The Middle East Continues...

[TCO]

At that point, they should also apply to join the EU!

[BlackCat]

Originally posted by GePap


That Hizbullah fired rockets into Israel for a month is based more on the tactical failures of the IDF. And lets be honest, that 500,000 fled and the rest stayed in shelters was done to minimize civilian casualties, which is a laudable goal. That said, countless societies have survived and carried on daily life under far worse. The residents of Sarajevo went on for years under a far more intensive attack and kept on living. Far mroe of them died than people in Northern Israel, and I am sure if the people of Saravejo had had the ability to leave, many would have done so. That said, the threat posed by hizbullah was still not existential under any stretch of the imagination.

Your Sarajevo argument is actually a bit of a silly argument. It is quite rigth that they lived and survived under those conditions, but just out of curiosity, how much money are you willing to bet on that they would have done the same if they had the same military capacity as Israel have ?

Can you give just one argument that will make sense to why the israelis should endure attacks if they can fight them ?

[BlackCat]

Originally posted by MOBIUS


Glad to be of service. Entertainment and education, what more could you ask for from a post!

Entertainment is just fine, but if I were you, I wouldn't go for a careeer in education - even if you settled for a job as a kindergarden teacher, I think it will be too harmful to you with the everyday pawnage the toddlers would put on you.

Consider it a reconnaissance...

I guess that MI 5/6 can deliver a precice description of your tour

Been to Barca before, Gaudi is

Yup, quite nice, but I went to the end of the Rambla and to the right and ended up in a very local area where I met a lot of pleasant locals. Architecture is nice, but people are more interesting.

That spanish enclave sounds much like that austrian that's only reachable from germany.

[Sirotnikov]

So what about the suspiciously timed use of all those cluster bombs siro ?

What could possibly be the tactical or strategic advantage of that ? Except of course making sure that no lebanese would be in the possibility to return to his home after the fighting has stopped.

Actually, no idea about that one.

Just like why we don't have proper bunker-busters.

One thing I can think of, is areas which are known to be Hezbullah only property - and there are such areas.

[MOBIUS]

Originally posted by Sirotnikov
Can't imagine what's it like to be so insecure that you feel the need to try and prove your worthiness by insulting other people. Explains your need to spell your nickname with all caps. That's got to be compensating for lots of insecurity.

Whatever, Sigmund...

However, to quote Ming - "discuss the topic, not the posters".

Indeed, I was laughing my head off imagining you writing that first sentence with a straight face.

You know, 'discussing the topic and not the posters'...

I mean, first you completely ignore addressing all the topics I have mentioned, and then proceed to talk about me in a, shall we say, less than positive light...

Do you actually understand the definition of hypocrisy? Because from where I'm sitting it runs along similar lines to the Israeli definition of terrorism...

So you're welcome to come with a list to counter my apparent lack of knowledge, smart ass.

OK, let's start with Jiyah, a power station that was targeted at the very beginning of the war. You know the one whose oil slick is busily polluting Lebanon's beaches in what has been labelled an environmental catastrophe...

So, effortlessly, I have exposed your 'apparent' lack of knowledge as an actual lack of knowledge. If we are to believe you, that you are that stupid/ignorant that you did not know about this attack - because as I said earlier, otherwise you are a liar!

Either way it doesn't put you in a favourable light, but then again that is hardly unexpected from a 'professional' armed force that killed 10X as many civs as the terrorists they were fighting (sorry, who are the terrorists in this conflict again!?), and sprayed illegally deployed munitions in an indiscriminate manner across the whole of S. Leb.

And I expect a salute when you address an officer

Gladly, one two-fingered salute coming right up!

The last I recall your current rank is... nobody

Right. Mr Hypocrite strikes again - you and MtG would get on like a house on fire!

So, feel free to discuss the topics whenever you can handle it...

I mean you haven't even told me if you got your soldiers back yet.

[MOBIUS]

Originally posted by Sirotnikov
and there are such areas.

Yeah, it's called the whole of S. Lebanon and anywhere else we bombed! Hmmm, better still, let's just say 'Lebanon' for simplicity's sake...



