BS: Is Hezbollah Winning?

Subject: BS: Is Hezbollah Winning?
From: GUEST,Old Guy
Date: 07 Aug 06 - 09:51 PM

Is Hezbollah Winning?

They are winning the PR war with the help of the media:

The liberal Western media have taken to emphasizing and elaborating on Israel's bombings of Hezbollah targets in Lebanon—framing them as an attack on the Lebanese people—while minimizing Hezbollah's continued attacks on Israel. The anti-Israel slant comes through in news report after news report—whether it's in the pictures shown, the individuals interviewed, the questions asked; it's all largely projected through an anti-Israel lens.

Hezbollah, of course, would be thrilled at this. But, more than passively letting world media project its cause, Hezbollah has a deliberate strategy of using the Western media to help it in the battle for world opinion. The media, of course, play into its hands perfectly.


http://www.thetrumpet.com/index.php?page=article&id=2403

Subject: RE: BS: Is Hezbollah Winning?
From: GUEST,Rapaire
Date: 07 Aug 06 - 09:58 PM

Of course. The Viet Cong set up an excellent example of media manipulation. Of course, both the US and Israel left and have left themselves open....

Subject: RE: BS: Is Hezbollah Winning?
From: John on the Sunset Coast
Date: 07 Aug 06 - 10:13 PM

The world is a funny place. Prior to 1973 most of the world favored Israel, but they kept winning and getting stronger. After regaining Jerusalem and the West Bank in '67, along with Palestinean population long neglected by Jordan, things slowly changed. Now there was a perceived weaker party in the area, and the world loves an underdog. So yes, Hizbullah and Hamas ares winning...at least the PR war as stated by OldGuy.

Subject: RE: BS: Is Hezbollah Winning?
From: Amos
Date: 07 Aug 06 - 10:45 PM

Well, PR is PR and reality is reality. Lebanon is torn asunder and their borders completely under the control of a perceived enemy. Israel, though it has been shaken up and lost some citizens, has suffered no such losses.

No, Hezbollah is not winning. Every major element in the region seems to agree that the path out involves getting the government of Lebanon back in control of regions which Hezbollah has taken over.

Where's the win in that?


A

Subject: RE: BS: Is Hezbollah Winning?
From: number 6
Date: 07 Aug 06 - 10:51 PM

"Where's the win in that?"

Hezbollah will have more Lebanese, Syrian youth joining their cause ... their cause will outlive the Lebanese army that will obviously be imptotent in maintaining order.

Their PR works. very well.

sIx

Subject: RE: BS: Is Hezbollah Winning?
From: Sorcha
Date: 07 Aug 06 - 10:55 PM

STOP the Madness!
Bring them ALL HOME!
Star, Crescent and Cross.
These are our CHILDREN for gods and goddesses sake!!

WHO THE FUCK CARES WHO IS 'WINNING'??? NOBODY IS!!!!

Subject: RE: BS: Is Hezbollah Winning?
From: Rapparee
Date: 07 Aug 06 - 10:59 PM

Right on, Sorcha. Completely right!

Subject: RE: BS: Is Hezbollah Winning?
From: number 6
Date: 07 Aug 06 - 11:00 PM

Unfortunately they are home Sorcha ... the star, the crescent, and the cross ... it is their homes they are fighting for. Again the children are manipulated by the big players ... whether they are babies killed by a rocket or a teen joining the ranks in the forces of the fighting machines.

All are losers in this sick game.

sIx

Subject: RE: BS: Is Hezbollah Winning?
From: Q (Frank Staplin)
Date: 07 Aug 06 - 11:05 PM

'Regaining' Jerusalem and the West Bank? Zionist theft through superior force. Much of Lebanon will be occupied and be swallowed into Israel.

Hezbollah cannnot survive the Israeli assault, but its message is spreading throughout the Muslim world. It and similar organizations will become increasingly important in governments in the Middle East.

The message is strong on the internet; carried by Radio SawtBeirut and other media in the Muslim world. The latest political cartoon by Shugaat in Aljazeera illustrates the result of actions by Bush and Olmert succinctly.

Subject: RE: BS: Is Hezbollah Winning?
From: John on the Sunset Coast
Date: 07 Aug 06 - 11:19 PM

It is interesting ,Q, that you chose to only respond to a single clause of my statement above, but ignore the part which implicates that Palestineans could have had a country before 1967. Are you really that hateful of Israel?

BTW how much of Lebanon do you foresee as becoming part of Israel...only the good parts I hope.? I think it is more likely, but improbable, that Israel will be swallowed by Arab countries. That'll make you really happy.

Subject: RE: BS: Is Hezbollah Winning?
From: Jack the Sailor
Date: 08 Aug 06 - 12:00 AM

"but ignore the part which implicates that Palestineans could have had a country before 1967"

And if only you were there to implicate them the country they would have it right?

Then why can't they have a country now?

Subject: RE: BS: Is Hezbollah Winning?
From: Q (Frank Staplin)
Date: 08 Aug 06 - 01:08 AM

John on the Sunset can mis-state history with the best of them.

The Palestinians were being swamped by Zionists from Europe and especially America, and sooner or later would have ended up in the same position they are in now. This massive influx of people and money, especially after WW2, would upset the proposed partition into Jewish and Arab states with Jerusalem internationalized, which the United Nations was attempting to accomplish that in 1947.
Israel declared its independence and the almost immediately following war in 1948 secured over 75 per cent of the land and most of Jerusalem to Israel.
Over half of the Palestinians fled or were expelled. Egypt and Jordan compounded the situation by occupying part of the territory. In the 1967 war, Israel gobbled up these territories, and annexed the rest of Jerusalem. The number of refugees was now some 2 million, a number too large to be absorbed by their Arab neighbors.

The United Nations called on Israel to withdraw, but of course the resolution was ignored. This was followed by further ineffective actions by the UN.

Of the Muslims and few Christians who stayed in the conquered territories, the Israeli government has guaranteed that their representation in the government will always be ineffective.

Subject: RE: BS: Is Hezbollah Winning?
From: Slag
Date: 08 Aug 06 - 01:43 AM

No.

Subject: RE: BS: Is Hezbollah Winning?
From: ard mhacha
Date: 08 Aug 06 - 04:15 AM

Certainly not the 1000 or more dead in Lebanon, slaughtered by US made bombs.

Subject: RE: BS: Is Hezbollah Winning?
From: Bobert
Date: 08 Aug 06 - 08:09 AM

No... And niether is Isreal...

There will be no winners in this war... Just losers...

Subject: RE: BS: Is Hezbollah Winning?
From: Folkiedave
Date: 08 Aug 06 - 08:32 AM

The first truth of war is casualties.

Hizbullah have vowed to wipe out Israel. Does anyone seriously think they could do it?

Israel seem intent in wiping out Southern Lebanon, again.

Subject: RE: BS: Is Hezbollah Winning?
From: Bill Hahn//\\
Date: 08 Aug 06 - 03:38 PM

Q: You really should get your facts re: 1948 straight. You should find out whether the Palestinians were asked to stay in Israel by the Israelis or were urged to leave by their "brethren" ---who then shunned them. Also, let us recall who attacked who at that time. Let us also recall the UN vote that allowed for the creation of the State of Israel.

    As to the other note regarding top dog/underdog status (Not Q's). I guess that is human nature--we do it all the time. Person builds a business from nothing and then when it is hugely successful we chuckle if he has bad times. We love to see a winner defeated---tennis, baseball, you name it. Human nature---but, happilly, not deadly as is this horrible situation.

Bill H

Subject: RE: BS: Is Hezbollah Winning?
From: Q (Frank Staplin)
Date: 08 Aug 06 - 07:45 PM

"Asked to stay in Israel"- What nonsense! That would mean losing their identity and subjugating themselves to a people and country not their own.

Subject: RE: BS: Is Hezbollah Winning?
From: GUEST,Old Guy
Date: 08 Aug 06 - 08:14 PM

http://www.stratfor.com/products/premium/read_article.php?id=271641

Saudi Arabia: Saudi Scholar Denounces Hezbollah
August 05, 2006 14 20 GMT

A top Saudi religious scholar and former dissident issued a fatwa Aug. 5, denouncing Hezbollah as the "party of the devil." Sheikh Safar al-Hawali, whose ideas influenced al Qaeda leader Osama bin Laden and who was imprisoned for opposition to the Saudi government, warned Muslims from praying for Hezbollah in a fatwa posted on his Web site.

Subject: RE: BS: Is Hezbollah Winning?
From: GUEST,Old Guy
Date: 08 Aug 06 - 08:21 PM

Photoshop useful for Hezbollah Propaganda and MSM

http://www.cbc.ca/story/world/national/2006/08/08/photo-alter-beirut.html

Altered Beirut photos raise ethics questions
Last Updated Tue, 08 Aug 2006 13:04:55 EDT
CBC Arts

Questions about journalistic integrity emerged this weekend from the continuing conflict between Israel and Hezbollah, after a photojournalist was found to have doctored two images out of Beirut.

The Reuters News Agency has withdrawn more than 900 images from its database taken by Adnan Hajj, one of its freelance photographers based in Beirut.

According to a Reuters spokesperson, Hajj has denied deliberately attempting to manipulate the photos, saying he was trying to remove dust and made mistakes because of poor lighting conditions.

Hajj has also worked as a freelancer for the Associated Press, which is reviewing his photos in its own archive to verify their authenticity.

Responding to allegations of tampering, Reuters discovered that Hajj had manipulated two recent photos: one showing the aftermath of an Israeli air strike on a suburban neighbourhood and another showing an Israeli jet fighter flying over southern Lebanon.

The first photo had been manipulated to show more and darker smoke rising from the buildings, while the second image showed the plane dropping three flares instead of just one, Reuters said.

"There is no graver breach of Reuters standards for our photographers than the deliberate manipulation of an image," Tom Szlukovenyi, Reuters global picture editor, said in a statement.

"Reuters has zero tolerance for any doctoring of pictures and constantly reminds its photographers, both staff and freelance, of this strict and unalterable policy."

Quick reaction over the weekend

After Reuters published the smoking buildings photo on Saturday, the online community began claiming that the photo was altered. The agency conducted a review and found the image had indeed been changed using Photoshop. Reuters terminated its relationship with Hajj on Sunday.

The agency then began an immediate review of Hajj's other recent work and, on Monday, found that the jet photo taken Aug. 2 had also been doctored. Reuters then withdrew from its database the 920 photos Hajj had taken for the agency over the years.

"This doesn't mean that every one of his 920 photographs in our database was altered. We know that not to be the case from the majority of images we have looked at so far but we need to act swiftly and in a precautionary manner," Szlukovenyi said.

Subject: RE: BS: Is Hezbollah Winning?
From: GUEST,Old Guy
Date: 08 Aug 06 - 08:26 PM

http://mypetjawa.mu.nu/archives/184233.php

August 08, 2006
Staged Reuters Photo Incites Muslims to Jihad

Yet another staged Reuters photo. This one with much more distubing implications. A Koran being burned. The caption seems to blame this act of desecration on inaction by the U.S. and U.N. Who took the photo? Adnan Hajj.

I talked about this earlier, but felt it deserved its own space.

A copy of the Koran burns in Southern Beirut after the Hizbollah stronghold was targeted by Israeli airstrikes July 16, 2006. Israeli air raids shook Beirut on Sunday, the fifth day of a devastating assault on Hizbollah and Lebanon that has prompted no UN Security Council action and only a mild plea for restraint from Israel's U.S. ally. Reuters/Adnan Hajj (Beirut)

Very troubling because:

a) it's clearly staged
b) it's clearly meant to incite Muslims
c) it's by you-know-who

Hajj, like all of us, knows exactly what happens when infidels burn Korans. Or flush them down the toilet. Even if the infidels really don't desecrate the Koran, the accusation is enough.

Thanks to Jake for saving the photo and the caption minutes--literally--before Yahoo news yanked them. Jake adds this:

    Clearly, there was some amount of time between the attack and Adnan Hajj arriving on scene to photograph the results.

    If the book was set ablaze by the blast of the bomb, the book would have long disappeared into ash before Hajj arrived with camera and Photoshop in tow.

    The intact burnt pages on the right indicate this is a fast burning fire that rapidly consumed half the book prior to the photo being taken, so fast that the fragile ashen pages have not disintegrated.

    If the book was not set on fire by the blast of the explosion (which is unlikely anyway... the force of the atmospheric overpressure would likely prevent any jetsam object like a book to ignite...I was an aircraft weapons specialist in the US Air Force, BTW), but kindled by residual fires, then there should be burning debris or smoke rising from the rubble around the Koran. There is none in the
    photo.

    The only flames or smoke sources in that photo are from the rapidly disappearing Koran. I would wager two minutes after this photo was taken the book would be fully engulfed, and reduced to ash not long afterwards.

Subject: RE: BS: Is Hezbollah Winning?
From: Peace
Date: 08 Aug 06 - 08:30 PM

OG,

I just posted a link to the news article on the Gaza thread. Good eye, and thank you.

Subject: RE: BS: Is Hezbollah Winning?
From: robomatic
Date: 08 Aug 06 - 09:21 PM

Q wrote:

"Asked to stay in Israel"- What nonsense! That would mean losing their identity and subjugating themselves to a people and country not their own.

As opposed to the Turkish Sultanate or the English Mandate?

Why is everything legitimate but Israeli representative self government, which is available to all citizens?

Sounds like a good way to exemplify identity and avoid subjugation.

Maybe Q thinks there is no subjugation in Egypt, Lebanon, Syria, Jordan, Iraq, Iran, Yemen, and Saudi Arabia.

End the Unjust Occupation of Muslim Lands

Subject: RE: BS: Is Hezbollah Winning?
From: GUEST,Old Guy
Date: 08 Aug 06 - 09:33 PM

RE: Doctored photo of Beirut

I use Photoshop a lot and that repeating pattern you see in the smoke is caused by the clone stamp tool.

Subject: RE: BS: Is Hezbollah Winning?
From: Old Guy
Date: 08 Aug 06 - 09:39 PM

That was me about Photoshop

Subject: RE: BS: Is Hezbollah Winning?
From: number 6
Date: 08 Aug 06 - 09:56 PM

Actually ... being a user of PhotShop I'm rather surprised at how amateur looking the 'cloned' smoke looks.

sIx

Subject: RE: BS: Is Hezbollah Winning?
From: Peace
Date: 08 Aug 06 - 10:08 PM

The world according to Hezbollah . . . .

Subject: RE: BS: Is Hezbollah Winning?
From: John on the Sunset Coast
Date: 09 Aug 06 - 01:09 AM

Q, whom do you think you are kidding? Firstly, I do not mis-state history, but you certainly ignore it.
There could have been a Palestinean in 1948 before the war. There could have been a Palestinean state any time between 1948 and 1967, had Jordan and Egypt assisted Palestineans instead of de-facto annexing the West Bank and Gaza. So tell me if Arabs would not form a Palestinean country, why should Israel have done so, back then?
If tiny Israel could take in millions of Jews from Iraq, Syria, Iran, Yemen, Ethiopia and Europe into an area about the size of New Jersey, it seems to me that Jordan, Egypt, Iraq, Saudi Arabia, and other Arab countries, covering an area probably a hundred fold larger, could have accommodated the then Palestinean population (which I think was significantly less than 2 million in 1948, but I'll give you that number.)
Jack-the Sailor, that is what I was obliquely stating above, and I think you really know it.

Subject: RE: BS: Is Hezbollah Winning?
From: John on the Sunset Coast
Date: 09 Aug 06 - 01:12 AM

Q, you never did answer my question regarding how much of Lebanon you think Israel would 'absorb'. Or were you just writing hyperbolically?

Subject: RE: BS: Is Hezbollah Winning?
From: Slag
Date: 09 Aug 06 - 01:50 AM

There were many Jews living in "Palestine" before 1948 on land legally purchased by Jews. Many Arabs were delighted to sell "worthless sand" to the stupid Jews. Of course those "stupid" Jews made the land bloom and produce. They made way for their brethern fleeing from the anti-Semantism of Europe. The Prospect of a homeland was a welcome idea to those who had faced genocide and survived. Israel, a tiny, and I mean TINY country in the vast Middle East. The original state was less than it's current 8019 square miles. That's smaller than Rhode Island. That's smaller than San Bernardino County, CA by more than half. It's smaller than Inyo Co. CA. It is smaller than Kern Co. CA where I was born and raised. And this was THEIR homeland for over a thousand years excepting the Babylonian Captivity. It was the Roman Empire who forcibly and bloodily removed them and changed the name of the place to Palestine, their term for Phonecia. There are no Phonecians, no Palestinians. The hallmark of the Philistine was lack of circumcision, acrobysta in the Greek. Arabs are a circumcised people (peritoma). There are no Palestinians. So here are all these Arabic and Muslim states surrounding tiny Israel and they can't accomodate their brothers? They can't take them in with their HUNDREDS OF THOUSANDS of square miles? They can't help? They don't want to help. They want the status quo so that it will foment unrest and give them a flimsy pretext to destroy Israel, the Jewish State.

