Freedom Fighters-Tactical/Strategical/Social Aspect [Archive]

aktarian

10-12-2003, 04:02 PM

Asked this question having in mind Chechenya or Israel.
On basic level I agree with you you can't win without attacking mil. targets.
But there is one flaw in that. When you look at Russia or Israel you can see that amount of soldiers killed or equipment destroyed have not direct impact on minoring morale or pushing to fall back for longer time.

OK, let's look at Chechnya first. I'm refering to first war here. Main point that brought two sides to negotiations were military actions, notablly Grozny-2. It was after Chechens retook it (more or less) and after continuing ambushes (eg ambush that killed large number of paras etc that Russians were negotiating. It wasn't after Budyanovs of Kizliar/Pervomayskoye.

Now Israel. If you look at Lebanon you'll see similar thing. Failure of Security Zone to prevent Katyusha attacks and constant deaths (which were comparablly low however with certain "spikes" like that helli crash in February 1997 and Ansariya) result in sense of hopelesness. However it was primary deaths in Lebanon and not Galilee that decided the issue.

OTOH if you look at WB/GS situation is different. Stakes for Israel are higher (settlements, historical meaning) and also metods are different (terrorism vs guerilla). Even if Palestinians would adopt purelly military aproach and target military targets only it would change little.

Look at Northern Ireland. IRA adopted terrorist aproach. Did they win? Mujahedeen adopted guerilla aproach. Did they win?

I think that for one destroyed tank or killed soldier there were deployed 2. Both countries have greate buisness(not only finansial) in staying on place and loses weren't greater than "profits".

What did Israel gain from Security Zone? It was established to prevent shelling of Galilee. Well, it failed in that aspect. As I said WB/GS is different because Israel gets much more from them (specially WB) than from S Lebanon

Additionaly those actions were pushing offender to increase opresive actions what eventualy can lead to moon landscape you can see in Chechenya. With examples of this countries I see that this tactic has catastophic consequences to "represed" nations nor "opresors". So there is any solution to this stalemate situation?

For hot-blooded don't take words in "" literaly, they are literal figures.

One important lesson of any guerilla war is that most important asset isn't technollogy but morale an willingness to endure. Hezbollah was willing to accept some 5 members killed for any Israli soldier killed (numbers warried during war and was soemthing like 20:1 in the beginning and something like 2:1 in the end). Israel wasn't willing to. In the end it all coems down to who has willingness to push the issue. Look at Soviet occupation of Afghansitan. some 1,5 mio killed, 5 mio refugees and yet they refused to give up. Look at Lebanon. Israel bombed it constantlly with warrying degree of intensity) yet they refused to give up. Look at Chechnya. Russians wrought terrible devastation, yet Chechens refuse to give up.

What's more important, intact infrastructure or what you see as freedom?

Herrmannek

10-12-2003, 04:44 PM

aktarian

10-12-2003, 06:00 PM

Thanks for previous answers. I hope you don't be offended when I answer your question with another question.
What's more important, intact infrastructure or what you see as freedom?

There is level of destruction to infrastructure wich dissalow resurection of country whithout extreme external help. I think that such level was aquaired in Chechen Republic. There is no hospitals, schools(but heard lately that they made some sort of university), power, water, communications, houses, roads . Society is disintegrated all people who could escape escaped(esspecialy educated), other are in post war rebel-criminal-militias, or afraid rebels or russians and don't walk outside their ruined houses. I think that chance to mount there stable gov. is none. This was great price for temporal freedom, and Russians are still there and not going enywhere. Guerilla tactics are great as warfare esspecialy in casual cases, but there must be long term strategy that limits use of military for only life or death cases to not provoke unreparable structural damage. Any ideas?

And despite all this destruction resistance continues. Which means at least some part of population supports the rebels (resistance without popular support quicklly collapses). As I said, it's about will power and willingness to endure.

BTW Sovs inflicted considerable damage on Afghanistan, yet mujahedeen didn't give up.

As for future, guerillas have always 2 options. They could either liberate areas and drive out occupiers with conventional war or war of atrittion by killing enough of enemy soldiers so they get tired of it and leave.

ArmoredDov_D9

10-13-2003, 07:56 AM

Achieving freedom is not just about drive away the external governor. One might drive away the foreign government and thus have "independence", but this will not be freedom - since the land will be too scorched to live in and the people will fear from thir own militias and gangs.

One

10-15-2003, 10:20 PM

Freedom Fighters use gurilla tactics. The best example I can give you is hezbollah's experience in souther lebanon. They engaged in constant fighting with the IDF for 20 years. Israeli retaliation would be bombing civilian villages or taking out power plants etc.. So hezbollah would retaliate by firing katyousha rockets on Israeli northern settlements.

Israel could not defeat hezbollah because they didn't have any bases. They would go to university in the morning practice their daily life and before an operation they would get ready.

As for equipment they had everything they need to destroy tanks and bunkers. They had laser guided TOW rockets and mortars, along with other russian made rockets. They did carry out suicide missions but they were withing the lebanese borders against IDF soldiers.

Were they effective? Well hell yes they constantly cost the IDF casualties and wouldn't let them rest or have peace. They even infiltrated their outposts and stole equipment and armored vehicles.

-----
edit:

And did they achieve freedom? Well Israel partialy withdrew from lebanese ground so yes they did achieve freedom for the lebanese people. Did they intent to overtrhow the government NO, their goal is to kick out the occupying force.
-----

Israeli's will attack this thread in 3...2....1..... ;)

IDFM203

10-16-2003, 12:08 AM

Israeli's will attack this thread in 3...2....1..... ;) very cute there “one” (yeah ill give you credit for this tactic :D )………….

But yeah your damn straight we are going to RESPOND to your attack (of false insinuations and statements).!!

Israeli retaliation would be bombing civilian villages or taking out power plants etc.. So hezbollah would retaliate by firing katyousha rockets on Israeli northern settlements. no Israeli retaliation would be bombing targets that were firing katushas from. As for the power lines. It was Israel’s attempt to get the government of Lebanon to crack down on them as they should be.

Israel could not defeat hezbollah because they didn't have any bases. that’s simply a laughable statement. If they wanted they(israel)have the military capability of in fact defeating them in a day, the problem was that the IDF never had the political baking to do so. For the most part it never really went on the offensive against these gorillas. Most of the time that the idf was there they were in stationary positions and only responded to attacks of rockets and mortars.

They would go to university in the morning practice their daily life and before an operation they would get ready. and of course you would try to romanticize them this way but that is not true. For most of them were in the field for days planning and hiding in ambush positions.

As for equipment they had everything they need to destroy tanks and bunkers. They had laser guided TOW rockets and mortars, along with other russian made rockets. yes and as for equipment they got shiploads from their master Iran and Syria who without them they don’t even exist or have any real power.

Were they effective? Well hell yes they constantly cost the IDF casualties and wouldn't let them rest or have peace. yes they were effective but a lot of that has to do with Israel’s own stupid politics that never let the idf operate and go on the offensive as it should have.

Having them sit there in stationary targets was a political mistake not a military one for this was against what the military wanted and should have done

I mean do you really believe if the idf went on a clear offensive (like what the U.S. did in Afghanistan), hetsbollah would have a chance against the idf?!?

They even infiltrated their outposts and stole equipment and armoured vehicles. yeah that happened about once or twice. again due to stationary targets.

So in 20 years you got a couple of stuff, you know how many RPG’s and mortars we have from you guys (hint; to much to even know what to do with all of them)

And did they achieve freedom? Well Israel partialy withdrew from lebanese ground no Israel (stupidly) withdrew from all of Lebanon. Even the biased UN admits that.

Listen the IDF pulled out for it was trying a new strategy of taking away the card from hetsballhs masters for before they always had an excuse to help fund this group to the international press for they were always claiming occupation, now they don’t have that and as wee see, Israel is going after Syria.
Secondly it pulled out under a labour government that wasnt the smartest of all time (understatement!), which was living in the biggest illusion of all time. It was a government that was willing to “give away the farm” so to speak (for is was willing to give up the west bank and then with this move hopefully, negotiate with Syria for some peace deal) in its illusion that the Arabs have given up on all of Israel (which we see they haven’t).

so yes they did achieve freedom for the lebanese people. oh so the Lebanese people are free of Israel (for now unless of course hetsballh is stupid enough to really try something but as we see they are not [yet])but yet live under the cloak of the Syrian occupation and its proxy hetsballah, so how exactly did that organisation achieve freedom for its people.

Did they intent to overtrhow the government NO, well their intent was to destroy of all of Israel as they and their masters in Iran and Syria want.
their goal is to kick out the occupying force. no their goal is to be Syria’s and Iran’s proxy and do whatever it tells them to do.
Listen Israel pulled out and yet their still fight.

shalom :D

oh yeah my turn now, This thread will be attacked in 3, 2, "One"........

aktarian

10-16-2003, 04:53 AM

that’s simply a laughable statement. If they wanted they(israel)have the military capability of in fact defeating them in a day, the problem was that the IDF never had the political baking to do so. For the most part it never really went on the offensive against these gorillas. Most of the time that the idf was there they were in stationary positions and only responded to attacks of rockets and mortars.

Ah, hubris. Wipping the enemy in one day. Many tried, nobody suceeded.

yes and as for equipment they got shiploads from their master Iran and Syria who without them they don’t even exist or have any real power.

No guerilla movement can't survive without outside support. Interesting how people don't say mujahedeedn obeyed their US and Pakistani masters, maquis their Allied masters. But Hezbollah doesn't have sponsors, they have masters. :roll:

yes they were effective but a lot of that has to do with Israel’s own stupid politics that never let the idf operate and go on the offensive as it should have.

Having them sit there in stationary targets was a political mistake not a military one for this was against what the military wanted and should have done

A lot of attacks were on convoys and patrols, same as in Afghansitan under Sovs.

I mean do you really believe if the idf went on a clear offensive (like what the U.S. did in Afghanistan), hetsbollah would have a chance against the idf?!?

I short term probally not. In long term instead of 320 km area it would be entire Lebanon.

no their goal is to be Syria’s and Iran’s proxy and do whatever it tells them to do.

Same as Vietnamese resistance were just pawns in global communist conspiracy? Is it so difficult to understand that soem nations develop domestic resistance groups?

Listen Israel pulled out and yet their still fight.

Thay do? From what I hear they fire on Israeli planes that fly over Lebanon, something they have every right to.

ArmoredDov_D9

10-16-2003, 11:19 AM

[quote=idfm203]
that’s simply a laughable statement. If they wanted they(israel)have the military capability of in fact defeating them in a day, the problem was that the IDF never had the political baking to do so. For the most part it never really went on the offensive against these gorillas. Most of the time that the idf was there they were in stationary positions and only responded to attacks of rockets and mortars.

