Bobad: "International law considers the use of human shields to protect targets a war crime. The Fourth Geneva Convention forbids the use of any civilian as a shield"

Many of the civilians living in the areas where Hizbullah operate are in fact their relatives, family and friends. When a Hizbullah fighter is able to get off duty, if he gets into civvies (civilian clothes) he will go back and mingle with friends and family. This fact is very conveniently ignored by the White House and other neo-con commentators. The so-called human shields are the friends and family of Hizbullah, and the area where Hizbullah is opertaing is home to all of them. What the hell makes anyone think Hizbullah value their relations any less than we do? Maybe they should all line up in an open field well away from anything of value so they can be mown down. Maybe their critics think it would be better yet if they marched all the way down to Jerusalem and fought the IDF there, well away from Lebanese civilians??

Durung the war of Independence in Ireland in the 1920s the IRA 'operated out of civilian areas' - well, why wouldn't they? The so-called civilian areas were actually their homes, not some kind of convenient DMZ zone! They were a guerilla army and their country was occupied by a foreign army that was all around them. They British made all the same comments at the time about hiding behind civilians and ambushing from behind walls instead of coming out in the open to be shot down like fools. One IRA leader had to point out the obvious by asking a British general - 'you accuse uf of hiding behind walls etc., Well," he continued "what do you call hiding inside THAT?" pointing at British armoured car.

As for Hizbullah starting the war, the two IDF soldiers who were kidnapped were actually across the border in Lebanon at the time of their capture (and what the hell were they doing there?). The Israelis changed the story after initial versions came out to make out that Hizbullah actually crossed their border into Israel. Someone futher back along this thread explained why Israel had to invade, because Lebanon had two years to kick Hizbullah out, and hadn't succeeded. Actually, Israel never fully withdrew from Lebanon - it still occupies the small, but strategic area of the Shaaba farms in southern Lebanon. Now if the Lebanese were unable to oust the Israelis from Shaaba Frams, what gives the Israelis the right to go round pompously demanding Hizbullah be evicted from Lebanon? As I said earlier, and I repeat again - the two unfortuante Israeli soldiers WERE probably killed in the massive aerial and ground bombardment that was supposed to rescue them. Logic: If someone kidnapped my men, and I was serious about getting them back ALIVE, the last thing i would do would be to blanket bomb the whole area where they might be held. To do so would be to simply risk killing them myself, saving Hizbullah the job. Commonsense and logic make it an obvious conclusion, and indeed the two soldiers families have said as much. It was never about the two soldiers to begin with.

"Little Hawk, you(r) comparison of this situation to that of the Nazis in Poland is repugnant"

Why is it repugnant?