Subject: RE: BS: Is Hezbollah Winning?
From: Big Al Whittle
Date: 09 Aug 06 - 04:24 AM

about three all, with the prospect of extra time.

a couple of yellow cards issued, but both sides looking forward to the re-match.

Subject: RE: BS: Is Hezbollah Winning?
From: The Fooles Troupe
Date: 09 Aug 06 - 06:45 AM

A (Eastern) Catholic Churcj Leader has stated that he finds that people are becoming more sympathetic to Hezbollah as the carnage continues.

Subject: RE: BS: Is Hezbollah Winning?
From: GUEST
Date: 09 Aug 06 - 08:26 AM

Good for him. So what. The Vatican wasn't too sympathetic to the Jews during the 2nd World War.

Subject: RE: BS: Is Hezbollah Winning?
From: Lepus Rex
Date: 09 Aug 06 - 09:44 AM

Of course they're winning. No surprise, there. Israel has nothing to look forward to but endless rocket attacks and new Intifada-s for the forseeable future. Their enemies have time and numbers on their side(s), and Israel has... the US. Which won't be a superpower forever. They should've colonised a more laid back country, I guess. Nauru, maybe.

And not that any of us will be here to see it, but in one hundred years, I seriously doubt that there will be a state called "Israel" on the map. Inevitable, really. See, oh, the Kingdom of Jerusalem on the map these days? Or... the Principalitry of Antioch? Rhodesia, even? No? Why not?

OldGuy: Hey, nice to see you're quoting openly racist blogs like The Jawa Report. Makes you easier to ignore. So, since you're apparently incapable of articulating your views without a copy-and-paste, why don't you fuck off back to your little Jawa hole? That's, like, all those fuckers do. Copy-paste, nod, froth, etc.

Oh, and robomatic: You're still showing that idiotic "Arab land" map around? Kyrgyzstan, Afghanistan, Armenia, etc.? Do you even know what an Arab is, dude? I mean... and I'm not even going to go after the "oh it's just a little postage stamp country" thing as depicted in the map, because I really couldn't care less about your opinions on the matter, and I have no desire to "convert" you... But about half of your map isn't "Arab." And it's not like this is obscure information, or difficult to find out. Look it up. Even Wikipedia, or some shit. I mean, you're online right now. How hard is it? Do your homework, or your opinion doesn't mean anything.

Well, it doesn't mean much, anyways. But do try harder, anyways.

---Lepus Rex

Subject: RE: BS: Is Hezbollah Winning?
From: DougR
Date: 09 Aug 06 - 02:15 PM

Amos: "Perceived?" Hezbollah is a "perceived" enemy of Israel? What part of Hezbollah's belief that Israel should be destroyed do you not understand?

DougR

Subject: RE: BS: Is Hezbollah Winning?
From: Folkiedave
Date: 09 Aug 06 - 02:35 PM

Hezbolla would love to invade Israel and wipe it out. No doubt.
Could they do it? Unlikely.

Israel does not want to invade Lebanon. Are they doing it? Yes for the second time.

Who is the biggest liar?

Subject: RE: BS: Is Hezbollah Winning?
From: Amos
Date: 09 Aug 06 - 02:49 PM

Doug:

You're twisting words again.


A

Subject: RE: BS: Is Hezbollah Winning?
From: GUEST,Nick
Date: 09 Aug 06 - 08:07 PM

Just thought I'd add my tuppence. Someone above said the US won't be a superpower forever. That's certainly true, as history teaches. the Roman empire, the British empire, they've all disappeared in time. But I think we can safely say that it won't happen any time soon re. the USA (though China is gettin stronger by the day, and would have no qulams about taking on the USA if it thought it could - you'll see that some day soon it'll annex Taiwan and none of the 'democracy' exporting neo-cons in the White House will pip up a single word about it). The real problem for Israel is that it is still heavily dependent on US sponsorship, right down to the bombs it was delivered there the other week. US interest in the region is largely dictated by the presence of oil (there are lots of other places struggling under dictatorship, but not a US marine is to be found anywhere in Zimbabwe, for example). Once the oil finishes, the US will drop the region like a hot potato, and Israel will find itself rather isolated amongst extremely hostile Arab neighbours (especially if China vetos US action, as they are already making rumbling noises about in relation to Iran). It makes very good sense for Israel to strike some sort of deal with its Arab neighbours. Now I know they have not been the most accomodating, and indeed they invaded Isarel the day after the state was declared, but Israel has not been doing itself any favours either by ignoring UN resolutions, engaging in land grabs and so on. Its incursions into Lebanon and the West Bank were planned weeks before the kidnapping of their soldiers. Indeed, these very same soldiers they set out to rescue - the supposed pretext for their invasion of Lebanon etc., - are unfortunately probably lying dead under some of the buildings Israeli bombs have flattened, dropped by their IDF colleagues. So you see, it was never about the kidnapped soldiers, but like the WMD it provided a good excuse for another agenda. If they had really intended to rescue them it would have made more sense to send in a highly trained commando platoon acting on good intelligence. Meanwhile, hundreds of Lebanese civilians who have no connection with Hezbollah, are lying dead because US-made Israeli dropped 'smart' bombs turned out not to be so smart after all. Does the kidnapping of a few soldiers Knesset doesn't really give a hoot about justify killing whole families, children, funeral mourners? You might say Hezbollah have been using the civilian population as shields. It's seems a clever argument and has done the rounds. But when the Israelis advised the civilians to flee, they then bombed them almost as soon as they tried to escape! The situation in Israel is more complicated - since every adult Israeli (man or woman) is also a member of the IDF, in a sense they are as legitimate a target as a Hezbollah fighter is to the Israelis, if there is a state of war. Moreover, I remember seeing photos in Newsweek back in 2004 showing the IDF using a palestinian teenager as a human shield, tying him onto their jeep. So, no moral high ground in that instance. G.Bush and Rice (will the real president please stand up?) have muttered angrily about Iran sponsoring Hezbollah and how Syria and Iran must respect Lebanese sovereignty, without the slightest hint of a sense of irony, as they sponsor Israel and say nothing about its complete disregard for Lebanese soveriegnty.
The most logical explantion I have seen for Israel's invasion of southern Lebanon is to gain control of the Litani river, an important and strategic source of fresh water which Israel feels it badly needs. Indeed, it was interesting to note Knesset state that they will push on into Lebanon 'as far as the Litani river' on the news tonight.
But as someone said on this forum already - there will be no winners as such in this war. Even if Israel succeeds in its aims of grabbing southern Lebanon as far as the Litani river, the resentment caused will ensure Hizbollah etc., will have an endless stream of recruits, and so Israel will explain (after the fact, as usual) that it now needs to invade north of the Litani river to protect itself, and so on all the way up to the North Pole and off the planet. The problem is that, especially since George Bush came to power, the loudest voices on all sides - Iranian, Syrian, Israeli, US - have been the neo-con warmongers with their unshakeable belief in military might being the cure for all the world's ills. Unfortunately, the only military solution to terrorism - whether Hizbollah or Israeli - is genocide. You can't convince people to like and trust you and live peacefully by killing them and destroying everything they have, so the only other way is to wipe them all out so you don't have to live with their resentment. If the parties involved keep going the way they are, they may well end up dragging us all into World War Three. Maybe then they'll be happy with themselves.

Subject: RE: BS: Is Hezbollah Winning?
From: The Fooles Troupe
Date: 10 Aug 06 - 01:12 AM

GUEST,

EASTERN Catholics have NO conncetion to the Vatican...

Subject: RE: BS: Is Hezbollah Winning?
From: An Buachaill Caol Dubh
Date: 10 Aug 06 - 12:40 PM

GUEST Nick makes by far the most convincing argument and prognosis. As some South African (white) politician once said to an American politician, re. the racial problems in the then Rhodesia, "we should have done with our indigenous peoples as you did with yours....".

Subject: RE: BS: Is Hezbollah Winning?
From: AggieD
Date: 10 Aug 06 - 01:48 PM

I would like to ask a few of questions at this point:

1) If Israel is getting it's arms/rockets or whatever from the US, where does Hezbollah get their's from? Or are they all home-made in someones garage?

2)How do the press know that Hezbollah are using underground tunnels to run back to like rats, leaving the innocents above ground to be targeted by Israeli rockets at the points from where Hezbollah launch their attacks?

3)If Hezbollah are a genuine army of fighters that are backed by other Arab/Muslim countries, why don't we see them ever depicted as such, as we see the Israeli army? Does that make them terrorists by default as thier fighting is always clandestine?

Subject: RE: BS: Is Hezbollah Winning?
From: GUEST
Date: 10 Aug 06 - 05:38 PM

Nick thanks for the rational viewpoint. I think there is no 'winning' side yet. I think the leadership of Hezbollah, and Hamas, and the other myriad terror org's out there is very cynical and very based within their own culture. They must 'keep up appearances' at ALL COST. Therefore, they will make up whatever motivations seem most opportune to the time. They must claim victory no matter what. No matter how many Lebanese they get killed in the process.

As far as the sympathy vote goes for, it counts for little. I think Israel discounted it entirely. The terrorists have attacked schools and killed Israeli children for generations now. The world says wot a pity. This time the world can say 'wot a pity' for some Lebanese by-catch (collateral damage). What the Lebanese will remember is that the Israelis have acted this way before, are likely to act this way again, it really hurts, and maybe the Hezbollah should be less venturous with people who do not want to be shaheeds.

I think the Israelis are fed up with the terrorists, fed up with the Lebanese, and fed up with the UN. I don't blame them, but I fear they are at a 'us against the world' point which will do them no good even if it is true. The terror/suicide/homicide/fascists are also in their own little world. They will try to go on unless stopped on their own side of the border.

Subject: RE: BS: Is Hezbollah Winning?
From: Old Guy
Date: 10 Aug 06 - 10:56 PM

http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/nationworld/chi-0608100186aug10,1,5460126.story?coll=chi-newsnationworld-hed

Lebanon's Druze leader says militants' agenda will lead to disaster

By Liz Sly
Tribune foreign correspondent
Published August 10, 2006

MUKHTARA, Lebanon -- Ensconced in his ancestral castle, perched high in the mountains above Beirut, Druze leader Walid Jumblatt is articulating some boldly unorthodox views on the conflict engulfing his country.

As a fierce critic of Hezbollah and its role in provoking a war with Israel, Jumblatt has emerged as a lone voice of dissent amid the clamor of pro-Hezbollah cheerleading that has gripped much of Lebanon and turned Hezbollah leader Hassan Nasrallah into a national hero.

"If I were opportunistic, I would tell you now, `Long live Nasrallah.' I am not going to tell you that," he says in an interview at the 300-year-old castle. "I know my position is not popular, in the Arab world or in Lebanon. But I will stick to my position."

Subject: RE: BS: Is Hezbollah Winning?
From: Slag
Date: 11 Aug 06 - 12:07 AM

Do you have the coordinates for that position?

Subject: RE: BS: Is Hezbollah Winning?
From: Peace
Date: 11 Aug 06 - 01:38 AM

"Is Hezbollah Winning?"

In short, no!

Subject: RE: BS: Is Hezbollah Winning?
From: Folkiedave
Date: 11 Aug 06 - 03:45 AM

So let me get this straight.

One of the world's fiercest and well-equipped armies with total control of the air and able to bomb at will - which they are virtually doing - with an unlimited supply of arms and other resources, thousands of troops and tanks in the field, are being held back by a number of guerillas and so-called "terrorists". I say so-called because the Israeli army is terrorising a population just as much and frankly I don't see the difference.

Bit like Vietnam really. Now - who "won" that one?

I happen to think that no-one did, but one thing for certain, the Americans (read Israelis)lost.

Subject: RE: BS: Is Hezbollah Winning?
From: GUEST
Date: 11 Aug 06 - 09:33 AM

Vietnam/USA = Iraq/USA
Not Israel - Hizbollah

Subject: RE: BS: Is Hezbollah Winning?
From: Old Guy
Date: 11 Aug 06 - 10:59 AM

http://www.cjp.org/content_display.html?ArticleID=191974

Israeli leaflets list dead Hezbollah fighters

Deutsche Presse-Agentur (dpa)
08/11/2006


Beirut (dpa) - Israeli jets on Friday dropped leaflets over parts of the Lebanese capital Beirut listing the names of 100 Hezbollah guerrillas who it claimed had been killed in fighting with Israeli troops.

The leaflets fell on areas loyal to the militant Hezbollah movement, including the southern suburbs and areas where Shiite refugees from the south of the country are staying.

"(Hezbollah chief Sheikh Hassan) Nasrallah is killing your children for nothing," the leaflets read.

Most of the leaflets fell on parks across the capital, where refugees are staying.

"This is part of the psychological war the enemy is using on us. We tell them we will not bow," said a Hezbollah follower.

The leaflets listed some 100 guerrillas who it said had been killed by Israeli troops in southern Lebanon.

Hezbollah so far has said that only 58 of its guerrillas died in clashes since Israel began its onslaught on Lebanon on July 12 in response to a cross-border raid by the Shiite militia.

Israeli reports said more than 300 guerrillas had been killed.

Subject: RE: BS: Is Hezbollah Winning?
From: Peace
Date: 11 Aug 06 - 04:23 PM

"Hezbollah so far has said that only 58 of its guerrillas died"

The press also reported that 58 people died at Cana. Turns out there were 28 dead at Cana. Numbers have a funny way of being changed in wars. Depends on who's doing the reporting I guess.

Subject: RE: BS: Is Hezbollah Winning?
From: The Fooles Troupe
Date: 12 Aug 06 - 12:17 AM

Hmmmm....

The leaflets listed some 100 guerrillas who it said had been killed by Israeli troops
[snip]
Hezbollah so far has said that only 58 of its guerrillas died in clashes since Israel began its onslaught on Lebanon on July 12
[snip]
Israeli reports said more than 300 guerrillas had been killed.


"Numbers have a funny way of being changed in wars. Depends on who's doing the reporting I guess. "

Subject: RE: BS: Is Hezbollah Winning?
From: Slag
Date: 12 Aug 06 - 01:10 AM

Such is the nature of guerilla warfare folkiedave. It is difficult trying to fight a brave group of assassins who hide behind women and children, murder indiscriminately in any direction, wear no uniform. I gotta tell ya folkiedave, they ARE coming after you when they get the chance. Are you going to lay down and die for them? Have you ever eaten pork? You're a goner. Lines have been drawn and if you choose to ignore them, that's at your own peril. Have mistakes been made? Of course. Do they have legitimate issues? I know they do. But you have to know that their main concern is not addressing those issues in a civilized manner. They are bent upon the destruction of Israel and the USA and that, my friend, includes you.

Subject: RE: BS: Is Hezbollah Winning?
From: The Fooles Troupe
Date: 12 Aug 06 - 01:18 AM

You do realise, don't you, that this madness all started when a young Muslim student in the USA went to a dance, and watched partially unclothed young men & women sinfully cavorting themselves to music...

Subject: RE: BS: Is Hezbollah Winning?
From: Slag
Date: 12 Aug 06 - 01:51 AM

Foolestroupe, You must realize this all started about 5000 years ago when Abraham sent Ishmael and his Mom packing.

Subject: RE: BS: Is Hezbollah Winning?
From: GUEST
Date: 12 Aug 06 - 06:34 AM

"The leaflets listed some 100 guerrillas who it said had been killed by Israeli troops
[snip]
Israeli reports said more than 300 guerrillas had been killed."


I guess they only had IDs for 1/3 of the bodies....

Subject: RE: BS: Is Hezbollah Winning?
From: The Fooles Troupe
Date: 12 Aug 06 - 07:24 AM

"this madness all started when a young Muslim student in the USA went to a dance"

That's when the main recent thrust of fundamentalist nutters got rolling...

Subject: RE: BS: Is Hezbollah Winning?
From: GUEST
Date: 12 Aug 06 - 07:32 AM

So if we just stop all this dancing and music everything will be alright?

Subject: RE: BS: Is Hezbollah Winning?
From: The Fooles Troupe
Date: 12 Aug 06 - 07:40 AM

It may be a a bit late for that now - but if he hadn't found Allah while being tortured in a Mideastern Jail, maybe....

Subject: RE: BS: Is Hezbollah Winning?
From: GUEST,Frank Hamilton
Date: 12 Aug 06 - 10:02 AM

No one is winning. Everyone is losing...Israel, US, Palestinians, Hezbollah.....

It's crazy.


Frank Hamilton

Subject: RE: BS: Is Hezbollah Winning?
From: GUEST
Date: 12 Aug 06 - 08:47 PM

Re: Slag

" I gotta tell ya folkiedave, they ARE coming after you when they get the chance. Are you going to lay down and die for them? Have you ever eaten pork? You're a goner. Lines have been drawn and if you choose to ignore them, that's at your own peril. Have mistakes been made? Of course. Do they have legitimate issues? I know they do. But you have to know that their main concern is not addressing those issues in a civilized manner. They are bent upon the destruction of Israel and the USA and that, my friend, includes you".