Ah, hubris. Wipping the enemy in one day. Many tried, nobody suceeded.

You forget that in 1982 the IDF raided to Lebanon in order to stop PLO terrorism, and within few months it achieved that goal - the PLO were forced to exile from Lebanon to Tunis.

yes they were effective but a lot of that has to do with Israel’s own stupid politics that never let the idf operate and go on the offensive as it should have.

Having them sit there in stationary targets was a political mistake not a military one for this was against what the military wanted and should have done

A lot of attacks were on convoys and patrols, same as in Afghansitan under Sovs.

Usually, guerilla attacks aren't ment to defeat an army, but rather break the moral of the people - or effect the political leaders. Hizbullah managed to exploit Israeli political atmosphere and one of the reasons for Israel withdrewal, tough, not the primary one. The main reason was the a leftists trend of world-peace and ultar-humanism that supported Israel withdrawel from all "occupied territories" and bring it ever-lasting peace.

no their goal is to be Syria’s and Iran’s proxy and do whatever it tells them to do.

Same as Vietnamese resistance were just pawns in global communist conspiracy? Is it so difficult to understand that soem nations develop domestic resistance groups?

Tell me, if Hizbullah are "freedom fighter", why aren't they fighting against Syrian occupation in north-east Lebaon?

IDFM203

10-16-2003, 12:46 PM

I just have a few things to add to what armour dov said. I will just add to his responses, which will remain in red.

quote="idfm203
that’s simply a laughable statement. If they wanted they(israel)have the military capability of in fact defeating them in a day, the problem was that the IDF never had the political baking to do so. For the most part it never really went on the offensive against these gorillas. Most of the time that the idf was there they were in stationary positions and only responded to attacks of rockets and mortars.

Ah, hubris. Wipping the enemy in one day. Many tried, nobody suceeded. .
You forget that in 1982 the IDF raided to Lebanon in order to stop PLO terrorism, and within few months it achieved that goal - the PLO were forced to exile from Lebanon to Tunis.
To add, that was when Israel went on the offensive and it achieved its goal in a relatively short time, this time around it is much more advanced and powerful then it was in 1982 and as such the job would be much quicker. It just would need the political backing that the army never really had and then yes the problem would be finally dealt with.

yes and as for equipment they got shiploads from their master Iran and Syria who without them they don’t even exist or have any real power.

No guerilla movement can't survive without outside support. Interesting how people don't say mujahedeedn obeyed their US and Pakistani masters, maquis their Allied masters. But Hezbollah doesn't have sponsors, they have masters. :roll: .there is a difference, because in fact yes, with the mujahdeen, all the U.S. did was sponsor it, it did not have any power to tell it what to do.
With hetsballah, they don’t move or fire a single shot with out their masters Iran or Syria telling them to do so.They are completely at the mercy and whim of their masters.

yes they were effective but a lot of that has to do with Israel’s own stupid politics that never let the idf operate and go on the offensive as it should have.

Having them sit there in stationary targets was a political mistake not a military one for this was against what the military wanted and should have done

A lot of attacks were on convoys and patrols, same as in Afghansitan under Sovs.
Yes but those were part of the stationary routine of staying in a stationary place. Israel did not go on any major military offensive, as it should have. (Well it went on one but it was under a labour government who as usual didn’t do it the proper way, it was more of a token operation to get some right wing votes, which didn’t work)
Usually, guerilla attacks aren't ment to defeat an army, but rather break the moral of the people - or effect the political leaders. Hizbullah managed to exploit Israeli political atmosphere and one of the reasons for Israel withdrewal, tough, not the primary one. The main reason was the a leftists trend of world-peace and ultar-humanism that supported Israel withdrawel from all "occupied territories" and bring it ever-lasting peace.

no their goal is to be Syria’s and Iran’s proxy and do whatever it tells them to do.

Same as Vietnamese resistance were just pawns in global communist conspiracy? Is it so difficult to understand that soem nations develop domestic resistance groups? no the principle of what you said is not the reality of the Arab world. Frankly except for Iran (which is not Arab) it is frankly inconceivable to see a home-grown movement in any Arab country that is not started and a pawn by another country.
And if they were a genuine resistance movement they would be fighting against the much bigger Syrian occupation then of Israel’s.
Like armour dov said..
Tell me, if Hizbullah are "freedom fighter", why aren't they fighting against Syrian occupation in north-east Lebaon?

Listen Israel pulled out and yet their still fight.

Thay do? From what I hear they fire on Israeli planes that fly over Lebanon, something they have every right to.yes that’s what I expect you to only hear……….

No the reality is that since Israel has pulled out, three soldiers were kidnapped, over the past three years, a few more have been shot at and killed without any provocation.

Besides this, they have in fact continued to fire mortars and katusha rockets at Israeli towns and villages.

Israeli planes have only flown over Lebanon as retaliation to those horrific violations of the pullout in which they were supposed to stop. they really only serve as a warning, that they better stop firing those katuhsas

Those fly overs are harmless.
Those katushas that still rain into Israel or not.

aktarian

10-16-2003, 01:11 PM

You forget that in 1982 the IDF raided to Lebanon in order to stop PLO terrorism, and within few months it achieved that goal - the PLO were forced to exile from Lebanon to Tunis.

There are, however, several significant differences between Hezbollah and PLO:
1. PLO was foreign (Palestinian) while Hezbollah is domestic (Lebanese)
2. PLO was never able to achieve support of different groups. Hezbollah, while shi'ia group was able to get support from other communities by constantlly fighting Israelis (soemthing majority of Lebanese aproved of), by providing medical and social services. While mostly available to shi'ias they were available to others too.
3. Hezbollah was fast to rebuild villages/houses damaged in Israeli shellings, something that went long way to endeer them to general population.
4. Hezbollah leadership practised what they preached (eg Nasrallah lost his son fighting Israelis), something which gave them additional prestige among population.

Basicall Hezbollah can/could count on support of much bigger portion of Lebanese population than PLO. Something that is cruicial in any guerilla war.

Usually, guerilla attacks aren't ment to defeat an army, but rather break the moral of the people - or effect the political leaders. Hizbullah managed to exploit Israeli political atmosphere and one of the reasons for Israel withdrewal, tough, not the primary one. The main reason was the a leftists trend of world-peace and ultar-humanism that supported Israel withdrawel from all "occupied territories" and bring it ever-lasting peace.

Main reason was that Security Zone wasn't working while troops were dying there. Hezbollah was able to launch Katyushas into Israel at will, even during Accontability and Grapes of Wrath. soldiers were dying there for no good reason.

Tell me, if Hizbullah are "freedom fighter", why aren't they fighting against Syrian occupation in north-east Lebaon?

Beats me. Ask them. Maybe they don't see Syria as occupier?

IDFM203

10-16-2003, 01:35 PM

quote="ArmoredDov_D9"You forget that in 1982 the IDF raided to Lebanon in order to stop PLO terrorism, and within few months it achieved that goal - the PLO were forced to exile from Lebanon to Tunis.[/color

There are, however, several significant differences between Hezbollah and PLO:
1. PLO was foreign (Palestinian) while Hezbollah is domestic (Lebanese)
2. PLO was never able to achieve support of different groups. Hezbollah, while shi'ia group was able to get support from other communities by constantlly fighting Israelis (soemthing majority of Lebanese aproved of), by providing medical and social services. While mostly available to shi'ias they were available to others too.
3. Hezbollah was fast to rebuild villages/houses damaged in Israeli shellings, something that went long way to endeer them to general population.
4. Hezbollah leadership practised what they preached (eg Nasrallah lost his son fighting Israelis), something which gave them additional prestige among population.

Basicall Hezbollah can/could count on support of much bigger portion of Lebanese population than PLO. Something that is cruicial in any guerilla war. ] Except for a few intricacies this is basically true when you are comparing them to the PLO. Yes hetszbollah is more powerful then the plo. At the same token, like I said before, Israel is much more powerful now and if they were to go back in on a clear offensive, they would be able to do the job much quicker.

Secondly the Lebanese are very fragmented so it is important to understand that hetsballh did/does not have the support of the Lebanese people. Now it has the support of a part of it but not all of it. There are plenty in Lebanon who despise this group and see them as doing the work of a foreign power on behalf of a foreign power.

[color=red]Usually, guerilla attacks aren't ment to defeat an army, but rather break the moral of the people - or effect the political leaders. Hizbullah managed to exploit Israeli political atmosphere and one of the reasons for Israel withdrewal, tough, not the primary one. The main reason was the a leftists trend of world-peace and ultar-humanism that supported Israel withdrawel from all "occupied territories" and bring it ever-lasting peace.

Main reason was that Security Zone wasn't working while troops were dying there. yes this was clear because it wasn’t done right. There was never a real systematic campaign against hetsballah to rid that zone of this element.

Hezbollah was able to launch Katyushas into Israel at will, ] I wouldt say at will, but anways this was due to the Israeli political establishment much more then the military one where if it were allowed to really act it would stop those katushas and would have them on the run.

even during Accontability and Grapes of Wrath. soldiers were dying there for no good reason. first of all I dont think katusahs were going off during that operation, second of all, like I said before it was one by a labour government right before an election in order to get more right wing votes, it was a political operation and not a real military one.

thirdly, in any operation and offensive, soldiers are going to die. Even in what I am saying, some are going to die. That is the nature of conflict but I guarantee you that if the idf went on an offensive, the numbers of dead hetsballh would be much higher then those of Israel’s and hetsballh would be on the run and not on the attack.

Tell me, if Hizbullah are "freedom fighter", why aren't they fighting against Syrian occupation in north-east Lebaon?

Beats me. Ask them. Maybe they don't see Syria as occupier?
rofl rofl rofl rofl

That’s such a funny statement which just shows your lack of knowledge of that region.

Actually your right ;) , yes hetsballh doesn’t see Syria as an occupier, yes that’s true.

The Lebanese people do however. ( I also speak from personal experience of where I actually know Lebanese people who tell me this exactly, while they had no love lost for Israel’s occupation, they most certainly despise Syria)

aktarian

10-16-2003, 03:38 PM

Except for a few intricacies this is basically true when you are comparing them to the PLO. Yes hetszbollah is more powerful then the plo. At the same token, like I said before, Israel is much more powerful now and if they were to go back in on a clear offensive, they would be able to do the job much quicker.

