Jump to content
Political Discussion Forums

Recommended Posts

Well Blackdog you are right in that so far it seems that the military might of Israel has been ineffective at stopping the rockests. You also know the reason for this is that they are attempting to avoid non combatant casualties.

I disagree. These rockets are eight or nine feet long and can be fired from from pretty much anywhere, even by remote control. So they are easy to transport, easy to hide and easy to conceal until they are already in the air. Israel can't hit the launch sites because the launch sites keep moving.

If they want to succeed they will have to santize the areas where the rockets are launched from. You also know that this is true. Does this now mean that you would say they were justified by santizing these positions?

If Israel really had a bead on the launch sites, they'd have finished the job already, regardless of civilian casualties. It's not a question of will, or of squeamishness, but impotence.

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Replies 493
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Photos that damn Hezbollah

Link

The images include one of a group of men and youths preparing to fire an anti-aircraft gun metres from an apartment block with sheets hanging out on a balcony to dry.

Others show a militant with AK47 rifle guarding no-go zones after Israeli blitzes.

Another depicts the remnants of a Hezbollah Katyusha rocket in the middle of a residential block blown up in an Israeli air attack.

The Melbourne man who smuggled the shots out of Beirut and did not wish to be named said he was less than 400m from the block when it was obliterated.

"Hezbollah came in to launch their rockets, then within minutes the area was blasted by Israeli jets," he said.

"Until the Hezbollah fighters arrived, it had not been touched by the Israelis. Then it was totally devastated.

Link to post
Share on other sites
It was not deliberate targeting of the UN post, but rather of Tactical necessity meaning the hezbullah have strong postions around the UN OP, suggesting that the Hezbullah was in fact using it as a form of shield.
After reading the article again, it is more than obvious that the color "obvious allusion to Hezbollah tactics" are one-sided conclusions that are Maj.-Gen. MacKensie's view only and are not the only interpretation of the Isreali attacks. There is nothing obvious about concluding Hezbollah tactics.

Lewis MacKenzie was not there at the UN outpost.

Perhaps you can show me and the others were your proof of the BS you are posting here.
The whole former Yougoslavia had an arms embargo and everybody knows that.

It does not take a tactical genius to figure out that an arms embargo leaves the unarmed to be victims of the armed. Everybody knows that.

What everybody does not know is that the Serbs controlled the Yougoslavian government and the military.

The UN ran away when they were supposed to be protecting unarmed civilians in UN safe havens. Everybody knows that.

The UN left unarmed civilians in Srebrenica when Serbs over-ran the town. Everybody knows the UN ran away and left them to be slaughtered.

Show us where is neutrality and credibility is broken..

Because he has spoken out to the world and saying that the serbs were not the only people commiting war crimes, to correct a perception of what the world has ,including yourself.

I did. Right after he comes back from Bosnia, he went a speaking tour by Serbs. He said he did not know who paid him. That does not make him a reliable and unbiased source to me. Sorry, I do not trust his word.

I will take it a step further and quote MacKenzie himself on his interpretation of what happened in Srebrenica.

As someone who played a modest role in some of the events preceding the massacre, perhaps a little background will provide some context. In early 1993, after my release from the Canadian Forces, I was asked to appear before a number of U.S. congressional committees dealing with Bosnia. A few months earlier, my successor in the UN Protection Force, General Philippe Morillon, had --against the advice of his UN masters -- bullied his way into Srebrenica accompanied by a tiny contingent of Canadian soldiers and told its citizens they were now under the protection of the UN. The folks at the UN in New York were furious with Gen. Morillon but, with the media on his side, they were forced to introduce the "safe haven" concept for six areas of Bosnia, including Srebrenica.
The Real Story Behind Srebrenica

Let me get this straight: Morillon (a colleague of his) actually tries to do something on behalf of the UN (against "his UN masters"????) to protect the civilians and MacKenzie sees that as the source of the problem. The rest of his article goes on to explain how the UN did not have the resources.

