It’s almost as if Israel wants to win this war? Go figure.
Grrrrrrrrr.
“frustrated at the sorts of rhetoric evinced by…”
Yeesh, I need that cig.
How DARE they attempt to do such a thing. They are supposed to either roll over and die or fight in such a way as to make sure Hezbollah gets EVERY advantage…instead of just most of them.
:smack:
Israel is really not playing fair these days…
-XT
Can’t say I’ve ever been to Democratic Underground.
But it’s fun to watch you switching arguments in midstream.
Because you were arguing that RedFury was talking about somewhere where stuff like this was happening:
So, where are the missiles that Hezbollah is shooting at Israel from north of Beirut?
If no missiles, then I’m not gonna play more moving-target games.
Because when Hezbollah hides missiles amongst the civilian population in towns in south Lebanon, those missiles represent a threat to Israel, and it may not be able to avoid killing civilians to deal with the threat. And some of those south Lebanon villages may be Christian villages.
This was what you were claiming RedFury had overlooked or ignored.
When Hezbollah is ‘active’ in some north-Lebanon neighborhood, so fucking what?? The threat they represent to Israel up there is…that there’s Hezbollah in Lebanon. That they’re in a Christian neighborhood up there, means they’re not a threat. Israel doesn’t have a right to blow up any place in Lebanon that has a member of Hezbollah present.
I’m trying to figure out what they’re going to win. They started off with pretty much every Arab government condemning Hezbollah, and now every Arab government is cheering Nasrallah. Turning your enemy into a hero across the region certainly isn’t progress.
They started off with a friendly but weak regime in Lebanon, but what could one expect - the Syrians only pulled out last year, and Lebanon has more ethnic divisions than you can shake a stick at. Now the regime is much weaker, and much less friendly, having been pushed into the loving arms of Hezbollah.
Israel’s tried occupying southern Lebanon once. Is there a reason to expect the second time to be the charm?
Let me know when Israel’s ‘won’, and what the fruits of victory have been.
North of Beirut (I believe it was infrastructure that was targetted…roads, bridges, etc) represents the path by which NEW missiles will be brought to replenish Hezbollah’s stocks. Of course. But then, you knew that…
You only acknowledge the threat thats happening right this minute? You don’t believe that logistics has anything to do with war, either offensive or defensive?? Really?
-XT
Well, I’ve gotten my fresh air, I’ll answer the latest barrage of deliberate distortions and then be on my way again.
It’s much more fun to watch you willfully ignore my quite extensive elaboration of what you’d missed the first time. Here, again:
I see you’ve gone for cheap rhetorical points.
If you want a gimme on that count, I did indeed make another of my too frequent editing errors and cut and pasted bits from Word incorrectly. That bit should’ve read "…the clear connection that was implied between them … " Not that it actually changes anything anyways.
I do, however, notice you’ve steadfastly refused to touch on the clear implication of an ‘indiscriminate’ attack, by the way. Even though I explicitly brought it to your attention. If i were charitable, I’d suppose you kept missing it in some misguided attempt at playing ‘gotcha’. Were I not charitable, I’d assume that you saw it, know you’re wrong, but have decided to be difficult anyways.
You could’ve discussed what I clearly stated I objected to; that his implication was counterfactual. Instead you seem to be serving as red’s champion since he refuses to actually engage in much more than driveby linkage with a line (or two if we’re lucky!) thrown in for flavor.
Do you deny that the clear implication was that strikes against Christian areas were indiscriminate because they were Christian areas?
Do you deny that he stated that the story he cited showed that Israel had ‘started’ bombing Christian areas, even though there was a cite ten posts above his drivby detailing an earlier strike on a Christian area? That I pointed out his factual error and called attention to the fact that he seemed to have ignored information provided with a scant few inches of scrolling up?
Do you deny that I spent several paragraphs clearing that up for you, including but not limited to explaining that the article was deliberately distorted by our ‘bias lacking’ drivby artist, and that the strike was not indiscriminate but against a supply route?
Absolutely untrue, and disingenuous to boot as I already went to great lengths to explain the specific implication I was disproving.
Yet again, as obviously you seem to have missed it, and your confusion is resulting in you seeing moving targets.
Cute, but I never said anything about that. Merely refuted the implication that a bombing of a Christian area was indiscriminate because it was a Christian area and that red’s driveby link represented a factual claim that Israel had ‘started’ bombing Christian areas.