In 82 shi'ias welcomed IDf with cakes and rice. If you go in again don't count it will happen again. In 82 Israel was able to mobilise support of Maronites. Don't expect something like this again. Oh, some would welcome Israelis if they would get power, but majority wouldn't.

Secondly the Lebanese are very fragmented so it is important to understand that hetsballh did/does not have the support of the Lebanese people. Now it has the support of a part of it but not all of it. There are plenty in Lebanon who despise this group and see them as doing the work of a foreign power on behalf of a foreign power.

No, not all Lebanese support Hezbollah. However their support is wider than purelly shi'ia community.

yes this was clear because it wasn’t done right. There was never a real systematic campaign against hetsballah to rid that zone of this element.

That was both military and political mistake, not just political.

I wouldt say at will, but anways this was due to the Israeli political establishment much more then the military one where if it were allowed to really act it would stop those katushas and would have them on the run.

Don't blame everything on politics. If military proposed different solution but was rejected it should press harder or proponets of it should resign in protest. Complaining "politicians didn't let me do it my way so we lost" while holding military position and implementing policy you disagree with it's hypocritical.

first of all I dont think katusahs were going off during that operation, second of all, like I said before it was one by a labour government right before an election in order to get more right wing votes, it was a political operation and not a real military one.

Then military should oppose it. See above.

thirdly, in any operation and offensive, soldiers are going to die. Even in what I am saying, some are going to die. That is the nature of conflict but I guarantee you that if the idf went on an offensive, the numbers of dead hetsballh would be much higher then those of Israel’s and hetsballh would be on the run and not on the attack.

Perhaps. However IDF would either have to hold down bigger area than SC, thus increase theuir vulnerability or withdraw soon thus giving Hezbollah ability to claim victory.

[quote=idfm203]
That’s such a funny statement which just shows your lack of knowledge of that region.

Actually I know that region quite well. Don't claim to be an expert, but not compeltlly ignorant either.

Actually your right ;) , yes hetsballh doesn’t see Syria as an occupier, yes that’s true.

The Lebanese people do however. ( I also speak from personal experience of where I actually know Lebanese people who tell me this exactly, while they had no love lost for Israel’s occupation, they most certainly despise Syria)

I agree.

ArmoredDov_D9

10-16-2003, 04:21 PM

I wouldt say at will, but anways this was due to the Israeli political establishment much more then the military one where if it were allowed to really act it would stop those katushas and would have them on the run.

Don't blame everything on politics. If military proposed different solution but was rejected it should press harder or proponets of it should resign in protest. Complaining "politicians didn't let me do it my way so we lost" while holding military position and implementing policy you disagree with it's hypocritical.

Here is a short lesson about democarcy. In democartic country, the army is subjected to the selected government and following its orders, even if the army's heads think the government orders are wrong (in the professional-military aspect). If the military is told by the government to hold down a line of posts and not initate engagements, even though the militry may think it is wrong and gives the army disadventage against terrorist groups, the military must obey the government order and follow it. If the prime minister orders to withdrew, the army must obey. If the prime minister orders to open the war - the army must obey.
The military is the armed force of the state, not a independent body who can do what it wants.

IDFM203

10-16-2003, 04:29 PM

Oh, some would welcome Israelis if they would get power, but majority wouldn't.
Listen this isn’t about Israel occupying a country and getting power there, the sole goal is to go after and defeat the terrorists threat and people that constantly fire rockets and mortars at Israeli towns. That can be done through a systematic campaign that goes after them just like the U.S. did in Afghanistan.hopefully they will be able to leave after. Listen the Lebanese people don’t like hetsballh, for it is they that is taking a punishment from the Israeli/Syrian and Iranian conflict, for the Syrian’s and the Iranians uses htsballh as a proxy against Israel and then Israel responds to those attacks that are emanating from Lebanon (through hetsballh) as a result Lebanon is also hurting. No matter what the idf does, it is not going to make a lot of friends there. Israel simply has no choice but to go after hetsballh whether they can make friends or not. This raining of katushas without any accountability or response is intolerable and I tell you Israel will only take so much of it. (Its no wonder that hetsballh is really careful in that it doesn’t fire them all the time but it does it in brief spurts for it doesn’t wont to make it where Israel will be fed up,[ which is actually close to it anyways]),

So again, Israel has the military capability to end this threat but it’s the politics that is the obstacle to preventing the military from acting against this threat.

No, not all Lebanese support Hezbollah. However their support is wider than purelly shi'ia community. whether they have support from other’s is a moot point for a lot of Lebanese actually don’t like this group. Yes they see them as driving the Israelis out of Lebanon (again that’s their perspective) but at the same time they see them as a proxy that is not working for the Lebanese people but for the foreign power of Syria (and Iran) and its occupation of Lebanon.

yes this was clear because it wasn’t done right. There was never a real systematic campaign against hetsballah to rid that zone of this element.

That was both military and political mistake, not just political. it was much more of a weak political mistake and lack of backing that was the major problem. But yes I don’t absolve the military completely. There were some mistakes, but the great thing about the idf (and most other militaries) is that they learn and adapt to them. Next time around I guarantee you it wont be like it was before.( and yes while I recognise that hetsballh also adapts, it is nowhere on the same pace now of Israel’s adaptation)

I wouldt say at will, but anways this was due to the Israeli political establishment much more then the military one where if it were allowed to really act it would stop those katushas and would have them on the run.

Don't blame everything on politics. If military proposed different solution but was rejected it should press harder or proponets of it should resign in protest. Complaining "politicians didn't let me do it my way so we lost" while holding military position and implementing policy you disagree with it's hypocritical.
First of all like I said above not all the blame goes to politics but most of it does.

Secondly nothing I said is hypocritical for Israel is a democracy but its military is not and as such it follows what the politicians want. Yes people in the military and a lot of Israelis wanted a new direction (the one I am talking about) but at the same time the military was in Lebanon and it had to do what the politicians wanted and when the politicians wanted Israel to pull out instead of go on the offensive, it had to follow orders, but yes there was vocal opposition to that in the military. I don’t see how that is hypocritical.

first of all I dont think katusahs were going off during that operation, second of all, like I said before it was one by a labour government right before an election in order to get more right wing votes, it was a political operation and not a real military one.

Then military should oppose it. See above. .like I said before, Israel is a democracy and the military follows the will of the political establishment. Period.
Listen like Lebanon, Israel is also fragmented and at them time you had the left that was in power and a lot of them wanted to pull out and you had a lot in the right that did not.

thirdly, in any operation and offensive, soldiers are going to die. Even in what I am saying, some are going to die. That is the nature of conflict but I guarantee you that if the idf went on an offensive, the numbers of dead hetsballh would be much higher then those of Israel’s and hetsballh would be on the run and not on the attack.

Perhaps. However IDF would either have to hold down bigger area than SC, thus increase theuir vulnerability or withdraw soon thus giving Hezbollah ability to claim victory.
First of all, the goal would be to wipe out hetsballh in the south for there to not even be one to stand up and claim victory.

Secondly when Israel went into lebonon in 1982 its gaol was to get rid of the plo and it did that, then it foolishly started to play with Lebanese politics and it was there where it lost.

This time around, Israel’s sole goal would be to eradicate and hetsbllah’s presence in the south and that would be it.

Now after that is done, it will either stay or if it gets promises from the Lebanese’s government to station its troops in its own country to make sure that hetballh remenents (what little will remain) don’t start up all over, then maybe it can pull out again. But that will happen only after a systematic campaign to rid the south of that hestballh element.

Actually your right ;) , yes hetsballh doesn’t see Syria as an occupier, yes that’s true.

The Lebanese people do however. ( I also speak from personal experience of where I actually know Lebanese people who tell me this exactly, while they had no love lost for Israel’s occupation, they most certainly despise Syria)

I agree.

wow we finnaly agree on something woot woot

One

10-16-2003, 06:27 PM

IDF i think when a discussion starts we should go to a chat room. Responding on here takes alot of time :P

Anyways here we go:

Israel did bomb villages and thats how both my grandparents died. One of them died in 1996 2 days before the Cana Massacare (when the IDF bombed the UN shelter and they said katyoushas were fired from there). They bombed civilian village outside the buffer zone for over 20 years and denying it is just a lie.

Israel tried to take out the hezbollah leadership when they attacked beirtu in 1996 with their Apache's and fighters. They did not kill anyone from the leadership thus proving my point that hezbollah could not be defeated because they blend into the community and have no bases.

And they recieved arms from Iran and Syria just like Israel gets its arsenal from the US ;)

and as soon as i get more time i will respond to the rest of your post.

EDIT:

I AM LEBANESE and I do not see the syria as an occupying power. Because as soon as they leave we will have another civil war. The only one that views Syria as an occupying power is 10% of the lebanse. Who are orthodox Catholics.

aktarian

10-16-2003, 06:31 PM

Here is a short lesson about democarcy. In democartic country, the army is subjected to the selected government and following its orders, even if the army's heads think the government orders are wrong (in the professional-military aspect). If the military is told by the government to hold down a line of posts and not initate engagements, even though the militry may think it is wrong and gives the army disadventage against terrorist groups, the military must obey the government order and follow it. If the prime minister orders to withdrew, the army must obey. If the prime minister orders to open the war - the army must obey.
The military is the armed force of the state, not a independent body who can do what it wants.

I said it's hipocrysy on part of military leadership to oppose handling of war and yet continue to implement it.

If military leadership disagreed on handling of war it should say so. Failing to persuade political leadership it had two options. It could ether follow the instructions or resign in protest. It's hypocrysy to follow the instructions and criticise them. That was my point.

aktarian

10-16-2003, 06:47 PM

Listen this isn’t about Israel occupying a country and getting power there, the sole goal is to go after and defeat the terrorists threat and people that constantly fire rockets and mortars at Israeli towns.

I cut some out to shorten my post. First of all you are talking in present tense while you should use past tense. Hezbollah fired Katyushas. tHey stopped that. Only thing that fall in Isarael are AAA rounds, which are fired on Israeli planes flying over Lebanon. Collateral damage. If Israel would stop overflights there would be no need to fire AAA and N Israel would be safe.

If Israel wants to go after Hezbollah it has 2 options. Search and destroy-like operations. If Hezbollah decides to melt into population Israel will ahve troubles destroying them. Second option is puting troops ont he ground and search popualtion. Which Lebanese wills ee as another ocupation. Which they woun't like and will also make IDF vulnerable.

So again, Israel has the military capability to end this threat but it’s the politics that is the obstacle to preventing the military from acting against this threat.

