BS: Is Hezbollah Winning?

Subject: RE: BS: Is Hezbollah Winning?
From: GUEST,ifor
Date: 16 Aug 06 - 03:39 AM

For more information on American war crimes in Vietnam there is a brilliant documentary called WINTER SOLDIER which is an account of first hand testimonies by US soldiers of atrocities committed by their units in Vietnam.
ifor

Subject: RE: BS: Is Hezbollah Winning?
From: GUEST,hugo
Date: 16 Aug 06 - 03:28 AM

Reply to Slag
Actually the reason the left across the world was opposed to the American attack on Vietnam was because it led to the killing of some one million Vietnamese people,many of them were civilians.Many others were maimed or suffered in other ways.

My Lai was only one of dozens of massacres of civilians.The Americans turned much of Vietnam into free fire zones killing anything that moved -men ,women,children and even animals.

Agent Orange and other toxic weapons were sprayed onto the land in huge quantitiescausing deaths and deformities up to the present dayand leaving a toxic land for generations to come.The stuff was so dangerous that even the US aircrews and their children have been genetically damaged by those poison weapons.

Then there was the Phoenix Programme in which the CIA and its allies tortured and murdered thousands of its opponents and others who happened to be in the wrong place at the wrong time. Abu Ghraib was not some modern phenomenon .

Vietnam was a racist war in which the Vietnamese were dehumanised as gooks and charlie and the whole country brutalised.
These are the reasons why the millions across the world were opposed to the slaughter in Vietnam.It was the reason why millions in America campaigned to oppose the war and bring the troops home.

Imperialism was a vicious killer in 'nam then and is vicious killer in the Middle East now.

Always remember that the bosses never send their own children to fight and die.
hugo

Subject: RE: BS: Is Hezbollah Winning?
From: Slag
Date: 16 Aug 06 - 03:26 AM

Oh, and by the way, make no bones about it. Israel acted with great restraint. Anyone with a little knowledge knows that Israel has the ability to take out Lebanon and Syria in very short order were it so motivated. Hezbolla's assertion of a great victory over Israel and the "destruction of Israel" are absurd. Their mighty missles weren't as effective as a few motivated suicide bombers. They had virtually no guidance and 90% landed in open spaces. Pathetic. Truth be known, this was an intelligence gathering event for Iran and Israel and Hezbolla was the catspaw.

Subject: RE: BS: Is Hezbollah Winning?
From: Slag
Date: 16 Aug 06 - 02:58 AM

Man, there is so much chaff and misinformation, half truths, logical errors out there since my last post, I'd be typing all night. Can't do that. NPR! You've got to be joking! Nitwit Propaganda Radio! US Marines as terrorists? Define your terms!

The Left, during Viet Nam and the Cold War championed the communist side of things as did the strident media. Now that the question is Holy War, the Left champions the radical Muslims as does the strident mainstream media. Seems the common denominator here is hatred of the Western World, Democracy, Freedom or More Than One Opinion?   What? What? Some of you are so full of hate or so full of the love of destruction that you can't see straight!

LittleHawk, I'll grant you that though Israel is small in the size of it's territory and relatively small in population. They make up for it in strength, in order to survive.

The Jews, the Israelis HAVE a legitimate country, as legitimate as any other country. They were recognized by the UN. The US was recognized by France. Every country on the face of the Earth was born of conflict and borders have been drawn as a way of saying "We were born to this Planet and we have as much right to be here as anyone else. And let's not kid ourselves, those borders were drawn in blood and strife, greed and conquest, fear and flight. EVERYBODY BORN TO THIS WORLD HAS A RIGHT TO BE HERE. It doesn't get any more basic than that.

We can fight wars, spill blood, draw and re-draw borders and go on killing each other the way we have for the last 10,000 years or more. Or! We could grow up. We COULD learn other ways to settle our diputes and grievences. I submit that THAT has always been the hope of the fair-minded and peace-loving people. Yeah, I'm naive after all these years. You say it isn't going to happen. So it won't. Is Hezbolla winning? No. Nobody wins. Nobody forgives. No one reaches out. And the few who do usually get dead real quick. So call me naive or a fool. I put my faith in the Prince of Peace. Not the one whom people use to prop up their claims to "righteous cause" but the one who IS righteous. You may remember hearing about Him. He had such radical ideas as "love your enemies. Do good to those who despitefully use you, turn the other cheek, go the extra mile, give them your cloak also." His followers are truly NOT citizens of this world. IF they were they too would be murders and liars, greedy, devouring one another. But, well, that's probably a topic for a different thread. What does Hezbolla want? The destruction of Israel and the Great Satan, the United States of America. Ah, be generous you can throw Great Brittan in there too. That's you and me. All they want is us dead. So glad so many of you are rooting for them. And before you throw up all the hideous atrocities that have been done in the name of Christ see my prior post about Allah. I would not look to violent men as model exegetes of Holy Scripture.

Subject: RE: BS: Is Hezbollah Winning?
From: Peace
Date: 16 Aug 06 - 01:55 AM

"I call on you to withdraw that statement."

BTW, Hugo: YOU paisan don't call on me for a damned thing. Unlike you, when I have made a mistake I will retract or apologize. You OTOH, have never done either, despite being wrong most of the time. Get lost.

