[Janet Kenny]

Lo,
I have lived through a good few wars and the thing that history has taught me to fear most is the individual who will do anything that he/she is ordered to do.
Janet

[Daniel Haar]

Dan,

Both Lebanese and Israeli officials were referring to the Qana death toll as 56 or around there, so there is only one occasion I can see a big blunder on Siniora's account. I think his record shows that he is a good man and a patriot, someone who has risen above sectarian divisions in a fairly broken country. He is human, but I believe a good one.


Lo,

I don't think Janet was excluding other forms of killing from her definition. I believe anyone who kills has committed a great sin. It may be justifiable, but you had better be quite sure of what you have done and why, because you will have a lot of explaining (among other things) to do to God before you enter Paradise.

- Daniel

[Dan Halberstein]

Originally posted by Robert J. Clawson:

As I have said previously, the response by bombing is also barbaric. Strategic bombing is designed to break the will of the populace by killing it. I ask the simple question, how often does bombing fulfill its purpose?

Originally posted by Janet Kenny:

As far as I am concerned anybody who for any reason at all uses explosives on humans is a terrorist. Anyone who defends them is a sympathiser and supporter of terrorists. The scale is immaterial.
Nothing in history should move us if this can't.

I know that's not a very useful intervention.

Originally posted by Lo:

If your reasoning is correct, Janet, and a valid definition of "terrorist" then Nazi Germany was not a terrorist organization for their barbaric and long-lasting treatment of Jews, Gays, Gypsies, etc etc and the United States Army was a terrorist organization for putting an end to WWII by the sheer act of dropping 2 bombs on Hiroshima and Nagasaki in a few short minutes and anything and everything which came before that painful and agonized act was as immaterial as your "scale."

And so we wade into the historical debate over strategic bombing - despite the fact that Israel is not engaged in it, contrary to RJ's point.

First, an opinion of my own: Strategic bombing -- the purposeful "carpet bombing" of civilian populations, in which the concentrated civilian population and its infrastructureis the main target -- is difficult if not impossible to defend. So is a country if everybody else is engaging in strategic bombing except you. Even British military men in the midst of World War II logged very low opinions of the bombing of German cities. It was worse in Japan, where wood was the predominant building material... and where U.S. "strategists" intentionally employed a specifically high-incendiary explosive to create firestorms. A quarter million may have died in the bombing of Tokyo, more than in both atomic bombings.

Since then, aerial bombardment has been used in many theatres of war, some of it in a strategic bombing campaign, some of it not.

RJ correctly identifies "Strategic bombing is designed to break the will of the populace by killing it." There's a good argument here that strategic bombing is essentially a terrorist act (though these are not RJ's words. He prefers "lunacy".)

Janet generalizes the argument to "anyone who uses explosives on human beings."

Lo returns to the strategic bombing theme (in part) within her post, with an opinion regarding the bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki.

None of these points of view except Janet's bear on the current situation in Lebanon.

I realize this could be either purposeful stretching of the definition, unfamiliarity with the definition, or a typo -- but Israel is not, contrary to what you see on Al Jazeera (or sometimes, for that matter, CNN), carpet-bombing the entirety of Lebanon "into rubble."

Damage estimates are still in the low billions. Deaths are still in the hundreds. Israel's bombing, while still producing civilian casualties, which are still a horrific impact of war, is not a "total war" bombing intended to wipe out the population. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Strategic_bombing

The day before yesterday marked the 61st anniversary of Hiroshima, may we never witness its likes again. As Lo points out, it is not a decided matter that Hiroshima was not necessary; and from necessity, one can very quickly go to justification, if we believe that ought implies can, or the logical negative formulation (i.e., it is meaningless to say we "should not," when we "must".) And the scale of that horror, just one of many, many such horrors during WWII, dwarfs the entirety of the Israeli campaign.

For RJ and Lo - in whose arguments "scale" features prominently - I humbly submit that although a debate on the merits of strategic bombing bears on a number of conflicts including and since WWII, it is only tangentially related to this discussion, since it is not a feature of the current conflict. The Israelis restrain themselves from it, and Hezbollah attempts it but cannot really pull it off.

For Janet, however, any use of explosives against a human being is a terrorist, and anyone who disagrees with her position (i.e., "defends them,") is a supporter of and sympathizer with terrorists. This crafty if transparent gambit is evidently meant to close the matter. I do not think it does, as far as reason goes.

