- Reaction score
- 0
- Points
- 60
Hi all,
Sorry for the long delay, work was really busy, then it was the long weekend.
What part of my statement was false? If you're going to rebut my statement, please cite your evidence.
Actually, this particular fight has been going on since 1948. Israel has been dishing out horrifying crap for decades, its all a matter of perspective.
How is a decisive victor going to be found by military force? Bombing the sh*t out of everyone isn't going to help, in fact with every bit of "collateral damage" you create more insurgents. At this point it seems that many Lebanese of different religions are now supporting action against Israel. With Israel now making moves to occupy southern Lebanon, these numbers will only increase - unless Israel somehow comes up with a plan to win over the population.
Aug 3, 2006
Nasrallah and the three Lebanons
By Sami Moubayed
http://www.atimes.com/atimes/Middle_East/HH03Ak01.html
And currently there are no countries in direct conflict with Israel, excepting Lebanon. And yes, Syria and Iran both support Hezbollah, but that is not too different than Israels support for the SLA. Their actions could be called terrorism.
Iran has not seduced hatred of Israel in other nations, they put their rhetoric out there and see what it can grow. The Israeli actions plant the seeds of hatred. The Palestinian issue is the lynch pin issue in the mideast, if this issue is resolved successfully, it will go a long way to defusing many conflicts.
This has been and continues to be a major powder keg among Muslims and Arabs.
Again read the above article. Why would someone from southern Lebanon turn in Hezbollah, what is their incentive?
Think of the Black Panther movement in the 60's with a similar concept of social and militant wing. Why didn't more blacks turn in Black Panther members, after all they had a militant wing.
Along with their social programs, many Shia see Hezbollah as there only defense against perceived Israeli aggression. Every airspace violation drives that point home.
At that point 60% of the population did not support Hezbollah, though after a few weeks of bombing this has changed. I don't know the percentage that was actively against Hezbollah.
Hezbollah was not running the country. Politically, as elected representatives along with other Shia party members they tried to represent their constituents. There was negotiation between the govt and Hezbollah to disarm (I can't find the article).
The Lebanese govt **cannot** force Hezbollah to disarm, their military budget as of 2004 was $540 million American
( https://www.cia.gov/cia/publications/factbook/geos/le.html ). No offence to any Lebanese, but, Hezbollah seems to be far better armed. In fact compared to the IDF, given how hard a time they have trying to rout out Hezbollah with a military budget of 9.5 billion
( https://www.cia.gov/cia/publications/factbook/geos/is.html ), how effective would the Lebanese military be.
The thing that affects the Lebanese govt is fear of another civil war. As far as I can see, they are trying to balance the various forces in the population and rebuild their country.
It seems to me that you are saying, for a minor action by a militant group, a foreign country has the right to destroy the country that the militant group was based in. I wish to point out in advance that Hezbollah responded with rockets **after** the bombing attacks in Lebanon. ( http://www.cbc.ca/news/background/middleeast-crisis/index.html )
Lets throw some quick numbers out there. Lebanon has a population of 3.9 million people, of which 40% is Shia. Of this 40%, 80% voted for Hezbollah in the elections according to the Beirut Daily Star. According to you, this would make 1.2 million people at least complicit, if not guilty, in the actions of Hezbollah. How do you plan to rout Hezbollah out of the population, and at which point does that become ethnic cleansing?
My original point in the New Orleans example was to compare the logistics involved in moving a large group of people. But yes there are other issues in evacuating a population.
In New Orleans, not everyone stayed behind due to choice. As in Lebanon, some were left behind because they had **no** means of getting out. These reasons can vary.
My line was whether to take a chance of getting killed on the road or in the home. Again, not much of a choice.
But your response of "don't travel in a Hezbollah convoy or drive near missile batteries" is interesting. Explain to me, exactly, how a Hezbollah convoy is identified? As to the issue of driving past rocket launchers, can't a helicopter or jet hold missile fire until the vehicles have finished driving past a launcher? In fact, isn't that the moral decision to make?