Subject: RE: BS: Is Hezbollah Winning?
From: Peace
Date: 16 Aug 06 - 01:42 AM

Iran and Syria are doing quite well out of this.

Subject: RE: BS: Is Hezbollah Winning?
From: GUEST,ifor
Date: 16 Aug 06 - 01:32 AM

The carnage could have been avoided with an early prisoner exchange.

However,only hours after the 2 Israeli soldiers were captured on the border by Hezbollah fighters the Israeli chief of Staff Dan Halutz was in his bank arranging the selling of his investment portfolio of stocks and shares.

Now ther is a priority for you.

This story has not gone down well in Israel ,especially with those sent into the killing zone.The man is on his way out .
ifor

Subject: RE: BS: Is Hezbollah Winning?
From: The Fooles Troupe
Date: 15 Aug 06 - 11:33 PM

That's about the current response of those returning to their shattered homes....

Subject: RE: BS: Is Hezbollah Winning?
From: Little Hawk
Date: 15 Aug 06 - 11:31 PM

Why not indeed, Q? They have rah-rah songs here about the US Marines, don't they? The US Marines have terrorized far more people in the last hundred years than Hezbollah has ever managed to. Ask the many people whose lands they have invaded, and they'll tell you.

Anyone who goes out in a battlefield and puts his life on the line is "brave, courageous, and bold". That includes both Hezbollah and the US Marines. Who supports them depends on who is affected by them, and how.

Subject: RE: BS: Is Hezbollah Winning?
From: Q (Frank Staplin)
Date: 15 Aug 06 - 11:13 PM

I was watching an old western series the other night (I recorded some of them and am listening to them years later) and thought one of the introductory songs perhaps deserves conversion into a lead-in for the future Islamic program, Hezbollah to be widely shown in all Muslim countries:

Hezbollah! Hezbollah!
Brave, courageous and bold.
Long live their fame
And long live their glory
And long may their story be told!

Subject: RE: BS: Is Hezbollah Winning?
From: The Fooles Troupe
Date: 15 Aug 06 - 10:55 PM

The only people that admire bullying militarist thugs are weak cowards who, Walter Mitty like, envy the chauvinist ball clanking of others.

Subject: RE: BS: Is Hezbollah Winning?
From: robomatic
Date: 15 Aug 06 - 10:55 PM

It is more and more apparent that this sad affair, Hezbollah (aided and abetted by Lebanese complicity and impotence, Syrian and Irani supplies versus Israel and American political and military support, is a harbinger of much larger issues. We are already begun on WWIII, whatever it ultimately gets called. The overall combatants are those who exist in, represent, and believe in, the Open Society, against those who believe in absolute authority, be it religist or racist. The determination of how far this war will go and who will win will ultimately be the Muslims as an entity.
Thrown into the mix is the movement for one world, this day economic and tomorrow political.
The big plus for Bush and Blair is that whatever words they use they basically recognize the importance of staking a claim right now and not letting the situation get any worse. Unfortunately, the Americans, as is customary, are politically quite dense at dealing with the outside world. But the rest of the world is much more dense in thinking that if they ignore the problem it will go away. It will not go away.

Subject: RE: BS: Is Hezbollah Winning?
From: Old Guy
Date: 15 Aug 06 - 10:27 PM

The only people that admire a terrorist organization are terrorists.
May a Kaytusha fly up your ass. Or are you launching them?

Subject: RE: BS: Is Hezbollah Winning?
From: dianavan
Date: 15 Aug 06 - 08:44 PM

btw - I cited this article from Forbes as the source indicating that the Israeli soldiers were captured in Lebanon.

Beardedbruce claims he contacted Forbes and that the statement has been retracted.

Sure it has. Thats why its still on the net.

There are plenty of sources which claim the soldiers were captured in Southern Lebanon, not Israel. Thats why we should all realize that their capture was just an excuse to launch an offensive that has been planned long before their capture. Israel was just using the soldiers as an excuse to invade.

Subject: RE: BS: Is Hezbollah Winning?
From: Little Hawk
Date: 15 Aug 06 - 08:17 PM

I have often suggested, bobad, that Muslim extremists are like the Nazis too. Like the Nazis, they have an exaggerated sense of persecution and martrydom. Like the Nazis, they encourage hatred and fear to motivate their people to fight. Like the Nazis, they believe they are on a holy mission. I believe both the Isrealis AND their most fervent opponents are a lot like the Nazis in their basic psychology.

You see, the Nazis managed to batter many of the world's Jews into becoming extremists and professional martryrs, and now the Israelis and Americans have managed to batter many of the world's Muslims into becoming extremists and professional martyrs.

So if you want to, you could blame it all on Hitler... ;-)

But then you'd be forgetting that Clemenceau and Loyd George arranged to batter the Germans after WWI into becoming extremists and professional martyrs...and before that the Germans battered the French in the Franco-Prussian war...and before that....

And so it goes...around and around and around the mulberry bush, and everyone making the same error over and over again by reacting to someone's inhumanity to them...by doing it to someome else. (the same thing often happens with battered children)

These aggressive political factions all act like Nazis, to one extent or another. None of them have yet quite managed to equal the harm the Nazis did, fortunately, but it's not for lack of trying.