Slag: I wouldn't like to live under the Taliban etc., either. I like my freedoms, such as they are (and our so-called democratic governments are using the war on 'terror' to make as many inroads into these as they can). But look at it another way: for well over the last 50 years the West has been interfering with the middle east and Islamic way of life. Who installed the Shah of Iran, who turned into sucha corrupt little despot he ended up being overthrown by the Iranian revolution? The Iranians were so pissed off at the US interference thye ended up closing the US embassy and kicking the Americans out (and the White House is a sore loser). Who armed and helped Saddam terrorise his own people? He was allowed to get away literally with murder until he got too big for his boots and invaded Kuwait. It didn't matter then that he tortured and killed thousands of his own people, that he gassed the Kurds etc., When they rose up against him after the 1st Gulf War, they were promised help by the US, but then hung out to dry (by Bush snr, it runs in the family). It was the same the world over - Chile (Pinochet) Panama (where the US even had the nerve to install a CIA agent - Noriega - as president) and so on in a long, long list. None of these puppet leaders were likeable men, and none had any respect for democratic norms. It didn't matter a damn as long as they followed orders from the White House. Now, they find US and British troops on their soil, laying waste to their country and telling them - at gunpoint - that they must live according to a different model of society, one th West happens to value, but in a modified form for export, where big business is the real government (actually, come to think of it, western 'democracy' is no different, just more sugar-coated). If I were an Arab I would probably conclude that my country would be far better off without these heavily-armed philanthrophists and do my best to see them to the door. Trouble is, the West doesn't just want Muslims to fit in with our particular way of life while they are living in the west, we expect them to live according to our way of life even when they happen to be living in their own countries.

(By the way, I know that the Soviet Union had an appalling record of interfering in democracies too, and had a terrible human rights record, and still does as Russia in Chechnya; as does China re.Tianamen Sqaure and Tibet , etc., etc., )

Subject: RE: BS: Is Hezbollah Winning?
From: Slag
Date: 12 Aug 06 - 10:31 PM

Guest! Yes! Governments do get away with murder: all the time, ours, theirs, all of them. The relation between government and the people is always a struggle for power and control. And I'll grant you too, that our inconsistent and heavy handed foreign policies have been a main contributor to the political environment and the discontent that has shaped a lot of what goes on today. Anecdotally I had a friend, among several friends who spent three seasons at least on a dig in Israel, tel El Hesi. They had much better relations with the Arab community than the Israeli community and especially Israeli officialdom. They were all quite sympathetic to the Arabs' plight. As a country, were not very good evangelists when it comes to promoting democracy. I don't have THE answer to the situation. It's very complex and I'm a rather simple person. I believe in fair play and the Golden Rule. My government reads that as "Here's a sucker we can easily manipulate. We've got his game book and we can use it against him" (they're wrong). The enemies of this state see my statement as weakness and lack of will. They are wrong.

That genius, Lewis Carroll covered the English cum USA's approach to foreign affairs in his poem "The Walrus and the Carpenter". It really says it all. How are we going to "win the hearts and minds" with that approach?

On our own political scene every election is rigged in some way by both parties and the one that out cheats the other usually wins. I'm really tired of a NO CHOICE choice. Who runs? Millionaires, multimillionaires. Millionaires back by millionaires and by OPM, suckers all. And who is it we are electing? People rich enough and powerful enough to hide all their wrong doing. Why doesn't you neighbor whom you know run for office? Why won't you vote for him or her? "Well, since they aren't a big success they aren't capabable of helping to run the country." Or they have made some mistakes along the way and don't want to go through the public scrutinty of the propaganda machine, the press. I'd much rather vote for someone who can say "Yeah, I've screwed up a few times in my life. I inhaled.
And I've learned from my mistakes. I have some ideas I believe to be pretty good for the country and I'd like to see you get on board with me and see if we can get this mess turned around."

I believe wholeheartedly upon the ideals this nation was founded upon. Founded? Foundation? Fundamentalism? Yep. The Declaration of Independence is one of the greatest and nobelest documents that mankind has ever produced. Let's not subvert it or it's intent. Our constitution with it's clear common sense Bill of Rights, written in the common English of the common people and understandable by all honest people (not just slick lawyers and double-tongued politicos)with a modicum of intelligence is a triumph for freedom. It recognizes that the power of the government lies in the people. It derives it's power from those whom it governs. And yet the jackals we keep electing work tirelessly trying to come up with ways to minimizes and limit that power. They came up with Income Tax (it will never be more than 1% of your income, trust us!). They keep trying to come up with a way to disarm us because, as Chairman Mao stated so eloquently, "All political power flows from the end of a gun barrel." or words to that effect. You may be anti-gun, and that's your choice, but if they ever get the citizen's means of defense, we are all goners. In a totalitarian state the police have little to fear from the public but the public has much to fear from the police. There's the knock on the door at midnight and the "disappeared ones". In a free state the police have it harder because the free citizenry is "on it's honor"and unfortunately not all are honorable. And that is still, by far, the most of us. We obey the laws. The few irresponsible ones, whom we call "criminals" are the only one's who should fear the police (idealy). Freedom isn't free. Government is a necessary evil that needs to be guarded and watched constantly and we as a people have really fallen down on the job. We are in danger because we've grown complacent. We want the Government to do it all for us. That's not American!

As long as I have a breeze up and I'm preaching let me add one more thing. Freedom is not the right or the ability to do anything you want. That is a pernicious idea born of selfishnes and it's name is "license", as in licentous, a blatant disregard for the rules or the norms. Freedom is the ability to do the RIGHT thing, to do one's duty to his neighbor and countryman and to protect our valuable freedoms and rights, to be responsible.

I don't know the answer to all our specific problems but I know the correct answer lies in the heart of those great documents and in the great freedom loving hearts of all honest Americans who believe the same.

Subject: RE: BS: Is Hezbollah Winning?
From: Peace
Date: 12 Aug 06 - 10:39 PM

When in the Course of human events it becomes necessary for one people to dissolve the political bands which have connected them with another and to assume among the powers of the earth, the separate and equal station to which the Laws of Nature and of Nature's God entitle them, a decent respect to the opinions of mankind requires that they should declare the causes which impel them to the separation.

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. — That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, — That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness. Prudence, indeed, will dictate that Governments long established should not be changed for light and transient causes; and accordingly all experience hath shewn that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed. But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future security. — Such has been the patient sufferance of these Colonies; and such is now the necessity which constrains them to alter their former Systems of Government. The history of the present King of Great Britain is a history of repeated injuries and usurpations, all having in direct object the establishment of an absolute Tyranny over these States. To prove this, let Facts be submitted to a candid world.

Subject: RE: BS: Is Hezbollah Winning?
From: Old Guy
Date: 13 Aug 06 - 01:08 AM

If the new UN resoultion becomes reality, Hezbollah will loose their stranglehod on Lebanon at least for a while.

China Backs Up Lebanon Resolution

Beijing, Aug 12 (Prensa Latina) China on Saturday called on all parties to respect the ceasefire in the Middle East, adopted by the United Nations Security Council on Friday.

The official spokesperson for the Chinese Foreign Ministry welcomed the document, titled Resolution 1701, adding that he expects its content "be implemented by all parties in a tangible way, to resume peace and stability in the region".

Support for Lebanon and condemnation of Israel s attacks has spread to other Asian countries.

In Malaysia, more than 20,000 students staged peaceful protests at six universities to condemn Tel Aviv s atrocities in Lebanon and Palestine, the news agency BERMANA reported.

The students also raised funds to send humanitarian aid to victims of Israel s aggressions, while the secretary of the Aman Palestin Bhd bank, Awang Suffian Awang, urged Malaysians to make donations to palliate the hardship and suffering of the Lebanese and the Palestinian peoples.

Meanwhile, Indonesia donated more than one million dollars to the victims of the bloody conflict in Palestine and is preparing another one-million-dollar package to assist the victims of Israel s attacks on Lebanon.

Indonesia also decided to send a 900-strong military contingent to join the UN peacekeeping force in Lebanon, while neighboring Malaysia and Brunei made a similar decision.

The 15,000-strong multinational peacekeeping force will be deployed in southern Lebanon in compliance with Resolution 1701 of the UN Security Council, approved on Friday by all 15 member countries of that international body.

Subject: RE: BS: Is Hezbollah Winning?
From: GUEST,Black Tom
Date: 13 Aug 06 - 04:52 AM

Hezbollah has won the hearts and minds of the American press, as have all other Islamic terrorists. The news media reports their actions in the most politically correct maner possible. Why is it that they have no problem with the term, "The Religous Right", but can't seem to use the term, "Islamic Terrorist"? Common sence tells you that not all followers of Islam are terrorists.I have known a number of muslims who are more than happy to live and let live. The terrorist, on the other hand, will not stop until there is only one religion left in the world. If these wack jobs are not destroyed,we will either be converted, or killed. Then, there will be no politicly correctness. Women will be "put in their place". Gays will be killed. Not for anything they do, but just for who they are. There will be no freedom of speach, the press, or any of the other freedoms we take for granted. This is our future if we fail to win. I've heard many people say that war is never the answer, but when someone is trying to kill you, you either fight, or you die.
Personally, I'm going to sharpen up my Fairbain, grease it with lard, and wait for the Holy War to come to me.

Subject: RE: BS: Is Hezbollah Winning?
From: Folkiedave
Date: 13 Aug 06 - 05:10 AM

they ARE coming after you when they get the chance.

"The only thing that history teaches is that history teaches nothing".

Remember the domino theory? If Vietnam fell to the communists then the rest of the world would follow.

Well so far, wrong.

They are after those who invade and bomb their country and you would do the same. The fact that my government is in it almost as deep as yours I find absolutely appalling. That's what makes me a target.

As for eating pork, I am a vegetarian.

Subject: RE: BS: Is Hezbollah Winning?
From: GUEST,hugo
Date: 13 Aug 06 - 07:31 AM

The Un resolution will not work because it does not deal with the reality of Israel's invasion of Lebanon and in the background is the blatent oppression of the Palestinians .That is the key issue that could lead to a resolution of the conflicts in the Middle East.
hugo

Subject: RE: BS: Is Hezbollah Winning?
From: The Fooles Troupe
Date: 13 Aug 06 - 08:18 AM

But of course Hugo, there are too many that do not want the violence to stop - how can they sell munitions in a 'Time of Peace'?

Hezbollah has already said that they will continue to attack Israeli Military who are engaging their fighters (not retreating I suppose!), and are on 'Lebanese Land' - I suppose that includes the disputed lands...

Subject: RE: BS: Is Hezbollah Winning?
From: John on the Sunset Coast
Date: 13 Aug 06 - 10:11 AM

Folkdavie, you overstate your case. It was the rest of Southeast Asia would fall to communism, not the whole world, and that pretty much happened, with most disasterous results in Cambodia.

Subject: RE: BS: Is Hezbollah Winning?
From: Old Guy
Date: 13 Aug 06 - 12:29 PM

Was the withdrawal from the Gaza Strip "blatent oppression of the Palestinians"?

Subject: RE: BS: Is Hezbollah Winning?
From: GUEST
Date: 13 Aug 06 - 12:43 PM

Hey, two million dead Cambodians should not bother him- After all, the papers here did not give us daily pictures, so it was ok.

Subject: RE: BS: Is Hezbollah Winning?
From: Slag
Date: 13 Aug 06 - 02:02 PM

If Soviet Communism had the religious ferver of the Islamo-Fascists and if they hadn't run up against a hardballer like Regean we might still be playing dominos. The Lenin-Marx doctrine had the same imperative by the same means as Islam, i.e. conquer (convert) all and the ends justify the means.

Re history: On an individual basis each one of us is the sum total of our remembered experiences. History teaches us everything if we will only allow it. Instead, foliedave, some of us want to overlay it with our idealism. I remember a news story where some animal lovers decided to interrupt a bull fight in Spain. They entered the arena and sat down in protest. They were El Toro's freind so they knew the bull would not hurt them. WRONG! They did not believe their history. They paid the price. You need to study history a little closer, especially the history of warfare, as distasteful as that maybe.

As for not being a pork-eater? Explain that to them. Ever hear of guilt by association? Did you watch the fair trial of Mr. Berg just befor he was beheaded? Good luck. Or, hey! You are probably a clever fellow. Maybe you could convert now and get on the winning side (believe me, lines HAVE been drawn). I'm sure they will welcome you. They can probably find you some small jobs to do, maybe even send you on a mission. Did you ever get in a fight at school? Did you just stand there and get the shit beat out of you? Or did you fight back, regardless of the provocation? If you were a good little boy you probably just took it. Yeah, the bully may have "got in trouble" but you still got clobbered nonetheless. Having said all that I cannot really judge you. If your convictions say that you cannot condone violence then one of the protected you must be, or be a martyr. Christ asked His followers at one point if they were armed, that a time would come when they must fight but not He. He came on a mission of sacrifice. So be it. By the by, folkiedave, whoever made you a target, your government, radical Islam or Adam and Eve doesn't matter. You are still a target.

Black Tom, we have gone out to meet our enemies. We need to defeat them THERE, not HERE. Support your troops!

Subject: RE: BS: Is Hezbollah Winning?
From: Folkiedave
Date: 13 Aug 06 - 03:31 PM

It was the rest of Southeast Asia would fall to communism, not the whole world, and that pretty much happened, with most disasterous results in Cambodia.

First of all the theory was also applied to Central and South America and the Caribbean not just S.E Asia. Secondly it was used to justify interventionist policies.

As for it happening - well the fact is there are two countries in S.E. Asia that would regard themselves as communist. They are Laos and Vietnam. How come you are not intervening in these two countries to save Thailand, Malaysia, Indonesia etc.etc. from communism or do you no longer believe in the theory?

Subject: RE: BS: Is Hezbollah Winning?
From: Peace
Date: 13 Aug 06 - 05:11 PM

"The Un resolution will not work because it does not deal with the reality of Israel's invasion of Lebanon and in the background is the blatent oppression of the Palestinians .That is the key issue that could lead to a resolution of the conflicts in the Middle East.
hugo"

Off yer meds aGAIN?

Tell me, hugo, are the Israelis responsible for this?

Genocide in Africa and the So-Called War on Terror: The Mounting Crisis in the Darfur region of Sudan in Light of the Failure of Intervention in Rwanda

Subject: RE: BS: Is Hezbollah Winning?
From: Peace
Date: 13 Aug 06 - 05:20 PM

"Almost a million black Africans have been displaced from
Darfur through the violence of government-backed thugs who are animated by the same combination of Arabic and Islamic zealotry that made Sudan such a congenial host country for Usama bin Laden and a number of his fellow mujahadeen in the years following their overthrow, with US backing, of the Soviet puppet regime in Afghanistan. The quest to expand the realm of Arabic supremacy into the Aboriginal territory of black Africans is going forward in Sudan through a concerted campaign involving the mass slaughter of civilians, systemic gang rapes, and the looting and burning of whole villages."

Tell us more about the friendliness of Islam and its various factions, hugo.

That quote is from

http://people.uleth.ca/~hall/genocide.htm

However, I suppose the garbage bastards doing that stuff in Africa are displaced Muslims, huh?

Subject: RE: BS: Is Hezbollah Winning?
From: Bill Hahn//\\
Date: 13 Aug 06 - 05:24 PM

As all things they are not always what they seem. A bit more subtle and complex.

Just a short note to urge you to read today's NY TImes Magazine article re: the Hezbollah/Syrian/Lebanese/Israel confrontation---its origins and what it probably is really all about---and it is more Syrian power over Lebanon and Shite supremace of that sad place than what terrible events on the ground seem to indicate


Bill H

Subject: RE: BS: Is Hezbollah Winning?
From: GUEST,Nick
Date: 13 Aug 06 - 05:31 PM

To: Slag,

Hi Slag, sorry I forgot to add my name to my reply to your post the last time. I couldn't agree with you more about disillusionment with many of the political parties. We Europeans jokingly refer to the US as the two-party country (where choice is limited) but we're not that much better, if at all. What we need are new political parties. In the USA it seems you have a choice between: killing Iraqis is wrong but killing unborn children is OK (Democrats) and killing unborn children is wrong but killing Iraqis is fine - just more Injuns really (Republicans). I say they're both wrong - Kill 'em all! No, only joking! Seriously, we need a political party that values human life full stop, and realises that any 'progress' built over mounds of dead corpses is no progress. I still reckon terrorism can be reduced to a pinpoint or practically eliminated by creating a just and fair world, allowing space for different populations to live their own way. The key to the problem goes way beyond national security, the army, military budgets, oil etc., What passes for government these days is in reality little more than political fronts for big business. Look at the ridiculous amounts that are spent on presidential campaigns! How can the little fellow get a look in that way? The big corporations see this money as money well spent. Once their favourite is elected he will ensure barriers to trade are removed in favour of the big corporations, the ones who really drive policy.
An interesting website you could check out in this regard is www.yesmen.org

By the way, I also agree with you about freedom. Logically, freedom cannot be limitless, or else, for instance I would have the freedom to kill anyone I wished. The counterbalance of freedom is responsibility (usually mentioned in much smaller print these days) to your society.

Subject: RE: BS: Is Hezbollah Winning?
From: Slag
Date: 13 Aug 06 - 06:00 PM

Re Iran kicking America out (the 400 and some odd days of captivity): They sure knew how to time their move. Jimmie Carter, the weakest and worst American president of the twentieth century and perhaps of all time. If they had REALLY known how useless Carter was they might have taken over the US!!!