Then military leadership should persuade political leadership what is corect course of action or stop implementing policy they disagree with.

whether they have support from other’s is a moot point for a lot of Lebanese actually don’t like this group. Yes they see them as driving the Israelis out of Lebanon (again that’s their perspective) but at the same time they see them as a proxy that is not working for the Lebanese people but for the foreign power of Syria (and Iran) and its occupation of Lebanon.

They saw it as only group that fought Israeli occupation and only group that liberated Lebanon. That goes long way toward endeering them to general population.

it was much more of a weak political mistake and lack of backing that was the major problem. But yes I don’t absolve the military completely. There were some mistakes, but the great thing about the idf (and most other militaries) is that they learn and adapt to them. Next time around I guarantee you it wont be like it was before.( and yes while I recognise that hetsballh also adapts, it is nowhere on the same pace now of Israel’s adaptation)

What was IDF adaptation? Setting up line of outposts to direct arty and air strikes thus rejecting old formula of firepower+maneuver with lot of firepower. Only adaptation (not counting purelly technicall things like better equipment) was creation of Egoz and freer hand attack helicopters got in 1990s. Not to mention several things that backfired badlly (like assasination of Musawi which brought Katyushas down on Israel for the first time since Hezbollah was created, any strikes outside of SC which did same...).

I wouldt say at will, but anways this was due to the Israeli political establishment much more then the military one where if it were allowed to really act it would stop those katushas and would have them on the run.

I adressed this point several times.

Secondly nothing I said is hypocritical for Israel is a democracy but its military is not and as such it follows what the politicians want. Yes people in the military and a lot of Israelis wanted a new direction (the one I am talking about) but at the same time the military was in Lebanon and it had to do what the politicians wanted and when the politicians wanted Israel to pull out instead of go on the offensive, it had to follow orders, but yes there was vocal opposition to that in the military. I don’t see how that is hypocritical.

I explained this several times.

First of all, the goal would be to wipe out hetsballh in the south for there to not even be one to stand up and claim victory.

As you surelly know Hezbollah doesn't operate only in the south and has 3 strongholds.

Secondly when Israel went into lebonon in 1982 its gaol was to get rid of the plo and it did that, then it foolishly started to play with Lebanese politics and it was there where it lost.

This time around, Israel’s sole goal would be to eradicate and hetsbllah’s presence in the south and that would be it.

I adressed this above. With search and destroy you risk loosing a lot of enemy, with occupation you expose yourself to attacks.

Now after that is done, it will either stay or if it gets promises from the Lebanese’s government to station its troops in its own country to make sure that hetballh remenents (what little will remain) don’t start up all over, then maybe it can pull out again. But that will happen only after a systematic campaign to rid the south of that hestballh element.

See above.

IDFM203

10-16-2003, 06:54 PM

IDF i think when a discussion starts we should go to a chat room. Responding on here takes alot of time :P .yeah I hear you. Any suggestions for one?!?
Israel did bomb villages and thats how both my grandparents died. One of them died in 1996 2 days before the Cana Massacare (when the IDF bombed the UN shelter and they said katyoushas were fired from there). .it did but even if it didn’t that was clearly a mistake and a accident. For the most part Israel has not targeted purely civilian targets unless of course hetsballh was firing its katusahs from a civilian target where it doesn’t make it that civilian any more and where that in itself is despicable and deplorable.(and they did this often)

They bombed civilian village outside the buffer zone for over 20 years and denying it is just a lie. .I don’t know about outside the buffer but all I could say is that they always went after targets where rockets and kathsas were coming from.

If Israel were to go after purely civilian targets and act as you institute, it could wipe them out to where there would be no more villages or towns in that zone. It simply did not do that!!

No it went after hetballh and its people that were firing rockets and katushas into Israeli civilian towns and villages.

Israel tried to take out the hezbollah leadership when they attacked beirtu in 1996 with their Apache's and fighters. They did not kill anyone from the leadership thus proving my point that hezbollah could not be defeated because they blend into the community and have no bases. .yes indeed taking out hetsabllh completely would perhaps be a bit difficult (unless of course they were to act like Syria did in hama where they simply razed the town and killed 20,000 people!,… but Israel doesnt act like Syria and as well it shouldn’t)for your right they do blend in especially in beirut

But taking out hetsballh in the security zone or at least preventing any large katushas or rockets from firing into israel, can defiantly be achievable if the politicians backed up the army in a full campaign in that zone.

.And they recieved arms from Iran and Syria just like Israel gets its arsenal from the US ;) .
fact,
Israel without any arms from the U.S. is still strong!!
Hitsballh without any arms from Iran and Syria, doesn’t exist!!

. and as soon as i get more time i will respond to the rest of your post. .please do, like I said before I enjoy talking with you for at least you have been there and can at least argue from someone that is somewhat part of the conflict unlike these Europeans and Canadians (and Australians) that base most of their opinions on this conflict mostly on what they have seen on some tv station or read somewhere.

I AM LEBANESE and I do not see the syria as an occupying power. Because as soon as they leave we will have another civil war. The only one that views Syria as an occupying power is 10% of the lebanse. Who are orthodox Catholics.first of all its higher then ten percent.

Secondly while you don’t see them as an occupier a lot of Lebanese do and its clear from your civil war comment that a lot don’t agree with your view points as well or there wouldn’t be this statement and reality of civil war(and that extends to your view point about Syria as well which a lot don’t agree with)

Shalom.:D

IDFM203

10-16-2003, 08:03 PM

I cut some out to shorten my post. First of all you are talking in present tense while you should use past tense. Hezbollah fired Katyushas. tHey stopped that. Only thing that fall in Isarael are AAA rounds, which are fired on Israeli planes flying over Lebanon. Collateral damage. If Israel would stop overflights there would be no need to fire AAA and N Israel would be safe. no I used the proper tense for everything I said has come after the pull out.
Here I repeat

“No the reality is that since Israel has pulled out, three soldiers were kidnapped, over the past three years, a few more have been shot at and killed without any provocation.

Besides this, they have in fact continued to fire mortars and katusha rockets at Israeli towns and villages.

Israeli planes have only flown over Lebanon as retaliation to those horrific violations of the pullout in which they were supposed to stop. they really only serve as a warning, that they better stop firing those katuhsas

Those fly overs are harmless.
Those katushas that still rain into Israel or not.

Let me ask you, why in the hell would Israel fly over Lebanon if unprovoked?!? ( I could go further here but I will await your response to this)
If Israel wants to go after Hezbollah it has 2 options. Search and destroy-like operations. If Hezbollah decides to melt into population Israel will ahve troubles destroying them. Second option is puting troops ont he ground and search popualtion. Which Lebanese wills ee as another ocupation. Which they woun't like and will also make IDF vulnerable. the second one is the only option that Israel has in stopping these attacks.
Whether the population likes it or not, Israel will have no choice if this attacks on our cities and towns continue to go back in.

Israel defiantly has the military muscle and ability to go in and go after hetsbalh whether the there support Israel or not. If the Lebanese want to prevent this they should go after hetsballh themselves and have them stop firing at Israel for the Israel has pulled out and there is no occupation and to prevent a reoccupation its in their interests to stop them.(but of course who cares what the Lebanese want, certainly their masters in Syria don’t care by their occupation and use of hetsballh against Israel which has nothing to do with Lebanese interets)

So again, Israel has the military capability to end this threat but it’s the politics that is the obstacle to preventing the military from acting against this threat.

Then military leadership should persuade political leadership what is corect course of action or stop implementing policy they disagree with. . no, in a clear western style democracy, the military follows a no politics (and certainly no acting on it) rule for if it didn’t there wouldn’t be much from stopping the military from ever doing a coup.

The military leadership did speak out but it was dealing with the labour left government that was in some utopia dream world of where they were going to give everything away for the sake of some false and not real peace (as we see has been fully proven).

The military while it sometimes speaks out in the press and to the government, it always follows the orders of the political will as it is mandated to do.

whether they have support from other’s is a moot point for a lot of Lebanese actually don’t like this group. Yes they see them as driving the Israelis out of Lebanon (again that’s their perspective) but at the same time they see them as a proxy that is not working for the Lebanese people but for the foreign power of Syria (and Iran) and its occupation of Lebanon.

They saw it as only group that fought Israeli occupation and only group that liberated Lebanon. That goes long way toward endeering them to general population. .I acknowledged that but they (a lot of them) don’t like them now because the way they clearly see that they are working for a foreign power and not for the Lebanese.

it was much more of a weak political mistake and lack of backing that was the major problem. But yes I don’t absolve the military completely. There were some mistakes, but the great thing about the idf (and most other militaries) is that they learn and adapt to them. Next time around I guarantee you it wont be like it was before.( and yes while I recognise that hetsballh also adapts, it is nowhere on the same pace now of Israel’s adaptation)

What was IDF adaptation? Setting up line of outposts to direct arty and air strikes thus rejecting old formula of firepower+maneuver with lot of firepower. no, I am talking about now and what the idf has learned and what it has now adapted more then that, is OPSEC

Secondly they did more then that (again OPSEC) but yeah that was what the problem was with the security zone and it was like that for thats how the politicians wanted it to be and not have the idf go on any real offensive.

Only adaptation (not counting purelly technicall things like better equipment) was creation of Egoz and freer hand attack helicopters got in 1990s. so you read isayeret.com or things like that and that makes you some expert and all knowing on what the idf did?!? rofl rofl You don’t have any real complete information as what the idf did and what it is going to do in terms of adaptation.

I wouldt say at will, but anways this was due to the Israeli political establishment much more then the military one where if it were allowed to really act it would stop those katushas and would have them on the run.

I adressed this point several times. .
Yes and you have misunderstood it several times.

Secondly nothing I said is hypocritical for Israel is a democracy but its military is not and as such it follows what the politicians want. Yes people in the military and a lot of Israelis wanted a new direction (the one I am talking about) but at the same time the military was in Lebanon and it had to do what the politicians wanted and when the politicians wanted Israel to pull out instead of go on the offensive, it had to follow orders, but yes there was vocal opposition to that in the military. I don’t see how that is hypocritical.

I explained this several times. same thing as above response.

First of all, the goal would be to wipe out hetsballh in the south for there to not even be one to stand up and claim victory.

As you surelly know Hezbollah doesn't operate only in the south and has 3 strongholds. I don’t really care where they are. I only want them out of firing range on Israeli targets and that is mostly in the south.

One

10-16-2003, 10:10 PM

IDF keep your posts short dammit :P too many points raised and I have to respond in a short time.

OK here we go:

Xtiens in lebanon (orthodox catholics) see themselves as non arabs and want to make their own government. So hey blame everything on syria. While the rest of the lebanese are happy the way things are (well not realy but the syrian army is there because the lebanse army cant fight on its own specialy in this time where escalations are going to fuk things up).

