Let me say at the outset that I’m the one with the “fair fight” remark. Jim Bovard, a sagacious gentleman, would never make such provocative remarks.

That in mind, let me say, once and for all, that we and our first State in the Middle East, ain’t killin’ enough. We’ve done our best in Iraq, and lately Israel has been trying to catch up. But it ain’t enough. Steve and Mark, both Christian names, I might add, have it right: death, destruction, and, most importantly, the further empowerment of the US and Israeli states are the wisest courses. This is, of course, our Constitutional and Revolutionary birthright.

Apologetically,

Wesley D. Baker
Anniston, Alabama

I have yet to see anyone seek to justify the actual rules the IDF is apparently using in Lebanon. As Hezbollah launched missiles into Israel, the IDF is entitled to go after Hezbollah.

But, despite the announcement of the Israel Justice Minister, Israel is not entitled to kill all civilians in south Lebanon.

I am amused to see Baron II railing against me and announcing that plans to “tour into the mind that wrote it” — when he is responding to Wes’s comment, not mine.

I reckon these little details get lost when one is shoveling too quickly.

Both Barons (assuming that they are two different people) are hot to argue about human shields in the abstract. They choose to ignore the report in Haaretz (which, the last time I checked, was not Saudi owned) that the IDF had renounced its claim that Hezbollah was firing rockets from Qana on the day that the IDF killed scores of civilians there.

Perhaps the Barons believe that this detail is not worth stooping to notice, given the boundless evil of Islamists. But it does seem relevant to judging the conduct of the IDF.

This comment is in direct relation to Jim’s comment on Baron Chile’s comment above.

Jim closes his argument with “You want to make a fight fair: don’t supply one side with instruments of hell and complain when the other side uses any means necessary”.

Lets take a closer look at the logic in Jim’s wording and thus tour into the mind that wrote it.

At first glance it seems to make some sense when held (out of context), but a closer look (in context) at the chosen working will show the actual heart and mind of the author.

For this wishing to read on, this whole discussion is centered on the use of “human shields” in time of war. The Baron Chile posting above accurately and correctly defines the international recognized term “human shield”.

Look at Jim’s wording carefully again in context. “You want to make a fight fair; don’t supply one side with instruments of hell and complain when the other side uses any means necessary”.

This logic implies that if the US stops aiding Israel in its fight for survival against an enemy sworn to its complete overthrow and destruction, thus making more of a fair fight, then the terrorists wont have to go the extremes of using human shields. The statement even goes so fare at to say no one has the right to complain when the terrorests uses “any means” which include human shields.

Can anyone see Jim’s civilian blood stained hands yet?

Lets look at this idea of a “fair fight”. As noted in the Baron Chile posting above, there are no modern nation states anywhere in the world that use “human shields”. In fact this nations put the solgers lives at additonal risk to protect civilians. Jim knows that, and he knows the Islamic terrorests use this against modern nation states to advance their blood thirty cause while civilian casualty numbers continue to mount as a result. The only “fair fight” against any Islamic terrorist group is to completely militarily destroy them as quickly as possible. That is fare to civilians, that is fare to governments with this Islamic terrorist cancer growing in their bowels. It is fare to brave peace loving people all over the world who rather risk their lives by refuring to be human shields, then to subject their lives to aid such an evil and cowardly Islamic militant.

Jim on the other had does not agree with my logic. He thinks terrorists deserve to be equally armed and have the right to put all the civilians in hams way that they want.

The problem with Jim’s logic is, it isn’t’ logic at all, its sympathy for the devil.

Good ol’ Bedford Forrest - always glad to see that he is not forgotten.

It is ironic that so little attention has been paid in the US media to the fact that the US govt is providing the planes and bombs that are wreaking havoc. This all comes back to the “government exemption” definition of terrorism.

Here’s a more logical solution: maybe we could supply Hezbollah with F-16’s, training, cluster bombs, and bunker busters - as we have and are doing so with Israel - so that the fight could be a little more evenly paced.

You want to make a fight fair: don’t supply one side with instruments of hell and complain when the other side uses any means necessary.