I just wish that Bill O'Reilly (or his researchers) had done their homework better. They should have read the HRW materials, Roth's letter to the Sun, and the HRW testimony at the UN---assuming these events happened before the program.

Then O'Reilly would have been in a better position to challenge Roth...and ask, "You say this here but you say that there. So which is it? Is Hezbollah a terrorist group or just a militia? Are the Israelis targeting or recklessly endangering civilians or not?"

I read all the articles on this from the lgf link. My feelings on this are -

1) Oreilly likes to position himself like a politician at times, finding times/places or areas to appear middle of the road. So he thus despises most of these radical (imo) left wing groups - ACLU - MoveOn - etc... so here he finds a guy that at least tries to appear as if he's "unbiased" or not a "raving" left wing nut so he affords him the benefit of the doubt.

2) Oreilly likely did not research this area and in fact left the cutting debate to Mr. Roth's opponent on the show. Second, a lot of his research he probably relies on his staff, however, here he likely did less prep than in other areas.... because he didn't want to cut up Mr. Roth and lose him as a guest, because if their give and take can appear friendly it is good for Oreilly's REP/IMAGE.

3) The part where Roth says our staff checks/rechecks etc... claims several times and often throws out or gives Israel the benefit of the doubt jumped out at me. In my gut this strikes me as patently false or best case very much exagerrated. There is no way their process is that clean and thorough, nor could it be. And the fact that he accused his opponent of missing a 20 page report that wasn't there and that they headlined an Accusation of Israeli War Crimes in Quana immediately after Quana on their website tells me that Mr. Roth also likes appearing on the Oreilly Factor bcs like Arab spokesmen, he is adept at speaking out of both sides of his mouth depending on where he is. Getting a "more balanced" REP may be a competitive advantage as opposed to the more well known Amnesty for instance.

Mike

I agree with all those points. O'Reilly is about the last person I'd want as an advocate for a position I hold, but I couldn't blame him particularly (and I also agree he's been at pains to seem like a "fair guy" for a long time now) for not being able to catch someone like this in a brazen lie.

C'mon.. When has Bill O'Rielly every tried to be fair? If you're not agreeing with him he shuts the mike off/shouts you down/starts ranting at top volume..

He's hardly well informed, warping history whenever he needs to shout at someone:
http://youtube.com/watch?v=f5gdW38ma50

(claimed a particular group of US soldiers massacred in WWII rather than the truth which was the other way around).

Or check out the one on jeremy glick and tell me Bill O'Reilly is fair and balanced..
http://youtube.com/watch?v=3BAFb97L3KU

Though I think donnahue gave him a good spanking one time because he couldn't be bullied.
Check out
http://youtube.com/watch?v=Ctlmholr45c

On the topic of human shields: is it reasonable to bomb the house of a civilian if someone pulls up in a jeep somewhere near, fires a rocket then pisses off out of there?
I know that there are differing rules of engagement in different armies, but the Israeli army doesn't seem to need to confirm targets much by appearances (as in "are you shooting at the enemy or civilians" or "are there civilians present, if so don't shoot" which doesn't seem to have been followed).

Israel leafleted the area telling civilians to leave or else.

Any "civilians" who didn't leave were on a battlefield.

This "war" went on for about 30 days YET "civilians" still were in South Lebanon. Why?

Any civilians who were prevented from leaving by hezbullah are victims of War Crime committed by hezbullah.

How many male civilians were in those buildings? Apparently none. The males were out in civilian clothing firing rockets into Israel, hiding in bunkers they didn't let women and children into.

Only followers of "peaceful islam" who say they crave death, who dress infants up in suicide "shaheed" uniforms with baby sized bomb belts, who don't value their own lives or the lives of their children (see the palewinians mothers who celebrate their sons suicide attacks with candy and arabic yodeling) let alone the lives of others as we saw on 9/11, Madrids 3/11, Londons 7/7.

To Chillwinston -

On the topic of human shields: is it reasonable to bomb the house of a civilian if someone pulls up in a jeep somewhere near, fires a rocket then pisses off out of there?

