AIPAC

[Secretariat]

Interesting Editorial

http://news.yahoo.com/s/thenation/20060804/cm_thenation/20060814aipacs_hold

"AIPAC's Hold
Ari Berman Fri Aug 4, 12:00 AM ET

The Nation -- In early March, the American Israel Public Affairs Committee (AIPAC) held its forty-seventh annual conference in Washington. AIPAC's executive director spent twenty-seven minutes reading the "roll call" of dignitaries present at the gala dinner, which included a majority of the Senate and a quarter of the House, along with dozens of Administration officials.

As this event illustrates, it's impossible to talk about Congress's relationship to Israel without highlighting AIPAC, the American Jewish community's most important voice on the Hill. The Congressional reaction to Hezbollah's attack on Israel and Israel's retaliatory bombing of Lebanon provide the latest example of why.

On July 18, the Senate unanimously approved a nonbinding resolution "condemning Hamas and Hezbollah and their state sponsors and supporting Israel's exercise of its right to self-defense." After House majority leader John Boehner removed language from the bill urging "all sides to protect innocent civilian life and infrastructure," the House version passed by a landslide, 410 to 8."

Can someone explain why that kind of language would have to be removed?

[melman]

In a fight for your nation's very right to exist civilians are going to get killed. The stated goal of Iran and Hezbollah is to DESTROY the entire nation of Israel. Let's be clear in order to reach there STATED goal they have NO concern whatsoever about killing. Old men, women, children the entire nation must be destroyed. Until that "goal" changes innocent people will be killed. Egypt and Jordan have said in the past ok Israel we will state that you have a right to exist. Sadat won a Nobel Peace Prize for that. They are not having any deaths in there countries. In a fight for the very life of a nation the idea that no innocent people will be killed is foolish.

[Tom]

A poatern is developing here.
Sec keeps asking questoin of us the he knows none of us can answer.
Why?

If you need to knwo why language like that is taken out, ASK THE GUY THAT DID IT?
Your fingers broken?
You can't dial/type?

What is needed is language like "terroist combatants shall not postion thenselves in the middle of innocnet people so as to put thier lives at risk.

Bottom line - THIS is the new world order of war that the terrorists have chosen to wage - Don't come crying to us when it backfires on them.

And of course it good sense to destroy the infratructures. I submitt Iran should be held responsible for all rebuilding cost since it they who are behind all of this.
Perhaps we should invade Iran and take over thier oil as a security deposit.

[Secretariat]

A poatern is developing here.
Sec keeps asking questoin of us the he knows none of us can answer.


Exactly. Only Boener can answer because it makes no sense. Melman attempted to answer by pointing out that becasue Hezbollah hates Israel that collateral damage of innocent Lebanese children and farm workers is justifiable.

Basically, the answer is if Israel kills innocent people in its conflict with Hamas it is justifiable, even if you're killing people who have nothing to do with Hamas. It is the collateral damage argument.

But what coudl possibly be the objection to stating in a non-binding resolution that we condemn the innocent loss of life. It demonstrates the power of AIPAC, the 2nd largest lobbying group in America, on our Congress.

[linrom1]

So what is the point? AIPAC is a single-issue lobby. They like Israel and lobby for its support. That’s the American way. Pro-life groups lobby Congress; environmental groups lobby Congress and so on. Are you saying that because you don’t like it, someone else shouldn’t have a right to do so?

[Secretariat]

So what is the point? AIPAC is a single-issue lobby. They like Israel and lobby for its support. That’s the American way. Pro-life groups lobby Congress; environmental groups lobby Congress and so on. Are you saying that because you don’t like it, someone else shouldn’t have a right to do so?

No, I'm saying:

"On July 18, the Senate unanimously approved a nonbinding resolution "condemning Hamas and Hezbollah and their state sponsors and supporting Israel's exercise of its right to self-defense." After House majority leader John Boehner removed language from the bill urging "all sides to protect innocent civilian life and infrastructure," the House version passed by a landslide, 410 to 8."

