“Land siezed in violation of International Law” – you mean like in 1967, despite pleas to stay out of the war from Israel, the Jordanians started lobbing artillery over the Green Line from the West Bank (then part of Jordan?)

Where do these guys get their cockeyed view of “International Law” and “The Rules of War?”

By *your* logic the fact that I served in the military 15 years ago means I’m a “combatant” despite the fact that I’m a 42 year old full time mother. So if some terrorist sneaks over the border from Mexico and blows up my house with me and my children in it by *your* logic I’d be a legitimate military target?

If I hide a rocket launcher in my garage and fire rockets from my neighbor’s yard and the people I’m fighting blow up my neighbors and my kids and myself, I have no moral standing to condemn them for targeting civilians.

Somehow I expect that your hero worship of people who use those tactics will prevent you from seeing the difference.

Every able bodies Israeli is a reservist – and military service is mandatory in Israel.

So by your logic, Hezbollah is quite right in targeting Israeli citiesl…

In Iraq, doctors who had Jessica Lynch tried to return her. US troops fired on the ambulance and it had to turn around. They fired on the ambulance *because* they knew that the enemy uses ambulances, hospitals and mosques to wage war.

The battlefield immunity given to the Red Cross and Crescent is a gentleman’s agreement that has two sides to it. The Red Cross (or Crescent) is displayed as prominently as possible and the promise is made that medical assistance and *only* medical assistance will be given. In exchange, and in exchange for the other side making the same agreement, effort is made not to interfere with those battlefield medics.

There are other gentleman’s agreements made concerning war. Warriors will remove themselves from the civilian population and wear uniforms to encourage the other side to leave their civilians out of it, prisoners will be treated humanely, civilians will not be targeted.

It’s reciprocal.

The *obvious* deception of using these “immune” vehicles to transport weapons and fighters must be hard to resist but it’s an all or nothing thing. If the purpose of them is subverted it stays that way. That’s why US soldiers shot at the ambulance containing Jessica Lynch and were right to do so.

The *obvious* tactic of wearing civilian clothing and disappearing into the population means that the other side NO LONGER has any reason or responsibility to avoid your civilian population.

The way you treat prisoners is the best you have any right to expect your own people to be treated if they are captured.

And shall we talk about that?

What Hezballa has a *right* to expect if they are captured is a bullet to the brain, but only after extended torture. They deserve to be murdered and dumped.

Or perhaps, if the captive is a civilian they have the *right* to expect to be made to convert to Christianity or Judaism at gun point with a video made as proof of their conversion before they are released.

No big deal, huh?

Israel has been targeting Ambulances in Gaza and Lebanon before(well documented during ‘Peace for Galilee)and blaming it on the ‘terrorists’ for years.

For every Israeli atrocity you can find you can find an apologist willing to lie and distort to no end to absolve Israel – and most times they are found out quite easily(think the Gaza beach ‘conspiracy’ and it’s birth in the Jewish/Christian right’s PR war on the net – completely without merit.

Funny I didn’t here any apologies or recognition from that group that they were wrong – and miserably so.

Quite telling, I’m afraid….

Still pretty funny, though, in a Edgar Bergen kind of way.