budullewraagh Posted August 18, 2006 Posted August 18, 2006 How about starting a war with Israel. Or how about hiding among its civilians when shooting rockets knowing they will be targeted. How about not giving back the captured soldiers instead of watching their country get smashed to bits. That kind of nulifies the goodness they show now. I was referring to what they are doing now when I prompted a response from Moo as to what made him think that Hezbollah was doing anything less than their best to help the Lebanese people. But as long as you brought it up, I also ask you what makes you think that Hezbollah militants hid amongst civilians. It seems a bit farfetched that civilians wouldn't, you know, run away as soon as they heard rockets being launched right next to them. But really, tell me why you think Hezbollah militants hid behind civilians as they shot rockets. Also, so my other question doesn't get lost, I feel obligated to repeat my prompt to Moo: I'd like to know why you have any reason to believe that Hezbollah is doing anything less their best to help the Lebanese people.
Jim Posted August 18, 2006 Posted August 18, 2006 I'd like to know why you have any reason to believe that Hezbollah is doing anything less their best to help the Lebanese people. Doing their best would include accepting the authority of the elected government and not attempting to create their own mini-state. Doing their best would be not taking orders from Iran thereby prompting a war just so Iran can deflect international attention from its nuclear program.
Bettina Posted August 18, 2006 Posted August 18, 2006 ...But as long as you brought it up, I also ask you what makes you think that Hezbollah militants hid amongst civilians. It seems a bit farfetched that civilians wouldn't, you know, run away as soon as they heard rockets being launched right next to them. But really, tell me why you think Hezbollah militants hid behind civilians as they shot rockets Not farfetched if you can make the civilians believe they are being protected by remaining close to the rocket launchers. Some photos even show that Hezbollah also dressed like civilians to blend in. The bottom link comes from the United Nations humanitarian chief... Terrorists are cowards. Thats why they do what they do. http://www.news.com.au/adelaidenow/story/0,22606,19960056-5006301,00.html http://www.allheadlinenews.com/articles/7004318050 Bee
budullewraagh Posted August 18, 2006 Posted August 18, 2006 Doing their best would include accepting the authority of the elected government and not attempting to create their own mini-state. Doing their best would be not taking orders from Iran thereby prompting a war just so Iran can deflect international attention from its nuclear program. I was responding to Moo's statement that the physical help (rebuilding stuff, etc) provided by Lebanon was the bare minimum. Moo, when you answer, please be sure to justify that. Now, in response to you, Jim, I'd like to propose an alternate perspective. The Lebanese government did nothing to defend its civilians from Israeli strikes on their soil. The Lebanese did not take the initiative to quickly propose a solution to the destruction in their nation. Hezbollah, on the other hand, did both. Sure, they may have prompted Israeli strikes but at least they played a strong defense and have provided aid. Think about it- they're doing a better job than the US government in its response to hurricane Katrina! If Hezbollah is the best form of government for the people of Lebanon, I can't find myself in support of the current Lebanese government. Anyway, Moo, when you get the chance, pleeeease tell me why you think Hezbollah is doing the very least they could do to help the Lebanese population.
Pangloss Posted August 18, 2006 Author Posted August 18, 2006 Maybe, but Israel was willing to accept a compromise that involved the Lebanese army taking over regions previously controlled by Hezbollah, including the southern area near Israel's border. That was actually preferential to Israel, because it felt that they would be more capable of actually enforcing the agreement (which means being willing to shoot). I agree there's a huge question there, but I think the choice that Israel made there is interesting. I can't help but wonder if they have better insight into the situation than we have at this distance.
JHAQ Posted August 18, 2006 Posted August 18, 2006 Nobody "won " -- especially the Lebanese who lost badly . I just do not understand why after such a long build up & insidious infiltration of Hez in Lebanon right on Israels doorstep , that no action was taken earlier to nip it in the bud . Someone was asleep at the stick .