Subject: RE: BS: Is Hezbollah Winning?
From: dianavan
Date: 15 Aug 06 - 08:13 PM

Guest, Nick - I've already been over this ground with beardedbruce.

Yes, the first reports indicated that the Israeli soldiers were captured in Lebanon. That was quickly changed to Israeli soldiers captured on the border. It now seems the Israeli soldiers were actually in Israel.

Thats propaganda for you.

Subject: RE: BS: Is Hezbollah Winning?
From: bobad
Date: 15 Aug 06 - 07:37 PM

Since you like making analogies with the Israelis and Nazis, Little Hawk, I will invoke those same Nazis in rebuttal to your assertion that the hate being spewed by the muslim fanatics against the Israelis is mere rhetoric from a few, and not to be taken seriously. It's too bad that the victims of the Nazis, the millions of Jews, gays, gypsies, Slavs and others could not be around to enlighten us as to the insignificance of Nazi rhetoric in regards to master race, Aryian supremacy, Jewish nefariousness and all the other crap spewing from the mouths of Hitler and Goebbels. It's too bad for them, I guess, that it took the rest of the world as long as it did to take their rhetoric seriously.

Subject: RE: BS: Is Hezbollah Winning?
From: Ebbie
Date: 15 Aug 06 - 07:06 PM

Last night's Charlie Rose had Richard Holbrooke and Bill Kristol on. Most interesting. Holbrooke was impressive, as was Rose himself. I've never seen him that combative before.

Holbrooke, by the way, says that the hostilities are only temporarily stopped, that instead of a ceasefire, they have a cessation only.

As for "the two IDF soldiers who were kidnapped were actually across the border in Lebanon at the time of their capture" both Kristol and Holbrooke said that the Hezbollah no longer make that claim; instead they are saying that the soldiers were "in the vicinity" of the border.

Subject: RE: BS: Is Hezbollah Winning?
From: Little Hawk
Date: 15 Aug 06 - 06:52 PM

It's not easy to destroy entire nations or large organizations, despite the hot rhetoric employed by various fanatical spokesmen. Israel has just discovered it's not as easy to destroy Hezbollah as they had hoped. Hezbollah and Hamas may have zealots who talk about destroying Israel, but to do so is clearly beyond their capability.

We are not living in Biblical times anymore when an isolated tribe can come into the Holy Land or some other place and totally wipe out every man, woman and child in another isolated tribe. We are living in a much more complex world, with a much more complex legal system, with world media watchdogs, with many checks and balances to prevent that from happening in most places. Too many nations are involved to allow it to happen.

Accordingly, whatever rhetoric has been spewed by a few fanatics in 1988 or whenever is basically a bunch of hot air. But one thing is true: the very worst piece of rhetoric will be the one that gets repeated, over and over again, by people who want more fighting.

So, expect to hear it repeated. It won't achieve anything useful. It will just be one more attempt to prove that "the other guy" is basically evil, inhuman, and illegitimate...therefore we don't have to deal with him as an equal human, but just stamp him out like an insect. That is the attitude that fuels these endless conflicts.

No one is going to find a result that meets all their expectations. Not the Israelis, not the USA, not Hamas, not Hezbollah, and not Iran or Syria. They are all going to have to live in an imperfect world together and work it out somehow.

Subject: RE: BS: Is Hezbollah Winning?
From: GUEST,Nick
Date: 15 Aug 06 - 06:31 PM

Beardedbruce: "the two IDF soldiers who were kidnapped were actually across the border in Lebanon at the time of their capture"

"Any reference besides Hezbollah for this claim?"

Yes, it was in an Indian (as in the Indian subcontinent, that big bit of land sticking out into the Indian Ocean) newspaper called Frontline. Unfortunately I don't have an IP address /webpage (I HAD, but I mislaid the damn thing!) for it, but if you search-engine it, you should be able to find it before long (sorry about the inconvenience, but it's too late in the evening for me to do it right now, gotta get to bed soon). By the way, any reference besides the Israelis for claims that the two soldiers were in Israel?

(Sorry, forgot to attach my name to my previous post)

Subject: RE: BS: Is Hezbollah Winning?
From: snarky
Date: 15 Aug 06 - 06:30 PM

I think Lepus should go fight for Hezbollah OVER IN LEBANON. Put his money where his mouth is. I'll start listening to him when he does something brave for his country. NOT

Subject: RE: BS: Is Hezbollah Winning?
From: Peace
Date: 15 Aug 06 - 06:02 PM

I have this bridge . . . .

Subject: RE: BS: Is Hezbollah Winning?
From: bobad
Date: 15 Aug 06 - 05:49 PM

According to some here Israel should be financing their education, health care and social services as this would make them change their hateful ways and bring love and peace to the middle east.

Subject: RE: BS: Is Hezbollah Winning?
From: Peace
Date: 15 Aug 06 - 05:46 PM

"GUEST,hugo: Will you be my bride? :}"

Lepus, do I get an invite to the wedding? I'll wear a yarmulke. Promise.

