Foreign Affairs Discussion Group Message Board

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Politics : Foreign Affairs Discussion Group

Public Reply Prvt Reply Mark as Last Read File

Previous 10 Next 10 Previous Next

To: GST who wrote (201784)	9/7/2006 2:05:32 PM
From: Hawkmoon	Read Replies (2) of 281500

The reason one engages in self-defense is to eliminate the threat of further attack. You can say it as slowly as you want, but I was discussing RETALIATION for war crimes committed by the enemy against "my" side's population, not merely "self-defense". We have no disagreement on the definition of self-defense. Had Israel practiced TRUE self-defense, they would have been attacking those Katyusha launch sites YEARS AGO. However, when Hizbullah DELIBERATELY TARGETED THEIR CIVILIAN POPULATION, they committed a DELIBERATE war crime. And a war crime, as you have acknowledge in the case of nuclear attack, justifies retaliation... Thus, in sum, Israel warned ALL CIVILIANS to leave S. Lebanon. Thus, they covered their @sses legally with regard to being accused of war crimes when they attacked those areas they perceived were the origins of Hizbullah rocket attacks. You can hardly accuse them of war crimes when they provided ample warning that they were going to retaliate against these missile launches. Case closed. Hawk

Report TOU Violation

Share This Post

Public Reply Prvt Reply Mark as Last Read File

Previous 10 Next 10 Previous Next