As Lo points out, the argument breaks down for any except an "explosives pacifist." Evidently bullets (except explosive-point) are very good ways of killing people, whether or not they are lined up unarmed in front of a mass grave they have been forced to dig, and do not constitute terrorism. Pushing a wheelchair-bound man off a ship is a very good way to kill him, and does not qualify as terrorism. I'm not certain if the 9/11 attacks were terrorism by this definition, since Jet Fuel's primary hazard is flammability (although ramming it at high speed into a building also causes an explosion.)

Or perhaps Janet's argument is that use of explosives against humans is one of a number of ways one can be marked as a terrorist, with the others unspecified. This would negate the preceding paragraph, as well as some of Lo's objections. It does leave unanswered the question (as Lo also notes,) of what else we consider terrorism.

In the extreme, the argument replaces the moral argument, which has some value, with an argument from chemical properties. We have heard a recent press mantra that "you cannot fight a war against a method (terrorism.)" How much less can you fight a war, moral or physical, against a chemical property?

But let's allow that use of explosives against humans has a moral component, which makes of it a terrorist tactic, regardless of the context and reason for its use. Since we are arguing specifically against terrorism, not war, (although I'll allow that "war" can easily be renamed "terrorism," thereby obviating any distinction in our discussion of the phenomena, despite any distinction in the things themselves,) that moral component cannot simply be that explosives kill people. After all, bullets do, blades do, etc.

For use of explosives against people to be terrorism whereas bullets are not, I have to infer that the argument rests on unspokens - that the explosives are being used in a more indiscrimate way than bullets would be.

Taking this at face value, it is an elegant argument for a full-scale Israeli ground invasion of Lebanon -- and a very special ground invasion in which Israel refrains from use of shells, and relies solely on un-explosive projectiles. I am not aware of any group or nation which achieves its objectives in this manner in the modern age, unless we count the Yanomamo and similar groups who have not acquainted themselves yet with explosives. Would this be a more discriminating form of warfare among modern nation states? Were it ever tried, we may be able to test the theory. I do not believe it would be. It would certainly involve herculean restraint on the part of one belligerant, perhaps a level of restraint no military can morally exercise, if it indeed takes seriously its moral obligation to defend a nation.

I know all of this is very dry, and very removed from what I understand to be the more moral mode of analysis consisting of weeping and gnashing of teeth.

But the terrible, unconscionable truth remains: Israel's armed forces -- as opposed to the U.S. and Britain during WWII, Hezbollah, and Syria, to name a few --do not intentionally target civilians. Israel's armed forces make every effort to minimize civilian casualties, both Israeli and Lebanese. The opposite is true of Hezbollah.

Terrorism, despite Mark G's protestations to the contrary, does have a definition, as abused as it may be in the terminology bandied about today. It is the deliberate murder of civilians in order to cause fear. Elsewhere it would be an interesting debate: were Tokyo, Dresden, Hiroshima, and Nagasaki "justified terrorism," terrorism, full stop, or not terrorism... but terrorism only describes the behavior of one side of the present conflict in Lebanon, Hezbollah.

Israel is not engaged in the deliberate murder of civilians in order to cause fear, and Hezbollah is.

(In deference to Lo, this might not make the Nazis terrorists, since terror was just a side effect of genocide. But they would still be genocidal, which trumps terrorist. By the same token, Hezbollah would commit genocide, given the means, but is constrained at present to terrorism, since the necessary transfer of means, from Syria or Iran, has not yet been made.)

Search as we may for a sufficiently broad argument to draw an equivalency between Israel and Hezbollah, the equivalency does not exist. Search as we may for a sufficiently broad definition to make everybody a terrorist, everybody is not a terrorist. The word exists (as do all words) to delineate meaning; obfuscation of the word is a temporary fix to make the phenomenon it signifies go away, in the mind of the obfuscator. But since the phenomenon still exists, this will just lead to the creation of another word to signify the phenomenon.

The U.S. and France have made a proposal to end this conflict, and Lebanon has countered (predictably arguing that her sovereignty requires Lebanese troops stand between Israel and Hezbollah, despite earlier claims that her sovereignty did not extent to Lebanon's south.) God willing, one way or another, both Israel's actions against Hezbollah in Lebanon, and Hezbollah's actions against the people of Israel, will end.

