the law actually says. Either accept what it actually says, or disregard it...but if you do the former then you have to come to terms with the fact that under the terms given, the kidnapping of the soldiers was a clear terrorist act and nothing more.

[DeviousJ]

Originally Posted by Corganist

That's fine and all, but I still don't see where you've even come close to justifying the idea you so boldly put forth earlier that what Israel is doing is more disturbing than what Hezbollah does. I mean, sure, I agree that there's a "line" a country can cross in responding to attacks against it, but that line is not measured in quantifiable terms like people killed or buildings destroyed. That's what I'm trying to get across, but you for some reason keep swatting that point away by telling me it doesn't matter here. You seemingly won't even indulge a hypothetical world where Israel might not be acting with a totally reckless disregard for human life. The only reason I'm pressing the point is because you're so strongly holding out against Israel for what's going on, and barely giving Hezbollah their fair share of the blame. Instead we get stuff like "Oh sure, the terrorists target civilians on purpose....but that just shows they know the value of civilian lives!" and "Kidnapping = capture!" I'm just trying to get you to be a little more even-handed here, and you seem resistant to it for some reason.

Funny how you cut off your quote at the exact point I explained my reasons for believing they've crossed the line. So indulge me here, tell me exactly how this line *is* measured since I've already given you my reasoning.

Originally Posted by Corganist

Let me ask you this: Do you personally believe Hezbollah has crossed the "line" when it comes to their dealings with Israel?

Obviously. But that doesn't excuse Israel's actions and their magnitude, and they're meant to be a legitimate state, not a terrorist organization.

Originally Posted by Corganist

I never said there were military hostilities in the area. I suggested that maybe the scale of Israel's response may have had more to do with the long running nature of the terrorist threat they've been facing than it did the particular kidnapping of the two soldiers. Somehow you've twisted that into me saying there were military hostilities in the area. What the hell?

So the long-running nature of the terrorist threat (rocket attacks, incursions, bombings, laying mines) also doesn't count as 'military hostilities'? I helpfully provided you with a list of actual recent military hostilities occurring on the Lebanon-Israel border and you still want to deny it. You'd swear the world is banana-shaped rather than admit you're wrong in the face of reason. No wonder you're going to be a lawyer

Originally Posted by Corganist

Oh come on. If someone had said two months ago, "Given the military hostilities on Israel's northern border, I think Israel should invade Lebanon," you would have rightly said "WTF? What military hostilities?"

No I wouldn't, because I'm not completely ignorant. I might have said 'why the hell would that justify invading Lebanon' which is a completely different thing.

Originally Posted by Corganist

Really man, it'd be one thing if you just disregarded the terrorism definition I provided, or if you disagreed with the US's inclusion of attacks on armed soldiers outside military hostilities in their interpretation of the law. Reasonable minds can differ on things such as the definition of terrorism. But you seem to be at least grudgingly accepting the legitmacy of the definition for the purpose of argument and saying that it supports your point. That'd be well and good if that point wasn't the exact opposite of what the law actually says. Either accept what it actually says, or disregard it...but if you do the former then you have to come to terms with the fact that under the terms given, the kidnapping of the soldiers was a clear terrorist act and nothing more.

Yeah I accepted the general definition, but I don't give a lot of weight to the caveat you're clinging to, which is about as grudging as it gets. You're ignoring the actual objective definition of terrorism in there and relying entirely on the subjective 'hey, it's also terrorism if we say there were no military hostilities at the site at the time' footnote. Where's the precise definition of 'military hostilities' you're relying on here? Because this attack isn't listed as one of the examples. You're arbitrarily (and completely in the face of reason) deciding that the situation on the border was one of 'tensions' but not 'military hostilities', and using that completely tenuous assertion you've decided 'hey, this is DEFINITELY terrorism'. If you have any case for this at all, it's an incredibly weak one - which of course means that the case for it NOT being terrorism is an incredibly strong one.

Let's shift a gear here shall we - and no ignoring this question, I want answers: Assuming you're actually right that the situation on the border prior to the attack/capture didn't amount to 'military hostilities', then it's pretty clear that there were DEFINITELY no military hostilities in Beirut and other cities in Lebanon. As constant deadly exchanges between Hizbollah and the IDF were not enough to escalate things to a state of widespread military hostilities (including on the border, and in cities like Beirut), therefore you'll agree that Israel's attacks on these cities are clearly acts of terrorism, on a massive scale. Yes?

[Corganist]

Originally Posted by DeviousJ

Funny how you cut off your quote at the exact point I explained my reasons for believing they've crossed the line. So indulge me here, tell me exactly how this line *is* measured since I've already given you my reasoning.