Subject: RE: BS: Is Hezbollah Winning?
From: GUEST,Nick
Date: 13 Aug 06 - 06:43 PM

Slag: I think I know what you mean about Jimmy Carter - that he didn't stand up to Iran at the time. But I would say G.W Bush is one of the weakest US presidents ever. He does exactly what he is told by big business - the eminence grise(s) behind the White House. Rice and Cheney are by far the smarter and stronger characters (but, not, note nice caharcters by any means), but Bush makes the perfect mouthpiece - not too clever for his own good, a real 'yes' man.
By the way, if Iran had taken over the USA we'd all be rooting for the USA, and for it to have back its liberty. It's a good job they didn't succeed. But I suppose once they had secured their own country the way they wanted it, they left well alone. Having said that, the White House is like an elephant - never forgets - and it's a sore loser. So it bankrolled Saddam by billions of dollars on condition he punished Iran for them. Didn't matter what kind of undemocratic monster he was at home. He could pose as a champion of Islam all he wanted, but the White House knew that at heart he was a good old Mesopotamian Imperialist that spoke the same langauge as they.

Subject: RE: BS: Is Hezbollah Winning?
From: Little Hawk
Date: 13 Aug 06 - 06:50 PM

They didn't want to take over the USA, Slag, they wanted to set their own domestic affairs in order.

Most people would be happy to leave the USA alone if it would just leave them alone for a change.

Subject: RE: BS: Is Hezbollah Winning?
From: John on the Sunset Coast
Date: 13 Aug 06 - 08:07 PM

Excuse me Little Hawk, what you wrote about Iran is not quite on the money. Iran took over the US Embassy not to set their domestic affairs in order, but because the humanitarian in President Carter allowed the exiled Shah to come to the United States for medical treatment for cancer... which once again shows that no good deed goes unpunished.
Whether Pres. Carter should have abandoned the Shah in the first place is another story; it is my belief that most of the current mess in the Middle East has its genesis in that cowardly action.
BTW, lest you think you detect any sarcasm in this post, I used the word humanitarian in its most positive way.

Subject: RE: BS: Is Hezbollah Winning?
From: Slag
Date: 13 Aug 06 - 08:24 PM

Yeah, it was a real shocker to the adminstration when Iraq whom we had been helping "accidentally" fired an Exocet missle (where'd they get that thing??) and hit one of our naval vessels (oops!, snicker, snicker). You may have guessed by now that I tend to the conservative (that's the catagory these days) side of most issues but as far as the Bushes go 41 was a big disappointment to me but I should have known better. 43 started out of the gate fairly strong and seemed to come to terms with the terrible situation that was thrust upon him but he has lost his head of steam and bean counters and political analysts with their collective finger to the wind DO seem to be driving his policies. Cheney is a smart man. Really smart. I like him and I think he is so smart that when his term is over he will walk away from the whole deal. That's smart! Rice is more than smart. She's brilliant. I'd like to see if she has that extra something that allows a person to blaze their own path. She knows the value of the team and she is certainly a team player but could she be a team leader? ( note the athletic metaphor, as she is big on sports) I mean, can she call her own plays?? GW is smarter than the average bear but not a lot smarter and he is really a weak public communicator. Laura is much more articulate! We all SURVIVE our governments. One group is happy, the other isn't then vice versa. Somehow it works. In lieu of war if we could just fight in an honest and open press, in the media, at the ballot box, forego the bullets and bombs, tolerate or endure the party we don't like and, well, see my earlier posts, before I go off again!

Subject: RE: BS: Is Hezbollah Winning?
From: Little Hawk
Date: 13 Aug 06 - 08:25 PM

There have been major issues between Iran and the USA ever since 1953. Those issues began when Iranians tried to take charge of their own domestic oil sources by nationalizing a western-owned oil company. That government was brought down by a CIA-assisted coup, because the one thing you CANNOT allow is for third world nations to control their own resources and set their own oil policies, is it?

(saracasm deliberate in that case)

I mean, hey, that's why the USA didn't like Castro at the beginning, only in his case it wasn't oil, it was other commercial interests that he nationalized. So naturally Castro went to Russia. ;-) You either play with one big bully or you play with the other.

This is all power politics between big nations and small ones. It has nothing to do with humanitarianism, democracy, or who is a nice guy. It has to do with markets, spheres of influence, and the control of strategic resources.

The Shah did what the West wanted to...as Saddam did also, prior to his invasion of Kuwait. The West loves dictators as long as they do what the West wants. The Soviets loved dictators as long as they did what Russia wanted.

There is no morality gap between those 2 attitudes, nor anything for either one of them to be proud of. Small countries are always the victims of great powers, and great powers are always motivated by totally self-serving and ruthless motives.

Carter was a humanitarian in his basic inclinations, no doubt. That Iranian crisis killed his presidency as surely as if someone had put a bullet in his head. You may recall that he did try an airborne rescue mission with helicopters, but it went awry. Is that Jimmy Carter's personal fault? No. It's nobody's fault, their luck just wasn't any good on that day, that's all.

Subject: RE: BS: Is Hezbollah Winning?
From: Peace
Date: 13 Aug 06 - 08:26 PM

Instead of wars, when countries want to do battle their leaders should go--and may I suggest machine guns at fifteen paces?

Subject: RE: BS: Is Hezbollah Winning?
From: Peace
Date: 13 Aug 06 - 08:33 PM

Or machetes in a very small room . . .

Subject: RE: BS: Is Hezbollah Winning?
From: Slag
Date: 13 Aug 06 - 08:44 PM

When I look up "ineptitude" in my dictionary, there's Jimmy!
I hate to correct you LittleHawk but the CIA helped set up Castro. Castro turned on the CIA or rather he secretly had his own adgenda. Just ask Che. Whoops! Castro also had an adgenda for Che too.

Subject: RE: BS: Is Hezbollah Winning?
From: Peace
Date: 13 Aug 06 - 09:34 PM

As did the CIA . . . .

Subject: RE: BS: Is Hezbollah Winning?
From: Peace
Date: 13 Aug 06 - 11:21 PM

"Nasrallah said Hezbollah will help refugees return home and will support the Lebanese Army and the U.N. Interim Force in Lebanon."

Nasrallah should be told by Lebanon to bugger off, IMO. Bastard starts a war then thinks he calls the shots?

Subject: RE: BS: Is Hezbollah Winning?
From: dianavan
Date: 14 Aug 06 - 01:58 AM

Hezbollah winning? Maybe not but they sure did stand up to the big guns.

It wasn't quite as quick and easy as Israel predicted and now Israel is experiencing a bad case of hubris.

Israel boasted about their might but were not as mighty as they thought. They have had to change their story several times in an attempt to save face. Were they ever concerned about the kidnapped Israeli soldiers? Very unlikely. The soldiers aren't even a part of the ceasefire.

In terms of civilian losses, yes, Israel has won. They killed 10 Lebanese civilians for every Israeli citizen that was killed. Give Israel a big round of applause. They are definitely the most lethal if thats how you determine a winner.

In the long run, Israel has lost. Anti-Israel sentiment is growing stronger every day. People are openly critical of Israel and call them butchers. This does not bode well for their citizens. How can you be proud of your nation when you are overwhelmed by guilt and shame.

Israel and the U.S. are big bullies with no respect for human life.

So much for defending us from terrorism.

Subject: RE: BS: Is Hezbollah Winning?
From: Little Hawk
Date: 14 Aug 06 - 02:13 AM

Castro definitely had friends stateside in '59, Slag, as you say, including some CIA...UNTIL he kicked out the Mafia, the casinos, and the big American companies. Then he became persona non grata in Washington, much to his initial surprise when he went to New York. Then he went to the Russians. In that order. George Washington would have probably the same as Castro, had he been in his place, but the conquering bloody Empire then was Great Britain, not America.

Like I said, run your own show in a small country and you will be called either a Communist (the old boogeyman) or a terrorist (the new boogeyman). Every great conquering bloody Empire needs a boogeyman or two to justify its continued interest in military and commercial domination of farflung areas of the globe.

Castro and Mossadegh (in Iran in 1953) both did the unallowable. They turned business over to local control and took it away from the conquering bloody Empire.

It's all about the $$$money$$$. Every time.

Subject: RE: BS: Is Hezbollah Winning?
From: Slag
Date: 14 Aug 06 - 03:16 AM

It's always about $$$ in all but a Holy War. Uncle Sugar (Cuban?) always has his nose out for the geetus. True, the Mafia who were invested big in Havana were rebuffed and that was a necessary tactical consideration for Castro, a no-brainer but come on, Fidel was no Liberator and was not possessed of high ideals. He's another third world dictator. Russia served his ends by being bully support and Cuba under Castro served Russia's desire for a stepping stone, if needed, and a thorn in the flesh of the US. He was a COMMUNIST because that's what it took to be allied against the US. The rhetoric was communist, the reality was/is he's a dictator.

Emipre? Get real. Now you are puking out the rhetoric. There may be global financial empires in a very limited way but the US ceased Imperialism after T. Roosevelt.

Question for you LittleHawk: What IS money?

Subject: RE: BS: Is Hezbollah Winning?
From: Folkiedave
Date: 14 Aug 06 - 04:35 AM

Chile elected a socialist government and took control of its own resources. The Copper corporations demanded compensation so the government worked out the balance sheet at to who owed whom and presented the Copper Corporations with a bill.

Shortly afterwards the American government conspired to overthrow an elected government.

Here is a list of countries America has bombed since WW2. No doubt to save them from themselves. Try and spot a time when America wasn't bombing someone.

China 1945-46
Korea 1950-53
China 1950-53
Guatemala 1954
Indonesia 1958
Cuba 1959-60
Guatemala 1960
Belgian Congo 1964
Guatemala 1964

Dominican Republic 1965-66
Peru 1965
Laos 1964-73
Vietnam 1961-73
Cambodia 1969-70
Guatemala 1967-69
Lebanon 1982-84
Grenada 1983-84
Libya 1986
El Salvador 1981-92
Nicaragua 1981-90
Libya 1986
Iran 1987-88
Libya 1989
Panama 1989-90
Iraq 1991-200-til god knows when
Somalia 1992-94
Croatia 1994 (of Serbs at Krajina)
Bosnia 1995
Iran 1998 (airliner)
Sudan 1998
Afghanistan 1998
Yugoslavia 1999
Afghanistan 2001-02

Subject: RE: BS: Is Hezbollah Winning?
From: The Fooles Troupe
Date: 14 Aug 06 - 05:44 AM

I once saw T-Shirt with a list of all the countries the US has 'interfered' in... anyone know where you can get them?

Subject: RE: BS: Is Hezbollah Winning?
From: Alba
Date: 14 Aug 06 - 05:50 AM

Jeez Foolestroupe I am surprised that ALL those Countries fitted on one single Tee shirt!!!

If it was a while ago you saw the Tee shirt it might be that that "list" can now only be printed on a large bedspread (outgrown the Tee shirt if you catch my drift...*smile *)

Jude

Subject: RE: BS: Is Hezbollah Winning?
From: freda underhill
Date: 14 Aug 06 - 06:37 AM

The New Yorker's Seymour Hersh has alleged that Israel had planned a military strategy to take on Hezbollah in Lebanon, and shared that strategy with the Bush administration well before the kidnappings last month that triggered the current war. Seymour Hersh, who in the past exposed the Abu Ghraib scandal and Vietnam's My Lai massacre, also wrote that the United States gave the green light to the attack on Hezbollah because of its own plans for Iran.

An interview with Seymour Hersh in Washington a short time ago:

SEYMOUR HERSH: Once Israel indicated it was ready to go, it was getting ready, it had had it with Hezbollah and they, you know, it was a target of opportunity. They thought they could do it with air, the Israeli Commander in Chief, General Halutz is an airman and believes in strategic bombing. And the White House, the more they heard about it, the more they began these discussions. Eventually, what I say in the article is that Richard Cheney the vice-President, and everything always seems to come to him and his immediate office, the neo-conservatives if you will. I mean, what a good idea. Let the Israelis do it. It's a no-brainer.

One, we're having a tremendous fight inside our own military with our own plans for bombing Iran and the White House is very eager for the Air Force to come up with a very tough plan to take out the Iranians. And the other services in America - the Army, the Navy, the marine corp, are all have been saying - for a year, I've been writing about it - are you nuts? We can't do it. If you start bombing what'll happen is you'll need troops and we don't have the troops. So here you have a chance to show that bombing can work against a tough, dug in target. Hezbollah is underground, its missiles are underground. It's been digging for years. Nobody digs like the Iranians. The Persians have been digging holes since the 11th century.

So you go in and the Israeli Air Force blast Hezbollah, knocks it out of the park, that's a plus, you get rid of a terrorist. Two, if you're going to go to Iran, one of the deterrents is Hezbollah has missiles. We can't attack, the United States cannot attack Iran as long as Hezbollah can attack Haifa and Tel Aviv with missiles. We have to get rid of those. So that gets rid of those. And three, we show everybody, all those sceptics in the military, look, bombing can work. That was the unassailable thought of the White House.

ELEANOR HALL: And what are your sources telling you about when the Israelis came to the White House with this plan? How long has the planning been going on?

SEYMOUR HERSH: We don't know. I mean, the best I could get is Spring. Actually the Air Force came first. The American Air Force went to the Israelis first because the American Air Force has been, as I say, it's been getting its head handed to it inside the Pentagon every time they stick their head up and say, let's bomb. And so here's the Israelis who are great navigators and great pilots, great bombers. And so the American Air Force began to share notes. And then the idea percolated. And again, let me stress, Israel doesn't need America to go after Hezbollah. But there were also... another element was, after the Israelis invaded Gaza, if you remember an Israeli soldier was captured June 28th, a man named Shalit by, we think, Hamas.

And then Israelis punched into Gaza very hard. We occupied part of it, shot it up. At that point there was a lot of signals traffic that the Israeli intelligence community picked up in which Hamas, which is interestingly a Sunni organisation, and the Shi'ite Hezbollah were talking to each other, and one of the things being said is, maybe it's time to warm up the north. And so at this point, this is June/July, at this point it was decided that next time Hezbollah does something... and what you've had in the last five, six years between Israel and Hezbollah since the Israelis were driven out of southern Lebanon by Hezbollah in 2000, you've had nothing but back and forth cross-border stuff. You could be sure that in a month or two somebody was going to do something.

ELEANOR HALL: If this is a dry run for an attack on Iran, what lessons will the White House have drawn? Will it now be putting off a military confrontation?

SEYMOUR HERSH: Well, you know, normally, you'd think that there is a learning curve, but not in this White House. My own belief is that some of the people talking to me are also very nervous about the fact that they believe this White House is incapable of learning what it doesn't want to learn. Right now intelligence is being cooked just the way it was cooked before the war in Iraq. There's intelligence about Iran and its ties to Hezbollah, which are certainly deep, but not as deep as the White House would believe from the intelligence it's getting. A case is being dealt in the intelligence community against Iran that may not be accurate.

ELEANOR HALL: What is in it for the United States to give a green light for the bombardment of infrastructure in one of the countries that it points to as a shining example of democracy in the region?

SEYMOUR HERSH: (Inaudible) actually thought that one of the things you want to do is you want to increase the power of the civil government, the Lebanese Government, which is pro-American right now, now that we've gotten rid of the Syrians - they've been kicked out under UN resolution 1559. So one of the thoughts was, let's increase the power of the central government, let's decrease the power of Hezbollah which has been operating as a sort of separate armed entity, although it's certainly part of the Government right now. Hezbollah has members of Parliament, Cabinet members are Hezbollah, they provide a lot of services, incredible services - hospitals, schools - to their people. But still, the American idea, one aspect of it, the bombing would be good because it would diminish Hezbollah and make the Government stronger. Yeah, duh! Another bad call.

ELEANOR HALL: Now, you don't name a number of your key sources...

SEYMOUR HERSH: I name none of them!

ELEANOR HALL: ...How reliable are they?

SEYMOUR HERSH: Well, look, I've been around, as you know, I'm long of tooth, I've been doing this stuff from My Lai to Abu Ghraib and writing stories for a long time. You know when you take a bite of the Israelis, you know you're going to get a lot of heat.

ELEANOR HALL: But you're absolutely certain?

SEYMOUR HERSH: (Laughing) I don't think I'd put 40 years on the line if I wasn't certain. No, I'm certain and I know from where the offices where it comes from and I know where the people work. I just can't name them.

http://www.abc.net.au/worldtoday/content/2006/s1714570.htm

Subject: RE: BS: Is Hezbollah Winning?
From: Folkiedave
Date: 14 Aug 06 - 07:30 AM

George Monbiot another well-respected journalist in a well-respected liberal newspaper the Guardian has a similar story here

And here
is the Fox News agenda.

Subject: RE: BS: Is Hezbollah Winning?
From: Old Guy
Date: 14 Aug 06 - 09:24 AM

Looks like Hezbollah has won the hearts and minds of the naieve liberals courtesy of distorted MSM "news" with doctored photos.

