Is every Lebanese person who shoots back at Israeli soldiers a terrorist?

[NNN0LHI]

I am just trying to keep track here.

Don

[atreides1]

1. According to some here

Yes.

[jonnyblitz]

2. yes. that way it makes their slaugher legitimate. nt

[FUGW]

8. So Jonny, if a country invaded the U.S. you wouldn't fight back?

[Lerkfish]

23. lebanon invaded Isreal?

I must have missed that.

[ThomCat]

25. It's funny that Israel is the only country flowing over

their own borders but it's everyone else who is supposedly invading Israel.

[Lerkfish]

I find that odd, as well. how high does that rank on the "denial" meter?

[FUGW]

26. No Hezzbolah invaded Israel.

[Lerkfish]

29. Your analogy stated "if a COUNTRY invaded..."

and further, it appears that quite clearly Lebanon is being invaded, not Isreal.

[Totallybushed]

11. If they're

"shooting" at Israelis then they are certainly combatants. Hence can be legally killed in combat.

[FUGW]

28. What ever.

[leesa]

37. So Lebanese civilians are not allowed to defend themselves "legally"

if they shoot at almighty Israeli soldiers shooting at them (whatever the fuck "legally" means after you are shot dead). It's always a separate set of rules for Americans and Israelis.

[Totallybushed]

40. No, no, no.

Same rules for all. If you are shooting at someone, they have a moral obligation to shoot you. Or at least common sense says they will see it that way.

Once you pick up arms, you are no longer a 'civilian'

[Ian David]

3. Of course not. n/t

[Name removed]

7. Deleted sub-thread

Sub-thread removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[ThomCat]

4. According to some, shooting back isn't even necessary.

Simply being in Lebanon makes you a terrorist supporter, so it's okay to destroy your home, kill your family, and you're the one who's guilty.

[TahitiNut]

13. That's the operative premise of the Israeli government, apparently.

They seemingly legitimize attacks on cities (Beirut) and infrastructure (ports and airports and power plants) as "punishment" (reeking with parentalism) of the Lebanese for not reining in Hizb'allah.

I'm not personally under any illusion that civilians on either side are "out of bounds" in a war. That thinking went out over 60 years ago. Only politically neutral citizens of neutral countries get any kind of 'pass' in a war between national forces, whether governmental or para-national militia. The mere mention of the word "innocent" has no meaning in war - only in criminal justice.

[ThomCat]

15. Unfortunately, that is very true. There is no justice

in politics and war.

[rodeodance]

5. are peaceful demonstrators in the US potential terrorists?--seems so as

they are tracked and put on a list.
I would think same thing exists elsewhere.

[coalition_unwilling]

6. You're forgetting about all the Lebanese children disguised as terrorists.

[LittleClarkie]

9. Scorecards! Get your scorecards heah!

Reminds me of how everyone who picks up a gun in Iraq is an insurgent. Perhaps he/she is just a radicalized native.

Well, we were all friendly-like to Lebanon when we were trying to get Syria out of there, talking about democracy being on the march. I wonder what democracy is doing now, limping? Israel didn't declare war on Hezzbolah. They've declared war on Lebanon. How can they pretend otherwise.

I reckon there are going to be radicalized Lebanese who wouldn't have been "terrorists" otherwise, but since their homes are blown all to hell, along with alot of infrastructure like the airport and communications and such, they're surely feeling like they're the ones under attack too, regardless of who the intended target was supposed to be.

[Just Me]

39. I seriously believe that was part of the PNAC/LIKUD plan,...

,...to make Lebanon to weak to defend itself and then occupy it in order to surround and control the whole of the Middle East.

[The Magistrate]

10. The Term Is Useless, Sir

Hezbollah has a right to fight Israel; Israel has a right to fight Hezbollah. Neither has a right to succeed, for that is what the course of their conflict determines, and neither has a right to commit crimes in pressing their battle.

[TahitiNut]

17. The colonial American revolutionaries were "terrorists."

It's the term that states use when their monopoly on military/militia force is violated and an assymetrical conflict ensues. The weaker force MUST employ tactics favorable to their position. There's no choice. That's why we hid behind trees, fired, and ran away. The British, of course, complained we didn't form battle squares - a tactic entirely favorable to their side. It was nonsense then and it's nonsense now.

[sendero]

19. I would like to distinguish..

... that sort of "terrorism" from the sort that target civilians, i.e. suicide bombers.

To me, any military target is fair game using any method, targeting civilians is not.

Both sides clearly target civilians.

[TahitiNut]

33. Civilians have been targets of war for nearly 100 years.

London, Tokyo, Dresden, Hiroshima, Nagasaki, etc.

