Yes, around last November a friend of mine was working on a kibbutz near the Lebanese border, and he used to write and tell me about the katyushas falling in the fields. It seemed like there were a couple a week, but because of their unguided nature didn’t cause much physical damage, though psychologically it can’t be much fun for small communities to wonder if maybe the next time they’re outside something will drop out the sky onto them.
Since the ranges of the missiles have been extended to reach more populated areas, and the frequency of the attacks increased, the random firing can no longer be tolerated. I don’t think the current strategy is a very good one though. On the same day Olmert was claiming great success for the war so far, more rockets then ever before fell on Haifa.
This version of Qana has been making the rounds via right-wing blogs and radio in the US, and neocon backed anti-Syrian christian groups in the ME and EU.
I was curious about something - Haaretz scrubbed an earlier version of a Qana story, but I found it in google cache:
My underlining. I wonder which version people will remember.
I saw it when it popped up in the Google News links to related stories. Sounded a bit biased, I wondered if there was anything to it. I’m not familiar with Haaretz, either.
I’d never take demands at face value in a negotiation, especially in the ME, but obviously YMMV.
Yes, I get your point, but I think HB has already won the perception war regarding weakness and saving face. I don’t advocate that Israel appear weak - they’ve done that themselves by the way this campaign was managed. For me, it’s a given that the stronger party can afford to offer concessions in a negotiation without it coming across as weakness, but maybe more hawkish types see it differently.
That is the definition of legitimacy, isn’t it? But legit in Lebanon or ME isn’t the same as legit on the world stage (western powers). I’m not married to my theories though - let’s see how it plays out with the terms of the ceasefire.
There’s always a certain amount of bias and propaganda in the media, especially during a military conflict. That applies to both sides (or however many interests are involved). IMO, it’s best to keep your knees loose and your mind open.
Geeeze, Finn!!
You managed to watch all of six minutes of a two hour documentary – contrary to your views – and thus have all you need in order to tear it apart? Congratulations, brainiac.
But please, don’t do me any favors. Reminds me of all the people tearing into Moore’s 9/11 documentary without having seen it.
You say this as somebody completely disassociated with the event. The country is being devastated, remember the initial strikes against infrastructure? Those affect the entire country. When bridges, roads, airports! are destroyed the entire country feels the affects, whether directly or indirectly.
Secondly, even if you are in a “non-affected” area of the country, you probably know somebody who has been directly affected by the destruction. Family members losing houses, limbs, or lives. Friends losing houses, limbs, or lives. You really think that just because a person’s house hasn’t been destroyed they aren’t terribly resentful of being attacked like this? Here is a before and after image of a Beruit neighborhood. If you think attacks like this aren’t designed to kill civilians…
This policy only drives people closer to the groups who are at least extracting retailation for the destruction of their country. We shouldn’t ignore this principal fact. Have we all forgotten what the bombing campaigns of WWII did to civilian morale?!
It also makes it much harder for fresh troops and ordinance! to be moved in.
If you think that attacks like that are designed to kill civilians, how do you explain any two stones still standing together? Is Israel just totally incompetent? Are they reading a copy of Genocide for Dummies?
Which is more likely, that Hezbollah hides in civilian areas and holds families hostage while firing rockets from their homes, or that Israel really wants to kill Lebanese civilians but is doing so at a rate that would take over 300 years with Lebanon’s current population?
Or what the bombing of German industry did to the German capability to fuel their war machine?
Yeah, sounds like '44 was a good year to be a Nazi.
But of course, analogies are always more helpful than talking about the actual situation. And even though Lebanon is a completely different nation, with completely different dynamics, and completely different means of supplying their proxy force, we can look at other examples of bombing and claim they apply.
Or simply, what Malthus pointed out by spilling much less ink than I did.
I apologize for allowing you to draw me down this culdesac.
FinnAgain, you juxtaposed my assertion that allied bombing in WWII only hightened German civilian morale to the Nazi war effort against a historically false belief that allied bombing had a significant military affect upon German war industry.
German morale, until mid/late 1944 was high and bombing contributed to civilian perceptions that the war had to be won to prevent further destruction. This happened in England as well during the Battle of Britain. Londoners morale increased under the direct threat of enemy attack.
Furthermore, allied bombing made no significant dent in the ability of Germany to conduct war until mid/late 1944. Finally, when those affects did begin to exert themselves they were connected with the destruction of transportation infrastructure far more so than the destruction of Germany’s industrial ability to arm itself.
As for Israel using WWII style bombing techniques… well if you happen to be in an apartment which is hit by Israeli missiles you might start to question their targeting techniques. As a civilian enduring through the military bombardment of your country, who are you more likely to blame, Israel or Hezbollah?
I’ve already shown how bombing helped end the war and reduced Germany’s ability to fight it. Even though it’s a non-issue in this thread, there’s no reason to distort it or ignore it by claiming it to be ‘historically false’.
Which was it? It’s hitorically false, or it’s true but wasn’t very effective until 1944, which you implied was somehow a good year for Germany?
Besides, transportion is used for, among other things, distributing raw materials, machined goods, troops, weapons, etc… Moreoever, this is actually a parallel to the situation in Lebanon as similar valid dual-use targets have been hit to accomplish exactly the same goal.
And if we were arguing honestly, we wouldn’t resort to such petty rhetorical ploys. I couldn’t care less what someone ‘thinks’. The situation is nowhere near analagous to the Total War fought during WWII.
So if someone blames Israel, that means Israel is conducting a WW II style bombing campaign? Or is that just an attempt to change the subject under discussion?