I spent 3 tours of duty in Bosina and served under Retired Maj General Mackenzie for one of them. Unless you served in Bosina and seen first hand what the facts are then your comments are coming out your ass.
Correct. I am talking out of my ass and the asses of people who physically were in Bosnia trying to help family. They told me what they saw on the other side of the fence.
Even to suggest that his neutrality and credibility are questionable is unproven slander of a man whom has served his country with honour and pride.
Those are dramatic words. You tell me what he did to "serve his country".

I think questioning a public figure (particularly one whose decisions and actions affected the lives of unarmed civilians) who talks publicly is fair game. Even more so when my taxes go to fund it.

The Melbourne man who smuggled the shots out of Beirut and did not wish to be named said he was less than 400m from the block when it was obliterated.
I do not wish to be named either but you should all believe everything I say!
Link to post
Share on other sites

Today Israel broke another promise (I thought yesterdays "error" was bad enough).

nobody is policing Israel - Israel is implicitly tied to the US in its economic interests. Hence other countries will not raise real objections to Israel's behaviour.

Lebanan refused to speak to Rice . . .the messenger of . . .ermm . .well . . . peace. The reason is simply because they turned the pages of history back to 1948 (they could have gone further) to see just how trustworthy such peace talks have manifested in the past. Alas.

Hezbollah has always been pretty popular with the public despite differences between sectors of the public. Its concern is with humanitarian injustices reaped by Israel. For example imprisoning hundreds of people who dare object to Israel's subjective interpretatons of events.

perhaps we will do well to remember how this all blew up with 1) Hezbollah taking two israeli people hostage. Not hundreds as the Israeli's have done.

2) They intended to use these captured people (the last straw) as a measure to negotiate the release of many untried, unconvicted peoples . . .

We would also do well to remember that it took the most pathetic form of excuse to invade and murder 100's of iraqs' people. As well . . . Afganistan . . . a game of 'blind man's bluff' if you will, in the hunt for so called targeted terrorists.

Now if we were to go back further in history - well prior to sept 11th, we might just get a real story about the role of the US in this game. In other words . . . why it has NOT STOPPED Israel bombing the living daylights out of Lebonan and is doing everything possible to prolong the damage.

Link to post
Share on other sites
I do not wish to be named either but you should all believe everything I say!
Why, do you also have photos revealing Hezbollah's disgusting tactics?
Link to post
Share on other sites
People get killed during war. That's a fact of life. When the Allies attacked Germany they had no way of just killing the members of the Nazi party, no way at all. And the Israelis have no way to avoid civilian casualties when going after an enemy which runs right into the heavily built up shiiite slums.

I don't think anyone is disputing that civilian casualties are inevitable (ironically moreso now in the age of high tech weaponry than in other eras). However, the question to me is: are civilian casualties avoidable? It's not enough to shrug one's shoulders and say, well these things happen. Such a blasé attitude is a license for atrocities. he problem with the curent situation is that Israel is killing a large number of civilians without affecting any change in the military situation. Hizbullah's ability to rocket Israeli cities appears undiminished (140 rockets fell on northern Israel yesterday, the highest number since July 12.) So it appears that Israel's efforts so far have not acheived their military purpose, which makes the "regrettable" civilian casulaties look like a simple waste of human life.

To an extent - true. I'm sure they have succeeded in damaging Hezbollah sites they know about, and have killed a number of Hezbollah fighters. But I agree that air strikes on their own are not going to get the job done. When dealing with another government, yes, perhaps. That government will sue for peace in the face of such overwhelming air superiority and damage to its infrastructure and people. But Hezbollah doesn't give a damn about casualties. There have even been many suggestions Hezbollah welcomes civilian casualties, that in fact, it colludes to increase the likelihood of civilian casualties to aid in its propaganda. What the Israelis need is an all-out ground assault. But they're conflicted. They have a new leadership, one untested and unused to war. They also have an army which, despite a lot of little cross-border incursions hasn't fought an actual war in some time, and they have a public which, like themselves, is leary of being bogged down in Lebanon.