Can someone explain why that kind of language would have to be removed?

[rastajenk]

Maybe it was the "all sides" part of it. Urging terror organizations to do something like that would just make Congress look stupid and silly.

[Tom]

You going to keep asking until you get an answer you like?
I already answered it once.
Let me mkae it clearer - because we support what Israel is doing.
Because you are either with us or against us.
Because the war on terror demands this be done.
Because we do not want the terrorists to continue to exist.
Because Israel is our ally.


Enough?

Boy, I can't wait until the Spike Lee crockumentary comes out - at least we can argue some new crap instead the same old crap. Summer reruns, thanks Sec.

[Secretariat]

You going to keep asking until you get an answer you like?
I already answered it once.
Let me mkae it clearer - because we support what Israel is doing.
Because you are either with us or against us.
Because the war on terror demands this be done.
Because we do not want the terrorists to continue to exist.
Because Israel is our ally.


Enough?

Boy, I can't wait until the Spike Lee crockumentary comes out - at least we can argue some new crap instead the same old crap. Summer reruns, thanks Sec.

That's an extremely poor response. Of course we support Israel, that's a given. But, please enlighten me what is so terrible about inclduing this language in the bill:

"all sides to protect innocent civilian life and infrastructure,"

What is wrong with asking both sides to protect "innocent" civilians and infrastructure.

This has nothing to do with whether we support Israel ( I would hope we support innocent civilians as well)...it has to do what is gained by removing that language. To specifically "remove" it indicates there was some motive. Why? By removing it, is it an indication that we don't really want both sides to protect innocent civilians and infrastructure?

[Tom]

That's an extremely poor response. Of course we support Israel, that's a given. But, please enlighten me what is so terrible about inclduing this language in the bill:

"all sides to protect innocent civilian life and infrastructure,"

What is wrong with asking both sides to protect "innocent" civilians and infrastructure.

This has nothing to do with whether we support Israel ( I would hope we support innocent civilians as well)...it has to do what is gained by removing that language. To specifically "remove" it indicates there was some motive. Why? By removing it, is it an indication that we don't really want both sides to protect innocent civilians and infrastructure?


*sigh*

1. Israel will do it anyway.
2. The hezbians will never do it - their game plan is to TARGET innocent people.

3. Do you look under your bed everynight - for monsters?:bang: I've never seen anybody look for hidden agendas and meanings than you.

4. Do you think EITHER side even knows this thing got drafted? Or cares?

It's nice to know somone sweats the small stuff, though!

[Secretariat]

*sigh*

1. Israel will do it anyway.
2. The hezbians will never do it - their game plan is to TARGET innocent people.



So let me get this straight according to your logic. Becasue Israel will do it anyway, and because the Hezbollah will never do it, we shoudl not list in a non-binding resolution that we woudl like all parties NOT to kill innocent civilians. Well, geez, since Israel will kill innocent civilians anyway, what woudl be the point of manking a statement to not kill innocent civilians.

Tom, you're priceless today.

[Indulto]

Sec,
After reading the links you provided, and following your posts on the subject, I agree that the influence of AIPAC is considerable and I can see that you’re concerned about it. My question to you is: What is the impact of that influence on your daily life? For example, is it greater than that of the oil lobby? What about the anti-stem cell, anti-abortion, anti-Plan B, and anti-gambling lobbies? How about Microsoft and other monopolies?

As far as I can tell, no one’s ability to practice one’s religion in the U.S. is negatively impacted by it. From a military standpoint, our troops are not being called upon, yet. And if eventually they are, is Israel any less important an ally than Britain, Canada, Australia, or any other democracy with whom we share a common culture and economic strategy?

I assume Israel provides us with military intelligence as well as strategic, technological, and other benefits in exchange for our financial aid and political support. If you feel that bargain is not accurate or fair to the U.S., please explain why. If you think the U.S. should treat Israel’s enemies with the same degree of respect and support, please explain that also.

