• Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.

Hezbollah: take that

AmateurScientist said:
Not necessarily. Israel has demanded that the Lebanese Army do what Israel sees as its job and secure and patrol the southern border with Israel. The Lebanese Army has failed and/or refused to do so.

Perhaps Israel is using force to make the Lebanese government choose sides. Help us disarm Hezbollah like you should be doing, or we'll make you regret it. Here's a little taste of what we can do to you and to show you that we mean it.

AS
Click to expand...

If you had been paying attention you would know that the "Lebanese Army" has no capability to do that.

Next argument.....
 
Elind said:
If you had been paying attention you would know that the "Lebanese Army" has no capability to do that.

Next argument.....
Click to expand...


Israeli defense analysts think that a deployment of Lebanese regular troops (which number around 70,000) is in the best interests of the central Lebanese government.

http://www.chron.com/disp/story.mpl/ap/world/4054122.html
Hezbollah refuses to disarm ---- backed by Syria, Iran and Lebanon's pro-Syria president, Emile Lahoud, the organization remains opposed to an army deployment.
The Lebanese army has grown from 35,000 to 70,000 since the end of Lebanon's 1975-90 civil war, far outnumbering Hezbollah's estimated 6,000 fighters. But its troops lack guerrilla battle experience and have little religious zeal.
Still, many believe the army could be trusted to act as a protective force in the south. "In the past, what was the army's problem? A divided political decision," said Samir Geagea, a Christian leader who ran a militia during the civil war. "The important thing is to agree that this is the institution that will bear this responsibility. Not Hezbollah."
 
Meadmaker said:
But..now that you mention it...


As for the rest of your post, I agree. My fear is that they aren't sufficiently focused and will do too much damage to non-Hezbollah Lebanon. Those who have to bury the collateral damage are rarely understanding, no matter how worthy the cause.
Click to expand...

http://www.jpost.com/servlet/Satellite?cid=1150886035223&pagename=JPost/JPArticle/ShowFull

In the cockpit
By MAJOR 'Y'

...

1430
The siren blows. We run to the planes, start the engines, power up the systems. Ground crew running around the plane, the tower gives us permission to take off. We are told to head north, to Lebanon. "Get ready to receive targets," announces the flight controller as we approach. Major E and I read back the information, verifying with the flight controller that we have no mistakes. We head to the coast of Lebanon. It looks so small from above - Israel on the south, Syria in the east. I shake myself - no time to enjoy the view… hurry through the switches, procedures, arm the bombs, check the systems, head to the target, follow the range 10-9-8 Pickle! The plane violently rocks from side to side as two bombs fall off each wing, few seconds apart. I look down at the ground - we are flying so high, it's hard to judge where my bombs are going to hit, but the explosions catch my eye.

We head back - "mission complete. 4 direct hits," reports Major E to the controller. The rush and adrenalin gone, thoughts enter my head. I sure wish I hit the "bad guys" and that there were no civilians hanging around the place. Hizballah cynically often uses civilians as a shelter from Israel's bombings.

1630
We land in the base, and are relieved to learn that we went for a Hizbullah post. Probably unmanned. It's strange how the focus in these missions is not to succeed, hit the target precisely, but rather - not to make any mistakes. The message is clear all the way from the Squadron commander to the last pilot. One mistake can jeopardize the whole war, like in Kfar-Kana, in one of the last operations in Lebanon, where artillery bombarded a refugee camp, killing over 100 people, which resulted in international pressure that halted the operation. Hitting the target is expected, no misses are acceptable. There aren't any congratulations for a well-performed mission. Only a hammer on the head if something goes wrong. Personally, I think it's a healthy attitude; it causes the whole system to be less rash and hot on the trigger.
Click to expand...

Read it all.
 
webfusion said:
Destroy it as an effective fighting force is what I meant.

Understood.
That is what Israel is setting out to achieve, and apparently doing a very good job of it, so far.
  • The Jewish state in Palestine, Theodor Herzl wrote (back in those days when 'palestine' included lebanon), would be Europe's bulwark against Asia:

    "We can be the vanguard of culture against barbarianism."
Just look at the images of Hezbollah, and just try to tell me that isn't accurate even today!
http://wwwimage.cbsnews.com/images/2003/04/17/image549891x.jpg
Click to expand...

Gimme a break..
 
a_unique_person said:
Also, whole suburbs have been attacked, where people live.
Click to expand...

A slightly more accurate description would be "suburbs where Hizbullah sets up its headquarters, recruits, television station, etc., have been attacked."

Naturally, you change the description to "whole" suburbs--to make it seem as if israel is flattening neighborhoods, instead of attacking targets in those neighborhoods--and omit "where Hizbullah has targets"--to make it seem as if the attack is for no reason, or just punitive.

But, of course, we expected that from you.
 
Meadmaker said:
Indeed so. The other side.

It doesn't seem wise to me, but that's why they get paid the big bucks, I guess.
Click to expand...

If Lebanon is such a "fragile democracy" that israel must suffer rocket attacks, kidnappings, and threats of annihilation from there in silence lest it "push it to the other side", I fail to see why israel should like to have it on its side in the first place.