Personally, I think the myth of "innocent civilians" is perpetuated by politicians/warmongers who are pouring fuel on the fires of war in an attempt to get their populations mentally indoctrinated. The visceral reactions, no matter how myth-based, serve to rouse the rabble -- always, however, either failing to admit that the killing of civilians is taking place on both sides or making completely meaningless distinctions between the techniques used.

I stand fast in saying that it's no less a horror to kill non-combatant civilians (e.g. children) by dropping bombs from 20,000 feet and walking in with a bomb strapped on one's body and blowing up people including one's self. The dead are just as dead. I've tried to point out how remarkably few children were killed on 9-11 ... and am met with blank stares. Our "side" has been abominably biased in not making note of that. An objective observer need only compare the 9-11 casualty demographics to the Oklahoma City bombing of the Murrah Building to note how remarkably few children were killed compared to McVeigh's approach.

It's war fever. The techniques in spreading it are ages old. Everyone is being contaminated. Even DUers. (Gee. How could that be?) The people most contaminated are always among the least able to realize it. The power of denial cannot be overestimated.

[The Magistrate]

21. Yes And No, My Friend

The Continental Army did not begin to win battles until it had been trained in and grown competent in employing the stanjdard tactics of armies in that day. They were trained by officers supplied by the French crown. Though they may seem foolish to modern eyes, the methods employed were in fact the best and most effective means of utilizing musketry and maintaining cohesive control of the soldiery.

You are quite correct, though, that "terrorist" is generally used to indicate persons who are breaking the state monopoly on violence, whether their conduct is criminal or no. In fact, particulatly with the supplemenmtyary coinage of "state terrorism" added into the language, it seems to me the term really means only "political violence of which the utterer disapproves...."

[NNN0LHI]

24. musketry

I really like reading your posts, Sir.

Don

[TahitiNut]

31. Very true. Fabian tactics were nearly 2,000 years old in 1776.

The key, however, is in avoiding the brute force battles - battles where the superior and better-equipped forces have the overwhelming advantage- battles in which the (literally!) rank and file discipline (fire, kneel, reload, stand, advance, repeat) was key to maximizing the effectiveness of the firepower of the day: musketry. We're also seeing a somewhat similar political reaction today as the general population, accustomed to the "conventions" of military conflict, are biased against the "upstarts." After all, shouldn't the public's investment yield the results they/we were promised?
In a sense, I think we're seeing "buyer's remorse." :evilgrin:

[patcox2]

12. Yes. Hezbullah invented New Coke; they harbor terrorists.

They must be punished for democratically electing hezbullah members, just as Venezuela has democratically gone un-democratic.

[ThomCat]

30. It's funny how we tend to officially forget or deny that

a country is a democracy if they elect people our government doesn't like.

[magellan]

14. Not enough detail

What are the specific circumstances? Were they fired upon first?

There are Lebanese who are acting as part of Hezbollah, and Lebanese who may just be defending themselves, their families and their property against an invading force. The difference may make the difference...although how one tells for sure in the field I wouldn't know.

[deaniac21]

16. No but their chances of passing along dna are significantly

reduced.

[Karenina]

22. Which is the point of the entire exercise.

n/t

[thereismore]

18. those who fight illegal invasion are freedom fighters. nt

[Joe Fields]

20. give me a freakin' break. That's just plain silly.

[bloom]

27. probably

Are militaries any less anti-social?

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=364&topic_id=1684143&mesg_id=1684143

[Zhade]

32. Not if Israel is invading their land, no.

In fact, even Hezbollah isn't practicing terrorism by striking Israeli SOLDIERS in Lebanon. Civilians anywhere, yes, that's terrorism.

The IDF are not civilians, so no, it's not terrorism to attack, even before being shot at, invading soldiers.

[leesa]

34. Of course. Just like every person who resists US occupation is a

terrorist. Anyone who doesn't salute the Fuhrer is a terrorist.

[DanCa]

35. I don't think that (nt)

[Just Me]

36. Question: does Israel intend to occupy/control the nation?

Looks like it to me.

Does the Lebanese have the legal right to defend against occupation? I believe they do since the nation didn't declare war,...Israel simply used an excuse of two soldiers being kidnapped as reason to destroy and invade.

That's my opinion.

[K8-EEE]

38. No, The Lebanese Have No Right To Defend Themselves.

Well actually they have no WAY to defend themselves, which is why this is so sick.

They should have international help for the Lebanese Army to guard the border. If they would freaking STOP BOMBING maybe they could work something out.

This is not going to solve anything, what they'e doing.