Public Arab Tide turns in favor of Hezbollah - Page 2

Donkey® · 07-28-2006, 05:01 PM

Originally Posted by ballz2wallz

sometimes that chance never arises

do you suggest israel just take a beating while hezbollah does what they will, simply because hezbollah is hiding amongst civilians?

No. I suggest they find a different way of dealing with the problem...like maybe instead of bombing and shelling, they man up and send in the troops. Let's see if they can win that way? Let's see if they kill less civilians that way?

Donkey® · 07-28-2006, 05:01 PM

Originally Posted by Phantom

I have a feeling your opinion would change if rockets were raining down on your hometown. I admit there's no easy answer, but between shooting up soldiers and civilians together or just sitting back and watching rockets land on your town, 99% of the world is going to say shoot to kill.

There is a proper way to do it though.

Scrum · 07-28-2006, 05:05 PM

Originally Posted by ballz2wallz

do you suggest israel just take a beating while hezbollah does what they will, simply because hezbollah is hiding amongst civilians?

Because there is nothing in between sitting there taking a beating and dropping bombs on places where you know there are civilians.

SpicyMcVoodoo · 07-28-2006, 05:08 PM

Originally Posted by some paper

U.N. Chief Accuses Hezbollah of 'Cowardly Blending' Among Refugees

Why do people throw around the word "cowardly"? It's so subjective. If Hezbollah are cowardly for mingling among civilians, then what are the Israelis, who for the most part have kept their casualties low and lebanese civilian casualties high by bombing and shelling from far away? Israel could easily have reduced the civilian death toll by sending troops in to root the terrorists out. But they haven't. They prefer to keep their own soldiers safe by putting civilians in danger. Of course, Hezbollah also launches rockets then hides. You ask me, they're both cowardly, if people insist on using that word.

ballz2wallz · 07-28-2006, 05:14 PM

Originally Posted by Donkey®

No. I suggest they find a different way of dealing with the problem...like maybe instead of bombing and shelling, they man up and send in the troops. Let's see if they can win that way? Let's see if they kill less civilians that way?

oh yeah, gunfights in the streets are SURE to kill fewer civilians

ballz2wallz · 07-28-2006, 05:15 PM

Originally Posted by Scrumtralecent

Because there is nothing in between sitting there taking a beating and dropping bombs on places where you know there are civilians.

like what?

Scrum · 07-28-2006, 05:16 PM

Originally Posted by ballz2wallz

like what?

Don't act stupid.

Stylerod · 07-28-2006, 05:19 PM

Originally Posted by Scrumtralecent

Don't act stupid.

No, really. If you were an Israeli soldier, what would you want them to do with you? Kill as many as they can from a distance, or throw you and your buddies into enemy cities and see how things turn out?

SpicyMcVoodoo · 07-28-2006, 05:19 PM

Originally Posted by ballz2wallz

oh yeah, gunfights in the streets are SURE to kill fewer civilians

Umm...they would. When you have a gun fight in the street, you actually see what the gun is pointing at before you pull the trigger. By the time a bomb or shell is about to fall on a civilian, you don't know it, and even if you did, you couldn't take it back. Are you seriously arguing otherwise?

ballz2wallz · 07-28-2006, 05:21 PM

Originally Posted by Scrumtralecent

Don't act stupid.

i'm serious. laser-guided bombing is the next step in any kind of attack. next comes ground forces where casualty rates increase, both civilian and military. what's between sitting there and targeted attacks?

archangel003 · 07-28-2006, 05:21 PM

Originally Posted by Scrumtralecent

Don't act stupid.

I'm as interested as ballz is.

ballz2wallz · 07-28-2006, 05:21 PM

Originally Posted by SpicyMcVoodoo

Umm...they would. When you have a gun fight in the street, you actually see what the gun is pointing at before you pull the trigger. By the time a bomb or shell is about to fall on a civilian, you don't know it, and even if you did, you couldn't take it back. Are you seriously arguing otherwise?

absolutely. casualties significantly increase upon use of foot soldiers. that's why that's always second to be used.

Scrum · 07-28-2006, 05:23 PM

Originally Posted by Stylerod

No, really. If you were an Israeli soldier, what would you want them to do with you? Kill as many as they can from a distance, or throw you and your buddies into enemy cities and see how things turn out?

Yea, lets look to the israeli soldiers opinion for a nice point of view.

SpicyMcVoodoo · 07-28-2006, 05:23 PM

Originally Posted by ballz2wallz

absolutely. casualties significantly increase upon use of foot soldiers. that's why that's always second to be used.

Evidence? That sounds pretty counterintuitive.

ballz2wallz · 07-28-2006, 05:24 PM

Originally Posted by Scrumtralecent

Yea, lets look to the israeli soldiers opinion for a nice point of view.

i'ts common sense

ballz2wallz · 07-28-2006, 05:24 PM

Originally Posted by SpicyMcVoodoo

Evidence? That sounds pretty counterintuitive.

evidence? look at the iraq war.

counterintuitive how? you can have targeted and less common attacks, or you can have all-out war in the streets at every corner. and you know as well as i that it would not be limited to just guns and bullets. they will be blowing up buildings left and right.

SpicyMcVoodoo · 07-28-2006, 05:27 PM

Originally Posted by ballz2wallz

evidence? look at the iraq war.

counterintuitive how? you can have targeted and less common attacks, or you can have all-out war in the streets at every corner.

It's counter intuitive because when you're bombing areas surrounded by civilians, it would be pretty easy to kill civilians in the area. Whereas if you're a soldier in the streets, the only way you'd accidently kill a civilian is if a bullet over pentrates a wall or you mistake a civilian for a fighter or something...I'd think that would be less common than entire buildings being destroyed and hurting those around.

archangel003 · 07-28-2006, 05:28 PM

Originally Posted by SpicyMcVoodoo

Evidence? That sounds pretty counterintuitive.

Evidence:

Libya, Desert Storm, Bosnia, Kosovo, Sudan, Afghanistan, Iraq II.

ballz2wallz · 07-28-2006, 05:30 PM

Originally Posted by SpicyMcVoodoo

It's counter intuitive because when you're bombing areas surrounded by civilians, it would be pretty easy to kill civilians in the area. Whereas if you're a soldier in the streets, the only way you'd accidently kill a civilian is if a bullet over pentrates a wall or you mistake a civilian for a fighter or something...I'd think that would be less common than entire buildings being destroyed and hurting those around.

no, shooting a gun is not the only thing you hae in a war. they have tanks, rocket launchers, grenades, bulldozers to knock down the buildings...and bullets flying through walls is pretty common down there i'm sure. and when you see a hezbollah run into a building, what are you gonna do? blow it the fuck up. i see WAY more civilians being killed in a ground war.

right now they are limiting themselves to targets where they KNOW hezbollah to be. if they go in and visually see more hezbollah (who, i might add, probably dress as civilians, so how do you tell the difference?) they are going to be more proactive in going after them, despite civilians in the area.

kinggovernor · 07-28-2006, 06:25 PM

Originally Posted by SpicyMcVoodoo

It's counter intuitive because when you're bombing areas surrounded by civilians, it would be pretty easy to kill civilians in the area. Whereas if you're a soldier in the streets, the only way you'd accidently kill a civilian is if a bullet over pentrates a wall or you mistake a civilian for a fighter or something...I'd think that would be less common than entire buildings being destroyed and hurting those around.

no.