The IDF bombed civilians so they can put pressure on hezbollah to stop their attacks. Equation: hezbollah bombs IDF posts -> IDF retaliates on civilians -> civilians get mad and stop aiding hezbollah.

Well this did not happen the people burried their dead and kept on resisting.

Hezbollah has political power (from the lebanese government) the Lebanese Army even gives hezbollah all the weapons they need and any training they need. Hezbollah is an official resistance movement. So if you serve in hezbollah you do not have to serve in the lebanese army.

And to respond to your earlier post, the IDF did not have enough firepower to counterattack the egyptians during the Yom Kippur war. It wasnt until the americans sent weapons till they started fighting again ;)

I will respond to your posts in bits and pieces, as soon as I get more time I will add my responses.

Most PHPbb boards have chats why don't we have one here?

IDFM203

10-16-2003, 10:35 PM

Xtiens in lebanon (orthodox catholics) see themselves as non arabs and want to make their own government. So hey blame everything on syria. While the rest of the lebanese are happy the way things are (well not realy but the syrian army is there because the lebanse army cant fight on its own specialy in this time where escalations are going to fuk things up). you contradict yourself in your own sentence.

So besides the Lebanese Christians and Catholics, do the Lebanese like their Syrian occupation or not?!? (I suspect not!)

The IDF bombed civilians so they can put pressure on hezbollah to stop their attacks. Equation: hezbollah bombs IDF posts -> IDF retaliates on civilians -> civilians get mad and stop aiding hezbollah. no the idf bombed targets where the fire (rockets and mortars) was coming from. The idf bombed electrical grids and plants to put that pressure on.

Again if the idf was bombing civilians, it could wipe them out completely and not have a single human in that zone (like what its occupiers the Syrians did in Hama when it killed 20,000 in one after noon and wiped out completely the entire town). It didnt do any such thing and it only went after hetsballh and where they were firing from.

and kept on resisting. yes and they sure as hell are into resisting occupation here with all the fighting ;) that’s going on against Syria’s full occupation while Syria is in fact much weaker then Israel. yeah they are purely resisting occupation :roll: rofl rofl

they dont resist becouse they know that syria doesnt play by the rules as israel does!!

Hezbollah has political power (from the lebanese government) the Lebanese Army even gives hezbollah all the weapons they need and any training they need. that’s not true. While I can’t discount some weapons coming from the LF (Lebanese forces)getting to hetsvalle, most of their weapons and training and funding comes from Syria and Iran.

Their political power comes directly from the occupier of Lebanon, which is Syria which also control the “Lebanese government” (if you can even call it one) in the first place

Hezbollah is an official resistance movement. So if you serve in hezbollah you do not have to serve in the lebanese army. I actually never knew that Syria as the master of that country made that law.

And to respond to your earlier post, the IDF did not have enough firepower to counterattack the egyptians during the Yom Kippur war. It wasnt until the americans sent weapons till they started fighting again ;) actually that is debatable for a lot of historians say that Israel was turning the tide when the arms came.

Secondly like I said before, the Arabs got the latest technology and massive amounts of armaments from the soviets and were outnumbering the Israeli’s by a 13 to 1 margin!! So they (the arabs) got weapons as well as that big margin (13 to 1) to boot and yet they still found themselves running barefoot in the desert, where they just left their tanks sitting there empty, back to Cairo and other paces.

One

10-16-2003, 11:30 PM

You keep saying occupation as if the Syrian army is in the streets of beirut bossing people around.

The syrians have SAM site in the Bekaa valley and other armored units. There is no Syrian military presence in beirut or the south. Mostly they are in the north.

When the syrians withdrew their forces to the North in 82 we started killing eachother in lebanon, when they returned the war stopped. So their presence stops war, and since Israel favors the xtiens for their own reasons they always try to keep the civil war going on so they can keep hezbollah from resisting.

Yes they got some weapons from the former LF but there was a hell lot more weapons in lebanon weapons were like M&Ms.

And Lebanon is a small tiny country. There is not country out there that has soveriegn powers. Take canada for example. we do whatever the US tells us to do. The US has bases in Germany and all over the world do we call that an occupation? I dont think so. They are allies.

And finaly YES THE IDF DID BOMB CIVILIANS along with the SLA (their ally). During the invasion of 1982 17,000 to 20,000 civilians were killed. I know the IDF can kill all the civilians in the south but they wont. To list a few there are the following massacares:

Massacare of Cana
Massacare of AL-Mansouri
Massacare of Nabatieh
Ambulance Massacare (6 children)

All happend in 2 months in 1996.

ANd the IDF hit civilians in small numbers to force hezbollah to stop their attacks. I don't think that when my Grandfather died he died because Katyoushas were launched from his house.

All you need to fire a katyoucha is a car battery. They dont even use rocket launchers.

And now since the IDF partialy withdrew from southern lebanon hezbollah along with the lebanese army have set up artillary in the south. Unlike 1982 if the IDF wants to invade there will be alot of bloodshed.

In 82 the IDF rolled in during a civil war no one was going to resist other than a few.

Mods setup a chat already :bash:

IDFM203

10-17-2003, 12:31 AM

You keep saying occupation as if the Syrian army is in the streets of beirut bossing people around. : first of all they have been in the streets of Beirut and now they are on the outskirts of that city.

Secondly, there are Syrians checkpoints in lebonon and I might not be Lebanese but I know some of them and they have told me this.
The syrians have SAM site in the Bekaa valley and other armored units. There is no Syrian military presence in beirut or the south. Mostly they are in the north. : yes they are in the south through their proxy hetballa where they finance and fund and train this group.
When the syrians withdrew their forces to the North in 82 we started killing eachother in lebanon, when they returned the war stopped. :you guys were killing yourselves before Syria or Israel ever went in. the civil war was quasi stopped before 1982 and Syria and Israel has nothing to do with that.
So their presence stops war, : no their presence is an occupation that has targeted and killed civilians in unprecedented numbers. (hama is just one example of many)
and since Israel favors the xtiens for their own reasons they always try to keep the civil war going on so they can keep hezbollah from resisting. :so the Christians and Catholics hate the Muslims because israel makes them?!? Yes of course blame Israel for this too, pretty typical tactic on your part.
Yes they got some weapons from the former LF but there was a hell lot more weapons in lebanon weapons were like M&Ms. : most of their weapons comes from Syria and Iran period!!!!
And Lebanon is a small tiny country. There is not country out there that has soveriegn powers. : no most countries act out of their own interests and if they follow someone else its because they do so out of their own interests.

Lebanon doesn’t have that choice for it is forced to follow the whim and will of what Syria wants them to do.
[/quote]Take canada for example. we do whatever the US tells us to do. :[/quote] I am sure most Canadians will disagree with you.

I mean they didn’t go with the U.S. in Iraq did they?!?

Lebanon on the other hand is forced to do and go wherever its master Syria wants it to do.
The US has bases in Germany and all over the world do we call that an occupation? I dont think so. They are allies. :yes again, just take Iraq, those countries did not go with the U.S. because it wasn’t in their interests as they saw it.
Now Lebanon doest get to make that choice and do things out of its own self-interests for it is forced to do everything solely out of Syrians interests.

And finaly YES THE IDF DID BOMB CIVILIANS along with the SLA (their ally). During the invasion of 1982 17,000 to 20,000 civilians were killed. :first of all that’s a war. Secondly your figures are inflated and don’t even try that shabr shtila crap with me. Israel did not kill a single soul there. And those figures do not distinguish between civlain and enemy combatants, they don’t also distinguish between Israeli, or non Israeli killings.

Secondly the difference is that hetballh and the plo deliberately target civilian and civilian towns, while Israel targets these killers and murders.
There is no moral equivalence to Israel targeting killers and murderers and accidentally killing civilians in the process to hetballh purposely targeting innocent civilians.
I know the IDF can kill all the civilians in the south but they wont. :that’s because they dont target them.
To list a few there are the following massacares:

Massacare of Cana
Massacare of AL-Mansouri
Massacare of Nabatieh
Ambulance Massacare (6 children)

All happend in 2 months in 1996.

: firstly most of those cases were not deliberate. They were accidents. Israel did not purposely target those civilians
Secondly that doesn’t even come close to your own civilians that Syria has murdered.

Thirdly your definition of massacre is not accurate ( I mean you attach it to almost everything). I mean if I extended your definition to Israeli casualties, the massacres committed by hetsbllh far out number those that you say Israel committed.

ANd the IDF hit civilians in small numbers to force hezbollah to stop their attacks. I don't think that when my Grandfather died he died because Katyoushas were launched from his house. : in most cases Israel is responding directly to the fire and where its coming from. Now mistakes happen. Thats part of modern warfare but Israel tries its best to hit only hetballah and where its firing from.

All you need to fire a katyoucha is a car battery. They dont even use rocket launchers. : I throw big time the bull**** flag on that statement. Heck type in hetballh on the net and you can find pictures of them with rocket launchers.

And now since the IDF partialy withdrew from southern Lebanon:are you reading my posts?!? Israel clearly withdrew from all of Lebanon even your favourite biased UN admitted that.
hezbollah along with the lebanese army have set up artillary in the south: thus further proving the idiocy of the labour left government.

. Unlike 1982 if the IDF wants to invade there will be alot of bloodshed. : perhaps but hetballh would be out of the south and on a ship to Tunis or wherever else just like the PLO

In 82 the IDF rolled in during a civil war no one was going to resist other than a few. :oh there was an open resistance. The plo was clearly fighting and there were much more fighting then a few. and the syrians also fought.

I mean of course lets not forget the masters of Lebanon, the Syrians that also fought and got their A** handed to them in the most lopsided air to air victory in modern history when Israeli planes shot down 81 Syrian fighter jets to zero Israeli losses.!!! rofl rofl rofl rofl (81 to 0) rofl rofl rofl rofl

aktarian

10-17-2003, 04:45 AM

no I used the proper tense for everything I said has come after the pull out.
Here I repeat

“No the reality is that since Israel has pulled out, three soldiers were kidnapped, over the past three years, a few more have been shot at and killed without any provocation.

Besides this, they have in fact continued to fire mortars and katusha rockets at Israeli towns and villages.

Did they? Only thing that they fired into Israel were AAA rounds. Shebaa not included.

Israeli planes have only flown over Lebanon as retaliation to those horrific violations of the pullout in which they were supposed to stop. they really only serve as a warning, that they better stop firing those katuhsas

Pullout wasn't conditional. Nobody agreed to anything.

Those fly overs are harmless.
Those katushas that still rain into Israel or not.