There's lots of factors, and most of them we don't have nearly enough facts about to be apportioning much blame. Whether Israel thinks its striking legitimate Hezbollah targets, whether Hezbollah is hiding and operating in civilian areas, whether Israel is being diligent in making sure their intelligence is correct before bombing something, etc. The key factor in where the line is drawn is that its subjective. And that goes doubly so when you're making comparisons between two groups. On the one hand we have Israel, who have been blowing up shit left and right, and may or may not be doing it with good reason. Then you have Hezbollah, who have been blowing up less shit, and are definitely doing it for no good reason. Maybe one's not worse than the other, but all the same you can't just look at a picture of a razed cityscape or a dead kid and automatically say "Well, whoever did that is obviously the bad guy."

So the long-running nature of the terrorist threat (rocket attacks, incursions, bombings, laying mines) also doesn't count as 'military hostilities'? I helpfully provided you with a list of actual recent military hostilities occurring on the Lebanon-Israel border and you still want to deny it. You'd swear the world is banana-shaped rather than admit you're wrong in the face of reason. No wonder you're going to be a lawyer

You didn't give me a list of military hostilities. You gave me a list of incidents of Hezbollah coming into Israel and blowing shit up and attacking people. Terrorist acts don't become military hostilities just because they happen a lot. You haven't given any indication that Israel's military was actively engaged in any kind of action on the northern Israeli border when these attacks occurred. Them just being there doesn't count. Its their country, and they have a right to be there. And if anything, the only reason they had to be there at all was to protect against terrorist attacks. Again, you can't play the game where the terrorists attack on the border so often that the military has to get called out, and then once the military shows up, it suddenly becomes military hostilities and the terrorists are free to operate as they see fit under a sort of legitimacy.

Yeah I accepted the general definition, but I don't give a lot of weight to the caveat you're clinging to, which is about as grudging as it gets. You're ignoring the actual objective definition of terrorism in there and relying entirely on the subjective 'hey, it's also terrorism if we say there were no military hostilities at the site at the time' footnote. Where's the precise definition of 'military hostilities' you're relying on here? Because this attack isn't listed as one of the examples. You're arbitrarily (and completely in the face of reason) deciding that the situation on the border was one of 'tensions' but not 'military hostilities', and using that completely tenuous assertion you've decided 'hey, this is DEFINITELY terrorism'. If you have any case for this at all, it's an incredibly weak one - which of course means that the case for it NOT being terrorism is an incredibly strong one.

Man, you've just been a shell of yourself during this debate. I'm really disappointed in you, seriously. "Your argument is weak, so therefore mine has to strong"? Is this what you're reduced to? Why have you just abandoned all rationality for the cause of justifying the actions of Hezbollah? Why jump through all these hoops to try and play the kidnapping of the Israeli soldiers in a semi-positive light? Its not as though calling the kidnapping a terrorist act automatically makes Israel's response proportionate and acceptable, so I don't understand why you're bending over backwards to play up Hezbollah's actions as being even close to some sort of legitimate act. This is what has vexed me the entire thread. If you want to say Israel are bad guys, I think that's a tenable position. Maybe further than I'd go at the moment, but defensible. But the disconnect for me is occuring with this "Hezbollah are bad, but not that bad" sentiment. I just don't get it.

And you accuse me of acting completely in the face of reason? I've at least provided some proof that somewhat backs up my assertions. You may not like the law I provided, or the extra caveats that have been read into it. That's fine. But as long as we're working under that definition and those caveats, the only ground you've got to stand on is "Oh, of course there were military hostilities in Northern Israel! That's just a given!" and you back it up not with any military actions in the area....but with the existence of constant terror attacks. That is a little irrational my friend.

Let's shift a gear here shall we - and no ignoring this question, I want answers: Assuming you're actually right that the situation on the border prior to the attack/capture didn't amount to 'military hostilities', then it's pretty clear that there were DEFINITELY no military hostilities in Beirut and other cities in Lebanon. As constant deadly exchanges between Hizbollah and the IDF were not enough to escalate things to a state of widespread military hostilities (including on the border, and in cities like Beirut), therefore you'll agree that Israel's attacks on these cities are clearly acts of terrorism, on a massive scale. Yes?

Not unless we're going to say that Hezbollah is an illegitimate target for the Israeli military to strike. If that's the case, then apparently no organized military can ever fight back against terrorist groups. Keep in mind, the existence of military hostilities only matters as far as determining whether an attack is terrorism if someone attacks an armed member of the military. Hezbollah is not the military. That doesn't mean that Israel's response might not be improper for other reasons, but it won't be because what they are doing fits under the definition of terrorism we're using.

[Bolly!!]

Sometimes, as I read up on the news, I get struck by a single piece of subcontent within a story. I note that President Bush places the blame for the war going on over there right where it belongs: squarely on the shoulders of Hezbollah and Syria. At the same meeting, Russian President Putin also spoke on Israel’s actions:

Putin said it was unacceptable to try to reach political goals through abductions and strikes against an independent state. “In this context we consider Israel’s concerns to be justified,” he said.