OK. Here I'll respond to a number of points brought up in response to the articles I cited. I'll respond to them as a whole without quoting them.
Yes, the IDF said that they were responding to rocket launches from the tyre area. However, there was no indication of how close to the vehicles that launchers were to the vehicles hit. In fact, at no point in the article was there a mention of a launcher near or among the wreckage
In two instances you implied that Hezbollah is using white flags and civilian vehicles. While this may be true, what is your proof? Are you now indicating **any** civilian vehicle is a target?
I don't know why you quoted back the price gouging, unless you are trying to imply something about the Arab population.
Unfortunately any extreme situation will bring out profiteers in many cultures and countries.
In regard to the Nasrallah quote, would you have accepted an apology and that they were collateral damage? I can't see one line being any better than the other.
The points (if I remember correctly) you seem to have made are:
If you stay in southern Lebanon, you are Hezbollah.
If you travel in an ambulance, you are Hezbollah.
If you fly a white flag, you are Hezbollah.
If you drive a van, you are Hezbollah.
If you voted Hezbollah, you are Hezbollah.
Am I correct on that?
I have always seen line such as "civilian human shields" referring to many groups, but always used to explain collateral damage. I'm sure it does happen, and I'm aware that an insurgent without a gun can suddenly become a civilian. But it is also used to explain an attack on a civilian location. Recent reports indicate that no rockets had been launched from Qana in the 24 hrs before the building was hit but was claimed that a launcher was near the building. An insurgent is home with his family, and a 1 tonne bomb is dropped on his home, and he is considered to be hiding behind civilians. Cars, vans, trucks, ambulances are all hit with no proof that they are actually carrying weapons or insurgents.
This current action in Lebanon was started by an action on **military** personnel. Israel made the first attack on civilian areas with collateral damage.
Hezbollah has said that if Israel withdraws from Sheba Farms they will become a "purely a defensive role", a position supported by the Lebanese govt.
http://www.dawn.com/2005/05/25/int14.htm
http://www.haaretz.com/hasen/spages/742228.html
If you don't try to win the "hearts and minds" of the occupied population, you are going to feed a growing insurgency. The only way to create a "peace" in such a situation is by clearing out the insurgents and supporting population. Again, at what point does that become ethnic cleansing? And once you have destabilized a country enough to colapse, how are you going to deal with the chaos. Install your own govt, and create a civil war? This is not going to create peace in the area.
Ditto
Sorry if this was somewhat disjointed, I wrote it up over 3 days. As I said, it's been busy here.
Sorry for the long delay, work was really busy, then it was the long weekend.
CanadaPhil said:Ahemmm.....NO NEED to start another thread.
ITS FALSE.
What part of my statement was false? If you're going to rebut my statement, please cite your evidence.
zipperhead_cop said:This fight has been being fought for thousands of years. Maybe there will always be dissidents, but a decisive victor needs to emerge. In that Israel has been putting up with horrifying crap for decades speaks to the restraint they have shown in trying to appease the world opinion.
Okay, so we agree on that. So what is the point of smashing up against the wall that you know will not be going anywhere. These countries need to grab a big slice of "get over it" and get on with the business of living. Or don't complain about the business of killing. If they are being seduced by the lure of hatred by Iran, then that brings us back to "why are we holding a torch for these people".
Actually, this particular fight has been going on since 1948. Israel has been dishing out horrifying crap for decades, its all a matter of perspective.
How is a decisive victor going to be found by military force? Bombing the sh*t out of everyone isn't going to help, in fact with every bit of "collateral damage" you create more insurgents. At this point it seems that many Lebanese of different religions are now supporting action against Israel. With Israel now making moves to occupy southern Lebanon, these numbers will only increase - unless Israel somehow comes up with a plan to win over the population.
Aug 3, 2006
Nasrallah and the three Lebanons
By Sami Moubayed
http://www.atimes.com/atimes/Middle_East/HH03Ak01.html
And currently there are no countries in direct conflict with Israel, excepting Lebanon. And yes, Syria and Iran both support Hezbollah, but that is not too different than Israels support for the SLA. Their actions could be called terrorism.