ParanoiA Posted August 19, 2006 Posted August 19, 2006 In my opinion, Hezbollah won because they gained an exponential, but unknown number of terror wannabe's, and they achieved world support - they won the PR war. I didn't realize until later that the cease fire resolution didn't even require the kidnapped soldiers returned. That's disgusting. I thought they were the object of the principal Israel was fighting for. That makes me wonder about the strength of Israel's ground military. Makes me wonder if they weren't quite desparate to come up with an excuse to stop fighting, despite the tough talk.
Saryctos Posted August 19, 2006 Posted August 19, 2006 The Isreali army can crush any, and for the most part all militia/armies in the region they inhabbit. They have shown this to be true in the past, and it is no less evident today. So I highly doubt that they gave into a cease fire due to lack of military strength.
budullewraagh Posted August 19, 2006 Posted August 19, 2006 In their territories, yes. In Lebanon? Hezbollah was hardly harmed by the recent Israeli attacks in Lebanon, as I've already discussed. If you disagree, please feel free to try to prove me wrong.
ParanoiA Posted August 19, 2006 Posted August 19, 2006 The Isreali army can crush any, and for the most part all militia/armies in the region they inhabbit. They have shown this to be true in the past, and it is no less evident today. So I highly doubt that they gave into a cease fire due to lack of military strength. Well, I'm not suggesting they don't have military strength. I'm suggesting a lack of military will, due to a decrease in expected strength. They have the muscle to fight off anybody over there. But there's been plenty of evidence to suggest Hezbollah was a tough fight. And with all of the outrage surrounding their tactics, I'm not so sure they weren't looking to get out of this.
mooeypoo Posted August 19, 2006 Posted August 19, 2006 They have the muscle to fight off anybody over there. But there's been plenty of evidence to suggest Hezbollah was a tough fight. And with all of the outrage surrounding their tactics' date=' I'm not so sure they weren't looking to get out of this.[/quote'] I agree with you, Israel wanted to get out of it fast... while also getting the rockets bombing to stop, and the world to help out ridding the hizbullah's attacks. When Israel noted that the world (through the ceasefire talks) is willing to help out stopping the rockets, it got out of Lebanon. Israel's experience with the Lebanon war was enough to get the government's unwillingness to stay in Lebanon this time. ~moo
budullewraagh Posted August 20, 2006 Posted August 20, 2006 Does what I say not stick with you at all? If Israel was so amazingly good at disarming Hezbollah then why is it that Hezbollah fired over 200 rockets/day into Israel every day during the war and staged its strongest attacks the night before the ceasefire?
ParanoiA Posted August 20, 2006 Posted August 20, 2006 Does what I say not stick with you at all? If Israel was so amazingly good at disarming Hezbollah then why is it that Hezbollah fired over 200 rockets/day into Israel every day during the war and staged its strongest attacks the night before the ceasefire? Good point. But then, their military isn't designed for hide and seek among common folk. I think most of us design militaries to fight warriors, not cowards. So, it makes it a little difficult to adjust.
Jim Posted August 20, 2006 Posted August 20, 2006 Does what I say not stick with you at all? If Israel was so amazingly good at disarming Hezbollah then why is it that Hezbollah fired over 200 rockets/day into Israel every day during the war and staged its strongest attacks the night before the ceasefire? Maybe Hezbollah would have launched 300 rockets/day with 400 the day before the cease fire but for Israel's action. Do we really know how many rockets Iran sent their way? Besides, who said the standard is that Israel must be "amazingly" good at defending itself? No one guaranteed that the task will be easy when fighting an enemy that hides rockets amongst civilians
ParanoiA Posted August 20, 2006 Posted August 20, 2006 Besides, who said the standard is that Israel must be "amazingly" good at defending itself? No one guaranteed that the task will be easy when fighting an enemy that hides rockets amongst civilians That should be their own standard. You should want to protect yourself amazingly well, I would think. But you're right, it's hard to fight them when they're hiding behind women and kids. They need to perfect this type of warfare. America too. We need to be able to sweep through with very low civilian deaths, instead of bombing campaigns that don't discriminate. This is the standard we should be trying to achieve, while understanding it's a forward thinking expectation, with a long learning curve. At some point we have to stop giving the terror cells recruitment excuses to brainwash impressionable common folk.