At the same time, he said, “the use of force should be balanced.”

Is anyone else struck by the irony that the President of Russia is suggesting that a sovereign nation whose territory was invaded and whose citizens were kidnapped by an outside force should not strike back with everything they’ve got? Considering Russia’s responses to invasions, I’m thinking Putin wouldn’t be content with sending over a lightly armed diplomatic corp were it Russia and not Israel that was the target of such actions. Say, perhaps, if it were Chechen terrorists instead of Hezbollah?

[DeviousJ]

Man, this is gonna be brief

Originally Posted by Corganist

There's lots of factors, and most of them we don't have nearly enough facts about to be apportioning much blame. Whether Israel thinks its striking legitimate Hezbollah targets, whether Hezbollah is hiding and operating in civilian areas, whether Israel is being diligent in making sure their intelligence is correct before bombing something, etc. The key factor in where the line is drawn is that its subjective. And that goes doubly so when you're making comparisons between two groups. On the one hand we have Israel, who have been blowing up shit left and right, and may or may not be doing it with good reason. Then you have Hezbollah, who have been blowing up less shit, and are definitely doing it for no good reason. Maybe one's not worse than the other, but all the same you can't just look at a picture of a razed cityscape or a dead kid and automatically say "Well, whoever did that is obviously the bad guy."

Well it's lucky I didn't do that then, isn't it.

And I see you don't actually have any way of measuring this line beyond waving your hand and saying 'oh, it's uh subjective'. And yet you said that 'Israel may have crossed the line' - since you don't seem to have any way of reasoning that I'm assuming you meant it as yet another truism.

Originally Posted by Corganist

You didn't give me a list of military hostilities. You gave me a list of incidents of Hezbollah coming into Israel and blowing shit up and attacking people. Terrorist acts don't become military hostilities just because they happen a lot. You haven't given any indication that Israel's military was actively engaged in any kind of action on the northern Israeli border when these attacks occurred. Them just being there doesn't count. Its their country, and they have a right to be there. And if anything, the only reason they had to be there at all was to protect against terrorist attacks. Again, you can't play the game where the terrorists attack on the border so often that the military has to get called out, and then once the military shows up, it suddenly becomes military hostilities and the terrorists are free to operate as they see fit under a sort of legitimacy.

Right right, circular argument time - it's terrorism if there are no military hostilities, and there are no military hostilities if it's terrorism. Got it.

Originally Posted by Corganist

Man, you've just been a shell of yourself during this debate. I'm really disappointed in you, seriously. "Your argument is weak, so therefore mine has to strong"? Is this what you're reduced to? Why have you just abandoned all rationality for the cause of justifying the actions of Hezbollah? Why jump through all these hoops to try and play the kidnapping of the Israeli soldiers in a semi-positive light? Its not as though calling the kidnapping a terrorist act automatically makes Israel's response proportionate and acceptable, so I don't understand why you're bending over backwards to play up Hezbollah's actions as being even close to some sort of legitimate act. This is what has vexed me the entire thread. If you want to say Israel are bad guys, I think that's a tenable position. Maybe further than I'd go at the moment, but defensible. But the disconnect for me is occuring with this "Hezbollah are bad, but not that bad" sentiment. I just don't get it.

So you don't have this definition of 'military hostilities' you're hanging your entire argument on, and you're reduced to arbitrarily extending the given examples to include this one so you can claim it's not excluded as per the formal definition. I understand.

Originally Posted by Corganist

And you accuse me of acting completely in the face of reason? I've at least provided some proof that somewhat backs up my assertions. You may not like the law I provided, or the extra caveats that have been read into it. That's fine. But as long as we're working under that definition and those caveats, the only ground you've got to stand on is "Oh, of course there were military hostilities in Northern Israel! That's just a given!" and you back it up not with any military actions in the area....but with the existence of constant terror attacks. That is a little irrational my friend.

Proof that there were no 'military hostilities' in the area? Because that's what you need to provide to make this fall under your own definition of terrorism. I must have missed this proof, please to be repeating it here thanks. You can bold it to make it extra obvious.

Originally Posted by Corganist

Not unless we're going to say that Hezbollah is an illegitimate target for the Israeli military to strike. If that's the case, then apparently no organized military can ever fight back against terrorist groups. Keep in mind, the existence of military hostilities only matters as far as determining whether an attack is terrorism if someone attacks an armed member of the military. Hezbollah is not the military. That doesn't mean that Israel's response might not be improper for other reasons, but it won't be because what they are doing fits under the definition of terrorism we're using.