Iran has not seduced hatred of Israel in other nations, they put their rhetoric out there and see what it can grow. The Israeli actions plant the seeds of hatred. The Palestinian issue is the lynch pin issue in the mideast, if this issue is resolved successfully, it will go a long way to defusing many conflicts.
This has been and continues to be a major powder keg among Muslims and Arabs.
zipperhead_cop said:So they can still help with intelligence info. Surely they could make a phone call, or post a note on an internet site? If there was a steady stream of information about Hezbollah weapon locations and movements, the people there might get a bit more of a nod, for no other reason than you don't want to blow up your intelligence network. I am fairly confident that some of the strikes we are seeing in the urban areas are as a result of intel developed by contacts that are there. Guided munitions are expensive, and if for no other reason it does not make military sense to bomb out a place that is just some random living tenement.
It isn't a case of guilt. It is a case of complicity. If 60% of the country is against Hezbollah, then it doesn't make sense that they should be running the show. If it is a case of fear of taking action, why should that be an issue for Israel. There will be hundreds of tragic stories out of this, but routing out Hezbollah needs to happen. Nobody else is getting it done.
I think everyone agrees that the whole area is a tangled web of interests, history and ideology. However, I would compare it to when your kid gets gum in their hair. You might try to get it out gently, but ultimately you know you are going to need to take scissors and hack the whole thing out.
Again read the above article. Why would someone from southern Lebanon turn in Hezbollah, what is their incentive?
Think of the Black Panther movement in the 60's with a similar concept of social and militant wing. Why didn't more blacks turn in Black Panther members, after all they had a militant wing.
Along with their social programs, many Shia see Hezbollah as there only defense against perceived Israeli aggression. Every airspace violation drives that point home.
At that point 60% of the population did not support Hezbollah, though after a few weeks of bombing this has changed. I don't know the percentage that was actively against Hezbollah.
Hezbollah was not running the country. Politically, as elected representatives along with other Shia party members they tried to represent their constituents. There was negotiation between the govt and Hezbollah to disarm (I can't find the article).
The Lebanese govt **cannot** force Hezbollah to disarm, their military budget as of 2004 was $540 million American
( https://www.cia.gov/cia/publications/factbook/geos/le.html ). No offence to any Lebanese, but, Hezbollah seems to be far better armed. In fact compared to the IDF, given how hard a time they have trying to rout out Hezbollah with a military budget of 9.5 billion
( https://www.cia.gov/cia/publications/factbook/geos/is.html ), how effective would the Lebanese military be.
The thing that affects the Lebanese govt is fear of another civil war. As far as I can see, they are trying to balance the various forces in the population and rebuild their country.
It seems to me that you are saying, for a minor action by a militant group, a foreign country has the right to destroy the country that the militant group was based in. I wish to point out in advance that Hezbollah responded with rockets **after** the bombing attacks in Lebanon. ( http://www.cbc.ca/news/background/middleeast-crisis/index.html )
Lets throw some quick numbers out there. Lebanon has a population of 3.9 million people, of which 40% is Shia. Of this 40%, 80% voted for Hezbollah in the elections according to the Beirut Daily Star. According to you, this would make 1.2 million people at least complicit, if not guilty, in the actions of Hezbollah. How do you plan to rout Hezbollah out of the population, and at which point does that become ethnic cleansing?
zipperhead_cop said:First off, anyone who CHOSE to stay behind in New Orleans kind of made their bed then got to sleep in it. Yes, potentially getting your stuff looted is unfortunate, but again that is not a consideration to be weighed. Ones life should take precedence over ones personal belongings. As for at home or on the road, of course the road is the way to go. Perhaps don't travel in a Hezbollah convoy or drive near
missile batteries.
My original point in the New Orleans example was to compare the logistics involved in moving a large group of people. But yes there are other issues in evacuating a population.
In New Orleans, not everyone stayed behind due to choice. As in Lebanon, some were left behind because they had **no** means of getting out. These reasons can vary.