Subject: RE: BS: Is Hezbollah Winning?
From: GUEST
Date: 14 Aug 06 - 09:30 AM

No, Hezbollah has actually won the war. Israel is suing for peace. A .50 caliber rifle with a depleted uranium round can stop a tank. Tank warfare is now a thing of the past. Israel is soft and hasn't kept up with advances in ground warfare. They've lost the tank advantage, AND the war. They were kicked out of Lebanon in 2000 by Hezbollah, and now they're getting kicked out again.

Subject: RE: BS: Is Hezbollah Winning?
From: GUEST,hugo
Date: 14 Aug 06 - 09:35 AM

old guy......there is enough photographic evidence of the carnage and atrocities commited in the Lebanon to convict the wargang many times over!
hugo

Subject: RE: BS: Is Hezbollah Winning?
From: bobad
Date: 14 Aug 06 - 09:46 AM

"Israel had planned a military strategy to take on Hezbollah in Lebanon"

And this is a bad thing, to plan a strategy to eliminate an obvious threat to the security of your citizens?

Subject: RE: BS: Is Hezbollah Winning?
From: Dave (the ancient mariner)
Date: 14 Aug 06 - 10:50 AM

Time to prepare for the next war. I think this guy has it right.

": The conventional wisdom says that Israel has lost this latest conflict, and Hizbollah has won. This is not quite accurate. This latest round of fighting in Lebanon was a draw, and possibly a major defeat for Hizbollah. Both sides can point to real gains, and both sides also have lost things as a result. The same can be said about any direct or indirect participant in this point.

For instance, Israel has made some significant gains. They now have a decent idea of what the conditions in southern Lebanon look like should they need to engage in larger-scale combat in the region. The UN resolution also allows Israel to take "defensive" actions against Hizbollah. Keep in mind, only two countries need to agree on what would constitute "defensive" action: Israel and the United States (which has a veto on the Security Council).

Hizbollah has managed to publicly fight a limited Israeli offensive to a draw. This will give the terrorist group a huge amount of prestige among the Arab world, and it will likely see a jump in recruiting and support. However, Hizbollah's propaganda has now been exposed, thanks to the blogosphere. This is going to cost Hizbollah in the long run – the brazen lies will be brought up in the future. But in the meantime, the ceasefire calls for the disarming of Hizbollah, something Hizbollah says it will resist.

Iran, a somewhat indirect participant, now has tangible results it can show for giving Hizbollah $250 million a year. This is going to somewhat reduce the discontent over the expenditures. However, Iran's also been caught supplying weapons (including anti-ship missiles) to Hizbollah. This will make the United States even touchier about Iran's nuclear weapons program than it already is. The last time the United States got very touchy about a dictator pursuing weapons of mass destruction who was also known to assist terrorists was in 2003.

Lebanon wins by having more UN peacekeepers to assist its army in the southern portion of that country. This will, hopefully, give it some means to fight Hizbollah. The problem is that Lebanon's government has been revealed to have at least been aware of Hizbollah's plans to kidnap the soldiers. Once seen as another victim of Hizbollah, there will be some who now see Lebanon as a collaborator.

The UN can also claim a sense of accomplishment, pointing to the Security Council resolution that ended this round of fighting, and the bolstering of its peacekeeping force. However, the UN is already dealing with the embarrassment of having to admit that its peacekeeping force was unable to prevent Hizbollah from launching attacks on Israel. The UN will also have little room for failure due to other past failures (like Srebrenica, the conduct of peacekeepers in Africa, and the Oil-for-Food program). It also raises questions about who will enforce Security Council Resolution 1559, which requires the disarmament of Hizbollah.

The United States has gained some things. For instance, it has now built up more of a case against Hizbollah. It also has picked up proof of Iranian involvement in arming Hizbollah – which will make it easier to justify acting against Iran's nuclear weapons program. The United States has also managed to set things up so that if Israel has to go after Hizbollah again, they can cover the Israelis at the UN. However, the United States will have to deal with the fact that Hizbollah has now gained prestige in the Arab world, and that Iran will be more confident in that group's abilities.

In other words, everyone's got reasons to claim victory in this war, and at the same time, everyone has a few things that they will want to deal with at some point in the future. The result is a cease-fire that will not hold, mainly because Hizbollah refuses to disarm. When a war ends without a definite winner or loser, the result will be a future war. – Harold C. Hutchison"

Subject: RE: BS: Is Hezbollah Winning?
From: Bill Hahn//\\
Date: 14 Aug 06 - 02:05 PM

I stated earlier that there are subtle things going on and they are well explained in the NY Times Magazine piece ofg Aug. 13.

But---on a simple note just one question to those who have all the conspiracy plots about Israel and the U S vis a vis Iran.

Who attacked who? Who crossed the border and killed soldiers and kidnapped 2 of them?

Period!!!


Bill H

Subject: RE: BS: Is Hezbollah Winning?
From: dianavan
Date: 14 Aug 06 - 02:21 PM

Well Bill, if that was the real reason for this overkill, don't you think those soldiers would enter into the ceasefire negotiations?

Those two soldiers don't mean squat to Israel. It was just an excuse to invade Lebanon.

Do you really think Israel can justify the slaughter and destruction of another nation based on a couple of captives? Based on that reasoning, lets start counting the number of captives Israel has.

Subject: RE: BS: Is Hezbollah Winning?
From: Bill Hahn//\\
Date: 14 Aug 06 - 03:54 PM

I reiterate my question---who invaded who's territory? Colin Powell's theory is if you use force---use massive force. Otherwise you are just sacrificing your own people for naught.

That said, I do think the NY Times article might well explain the real situation to you---Hezbollah wants to run Lebanon by destroying its own infrastructure. The Hariri assassination was the tip of that iceberg.

Another thought is that we--the U S--should be talking with Iran and Syria. But we have a stubborn "I am never wrong and only talk with people that deserve my consideration" president. Look where that has gotten us:

A war that cannot be won against an enemy we did not need to fight with a lack of manpower and no exit strategy.

Bill H

Subject: RE: BS: Is Hezbollah Winning?
From: dianavan
Date: 14 Aug 06 - 04:01 PM

Good question, Bill H.

Who invaded who's territory?

Thats the big question. Lets see...

Before there was Israeli territory, there was...

Subject: RE: BS: Is Hezbollah Winning?
From: Bill Hahn//\\
Date: 14 Aug 06 - 04:14 PM

There was Lebanon---and there still is Lebanon. Their weak army attacked no one---their terrorist band which is doing its best to be Lebanon did.

One other point--Israel is not a territory.   It is a sovereign state as is Lebanon.   You must use the proper terminology---otherwise you know that you colored and biased the discussion. Use "neutral" terms to make points if you are truly thinking of truth and not propogandizing.

Bill H

Subject: RE: BS: Is Hezbollah Winning?
From: GUEST,hugo
Date: 14 Aug 06 - 04:33 PM

Actually Bill Israel invaded the Lebanon last month and before that in 1982.It destroyed Beirut then and did a good job of it again this month with its huge bombs and missiles pulverising apartment blocks,bridges,clinics schools and houses.
Prior to the latest invasion it has raided Lebanese territory on many occasions assassinating individuals,kidnapping , collecting information and terrorising local people.
This time around an arrogant Israeli war machine commanded by a bunch of bone headed incompetents met its match against a well armed and well led guerrilla army using mobile tactics to good effect.
Read Seymour Hirsch's article for further info about the Israeli attackon the Lebanon.
hugo

Subject: RE: BS: Is Hezbollah Winning?
From: Greg F.
Date: 14 Aug 06 - 04:47 PM

George Dumbya has been a moron all along; now he's apparently suffered some kind of psychotic episode and entirely lost touch with reality:

Bush Says Israel Defeated Hezbollah

By NEDRA PICKLER, Associated Press Writer
16:34 EDT 14 August 2006

WASHINGTON -
President Bush, just hours after a cease-fire took hold Monday, said Hezbollah guerillas had suffered a sound defeat at the hands of Israel in their monthlong Mideast war...

Subject: RE: BS: Is Hezbollah Winning?
From: dianavan
Date: 14 Aug 06 - 04:57 PM

Bill H. - I was using your terminology. You were the one who use the term, territory. Then, when you could not answer my question, you suggest that I use neutral terms so as not to cloud the truth.

If you are attempting to de-rail the discussion by inserting a red-herring, you might try to be a little less transparent.

Hezbollah has shown the world that Israel/U.S./Britain is not as all powerful as once thought. Isn't it amazing what people can do when they fight back? Hezbollah stood up to the Israeli Army and Israel did not win. Nobody won but Israel has shown their true colours and lost alot of international support.

They lost my support a long time ago. Any nation dependent on 'daddy' is not worth my respect. Its time for Israel to stand on its own two feet and start to negotiate in good faith. Its also time for Israel to stop being so needy. I can think of alot of countries that need support more than Israel does.

Makes me wonder where Israel would be if they didn't do exactly what the U.S. and Britain wanted them to do.

Subject: RE: BS: Is Hezbollah Winning?
From: Peace
Date: 14 Aug 06 - 05:04 PM

When Hezbollah attacked Israel, they opened the door for Israel to go after their structure and leadership, and it's about time someone had the cajones to do so.

Muslim genocide:

Sudan
Rwanda

Terrorist attacks:

London
Madrid
Bali
Mumbai
Israel
USA


Nice people, huh? But of course, we won't be talking about that because we are going to paint these bastards as 'poor deprived folks with a little attitude--just the boys out on Friday night killing a few hundred thousand people--sowing their oats as it were'. This is the trash you support.

Subject: RE: BS: Is Hezbollah Winning?
From: Raedwulf
Date: 14 Aug 06 - 05:06 PM

PEOPLE

are losing.

Who gives a shit whether Hezbollah, Israel, or anyone else thinks they're winning?

I'd like to have been at the UN this week. I *really* wanted to bang together the heads of a lot of diplomats who seemed to think that the form of words & their country's "face" was rather more important than the fact that people were busy dying unnecessarily...

Subject: RE: BS: Is Hezbollah Winning?
From: bobad
Date: 14 Aug 06 - 05:22 PM

Majority back Harper's support of Israel, poll shows

Vito Pilieci, The Ottawa Citizen
Published: Monday, August 14, 2006

An overwhelming number of Canadians support Prime Minister Stephen Harper's assertion that Israel's attacks on Lebanon are justified because Israel has a right to self defence and say Iran and Syria are wrong to have armed Hezbollah, according to a new poll to be released today.

The poll, which was conducted by public opinion researcher COMPAS Inc., will appear today in the news magazine Western Standard. The poll states that 82 per cent of Canadians asked believe that Israel has a right to self defence.

The results come on the heels of protests by Lebanese Canadians who have criticized Mr. Harper's comments in support of Israel. Protesters have derided Mr. Harper as being nothing more than a carbon copy of U.S. President George W. Bush.

In one Ottawa protest, thousands of Lebanese supporters marched on Parliament Hill demanding the Canadian government call an end to the bombing in Lebanon. Some of the protesters carried Hezbollah flags, openly flaunting their support for the organization.

In another rally in Montreal, supporters of Hezbollah marched alongside opposition members of Parliament, including Liberal MP Denis Coderre and Bloc Quebecois leader Gilles Duceppe.

The demonstrations sparked outrage from the president of B'nai Brith Canada last week, who demanded the federal government crack down on pro-Hezbollah demonstrations.

"The streets of Canada will not be taken over by radical Islamic forces supporting terrorist activities," said Frank Dimant.

"B'nai Brith Canada will do its utmost to ensure that Canadians will not be intimidated by these terrorist sympathizers."

This week's COMPAS poll shows that of those Canadians polled, the majority are on-side with B'nai Brith and have no tolerance for Hezbollah.

The organization is classified as a terrorist organization and its operation is banned in Canada. More than 69 per cent of respondents said that Canada should continue to classify Hezbollah as a terrorist organization, and of those supporting the terrorist label for Hezbollah, 72 per cent said supporting the organization from Canadian soil should be illegal.

The poll further shows that 69 per cent of Canadians believe that Iran has been arming Hezbollah and is wrong to do so. Another 68 per cent of those asked believe that Syria was wrong to disobey a United Nations resolution requiring Syria to keep guns out of Lebanon.

However, when it comes to Canadian involvement in the region, the COMPAS poll found that many Canadians are still wary about sending our troops into Lebanon.

Of those polled, 65 per cent said Canada should not send peacekeepers into Lebanon, or should only send peacekeepers into the area if Hezbollah is disarmed. Only 27 per cent of those polled said that Canadian peacekeepers should be sent to the region if Hezbollah is still armed.

According to the COMPAS poll, the only issue that Canadians are divided on is the question of who started the war. Thirty-eight per cent of those polled believed Hezbollah started the war. Thirty-five per cent disagreed that the war was started by Hezbollah.

The COMPAS poll was conducted in response to a Strategic Counsel poll which was conducted for CTV and the Globe and Mail. That poll said that 45 per cent of those asked disagreed with the prime minister's open support of Israel. According to the Strategic Counsel poll, only 32 per cent of Canadians agreed with the prime minister's comments that Israel has a right to defend itself.

� The Ottawa Citizen 2006

Subject: RE: BS: Is Hezbollah Winning?
From: Little Hawk
Date: 14 Aug 06 - 05:25 PM

Slag, you asked "What is money?" Money is the artificially created idea that stands between modern human beings and sanity, between modern human beings and justice and equality. It is the made-up thing that serves as the motivating factor and the excuse for starkly irrational and destructive behaviour on the part of the aggressive and ruthless who claw their way to the top. It is the thing used to enslave the "little people" who put up with being enslaved in order to get their pitiful allowance of it at the end of each week or month...so they can survive as slaves a little longer. It is the thing for which good taste and rationality are exchanged for vulgarity and criminal waste.

It is a totally artificial concept, and the love of it above all else is what lies at the heart of most of the evil in this world.

Money is just a tool. In itself it's neither good nor evil. It is the way people have chosen to use it and think about it that has caused things to get way out of hand.

You said, "It's always about $$$ in all but a Holy War." Dead right, but in most holy wars it's to a great extent about the money too, in my opinion. Religion is used to motivate the fighters, because it's a very effective way of motivating people.

You said, "the US ceased Imperialism after T. Roosevelt."

Ha! The USA was practicing grand imperialism long before Teddy Roosevelt and has been practicing it ever since. You don't have to have official colonies to practice imperialism. You just have to control governments and economies through a combination of financial power, bought politicians, and military muscle. The USA does that whenever and wherever it can. So does Russia, but Russia has had serious setbacks since the late 80's, due the the failure of their economy to match American military and social spending. So does Israel, but in a much smaller geographical area than the USA or Russia. So does China, to some extent, in Tibet for example. So does Great Britian, but they now ride on the coattails of America.

The Anglo nations, meaning Great Britain, Canada, Australia, and the USA...(in connection with Israel, as regards the Middle Eastern region)...are basically in a sort of unofficial alliance to dominate the world and control its energy resources right now, and they are setting themselves slowly but surely in opposition to the rest of the world community by so doing. This does not auger well for "peace in our time". Like the Germanic peoples, the Anglos will find out that the world does not take willingly to such grand imperial designs, and will resist them effectively in time.

I regret that I am a citizen in one of those countries, because I may yet live to find my own nation on the wrong side in a great world war, and I would be very sad to see such an eventuality....just as sad as I would have been to be a German in 1939-45.

Subject: RE: BS: Is Hezbollah Winning?
From: dianavan
Date: 14 Aug 06 - 05:25 PM

Yes - This planet and people are the losers whenever there is war.

Peace - So-called 'Muslim genocide' lends absolutely nothing to this discussion. Perhaps you should start a thread about Muslim vs Christian vs Jewish genocide. Who started it, how many killed, who are the chosen, etc. Who worships what has nothing to do with genocide. None of their Gods would approve of genocide. Using God is the worst excuse imaginable.

The facts speak for themselves. Israel has destroyed Lebanon AGAIN. The fact that they engaged in a vast overkill only shows the true colours of Israel and has brought the nation the shame and condemnation of many nations and countless numbers of individuals.

To hide behind God is a coward's way of defending atrocities.

Subject: RE: BS: Is Hezbollah Winning?
From: Peace
Date: 14 Aug 06 - 06:04 PM

"Peace - So-called 'Muslim genocide' lends absolutely nothing to this discussion."

Oh, but it does. This will be the last time I ever address you. The Muslims you support are terrorists. Period. I have yet to hear you speak against terrorism. Or against Hezbollah. They started a war with Israel. They are getting killed--and along with them are the innocent people they hide amongst. But you seem to think that doesn't matter. Because of that, your opinions have ceased to matter to me. Please do not address me in future. I will return the favour. If you have something to say about waht I have written, say it. That is it. Period. Goodbye.

Subject: RE: BS: Is Hezbollah Winning?
From: Bill Hahn//\\
Date: 14 Aug 06 - 06:23 PM

SO---has anyone yet read the piece in the NY Times?   It might open some eyes---or you may disagree. But, since the author is from the Lebanese area one might have to believe it.