The air war can, to some degree, get at the larger, longer ranged missiles, but if they want to keep the Katusha's from their border they're going to have to run about 30 km inland and then clean out the area. The problem is - what then? They don't want to stay there. That would lead to the same situation they had in the eighties, with constant guerrila war against their outposts and patrols. That means they either push Hezbollah out and hand the territory over to the Lebanese army or some peacekeeping force which promises to prevent attacks on their border, or they sanitize the area completely - ie, expell everyone there, burn down and destroy all the buildings, fence it off, plant land mines everywhere, and promise to shoot every living thing which crosses into that area. I think they are calling up people for a ground offensive, but how far it goes and what the ultimate tactics are are anyone's guess.

Link to post
Share on other sites
It was not deliberate targeting of the UN post, but rather of Tactical necessity meaning the hezbullah have strong postions around the UN OP, suggesting that the Hezbullah was in fact using it as a form of shield.
After reading the article again, it is more than obvious that the color "obvious allusion to Hezbollah tactics" are one-sided conclusions that are Maj.-Gen. MacKensie's view only and are not the only interpretation of the Isreali attacks.

Okay then. Just what OTHER interpretation can you put on the guy saying that Israel was firing into the area around the UN post, not to deliberately target it but out of "tactical necessity"?

Link to post
Share on other sites
Today Israel broke another promise (I thought yesterdays "error" was bad enough).

What promise did Israel make? I mean the actual promise, not what the media said the promise consisted of.

nobody is policing Israel - Israel is implicitly tied to the US in its economic interests. Hence other countries will not raise real objections to Israel's behaviour.

I seem to be coming across a whole lot of people, groups and nations raising real objections to Israel's behaviour. You aren't seeing that, huh?

Hezbollah has always been pretty popular with the public despite differences between sectors of the public. Its concern is with humanitarian injustices reaped by Israel

What kind of humanitarian injustices "reaped by Israel" is Hezbollah concerned with in Lebanon?

For example imprisoning hundreds of people who dare object to Israel's subjective interpretatons of events.

Name them. How many Lebanese are imprisoned by Israel and why?

perhaps we will do well to remember how this all blew up with 1) Hezbollah taking two israeli people hostage. Not hundreds as the Israeli's have done.

Actually, with Hezbollah firing hundreds of rockets into Israeli towns and cities, then attacking a border post, kidnapping two and murdering eight Israelis. But don't let the facts get in your way of telling a good story.

2) They intended to use these captured people (the last straw) as a measure to negotiate the release of many untried, unconvicted peoples . . .

Like...... ?

Link to post
Share on other sites
Specifically what? That is an old article, btw.

I've given you enough info to begin your own research, if you care about the truth.

Yes, it's an old article ... it's a long-standing grievance.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Argus;

in summary and response to your questions . . .as in the order of yor presentation.

the promise not to bomb the north for 48hrs.

These are not objections but reformative measures . . . shameful reformative measures.

Huanitarian injustices = a law unto themselves based upon irrational emotions and not fact = injustice and much physical harm - check web sites . . .we are speakng enormos figures here (cannot remember them myself at this moment).

Nonetheless, terrific figures mate . . . what a shame . . .after all these yrs lebanon managed to muster up the balls to kidnap 2 and only 2 Israeli people that have an influence in the many inhumane treatments of Israeli prisoners. . . . yeah great . . .like i said we are speaking of huge numbers here!

Ohhhhh and 8 killed . . . well yes ermmm you seem to have forgotten just how many have been murdered by Israel - how convenient . . . How many kids were slaughtered yesterday not to mention the other innocent civilians. And not to mention the murders that have occured since the 'kidnapping' . . .thats if you see it that way as opposed to stepping up the presure to release the hundreds of innocent people imprisoned by Israel . . based upon suspicion, religion and political allegiance of which is NOT illegal in their terms.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Specifically what? That is an old article, btw.

I've given you enough info to begin your own research, if you care about the truth.

No, sorry, it doesn't work that way. You don't get to cite a long article listing all sorts of differing topics related to Lebanon's relationship with Isreal, its internal religious political arguments and history, and say that's what contains this "humanitarian injustices reaped by Israel" that the terrorist group Hezbollah is trying to right - by murdering innocent people.