My line was whether to take a chance of getting killed on the road or in the home. Again, not much of a choice.
But your response of "don't travel in a Hezbollah convoy or drive near missile batteries" is interesting. Explain to me, exactly, how a Hezbollah convoy is identified? As to the issue of driving past rocket launchers, can't a helicopter or jet hold missile fire until the vehicles have finished driving past a launcher? In fact, isn't that the moral decision to make?
OK. Here I'll respond to a number of points brought up in response to the articles I cited. I'll respond to them as a whole without quoting them.
Yes, the IDF said that they were responding to rocket launches from the tyre area. However, there was no indication of how close to the vehicles that launchers were to the vehicles hit. In fact, at no point in the article was there a mention of a launcher near or among the wreckage
In two instances you implied that Hezbollah is using white flags and civilian vehicles. While this may be true, what is your proof? Are you now indicating **any** civilian vehicle is a target?
I don't know why you quoted back the price gouging, unless you are trying to imply something about the Arab population.
Unfortunately any extreme situation will bring out profiteers in many cultures and countries.
In regard to the Nasrallah quote, would you have accepted an apology and that they were collateral damage? I can't see one line being any better than the other.
The points (if I remember correctly) you seem to have made are:
If you stay in southern Lebanon, you are Hezbollah.
If you travel in an ambulance, you are Hezbollah.
If you fly a white flag, you are Hezbollah.
If you drive a van, you are Hezbollah.
If you voted Hezbollah, you are Hezbollah.
Am I correct on that?
zipperhead_cop said:All of those articles have compelling, heart wrenching stories. There is no happy face to paint on a shooting war, and no good will come of a cowardly enemy that uses civilian human shields. Unfortunately for those folks, Israel has had it with the unprovoked attacks on it's civilian population.
But what else are they supposed to do? Hezbollah will never stop coming at them. If Israel pulls out now, certainly it will take them a while to regroup and bomb up. But none the less, they will be back. The ball is rolling. This has to play out.
I would bet the IDF is going to be a lot more successful with it's FIBUA tactics. They are not concerning themselves with the "hearts and minds" aspect which IMO is part of the problem the US is having. Certainly in the long run the PR battle will need to be fought and there will be some bitter-for-life individuals as a result of the conflict. However, seems that area has been pretty bent at the Jews since there has been written history. Remember, the "turn the other cheek" stuff is from the New Testament.
I think this one applies. Israel has had a lot of time to plan for this, and is doing what it knows it needs to do. Simple survival of the fittest.
I have always seen line such as "civilian human shields" referring to many groups, but always used to explain collateral damage. I'm sure it does happen, and I'm aware that an insurgent without a gun can suddenly become a civilian. But it is also used to explain an attack on a civilian location. Recent reports indicate that no rockets had been launched from Qana in the 24 hrs before the building was hit but was claimed that a launcher was near the building. An insurgent is home with his family, and a 1 tonne bomb is dropped on his home, and he is considered to be hiding behind civilians. Cars, vans, trucks, ambulances are all hit with no proof that they are actually carrying weapons or insurgents.
This current action in Lebanon was started by an action on **military** personnel. Israel made the first attack on civilian areas with collateral damage.
Hezbollah has said that if Israel withdraws from Sheba Farms they will become a "purely a defensive role", a position supported by the Lebanese govt.
http://www.dawn.com/2005/05/25/int14.htm
http://www.haaretz.com/hasen/spages/742228.html
If you don't try to win the "hearts and minds" of the occupied population, you are going to feed a growing insurgency. The only way to create a "peace" in such a situation is by clearing out the insurgents and supporting population. Again, at what point does that become ethnic cleansing? And once you have destabilized a country enough to colapse, how are you going to deal with the chaos. Install your own govt, and create a civil war? This is not going to create peace in the area.
zipperhead_cop said:Guh. The drawn out reply-from-hell.
Ditto
Sorry if this was somewhat disjointed, I wrote it up over 3 days. As I said, it's been busy here.