Bill H

Subject: RE: BS: Is Hezbollah Winning?
From: Divis Sweeney
Date: 14 Aug 06 - 06:36 PM

Whatever your view on the situation out there I think they have proven to be a formidable fighting force. When you consider the six day war in 1973. It's great to see the guns silent tonight.

Subject: RE: BS: Is Hezbollah Winning?
From: GUEST,Nick
Date: 14 Aug 06 - 06:53 PM

From: Bill Hahn
Date: 14 Aug 06 - 03:54 PM

"That said, I do think the NY Times article might well explain the real situation to you---Hezbollah wants to run Lebanon by destroying its own infrastructure. The Hariri assassination was the tip of that iceberg".

?? The Gospel according to the New York Times? Well, I suppose it's one viewpoint, but if you apply a little logic, you might wonder why Hezbollah would rather lord it over a country full of smashed bridges, destroyed infrastructure and so on, when there was a flourishing country rebuilt for 15 years after the civil war and last Israeli invasion, ripe for the picking. It reminds me a lot of the nonsense put about by British elements in the media when their soldiers and police burned Cork city to the ground (in Ireland) during the war for independence there in 1920. The next day, with the city a smouldering ruin, the British claimed the IRA and civilians burned the city down themselves to discredit the British and turn the people against them!(hardly a very convincing explanation when you think about it, after all they'd just be saving the British army a lot of work) The only problem was that there were a wealth of civilians who had seen what really happened, and the British army and police had carried out the destruction without even bothering to remove their uniforms. Now even if Hezbollah did want to run Lebanon in this manner, they would find it more profitable to simply turn their rockets against their own infrastructure (though admittedly their rockets are not as effective as US/IDF bombs and missiles) and take on the Lebanese army - a much weaker opponent than the Israeli forces.
And if the Israelis keep blaming Syria for sponsoring the Hezbollah (though the Israelis are of course, sponsored by the White House) why don't they just go in and attack Syria and be done with it? Maybe because they haven't yet received the 'nod' from the White House!


"Another thought is that we--the U S--should be talking with Iran and Syria. But we have a stubborn "I am never wrong and only talk with people that deserve my consideration" president. Look where that has gotten us"

I quite agree with you. But Bush, Rice etc., don't see any need to talk to Syria and Iran, because they think there is nothing to talk about. Iran, Iraq etc., happen to be sitting on the principal reserves of world oil, the White House wants it, and it doesn't matter what the people or governments of those countries in the way think. It's a bit like the Black Hills of long ago. Back in the middle of the 1800s the US government signed a number of treaties with the Sioux Indians and other tribes to guarantee them the Black Hills (sacred to the Indians but thought to be worthless by the US government at the time) 'for as long as the rivers flow and the sun shines'. Well, the sun stopped shining pretty soon after that apparently, because someone discovered gold in the Black Hills and before long the US government was allowing white prospectors in to try their luck, depsite their promise to the Indians to prevent this. Naturally the Indians were angry at the failure of pale face to honour their promises (not realising the true nature of pale face) and when the prospectors began to increase in number and refused to leave, and the US government did nothing, the Indians attacked them. And then the kid gloves came off! No more 'tolerant' Mr.Nice Guy! The Indians had become 'terrorists' (or whatever word was in vogue at the time) and the US army went in to 'restore order' which turned out in translation to be grabbing the Black Hills. In a way you could be led to think the US government allowed the panhandlers, knowing how the Indians would respond, and using this perfectly natural response as an excuse to simply grab by force what they had promised not to in writing. The Black Hills were full of gold, and the backward, smelly Indians were in the way, so they had to be pushed aside if they didn't go peacefully. Then, not content with breaking their promises and their treachery, the US government decided to add insult to injury by carving up the Black Hills (sacred to the Indians, remember - think how you might feel if someone dropped a bomb on the White House, or, on a lesser scale, tramples on the American flag - then you have a fraction of an idea of how the Indians felt about the Black Hills). They carved the Black Hills up into the faces of 4 US presidents. As John Fire Lame Deer (Sioux medicine man, died sometime in the 1970s or 80s) said "This is what the four faces mean: when white people come out and see them they think: '"we did this. We are powerful. What we want we get, and no-one can stop us' They may not know that's what they are thinking, but they are thinking it" (see 'John Fire Lame Deer, Sioux Medicine Man', by Richard Erdoes and John Fire).
What's this to do with Iran etc.,? I hope it should be clear by now. The White House and its allies want to control the world's oil (remember their attempt to overthrow Chavez in 2002 in Venezuela - a DEMOCRATICALLY elected leader, so much for love of democracy!) and anyone who stands in the way of that project will be eliminated. It's that simple. If they can't be eliminated (for example, many US citizens disgaree with White House policy, but the White House can't just go round killing THEM) they will be silenced in other ways: harrassed by the police, accused in the media and elsewhere of 'sympathising with terrorists' of being 'un-patriotic' etc., (in the old days, they called you 'a n****er lover, or a injun lover, and before that, a witch). As well as the oil producing countries, they need to control a few peripheral countries as well, such as Afghanistan, in order to create a buffer zone between the oil fields and the energy hungry countries around them, such as Russia, China and India. I wonder how long the Russians, Chinese etc., will tolerate this before World War Three is launched?

"A war that cannot be won against an enemy we did not need to fight with a lack of manpower and no exit strategy"

They never really were the enemy, like the Indians - but they are sitting on top of one of the world's most coveted natural resources, and so they are in the way of neo-con New America (I'm not blaming Americans here, by the way, as I hope you realise. It would help though if they didn't vote for Jeb Bush when he tries to continue the family dynasty at the next presidential elections, that is if Bush hasn't crowned himself 'dictator for life' by then. Watch out for Condoleeza Rice too: if Jeb doesn't make it as a runner, she'll probably be put forward as a candidate, and will play the race card (as the first would-be black president) and the feminist card (as the first would-be woman president). Don't be fooled! She may be a black woman, but to get where she did, she made her heart a neo-con's white man's). A far better choice might be Hillary Clinton, if no-one truly amazing steps up in the meantime.

Subject: RE: BS: Is Hezbollah Winning?
From: GUEST,BN
Date: 14 Aug 06 - 08:13 PM

"The facts speak for themselves. Israel has destroyed Lebanon AGAIN. The fact that they engaged in a vast overkill only shows the true colours of Israel and has brought the nation the shame and condemnation of many nations and countless numbers of individuals."

One thing that I'm getting sick and tired of are Hezbollah's Mudcat fellow travelers like the anit-Semitic Dianavan who continually point out at the lesser numbers of Israeli losses as proof of war crimes.

What bullshit!

In World War II, more Germans were killed than British and Americans combined, but there is no doubt in anyone's mind that the war was caused by Germany's aggression.

In response to the German blitz on London, the British wiped out the entire city of Dresden, burning to death more German civilians than the number of people killed in Hiroshima.

Moreover, I could remind you that in 1944, when the R.A.F. tried to bomb the Gestapo Headquarters in Copenhagen, some of the bombs missed their target and fell on a Danish children's hospital, killing 83 little children.

To be sure, EVERY loss of an innocent life is a tragedy. But that's what happens in a war.

Subject: RE: BS: Is Hezbollah Winning?
From: dianavan
Date: 14 Aug 06 - 08:16 PM

Just for the record:

I do not support terrorism.

I do not support Israel either. In fact, I hold the nation of Israel to a much higher standard than I do a group of terrorists, therefore my criticism of Israel.

Just because I criticise the actions of Israel, does not mean I support Hezbollah. Although I do support the social programs provided by Hezbollah, it doesn't mean I support terrorist activity. Neither do I support the Israeli army.

On the other hand, I try to imagine being Lebanese and offer the Lebanese (regardless of their faith) the support they deserve. If I were Lebanese, I am pretty sure I would feel justified in defending myself from Israel. History has shown that Israel does not respect Lebanon or its people. What has Lebanon done to Israel?

Whenever someone (I'm not naming anyone) decides that Israel is endangered because Muslims are intent on genocide, I know that they responding hysterically. Its difficult to discuss a problem with anyone who resorts to emotional hype.

Subject: RE: BS: Is Hezbollah Winning?
From: Bill Hahn//\\
Date: 14 Aug 06 - 08:16 PM

Nick: You draw good analogies. I would say, however, that some comments need response:

"?? The Gospel according to the New York Times? Well, I suppose it's one viewpoint, but if you apply a little logic, you might wonder why Hezbollah would rather lord it over a country full of smashed bridges, destroyed infrastructure and so on"

It was not the NYT opinion--rather the writer who is from the area and now serves on committees to resolve the issues. He gives a succint reason for what you state.


"
"I quite agree with you. But Bush, Rice etc., don't see any need to talk to Syria and Iran, because they think there is nothing to talk about. Iran, Iraq etc., happen to be sitting on the principal reserves of world oil, the White House wants it, and it doesn't matter what the people or governments of those countries in the way think"

It is called diplomacy---you talk so as to avoid mayhem. But, when you are a cowboy from Texas who wants to show dad he is more macho this is what you get.   Not to mention the greed and arrogance of his VP and the return of Rumsfeld as an alleged military expert. Any semblence of diplomcy and military strategy left with Powell.

Your comments about the Native Americans is right on, as far as I am concerned. And a good analogy. Though not totally on the mark it is very close.

Funny thing--I had the same thought about Bush and his last term a while back---and wouldn't it be nice if he could declare and emergency and have it extended. I doubt that he is that thick as to try that.

As to Rice. I am no expert on her, certainly. But she seems to have the diplomatic skills required to fulfill her duties. Can she handle domestic affairs? I don't know. A Bush appointee that toes the line would be expected---but, one has to ask, how did she get involved witht the likes of someone like that would be nice to know.

Bill H

Subject: RE: BS: Is Hezbollah Winning?
From: Peace
Date: 14 Aug 06 - 08:56 PM

Lebanon had two years to oust Hezbollah from the south of Lebanon. They didn't. Hexbollah started a war and they hide amongst civilians. Basically, the war that is IN Lebanon has nothing to do with the Lebanese people--it has to do with a governemnt that ignored UN Resolution 1559 for TWO YEARS, THEN, the terrorist bastards known as Hezbollah--nurtured by the same philosophy that destroyed hundreds of thousands of people in Sudan and Rwanda--hid amongst civilians where they continue to hide. Perhaps Israel should stop being so careful about NOT killing civilians. It would mnake their job easier. But had they NOT been careful, the civilian death toll would be in the tens of thousands. That is a main difference between Hezbollah and the Israelis. Israel cares about life. Hezbollah cares about the complete and total killing of every Jew in Israel.

Subject: RE: BS: Is Hezbollah Winning?
From: Peace
Date: 14 Aug 06 - 09:00 PM

"Muslims are intent on genocide"

Indeed they are.

Subject: RE: BS: Is Hezbollah Winning?
From: The Fooles Troupe
Date: 14 Aug 06 - 09:18 PM

"Perhaps Israel should stop being so careful about NOT killing civilians. It would make their job easier. "

Still scratching my head about how Israel bombing Maronite Christian residential areas fits into 'The Master Plan'...

any 'Master Plan' ...

Subject: RE: BS: Is Hezbollah Winning?
From: GUEST,Nick
Date: 14 Aug 06 - 09:39 PM

Bill Hahn,

fair point about NYT.

Re. talking to Iran, Syria etc., I know it's called diplomacy and I do agree it's preferable to mayhem. But my point is that it's not going to be honest diplomacy. It's going to be along the lines of "You have to change your societies and the way you live. You are going to have to be more pro-Western in your attitudes. You are going to have to co-operate with our takeover of resources in your region. You are going to have to render yourselves militarily impotent. While your neighbour and our ally may be allowed to have nuclear weapons, this right is not for you. You are going to have to open your markets to our Free Trade regulations which will be great for our big corporations, but probably disastrous for your social welfare, as has been the case all over the 'Third World'"

Now, if you were one of the countries being addressed in that way, you might be less than enthusiastic about such a message. Certainly if China was interfering in the Middle East region in this manner, planting its troops in Iraq and Saudi Arabia and elsewhere, and demanding that the populations and governments of those countries toe the Beijing line, Britain and America would be the first countries to shout about the spread of communism (though China is no longer communist - as Diang Xiaopeng said 'to get rich is glorious') and democracy etc., That is, unless China was stronger and / or willing to cut them in on the deal. They would complain about it not because they really have any great love for democracy, but because China would be 'interfering' with what they regard as their pie.

The White House makes a lot of noise about Syria and Iran having no real respect for democracy and not being interested in democracy for palestine or Lebanon, but I think it's a case of the kettle calling the pot black.

As for Condoleeza Rice: as a diplomat? She certainly knows how to be tough and has the ability to handle her opponents fairly well. But to many she comes across as being a bit creepy. There was a very good cartoon in a paper that summed it up here: It shows Rice standing in front of a Lebanese landscape that is being slowly reduced to rubble. Regarding the hoped-for ceasefire at the time (about two weeks ago) she is saying "Not yet.....not yet....' and finally '..Now!' as the last building in Lebanon is flattened. But her hypocrisy unfortunately is fairly clearly visible to most, and hardly does much for her reputation as a diplomat. I don't think any of the Arab countries take her seriously anymore (Lebanon's leader even told her go home until she was willing to get serious) and many countries in Europe find her a bit creepy as well. If she ever became president she would simply continue her warmongering subtext in a more open fashion.

Subject: RE: BS: Is Hezbollah Winning?
From: The Fooles Troupe
Date: 14 Aug 06 - 09:45 PM

When you run with the hyenas...

Subject: RE: BS: Is Hezbollah Winning?
From: GUEST,Nick
Date: 14 Aug 06 - 09:50 PM

From: Peace "Instead of wars, when countries want to do battle their leaders should go--and may I suggest machine guns at fifteen paces?"

that's one of the most sensible comments I've seen on any forum for a while! I couldn't agree more - when the leaders want to do this or that, you never find them actually going out and fighting for it themselves. Pink Floyd had a very good song on their album "The Final Cut" (1983). It was about the need to build a kind of retirement home for 'incurable tyrants, colonial despots and wasters' where they could take tea on the lawn and play their war games out of harm's way.

Subject: RE: BS: Is Hezbollah Winning?
From: The Fooles Troupe
Date: 14 Aug 06 - 10:09 PM

Ear Wig O! Ear Wig O! Ear Wig O!

Just on the News...

Israel opened fire... believed it had a right to, as its soldiers thought they were 'under attack'....

Ear Wig O! Ear Wig O! Ear Wig O!

Subject: RE: BS: Is Hezbollah Winning?
From: Slag
Date: 14 Aug 06 - 11:37 PM

This has become quite a thread (rope?). It has ranged far afield at times but really timely, interesting, passionate, revealing. LittleHawk, if you use a broad enough brush you can paint everything in a single swipe. Money is a medium of appreciation. Most of you as musicians and artists can readily understand the truth of that statement. This holds true for BIG money too. When money becomes a medium of exchange it becomes a way of quantifying said appreciation but something happens. As we put FAITH in money we also are putting faith in the issuer of the medium. We all know that in unity there is strength and accumulations of wealth represent power and strength. In the world the US Dollar has proven worthy as a standard whereby one can measure how well other nations are doing. Enter the Petrol-Dollar. I believe the petroleum strategy of the US (let's use up THEIR oil first) failed to appreciate the foregoing. As the Arabian and other oil producing nations saw how much we are addicted to oil they decided to test the degree of "appreciation" we hold for the stuff and if it made us strong, it would make them strong. Enter OPEC. You can apply the logic to any political situation and it holds true. FOLLOW THE MONEY. And it really is like a gigantic Milton-Bradley board game, MONOPOLY, highly complex with millions of varying assets deals, intrigues, cheats, powerplays, etc. Truly the LOVE of money is the root of all evil. And I would have to concede to you the one point that USA's financial intresests, private and public do represent a type of imperialism but no more than any of the other players. I could get very cynical and bemoan all the evil that has come about because of it and I'd be right but that is only part of the balance sheet. You can also use money to do good and much good is done with money and ironically you can see instances where both good and evil occur at the same time, kinda like the old comedic "Good News/Bad News" routines. And ultimately MONEY itself is a neutral agent. There is NO INHERENT WORTH in the physical object(s) we call MONEY. In essences money is a reflector, a revealer of the hearts of men and women. Enough on my philosophy of money.

As far as putting a list of countries together which the US has had direct or indirect military action, so what? Does that tell the provocation? We fought two and a half wars with England. What does that tell you? Does Pancho Villa's quasi-military incursion into the US go on Mexican tee shirts? So what? That kind of crap is just incindiary fodder for non-thinkers. A bunch of "yeah, yeah" stuff for the rent-a-crowd and Berekely freshmen.