Besides, this implies you don't actually know what the hell it is that Hezbollah is trying to "right" because if you did you'd simply say so.

I'll give you some help on what Hezbollah and its leader are all about I'd give you the link but I'm sure this is enough info to do your own research, if you care about the truth:

On the the future of the State of Israel he expounds: "Everybody talks nowadays about accepting the reality and coexistence, or any other form of settlement with Israel." However, he views "realism in a different way". To him, "Israel is an illegal usurper entity, which is based on falsehood, massacres, and illusions, and there is no chance for its survival."[55]

Speaking at a graduation ceremony in Haret Hreik, Nasrallah announced on October 22, 2002: "if they all gather in Israel, it will save us the trouble of going after them worldwide."[56][57] The New York Times qualifies this as "genocidal thinking"[58], whereas the New York Sun likens it to the 1992 Hezbollah statement, which vowed, "It is an open war until the elimination of Israel and until the death of the last Jew on earth."[59] Michael Rubin qualifies his goal as genocide too, quoting Nasrallah ruling out "co-existence with" the Jews or "peace", as "they are a cancer which is liable to spread again at any moment."[60] The Age quotes him like so: "There is no solution to the conflict in this region except with the disappearance of Israel."[61]

Link to post
Share on other sites
Argus;

in summary and response to your questions . . .as in the order of yor presentation.

the promise not to bomb the north for 48hrs.

That's not exactly what they promised.

These are not objections but reformative measures . . . shameful reformative measures.

Whatever they are there seem to be a lot of people bitching and whining about them, which would seem to contradict you.

Huanitarian injustices = a law unto themselves based upon irrational emotions and not fact = injustice and much physical harm - check web sites . . .we are speakng enormos figures here (cannot remember them myself at this moment).

I don't have my tinfoil hat handy. Would you care to translate that into basic English. What "humanitarian injustices reaped by Israel" is Hezbollah trying to right?

Nonetheless, terrific figures mate . . . what a shame . . .after all these yrs lebanon managed to muster up the balls to kidnap 2 and only 2 Israeli people that have an influence in the many inhumane treatments of Israeli prisoners. . . . yeah great . . .like i said we are speaking of huge numbers here!

Like how many, mate? Like, who, mate? Like give me some names.

Ohhhhh and 8 killed . . . well yes ermmm you seem to have forgotten just how many have been murdered by Israel - how convenient .

You seem to have forgotten that Israel withdrew from Lebanon years ago, and that the only possible reason for them taking any further action there is continued attacks by Hezbollah.

.thats if you see it that way as opposed to stepping up the presure to release the hundreds of innocent people imprisoned by Israel . . based upon suspicion, religion and political allegiance of which is NOT illegal in their terms.

Give me a cite. Give me names. Give me something about all these hundreds of poor Lebanese being jammed into Israeli prisons for no reason whatsoever but the evil sadism of those nasty Jews. Because as far as I can tell Israel is only holding 3 - that's T H R E E Lebanese prisoners that Hezbollah has ever voiced concern about. One's a spy, one's a fighter, and one is a convicted terrorist named Samir Qantar who murdered several people, including children, and whom Hezbollah's leader has frequently demanded be released. Apparently this man is a hero to Hezbollah. Is he a hero to you too?

Link to post
Share on other sites

Specifically what? That is an old article, btw.

I've given you enough info to begin your own research, if you care about the truth.

No, sorry, it doesn't work that way. You don't get to cite a long article listing all sorts of differing topics related to Lebanon's relationship with Isreal, its internal religious political arguments and history, and say that's what contains this "humanitarian injustices reaped by Israel" that the terrorist group Hezbollah is trying to right - by murdering innocent people.

I'm sorry, but your reply seems very garbled. The article I refered you to included reference to some of the issues Hezbollah cites as it's beefs with Israel, and therefore answers your question. If you want a full survey of the question, you can do your own research.

