Hezbollah Uses Religion and Humans to Hide from IDF
BY Herschel Smith
18 years, 5 months ago
Once again, Hezbollah’s actions tell us exactly what kind of people they are. This, from Arutz Sheva:
Hizbullah stored ammunition and weapons in mosques, knowing that the IDF does not attack religious sites. Civilians were not allowed to leave so that Hizbullah could use them as cover. IDF officers said they ordered pilots not to strafe Bint Jbeil in order to spare civilian casualties.
A United Nations peace keeping officer from Canada told the Canadian Broadcasting Corp. that Hizbullah used the same tactic to draw fire on the UNIFIL post which resulted in the death of four U.N. observers. “This is their favorite trick,” he said. “They use the U.N. as shields.”
Nice. They know that Israel is hamstrung by this. Israel follows rules of war to protect non-combatants, while Hezbollah doesn’t care. The world imposes an impossible situation on Israel: You have two weeks now, no more. You hear? Also, you can’t kill non-combatants or else we will call you savages. Oh and by the way. Don’t use force that we might consider to be “disproportionate.” And all the while, Hezbollah gets a pass from the world leaders while the UN calls for the end of hostilities by politically strong-arming Israel — not Hezbollah or Lebanon.
On July 31, 2006 at 6:28 am, vic said:
Yes. Additionally, the lack of response from Egypt (even though back on the 12th or 13th of July nearly a dozen of their citizens were popped by Hezbollah on a naval vessel), and from Jordan, and Saudi Arabia, and UAE, etc., is obvious. The level of tolerance of the mass media about Hezbollah’s tactics is obvious. Similarly, the lack of the USA and Israel’s ability to provide counter-propaganda should also be telling. Instead, they seem to try to speak plainly. The masses revolve around images that are provided to them. Hate is engendered, and fueled. Those who foment emotional fervor are obvious. This is, at a minimum, a war of consciousness. Some speak rationally, and to the future; and some speak of blame and of the past. The question, to me, is, where is there a way forward? If one side (simplistically proposed) does not admit the possibility of peaceful co-existence of another, then how is there to be diplomatic resolution? It seems a stalemate is what the international community will muddle through to, at best. The roots of the issues — not of the past — but of the present — must be at least exposed.
thanks for your efforts in so doing.
Tactics, and real information, and an eye on ‘following the money’ will assist.
Sincerely,
VSK
PS: Being a female, looking at what countries tell a woman to ‘cover up’ is also a hint.