Just a general observation. As I stated earlier we the people haven't really done the good work of citizens of a free nation. We have voted our vested interests, our bias, ignorance and prejudice. We have not tried to see the big picture. Our "leaders" have forgotten that they are public SERVANTS. They are self-serving. They are your friends at election time but they are never going to "fix" the issue that won your vote because they are counting on that same issue to get them re-elected and you rise to the bait every time. BOTH PARTIES. I'd say we deserve better than that but we don't. We get the government we deserve. If you really believe in something more than "We hate George Bush" let's have it. What is your solution? Republican are winning on that because no Democrat has articulated a well thought out comprehensive policy or plan that will benefit the nation and ease international tensions. You all vote Democrat because, well, you're Democrats. DUUUUUH! You know, I remember JFK. I wasn't too impressed with his candidacy. I remember TV interviews of women who were going to vote for him because "he is so cute!" and even at the ripe old age of 14 I knew that was wrong. But hey! He surprized me. I didn't agrre with everything he did or stood for but he helped this nation and stepped up to the international challanges of the day. He promoted economic benefit for the entire nation and promoted civil rights. All this inspite of his personal foibles. The man had something on the ball. I can understand how Jack Ruby felt (barring any conspiracy theories). It seems we are all trying to elect ACTORS, posers, poll readers. I'll vote for an honest statesperson and clear thinker regardless of the party if we can only get one to run.

Hezbolla, the Army of God. God help us. Let's all hope that Hezbolla isn't winning. Yeah. Israel has been watching Hezbollah's build up of terror weapons. Yeah. they've been waiting for the right provocation to allow them a worthy pretext to go in and try to dismantle it. So what? So would I.

Ok LittleHawk. Thank you for answering my question about money. That was an honest, heartfelt response. I have another question for you. Why have most armies through the ages worn uniforms?

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?

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: dianavan
Date: 15 Aug 06 - 02:43 AM

Exactly the point I was trying to make, Littlehawk.

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: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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: GUEST,walt
Date: 15 Aug 06 - 02:48 PM

This time around Jerry beat Tom!
Walt

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
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: 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 - 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: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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 - 05:46 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: 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 - 06:02 PM

I have this bridge . . . .

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: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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 - 08:44 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: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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: The Fooles Troupe
Date: 16 Aug 06 - 08:06 AM

"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"