Besides, this implies you don't actually know what the hell it is that Hezbollah is trying to "right" because if you did you'd simply say so.

You can imply whatever you like, but that does not make it so.

I'll give you some help on what Hezbollah ...

I doubt your 'help' will be either factual, or helpful. ... on perusal, my doubts have been verified.

I am well aware that Hezbollah is populated by religious fanatics, and many of them espouse anti-jewish prejudice. But these deficiencies of character don't change exogenous facts about genuine beefs they also have with Israel.

That is to say, just because Nasrallah is a fanatic who wants to drive Israel into the sea does not mean that Israel has done nothing to earn Hezbollah's enmity.

This conflict is a very complicated one and purporting to simplify it by attempting to completely ignore genuine grievances won't help solve it.

(BTW, not only did you not provide a link for your quotes, you didn't even provide any citation for them. Since you probably lack the imagination to make them up, was this an oversight, or simple cussedness?)

Link to post
Share on other sites
July 19, 2006

America's deadly messenger

WASHINGTON - Across from UN headquarters in New York, Senator Hillary Clinton (Democrat, New York) stood at a small podium adorned with the symbol of the Conference of Presidents of Major Jewish Organizations to give a speech in praise of Israel. Behind her and at her sides - a group of men in gray: Israel's Ambassador to the UN, Danny Gillerman, the chairman of the Conference of Presidents, Malcolm Hoenlein, the Israeli Consul General in New York, Arye Mekel. Mummified in their neckties in the sweltering heat of the east coast, serious of mien, nodding. "We will stand with Israel, because Israel is standing for American values as well as Israeli ones," Clinton said. Here you have it - the whole foreign relations Torah on one slightly perspiring foot. :::

:::: Therefore, he has sworn to keep on fighting in Iraq, but in Palestine and Lebanon, he has entrusted the keys to a loyal neighbor that shares common values with America - even if not necessarily the sweeping enthusiasm for the vision of democratization. In any case, it's not just Israel's security that the decision-makers in the administration have in mind in their decisions to back its actions, but also America's.

The Israeli action in Lebanon is not a nuisance, but rather an opportunity. A democratic Lebanon - truly democratic, without a Hezbollah hump - is litmus paper for the realization of Bush's vision. Deterring Syria and returning it to its natural, miserable dimensions is also a continuing American aspiration, given the provocations and obstacles that Syrian President Bashar Assad is putting in the administration's way on every front, in his assessment that America's arm is too short to harm him at this time. So much so, that it is even possible to find people in Washington who are slightly disappointed by Israel's decision not to attack Syria at the same time.

The United States, explained former undersecretary of state in the Clinton administration and former ambassador to Israel, Martin Indyk, to Haaretz yesterday, has no leverage on Hezbollah except "through Israel's use of force." Therefore, the way has been found for Israel to recompense the administration for its supportive attitude during the six years of the Bush administration and to prove what in certain circles has almost been forgotten: the regional power's importance for the great power . What president John F. Kennedy did reluctantly when he threatened an Israeli whip to restrain the raging Egyptian-Syrian pan-Arabism in the 1960s, Bush is now doing without pangs of conscience in a Middle East that is hardly less stormy and dangerous.

Is it a problem - to be a tool like this - an Israeli official was asked yesterday. Does Israel really want to be the deadly messenger of the American interest? First of all, he replied, there also is an Israeli interest here - so that a real dilemma doesn't exist; and second, it is better that Israel be made use of in this way, which ensures that it isn't only Prime Minister Ehud Olmert's enchanting smile that is motivating the American support for Israel that it will also need in the future.

and this, I havent seen this posted before, a story by Pat Buchanan who doesnt appear to support Bush on this

Israel's response was to abduct half of the Palestinian cabinet and parliament and blow up a $50 million U.S.-insured power plant. That cut off electricity for half a million Palestinians. Their food spoiled, their water could not be purified, and their families sweltered in the summer heat of the Gaza desert. One family of seven was wiped out on a beach by what the IDF assures us was an errant artillery shell.
Link to post
Share on other sites

I've given you enough info to begin your own research, if you care about the truth.