Let me ask you, why in the hell would Israel fly over Lebanon if unprovoked?!? ( I could go further here but I will await your response to this)

To gather info, to provoke Hezbollah, to show them that they can do it.

the second one is the only option that Israel has in stopping these attacks.
Whether the population likes it or not, Israel will have no choice if this attacks on our cities and towns continue to go back in.

Basically reocuppy Lebanon. Good option. Look how well it worked last time.

Israel defiantly has the military muscle and ability to go in and go after hetsbalh whether the there support Israel or not. If the Lebanese want to prevent this they should go after hetsballh themselves and have them stop firing at Israel for the Israel has pulled out and there is no occupation and to prevent a reoccupation its in their interests to stop them.(but of course who cares what the Lebanese want, certainly their masters in Syria don’t care by their occupation and use of hetsballh against Israel which has nothing to do with Lebanese interets)

As you know miliary muscle plays little role in guerilla war. Oh, it does, but not as decisive as in conventional war.

no, in a clear western style democracy, the military follows a no politics (and certainly no acting on it) rule for if it didn’t there wouldn’t be much from stopping the military from ever doing a coup.

The military leadership did speak out but it was dealing with the labour left government that was in some utopia dream world of where they were going to give everything away for the sake of some false and not real peace (as we see has been fully proven).

The military while it sometimes speaks out in the press and to the government, it always follows the orders of the political will as it is mandated to do.

So youa re saying IDF proposed a plan but was rejected by political leadership. Then political leadership made their own plan which militay thought it's wrong. If so, then why the hell did military impelment a plan they knew it was wrong?

no, I am talking about now and what the idf has learned and what it has now adapted more then that, is OPSEC

Secondly they did more then that (again OPSEC) but yeah that was what the problem was with the security zone and it was like that for thats how the politicians wanted it to be and not have the idf go on any real offensive.

If IDF knew not starting offensive was wrong why didn they follow plan they knew it's wrong?

so you read isayeret.com or things like that and that makes you some expert and all knowing on what the idf did?!? rofl rofl You don’t have any real complete information as what the idf did and what it is going to do in terms of adaptation.

I haven't been to isayet.com. I plan to check it out in near future, though. I get my information from different sources. From the name of that it's doesn't sound like unbised source.

IDFM203

10-17-2003, 11:58 AM

[quote=idfm203]
no I used the proper tense for everything I said has come after the pull out.
Here I repeat

“No the reality is that since Israel has pulled out, three soldiers were kidnapped, over the past three years, a few more have been shot at and killed without any provocation.

Besides this, they have in fact continued to fire mortars and katusha rockets at Israeli towns and villages.

Did they? Only thing that they fired into Israel were AAA rounds. Shebaa not included.
First of all that’s not true. They have also fires heavier armaments into Israeli towns since the pullout. Besides the aaa, they have fired mortars (57mm rounds and higher)and I believe also katushas although I amot sure about those

Secondly a lot those aaa rounds are aimed at Israeli towns and not at Israeli planes and they have killed civilians (just this past august a 16 year old Israeli was killed by an aaa firing from hetsballh that hetsballh aimed at his town)
And also again the three kidnappings of soldiers and few others that have been killed.

Pullout wasn't conditional. Nobody agreed to anything. no, the biased UN agreed that Israel completed a full pullout. What are you all of a sudden not accepting the UN?!?

Those fly overs are harmless.
Those katushas that still rain into Israel or not.

Let me ask you, why in the hell would Israel fly over Lebanon if unprovoked?!? ( I could go further here but I will await your response to this)

To gather info, to provoke Hezbollah, to show them that they can do it. ok and why would Israel want to do that ?!?

the second one is the only option that Israel has in stopping these attacks.
Whether the population likes it or not, Israel will have no choice if this attacks on our cities and towns continue to go back in.

Basically reocuppy Lebanon. Good option. Look how well it worked last time. like I said before, this time around wont be like last time.

Secondly this option is not about good are bad, it’s about no choice. I mean no sovereign nation can accept constant attacks on its civilians without trying to stop it. Without going in there is no way to stop these continuing attacks.

As you know miliary muscle plays little role in guerilla war. Oh, it does, but not as decisive as in conventional war. yeah that’s why when I say muscle I also added ability meaning that this time around we have the infantry and guerrilla ability to really go after them (much more then egoz and further then that is OPSEC, suffice to say we have adapted from our past mistakes there which I already told you before some were made)

So youa re saying IDF proposed a plan but was rejected by political leadership. Then political leadership made their own plan which militay thought it's wrong. .yes that’s what I am saying. Listen you always have different camps (the hawks and doves) in the military that are saying different things, its up to the political establishment to make the decisions When you have a left labour government, they most probably will listen to what the doves are saying.

If so, then why the hell did military impelment a plan they knew it was wrong? . because they follow the orders from the political establishment.

no, I am talking about now and what the idf has learned and what it has now adapted more then that, is OPSEC

Secondly they did more then that (again OPSEC) but yeah that was what the problem was with the security zone and it was like that for thats how the politicians wanted it to be and not have the idf go on any real offensive.

If IDF knew not starting offensive was wrong why didn they follow plan they knew it's wrong? .again because they must listen to the political establishment that makes its decisions based on geopolitics and not necessarily strictly related to what’s going on there.

I personally think its wrong but that is just the way it is.

so you read isayeret.com or things like that and that makes you some expert and all knowing on what the idf did?!? rofl rofl You don’t have any real complete information as what the idf did and what it is going to do in terms of adaptation.

I haven't been to isayet.com. I plan to check it out in near future, though. I get my information from different sources. From the name of that it's doesn't sound like unbised source. I never said anything about bias here. bias has nothing to do with this

No, I am just saying that your sources don’t know everything and don’t have anywhere near a complete picture of what the idf has done and is going to do.

aktarian

10-17-2003, 01:42 PM

First of all that’s not true. They have also fires heavier armaments into Israeli towns since the pullout. Besides the aaa, they have fired mortars (57mm rounds and higher)and I believe also katushas although I amot sure about those

That's the first time I hear this. I heward about AAA but not about mortars. Besides, are there 57mm mortars? I know there are 57mm AA guns.

no, the biased UN agreed that Israel completed a full pullout. What are you all of a sudden not accepting the UN?!?

Pullout wasn't conditional. Neither Lebanon nor Syria (or Iran for that matter) agreed to anything if Israelis pull out. Israelis pulled out on their own, without guarantees.

Secondly a lot those aaa rounds are aimed at Israeli towns and not at Israeli planes and they have killed civilians (just this past august a 16 year old Israeli was killed by an aaa firing from hetsballh that hetsballh aimed at his town)
And also again the three kidnappings of soldiers and few others that have been killed.

However those rounds fell into Israel after they were fired at Israeli planes. Self defence, remember? SOemthing Israel claims it's entitled to but denies same thing to Hezbollah.

ok and why would Israel want to do that ?!?

To provoke Hezbollah to do soemthing and then ISrael would have excuse to do soemthing to them.

like I said before, this time around wont be like last time.

You propose similar course of action. Occupy the country for soem time. Sorry, I don't see any difference than 1982.

Secondly this option is not about good are bad, it’s about no choice. I mean no sovereign nation can accept constant attacks on its civilians without trying to stop it. Without going in there is no way to stop these continuing attacks.

And yet you deny this right to hezbollah and claim they had no right to attack Israelis.

yeah that’s why when I say muscle I also added ability meaning that this time around we have the infantry and guerrilla ability to really go after them (much more then egoz and further then that is OPSEC, suffice to say we have adapted from our past mistakes there which I already told you before some were made)

I never said Israel didn't adapt. They did. However I doubt they adapted enough. If they would they would win in Lbanon whne they were there.

yes that’s what I am saying. Listen you always have different camps (the hawks and doves) in the military that are saying different things, its up to the political establishment to make the decisions When you have a left labour government, they most probably will listen to what the doves are saying.

So you have military that executes the plan that they know is wrong. That's either gross incompetence or treason, depending on your perspective.

I never said anything about bias here. bias has nothing to do with this

No, I am just saying that your sources don’t know everything and don’t have anywhere near a complete picture of what the idf has done and is going to do.

They have clear picture about what they did. If Israelis were in Lebanon and were unable to prevent Katyushas falling on N Israel and kept loosing troops and were unable to destroy Hezbollah one doesn't have to be military genious to notice Israel wasn't prepared to wage COIN operations.

IDFM203

10-17-2003, 02:26 PM

That's the first time I hear this. yes I expect that already for YOU not to hear these things, but we Israeli's have heard the rockets and mortars loud and clear that have come into our towns and villages since Israel pulled out.

I heard about AAA there are many more instances but I just did a quick internet search and I came up with something from the heavily biased UN.
Dated; Monday, August 11, 2003
“n a statement issued Sunday, the Secretary-General strongly condemned the shelling of anti-aircraft missiles by Hezbollah into Israel that cost the life of a 16-year-old Israeli and wounded four other civilians in the town of Shlomi. This represents a serious violation of the Blue Line and of the Security Council's resolutions”

again this is just one of many since the pullout.
So it is clear that their aaa are being aimed at Israeli civilian towns

but not about mortars. Besides, are there 57mm mortars? excuse me I meant to say artillery rounds. Yes artillery rounds that have been fired into Israeli town and not at any planes

but yes mortars have also been used.

no, the biased UN agreed that Israel completed a full pullout. What are you all of a sudden not accepting the UN?!?

Pullout wasn't conditional. Neither Lebanon nor Syria (or Iran for that matter) agreed to anything if Israelis pull out. Israelis pulled out on their own, without guarantees. no I don’t expect hetsballh to ever want to talk with Israel. But the occupation card that they had to the world is over. Israel pulled out and again even the biased UN agrees with that completely.

Hetbalh has no excuse for kidnapping soldiers, killing soldiers like they just did last week, firing into Israeli towns and the like. None.

Secondly a lot those aaa rounds are aimed at Israeli towns and not at Israeli planes and they have killed civilians (just this past august a 16 year old Israeli was killed by an aaa firing from hetsballh that hetsballh aimed at his town)
And also again the three kidnappings of soldiers and few others that have been killed.

However those rounds fell into Israel after they were fired at Israeli planes. Self defence, remember? SOemthing Israel claims it's entitled to but denies same thing to Hezbollah. are you serious here?!? what does firing at an Israeli planes have to do with firing at Israeli towns. Do you know how this equipment works.(obviously not). first of all, artillery that has hit Israel is not something that can be used against planes in the first place (its not what it was designed for). Secondly the aaa that hit Israeli towns cant do so if it was aimed at an Israeli plane..