Subject: RE: BS: Is Hezbollah Winning?
From: Peace
Date: 15 Aug 06 - 05:43 PM

And Hezbollah:


"Our primary assumption in our fight against Israel states that the Zionist entity is aggressive from its inception, and built on lands wrested from their owners, at the expense of the rights of the Muslim people. Therefore our struggle will end only when this entity is obliterated. We recognize no treaty with it, no cease fire, and no peace agreements, whether separate or consolidated."

That is from "The Jerusalem Quarterly, number Forty-Eight, Fall 1988".


Anyone wonder why Israel should have no interest other than the destruction of these organizations?

Subject: RE: BS: Is Hezbollah Winning?
From: Peace
Date: 15 Aug 06 - 05:39 PM

And then there's the other guys

What does Hamas believe and what are its goals?

Hamas combines Palestinian nationalism with Islamic fundamentalism. Its founding charter commits the group to the destruction of Israel, the replacement of the PA with an Islamist state on the West Bank and Gaza, and to raising "the banner of Allah over every inch of Palestine." Its leaders have called suicide attacks the "F-16" of the Palestinian people. Hamas believes "peace talks will do no good," Rantisi said in April 2004. "We do not believe we can live with the enemy."

Subject: RE: BS: Is Hezbollah Winning?
From: beardedbruce
Date: 15 Aug 06 - 05:33 PM

"the two IDF soldiers who were kidnapped were actually across the border in Lebanon at the time of their capture"

Any reference besides Hezbollah for this claim?

Subject: RE: BS: Is Hezbollah Winning?
From: Little Hawk
Date: 15 Aug 06 - 05:05 PM

It is "repugnant" only to one is emotionally wedded to the idea that Israel is always "good" and anyone who is against Israeli policy is always "bad". Those are entirely subjective notions.

Every partisan fighter and supporter of such believes his side is "good". The fact is, there are good people on both sides in every conflict, and there are well-intentioned people who fail to recognize the wrongdoings of their own side in any conflict...and such has been the case since time immemorial.

The Romans would have considered it "repugnant" to be compared to the Carthaginians, and vice versa. So what?


Israelis will simply not be able to see their own actions in the same light as those of others until they put aside their holier-than-thou ultimate victims of all time illusions of collective martyrdom, and wake up to the reality that they are no better than any other people in this world. The excuse of one's own past suffering cannot be used forever and ever to inflict suffering on a great many other people. That is what the Nazis did. You see what happened to them in the end. They had a holier-than-thou attitude as well, and that is one reason why I find them a very apt comparison. They were also looking for land to occupy and settle on with their own people, while displacing others. They also relied on an elite war machine, superior to all others in most respects (until about 1944), and sudden crushing attacks using a combination of air power and armour. They also considered themselves to be morally and culturally far superior to those they fought. If you can't see the similarities, it is simply because it would force you to confront that which you cannot bear to.



Guest - You are entirely correct in what you said about North Vietnam assisting the Viet Cong, with further technical and arms assistance from Russia (and China), and so on. I could have mentioned it if I'd gone on at more length, but I didn't bother to. I consider Vietnam to always have been, in reality, one country, and I consider the Vietnamese wars to have been wars against foreign occupation...first by the French, then by the Japanese, again by the French, and finally by the USA and its surrogates. The Vietnamese won. The foreign occupiers lost. But it took a very long time to achieve that.

Subject: RE: BS: Is Hezbollah Winning?
From: bobad
Date: 15 Aug 06 - 04:58 PM

Guest: If you believe that what the Israelis were doing in Lebanon is no different than what the Nazis were doing in Poland, your head is so far up your arse that anything I say will provide you with no illumination whatsoever.

Subject: RE: BS: Is Hezbollah Winning?
From: Peace
Date: 15 Aug 06 - 04:46 PM

HUGO:

I do withdraw it. My apologies to Muslims in Rwanda.

However, I will not issue apologies to Muslims in the Sudan. Howzat?

Subject: RE: BS: Is Hezbollah Winning?
From: GUEST
Date: 15 Aug 06 - 04:40 PM

Bobad: "International law considers the use of human shields to protect targets a war crime. The Fourth Geneva Convention forbids the use of any civilian as a shield"

Many of the civilians living in the areas where Hizbullah operate are in fact their relatives, family and friends. When a Hizbullah fighter is able to get off duty, if he gets into civvies (civilian clothes) he will go back and mingle with friends and family. This fact is very conveniently ignored by the White House and other neo-con commentators. The so-called human shields are the friends and family of Hizbullah, and the area where Hizbullah is opertaing is home to all of them. What the hell makes anyone think Hizbullah value their relations any less than we do? Maybe they should all line up in an open field well away from anything of value so they can be mown down. Maybe their critics think it would be better yet if they marched all the way down to Jerusalem and fought the IDF there, well away from Lebanese civilians??

Durung the war of Independence in Ireland in the 1920s the IRA 'operated out of civilian areas' - well, why wouldn't they? The so-called civilian areas were actually their homes, not some kind of convenient DMZ zone! They were a guerilla army and their country was occupied by a foreign army that was all around them. They British made all the same comments at the time about hiding behind civilians and ambushing from behind walls instead of coming out in the open to be shot down like fools. One IRA leader had to point out the obvious by asking a British general - 'you accuse uf of hiding behind walls etc., Well," he continued "what do you call hiding inside THAT?" pointing at British armoured car.