No, sorry, it doesn't work that way. You don't get to cite a long article listing all sorts of differing topics related to Lebanon's relationship with Isreal, its internal religious political arguments and history, and say that's what contains this "humanitarian injustices reaped by Israel" that the terrorist group Hezbollah is trying to right - by murdering innocent people.

I'm sorry, but your reply seems very garbled. The article I refered you to included reference to some of the issues Hezbollah cites as it's beefs with Israel, and therefore answers your question. If you want a full survey of the question, you can do your own research.

The article contained an awful lot of things, but nothing in it was a recitation of Hezbollah's complaints, or the "humanitarian injustices reaped by Israel." I want to know what they are. You seem certain they exist, but are oddly reluctant to tell me what they are. I find this rather bizarre, frankly. Are you afraid to openly associate yourself with these claims?

I'll give you some help on what Hezbollah ...

I doubt your 'help' will be either factual, or helpful. ... on perusal, my doubts have been verified.

I am well aware that Hezbollah is populated by religious fanatics, and many of them espouse anti-jewish prejudice.

Anti-Jewish prejudice? "It is an open war until the elimination of Israel and until the death of the last Jew on earth". Is that what you're calling "prejudice"?

But these deficiencies of character don't change exogenous facts about genuine beefs they also have with Israel.

The Nazis had some genuine beefs about the way Germany was treated by the western powers after world war one. That doesn't mean the world was prepared to be sympathetic to them after they started slaughtering people.

That is to say, just because Nasrallah is a fanatic who wants to drive Israel into the sea does not mean that Israel has done nothing to earn Hezbollah's enmity.

It means he's a fruitcake, so his judgement is more than a little off.

This conflict is a very complicated one and purporting to simplify it by attempting to completely ignore genuine grievances won't help solve it.

What genuine grievances?

(BTW, not only did you not provide a link for your quotes, you didn't even provide any citation for them. Since you probably lack the imagination to make them up, was this an oversight, or simple cussedness?)
I wanted you to do some research, of course.
Link to post
Share on other sites
July 19, 2006

America's deadly messenger

WASHINGTON - Across from UN headquarters in New York, Senator Hillary Clinton (Democrat, New York) stood at a small podium adorned with the symbol of the Conference of Presidents of Major Jewish Organizations to give a speech in praise of Israel. Behind her and at her sides - a group of men in gray: Israel's Ambassador to the UN, Danny Gillerman, the chairman of the Conference of Presidents, Malcolm Hoenlein, the Israeli Consul General in New York, Arye Mekel. Mummified in their neckties in the sweltering heat of the east coast, serious of mien, nodding. "We will stand with Israel, because Israel is standing for American values as well as Israeli ones," Clinton said. Here you have it - the whole foreign relations Torah on one slightly perspiring foot. :::

:::: Therefore, he has sworn to keep on fighting in Iraq, but in Palestine and Lebanon, he has entrusted the keys to a loyal neighbor that shares common values with America - even if not necessarily the sweeping enthusiasm for the vision of democratization. In any case, it's not just Israel's security that the decision-makers in the administration have in mind in their decisions to back its actions, but also America's.

The Israeli action in Lebanon is not a nuisance, but rather an opportunity. A democratic Lebanon - truly democratic, without a Hezbollah hump - is litmus paper for the realization of Bush's vision. Deterring Syria and returning it to its natural, miserable dimensions is also a continuing American aspiration, given the provocations and obstacles that Syrian President Bashar Assad is putting in the administration's way on every front, in his assessment that America's arm is too short to harm him at this time. So much so, that it is even possible to find people in Washington who are slightly disappointed by Israel's decision not to attack Syria at the same time.

The United States, explained former undersecretary of state in the Clinton administration and former ambassador to Israel, Martin Indyk, to Haaretz yesterday, has no leverage on Hezbollah except "through Israel's use of force." Therefore, the way has been found for Israel to recompense the administration for its supportive attitude during the six years of the Bush administration and to prove what in certain circles has almost been forgotten: the regional power's importance for the great power . What president John F. Kennedy did reluctantly when he threatened an Israeli whip to restrain the raging Egyptian-Syrian pan-Arabism in the 1960s, Bush is now doing without pangs of conscience in a Middle East that is hardly less stormy and dangerous.