IMO you are implying that AIPAC is corrupting our elected officials, unduly influencing our national policy, and diverting money that could be applied to other areas whose needs are more critical. You may be correct, but as the same could be said about all the other lobbies, why should we focus on that one in particlar?

[Tom]

So let me get this straight according to your logic. Becasue Israel will do it anyway, and because the Hezbollah will never do it, we shoudl not list in a non-binding resolution that we woudl like all parties NOT to kill innocent civilians. Well, geez, since Israel will kill innocent civilians anyway, what woudl be the point of manking a statement to not kill innocent civilians.

Tom, you're priceless today.

What the hell is the sence in the whole statement? I'm pricless? YOU are the one fixated on meaningless crap all week long!
Try this on for size - after they wrote it, the dind't like the way it sounded.
Have you ever constructed a statement of a group before? They get changed dozens of time until everyone is satisfied. I was part of a group once the argued for four meetings over 8 weeks whether to use the words continual improvement or continuous improvement in a mission statememt. We went with continual - do you now suggest that we do not continuously improve things? Sheeez - you need to stop looking for hidden meanings in everything -almost nobody but YOU thinks anything about this stuff. IT IS SMALL SHIT -IT MEANS NOTHING.

Proclaimations of any scope are a waste of time.

[Secretariat]

...almost nobody but YOU thinks anything about this stuff. IT IS SMALL SHIT -IT MEANS NOTHING.

Proclaimations of any scope are a waste of time.

I guess we'll have to agree to disagree. I don't think removing this statement is small shit as you say.

"all sides to protect innocent civilian life and infrastructure,"

[Secretariat]

Sec,
After reading the links you provided, and following your posts on the subject, I agree that the influence of AIPAC is considerable and I can see that you’re concerned about it. My question to you is: What is the impact of that influence on your daily life? For example, is it greater than that of the oil lobby? What about the anti-stem cell, anti-abortion, anti-Plan B, and anti-gambling lobbies? How about Microsoft and other monopolies?

I have some friends and acquaintances in Iraq. I beleive the influence of AIPAC is one of the reasons we are there. Especiially since after the attack on WTC, the Mossad immediately spoke of Iraqi involvement. I think of those friends everyday. It affects policy, and significant costs to the budget towards defense that could go to programs that actually help people rather than kill them.


As far as I can tell, no one’s ability to practice one’s religion in the U.S. is negatively impacted by it. From a military standpoint, our troops are not being called upon, yet. And if eventually they are, is Israel any less important an ally than Britain, Canada, Australia, or any other democracy with whom we share a common culture and economic strategy?

No one's ability to practice one's religion is negatively impacted, although Islamic people have become the bogeymen.

We most likely will be part of a multi-national force when a cease fire is employed, and if not, other countries pulling from Iraq will be used. I consider Israel a much less important ally than Britain since we give from our coffers much more foreign aid to Israel than to any other allies by far.

But what I object to most is the manipulation of our policies toward another country via a lobby that does not directly benefit American citizens. I'd feel the same if China had a lobby driectly influencing congress or Saudi Arabia.


I assume Israel provides us with military intelligence as well as strategic, technological, and other benefits in exchange for our financial aid and political support. If you feel that bargain is not accurate or fair to the U.S., please explain why. If you think the U.S. should treat Israel’s enemies with the same degree of respect and support, please explain that also.


Yes, and often that intelligence is colored with their own agenda. I beleive it is not about treating Israel with respect. I agree with that. However, we have seen how organziations such as Chalabi's group manipulated us for their own self serving needs. We need to be vigilant. My issue is not bashing Israel. It is allowing our officials to be unduly influenced by a coutry dedicated to another countries agenda.



