The Rockets Don’t Care
The rockets don't care. Someone points them, they have no guidance systems. No high tech way to guide to where they land.
The rockets don't care. They fire when someone pushes the button and they fly in their unguided way where they are pointed.
The rockets don't care. They have just so much fuel. Propellant burns until it is gone then the rocket and it's payload fall, unguided, uncaring.
The rockets don't care. Atop their body is the payload. Just a simple bomb with a simple impact detonator. When it hits, it explodes.
The rockets don't care. When the fuel is gone and they plummet, they hit the ground wherever they fall and they detonate.
The rockets don't care. Buildings, empty fields, flesh, bone, old or young. Jew or Muslim. The rockets don't care.
Neither do those who launch them.
A rocket fired by Hezbollah hit Nazareth today and landed on two Arab boys aged nine and three years. They will grow no older.
Because the rockets, and Hezbollah, don't care.
Other Links to this Post
-
Old War Dogs — Wednesday, 19 July , 2006 @ 11:54 pm
-
Blue Crab Boulevard » Blog Archive » The Little Martyrs — Friday, 21 July , 2006 @ 9:13 am
By Bill Faith, Wednesday, 19 July , 2006 @ 11:55 pm
I linked. http://www.oldwardogs.us/2006/07/blue_crab_boule.html
By Kathy, Friday, 21 July , 2006 @ 1:59 pm
“The president believes that unless you address the root causes of the violence that has afflicted the Middle East, you cannot forge a lasting peace,” said White House counselor Dan Bartlett. “He mourns the loss of every life. Yet out of this tragic development, he believes a moment of clarity has arrived.”
More empty words, but of course these words are okay with you. Pres. Bush doesn’t give a rat’s ass about the “loss of every life.” He does not mourn anything about war or its victims.
The rockets don’t care. Someone points them, they have no guidance systems. No high tech way to guide to where they land.
The rockets don’t care. They fire when someone pushes the button and they fly in their unguided way where they are pointed.
The rockets don’t care when they have those high-tech guidance systems, either. The rockets don’t know if the targets to which they have been pointed by those guidance systems are legitimate military targets. The rockets don’t know if the guidance systems are aiming them straight into the heart of a residential neighborhood. The rockets don’t know if the targets for the guidance systems are selected by people who think it’s okay to aim the rockets at residential neighborhoods, as long as they (the people who select the targets) can claim that it’s not THEIR fault if dozens or hundreds of civilians die, because they didn’t kill them DELIBERATELY. The rockets don’t know that it’s a war crime to knowingly aim rockets at civilian areas, even if the “enemy” is hiding among the civilians.
I’m sure your empty words delivered from your empty soul are of great comfort to all the people you have caused to die in this war you started, Hassan Nasrallah. All of your apologists in the West cannot change this one fact: You chose to start this war.
Does it matter to you at all that Hezbollah’s rocket attacks on Israel began only after Israel had killed large numbers of civilians in bombing raids meant to punish Lebanese people in general as a way to put pressure on Hezbollah? Will the Lebanese children killed by Israel grow any longer? Or is it just the two dead Israeli-Arab children who will grow no longer? Do you think that surviving Lebanese family members will understand why Israeli bombers killed their loved ones, and forgive Israel for those deaths? Do you really believe that Lebanese civilians who lost parents, children, siblings, and dear friends will harbor no hatred or ill will or anger toward Israel because Israel did not start this war?
By Gaius, Friday, 21 July , 2006 @ 2:04 pm
Who started the war?
By Kathy, Saturday, 22 July , 2006 @ 11:59 am
Hezbollah having started the war means that anything Israel does in response is okay? Including massacring over 300 civilians? (And counting.)
By Gaius, Saturday, 22 July , 2006 @ 12:14 pm
Kathy, you get your information and views from Juan Cole. Perhaps if you tried a less biased source you might be able to better differentiate between right and wrong.
Who starts the war makes a huge difference in blame. People who hide weapons inside civilian homes and use the occupants as human shields are committing war crimes. People who launch unguided rockets at civilian cities are committing war crimes.
But they all get a pass in your little world. You’re sad.
By Kathy, Saturday, 22 July , 2006 @ 1:29 pm
I get my information and views from many sources, Juan Cole being one of them.
Who, in your opinion, would be a less biased source?
And no one who kills innocent civilians gets a pass from me, as you know from reading my comment but are too dishonest to acknowledge. It is a violation of international law and a war crime to intentionally kill civilians; and that includes airstrikes on civilian populations. The violation of international law does not become less of a violation because or if the other side puts military targets inside or among civilian populations. Warring parties cannot use the presence of military targets within civilian populations as a justification to attack civilian populations.
First, in the interests of honesty and fairness, Article 51, Protocol 51, Item 7 of the Geneva Conventions says:
The presence or movements of the civilian population or individual civilians shall not be used to render certain points or areas immune from military operations, in particular in attempts to shield military objectives from attacks or to shield, favour or impede military operations. The Parties to the conflict shall not direct the movement of the civilian population or individual civilians in order to attempt to shield military objectives from attacks or to shield military operations.
However, Article 50, Protocol I, Item 3, Geneva Conventions states:
The presence within the civilian population of individuals who do not come within the definition of civilians does not deprive the population of its civilian character.
In addition, Article 51, Protocol I, Item 5 states:
5. Among others, the following types of attacks are to be considered as indiscriminate:
(a) an attack by bombardment by any methods or means which treats as a single military objective a number of clearly separated and distinct military objectives located in a city, town, village or other area containing a similar concentration of civilians or civilian objects; and
(b) an attack which may be expected to cause incidental loss of civilian life, injury to civilians, damage to civilian objects, or a combination thereof, which would be excessive in relation to the concrete and direct military advantage anticipated.
And, most germanely, Item 8, Article 51, Protocol I, states:
8. Any violation of these prohibitions shall not release the Parties to the conflict from their legal obligations with respect to the civilian population and civilians, including the obligation to take the precautionary measures provided for in Article 57.
The entire list of Articles in Protocol I is here.
By Gaius, Saturday, 22 July , 2006 @ 1:43 pm
Convention IV, article 28:
Art. 28. The presence of a protected person may not be used to render certain points or areas immune from military operations.
By Kathy, Saturday, 22 July , 2006 @ 2:41 pm
You are a piece of work, you know that? Article 51, Protocol I of the G.C. says the same thing as Article 28, and I included it in my comment. But you ignored the entire body of what I wrote, including the rebuttal to Article 28:
“Any violation of these prohibitions shall not release the Parties to the conflict from their legal obligations with respect to the civilian population and civilians, including the obligation to take the precautionary measures provided for in Article 57.” ..Article 51, Protocol I, Item 5
In other words, hiding military targets among a civilian population cannot be used by the other side as a reason to ignore the prohibitions against targeting civilians or indiscriminately attacking civilian areas.
You are profoundly dishonest, Gaius. Do you feel you cannot make your point any other way? It’s sad.
I also notice that you have no suggestions for unbiased sources. Maybe because the sources you rely on are just as biased, and you know it?
By Gaius, Saturday, 22 July , 2006 @ 2:47 pm
If you haven’t bothered to read the comment policy it would be a really good idea for you to do so. That is the only warning you will get.
So, in your little world, the person who hides military weapons inside civilian dwellings gets a free pass. The other side cannot target?
You’re not only wrong, you are badly wrong. Hiding weapons makes that area a valid target. Otherwise you just gave the terrorists an unbeatable way to win a war. You might want to read the whole convention before you take one section out of context to “prove” your talking point.