Is it a problem - to be a tool like this - an Israeli official was asked yesterday. Does Israel really want to be the deadly messenger of the American interest? First of all, he replied, there also is an Israeli interest here - so that a real dilemma doesn't exist; and second, it is better that Israel be made use of in this way, which ensures that it isn't only Prime Minister Ehud Olmert's enchanting smile that is motivating the American support for Israel that it will also need in the future.

First, it is against the forum rules to post copyrighted material from others. It's also against the rules to post unattributed writing. Second, it sounds like delusional nonsense. I mean, can't the Israel haters get their stories straight? I thought it was Israel which was the evil power controlling the United States and forcing it to do Israel's will. Now suddenly it's the evil United States forcing Israel to do its will. Which is it, guys? Is the Jewish lobby in total control of the US or is Israel a mere pawn of American imperialism? Want to form a huddle or something and get back to us on that?

Link to post
Share on other sites

Let's take a look at what these rockets are all about.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Katyusha

These things are mobile for sure. But they seem too old to move out of range before the IDF comes in and pounds the sites. Old trucks. I am sure they can be modified to launch from newer faster trucks. Or even have a couple small hidden static launchers. These trucks/vehichles should easily be identifieable by any modern radar and sat imagry (you can bet there are a few statelites taking pics of the area to provide intel for Israel. But I am confused, this is old military kit that does not seem reliable or accurate in any way. Why are they even being used? Since these are truck based, I doubt you could strap a couple to a camel and fire off a few quick rounds that way.

http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/wor...ia/katyusha.htm

In October 2005 the Israeli Defense Force deployed a sophisticated new radar system near the Gaza Strip, designed to give early warning to Israeli residents of incoming Katyusha missiles, Kassam rockets and possibly mortar rounds. Because Israeli forces are able to locate the source of fire and return fire, the terrorist organizations have developed special methods of action to avoid injury. They fire towards a target from a number of positions, changing positions frequently and constantly using new positions.

Why has Israel not even put a dent in the amount of rockets being fired? Given that 90% of the roads and supply lines from Syria or Iran would be cut off. Alot of rockets must be flowing into Lebanon from outside. And those supply lines would be noticed since they cannot take traditional paths. Unusual high traffic where there was none before.

http://www.defensetech.org/archives/002595.html Does not look like Israel can't defend against these very well. Hence the reason they are so popular.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Dear GostHacked,

MTHEL was operational and effective as early as 2002, shooting down Katyushas both singly and in salvos. However, from what Army Guy has posted, it seems funding was cut on the US side (it was jointly developed with Israel and the IDF).

Mind you, as Argus points out, this little battle may be just the tip of the iceberg. Not only has Hizbollah declared it wants to 'eliminate Israel', the Syrian leader has openly taken sides with Lebanon and the Palestinians, but so far hasn't had the cojones to stand up and join the fight. I agree that Israel has taken the wrong approach, and will only create more 'terrorists'. It will also create them where they weren't before, so it is really a 'losing strategy'.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Dear GostHacked,

MTHEL was operational and effective as early as 2002, shooting down Katyushas both singly and in salvos. However, from what Army Guy has posted, it seems funding was cut on the US side (it was jointly developed with Israel and the IDF).

Mind you, as Argus points out, this little battle may be just the tip of the iceberg. Not only has Hizbollah declared it wants to 'eliminate Israel', the Syrian leader has openly taken sides with Lebanon and the Palestinians, but so far hasn't had the cojones to stand up and join the fight. I agree that Israel has taken the wrong approach, and will only create more 'terrorists'. It will also create them where they weren't before, so it is really a 'losing strategy'.

I know the Israeli scientists are smart and can get things done. They have constantly improved on any weapon system they have purchased from the US and abroad. The Patriot Missles were given/sold to Israel and they have managed to make it work, and work well.