IMO you are implying that AIPAC is corrupting our elected officials, unduly influencing our national policy, and diverting money that could be applied to other areas whose needs are more critical. You may be correct, but as the same could be said about all the other lobbies, why should we focus on that one in particlar?

Because the AIPAC lobby is leading to massive expenditures out of America and acting as catalyst to divide the MidEast further. The illusion that Israel is America's 51st state, and the death of thousands of people throughout the region is waht is happening now based on the policies of Feith, Wolfowitz, and Perle essentially spokespeople for AIPAC. In contrast our top lobby AARP is dedicated to helping American citizens with things like insurance, help with medicare, presecription drugs. In other words things that help keep people alive. AIPAC functions as one if not the only foreign relation lobby.

[Tom]

The closer we get to November, the worse it is going to get! :bang:
6 years of failure are oozing out every pore.
The tongue is starting to itch.
Palms sweating.
Heart raicing.

ba BOOMP...... ba BOOMP..... ba BOOMP

[Indulto]

Originally Posted by Secretariat
I have some friends and acquaintances in Iraq. I beleive the influence of AIPAC is one of the reasons we are there. Especiially since after the attack on WTC, the Mossad immediately spoke of Iraqi involvement. I think of those friends everyday. It affects policy, and significant costs to the budget towards defense that could go to programs that actually help people rather than kill them.Sec,
As I think you know, I was and still am opposed to our “adventure” in Iraq. Unquestionably, the neocons, Wolfowitz and Perle, who are Jewish, played a major role in bringing that debacle to fruition, but so did non-Jews including Rumsfeld, Cheney, Rice, and Bush. Certainly Saddam’s attempts to send rockets into Israel during Desert Storm and subsequent support for Palestinian suicide bombers made him an Israeli target (among many other reasons), but the Bush administration bears the primary responsibility, not AIPAC. That AIPAC helped Bush get support for his actions indicates that American citizens need to be more aware of their influence, but IMO Bush would have found a way to invade Iraq with or without that assistance.No one's ability to practice one's religion is negatively impacted, although Islamic people have become the bogeymen.I am also concerned that moderate Muslims have and will suffer through misguided support for the fundamentalists, just as moderate Israelis have paid a price for allowing the predominantly ultra-religious Jewish settlers to escalate the conflict with the Palestinian Arabs.We most likely will be part of a multi-national force when a cease fire is employed, and if not, other countries pulling from Iraq will be used. I consider Israel a much less important ally than Britain since we give from our coffers much more foreign aid to Israel than to any other allies by far.

But what I object to most is the manipulation of our policies toward another country via a lobby that does not directly benefit American citizens. I'd feel the same if China had a lobby driectly influencing congress or Saudi Arabia.With the Bush family and the Oil Companies, Saudi Arabia doesn’t need a lobby. Ditto Wal-Mart for China. :D Yes, and often that intelligence is colored with their own agenda. I beleive it is not about treating Israel with respect. I agree with that. However, we have seen how organziations such as Chalabi's group manipulated us for their own self serving needs. We need to be vigilant. My issue is not bashing Israel. It is allowing our officials to be unduly influenced by a coutry dedicated to another countries agenda.Is it fair to say that Iraqi expatriates were just as influential as the Mossad?Because the AIPAC lobby is leading to massive expenditures out of America and acting as catalyst to divide the MidEast further. The illusion that Israel is America's 51st state, and the death of thousands of people throughout the region is waht is happening now based on the policies of Feith, Wolfowitz, and Perle essentially spokespeople for AIPAC. In contrast our top lobby AARP is dedicated to helping American citizens with things like insurance, help with medicare, presecription drugs. In other words things that help keep people alive. AIPAC functions as one if not the only foreign relation lobby. Good point about the AARP, but I feel the oil lobby was just as instrumental as AIPAC in our going into Iraq.