As for Hizbullah starting the war, the two IDF soldiers who were kidnapped were actually across the border in Lebanon at the time of their capture (and what the hell were they doing there?). The Israelis changed the story after initial versions came out to make out that Hizbullah actually crossed their border into Israel. Someone futher back along this thread explained why Israel had to invade, because Lebanon had two years to kick Hizbullah out, and hadn't succeeded. Actually, Israel never fully withdrew from Lebanon - it still occupies the small, but strategic area of the Shaaba farms in southern Lebanon. Now if the Lebanese were unable to oust the Israelis from Shaaba Frams, what gives the Israelis the right to go round pompously demanding Hizbullah be evicted from Lebanon? As I said earlier, and I repeat again - the two unfortuante Israeli soldiers WERE probably killed in the massive aerial and ground bombardment that was supposed to rescue them. Logic: If someone kidnapped my men, and I was serious about getting them back ALIVE, the last thing i would do would be to blanket bomb the whole area where they might be held. To do so would be to simply risk killing them myself, saving Hizbullah the job. Commonsense and logic make it an obvious conclusion, and indeed the two soldiers families have said as much. It was never about the two soldiers to begin with.

"Little Hawk, you(r) comparison of this situation to that of the Nazis in Poland is repugnant"

Why is it repugnant?

Subject: RE: BS: Is Hezbollah Winning?
From: bobad
Date: 15 Aug 06 - 03:08 PM

"Nasrallah taunts Israel and claims victory"           

"Ahmadinejad gives 'victory speech' before masses"

"Hamas Sees Hizballah 'Victory' As Cause for New Intifada"

All you Hezbollah supporters are certainly in lockstep with some pleasant company.

Little Hawk, you comparison of this situation to that of the Nazis in Poland is repugnant.

Subject: RE: BS: Is Hezbollah Winning?
From: GUEST
Date: 15 Aug 06 - 02:59 PM

The Tet Offensive was planned by (PAVRN) the People's Army of Vietnam and carried out in coordianted maneuvres by both the Viet Cong and the PAVRN. It's success (psychological) cannot be singled out as a succes just by the Vietcong. Without North Vietnman's involvemnt the Tet Offensive and the war would have had different results.

The war just did not invlove the the (the People's Liberation Army) Vietcong but also (substantially) by divisional sized forces of the Northern Republic of Vietnamn's army. The PAVRN was greatly assisted with supplies, guidance from the USSR.

Subject: RE: BS: Is Hezbollah Winning?
From: Little Hawk
Date: 15 Aug 06 - 02:51 PM

I very much doubt that Hezbollah had any expectation whatsoever of wiping Israel off the map in this latest fight. ;-) The Israelis, on the other hand, did have an expectation that they were going to wipe Hezbollah off the map, and that expectation has not been met. That is why I say Hezbollah has won the psychological victory here.

You have to separate populist rhetoric from actual military planning. If Ahmadinejad or some other spokesman quotes the Ayatollah Komeini making a statement many years ago that it would be good to "wipe Israel off the map", it's populist rhetoric, geared for the ears of a local audience. As such, it has bloodly little or nothing to do with military realities and military planning by someone like Hezbollah.

Bush uses such rhetoric too. He talks about the desirability of achieving "regime change" in other countries. He talks about "taking out" this government or that one. Such talk is never appreciated much by the people whom it is aggressively aimed at, but it's lapped with enthusiasm up by the more bloody-minded members of the loyal home audience, isn't it?

Were the Jews in the Warsaw Ghetto using "human shields" when they rose up against the Nazis? Were the Poles in Warsaw using "human shields" when they did the same thing later in the war and rose up against the might of the German occupying forces?

I'm sure the Nazis accused them all of so doing. I'm sure the Nazis reviled them all for not wearing uniforms, and for skulking and hiding amongst the civilian infrastructure and causing "needless civilian casualties" (although in truth they of course didn't give a damn about that).

This sort of thing is always seen as "bad" when you think you're good and the other guy is bad...and when you have the far greater military power on the scene. It's seen as "good" when those roles are reversed, and YOU are the guys who must hide amidst the ruins and fight a far more powerful opponent.

Hezbollah did exactly what the militarily weaker forces always do in the face of a far better armed opponent. That is guerilla warfare.

Subject: RE: BS: Is Hezbollah Winning?
From: GUEST,walt
Date: 15 Aug 06 - 02:48 PM

This time around Jerry beat Tom!
Walt

Subject: RE: BS: Is Hezbollah Winning?
From: GUEST,mg
Date: 15 Aug 06 - 02:42 PM

Well, of course the lives of two soldiers were important to Israel. How could they not be? The lives of soldiers everywhere are important to me, for one, and certainly those of my own country. Even those on opposing sides, say on North Korea, or the former East Germany...I wish them all well and hope they don't suffer. So to say Israel doesn't care about its soldiers, who could very well end up mutilated or whatever, is astounding. mg

Subject: RE: BS: Is Hezbollah Winning?
From: Ernest
Date: 15 Aug 06 - 02:32 PM

Interesting thoughts, Little Hawk. Still I disagree with some points:

I do find a faullt in the tactics of Hezbollah: Using civilians as a shield is not exactly what I would call moral behaviour.