Of course there were NO HOUSES that had rockets and launchers stored in their basements and periodically went out on their back yard and shot them at innocent civilians in Israel??? NAHHHH?
And of course Israel didn't warn with leaflets for days for all civilians to get out of the area - KINDA like how Hezbollah warned all the people they would be shooting at them purposely.

I know that there are differing rules of engagement in different armies, but the Israeli army doesn't seem to need to confirm targets much by appearances (as in "are you shooting at the enemy or civilians" or "are there civilians present, if so don't shoot" which doesn't seem to have been followed).

You are so full of your own shit, you don't know what the F you're talking about.
A) you don't know anything about war
B) You try to pretend that you do.
C) Name 1 fucking army that ever sat on their hands and "confirmed" targets or didn't fire while 1000 rockets were raining down on their civilian population day after day?
D) If Hezbollah had planes they would drop a bomb right on Haifa without a 2nd fucking thought.

Can you please provide me with your address. I may have some mafia connections and would like to periodically lob bottle rockets and through your window from the 2 apts/houses across from you for a week or two...... you better not dare defend your family, you are to stay in your house with your entire family and then submit a written complaint to Koffi Annan and WAIT................... for the UN to decide to hold 2 party negotiations... DON'T WORRY BASED ON RWANDA AND SUDAN, you and your kids should be fine........

My email address is MNargizian@aol.com

I'll eagerly await your address

Mike

Mike,

chillwinston is a HYPOCRITICAL OCCUPIER of Aborigine land in the "Land Down Under".

chillwinston should pack up his crap and vacate the Aborigine land he squats on.

Mike:
Firstly different armies DO have different rules for engagement. For example in Iraq the Australian airforce (The RAAF) had on a number of engagements broke off from an attack order because their rules for confirming targets are more strict than the US airforce.
See http://www.smh.com.au/articles/2003/02/15/1044927854330.html

e.g "Long experience has taught Australian forces that Americans are far more gung-ho in their approach, more willing to risk lives and placing far more faith in raw firepower than patient and careful planning to minimise risks to human life."

and

"General Cosgrove said he "endorsed" any decision by RAAF pilots to ignore US orders if they involved firing on civilians."

I'm not talking about doing nothing during war, but there's confirming targets and there's "just bomb it any old how".

I also used to live with an army reservist in Australia who told me about the rules of engagement in the Army. Whereas US soldiers would engage, unless there was a certain ratio of outnumbering the enemy the general rule was to call in air support.

So what the fuck do YOU know about war then mike? Do you think that dropping leaflets is all you have to do to waive your responsibility on the people that LIVE in an area. That you can declare that anyone who stays in their home is an acceptable casualty. What about the old, frail, scared or injured who can't make it out??

Fact is that many people would be afraid to leave their houses this was due to:
* israel bombing convoys of people trying to flee
* bridges, roads, airports being destroyed
* you're completely unprotected if you're walking along a road,
* the Israeli soldiers have inflicted much brutality on the population for many years

I think I at least can at least appreciate how confusing, terrifying and stressful it was on the civilians. You seem to have no idea that this is reality and people we are talking about.

Ask yourself where exactly you would go if not your home and you didn't have transport or money and you thought you would be killed if you went outside the house??

On your question (name one army): the australian army/airforce during the Iraq war. They refused to bomb a number of targets because civilians were likely to get killed.
So name one instance in the middle east where agression by Israel has resulted in peace. By your example Saddam's gassing of the kurds was justified as someone tried to assassinate him in that area, so he gassed the crap out of the place in reprisals. Justified right? Name one recent use of force that has achieved its goal of stopping terrorists? Afghanistan to get osama: nope. Lots of casualties and pissed off population close to anarchy.

Iraq war for a number of unsubstantiated reasons: nope, no way. Massive civilain casualties and further damaged reputation.

Israel over the border = more missiles and damaged an already poor reputation and killed tonnes of people.

So you're asking the wrong question. Ask whether it was ever going to achieve its goal? Or would it simply provide a bunch of neutral or allied people with a real reason to hate israel (such as family members getting killed, having to live without medical facilities/electricity/water/sanitation).

So you have to weigh up: do you regard civilian life as more important than enemy death? In this case I think Israel has shown by action that it believes death of enemy is more important than life of innocent.