The definition of “innocent lives” was changed here in the U.S. by the 9-11 attack. The fact that it was carried out by fanatical fundamentalist Muslims only strengthened the bond between Americans and Israelis. It appears to most Americans and Israelis that there is no reasoning with this group, and that there is no desire (or perhaps too much fear) on the part of -- moderate Muslims to influence or oppose the fanatics within their ranks; either at home or abroad. Perhaps that’s why U.S. intervention on behalf of the moderate Lebanese Muslims has not been immediately forthcoming as it might have been in the past.

It certainly didn’t help the anti-AIPAC case when the current Iraqi Prime Minster stood up and condemned killing by Israelis while his own Sunni and Shiite citizens continue to decimate each other.

[boxcar]

Interesting Editorial

Can someone explain why that kind of language would have to be removed?

Sure. Let me help you out here. Israel is fighting a war in defending its country from offensive missile attacks.

Hope this helps... :rolleyes:

Boxcar

[skate]

oh oh oh . so if hezbolly says they are innocent, then by all means, they just must be so...


they seem to want to send there children to get blown up. that is why (at least they say it)they make babies, to blow up the jewish and youish.

its like abortion, you may as well kill them before they feel the pain.

[Secretariat]

Uh, who said Hezbollah was innocent. This passage relates to preventing the killing of innocent civilians. If anything, the insertion of it into the bill would give even more leverage to condemn Hezbollah when they do so. The answers given thus far are poor.

The truth is there is no good reason to remove it from the bill.

The truth also that in this war, the amount of civlians being killed is in the hundreds by Israel whereas the amount killed by Hezbollah is less than a hundred. Certainly, why can both not be condemned.

Many of these people are citizens of Lebanon, not Syria and have nothing to do with Hezbollah. Lebanon is a democracy, so Israel is in essence bombing the innocent civlians of a democracy and basically using the excuse that anything is justified if it kills Hezbollah.

That argument is like the one Stalin used when he ordered the destruction of an entire town if it killed any threats to his regime.

Putting a statement urging both sides NOT to kill innocent civilians in a non-binding resolution and then removing it is appallling, and Bonior should answer why he removed it. The fact that some posters here defend that action is incomprehensible to me.

[lsbets]

Hezbollah is a part of the government in Lebanon. They have seats in the cabinet. They are not some fringe group that acts seperately from the government. They are a large part of the government. To claim that Hezbollah has nothing to do with the Lebanese government is totally, completely false.

Oh, and before 9/11 Hezbollah was the leading terrorist group in the world in terms of killing Americans, so I have little sympathy for those who provide support or sanctuary to them.

[boxcar]

Many of these people are citizens of Lebanon, not Syria and have nothing to do with Hezbollah. Lebanon is a democracy, so Israel is in essence bombing the innocent civlians of a democracy and basically using the excuse that anything is justified if it kills Hezbollah..

So,then the big question that you and other bleeding heart libs should be asking Hezbollah is why did they put those "innocent civilians" in harm's way by:

A) starting this conflict?
B) by setting up their rocket batteries in civilian population centers?

It seems to me that the Hezzies didn't think about what the consquences of their acts would be -- or they simply didn't care. I personally believe it's the latter. They have no regard for human life. They have but one mission in life: Destroy Israel at any expense!

Boxcar

[Tom]

Uh, who said Hezbollah was innocent. This passage relates to preventing the killing of innocent civilians. If anything, the insertion of it into the bill would give even more leverage to condemn Hezbollah when they do so. The answers given thus far are poor.

The truth is there is no good reason to remove it from the bill. What good reason was there to pass a non-bindg bill in the fist place?

The truth also that in this war, the amount of civlians being killed is in the hundreds by Israel whereas the amount killed by Hezbollah is less than a hundred. Certainly, why can both not be condemned.

Many of these people are citizens of Lebanon, not Syria and have nothing to do with Hezbollah. Lebanon is a democracy, so Israel is in essence bombing the innocent civlians of a democracy and basically using the excuse that anything is justified if it kills Hezbollah. Yes. A a valid reason. WE used it in WWII. In war, people in the way get killed. But how do you know how many of those are really innocent and not supporters of Hezzy? Supporters of Hezzy are legitimate targets.