Don’t insult the military here when they can clearly see that it was aimed at Israeli towns and not at Israeli planes.

And what self-defence. Those planes have not fired at them unless they were first fired upon.

ok and why would Israel want to do that ?!

To provoke Hezbollah to do soemthing and then ISrael would have excuse to do soemthing to them. ok let’s continue with this. So why would Israel want to do something to hetballh now that it has pulled out of there.

like I said before, this time around wont be like last time.

You propose similar course of action. Occupy the country for soem time. Sorry, I don't see any difference than 1982. no, when they went in, there was no hetballh and hetsballh only started when Israel was already in entrenched stationary positions.

There was never a real campaign to go on the offensive against hetbalh. Now if it’s the same as 82 and this time hetballh is the target, then the same results will happen when they will be on the run out of the south and on some ships.

Now it is actually going to be different then 82 because the idf has learned a lot from the past 20 years and it has now implemented those adaptations that it has learned.

Secondly this option is not about good are bad, it’s about no choice. I mean no sovereign nation can accept constant attacks on its civilians without trying to stop it. Without going in there is no way to stop these continuing attacks.

And yet you deny this right to hezbollah and claim they had no right to attack Israelis. no Israel has not attacked first and you know it. Israel pulled out in order to stop hetballh from using the occupation as an excuse to stop firing. We see they haven’t and Israel must respond to that.

I mean Israel pulled out, its frankly preposterous to claim that after the pullout Israel is now starting these attacks.

yeah that’s why when I say muscle I also added ability meaning that this time around we have the infantry and guerrilla ability to really go after them (much more then egoz and further then that is OPSEC, suffice to say we have adapted from our past mistakes there which I already told you before some were made)

I never said Israel didn't adapt. They did. However I doubt they adapted enough. If they would they would win in Lbanon whne they were there. no they never went on the offensive. That was what the problem was.

Secondly as for egoz, there is much more then egoz and its abilities now then when egoz was the only one operating.

yes that’s what I am saying. Listen you always have different camps (the hawks and doves) in the military that are saying different things, its up to the political establishment to make the decisions When you have a left labour government, they most probably will listen to what the doves are saying.

So you have military that executes the plan that they know is wrong. That's either gross incompetence or treason, depending on your perspective.
Actually I would in fact say both but not the military but rather the politicians
I am sure we can agree (for differing reasons) that Israel politicians don’t always make the right decisions.

The army simply must follow what the politicians want. In a fragmented society like Israel with all sorts of views, the army simply must have a no politics rule and follow what the government wants even if in the minds of some generals it is a mistake.

I never said anything about bias here. bias has nothing to do with this

No, I am just saying that your sources don’t know everything and don’t have anywhere near a complete picture of what the idf has done and is going to do

They have clear picture about what they did. If Israelis were in Lebanon and were unable to prevent Katyushas falling on N Israel and kept loosing troops and were unable to destroy Hezbollah one doesn't have to be military genious to notice Israel wasn't prepared to wage COIN operations. first of all I was referring to adaptation now and what the idf is prepared to do now. All of this you don’t have a real clue about.

Secondly in the past, like I said, the military had its mistakes but for the most part it was the politicians that prevented the military from really acting against this threat like it should have.

I mean one doesn’t have to be a military genius either to realise that the idf only used a fraction of its ability to combat this for most of the time they were in stationary positions and not really utilising the ability to go on the offensive like the idf should have been doing.

aktarian

10-17-2003, 04:45 PM

yes I expect that already for YOU not to hear these things, but we Israeli's have heard the rockets and mortars loud and clear that have come into our towns and villages since Israel pulled out.

You have source for this?

there are many more instances but I just did a quick internet search and I came up with something from the heavily biased UN.
Dated; Monday, August 11, 2003
“n a statement issued Sunday, the Secretary-General strongly condemned the shelling of anti-aircraft missiles by Hezbollah into Israel that cost the life of a 16-year-old Israeli and wounded four other civilians in the town of Shlomi. This represents a serious violation of the Blue Line and of the Security Council's resolutions”

And once again I say that those were AAA rounds fired at Israeli planes.

excuse me I meant to say artillery rounds. Yes artillery rounds that have been fired into Israeli town and not at any planes

but yes mortars have also been used.

Last A in AAA means artilerry.

no I don’t expect hetsballh to ever want to talk with Israel. But the occupation card that they had to the world is over. Israel pulled out and again even the biased UN agrees with that completely.

Hetbalh has no excuse for kidnapping soldiers, killing soldiers like they just did last week, firing into Israeli towns and the like. None.

They have every right to fire at Israeli planes that fly over Lebanon.

Secondly a lot those aaa rounds are aimed at Israeli towns and not at Israeli planes and they have killed civilians (just this past august a 16 year old Israeli was killed by an aaa firing from hetsballh that hetsballh aimed at his town)
And also again the three kidnappings of soldiers and few others that have been killed.

Collateral damage. They aimed at planes and it fell on Israel. Same way as when Israeli attack some terrorist and kill several bystanders at same time.

are you serious here?!? what does firing at an Israeli planes have to do with firing at Israeli towns. Do you know how this equipment works.(obviously not). first of all, artillery that has hit Israel is not something that can be used against planes in the first place (its not what it was designed for). Secondly the aaa that hit Israeli towns cant do so if it was aimed at an Israeli plane..

Simple. You fire AA gun at plane. It misses. It continues to fly in the air. at some point it stops due to gravity. And then it falls down. At soem point it hits the ground. If soemthing stands on that part of ground it hits it hits that as well.

Don’t insult the military here when they can clearly see that it was aimed at Israeli towns and not at Israeli planes.

Fired at planes and fell on Israel. Tough luck.

And what self-defence. Those planes have not fired at them unless they were first fired upon.

So if Egypt would fly unarmed recce plane over Israel than Israel wouldn't have right to attack as it wasn't firing on Israelis?

ok let’s continue with this. So why would Israel want to do something to hetballh now that it has pulled out of there.

To hit them, to pay back for the fact they kicked them out.

no, when they went in, there was no hetballh and hetsballh only started when Israel was already in entrenched stationary positions.

YOu propose ocupying large parts of ELbanon. this is exactlly what happened in 1982.

There was never a real campaign to go on the offensive against hetbalh. Now if it’s the same as 82 and this time hetballh is the target, then the same results will happen when they will be on the run out of the south and on some ships.

So what was purpose of accountability and Grapes of Wrath? Israelis were saying they are after Hezbollah.

Now it is actually going to be different then 82 because the idf has learned a lot from the past 20 years and it has now implemented those adaptations that it has learned.

Yes, we saw how they adapted. Specially in May 2000. Or Ansariya.

no Israel has not attacked first and you know it. Israel pulled out in order to stop hetballh from using the occupation as an excuse to stop firing. We see they haven’t and Israel must respond to that.

Israel was first one to brake rules laid down after Accountability and GoW. Hezbollah attacked Israeli military targets inside SC, Israel responded by bombing Bekaa, well outside it.

I mean Israel pulled out, its frankly preposterous to claim that after the pullout Israel is now starting these attacks.

Israel continues with overflights.

no they never went on the offensive. That was what the problem was.

Secondly as for egoz, there is much more then egoz and its abilities now then when egoz was the only one operating.

So ISrael rather pulled out in what can be termed defeat than use all this new lessons and knowledge?

Actually I would in fact say both but not the military but rather the politicians
I am sure we can agree (for differing reasons) that Israel politicians don’t always make the right decisions.

The army simply must follow what the politicians want. In a fragmented society like Israel with all sorts of views, the army simply must have a no politics rule and follow what the government wants even if in the minds of some generals it is a mistake.

No, there is another option. You can resign in protest. Go to PM and say: "Your policy is wrong and will bring defeat to ISrael. I want nothing to do with it."

first of all I was referring to adaptation now and what the idf is prepared to do now. All of this you don’t have a real clue about.

Right. The new lessons they learned. As they say. and of course, they never lie.

Secondly in the past, like I said, the military had its mistakes but for the most part it was the politicians that prevented the military from really acting against this threat like it should have.

And military that executed this policy. so Israel rather suffered shellings than impelement this new lessons.

I mean one doesn’t have to be a military genius either to realise that the idf only used a fraction of its ability to combat this for most of the time they were in stationary positions and not really utilising the ability to go on the offensive like the idf should have been doing.

Yes, and military was obviouslly OK with it as they followed it.

IDFM203

10-17-2003, 05:52 PM

Heres a great article that address the idiocy of the left and shows how this voluntary pullout projects a weakness (as we see even from you when you call it kicked out which is simply absurd) when in fact it was the stupid politicians that are the only ones weak. And it also goes over the numerous attacks on Israeli civilians.

Just a note here. while I am sure you are going to excuse every single attack on Israeli civilians as trying to hit planes, most military experts know the difference between the trajectory of something that’s fired at a plane and something that is clearly fired at Israeli civilian towns. Heck even the biased UN spoke out against hetballh and their targeting of civilians!!

Note this artcle was written in 2002 and since then there have been more attacks.

“How to break the Arab-Israeli impasse? Increasingly, one hears, not just from Palestinians, but from the universities and from media commentators, that things would improve markedly if only Israeli forces immediately left the West Bank and Gaza.

Would such a move help - or make a bad situation worse? Consider Israel's similar retreat from southern Lebanon just two years ago this week, for which Israelis are still paying a heavy price.

Some background: For over two decades, Israeli troops held down a "security belt" in the part of Lebanon adjacent to Israel to protect Israel's north from attacks by the militant Islamic group Hezbollah. Hezbollah killed an average of 25 Israelis per year, making the army's continued operations there deeply unpopular in Israel. On May 23, 2000, Prime Minister Ehud Barak responded to this discontent by unilaterally pulling back to an internationally recognized border.

Barak was convinced the violence would cease: "The tragedy is over," he said. His colleague Shimon Peres was more specific: "The chances of the north being attacked are slight, because the Syrians, as well as Hezbollah, have a lot to lose now."

They were hardly alone in their optimism. Martin Indyk, the U.S. ambassador to Israel, termed the withdrawal "a golden opportunity." "This is a happy day for Lebanon but also for Israel," chirped U.N. Secretary General Kofi Annan.

The fly in the ointment: Hezbollah decided that the "Zionist entity" still occupied four areas of Lebanese territory.

And kept on fighting.

In the two years since Israel's retreat, Hezbollah has initiated more than 40 unprovoked strikes against Israeli targets, including army outposts in an area known as Shebaa Farms and civilian villages along Israel's northern border. It also kidnapped (and presumably murdered) three soldiers and a reserve officer.