Moreover, I notice that yet again you opt for the cheap rhetorical gimmick, and deliberately ‘forget’ what I just got done saying. Here, I will yet again refresh your memory.
Does that really require a further comment now that you’ve ignored it once?
So you’ll stop deliberately and disingenuously misrepresenting the actual arguments? Say it aint so!
Again, in easy to chew morsels:
-The original accusation-via-driveby-implication which I took issue with was that as Israel was bombing “Christian” areas, that it demonstrated proof of ‘indiscriminate’ actions.
- I responded that the fact of an area having a Christian population was hardly proof that it couldn’t be a valid target.
-I then went on to explain, in detail, that it seemed the article was talking about strikes on the roads that Syria has been using to truck munitions in to Hezbollah.
And when Syria trucks missiles in via a main artery, those logistical supply routes are valid targets of war.
No, again, as you missed it.
That was what I took issue with, and what I spilled much ink explaining to you. I explained that the implication that it was indiscriminate because it was a strike in or near a Christian area was in the teeth of the facts. I then went on to explain, in detail, that the strikes seem to have been targeted on the logistical supply network of Hezbollah via Syria.
You pretend not to see it, fine.
But don’t pretend that your willful exercise in blindness somehow represents me changing any positions.
As already established and ignored by you, the strikes were more likely than not directed against the logistical supply lines which see munitions being trucked in from Syria to Hezbollah.
Moreover, you may want to gloss over the fact that -if- there were Hezbollah guerillas in or around the targets, that they were either most likely helping facilitate weapons transfers or were themselves armed or maintaining weapons caches. Unless you think that Hezbollah guerillas routinely just sip lemonade in Christian villages. (I’m wary to even refute this tangential matter, as I suspect that you’ll deliberately ignore everything else I’ve written and again dishonestly claim that I am saying that Hezbollah was firing rockets from those positions)
But, yet again, even the article red supplied in his driveby, poorly written as it was, seemed to be stating that the strikes were not directed at Hezbollah guerillas per se, but at the logistical supply structure that brings them weapons.
Of course, that’s exactly what it means.
Hezbollah fighters in ‘Muslim’ areas ‘down there’, a threat.
Hezbollah fighters in ‘Christian’ areas ‘up there’, not a threat.
Hezbollah fighters in ‘Muslim’ areas: armed and dangerous, possibly with weapon caches.
Hezbollah fighters in ‘Christian’ areas: quietly sipping lemonade and listening to Bob Dylan.
QED.
(Are you again going to ignore all the elaboration on the actual point, and claim that my engaging you on this tangent means I’m claiming Hezbollah was launching rockets from that area?)
Luckily the story was about the IDF destroying the… could it be… logistical supply network that brings Hezbollah weapons. Talk about moving targets.
But it’s good to know that you’re done with this farce.
You are done, right?
Since I won’t animate your strawman about Hezbollah firing rockets from those positions, you’re done with this ‘moving target’ created by you ignoring entire paragraphs of elaboration and instead pretending that your strawman is what I wrote?
We are done, yes?
A period of relative peace while Hezbollah rebuilds? A stretch of time devoid of periodic attacks? I’m trying to figure out what they win by doing nothing…except periodic terror attacks, rocket attacks, cross border raids…ad nausium.
Even if true (and I’d like a definition of what ‘pretty much’ means to you in any case…got a cite that a majority of Arab governments came out strongly condemning Hezbollah initially?), and various Arab governments initially paid lip service to condemning Hezbollah, can you show that the underlieing feeling in the Arab World was one of condemnation of Hezbollah over percipitating this thing? Because from what I’ve read its not like there has been all that big a turn around in public opinion over there wrt this war. Feel free though to back up your claims and fight my ignorance on this. Maybe I’m reading the wrong news organizations.
How exactly are you defining ‘friendly’ here? IIRC Lebanon came out and said Hezbollah and its ongoeing conflict with Israel was justified…and this was AFTER the pullout you mentioned. Maybe ‘friendly’ means something different to you than me.
To me, a ‘friendly’ act by Lebanon would have been immediate and strong condemnation of Hezbollah when they started this thing, an attempt to totally disassociate themselves from Hezbollah’s actions up to and including the use of Lebanese military forces used against Hezbollah, and perhaps even asking the international community for military aid in fighting them. I believe this would have probably had a rather profound effect on Israel and their ability to attack into Lebanon (can you say ‘cut the legs out from under’?)…and significantly lowered Israel’s moral high ground had they chosen to go ahead anyway.