That argument is like the one Stalin used when he ordered the destruction of an entire town if it killed any threats to his regime. Not even remotely similar. Israel is NOT targeting anything but hezzy targets - unlike the attacks on anything Jewish by the Hezzys.

Putting a statement urging both sides NOT to kill innocent civilians in a non-binding resolution and then removing it is appallling, and Bonior should answer why he removed it. Why don't you ask him? Words like "should" are passive ans show no committment. The fact that some posters here defend that action is incomprehensible to me. MANY things here are incomprehensible to you.

The whole thing is nuts - whinning about the wording of a non binding statement that no one will probably ever read. Sheez.
Sec - suppose you had the lingo you want - describe to us what would be different today? What changes in the real world would have occurred because of it?

[Secretariat]

Unbeleivable. It appears that wording to the effect of protecting "innocent civilians" is too much for some posters on this board.

[lsbets]

Define innocent civilian. Define how far it is reasonable to go to protect innocent civilians. Define at what point it is acceptable to kill an innocent civilian.

Damn, seems like there are a lot of things that need to be defined. Maybe therein lies the answer to your original question.

[boxcar]

Unbeleivable. It appears that wording to the effect of protecting "innocent civilians" is too much for some posters on this board.

Quit making stupid statements. It isn't becoming.

I'm all for protecting "innocent civilians". But shouldn't that protection have started with the Hezzies and for that matter with the Lebanese government, who has been M.I.A. ever since this conflict began? It's a wee bit late now to talk about protection, isn't it?

But now that Hezzies started this ruckus, somehow the onus is entirely on Israel to take all the necessary steps to protect those "innocent civilians" on the other side of the Israeli border? And in the process to put more Israeli lives at risk!?

Boxcar

[Secretariat]

Define innocent civilian. Define how far it is reasonable to go to protect innocent civilians. Define at what point it is acceptable to kill an innocent civilian.

Damn, seems like there are a lot of things that need to be defined. Maybe therein lies the answer to your original question.

Innocent civiian? How about a child playing or a baby? or a family who migrated there to simply sell in a market? How about some farmers picking crops? I suppose we should Republican Representative Bonior what it means.

How far to go? Well, some Israeli pilots have stated they've begun dumping their payloads rather than bomb innocent civililans when they questioned the intelligence. That took remarkable courage, and I appluad tose pilots. I guess for me, I draw the line on bombing children from the sky.

It is never acceptable to kill an innocent civilian.

The issue is that Israel has begun a process of destroying anything where Hezbollah might be. The response is basically collateral damage, but Stalin could have made the same claim when destroyng a whole city to get some of the vermin.

[Secretariat]

I'm all for protecting "innocent civilians".

Good. So am I. So then you think Bonior should have left that language in the resolution?

[Tom]

See Dave's post about Reuter's faking new out of Lebanon!

How do know ANY civilians have been hit when the news is admittedly faked and biased against Israel.

This is unacceptable!

This is digusting!

I want to know who is accountable for this and make sure they are punished!
It is NEVER acceptable to fake the news!




BTW, how'd that Rosewell thing ever turn out?
Weather ballons, or what?
Was anyone ever held accountable for that debacle?:bang:

[Secretariat]

See Dave's post about Reuter's faking new out of Lebanon!

How do know ANY civilians have been hit when the news is admittedly faked and biased against Israel.

This is unacceptable!

This is digusting!

I want to know who is accountable for this and make sure they are punished!
It is NEVER acceptable to fake the news!

BTW, how'd that Rosewell thing ever turn out?
Weather ballons, or what?
Was anyone ever held accountable for that debacle?:bang:

That Reuters photographer was held accountable and rightly so. But to make the leap "How do we know ANY civilians have been hit" is absurd? Every major TV news station had video, (not doctored photographs to enhance the smoke) showing the destruction and the bodies being pulled.