Jim Posted August 20, 2006 Posted August 20, 2006 That should be their own standard. You should want to protect yourself amazingly well' date=' I would think. But you're right, it's hard to fight them when they're hiding behind women and kids. They need to perfect this type of warfare. America too. We need to be able to sweep through with very low civilian deaths, instead of bombing campaigns that don't discriminate. This is the standard we should be trying to achieve, while understanding it's a forward thinking expectation, with a long learning curve. At some point we have to stop giving the terror cells recruitment excuses to brainwash impressionable common folk.[/quote'] I'm not sure this kind of warfare can be perfected. It's always going to be bloody, messy and make terrible news. At some point, we have to trust Muslims to understand the reality that Israel is going to continue to exist and will defend itself even if the attackers hide behind other nations and civilians.
ParanoiA Posted August 20, 2006 Posted August 20, 2006 I'm not sure this kind of warfare can be perfected. It's always going to be bloody, messy and make terrible news. At some point, we have to trust Muslims to understand the reality that Israel is going to continue to exist and will defend itself even if the attackers hide behind other nations and civilians. I think it can come along way. We're awesome tool makers. I'm sure we can come up with state of the art tools and weaponry to help. If necessity is the mother of invention then why not embrace the opportunity?
Jim Posted August 21, 2006 Posted August 21, 2006 I think it can come along way. We're awesome tool makers. I'm sure we can come up with state of the art tools and weaponry to help. If necessity is the mother of invention then why not embrace the opportunity? Sure I'd like all wars by western democracies against terrorists to be fought as bloodlessly and as effectively as possible. I just don't feel qualified to say what is possible from a military POV. I'm sure improvements will be made but there are inherent problems in trying to defang thousands of rockets hidden amongst a sympathetic civilian population within a few miles of your territory.
mooeypoo Posted August 21, 2006 Posted August 21, 2006 If Israel was so amazingly good at disarming Hezbollah then why is it that Hezbollah fired over 200 rockets/day into Israel every day during the war and staged its strongest attacks the night before the ceasefire? budul, I never said Israel managed to disarm Hizbullah. ON the contrary, I said this wasn't one of the achieved goals. I also said it was an unrealistic goal. Read my posts. ~moo
abskebabs Posted August 21, 2006 Posted August 21, 2006 Good point. But then, their military isn't designed for hide and seek among common folk. I think most of us design militaries to fight warriors, not cowards. So, it makes it a little difficult to adjust. The guerilla tactics employed by Hezbollah, does not necessarily make them cowards, from their prespective they are probably the most pragmatic choice of tactics to use against the IDF. Incidentally Jewish resistance groups used very similiar tactics against British forces in the years preceding Israeli independence. Also the Tamil tigers are also doing the same thing now in Sri Lanka, and have been doing this for decades(I dont think anyone has even cared to mention this on this forum). I'd say in Sri Lanka the situation is even worse as the government resorts to calling airstrikes on its own territory, and in the process; killing its own ppl to destroy training camps.
ParanoiA Posted August 21, 2006 Posted August 21, 2006 The guerilla tactics employed by Hezbollah' date=' does not necessarily make them cowards, from their prespective they are probably the most pragmatic choice of tactics to use against the IDF. Incidentally Jewish resistance groups used very similiar tactics against British forces in the years preceding Israeli independence. Also the Tamil tigers are also doing the same thing now in Sri Lanka, and have been doing this for decades(I dont think anyone has even cared to mention this on this forum). I'd say in Sri Lanka the situation is even worse as the government resorts to calling airstrikes on its own territory, and in the process; killing its own ppl to destroy training camps.[/quote'] Well, pragmatism doesn't earn a morality pass. It may be pragmatic to use a 10 yr old kid to shield yourself, but it doesn't make you any less of a coward. It seems like cowardice is quite typical in human behavior. I guess, in the end, it is just raw survival at play. But, when trying to romance about Hezbollah's nobility and reputation, it ought to be clear that hiding amongst the innocent is cowardly, and not the proud freedom fighting underground they're trying to sell us. So yeah, I think they're "girly men"...