It has nothing to do with the legitimacy of the target, it's all about whether or not there was 'a state of military hostilities' at the site - as stated in your precious addendum - which was absolutely not the case in the towns and cities attacked by Israel. You yourself said that 'terrorist attacks' are not enough to create a state of military hostilities (I put in yellow for you all special-like). And I got a laugh out of 'Hizbollah is not a military force' - so are they civilians or police or what? Please consult a dictionary before coming out with some bullshit answer.

If you want an easier example, the US invasion of Iraq. Not a site of military hostilities, it was their country and they had a right to be there, and yet the US went in and attacked the Iraqi army. That's terrorism by your definition (again relying on that caveat - I'm seeing a pattern here)

[DeviousJ]

Originally Posted by Bolly!!

Sometimes, as I read up on the news, I get struck by a single piece of subcontent within a story. I note that President Bush places the blame for the war going on over there right where it belongs: squarely on the shoulders of Hezbollah and Syria. At the same meeting, Russian President Putin also spoke on Israel’s actions:

Putin said it was unacceptable to try to reach political goals through abductions and strikes against an independent state. “In this context we consider Israel’s concerns to be justified,” he said.

At the same time, he said, “the use of force should be balanced.”

Is anyone else struck by the irony that the President of Russia is suggesting that a sovereign nation whose territory was invaded and whose citizens were kidnapped by an outside force should not strike back with everything they’ve got? Considering Russia’s responses to invasions, I’m thinking Putin wouldn’t be content with sending over a lightly armed diplomatic corp were it Russia and not Israel that was the target of such actions. Say, perhaps, if it were Chechen terrorists instead of Hezbollah?

It's just rhetoric, there's no point putting any real stock in it. It's all meant to sound reasonable but it doesn't have any meaning. The definitions of what is and isn't acceptable and what is and isn't terrorism are incredibly flexible

[Corganist]

Originally Posted by DeviousJ

And I see you don't actually have any way of measuring this line beyond waving your hand and saying 'oh, it's uh subjective'. And yet you said that 'Israel may have crossed the line' - since you don't seem to have any way of reasoning that I'm assuming you meant it as yet another truism.

I meant it just like it sounded. I'm not convinced Israel hasn't crossed the line. The things you've brought up certainly are suggestive that they have. I haven't denied that at all. But I'm not willing to make the leap in logic that you're making where Israel not only has crossed the line, but have done so more egregiously than Hezbollah has. And I don't see what you think you're going to accomplish by having me say I don't know exactly where the line is. You don't know where it is either. It seems the only difference between you and I is that I know there's more to whether or not they've crossed the line than the scale of the body counts and destruction.

Right right, circular argument time - it's terrorism if there are no military hostilities, and there are no military hostilities if it's terrorism. Got it.

No. There are no military hostilities if there are no military hostilities. Simple as that.

So you don't have this definition of 'military hostilities' you're hanging your entire argument on, and you're reduced to arbitrarily extending the given examples to include this one so you can claim it's not excluded as per the formal definition. I understand.

There is no real definition of what military hostilities means, but its not like its a concept you can really fudge around with much if you're arguing in good faith. Clearly the term suggests that it requires hostilities (ie. overt acts of war) involving the military. I don't think its all that arbitrary to assume that the military involvement in the hostilities at least be active involvement instead of them just happening to be in a place where they become passive victims of an attack. Otherwise we'd live in the Bizarro world where any person can get a group of buddies together and create a state of military hostilities down at their local military base or recruiting center. The version of things you're putting forth just doesn't make any real world sense.

Proof that there were no 'military hostilities' in the area? Because that's what you need to provide to make this fall under your own definition of terrorism. I must have missed this proof, please to be repeating it here thanks. You can bold it to make it extra obvious.

I don't need to prove a negative. You're the one who's acting like only an idiot can deny there was a state of military hostilities in the area when these acts occurred. Surely you've got something to back that up other than "well, terrorists attacked the place a lot."

It has nothing to do with the legitimacy of the target, it's all about whether or not there was 'a state of military hostilities' at the site - as stated in your precious addendum - which was absolutely not the case in the towns and cities attacked by Israel. You yourself said that 'terrorist attacks' are not enough to create a state of military hostilities (I put in yellow for you all special-like). And I got a laugh out of 'Hizbollah is not a military force' - so are they civilians or police or what? Please consult a dictionary before coming out with some bullshit answer.

If you want an easier example, the US invasion of Iraq. Not a site of military hostilities, it was their country and they had a right to be there, and yet the US went in and attacked the Iraqi army. That's terrorism by your definition (again relying on that caveat - I'm seeing a pattern here)

I don't know how I missed this earlier, but you don't have to rely on the caveat to the definition at all when you're not dealing with a "subnational group or clandestine agent". If its a nation performing the action in question, they're automatically outside of the definition of terrorism we're using here. Hezbollah, on the other hand, pretty much epitomizes the term "subnational group," wouldn't you agree?