Here's a list for Siro.


Did you get your soldiers back?

Did you destroy Hezbollah?

Did you kill Nasrallah?

Did you stop their rocket attacks?

Remember, discuss the topics...

[Edan]

Originally posted by dannubis
So what about the suspiciously timed use of all those cluster bombs siro ?

Why is it "suspiciously timed"? Was hezbollah's increase in rocket fire also "suspiciously timed"?

Both sides escalated the warfare to try to achieve as many of their goals before a cease fire was reached. Is that a suprise?

[MOBIUS]

Originally posted by Edan
Why is it "suspiciously timed"? Was hezbollah's increase in rocket fire also "suspiciously timed"?

Israeli fired them in the last few days, when the ceasefire was all but agreed...

As for Hezb, right through Israelis botched 'war' they continued to increase the rockets fired - it was a direct means of showing to the World Israeli's total inability to curtain hezb's rocket strikes. Indeed, the ever increasing numbers of rockets fired each day to me was one of the biggest humiliations the IDF had to suffer in their campaign...

I was waiting for the IDF to say a couple of months down the line when hezb had finally exhausted their arsenals, "We have stopped them from firing their missiles!"

Both sides escalated the warfare to try to achieve as many of their goals before a cease fire was reached. Is that a suprise?

Not at all. But apparently according to you, one of Israel's goals was to illegally use cluster bomb munitions to 'mine' civilian areas in a form of collective punishment of the population for the deeds of hezb...

[VetLegion]

The entire thread is too long to read. Could someone please summarize the opinions of Israelis who post on this board as to has Israel achieved objectives in this war (won) or not.

[MOBIUS]

We're trying to, but they refuse to be pinned down on the subject...

[SlowwHand]

It's felt their objectives haven't been attained, so far.

Mobius has poor attention span.

[Edan]

If it wasn't agreed to, it wasn't much of a ceasefire...

Originally posted by MOBIUS


Israeli fired them in the last few days, when the ceasefire was all but agreed...

Again, so what?

Not at all. But apparently according to you, one of Israel's goals was to illegally use cluster bomb munitions to 'mine' civilian areas in a form of collective punishment of the population for the deeds of hezb...

Thank you for putting your words in my mouth.

[Sirotnikov]

Gladly, one two-fingered salute coming right up!

I'm glad to hear you finally got your finger out of your arse!
That is so great for you!

Did you get your soldiers back?

Did you destroy Hezbollah?

Did you kill Nasrallah?

Did you stop their rocket attacks?

We got info about our soldiers.

We seriously hurt Hezbullah's long range munitions arsenal. We stopped their long range rocket attacks.

We seriously hurt Hezbullah's image as protector in Lebanon. We got Hezbullah to appologize to the Lebanese people for plunging the nation into war.

We killed several high rankers.
We destroyed Hezbollah leaders' main base of operations and living area in south east Beirut.

[Edan]

And, of course, Israel's gotten the Lebanese army to enter and police the south - with Hezbollah's consent.

[GePap]

Originally posted by Sirotnikov

Again you fail to see the difference between an existential threat for a person or a group of persons - and an existential threat for a "state".

A total war is an existential threat for individuals, however the community as a whole, can infact be strengthened by it.

Or totally wiped out, making it an existential threat.

A lagging war with terrorism is an exsitential threat for a state / community, since it is a draining and unhopeful task.

NO, since exietntial means existance. The test is painfully obvious and clear: has any state every been destroyed by terrorism? Has any state ever been destroyed by total warfare?

I dare you to name a single state ever brought down by "terrorism"

Depends what do you consider worse - more dead people - or a weakened society with loosened social bonds.

Dead people. And anarchy and civil war by definition mean the collapse of social bonds. Terrorism is just political violence to force people into a new policy.

Every time you have to target potencially civilian areas is morally and ethically tasking. It has nothing to do with the political roots of the problem. Rather with the choise of weapon - a terrorist campaign, whose perpetrators hid amongst innocent civilians.