Why do folks keep bringing this up as if it was a huge defeat of the IDF on the battlefield? Or as if Hezbollah inflicted massive amounts of casualities on the IDF and systematically drove them from the field? Why do people think Israel WANTS to occupy Southern Lebanon this time? That this is somehow their objective?
If I can find this thread in the dead dog pile…will do! This public service will happily be provided free of cost to you…and I’ll be basically estatic if Israel DOES manage to get their objectives…which is to get Hezbollah to leave them the fuck alone.
-XT
I would assume that Hezbollah will follow the dictates of assymetrical warfare. They will fade away in the face of strength and turn up to exploit weakness. They don’t have to defeat the Isrealis to win. All they have to do is survive. I don’t see why you believe they can’t avoid concentrations of Isreali power. Despite what some may think the IDF isn’t going to start killing every male Lebonese Shi’ite in sight. When it suits their purposes the guerillas can remain hidden and drift north with the refugees.
I make no claim to be any MENA expert but I figure Isreal has almost no chance of winning. I just don’t see how they can take a powerful organization like Hezbollah down to nothing by occupying Lebanon when Hezbollah was born during the previous occupation. That is, they came up from nothing to become a force to be reckoned with right under the IDF’s nose. Precisely what has changed?
Just my 2sense
Will this end all that? Or will it just be a larger pile of deaths to add to the smaller ones?
I apologize - it looks like absorbed a false impression from ledes such as this one:
And this:
But now that I actually dig down in the stories, it seems that those “other Arab states” from the second quote amount to…Jordan. (Funny, I thought Jordan was just one country.) So Egypt, Jordan, and the House of Saud seem to be it.
The reporting I’ve seen says it’s gone from pro-Hezbollah, but at a level that some friendly Arab governments felt they could afford to condemn Hezbollah anyway, to so strongly ‘pro’ that those governments aren’t willing to cross their people on this one.
If true, that’s a nontrivial change. And the actions of the governments in question seem to reflect that.
Could you specify what the ‘ongoing conflict’ was? If it was ‘Israel thinks it has a right to exist, and Hezbollah wants it pushed into the sea,’ then I would be completely wrong. If it was ‘Hezbollah wants Shebaa Farms back’ then that’s a problematic border dispute within an overall amicable relationship.
I think Israel cut the legs out from under Lebanon here by immediately asserting that its war was with Lebanon and not merely Hezbollah, and backing up those words with an immediate attack on Lebanon, both because it was an immediate attack without the usual diplomatic niceties (‘Hey, someone attacked us from within your country, what are you going to do about it?’ ‘We’d like to do something, but that’s both politically and militarily impossible.’ ‘Well, can you let us go after them ourselves, and you at least use your military to block the roads north?’ etc.), and because it was an attack that from the get-go went well beyond the southern areas where Israel was being attacked from. If you’re a Lebanese non-Shiite, what’s your position here? Are you more pissed at Hezbollah for giving Israel an excuse to attack you, or at Israel for doing the actual attacking? When the Beirut airport goes up in flames, I think the answer to that one is pretty obvious - Israel quickly and efficiently took away what room the Lebanese government might have had to accord Israel’s actions any legitimacy.
Maybe I’ve not been reading the same stuff you have, but I don’t see anyone talking about that occupation in terms more appropriate to conventional warfare.
Well, I’ll be damned if I know, and that’s the thing. I rummage through the alternatives, and I don’t find much. A quick occupation to clear out missile sites? Temporary remedy at best. Long-term occupation? Nah, Israel’s not ready to do that again. Trying to wipe out Hezbollah, root and branch? I haven’t seen Israel claim lately that it can be done, and I doubt it can. Somewhat degrade Hezbollah’s effectiveness? Can be done, but you’ve got to do it all over again in a few years.
Meanwhile, this is essentially one part of a wider war. The question is, how big do we want it to be? There are people on both sides who’d like to have a full-fledged clash-of-civilizations style war - World War III, or IV, or whichever number the neocons are giving it this year (Michael Ledeen: “Faster, please”), or on the other side, the eviction of the Crusaders and their surrogates, and the restoration of the Caliphate. I would submit that it’s in the interests of both the U.S. and Israel to ratchet things down a bit: we can’t win that sort of war.
