Thanks for the vivid and interesting post Seree, always good to get on the ground impressions that bring those abstractions to horrifying life. Two things that snagged at me though:
Quote:
|
...and one wonders, indeed, why these countries leave their civilian population in a state of possible insufficient protection...
|
That word, 'wonders', might seem innocent enough, but, as I'm sure you're aware, it carries in this instance a whole freight of speculation, some of it rather smug, along the lines of: 'Do those countries
really care about their civilians? Naw, not as much as the Israelis do about theirs.' And I know
you're not actually saying that Seree, but it IS in there, isn't it? And that makes ME wonder. Because, why wonder in the first place? Correct me if I'm wrong, but I imagine Isreal's superior resources and organisation (and MONEY) have at least
something to do with this particular inequality. No? Do you believe then, that the Lebanese care less about their civilians than the Israelis do about theirs? And if you DON'T believe that, why not suggest at least one alternative, rather than leave us
wondering...?
Quote:
|
I think I have made it clear in earlier posts that I am sorry for all losses of life that are unnecessary, but a Katyusha is as deadly a weapon as they come, in fact, with the added factor of being 'inaccurate' and thus harder to track; a weapon not to be taken lightly and dismissed as nothing more than a tool for terrorising.
|
This discussion of the finer points of weaponry seems like another attempt to claim a moral high ground for the IDF. Why? From what you've said Katyushas, at their worst, are about as evil as the mines sown by the IDF, apparently illegally, which children are so fond of playing with.
[This message has been edited by Mark Granier (edited September 10, 2006).]