But as much as we may hope for these inseparable conditions to pertain, we still do ourselves a disservice when we stretch words and concepts beyond their breaking points in support of our arguments. Again, we can destroy the distinct meaning of words to promote an indistinct analysis, but reality dictates our analyses be as distinct as possible; it is quite literally, a deadly serious exercise. So the destruction of distinct words will only yield a temporary respite from this rigor.

If we are really averse to specificity, not the words used to express specificity, we will find our efforts in promotion of vagueness frustrated time and again.

Dan


[This message has been edited by Dan Halberstein (edited August 08, 2006).]

[Mark Granier]

Terrorism, despite Mark G's protestations to the contrary, does have a definition, as abused as it may be in the terminology bandied about today. It is the deliberate murder of civilians in order to cause fear.

Oh dear, I thought I'd be able to stay out of this debate after my last post. But Dan's 'definition' needs a response. Let's look at some other definitions of Terrorism.

I found your definition alright, as a sub-entry in the online Dictionary.com.

Main Entry: ter·ror·ism
Pronunciation: 'ter-&r-"i-z&m
Function: noun
1 : the unlawful use or threat of violence esp. against the state or the public as a politically motivated means of attack or coercion.
Source: Merriam-Webster's Dictionary of Law, © 1996 Merriam-Webster, Inc.

this is followed by the second definition, below:

terrorism
n : the calculated use of violence (or threat of violence) against civilians in order to attain goals that are political or religious or ideological in nature; this is done through intimindation or coercion or instilling fear [syn: act of terrorism, terrorist act]
Source: WordNet ® 2.0, © 2003 Princeton University

Then I checked other online dictionaries:

Merriamwebster.com:
The systematic use of terror especially as a means of coercion

MSN Encarta:
Political violence: violence or the threat of violence, especially bombing, kidnapping, and assassination, carried out for political purposes.

Thefreedictionary.com:
The unlawful use or threatened use of force or violence by a person or an organized group against people or property with the intention of intimidating or coercing societies or governments, often for ideological or political reasons.

Bartleby.com:
The unlawful use or threatened use of force or violence by a person or an organized group against people or property with the intention of intimidating or coercing societies or governments, often for ideological or political reasons.

Then with my 'hardcopy' dictionaries:

CHAMBERS: An organised system of intimidation, esp. for political ends.

OXFORD: (terrorist): One who favours or uses terror-inspiring methods of governing or of coercing government or community.

WEBSTERS: Systematic use of terror, esp. as a means of coercion.

Will these do Dan? I do have an old Brittanica (not TOO old, 1989 I think).

Only one of the seven dictionaries above sees fit to specify the word civilian, and then only as a secondary definition. Like it or not, many of the main definitions could apply to Israeli government 'terrorism' with no stretch of the imagination. So I hold by my assertion, that the word 'terrorism' as used by you and Bush and many other politicians has about as much credibility as 'freedom', democracy', 'evil empire' etc.

[Dan Halberstein]

Mark,

Oh dear indeed! Okay, let's get the matter out of the way.

I contend that terrorism is particularly bad, but is not engaged in by Israel. You contend that terrorism has multiple definitions, and is engaged in by Israel.

Two implications spring from this:

1) If it can be shown that "terrorism" is particularly bad, and that "terrorism" is engaged in by Israel, that defines Israel as a terrorist state, and one that therefore deserves to be put on a level with Hezbollah or whatever other "bad guy" one chooses (short of perpetrators of genocide, or some other crime we can agree is worse than terrorism -- if indeed we agree that genocide is very, very bad.) I will stipulate that "very bad" must be a comparative term, not the description of the behavior of any nation-state acting in defense of her territory.

2) If it can be shown that "terrorism" is not particularly bad, and is engaged in by Israel, we can successfully strike it off the list of terms that have meaning in the context of this discussion, replacing it with the much more lengthy and cumbersome phrase "ideologically or genocidally motivated intentional murder of civilians" (Except for the unwieldiness, I might yield the point and go for that at the outset. At least the term would not be so abused in the course of discussion.)

So, definition by definition:

1 : the unlawful use or threat of violence esp. against the state or the public as a politically motivated means of attack or coercion.
Source: Merriam-Webster's Dictionary of Law, © 1996 Merriam-Webster, Inc.