Like they say, amateurs talk strategy; professionals talk logistics. I’m an amateur, of course, but I understand logistics. The problem, of course, is that you can’t blow up every road and bridge in Lebanon that Hezbollah might use, without effectively punishing Lebanon entire for the actions of Hezbollah. (Of course, that’s what Olmert said he was doing right from the start, so there you are.) There’a a point at which you’ve reversed the whole ‘collateral damage’ equation, where the primary damage is overwhelmingly to the civilian population, while only incidental harm is being done to the supposed enemy. It sure looks from here like Israel crossed that line way back.
Hard to say. There’s no question that withdrawal from Beirut should be their priority right now, before Israel can completely surround the city and cut off all avenues of escape. It’s possible that an organized redeployment may not be in the playbook for the average Hezbollah fighter, which could lead to casualties for them. Allah is on their side, let’s all get martyred & etc. Drifting out with refugees is and will remain a good ploy, but how many Hezbollah will return to the fold after that? Following a defeat and major loss of territory, a commander would have to be very confident to tell his troops to drop their guns, disappear for awhile, and rendezvous later on. Like as not, he wouldn’t see many of them again.
If they’ve got a brain between them, they won’t play Stalingrad in Beirut. But, given the unbelievably weak resistance they’ve been putting up, it may be that they weren’t ready for Israel’s invasion and don’t really have a backup plan. Or maybe the resistance is unbelievably weak in a literal sense; Hezbollah may have already redeployed and left a token resistance behind. I think whether Hezbollah gets pinched will depend on whether they knew this attack was coming, and what orders Iran has given them. I’m not privy to either.
We don’t know what Israel’s definition of winning is. We don’t know if they intend occupation at this point. But this operation has been very smooth, so I have to assume that they have a plan and are following it. Maybe when they lock down the city, some Hezbollah crazies decide to burn it all down rather than let the Jews take it. I mean, hey, Israel did all it could. Poor city, oh well, let’s go home. Or maybe their intention is just to mess Hezbollah up so badly that it’s not a threat for the immediate future, clearing an obstacle for a strike against Iran and blooding the troops in the bargain.
In the end, I think Israel will win (whatever they define as winning) because they’ve retained the initiative, as well as the flexibility and mobility that Hezbollah doesn’t have. These conditions favor victory, and as the guerilla can only run so far before he effectively withdraws from the engagement altogether, things look very good for the Israelis in the short term.
Well, whether they crossed your theoretical line or not is open to debate…as is whether or not its important in this conflict. Its true that when you target dual use targets that its going to effect civilians…they are dual use after all. I don’t see how Israel has much choice though if they are serious about stopping Hezbollah from re-arming their big ticket weapons (and getting new ones in numbers into the area…I read something yesterday where Iran may start shipping in effective ground to air missiles (perhaps…sounded like they were hedging)). One has to think carefully though about who’s responsibility it is that those dual use targets are being taken out. Is it Israel, who is taking them out? Or is it the people who are using that infrastructure for military purposes? I think the key to this debate is where you come down on that question.
I don’t know. I have my doubts that, even if Israel is completely successful that this will end it all. THEY probably don’t even think that. My GUESS is that they hope that by so hurting Hezbollah that they can buy themselves a few years of relative peace while they rebuild…and that maybe attitudes will change and folks over there will finally come to terms that Israel is there to stay, and its time to make the best of that fact.
Or, it may be as you say, that this will just lead to a widening conflict, with nations like Syria and Iran jumping in with truely large piles of dead all around. I can’t predict the future any better than you. All I can do is look at what Israel’s alternatives are. Essentially they can do nothing when they are attacked. They can do some limited counter terrorist type strikes back (pretty much the status quo of what they WERE doing before this blow up)…with the terrorists taking a shot at Israel, then Israel taking a shot back. Rinse, repeat. Or they could TRY to so hurt Hezbollah and Hamas (two of the bigger proxies out there in continuous periodic hostilities with Israel) that they back off…and maybe their proxies back off as well.
Well…yes, of course. One must ask one’s self…WHY those countries? Aside from the fact that the US has some influence in all of them (well, not sure how much that stretches in Jordan), whats the primary religious make up of those countries, keeping in mind Hezbollah is a Shi’ite organization?
According to this, Jordan, Egypt and Saudi Arabia (Libya also) are predominently Sunni muslim nations.
No doubt this is a factor as well. Of course, many of those countries have spent decades feeding the anti-Israel fires as well…so they are kind of attempting to burn the candle at both ends or play both sides of the street at the same time.