budullewraagh Posted August 21, 2006 Posted August 21, 2006 Maybe Hezbollah would have launched 300 rockets/day with 400 the day before the cease fire but for Israel's action. Check the headlines- the numbers stayed constantly around 200/day. Besides, who said the standard is that Israel must be "amazingly" good at defending itself? Well, we were discussing the success or lack thereof that Israel had in fending off Hezbollah and many people here seemed to think that Israel actually succeeded in doing something significant to prevent future attacks... No one guaranteed that the task will be easy when fighting an enemy that hides rockets amongst civilians This whole "they hide amongst civilians" thing is certainly not common knowledge. I have plenty of reason to believe that this is not the case at all. Prove to me that it is true. Provide sources. Have a blast. Good point. But then, their military isn't designed for hide and seek among common folk. I think most of us design militaries to fight warriors, not cowards. So, it makes it a little difficult to adjust. Still am not convinced about the civilian thing. Also, I think that very few of us design militaries. Those who do should have to adapt to changing tactics. Also, I wouldn't call Hezbollah cowardly- besides, guerrilla warfare is what the US used during the fight for independence from Britain! Quite the contrary, I'd consider any army designed to meet other conventional armies ill prepared and designed for ineffectiveness. But you're right, it's hard to fight them when they're hiding behind women and kids. I'm begging for sources. instead of bombing campaigns that don't discriminate. Yes! Like the cluster bombs Israel used in Lebanon! At some point we have to stop giving the terror cells recruitment excuses to brainwash impressionable common folk. Thank you! Bravo!
Bettina Posted August 21, 2006 Posted August 21, 2006 This whole "they hide amongst civilians" thing is certainly not common knowledge. I have plenty of reason to believe that this is not the case at all. Prove to me that it is true. Provide sources. Have a blast. I, for one, have already done that in post 53. One of those was from the United Nations humanitarian chief. If that wasn't good enough I can supply you with more. I thought you were just fooling around, being argumentive for the sole purpose of providing material for debate... which is good. But now I believe you really and truly don't have a clue what Israel is going through and again.... I wonder what side your on. Since you have "plenty of reason" to believe that Hezbollah does not use civilians as shields, could you provide me with some links to back your statement up? Good links, not from UTUBE or Fox. (Does what I say not stick with you at all?) Bettina
Pangloss Posted August 21, 2006 Author Posted August 21, 2006 Check the headlines- the numbers stayed constantly around 200/day. I think you missed his point, which was that the numbers might have been higher had it not been for the attacks. Personally I think that's awfully speculative, but it's a legitimate opinion. (shrug) Perhaps a more relevant counterargument would be to point out that the rocket attacks increased as the conflict went on, and the highest number of attacks took place on the last day of the conflict. I'm begging for sources. If you need sources that indicate that Hezbollah fired its rockets from civilian areas, or that they were encamped with civilians, you can get those in five seconds at Google News. A more relevant counterargument might be to question whether they used "human shields" or deliberately placed civilians directly in harms way, or if rather they simply had no place else to shoot from. It's still arguably a semantical point, but it would certainly be relevant in some circles.
Jim Posted August 22, 2006 Posted August 22, 2006 I think you missed his point, which was that the numbers might have been higher had it not been for the attacks. Personally I think that's awfully speculative, but it's a legitimate opinion. (shrug) Pangloss, I'm not speculating. I was only saying that we can't make judgments based on numbers of rocket attacks compared to zero. That is really a meaningless point. Yes, once war broke out, rocket attacks were up. Way up. Big suprise. Bull, if you don't think terrorists like Hezbollah hide amongst civilians, I really don't think I"m going to convince you of anything.
Recommended Posts