And more important I don`t think the outcome saved a great many lives. Hezbollah did not achieve the big goal of "wiping Israel of the map". And I never heard that they gave it up. So if they aren`t disarmed for good it will probably start all over again...

Best
Ernest

Subject: RE: BS: Is Hezbollah Winning?
From: bobad
Date: 15 Aug 06 - 02:22 PM

"Hezbollah's tactics were smart, well-thought-out, and exactly geared to the realities of the situation. "

International law considers the use of human shields to protect targets a war crime. The Fourth Geneva Convention forbids the use of any civilian as a shield: "The presence of a protected person may not be used to render certain points or areas immune from military operations." (Geneva Convention Relative to the Protection of Civilian Persons in Time of War, August 12, 1949, 6 U.S.T. 3516, 75 U.N.T.S. 287, art. 28)."

Subject: RE: BS: Is Hezbollah Winning?
From: Little Hawk
Date: 15 Aug 06 - 01:48 PM

I pretty much agree with Lepus Rex on this one, Slag. Hezbollah has won the psychological victory this time, and that was the vital key.

It's very comparable to the psychological victory won by the Viet Cong in the famed Tet Offensive in the 60's. In military terms, the Viet Cong lost...if you go by body count, material losses, who controlled the battlefield at the end of the fighting, and so on...in fact, the US military command was delighted by the situation, because they were able to inflict such heavy losses on the usually elusive guerrilla forces in that fight. However, psychologically speaking it was an enormous victory for the Viet Cong, and it basically began the slow slide to defeat and withdrawal for the USA in that region. It convinced the American public that the war could not be won. That was the key factor. It gave the lie to the illusion that the Viet Cong and North Vietnamese were going to soon be worn down and defeated and just fade away.

In the case of this fight in Lebanon, some other popular illusions are now going down to destruction. One is the belief of Israelis that their forces are invincible on the battlefield, to the extent that they can always score an easy and almost bloodless victory. They're not going to be thinking that way so much in the future. This will have quite a chastening effect on their strategy, and it should temper their recklessness a bit, I would think. It should contribute to more even-handed negotiations between Israel and its opponents.

I do not fault Hezbollah for fighting in the only way possible if they want to fight effectively and not be slaughtered, Slag. That is what smart soldiers do. Fools make banzai charges across open ground against superior weaponry and get slaughtered. Hezbollah's tactics were smart, well-thought-out, and exactly geared to the realities of the situation. They have shown good organization, good discipline, and they appear to have good support among most of the civilians in the areas where they are operating...plus they have the wisdom to offer a lot of non-military support to civilians in those areas. That, again, is smart. You don't just win wars on a battlefield, you have to address yourself to other social matters as well as fighting if you want to win wars.

It's been a most interesting and unexpected shift in dynamics for the Middle Eastern conflict. Not what Bush was hoping for. I believe what he had in mind was the usual lightning-fast decisive Israeli victory, followed by a much larger war on Syria and Iran, with Israeli forces advancing toward Damascus.

If so, everyone can thank their lucky stars that Hezbollah stalled the Israeli advance and turned it into a stalemate. By doing so, they may have saved a great many lives.

Subject: RE: BS: Is Hezbollah Winning?
From: GUEST,hugo
Date: 15 Aug 06 - 01:35 PM

No I wont but I will help you counter the Zionist war crew on Mudcat!!
hugo

Subject: RE: BS: Is Hezbollah Winning?
From: Lepus Rex
Date: 15 Aug 06 - 12:31 PM

GUEST,hugo: Will you be my bride? :}

---Lepus Rex

Subject: RE: BS: Is Hezbollah Winning?
From: Lepus Rex
Date: 15 Aug 06 - 12:28 PM

Wow, you Israel supporters sure are sore losers, heh. As predicted, a clear victory for Hezbollah. Told ya so! All Hezbollah really needed to do to "win" was survive, showing Israel's impotence, which they did. And what's more, their popularity is now at an all-time high, not only in Lebanon, but all over the Middle East. They (and their sucessful tactics) are an inspiration to hundreds of millions. They remain the most powerful Lebanese military, and their social organisations will play a major role in re-building the country. And, most importantly, they've (once again) shattered Israel's overhyped aura of invincibility, and (once again) the Israelis are leaving Lebanon with their tails between their legs. And how lovely, that it happened just a short Katyusha-flight from Ain-Jalut, where Hülegü's Mongols were similarly brought down to Earth in the eyes of the Muslims. Yeah, Hezbollah really got their asses kicked. ;)

By the way, last week, on the NPR show "Fresh Air," there was a fucking awesome interview with Augustus Richard Norton, an expert on the region. If anyone is interested in the Israel/Lebanon conflict, and has forty-five minutes or so to listen to it, here it is. Very, very fucking highly recommended.

Old Guy: I hate to say it, but maybe just go back to the copy-and-pasting news articles. Like that story about the Druze dude denouncing Hezbollah. (As if you even know what a Druze is. Admit it: When you read that the Druze leader lived in a castle, you pictured him riding a unicorn, didn't you?) Or, better yet, take my earlier advice and fuck off back to those racist blogs you love so well. Fossil-brained Twentieth Century relics such as yourself have nothing to add to this conversation.