I’d have to go with the Shebaa Farms reason as the main reason for Hezbollah…though they have their roots in earlier anti-Israel terror/para-military groups, I think THIS has become their big symbol. Not the proverbial pushing the Israeli’s into the sea. I think they leave that to other groups. Just my opinion though, based on my own reading.
Personally I find this reason (the whole Shebaa Farms dispute, from Lebanon/Hezbollah’s perspective at least) to be spurious at best (and complete bullshit when I think about logically), but I conceed that, even though Israel captured said land from the Syrians, even though said land was clearly marked on Syrian maps as Syrian territory, even though Lebanon made absolutely no claim to that land both before the '67 war and after Israel captured and annexed that land…not until 2000, 33 YEARS after that anexation in fact…even given all that, that its true that Hezbollah at least things Lebanon has a legitimate claim to that land (even if no one else, including the UN does), and that THEY feel it is legitimate to use terror tactics and para-military groups in an attempt to assert their supposed legitimate claims to this land.
I’m basically falling asleep atm so I think I’ll leave it here. I apologize I didn’t get through your whole post RTFirefly. I think you made some good points and your tone is refreshing after some of the more rabidly anti-Israel ones on this subject lately…I simply can’t do it justice to be honest. Certainly not in my present condition.
-XT
bolding mine.
I think Israel’s military campaign has been anything but " very smooth." In fact the number of miscalculations made from the start, from the amount of time the operation would take, to what the real objective is/was, has been the subject of makor criticism within Israel itself – the fact that they support the IDF’s efforts notwithstanding.
To wit, a few opinion pieces and short excerpts from Haaretz:
A home front without backing By Haaretz Editorial:
More at source – although the above quotes should provide more than enough evidence to refute your “very smooth” assesment.
PS-The way the board is moving this afternoon leads me to believe someone forgot to feed the hamsters.
How about giving some chow, please?
Human Right Watch says Hezbollah commits war-crimes:
They also claim that Israel is committing war crimes in that cite unfortunately…so I have to be dubious of their ability to assess what is and what is not a ‘war crime’. If everything is a war crime that involves countries going to war, then it corrupts and lessens the meaning of what a ‘war crime’ is.
That said, I have to agree…Hezbollah is definitely committing war crimes by deliberately targetting Israeli cities. I found it ammusing (in a black humor sort of way) that they have started to change their tune now and attempt to claim that they are REALLY going for military targets in Israel with their rocket attacks. :dubious: As if the IDF is hiding out in schools, office buildings, hospitals, etc. And as if their wildly inaccurate missilies could actually HIT a military target they were aimed at (except by sheer luck).
-XT
Heh, xtisme, I know about the claims they made of Israël.
I’m used to that…
But it’s remarkable to see another view on their site.
Maybe the world is slowly getting their senses back, huh.
Let’s hope we all can see that Israël is the real underdog here.
(I love fighting for the underdog ;j )
BTW: Have you seen this?
Propaganda Hezbollah style? heh. 
&
If that’s your definition of a refutation then you don’t need to bother linking anything else. Your quotes above only suggest that Israeli civilians don’t like having rockets fired on their houses, which I’ll file under the “No Duh” column. There’s nothing in those links that has anything to do with either Israeli or Hezbollah operations in southern Lebanon. It’s all homefront news, wow, the Israelis don’t like sleeping in bomb shelters and they’re cranky. News at eleven.
Has Israel been dealt massive casualties? No. Moderate casualties? No. Had a substantial portion of their armor knocked out? No. Encountered stiff anti-air? No. Experienced supply interruptions? No. Seen the intervention of a larger conventional force? No. Mutiny or desertion? No. Had their mobility in anyway hampered by the enemy on sea, air or land? No. Lost the initiative? No. Been defeated in any engagement by any Hezbollah asset, at all? Given up a single inch of ground that they did not care to abandon? Defended a major action? Sought treaty or ceasefire? No, no, no and no.
That’s what I call very smooth. That’s pretty much what anyone with a functional knowledge of modern military history would call very smooth. Some people might go so far as to call it a flawless execution, though I imagine doing so would only earn me a link to an op-ed piece about how Israeli canteens need to be refilled periodically, and Israeli failure to invent the bottomless canteen is proof that the attack isn’t going as planned. :rolleyes:
Well, towards the start of the campaign the Golani Infantry Brigade was forced to withdraw in one clash. So the IDF’s record currently isn’t perfect. The rest of your points stand, of course.