Israel's violence is against Hezbollah, a group of armed combatants operating from Lebanon. To make Israel's acts terrorism, violence or threat of violence by an armed force against an armed force must be considered an attack "against the state or the public."

Terrorism becomes a superset of war. (That is, all war is terrorism, but not all terrorism is war.)
If all armed conflict is terrorism, the term could certainly have some use, but only because other actions are also terrorism. But terrorism can not be classed as worse than war in any given case. So this definition -- if we take "the state" to mean actions taken in self defense, against armed forces operating from another state's territory -- yields a very nebulous terrorism. Opposition to this terrorism is simply an expanded pacifism, in which the only legitimate response is inaction, unless one considers the terrorism of self-defense justified (as opposed to the unjustified terrorism of aggression). In the current context, one must be a pacifist to not be a "terrorist sympathizer."

I think it more likely that the reference does not refer to an attack on an armed force resident in another state.

So either:
A. Terrorism is bad, just not any worse than a war of self-defense, or
B. Terrorism is, in fact, a worse behavior, and Israel is not engaged in it.

this is followed by the second definition, below:

terrorism
n : the calculated use of violence (or threat of violence) against civilians in order to attain goals that are political or religious or ideological in nature; this is done through intimindation or coercion or instilling fear [syn: act of terrorism, terrorist act]
Source: WordNet ® 2.0, © 2003 Princeton University

I think this definition is the one you believe matches my own definition, since it specifies "civilians." I'll leave it alone.

Merriamwebster.com:
The systematic use of terror especially as a means of coercion

For this to apply to the current Israeli action, it is necessary to establish that Israel is attempting to coerce Lebanon through terror. Israel's stated objectives do not have anything to do with coercing Lebanese action, although Lebanon has not taken the action required by her own obligations. Israel is, rather, taking those actions instead. Hezbollah, by contrast, specifies genocidal aims; one could make the argument that Hezbollah is not trying to terrorize, but is unsuccessfully attempting genocide (i.e., that they really believe they will destroy every Israeli and the state of Israel, and they don't care whether that instills terror). Again, I do not think the distinction is useful here, but we can allow the possibility that Hezbollah should be called Genocidists instead of Terrorists.

But let us take the cynical view of Israel's actions. Let us say Israel was tired of Lebanon allowing attacks against civilians, and reasoned that Lebanon would only act if "terrorized" into it by a heavyhanded Israeli action.

What would a "systematic use of terror" look like? Certainly not an avoidance of civilian casualties.I would be more terrified if more of my countrymen died, than fewer. Certainly not the targeting of items such as explosives caches and rocket launchers. Not the targeting of some, but not all infrastructure, based on military considerations such as re-equipping of enemy combatants. These look more to me like the acts of a nation engaged in conventional warfare. Again I stress that War is not desireable or fine and dandy. That is why you have to have good reasons to go to war. It is, however, less bad than terrorism.

I do not believe a country "systematically using terror as a means of coercion" goes out of its way to avoid negative outcomes to a populace. A "systematic use of terror" is distinct from "a terrified reaction to the legitimate actions of an armed force in self-defense."

If, however, it can be proven that most Israeli actions had no military purpose, such as destroying arms, killing combatants, or re-arming Hezbollah, then "systematically using terror" becomes a more likely definition of Israel's actions.

So: either
A. Israel means to strike terror into Lebanon, but mistakenly identified mainly military targets, which makes it look like Israel is fighting against Hezbollah, or
[b]B. Israel means to strike Hezbollah, and misses sometimes.

"A." seems pretty unlikely to me, so I'll await any proof that Israel is not targeting Hezbollah and Hezbollah facilities, arms, resupply routes, etc. I provisionally reject this as the primary goal of the Israeli action, but, not being a telepathic, cannot do so conclusively. "B.", however, jibes much better with the known facts.

MSN Encarta:
Political violence: violence or the threat of violence, especially bombing, kidnapping, and assassination, carried out for political purposes.

This is a definition of another term entirely. I'll spare us all the verbiage.

Thefreedictionary.com:
The unlawful use or threatened use of force or violence by a person or an organized group against people or property with the intention of intimidating or coercing societies or governments, often for ideological or political reasons.

This has the same limitation of the first definition. To recap - if we take this definition to include the actions of a nation in self-defense, against militarily significant targets, self-defense is a form of terrorism. Again:
A. Either Terrorism isn't bad, or
B. Israel is not engaging in Terrorism.

Bartleby.com:
The unlawful use or threatened use of force or violence by a person or an organized group against people or property with the intention of intimidating or coercing societies or governments, often for ideological or political reasons.

See above. Since "civilian" makes no appearance in these definitions, they apply equally well to any armed conflict.

CHAMBERS: An organised system of intimidation, esp. for political ends.

Since we specify an organized system, it must be established that the aim is intimidation. We have not established the state of mind of Israeli leaders.

This definition also applies to armed forces as well as civilians, of course. But since many of these definitions of "Terrorism" can be read to include defensive wars, this is not surprising.

OXFORD: (terrorist): One who favours or uses terror-inspiring methods of governing or of coercing government or community.
"Terror" is the key in this one. Governing by threatening jail time or even execution for criminal acts is universal. I do not consider government inherently Terrorist because a potential terrorist is "terrified" of jail time. Again, Israel does not aim to "govern" Lebanon, or coerce the government of Lebanon, but to protect Israel. This requires actions the government of Lebanon has been unable or unwilling to take, despite her international obligations to do so.

Conclusion: Unless it is shown that Israel is not taking actions against Hezbollah, etc., but is intentionally inspires terror throughout the country to coerce Lebanon into proper self-government, this does not apply to Israeli actions in Lebanon.

WEBSTERS: Systematic use of terror, esp. as a means of coercion.

See above.

Only one of the seven dictionaries above sees fit to specify the word civilian, and then only as a secondary definition. Like it or not, many of the main definitions could apply to Israeli government 'terrorism' with no stretch of the imagination. So I hold by my assertion, that the word 'terrorism' as used by you and Bush and many other politicians has about as much credibility as 'freedom', democracy', 'evil empire' etc.

I disagree, Mark. I think if anything I use a more precise definition than those you recount here, and which you read broadly enough to include a war of self-defense.

The exercise of saying "nut uh, you're the terrorist!" to a nation defending herself from Terrorism, can certainly find support from a broad reading of dictionary definitions.

However, the broad reading of these definitions most often simply conflates Terrorism with Conventional War. The only distinguishing feature goes to the state of mind of perpetrators and victims; to read these definitions usefully, we have to divine this state of mind as represented by their respective actions.

From my point of view, it is a stretch of the imagination to define actions against an armed force which has taken action against your nation as terrorism.

Finally (at last!) "the state," "persons or the state," etc., can indeed include an armed force resident in another nation. But that reading makes "terrorism" of any armed response to an armed assault. I respectfully submit that these definitions are not written to include responses to acts of war.

So, if we can agree on the definition offered -- which is also one of the definitions you're using -- and we can continue to use the term. Otherwise we'll have to come up with something else, as a practical matter, since I have no need to use the term as a cudgel to deride non-specific activities. I would like to use it precisely. But if one of these broadly read definitions of "Terrorism" makes it basically okay and widely practiced (except by pacifists,) I have no desire to grace the despicable actions of those who specifically and intentionally target non-combatants with that term.

Thanks,

Dan

[Kevin Andrew Murphy]

The difference between "specifically targetting non-combatants" and "targetting combatants but not caring much if you hit non-combatants" is what precisely?

The claim that "Israel has done everything in <cite>Her</cite> power to not hit non-combatants" rings pretty false, because last I checked, Israel still had the power to not go to war, not fire bombs, not do a great many things which result in civilian deaths. As for the "human sheild" business, it's a guerilla war. If you bomb a populated area in hopes of getting the "bad guy," you are going to get some other people too. Only in the movies, and not even if all of them, does the magic police marksman shoot the bad guy and let the weeping hostage run free. Besides which, in this situation, even if you have the miraculous Israeli bomber kill the Hezbollah fighter but somehow leave all the noncombatants untouched, the noncombatants are more likely to say, "Those bastards just killed my brother!"

Also, who exactly are the Hezbollah fighters? The people currently fighting? The ones who used to be fighting, but have retired due to age or infirmity? The ones who would be fighting if they could, but instead just raise money or provide other services? The friends and relatives of all of the above?

[Lo]

Originally posted by Janet Kenny:
Lo,
I have lived through a good few wars and the thing that history has taught me to fear most is the individual who will do anything that he/she is ordered to do.
Janet

I've lived through a few myself, Janet...and I'm still more afraid of the individuals who do the ordering. The world is full of sheep and sheep-like men who are looking for something and/or someone to believe in....it is the ones who are evil enough and canny enough to take full advantage of this need by giving them fear and hatred to believe in that scare the crap outa me.