In early April, things further heated up, with almost one Hezbollah attack per day. These involved 1,160 mortar rounds, 205 anti-tank missiles, and several surface-to-air missiles. The worst shelling came April 10, when Katyusha rockets rained on civilian targets and six military outposts. In the past month, Hezbollah has launched at least nine more attacks on Israeli targets, causing at least five casualties.

The future threatens yet greater dangers. Hezbollah could prompt the Israeli government to retaliate against Syria (which controls Lebanon). The Syrians might respond with chemical or biological weapons, or successfully appeal for Egyptian, Iraqi and other Arab reinforcements. Strategist Gal Luft thus correctly notes that Hezbollah "has the capability to drag Israel into a regional war."

So much for Annan's "happy day."

"We thought that when the Israeli army withdrew, we'd finally get peace," lamented the mayor of a northern Israeli village recently. "I cannot understand what Hezbollah is doing."

Actually, it's easy to understand. Israel's retreat backfired because Jerusalem underestimated its enemy. Like the Palestinian Authority, Hezbollah seeks not just to push Israeli soldiers out of some disputed land. It seeks nothing less than to destroy the state of Israel.

The episode illustrates three main points relevant to the West Bank and Gaza:

* When Israel retreats before an enemy that seeks its destruction, it is perceived as weak. This in turn emboldens that enemy to step up its attacks. The lesson: Israel should consider pulling out of disputed territories only after having achieved true and permanent acceptance of its existence by its enemies.

* Grit and determination impress Israel's enemies, not the size of its arsenal. Hezbollah's leader, Hasan Nasrallah, explained days after Israel's May 2000 withdrawal: "Israel may own nuclear weapons and heavy weaponry but, by God, it is weaker than a spider web."

* Even when Israel exactly complies with United Nations demands, it gains no lasting benefits. Thus, 4,000 U.N. peacekeepers in Lebanon have done virtually nothing to prevent Hezbollah's recent campaign of violence.

Those who call on Israel unilaterally to retreat from the West Bank and Gaza are again underestimating the ambitions of Israel's foes. Such a step would invite more bloodshed,
not less

http://www.danielpipes.org/article/403
(now I am sure you have nothing but great things to say about danial pipes ;) , notwithstanding that for a second, for what he is saying is pretty factual

Just type in the net hetballh attacks on the north and you will see plenty of attacks on Israel in the past three years that were not aimed at planes.)

Now just a few things the article didn’t talk about.

I don’t propose occupying large parts of Lebanon, I propose going on the offensive against hetballh like they never did before. Operation accountability was a major strike done by labour politician right before an election to win some votes, the gaol was never to get rid of hetballh but rather to just strike a bigger blow.

No the goal must be to eradicate hetballh in the south and to stop it from firing at Israeli civilians. It never practiced that military doctrine the way it could have. It simply has no choice now. Most of the security doctrine was simply responding to attacks and not a policy based on going on the offensive to eradicate this threat, meaning a systematic campaign that will prevent any firings on Israeli towns.

As for the military what the military general who disagreed with the government. I actually agree with your suggestions on principle but the reality is that doesn’t really happen in Israel listen the military is like the society where there are doves and hawks and as such if people were resigning, the flow would be endless depending on which side is in power. As such there simply doesnt happen where generals resign. They suck it up follow orders even if they know it’s a weak policy.

There were many generals who spoke up about not pulling out, (sorry no English links) but they still did their jobs.

As for adapting now. I say this not only from the general knowledge of what I have but also from personal experience as someone who just left the army a little over a year ago. I know exactly the changes and adaptation that was made if Israel were forced to go back in.

The army was adapting and making changes right before the pullout but like the article suggests, it was a time of leftist illusionist euphoria where they thought that pulling out will lead to quiet (but as wee see it didn’t) so it never really implemented it and secondly a lot of studying has been done since and new things and battlefield tactics have been studied and worked on by most infantry units and not just egoz.

Listen you can deny it all you want but the realty is that hetballh has been firing on Israeli towns and it does because its Syrian masters tall them to do it.

Israel ssimply has no motivation to continue to fly over Lebanon other then when it is to respond to attack by them. “To pay them back” as you ridiculously put it, is simply absurd when faced with the realty that the idf can do a lot more that that if that were the goal. For the idf can send over a lot more then mere fly over’s. For once most of the world recognises that Israel pulled out and that hetballh has no excuse for its continence of these attacks. That payback excuse is laughable for Israel has much more at its disposal if that were the goal.

No they continue to attack and Israel must stop it.

I ask you what alternative does Israel have to stop hetballh from doing these attacks on its civilians especially since Israel has pulled out completely from Lebanon.

UoUo

10-17-2003, 07:40 PM

Look how much idf203 write...and look how you answer it in 1 line for each paragraph.

IDFM203

10-17-2003, 07:53 PM

Look how much idf203 write...and look how you answer it in 1 line for each paragraph.that’s because all it takes to make a false accusations is one line or a couple of words. Now to properly defend it you need more then that.

Thanks UoUo for you are correct to notice that.

If I were to use his tactics the conversation would sound like this.

for example
me; lebonon attacks syrian civilians all day
him:no they don’t
me: yes they do
him; no they dont

etc.....

Now of course that was if I use his tactics…… but I don’t and as you can see from my posts, I have put much more into my responses in terms of sane intellectual arguments that are backed up by pertinent and relevant facts.

While, the above example is a bit of an exaggeration of what he has done, it isn’t too far from the truth.

One

10-17-2003, 08:11 PM

203 I cannot argue with you. How can you bomb a UN headquarter with more than one shell and say its an accident? How can you bomb an Ambulance from an Apache and say its an accident? I dont think the pilot is that stupid.

But anyways I wont take offence because I am used to the lies from the Israeli government.

You keep saying you heard from this you heard from that, I was last in lebanon 2 years ago and there are NO syrian checkpoints what so ever. You keep saying its an occupation well if the Lebanese government says its not who are you to say it is.

And WITHOUT the syrians we would still be killing eachother. You can accuse me of false accusations, but the facts are there. First you said the IDF never killed any civilians. Then you said it was a war. Finaly you said civilian deaths were accidents.

Me and you both know what happened in lebanon so wether you are going to say it or not I don't care because I am not trying to influence anyone.

Hezbollah sent to tunis? ahahahahah are you going to send 3 million lebanese to tunis? IDF I don't think you served on the northern front. I am sure if you ask your friends (since you are a paratrooper) they will tell you what happens. Or you have been out of the military for a while. I am not exagarating or making fun of anyone, ask them to tell you the facts.

----

Before I forget the LF/Kataeb WAS TRAINED AND FUNDED by the IDF. So don't tell me that Israel had nothing to do with the lebanese war.

And I think you or your lebanese friends are outdated about the syrian issue.

IDFM203

10-17-2003, 09:55 PM

"one"

First of all even though we obviously see thing differently (understatement!) I enjoy debating with you, I mean at least your not as left field and aloof as that chumskynite who actually believes that the whole struggle is just about the 1967 borders. I mean at least you admit the truth, that’s its about the whole land of Israel.

How can you bomb a UN headquarter with more than one shell and say its an accident? no the killings of civilians were an accident. The idf targeted that area where hetballh was firing rockets from.

-Hezbollah guerrillas fired two Katyusha rockets and eight mortars at Israel from an area 300 yards away from the Fijian compound 15 minutes before Israeli gunners opened fire, U.N. spokeswoman Sylvana Foa said, quoting the commander of the U.N. peacekeeping mission in Lebanon.
The Associated Press, Apr 18, 1996

-The U.N. report acknowledges that Hezbollah took cover at the bases of the United Nations Interim Force in Lebanon (UNIFIL).

-"Hezbollah used those civilians as cover in a very cynical and despicable way"
- Nicholas Burns, U.S. State Department spokesman, quoted by Cynthia Mann, Jewish Telegraphic Agency, May 10, 1996

When Israeli soldiers targeted the launch points of those Katyusha rockets, mistakes were made and the UNIFIL base was unfortunately hit.

Listen the idf only target hetballh. All you have brought down is four cases and even if those were as you say they are (which they are not) it doesn’t compare to large amounts of times and acts by hetballh that have targeted on much more occasions Israeli civilians then Israel has ever done by mistake.

How can you bomb an Ambulance from an Apache and say its an accident? what ambulance incident?!?
And about ambulances in general.

Not all of these ambulances are innocent either. A lot of them have been documented to be used in smuggling weapons and hetbllh members. so give me a break about those ambulances.

And yes mistakes can happen. While I now appreciate your respect for the Israeli military and its capabilities in now insinuating that they don’t ever make mistakes, the realty is that we do for no one is perfect.
But we don’t deliberately target civilians like hetballh has constantly done.

But anyways I wont take offence because I am used to the lies from the Israeli government. we can go round and round on this statement. All I will say is that the Israeli government has been a thousand times more truthful then any Arab government.
You keep saying you heard from this you heard from that, I throw the bull**** flag big time on this statement.
I don’t think I have said that more then once. The only time I said that was when I was referring to the lebanse that I personally know and saying what they have told me personally.that was one time

No it’s you and your friend that has constantly heard stuff from somewhere
I was last in lebanon 2 years ago and there are NO syrian checkpoints what so ever. well most of the world and a lot of Lebanese themselves flatly disagrees with this statement.
Yes there are checkpoints and there have been in the past as well.

Its common knowledge that Syria has over 30,000 troops in lebonon. Somehow I don’t think they are being solely used to guard the traffic lights…………..

You keep saying its an occupation well if the Lebanese government says its not who are you to say it is. that’s such a funny statement rofl rofl ……….Lebanese government rofl rofl what government?!? Yes I know there is a show there of some government but we all know who is the real power there. Ultimately its Syria that controls that government.

Yeah them saying that their masters Syria is not occupying them is like the French during ww2 saying the Germans aren’t occupying them.

Again over 30,000 troops is in that country. That’s clearly an occupation.

And WITHOUT the syrians we would still be killing eachother. so now you contradict yourself.

So now you do admit that Syria is in Lebanon .
I don’t know about you but any foreign power that has troops in its country is living in an occupation. That’s clear to most sane people.

You can accuse me of false accusations, but the facts are there. yes facts are facts.
Hetballh and lebonon are under the cloak of Syria

While Israel is not perfect, heck who in the world is?, Israel does not intentionally target civilian while hetballh does.

That’s the facts……….

First you said the IDF never killed any civilians. no read clearly what I write.
I said the idf never intentionally targeted civilians. Big difference there.

Then you said it was a war. same as above.

Finally you said civilian deaths were accidents. Yes they were. Believe me if Israel was into targeting civil