Mark:
Further to my above point (sorry, had to go away for a couple of minutes...) - I would wonder, first, why leave a citizenry unprotected in general by maintaining a terrorist presence in its midst; and if terror warfare is to be engaged in, (why else would the terror organisation be there, otherwise...), why not protect the citizenry?
Mis-read #2:
Quote:
|
This discussion of the finer points of weaponry seems like another attempt to claim a moral high ground for the IDF.
|
and a most interesting mis-read too, (and a most disappointing one) and surely not purposely directed that way, particularly after I specifically stated my comments are relative to Katyushas being termed a tool for terrorizing and their efficacy nothing more than that.
----------
RJ:
Quote:
Send patrols into, or helicoptors over, the olive groves, or bomb the olive groves, not the farmhouses.
|
Little problem: picture this - farmhouse in the olive grove; two families in 12 rooms, one room dedicated to Hezbolla arsenal or being actively appropriated as a position from which to target the other side. Little problem, no? I would be interested in hearing your possible rational solution. (BTW, the picture is not fictitious nor isolated or occasional; it is real and it is a norm; and even if the host family is against its home being used thus, the host has little say in the matter).
[This message has been edited by Seree Zohar (edited September 10, 2006).]