And I've been around enough and seen and done enough that normally I'm not a-scared o' nuttin'.

[Robert J. Clawson]

Originally posted by Dan Halberstein:

"And so we wade into the historical debate over strategic bombing - despite the fact that Israel is not engaged in it, contrary to RJ's point."

"First, an opinion of my own: Strategic bombing -- the purposeful "carpet bombing" of civilian populations, in which the concentrated civilian population and its infrastructureis the main target -- is difficult if not impossible to defend."

"RJ correctly identifies "Strategic bombing is designed to break the will of the populace by killing it." There's a good argument here that strategic bombing is essentially a terrorist act (though these are not RJ's words. He prefers "lunacy".)"

"I realize this could be either purposeful stretching of the definition, unfamiliarity with the definition, or a typo -- but Israel is not, contrary to what you see on Al Jazeera (or sometimes, for that matter, CNN), carpet-bombing the entirety of Lebanon "into rubble." "

"For RJ and Lo - in whose arguments "scale" features prominently - I humbly submit that although a debate on the merits of strategic bombing bears on a number of conflicts including and since WWII, it is only tangentially related to this discussion, since it is not a feature of the current conflict. The Israelis restrain themselves from it, and Hezbollah attempts it but cannot really pull it off."

Dan, skip ahead from WWII and think, instead, of "Shock and Awe," the strategic bombing of Iraq, which wasn't "carpet bombing." That's not tangential. It's the same kind of bombing. If you have to limit "strategic" to "carpet," then call it a tactic. Whatever you call it, bombing is a lousy strategy or a lousy tactic, a lousy means to an end. It doesn't work.

Here's news from a Turkish paper.

"On Saturday, an Israeli offense consisting of more than 250 air attacks dropped 4,000 bombs within seven hours.

The border village of Aytarun was hit by 2,000 bombs and almost completely destroyed.

The total death toll from the attacks is approaching 1,000."

"The attacks against Lebanon have displaced more than 913,000 people. Commission figures reveal that 220,000 of these have fled Lebanon. More than 100,000 foreigners and dual-citizens were also evacuated from Lebanon."

Also, the Israelies have now warned convoys of fleeing Lebanese (and even NGO's and relief crews, medics, etc.) that they could be hit.

I submit that they're fleeing because they're terrified. But they'll ALSO not forget.

Bob

[Mark Granier]

I contend that terrorism is particularly bad, but is not engaged in by Israel. You contend that terrorism has multiple definitions, and is engaged in by Israel.

Yet another Oh dear I'm afraid. In fact, three Oh dears.

1. We can all 'contend that terrorism is particularly bad' but such a contention isn't going to do anyone much good. What's 'particularly'? What's 'bad'? These words are simply more movable counters.

2. I did not contend that terrorism has 'multiple definitions'. Most of the dictionary definitions I presented are in broad agreement. My point was that almost none of them met your 'particularly' precise definition.

3. Re. terrorism being 'engaged in by Israel'. What I said was: 'Like it or not, many of the main definitions could apply to Israeli government 'terrorism' with no stretch of the imagination.' Note that I put terrorism in scare-quotes. My point here isn't that Israel is a 'terrorist state', but that the word itself isn't nearly as useful (for the purposes of this discussion anyway) as so many seem to think.

C'mon, let's be honest here. The word 'terrorism' is emotive, much like the word 'evil'. You can call Hezbollah evil if you wish, but it doesn't help elucidate anything. We seem to be constantly wrangling with the connundrum of which side is the REAL baddie, which is neither here nor there. Words like terrorism are unfurled like flags, staking claims, marking territories. I just think we should get beyond all that. But perhaps there is no beyond, just a riot of split ends.

[Dan Halberstein]

Mark, then I made an even bigger muddle by splitting the hairs. I'll just try to talk about the purposeful targeting of non-combatants, and perhaps abbreviate it from here on in as PTONC.

RJ, I'll research and respond when there's more time. For now I think it's worth noting that the death toll of this particular incident now far exceeds even the Siniora government estimates, already prone to exaggeration. You know how I love to pick nits. But to the point: is your contention that Israel is engaged in "Total War" against Lebanon?

Thanks

Dan