Syria has told it's troops to get ready as well now. That was reported today that Syria is telling troops to get ready.

Next area of operation will be the Golan Heights and Israel will instigate it. (a wild guess)

Link to post
Share on other sites
The article contained an awful lot of things, but nothing in it was a recitation of Hezbollah's complaints, or the "humanitarian injustices reaped by Israel." I want to know what they are. You seem certain they exist, but are oddly reluctant to tell me what they are. I find this rather bizarre, frankly.

I don't know what species of rank idiocy could prevent you from perceiving the relevant content in the article I refered you to, but out of generosity, I will point out the following passages:

Lebanon One Year After the Israeli Withdrawal

Israeli forces shot two Lebanese men who were throwing rocks at Israeli soldiers across the border...

occupation that had lasted, in effect, for more than 24 years ... left southern Lebanon ... more impoverished and more devastated...

...fighting for Israeli evacuation of the disputed Shebaa Farms area ...

... the return of Hizballah leaders imprisoned in Israel ...

... Israel has not really left. Not only has Israel continued to violate Lebanese airspace and bomb targets deep into the heartland ...

Argus:

Are you afraid to openly associate yourself with these claims?

I guess you think people should be 'afraid' to express certain things ... sort of like Stalin thought.

But anyway, I have no intention of "associating" myself with these claims ... I merely draw your attention to them since you have pleaded repeatedly to be so informed. Were your pleas in fact lies?

Anti-Jewish prejudice? "It is an open war until the elimination of Israel and until the death of the last Jew on earth". Is that what you're calling "prejudice"?

War to eliminate Israel is not necessarily indicative of anti-Jewishness. Palestinians who perceive their lands and self-determination as having been shorn from them could quite obviously fight against that irrespective of the religion of the people who aggrieved them.

However, the stated desire (of whoever it is you quoted) to eliminate Jews of course is indicative of an anti-jewish prejudice.

(P.S. I'm sorry, but I don't grasp why you appear to object to the word 'prejudice'.)

The Nazis had some genuine beefs about the way Germany was treated by the western powers after world war one. That doesn't mean the world was prepared to be sympathetic to them after they started slaughtering people.

Yes ... so?

This conflict is a very complicated one and purporting to simplify it by attempting to completely ignore genuine grievances won't help solve it.

What genuine grievances?

No, Argus, I will not indulge you in another tail-chasing excursion. You have your answers available to you for this. Read.

(BTW, not only did you not provide a link for your quotes, you didn't even provide any citation for them. Since you probably lack the imagination to make them up, was this an oversight, or simple cussedness?)
I wanted you to do some research, of course.

Cussedness then.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Reported to moderator

I find it interesting you chose to ban me. I notice that you do not ban those who preoffer a similar viewpoint to yours, even if their comments border on racism.

In order to show you how asinine your own policy is, I'll go through your archives and start pulling all the instances of Argus being insulting. Methinks he won't be banned, but what do I know?

Anyways, Greg & Co. - I have no futher interest in these boards. You are clearly not interested in any real discussion - and you tolerate so-called 'insults' by people who have views similar to your own.

In short, censorship does'nt work, you fucking ninnies. Anyone who thinks Argus is genuinely 'offended' by being called a shoddy excuse for a human being - please raise your hand! Argus reported me to try and remove me from the boards, in which he was 'successful' - if only through the complicity of the admins. To those with such credibility, I salute you.

For those who have been trying to reason with Argus and his crew of ideologues, don't bother. They have no interest in the truth - only being 'right'. The intellectual dishonesty astounds me.

Adieu.

Link to post
Share on other sites
MTHEL was operational and effective as early as 2002, shooting down Katyushas both singly and in salvos. However, from what Army Guy has posted, it seems funding was cut on the US side (it was jointly developed with Israel and the IDF).

Wha...? MTHEL had never been used in operations.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Announcements




  • Tell a friend

    Love Political Discussion Forums? Tell a friend!
×
×
  • Create New...