Certainly, you're not saying that because one suspended Reuters photographer who doctored the smoke after an Israeli bomb run (btw..which the article did not question whether it happened or not) that there were no civilian casualties? Whew...I hope not. What a leap.

And I agree, it is never acceptable to fake the news...and that incldues manufacturing the news like the Bush Niger story.

[lsbets]

Sounds great Sec, how about the civilians who surround a rocket launcher. Is it not okay to destroy that launcher because Hezbollah uses women and children as shields? If you are truly interested in answers, you need to look beyond feel good soundbites.

[Secretariat]

Sounds great Sec, how about the civilians who surround a rocket launcher. Is it not okay to destroy that launcher because Hezbollah uses women and children as shields? If you are truly interested in answers, you need to look beyond feel good soundbites.

I appreciate the compliment, but not a lot of babies around rocket launchers.

Let me ask you something. If a terrorist launched a rocket a block away from your home while you were saying grace and having dinner and just trying to live your life, how would you feel if your family was destroyed when you were bombed to hell because you simply were in the general vicinity of a temporary location where some guy may have fired that rocket?

[lsbets]

I appreciate the compliment, but not a lot of babies around rocket launchers.

Let me ask you something. If a terrorist launched a rocket a block away from your home while you were saying grace and having dinner and just trying to live your life, how would you feel if your family was destroyed when you were bombed to hell because you simply were in the general vicinity of a temporary location where some guy may have fired that rocket?

Really? Hezbollah doesn't locate their launchers around civilians? That is how they operate. The more dead babies the better PR for them, especially when they get journalists to cooperate with them.

I'm sorry Sec, but I find it incredulous that you are so quick to give the benefit of the doubt to an organization that is an enemy of the United States not only in word, but in deed. I've wondered in the past if there was anyone you would not stand next to in order to stand against Bush and the Republicans, and now I'm pretty sure I have my answer.

[boxcar]

Good. So am I. So then you think Bonior should have left that language in the resolution?

You're as dishonest as the day as long. You and 'Cap must be joined at the hip to quote me out of context like that. Yes, Im all for the language, providing the onus is where it should be -- on the Hezbollah.

But it's all a moot point now anyway, isn't it -- especially since the Hezzies aren't going to stop hiding behind civilians and dressing as civilians? The Pandora's Box has been opened and it wasn't Israel who opened it.

Boxcar

[PaceAdvantage]

It is never acceptable to kill an innocent civilian.

It's never acceptable, that is correct. However, at times, it's unavoidable.

Has any major armed conflict EVER been fought where innocent civilians were NOT at risk? Unless you're talking about something that happens in the desert, or out at sea, it's virtually impossible to avoid killing innocent civilians when engaging in modern combat.

Is there proof that Israel is intentionally targeting and killing innocent civilians? How does one go about proving that the bodies shown are innocent civilians? (Yes, I know dead babies and young children are innocent civilians, but beyond that, HOW DO YOU KNOW?)

This whole fixation on innocent civilians is rather silly. Sorry to say, the only way to prevent collateral damage is to not have any armed conflicts.

[Tom]

Sec,
The UN is debating the wording of the resolution over Lebanon and Israel.
Will you be requiring an explanation for every change they make over the next two days?
:bang:

[Secretariat]

All of these comments are diversions from the issue. Ths issue is what is the problem with listing that BOTH sides should prevent the killing of innocent civilians and WHY would Bonior insist that be removed from a non-binding resolution. As PA said ,it is never acceptable to kill innocient civilians I agree with that. Many of the posters have spoke to the unavoidability of it in specific situations. THat is not the issue here. The issue is simply that BOTH sides should prevent the killing of innocent civilians.

It is amazing to me that so many here go out of there way to defend the removal of this simple passage.