I could understand it if, like in Jordan, for instance, there are occassional terrorist attacks from there, but it is clear that the government does not support or knowingly allow them, and when they occur cooperated in finding those responsible and cooperated with israel on the matter.

In Lebanon, however, Hizbullah simply has its own independent de-facto state in the south, has members in the Lebanese government and parliament, and the government does nothing whatever against it.

The "rational" idea that it is better this way lest Lebanon morph into something that hates israel even more is of the same logic as telling a beaten wife to shut up and not complain lest he hit her harder.
 
a_unique_person said:
Gimme a break..
Click to expand...

Why? Seems pretty accurate to me. Hizbullah, Hamas, PLO, etc. ARE barbarians--by the age-old definition of the word. They live for genocide and conquest. Apart from weapons (to better kill you with, my dear), they want nothing at all to do with civilization, let alone the enlghtenment.
 
a_unique_person said:
It is in Israels interests to have stable, progressive states around it's borders,
Click to expand...

Yes, but you don't achieve "stable, progressive states" by talking the likes of Hizbullah out of being violent by promising to be nice.

If anything, history shows, you only achieve "stable, progressive states" in a country by destroying, or steadfastedly refusing to have any dealings with, the unsteady and barbaric Hitlers, or Tojos (or whomever) which rule them.

When did Japan and Germany become stable and progressive? When the wishful thinkers thought that if they suck up to Hitler he will "moderate"? No, only after Tojo was hanged and Hitler was six feet under.

The pipe dream that if you avoid such a confrontation and suck up to them the murderous thugs will "moderate" was proven disasterously wrong in the 1930s, and, I am afraid, is going to be proven just as wrong, with similar consequences, with Iran.
 
a_unique_person said:
A civilian passenger car, heading away from the conflict, is, by default, a civilian passenger vehicle. If it is attacked on the chance that it is carrying military, then that is a pretty fine stretch to say it is not targetting civilians.
Click to expand...

That depends on the circumstances, and is especially true when dealing with groups that we know will use civilians both as a shield and as a disguise.


Also, whole suburbs have been attacked, where people live.
Click to expand...

And that is the unfortunate truth of any conflict that takes place in a populated urban area.
 
Elind said:
If you had been paying attention you would know that the "Lebanese Army" has no capability to do that.

Next argument.....
Click to expand...

If you're going to be a smartass, at least be right. Israel did in fact demand over the weekend that Lebanon send its army to the southern border to take some control of what Israel is calling a "buffer zone." What I said in my post to which you responded was entirely correct.

Now that Lebanon has failed to do so, the Israeli army has now moved into southern Lebanon (as of this past hour, according to CNN) to secure its buffer zone. See? I do pay attention, apparently much more so than you.

AS
 
Who knows? Still, one can hardly claim attacks on the Lebanese army barracks is hitting civilian targets...
 
webfusion said:
Israeli defense analysts think that a deployment of Lebanese regular troops (which number around 70,000) is in the best interests of the central Lebanese government.
Click to expand...

Quote all the numbers you want. When an army and it's leaders say they can't do that against an unwilling opponent (Hezbollah), then they are by definition incapable. It doesn't matter how many cooks and clerks they have.
 
AmateurScientist said:
If you're going to be a smartass, at least be right. Israel did in fact demand over the weekend that Lebanon send its army to the southern border to take some control of what Israel is calling a "buffer zone."
Click to expand...

Smartass? I was critical of your analysis. It seems simplistic. The Lebanese army says it can't take over south Lebanon unless Hezbollah moves out. What Israel "wants" changes nothing.
 
Elind said:
Quote all the numbers you want. When an army and it's leaders say they can't do that against an unwilling opponent (Hezbollah), then they are by definition incapable. It doesn't matter how many cooks and clerks they have.
Click to expand...

Cooks and clerks? 70,000 is about four divisions. Four divisions armed with small arms alone and minimally competent leadership skills could establish a presence and maintain order in southern Lebanon.

When they say they are incapable, perhaps that means "unwilling."

AS
 
Elind said:
Same end result, isn't it?
Click to expand...

Yes, but you're the one who contended that they are incapable, not unwilling. I stated first that they had failed and/or refused to do so and perhaps Israel was giving them a little nudge. I readily admitted I was speculating.

Truth is, it would mean civil war. Do you remember the last one? Perhaps you are too young? :)
Click to expand...

Probably not too young. I was a student abroad when suicide bombers drove a van up to the U.S. Embassy in Beirut in 1983. I was back at my university in the U.S. when the U.S. Marine barracks were bombed in October.

AS
 
AmateurScientist said:
Yes, but you're the one who contended that they are incapable, not unwilling.
Click to expand...
I am contending that there is really no difference between the two conditions, except philosophically speaking. It is not simply a matter of who would run out of men first, and there are certainly a lot more hezbollah than you seem to think; the latter don't publish manpower statistics.



Probably not too young. I was a student abroad when suicide bombers drove a van up to the U.S. Embassy in Beirut in 1983. I was back at my university in the U.S. when the U.S. Marine barracks were bombed in October.

AS
Click to expand...

No offense, but that comment validates my point. You don't remember the civil war. No relevance to suicide bombing against the US.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom