The Middle East Continues...

[GePap]

Originally posted by Lonestar
*wanders in two days later*
Not really; I think Hezbollah's strategic goals are to maximise civilian casualties, both Israeli and Lebanese.

And as I said before, I think you are wrong, plain and simple.

It's a good thing I was talking about Hezbollah's proven ability to launch cross-border raids on IDF sites rather than troops in Lebanon, which, as you pointed out, were only in Lebanon intermittantly.

They launched one raid, and captured a few soldiers. Once they had captives, there would be no further point of Hizbullah raids, and that one raid they did carry took months to plan. Fruther corss border raids would serve no political or military purpose. And of course, all it took was one raid for Israel to launch its attack, making this point moot.

Hmmm...I disagree. If Israel had kept airstikes limited to Southern Lebanon (Ignoring the rest of the country, which had failed in it's responsibilities as a nation-state.) Hexbollah would have still gone after as many soft targets as possible, especially as it became apperently that the IDF was either hunkering down or prepareing to invade.

Again, very simply, I think you are wrong. Saying something does not make it true, and I have seen you make no real arguement as to why you think so, only make the claims that this must be what Hizbullah wants, without muct knowledge of what HIzbullah is, does, who supports it, whatever.

EDIT: I would add that Hezbollah's purpose (resisting the IDF component in Lebanon) had been resolved. Hezbollah started this round of fightng, not Israel. Lebanon added to the problem by not doing anything to rein in an armed militia that has a habit of attacking a militarily superior neighbor that's also unpredictable.

Hizbullah states that the Sheeba Farms are Lebanese territory still under Israeli hands, meaning that their mission, to kick Israel out of all of Lebanon is no complete. That and the fact that a few Lebanese are still in Israeli prisons, and getting their release was the point of the raid. Yes, clearly Hizbullah started the fight, but this isn;t kindergarten, where "he started it" is somehow an excuse for doing anything. "They started it" is a morally bankrupt, intellectually empty, plainly moronic excuse.

[GePap]

Originally posted by notyoueither


Because there are many small boats around Lebanon that are not equipped with GPS for the DUH!! factor, Alex.

The lighthouse was hit because it had a radio transmitter for a Lebanese government radio station.

[dannubis]

thank you GePap !

[lord of the mark]

lets see.

Hezb has fired over 3000 rockets at Israel.

AFAIK, exactly ONE rocket killed Israeli soldiers.

More of their rockets hit Arab civilians, than hit Israeli soldiers.

Theyve had two hits that actually hit economic targets - a rail yard, and a chemical plant. Neither of which had any direct connection to the war. (AFAIK Israel doent use railways for military logistics) Even there, the damage was minor, and the railway hit mainly killed some railway workers, didnt do much facility damage.

Mainly the rockets have hit apartment buildings (which are not used to store missiles and military command centres) and killed Israeli civilians.

As for Hezb only killing one Israeli civilian since the withdrawl, thats in part cause some of their attacks failed, and in larger part because they put most of their effort into building up this rocket force and fortifications to defend said force.

They have also supported terrorist efforts in the Pal territories.

[lord of the mark]

GPS

Person A has a rocket he intends to fire at Israeli offshore boat B. GPS tells A where A is. It does NOT tell A where B is. If its dark, A cannot see where B is. Ergo, A knowing where A is serves little use in hitting B. OTOH if theres a working lighthouse, A can see B and hit B.

[lord of the mark]

Originally posted by Chemical Ollie
If they wanted that, they would not waste rockets on attacking IDF. .

Ok, not "as many civilians as possible, even at the cost of not killing Israeli soldiers"

Correct to - their goal is to kill Israeli soldiers, and to kill israeli civilians, and when they attack Israeli civilians, they attempt to kill as many civilians as possible.

[Flubber]

Originally posted by GePap


That and the fact that a few Lebanese are still in Israeli prisons, and getting their release was the point of the raid. Yes, clearly Hizbullah started the fight, but this isn;t kindergarten, where "he started it" is somehow an excuse for doing anything. "They started it" is a morally bankrupt, intellectually empty, plainly moronic excuse.

Sorry but I disgagree. Someone else "starting" a military conflict is a prefectly valid reason to shoot back. If Israel and Hizb remained heavily armed and nobody fired at all, that might be fine but the second one fires, I think its entirely justified for the other to fire back.

I am not saying it justifies ANY response but at a basic level I have no problem with "He shot at me" being a complete justification for shooting back

[lord of the mark]

One of the "lebanese prisoners" hezb wants to free

The article is from 2003, but israel still holds this guy, and Hezb wants him back.

Haaretz

"Last update - 09:29 10/11/2003

Hezbollah: no deal without Kuntar

By Aluf Benn, Gideon Alon, Anshel Pfeffer and Yoav Stern, Haaretz Correspondents and Haaretz Service

Hezbollah sources have said that a prisoner exchange deal with Israel, narrowly approved in a Sunday Israeli cabinet meeting, would not be carried out without the release of Samir Kuntar, jailed in Israel since a 1979 attack in the northern Israeli town of Nahariyah, in which he entered an apartment and murdered three family members and an Israeli police officer, Army Radio reported Monday.


Senior Israeli officials are adamant that Kuntar will remain imprisoned in Israel. Hezbollah officials have been quoted as maintaining that the organization has a letter from Israel which certifies that Kuntar would be part of a future prisoner release.

Bassam Kuntar, the brother of Samir Kuntar told Arab media outlet Al Jazeera that Hezbollah leader Sheikh Nasrallah promised him the deal would not be executed without his brother's release, Army Radio reported.

"Nasrallah was very clear when he said there would be no exchange without [the release of] Samir, and Nasrallah never reneges on his promises," Kuntar was quoted on the Al Jazeera website.

The announcement came after Prime Minister Ariel Sharon succeeded Sunday in securing a cabinet majority to support the proposed prisoner exchange, but the Lebanese group has yet to release an official reaction to the Israeli cabinet's decision.

The cabinet heard Sunday that Kuntar would not be included in the exchange deal.

Foreign Minister Silvan Shalom said Sunday that Kuntar would not be includeded in the deal. "Israel has red lines too," the minister said.

[Az]

Foreign Minister Silvan Shalom said Sunday

ahem, FORMER Foreign minister, please.

In any case, it seems that the americans have stabbed us in the ass. I just hope the upcoming UNSC res. will let us some 10 days to get the job done.

[lord of the mark]

Originally posted by Az

Foreign Minister Silvan Shalom said Sunday

ahem, FORMER Foreign minister, please.

In any case, it seems that the americans have stabbed us in the ass. I just hope the upcoming UNSC res. will let us some 10 days to get the job done.

Az - what do people there make of Peretz sounding more hawkish than Olmert - from here the intracoalition politics looks topsy-turvy (ie upside down). I assume you think Peretz is for real, does everyone else? How is rank and file Labour responding to that?

[BlackCat]

Originally posted by Az

Foreign Minister Silvan Shalom said Sunday

ahem, FORMER Foreign minister, please.

I think that sentence is a part of LOTM's 2003 article

In any case, it seems that the americans have stabbed us in the ass. I just hope the upcoming UNSC res. will let us some 10 days to get the job done.

lets hope they don't work their way up to the back Strangely, you might get that time due to the leb gov resistance.

[Az]

People here are not very aware of this, to be honest, I think this issue will surface much more strongly after the war: Olmert's hesitation to use ground forces, as well as Halutz false belief that airpower could solve all (as a part of the good old snobbishness of the flyboys). I just hope that this realization will create a reconsideration of our defence spending priorities. So far, from this war, what *I* see is that it is the forces who our government and high command are spending money on aren't bringing the bacon home, and vice versa. Maybe, just maybe, we'll wake up for our intoxication with the airforce - and won't, for example, buy a bunch of F-22s that noone needs - we didn't have any air superiority problems, did we? and neither will we have in any conflict in the upcoming 15 years. in ten years, perhaps, but now, we need to spend the dough on: More infantry, better equipped infantry, better active and technological protection for our armor, finalizing the C4I issues in air-ground coordination we're having, and... well, that's pretty much it.

Most people see the hesitation of the government as something that both Olmert and Peretz are responsible for. I just hope that the media wouldn't decide to spin this **** on Peretz after the war due to his economic ideology.

[RGBVideo]

Az

will let us some 10 days to get the job done.

"For every terrorist you kill, you're creating at least two more out of the kids witnessing your collateral damage."

You're currently working for the IDF AFAIK, so you're our very own expert here. Do you think that sentence is empty rhetoric, or do you agree with the thought behind it?

[Az]

I am in the Home Front Command, we're responsible for getting the civilians out of the rubble, and protecting them from all sorts of bad stuff that can happen to them in such a case Any expertise I have is purely autodidactic in nature.

what I am saying here is purely my thoughts on the issue.

I do believe that in the case of a what I would call a dinamic equilibrium in fighting, this is the case. However, when what's happening is the crushing of one of the sides, this is not correct. This is another reason why I think that the whole "proportional response" thing is complete rubbish. Proportional response does nothing but prolong the conflict, ultimately resulting in more deaths, while a strong victory of a single side brings despair to the other, leading to the fall in motivation, etc.

[Arrian]

"The Americans stabbed us in the ass"

You know, if we're such bad allies just cut ties with us and do it all on your own.

I'd be fine with it.

-Arrian