Peace: Uh, yeah... Rwanda?

---Lepus Rex

Subject: RE: BS: Is Hezbollah Winning?
From: GUEST,hugo
Date: 15 Aug 06 - 12:26 PM

What has Hebollah gained?

Hezbollah has proved to be no pushover for the mighty Israeli war machine which suffered heavy losses in its ground offensive.

Hezbollah was also able to attack with missiles much of northern Israel and to empty it of much of its population during the course of the ground invasion of Lebanon.

Thirdly Hezbollah still has the Israeli soldiers it captured prior to the invasion and Israel will almost certainly have to release large numbers of its Lebanese prisoners if it is see them returned.

Fourthly with Lebanese refugees waving Hezbollah flags returning to their wrecked homes and guerillas still present in the surrounding hills an Israeli force north of the border looks increasingly unlikely.

Olmert and the Israeli High Command look likely to go in the very near future as the scale of the misdventure north of the border becomes clear.The damage to Israel's reputation has been immense.It has slaughtered hundreds of civilians ,mainly children in its indiscriminate bombing of towns,cities and villages across Lebanon.

Hezbollah has gained a huge amount of support across Lebanon with christians,shias and sunnis acknowledging its prowess in blunting the Israeli offensive .....Hezbollah's standing has also increaed across the whole of the Middle East.

The   carnage in the Lebanon makes an imminent American and Israeli attack on Syria and Iran more unlikely ,although the mad neocon war gang still seemed intent on such an attack in the future.

Lastly Blair's reputation in Britain has been still further damaged in Britain because of his role in the invasion of Lebanon.
hugo

Subject: RE: BS: Is Hezbollah Winning?
From: Old Guy
Date: 15 Aug 06 - 10:54 AM

Hezbollah claims they won. They did not win anything. They got their ass kicked as usual but the Al Jazeera types claim it as at first time the Jews have been defeated.

What has Hezbollah gained? Disarmament? Any territory? Nothing.

Isreal got the rockets to stop for a while at least.

Subject: RE: BS: Is Hezbollah Winning?
From: The Fooles Troupe
Date: 15 Aug 06 - 07:13 AM

'because they bear no uniform. Their targets are indiscriminate as to whether they are military or civilian. Murder is their tactic'