That is the nature of irregular warfare, and has nothing to do with "terrorism", unless you equate all guerrila forces to terrorist.

What good is american power with no sense of security?
What good is american power when it can be shattered by 18 guys with razorcutters?

Irrelevant to the question of whether American power was weakened or challenged. It wasn't.

The fact that the huge super-power - the United States of America - had to change its ways due to 18 guys, and some people hidden away in a cave.

Terrorism is a very effective threat and a potent weapon.

It changes a targetted society, much more than any single war. Especially because it is not "contained" or limited.

BUll****. Plain and simple. The changes after 9/11 are cosmetic, and in no way compare to the far greater social changes caused by say WW1 ro WW2, which were orders of magnitute greater, and that is true for all participants of any of those conflicts. I dare you to name ANY significant social change brought by "terrorism." Slower boarding times on planes is not "social change."

Fundamentalist fascist Islamic leaders would only like the "War to end all wars" to begin, because they are convinced they will win. And if not - they still go to heaven.

Win-win situation.

All of which is irrelevant to the fact that they are weak. The only regime brought down by Islamists was the Shah;s regime, which is not even really true, because the Shah was brought down by a widely popular revolution by all classes of society. These "great threats" you talk about can;t even overthrow a two dime shiek.

An AQ attack on the US that would not have been promoted by the USSR, would have likely pushed the two "sane" nations together, and the USSR would have been less of a threat.

Please. The west armed and funded the fundamentalist against the Soviets, because as anti-western as the islamist were, they were better than the Soviets, a good way to weaken the real enemy.

AQ has sparked a self proclaimed Islamic world revolution, much more succesfully than the Marxist movement.

How many states have falled to these revolutions created by AQ? NONE. At least the Marxists had 2 in less time, one of them being a global power.

It is a very strong phenomena. You can say that by observing its effects on the whole western world, and its effect on world wide population of muslims.

Denying the magnitude of the effect is ridiculous.

NO it isn't, when you can;t show any actual examples of your claims.

Correction - European governments wanted to help bring a law and order to Iraq, and were spooked out by a bunch of AK-47 baring fanatics and fears of terrorist attacks on their soil.

You over estimate the effect of public will on government decision.

ION democratic governments public will is what matters. The two biggest states that have or will pull out of Iraqs are states in whcih the governments who supported staying in lost. That is a pretty obvious show of direct popular will.

You're correct - we did damage a water pump to Beirut one time.

Still, generally there were no electric or water outages in Beirut.

I'm not claiming to know everything. But had an effort to intentionally target civilian infrastructure had been taken, I would have probably heard about it

RIGHT....

Again, just read the report.

Apparently you seem to think that operating a military against an enemy is similar to operating a police against felons, where you would wait for a positive incrimination and amounting evidence for each target. Then you have to weigh those evidence against.... blah blah...

Bull****. If you wait for an enemy to use its double use resources then its too damn late.

The Geneva conventions are clear on the subject. By your logic, EVERY house in Lebanon was a fair target because it could theoretically be used by HIzbullah to hide in, and you have to destroy something before the enemy has the possibility of using it.

You want to stop the enemy from moving, interdict their convoys. Or take over the bridge. That is the way to do it, without creating a humanitarian crisis for the entire civilian population.

You attack the transportation assests of an enemy before he uses them, as prevention - you force him to use poor roads or have no transportation at all.

Attacking the roads after the use would be "punishing" the roads, which has no real value.

Prevention is only good if you do it in advance.

The bombed transportation targets functioned to make it more difficult for Hezbullah to transport the captured soldiers, or for fresh missile supplies to arrive.

And make it difficult for civilians to move, desrupt of block the movement of the injured, food supplies, medicine, and other basic needs of the entire civilian population. Which is why indiscriminate attacks against all transportation are NOT valid tactics. The US in its war vs, Saddam did FAR less damage to the transportation grid that Israel did fighting a militia group. BY your "logic" the US would have been right to destroy every single bridge in all of Iraq and bomb every single road to stop the possibility of it being used. The US did not. Because it was not necessary, it would have been execive, and create grave harm to the populace.