This story is archived

Human Rights group slams Israel for bombing civilians »

Posted by: Ousama 3 years, 5 months ago

Archived 18

Israel's military appears to have deliberately bombed civilians in Lebanon and some of its strikes constitute war crimes, U.S.-based rights group Human Rights Watch (HRW) said on Thursday.

Read Full Story at washingtonpost.com »

Submitted By:

Ousama

Please visit me at:

This Story is Archived and Commenting is Closed

Comments: 17

Avg rating: (+0/-0 0)
dglspres
Aug. 3, 2006, 2:22 p.m.
HRW should be careful who they suport or they may loose their Human Rights ..... It is amazing howmany criticize Israel but don't think theat Hezollah is doing anything wrong by TARGETING Civilians
Avg rating: (+0/-0 0)
Bobcat6
Aug. 3, 2006, 2:50 p.m.
My, my. HRW condemns Israel for doing this but I've never heard one word or read anything condemning Hezbollah for their atrocities. Well we know whose side HRW is on now don't we? How much is Hezbollah paying U HRW? Why don't U shut your big stupid mouths!
Avg rating: (+0/-0 0)
eflag25
Aug. 3, 2006, 3:04 p.m.
These two people (dglspres and Bobcat6) obviously don't read anything much or do much research--they just like to call names. Anyone who checks into it will find that there is a great deal of reproach for both sides of the Lebanon conflict coming from numerous other countries and observers. The UN has called for a cease fire on both sides. It is always the case that each side in a conflict blames the other side but there can be no peace unless both parties step back and exercise some intelligence and diplomacy. In the long run, it doesn't even matter who started it since both sides seem intent on continuing the fight even if it means killing many hundreds of civilians and perhaps even dragging the rest of the Middle East into what could rocket into a World War. The bard was right. "What fools these mortals be!"
Avg rating: (+0/-0 0)
sage1
Aug. 3, 2006, 3:13 p.m.
guys stop playing victim, sound like children. "he did it mommy not me" boo the f#$@@ hoo
Avg rating: (+0/-0 0)
adinas
Aug. 3, 2006, 3:58 p.m.
1. More German civilians were killed than American and British put together during WWII. So I suppose the Germans were the victims of the war?
2. In 1944 The British air force tried to bomb the Gestapo HQ in Copenhagen but hit a hospital killing 83 Danish children. So the British were the monsters of WWII I guess.
Avg rating: (+0/-0 0)
Vulgar_Celebrity
Aug. 3, 2006, 4:15 p.m.
Why is everyone taking sides here? It's clearly both sides that are wrong.
I have a flawless Middle East peace plan, though implementing it may be hard. Give everyone in the region a pistol and a box of bullets. Take away all airplanes and any other methods that could be used to escape the region. The last one left standing gets to rule the whole region for the remainder of his/her life.
Avg rating: (+7/-0 7)
Vulgar_Celebrity
Aug. 3, 2006, 4:16 p.m.
By the way, that second part was intended to be somewhat funny. I realize that such a thing would never work.
Avg rating: (+0/-0 0)
leor613
Aug. 3, 2006, 5:07 p.m.
Okay Vulgar Celebrity, let's test your opinion that "both sides are wrong". Hezbollah kidnapped Israeli soldiers, after launching a fient that resulted in killing Israeli soldiers. So is it wrong for Israel to retaliate? If so please explain why to the rest of us.
Avg rating: (+0/-0 0)
Vulgar_Celebrity
Aug. 3, 2006, 5:21 p.m.
leor613:
First, is "retaliation" the proper response? The ideal response would be to attempt to rescue the soldiers, I belive. But has this been an effective and efficent retaliation? In combat the impact to civilians (or rather noncombatants) SHUOLD be minimal - something that is clearly being violated here. Can you disagree with that?
Do I agree with Hezbollah's actions? NO.
Do I agree with Israel's method of retaliation? NO
Both sides are clearly wrong if we put aside our bias. Noncombatants are being killed on both sides in tragic numbers?
Let's bring this a little closer to home with an example. If the KKK or some other hate group in the US takes hostages from oh, say, Mexico, and Mexico's response is to (hypothetically) bomb seemingly random places and kill tons of our civilians, would their response be a good one? It would be retaliation if we follow the same standards in our reasoning that Israel's action is retaliation.
Avg rating: (+2/-4 -2)
dance4others
Aug. 3, 2006, 5:29 p.m.
to leor613:
yes, they kidnapped 2 soldiers and only 2, they did not kill them or abuse them or anything. do you know what lebanon wants to do w/those TWO soldiers? they want to do a prisoner exchange with TEN THOUSAND!!! lebanese CIVILIANS that israel has had since 1981!!!
to buckfush: thank you for bringing that up=] and it's actually 10,000, not 2,000
to dglspres and Bobcat6: get your facts straight before you open your mouths and stop being puppets
Avg rating: (+1/-0 1)
otto
Aug. 3, 2006, 6:03 p.m.
back in 1948 the palestinians were also offered a state.
how come they denied that offer by the united nations ?
david ben-gurion said yes and an israeli state was born.
the next day that new state came under heavy attack from the neighbours. israel won as we all know. this jewish state is still denied to this day 3rd of august 2006 by the surrounding countries. why ? i agree the idf is way out of line by bombing lebanon and the gaza-strip and causing far too much victims in gaza and lebanon. HRW is totally correct in slamming israel for warcrimes. who brings israel before an international court of law in the hague ? when is the jewish lobby in washington and new york holding back funds and stop protecting israel ? when will there be real peace in that region? i read this week that golda meir said once :
"the arabs should love their children more than that they hate us" maybe that will happen in our lifetime.....
Avg rating: (+0/-0 0)
jaxmanjoe
Aug. 4, 2006, 11:17 a.m.
celebrity - if we give them all guns and let the last one standing have it all, that would put the world's oil supply into one person's hands!
How about a huge game of paint ball? Last nationality with a clean member gets the land? Or rock, paper, scissors?
It could work.
Avg rating: (+0/-0 0)
wu-ji
Aug. 6, 2006, 10:59 a.m.
Otto, how is some foreign power gonna come in and tell a people they can have a state, when they've been living where they've been living for over 500 years? If the UN came in and said "We're giving the U.S. back to the Native Americans, but you guys can have the Eastern Seaboard...", would the U.S. citizens deny the offer? I think so, and we haven't had it from the Native Americans for even 200 years.
On the other hand, I can't defend the continued violence on the part of the moslems. I think your prescription "the arabs should love their children more than they hate us" is beautiful and noble. Kudos!
Avg rating: (+0/-0 0)
jaxmanjoe
Aug. 6, 2006, 11:45 a.m.
I believe that the world has become enough of a single community now that the general concensus is that CURRENT boundries need to be respected. Depending on how far back in history you go, just about every piece of land has been owned by a variety of people. There's no just way to decide historically, so there has to be a point in time where you say 'these are the recognized boundaries'.
It's pretty easy for most of the world right now. The big sticking point is Israel/Palistine. Is there any other place where borders are still hotly disputed?(real question, not rhetorical!)
I believe the UN was trying to be helpful by establishing borders but they were obviously not accepted by the Palistinians. One of they key problems right now is that certain groups believe that Israel shouldn't exist. This is just not a possibility. It will exist. Until EVERYONE living around them agrees, I don't see a solution for Israel other than what they are doing.