I am tempted to make comment about the CIA not wearing unforms...

~~~~~~~~~~~~
"There are several instances of this in the Old Testament ( note King Saul's problems for not obeying the harem"

Hmmmm, if you wish to take all the OT literally, you may be misled - the tale of the conquest of Canaan reads like a whirlwind campaign, taking only a few months - and that fits in nicely with the alleged time line... archaeology of all those town sites, indeed reveals that they were indeed catastrophically destroyed, but over a total period exceeding 150 years, lending credence to the 'Hosianiac conspiracy' theory of the rewriting of history...

Subject: RE: BS: Is Hezbollah Winning?
From: GUEST,hugo
Date: 15 Aug 06 - 06:54 AM

To Peace
I know Islamophobia is rampart in some people but to blame the slaughter in Rwanda on muslims is plainly untrue..actually it is a filthy racist lie.

Rwanda is an almost totally christian country with most of its population being either Roman Catholic or Protestant.Muslims make up less than 2% of its population.

The slaughter in Rwanda was a crime against humanity but it was not a crime commited by muslims and I call on you to withdraw that statement.
hugo

Subject: RE: BS: Is Hezbollah Winning?
From: Slag
Date: 15 Aug 06 - 04:06 AM

Gee, I should have picked the name "Grey Eagle" as a user name, then I'd always be one up on you LittleHawk.Yuk yuk.

In really ancient times armor and attire were pretty much hit or miss. Distinction was more the norm as counting coup and individual battle skill was important for your military and social prestige. There were individual champions and at times, when the hostilities were'nt too great, the battle of champions would settle the matter. In the near and middle east you had (have) the concept of the "harem" or the "ban". If it were a holy war or a holy cause the target people might be put under the ban. If that was the case then there would be no survivors. Men, women, children, livestock, every living thing was slaughtered, the town was destroyed and the stone buildings were dismantled and all were forbidden to build anything new there and no one was to ever live there again. Thus they took care of their problems. There are several instances of this in the Old Testament ( note King Saul's problems for not obeying the harem ). War settled EVERYTHING. Many archeological digs will come upon city/states of which no record is known in ancient history because of this fact. Many tels have never been explored or excavated due to lack of funds or access and no one knows who the people were! Unfortunately I see that same mindset in some of the Eastern groups today. Back to the uniforms. Armies did, however have certain uniform features: feathers, dyed cloth, familial tattoos, plaited beards, sheild shape, some featured that would allow them to distinguish friend from foe.

When the Greeks came along they brought uniformity to a science and the weaponery became uniform also. This aided in manufacture. The soldiers became faceless. They'd even organize rank and column by height. This was duanting to to less "hip" enemies as if one soldier fell another who looked, in the heat of battle, just like the other guy stepped up and they felt they were making no progress. Little touches like plummage or brooms would distinguish rank. Yes, it all involved discipline, morale and psychology. If the Greeks made warfare a scince, the Romans perfected it. Their armies were legendary.

And, of course as weaponry and tactics changed so did the uniform. Camoflauge reflects stealth and long range weaponry. BUT, since ancient times one thing has held true in the orderly chaos called "War" and that is that you never put on the uniform of the enemy or as a soldier, assumed the guise of a civilian. That made you either a traitor, a deserter or a spy and as such, your life was forfeit. Well, we are all somewhat familiar with the concept of espionage and how we deal with spies when there is no "hot" battlefield. They are pumped for info when caught or are traded like pawns. I bring all this up to make a point about "Is Hezbolla Winning?" because they bear no uniform. Their targets are indiscriminate as to whether they are military or civilian. Murder is their tactic, using the civilian population as a shield and hiding behind women and children because they know their enemy has a moral compunction against taking innocent life. It is about one of the most dispicable tactics there is. It is cowardly and evil. This "Army of God" is a reflection upon the god they serve. Why don't the moderate Muslims rise up with a clear voice and condemn this practice, this movement. Where are they? Is this truly what Allah is like? Not from what I have read in the Qoran (albeit the English version). I could be wrong but by their not doing so I get the impression that they are taking the "wait and see" approach. They don't want to take a stand because Hezbolla and other terrorists might win or the tentacles of Hezbolla might reach out and extract revenge upon them. Cowardice!

OK. You could argue that because they are small (they aren't: Israel is small) they use these tactics because they would be easily defeated were they to present their dispute with a uniformed army (which they or their prototypes have done before and have been soundly whipped. If they represent such a minority point of view then they need to get a new view point, one that more people will support.

Subject: RE: BS: Is Hezbollah Winning?
From: dianavan
Date: 15 Aug 06 - 02:43 AM

Exactly the point I was trying to make, Littlehawk.

Subject: RE: BS: Is Hezbollah Winning?
From: Little Hawk
Date: 15 Aug 06 - 12:20 AM

To say that "Muslims are intent on genocide", Peace, is not a useful statement, unless one is a professional politician intent on stirring his people up to fight more wars and kill more Muslims.

The reason I say this is simple. I know a lot of Muslims personally, and not one of them is the least bit intent on genocide.

Yes, I know that some specific Muslim zealots are intent on killing Israelis, and perhaps even Jews in a general sense. So too are some specific Jewish zealots intent on killing Muslims who they deem to be in the way of Israel's greater plans for the region.

That does not justify the blanket statement: "Muslims are intent on genocide."   It would not justify the blanket statement: "Jews are intent on genocide." either, would it? One statement is as unfair as the other. Most Muslims and Jews would just like to live peaceful and happy lives!

Either statement tars an entire people with the dark intentions held by only certain more fanatical and big-mouthed individuals among those people.

It's an irresponsible thing to say, but that can easily happen when speaking in the heat of the moment. It's a statement of extreme emotion in reaction to a perceived hurt of some kind. You could call it a racist statement if you wanted to...but I recognize that when people are caught up in things they feel very passionate about they sometimes speak to extremes.

Therefore, I pass no judgement on someone who says it...I merely say that it is an inflammatory and misleading statement, because it does not really make sense in the larger context.

I repeat: Most Muslims and most Jews would just like to live happy and prosperous lives in peace, and bring up their children in safety.

How apples does it take to spoil a whole barrel? Just one bad apple will do it. This does not mean that all the apples are bad.

Subject: RE: BS: Is Hezbollah Winning?
From: Little Hawk
Date: 15 Aug 06 - 12:06 AM

Very perceptive and well-thought out comments on your part, Slag. ;-) Thanks for such a thorough response to my response. All of what you say about money (good, bad, and/or neutral) is correct. I like the fact that money is a measure of appreciation. That's one of the good things about it. It is indeed a reflector of the hearts of men and women. Fascinating how plainly it reveals them, when you compare, say, someone like Al Capone to someone like Albert Schweitzer.

You asked: "Why have most armies through the ages worn uniforms?"

Well, the number one reason was so you could quickly identify "friendlies" from "unfriendlies", I would think, specially at a distance! The colorful uniforms worn in classical times by Romans, Greeks, Carthaginians, and such gave way to the equally colorful uniforms worn later in eras such as the Napoleonic era...when it was necessary to identify large formations of men through a telescope, while peering across a field through masses of shifting smoke. And mistakes were often made! One thing that most people are unaware of is that many American Civil War units wore a bewildering variety of colors into combat...the Union wasn't all dressed in blue by any means, and the Confederates weren't all dressed in Gray.

However, the colors of uniforms in different units did often help in quickly identifying friend or foe.

Another reason would have been to establish "uniformity" (which helps build discipline) and a strong sense of shared identity, which helps establish good esprit de corps and fighting spirit.

Another reason would have been to distinguish the military man from the civilian.

Another reason would be to help inspire recruitment. Poor people were offered many enticements for entering military service, and one of those was..."You'll get to wear a good suit of clothes and a fine pair of shoes at no charge." (that, along with free meals, lodging, etc...in return for the risk of getting your head blown off or a bayonet stuck in your guts...).

Those are the reasons that occur to me. Do you have some more to add?