And they just weren't motivated this time? In spite of boasting that they would destroy them all in a couple of weeks, that they would be at the river in a couple of days? They weren't motivated by the thought that if they failed, they would lose face worldwide?

~~~~~~~
About Vietnam: ever heard of the Weathermen? They started off by being outraged at Vietnam - they were so outraged at the murder in his bed by Police of one of the Black Panther's leaders that they went underground - the FBI never found them, they surrendered years later, except for a few who went on after the breakup of the group to commit more criminal acts with other groups - and let off lots of bombs, broke into the FBI and stole documents that revealed the plans of the FBI to murder any one who was a 'threat' including Martin Luther King.

Subject: RE: BS: Is Hezbollah Winning?
From: number 6
Date: 16 Aug 06 - 08:42 AM

Vietnam .... different ball game altogether, in comparison to the current mideast conflicts.

Good posts up there slag ... you pretty well said it all ... good one!

sIx

Subject: RE: BS: Is Hezbollah Winning?
From: beardedbruce
Date: 16 Aug 06 - 08:49 AM

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


Check back- It was not I.

Subject: RE: BS: Is Hezbollah Winning?
From: The Fooles Troupe
Date: 16 Aug 06 - 08:56 AM

It's the memory of the Weathermen that make the US Pollies wet their pants about modern terrorists - a bunch of US white college students who just did not obey the 'rules' for normal criminals - uncatchable for about 5 years until they handed themselves in - indeed modern terrorists have a good role model on how to survive as 'sleepers' in the US, just by studying them. But they would need to have a degree of intelligence, and understand US society very well... being born there, and not living in a ghetto would be a good start - the Weathermen were mostly 'rich kids' you see...

Subject: RE: BS: Is Hezbollah Winning?
From: GUEST,hugo
Date: 16 Aug 06 - 09:05 AM

I think there are a lot of similarities between Vietnam and events in the Middle East.

America suffered a huge blow in its defeat in Vietnam.The most technologically developed army in the world was brought low by a Third World peasant army.It has taken a whole generation for the US leaders to risk another sustained ground war......until the invasion of Iraq .

Once again the US finds itself embroiled in a war that it cannot win despite its military superiority. In Iraq million dollar tanks are being destroyed by rocket launchers and IED s costing a few hundred dollars. The cost of the war is astronomical and the American working class is paying for it with cuts to education,housing and welfare programmes etc.

In Vietnam ,faced with defeat.the US   chose to widen the war with the invasion of Cambodia and attacks on Laos.In Iraq, again faced with chaos and carnage it has chosen to give the green light to Israel to invade Lebanon [ see Seymour Hirsch's article ] as a prelude to an attack on Syria and Iran.

Vietnam radicalised US sociey and produced a massive anti war movement.......after three years of war in Iraq the majority of US citizens want the troops home . Bush who is widely seen as a liar and an incompetent.

The TV screens brought the horror of the Vietnam war directly into our homes.The media is now widely distrusted but we have seen with our own eyes the destruction and carnage delivered by the Israeli bombing of Beirut and the Shock And Awe rain of death delivered to Iraq and by God that has brought out even more people into the streets to protest at the warmongers.
hugo

Subject: RE: BS: Is Hezbollah Winning?
From: beardedbruce
Date: 16 Aug 06 - 09:06 AM

just did search here on Forbes - No luck. - Still looking for where you mentioned it...

Subject: RE: BS: Is Hezbollah Winning?
From: The Fooles Troupe
Date: 16 Aug 06 - 09:06 AM

"different ball game altogether, in comparison to the current mideast conflicts."

About 20 - 30 US white college kids from well off families, decided that they did not like the US murdering thousands of Vietnamese civilians, and started to do something about it. A lot of similarities between many things, actually... but you need to analyse beneath the surface...

Interesting that most of them were never able to be brought to trial, because the FBI had broken so many laws... the lessons learnt there have not been forgotten, Gitmo, and 'foreign rendering' for a start... :-)

Subject: RE: BS: Is Hezbollah Winning?
From: Bunnahabhain
Date: 16 Aug 06 - 10:16 AM

The Russians got a very good field test of their latest anti-tank missiles in the last few weeks. Most of the amour damaged was hit by modern, Russian designed anti-tank missiles, exported to Iran and Syria. The expended casing on the battle-field have this stamped on them...

These weapons need a reasonable training to be used effectivley, more than you would find in some of the regular Armies of the area.

Now, where were we on the Hezbollah are a just a bunch of ill trained, badly equipped Gurillas?

Subject: RE: BS: Is Hezbollah Winning?
From: GUEST,number 6
Date: 16 Aug 06 - 10:49 AM

The idealogies concerning Vietnam and the mideast are very different (religeous incited idealogy vs political) ... in Vietnam the US was not fighting just the Vietcong (insurgents), they were also fighting the North Vietmese regular army ... the Vietnam conflict incited a well structured passionate anti-war movement in the U.S., this mideast conflict is inciting rhetoric questioning it's purpose, the anti-war movement in the U.S. regarding Iraq is pratically non- existant, lacking the passion.

There are similarities in regards to the military approach the U.S. is taking, disasterous. Similiar in that the U.S. is jumping into something they just don't get ... again disasterous.

In regards to the recent Israel/Hizbollah fiasco ... Israel is fighting for it's life against a well supplied, well equiped organization that is out to completelydestroy them (again religious ideology)

Just a few points here.

sIx

Subject: RE: BS: Is Hezbollah Winning?
From: dianavan
Date: 16 Aug 06 - 11:28 AM

Sorry, beardedbruce, it was C. Ham and robomatic that doubted the Forbes article. Here it is:

"The militant group Hezbollah captured two Israeli soldiers during clashes Wednesday across the border in southern Lebanon, prompting a swift reaction from Israel, which sent ground forces into its neighbor to look for them."

http://www.forbes.com/technology/feeds/ap/2006/07/12/ap2873051.html

Subject: RE: BS: Is Hezbollah Winning?
From: C. Ham
Date: 16 Aug 06 - 01:20 PM

What Dianavan persists in referring to as a "Forbes article" is actually an AP wire service report filed by reporter Jospeph Panossian on July 12 at 5:41 am.

AP has acknowledged that the report was erronious.

A new AP report with the correct information was filed by the same reporter later that day.

HERE IT IS AGAIN DIANAVAN

This was pointed out to Dianavan in the Gaza thread on July 26. To persist in citing incorrect information from an AP wire service story that AP has corrected after you know that the information is wrong and has been corrected BY THE SOURCE makes you a liar.

Peace has already said that he will no longer interact with you. I join him in that.

Subject: RE: BS: Is Hezbollah Winning?
From: Old Guy
Date: 16 Aug 06 - 01:24 PM

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

Do people that fire from behind women and children classify as bullying militarist thugs?

Here is a sterling example of Brave Courageous and Bold:

On October 23, 1983, around 6:20 am, a yellow Mercedes-Benz delivery truck drove to Beirut International Airport, where the 1st Battalion 8th Marines, under the U.S. 2nd Marine Division of the United States Marines, had set up its local headquarters. The truck turned onto an access road leading to the Marines' compound and circled a parking lot. The driver then accelerated and crashed through a barbed wire fence around the parking lot, passed between two sentry posts, crashed through a gate and barreled into the lobby of the Marine headquarters. The Marine sentries at the gate were forbidden from using live ammunition, for fear that a discharge might kill a civilian, so they were powerless to stop him. According to one Marine survivor, the driver was smiling as he sped past him.

The suicide bomber detonated his explosives, which were equivalent to 12,000 pounds (about 5,400kg) of TNT. The force of the explosion collapsed the four-story cinder-block building into rubble, crushing many inside.

About 20 seconds later, an identical attack occurred against the barracks of the French Third Company of the Sixth French Parachute Infantry Regiment. Another suicide bomber drove his truck down a ramp into the building's underground parking garage and detonated his bomb, leveling the headquarters.

Rescue efforts continued for days. While the rescuers were at times hindered by sniper fire, some survivors were pulled from the rubble and airlifted to the RAF hospital in Cyprus or to U.S. and German hospitals in West Germany.

The death toll was 241 American servicemen: 220 Marines, 18 Navy personnel and 3 Army soldiers. Sixty Americans were injured. In the attack on the French barracks, 58 paratroopers were killed and 15 injured. In addition, the elderly Lebanese custodian of the Marines' building was killed in the first blast. The wife and four children of a Lebanese janitor at the French building also were killed.

This was the deadliest single-day death toll for the United States Marine Corps since the Battle of Iwo Jima (2,500 in one day) of World War II. The attack remains the deadliest post-World War II attack on Americans overseas.

I wonder why those "bullying militarist thugs" were so concerned about killing civilians that they did not have live ammunition to defend themselves with.

You should have been on this ship to cheer for these "Brave Courageous and Bold" terrorists:

On October 7, 1985, four heavily armed Palestinian terrorists hijacked the Italian cruise ship Achille Lauro, carrying more than 400 passengers and crew, off Egypt. The hijackers demand that Israel free 50 Palestinian prisoners. The terrorists kill a disabled American tourist, 69-year-old Leon Klinghoffer, and throw his body overboard with his wheelchair. After a two-day drama, the hijackers surrender in exchange for a pledge of safe passage. But when an Egyptian jet tries to fly the hijackers to freedom, U.S. Navy F-14 fighters intercept it and force it to land in Sicily. The terrorists are taken into custody by Italian authorities.

Oh, in case you still think Saddam had nothing to do with terrorisim or Al Quaeda:

Though he was sentenced to five life terms in Italy, and was wanted in the United States, Abu Abbas, the mastermind of the Achille Lauro hijacking, remained a free man. He spent most of the years after the hijacking in Tunisia before moving to the Gaza Strip in April 1996, after the Palestinian Authority took control of the area as part of the peace agreement with Israel.

While in Gaza, Abbas said he was sorry for the hijacking, but the daughters of Leon Klinghoffer said that Abbas had been convicted of murder and should serve his sentence. As a result of the 1995 Israeli-Palestinian interim peace agreement, however, Abbas and other PLO members were granted immunity for violent acts committed before the signing of the September 1993 Oslo agreement.

Abbas eventually made his way to Iraq where he was believed to be a conduit for Saddam Hussein's payments to the families of Palestinian suicide bombers. Abbas was captured by U.S. forces in a raid in Iraq on April 15, 2003. He died on March 9, 2004, at the age of 56 in U.S. custody in Iraq. Klinghoffer's daughters said, "Now, with his death, justice will be denied. The one consolation for us is that Abul Abbas died in captivity, not as a free man."

After reading this I suppose you would conclude that Leon Klinghoffer and the marines that died in Beirut were "bullying militarist thugs" that deserved to die at the hands of "Brave Courageous and Bold" terrorists like Hezbollah and Abbas.

Subject: RE: BS: Is Hezbollah Winning?
From: Little Hawk
Date: 16 Aug 06 - 01:51 PM

I keep hoping I'll get over the sick fascination that keeps me coming back to this thread... (Arrgh! Fighting desperately against the urge to join in yet again...)

Face it, folks, you'd all rather be "right" than "live long and prosper", wouldn't you? ;-)

Subject: RE: BS: Is Hezbollah Winning?
From: DougR
Date: 16 Aug 06 - 02:43 PM

I think they won this round. Seems somebody failed to tell them they would have to disarm. They wouldn't do it anyway and to think they would is a bit, ah, naive. To think Lebonan's army would disarm Hezbollah is equally naive IMO.

Round two (which I predict will come within six months) may be a different story.

DougR

Subject: RE: BS: Is Hezbollah Winning?
From: Little Hawk
Date: 16 Aug 06 - 02:53 PM

Nobody will willingly disarm. That's an old, old story.

Subject: RE: BS: Is Hezbollah Winning?
From: DougR
Date: 16 Aug 06 - 03:09 PM

Are you of the opinion, LH, that the Lebenese Army/UN Peace keepers will disarm Hezbollah?

DougR

Subject: RE: BS: Is Hezbollah Winning?
From: dianavan
Date: 16 Aug 06 - 03:11 PM

C. Ham - I am not a liar. I have pointed out that the story has changed from the original story.

I can see that another story (by the same journalist) contradicts the previous story. I have not, however, seen a retraction stating that the first story was wrong. If it was wrong, why is the Forbes article still on the net? Seems to me they would have deleted it by now or at least issued a statement of error.

It is difficult to detect the truth of the matter when propaganda is rampant.

Perhaps you can provide a source which states the inaccuracy of the first report.

Subject: RE: BS: Is Hezbollah Winning?
From: GUEST
Date: 16 Aug 06 - 03:18 PM

C.Ham:

Don't bother responding yet again to the tedious dianavan. We all know what her game is and nobody takes her seriously.

Subject: RE: BS: Is Hezbollah Winning?
From: GUEST,hugo
Date: 16 Aug 06 - 03:26 PM

All seems to be gloom and doom for the Israelis and the Zionists.They are the ones who flattened Lebanon killing hundreds of children and maiming and terorising many more...yet they seem unable to enjoy the fruits of their bombing.
In the Lebanon however ,the fighters of Hezbollah as hailed as defenders and heroes by many across the different faiths in the country.
hugo

Subject: RE: BS: Is Hezbollah Winning?
From: GUEST
Date: 16 Aug 06 - 03:53 PM

http://www.gwu.edu/~nsarchiv/NSAEBB/NSAEBB82/
tells us about America and Saddam Hussein. (It's American by the way), and how members of the current administration knew what he was doing to his own people and all about his chemical weapons.

So little less hypocrisy from the USA if you please.

And an Israeli general sold all his share portfolio within a couple of hours of the Hizbollah capturing two Israeli soldiers.

And that's not anti-semitic, it is against those who try and prosper from war. And clearly had little to do with getting prisoners released.

Probably just a coincidence of course.

Subject: RE: BS: Is Hezbollah Winning?
From: Little Hawk
Date: 16 Aug 06 - 03:55 PM

I doubt that they will disarm Hezbollah, Doug. I strongly doubt it.

Subject: RE: BS: Is Hezbollah Winning?
From: Slag
Date: 16 Aug 06 - 04:32 PM

Little Hawk, in order to live long and prosper you have to be able to live with yourself. "To thine own self be true."

Excellent post Old Guy. FYI I was an USAF noncom '69 thru '73 and while I was never directly involved in combat I met plenty who were.

I want to pick on Guest hugo's post for a minute. It is most illustrative of what passes for logical thought by many on the far left. (All emphasis will be mine) "...the reason the left across the world was opposed to the American attack ( note singularity ) on Vietnam ( no distinction between North or South) was because it led to the killing of some one million Vietnamese people, many of them were civilians (run-on sentence)." This lack of logical reasoning doesn't even have a classification in the informal fallacies. What you have said is that the left opposed America because of something it would do in the future. That's a neat trick if you can do. The seeds of our involvement in that unfortunate land date back to WWII and earlier. France was heavily involved there and nealy went bankrupt trying to prevent the Northern communist regime from taking over the South. Our involvement was NOT an attack. It was a slow escalation of hostilities. Our initial aim (with which I personally disagree ) was to leave the country divided and let the two co-exist peacefully. But there is no peaceful co-existence with repression. The North wanted the wealth of the South, especially Saigon which had a world trade economy and a culture that reflected the same. When Russia decided to keep uping the ante with arms, munitions, aircraft, training and advisors, our leadership felt that it had to match the bet to stay in the game because the jackpot was all of Southeast Asia. Reference the Gulf of Tonkin resolution, etc. There's a lot of history there you need to know about.

"...some one million Vietnamese people, many of them were civilians (were killed). Many others were maimed or suffered in other ways.
South Vietnamese were suffering the onslaught of the so-called insurgency. As an illustration of their tactics the Viet Cong would enter a village and machete open a pregnant woman's stomach and butcher her unborn child then let her die slowly. Guns were leveled at the other villagers. Resistance was futile. This served as a threat to cooperate with the VC or else. Terrorism was their stock and trade. Talk about massacres. The VC and the Northern Regulars made no pretext of following Geneva Covention. American combatants had their heads cut off and stuck on a pole in the middle of a jungle trail with their gentalia stuff in their mouths. I saw the photos. In the meantime idotic President Johnson let the UN dictate the manner in which we "fought" the war. We could bomb here but not there (where we knew the enemy was). Our fleshettes had to be sterilized (little darts that flew out of certain anti-personnel ordinance) because if the soldier survived the attack he should'nt die of a secondary infection. Tell that to a GI who has just stepped of a pungi stick soaked in month old urine and feces. I could fill a book but YOU aren't listening. You are too busy thinking up your next argument. There was'nt just My Lai. There were other incidents that you will never hear about because the troops kept solidarity. They fought fire with fire when and where they could. Yes. People were maimed and killed. There was enough pain and death to go around. Such is the nature of war. Go and see the Black Wall in DC. Agent Orange. Yup, that was a big costly mistake. Why did it happen? Because our hands were tied by the UN, courtesy of that bastard LBJ and his ilk and our military was casting about for any loophole they could find to prosecute this ridiculous war and not run afoul of the Commander-in-Chief and his kiss-ass stance with the UN. The CIA? Well they happen to be our spy guys. What they do, they do. Every country has them and they do what they do. What can I say? It is apparently a necessary evil in an evil world playing an evil game with national survival at stake, not to mention racial, ethnic and religious survival. Abu Grab is such small potatos by contrast that it seems tame and yet wrong was done. It happens. Get out your mental scale and see how humiliating a POW stacks up to IEDs or beheadings and worse. The difference is that when our officialdom was made aware of the problem punishment was meted out and corrections were made. Have the terrorists done the same? I think not.

"Vietnam was a racist war." That is probably the most idotic statement you have made. But I understand. You on the far left love to throw that word out any chance you get because it sets all the parrots to squawking. "Racism, Racism, WaaK, Racism, Racism!" Wern't the South Vietnamese also Vietnamese??? If not what are they? Were'nt these the people we sought to defend? There are thousands of them here today. I personally help to get some of them settled into our country at the close of the war. I'm sure there are some racists some where that are against them. There always are. there always will be. Was that, is that our offical policy? Get real. It was NOT a racist war. Is any of this getting through to you? Or are YOU so full of hatred for your own that you can't see the illogicality of your statements. You need to learn how to think before you touch the keyboard.

Your last two sentences are fallacious generalizations and are obviously intended to be inflammatory. There was Imperialism in Viet Nam but it wasn't US imperialism. It was Russian. Nor do we have designs on territory in the Middle East. Re the "bosses" children; that's just plain false in all but a very few and glaring instances. This is the fallacy of the hasty generalization.

This is like explaining simple truths to, well, fill in the blank. Actually it's worse because someone who is so steeped in their ideology is never going to "GET" it. You will not listen and you do not think. Hopefully the fair minded will see the truth in what I say or at least give it honest consideration.

Subject: RE: BS: Is Hezbollah Winning?
From: Bill Hahn//\\
Date: 16 Aug 06 - 04:46 PM

Well, looks like the NYT Magazine article I had referred to earlier was right on the mark. Hezbollah, according to reportage, is now planning on financing the Lebanese civilians that suffered loss, will not disarm, is being supplied by their mentors, and, just as the article predicted, has become the de facto government in Lebanon even though it is the minority party.

Seems that the author was quite insightful and prescient---start the war for this purpose and blow smoke by saying you are to protect Lebanon from the Israelis.

Bill H

Subject: RE: BS: Is Hezbollah Winning?
From: GUEST,Hezbollah, killer of civilians
Date: 16 Aug 06 - 04:58 PM

Not only did the forces of Hezbollah kill Israeli civilians indiscriminately, they hid behind Lebanese civilians to do it. Such a display of Arab courage is bound to be inspirational if it is trumpeted enough. When Hitler used this technique, it was called The Big Lie.
The majority of people are not hoodwinked by these lies, but in Europe there are many leaders who are simply ignoring the facts. Meanwhile, it is turning out that as in so many cases, the Arab side and their press paritisans simply lie and fake the pictures.
I have seen an Indian movie where the Muslim terrorists kill a member of their own side in order to create a 'victim'.

Subject: RE: BS: Is Hezbollah Winning?
From: dianavan
Date: 16 Aug 06 - 06:09 PM

Its been said before.

Israeli soldiers hide behind armored tanks.

Hezbollah hides behind the walls of their homes.

Who is more cowardly, Guest?

Subject: RE: BS: Is Hezbollah Winning?
From: Peace
Date: 16 Aug 06 - 06:11 PM

"The makings of a compromise, however, emerged from all-day meetings in Beirut, the Post said, citing senior officials involved in the negotiations, and Prime Minister Fouad Siniora scheduled a Cabinet session today for what he hoped would be formal approval of the deal. Hezbollah indicated it would be willing to pull back its fighters and weapons in exchange for a promise from the Lebanese Army not to probe too carefully for underground bunkers and weapons caches, the officials said.

Hassan Nasrallah, the Hezbollah leader, had insisted that any disarmament of his militia -- even in the border area -- should be handled in longer-term discussions within the Lebanese government, according to government ministers. But the Lebanese Army, backed by key political leaders, refused to send troops into the just-becalmed battle zone until Hezbollah's missiles, rockets, and other weapons were taken north of the Litani River, the ministers said."

The war will restart thanks to the Hezbollah trash.

Subject: RE: BS: Is Hezbollah Winning?
From: Peace
Date: 16 Aug 06 - 06:18 PM

AND, brought to you by the folks who support Hezbollah:

"By Israel News Agency Staff

Jerusalem----February 7.....In response to Iran's best-selling newspaper announcing a competition to find the best cartoons about the Holocaust, the Israel News Agency launched an SEO - Internet search engine optimization marketing contest to prevent Iran news Websites from reaching top positions in Google"

Subject: RE: BS: Is Hezbollah Winning?
From: The Fooles Troupe
Date: 16 Aug 06 - 08:45 PM

"The idealogies concerning Vietnam and the mideast are very different (religeous incited idealogy vs political)"

OK, just to be naughty then :-) there is not a lot of practical difference in effect between the two...

Subject: RE: BS: Is Hezbollah Winning?
From: The Fooles Troupe
Date: 16 Aug 06 - 08:53 PM

"Do people that fire from behind women and children classify as bullying militarist thugs?"

Well, if they are sitting in their lounge room with their families when some bullying better militarily equipped militarist expansionist thugs come over the hill... I'd say no....

but then what you say "people that fire from behind women and children"

might equally apply to the Israeli 'settlers' - even from before the UN 'recognised the state of Israel' when the previous Arabic dwellers tried to get their 'traditional' farms back...

Subject: RE: BS: Is Hezbollah Winning?
From: The Fooles Troupe
Date: 16 Aug 06 - 09:02 PM

"France was heavily involved there and nearly went bankrupt trying to prevent the Northern communist regime from taking over the South. Our involvement [in Vietnam] was NOT an attack"

... just that the 'provoking attack' by the North on the US ships in a certain Bay was later acknowledged as a 'staged' one, just like 'Germany vs certain other European Contries'....

Subject: RE: BS: Is Hezbollah Winning?
From: robomatic
Date: 16 Aug 06 - 09:15 PM

There already is a Palestinian state. It's called Jordan.

One of the big asymmetric arguments is why it's not okay for Jews to live in their ancestral homeland among Arabs and Muslims, but in Islamic / Arab states it's okay to forbid freedom of religion to the extent of capitol punishment should a Muslim convert to another faith.

This lopsided viewpoint is typically taken as a 'given' among the Israel baiters and bashers.

Subject: RE: BS: Is Hezbollah Winning?
From: The Fooles Troupe
Date: 16 Aug 06 - 09:34 PM

I have 'ancestral homelands' in Germany, England, Ireland and Scotland.

So now WHO's living on MY land?

Subject: RE: BS: Is Hezbollah Winning?
From: Peace
Date: 16 Aug 06 - 09:36 PM

SHEEP!

Subject: RE: BS: Is Hezbollah Winning?
From: The Fooles Troupe
Date: 16 Aug 06 - 09:41 PM

close - political sheep...

Subject: RE: BS: Is Hezbollah Winning?
From: Old Guy
Date: 16 Aug 06 - 11:35 PM

"even from before the UN 'recognised the state of Israel' when the previous Arabic dwellers tried to get their 'traditional' farms back..."

Can you finish this or is your attention span too short?

Did you read the Arabs or Jews first thread? Jews were Arabs fuckhead. Muslims were Jews.

Subject: RE: BS: Is Hezbollah Winning?
From: Old Guy
Date: 16 Aug 06 - 11:40 PM

Something tells me that the next time Hezbollah starts something they will be dead meat. The Israelis showed great restraint and they will not hesitate to flatten the place next time.

Subject: RE: BS: Is Hezbollah Winning?
From: Little Hawk
Date: 16 Aug 06 - 11:52 PM

It's not easy to "flatten" a place. Not easy at all. That has just been demonstrated.

Subject: RE: BS: Is Hezbollah Winning?
From: Dave (the ancient mariner)
Date: 17 Aug 06 - 12:09 AM

Did Israel forcibly evict these 600,000 Arabs from their homes in 1948? Or did they leave voluntarily? This is the salient question.

Here is a collection of historical quotations from Arab leaders, relating to these Palestinian refugees:

On April 23, 1948 Jamal Husseini, acting chairman of the Palestine Arab Higher Committee (AHC), told the UN Security Council:

"The Arabs did not want to submit to a truce... They preferred to abandon their homes, belongings and everything they possessed."

On September 6, 1948, the Beirut Daily Telegraph quoted Emil Ghory, secretary of the Palestine Arab Higher Committee, as saying:

"The fact that there are those refugees is the direct consequence of the action of the Arab states in opposing partition and the Jewish state. The Arab states agreed upon this policy unanimously..."

On October 2, 1948, the London Economist reported, in an eyewitness account of the flight of Haifa's Arabs:

"There is little doubt that the most potent of the factors [in the flight] were the announcements made over the air by the Arab Higher Executive urging all Arabs in Haifa to quit... And it was clearly intimated that those Arabs who remained in Haifa and accepted Jewish protection would be regarded as renegades."

The Jordanian daily Falastin wrote on February 19, 1949:

"The Arab states... encouraged the Palestinian Arabs to leave their homes temporarily in order to be out of the way of the Arab invasion armies."

On June 8, 1951, Habib Issa, secretary-general of the Arab League, wrote in the New York Lebanese daily al-Hoda that in 1948, Azzam Pasha, then League secretary, had...

"...assured the Arab peoples that the occupation of Palestine and of Tel Aviv would be as simple as a military promenade... Brotherly advice was given to the Arabs of Palestine to leave their land, homes and property, and to stay temporarily in neighboring fraternal states."

On April 9, 1953, the Jordanian daily al-Urdun quoted a refugee, Yunes Ahmed Assad, formerly of Deir Yassin, as saying:

"For the flight and fall of the other villages, it is our leaders who are responsible, because of the dissemination of rumors exaggerating Jewish crimes and describing them as atrocities in order to inflame the Arabs... they instilled fear and terror into the hearts of the Arabs of Palestine until they fled, leaving their homes and property to the enemy."

Another refugee told the Jordanian daily a-Difaa on September 6, 1954: "The Arab governments told us, 'Get out so that we can get in.' So we got out, but they did not get in."

Former Prime Minister of Syria, Khaled al-Azem, in his memoirs, published in 1973, listed what he thought were the reasons for the Arab failure in 1948:

"The fifth factor was the call by the Arab governments to the inhabitants of Palestine to evacuate it and leave for the bordering Arab countries... We brought destruction upon a million Arab refugees by calling on them and pleading with them to leave their land."

In the March 1976 issue of "Falastin a-Thaura," then the official PLO journal, PLO spokesman Mahmud Abbas ("Abu Mazen") wrote:

"The Arab armies entered Palestine to protect the Palestinians from the Zionist tyranny but, instead, they abandoned them, forced them to emigrate and to leave their homeland, and threw them into prisons similar to the ghettos in which the Jews used to live."

British Foreign Office Document #371/75342/XC/A/4991 records:

"Following a visit to refugees in Gaza, a British diplomat reported the following: 'But while they express no bitterness against the Jews... they speak with the utmost bitterness of the Egyptians and other Arab states: 'We know who our enemies are,' they will say, and they are referring to their Arab brothers who, they declare, persuaded them unnecessarily to leave their homes."

For the million and a half Arabs still in Israel I guess the Israelis fucked up, or are the Arabs all in prisons? 70% of Palestine became Jordan and the arabs were welcomed as Jordanians no other Arab country accepted them and 860,000 Jews were expelled from Arab countries and their property expropriated (some $30 billion by estimate)

Subject: RE: BS: Is Hezbollah Winning?
From: Little Hawk
Date: 17 Aug 06 - 12:16 AM

Clearly, the Arab goverments at the time miscalculated tremendously and their policy was misguided and proved to be a complete failure. They underestimated the effectiveness of the fledgling Israeli military.

I doubt that anyone would make that mistake now.

Subject: RE: BS: Is Hezbollah Winning?
From: Old Guy
Date: 17 Aug 06 - 12:23 AM

Why is it not easy to "flatten" a place? Where has it just been demonstrated?

Subject: RE: BS: Is Hezbollah Winning?
From: GUEST,hugo
Date: 17 Aug 06 - 01:26 AM

reply to slag
Keep taking the tablets bubba!
hugo

Subject: RE: BS: Is Hezbollah Winning?
From: Slag
Date: 17 Aug 06 - 01:59 AM

As opposed to KoolAid? In regards to those who think Israel should be denied their homeland please reference the posting "SRO at Eden's Gate".

Subject: RE: BS: Is Hezbollah Winning?
From: GUEST,ifor
Date: 17 Aug 06 - 05:50 AM

Slag
The homeland that is Israel was once Palestinian...they were expelled by force and terror and quite understandably they would like their land,homes and villages etc returned to them.The last time I looked the waging of ethnic cleansing was a crime.

The plight of the Palestinian people was one of the first issues on the agenda of the then new UN in 1948 and it is still the major flashpoint in the Middle East.
ifor

Subject: RE: BS: Is Hezbollah Winning?
From: The Fooles Troupe
Date: 17 Aug 06 - 08:09 AM

"Why is it not easy to "flatten" a place? Where has it just been demonstrated? "

Well you see, there is just this bloody possibility that Iran...

Say, let's start moving all those nice valuable archeological items out now... before they start to glow...

Subject: RE: BS: Is Hezbollah Winning?
From: Little Hawk
Date: 17 Aug 06 - 09:44 AM

It's not easy to flatten a place because people are surprisingly resilient, and the number of targets is almost infinite.

It has just been demonstrated in Lebanon.


Yes, a few places have been "flattened", more or less, in recent history. Hamburg. Dresden. Much of Hiroshima, Nagasaki and Tokyo. Most of Stalingrad in 1942. But it ain't easy...unless you use nuclear weapons. Then it is pretty easy, but the repercussions may not be so good.

Countries normally invade other countries looking for a quick, decisive victory. What they usually find instead is a long, painful occupation that slowly bleeds them dry and finally destroys their will to remain there.

Subject: RE: BS: Is Hezbollah Winning?
From: Old Guy
Date: 17 Aug 06 - 10:36 AM

Ok let's see the truth of what LH is claiming.

Japan and Germany were occupied after WW2. Neither resulted in a long painfull occupation that bled anybody dry. In fact, how many people are driving Mercedes or Volkswagens or Hondas or Lexii?

Someone tried to flatten Lebanon and failed? Israel was trying to knock out Hezbollah rocket launchers. If they wanted it flat, it would be flat.

LH seems to have fallen prey to propaganda fed to him by MSM.

"This is the first time anyone has stood up the Israel"
This is the first time Israel has shown restraint in an armed conflict.

He admires Castro, He admires Hezbollah but I presume he doesn't want to live in Cuba or the Middle east. A very conflicted person. Like a teenager that hates his "controlling" parents but admires Rap Stars that use drugs and try to kill each other.

I am no lover of the Jews. My father hated Jews, although one of his best friends was a Jewish electrician named Eli. My Dad grew up in a time when there was an extreme bias agintst Jews. The International Jew is responsible for all of our troubles" Henry ford wrote several books condeming the International Jew and even owned an anti Jewish newspaper.

Even after this upbringing I can detect bullshit and all this stuff about how admirable Hezbollah is and how the Jews are bullies is just bullshit that liberal, idealistic jello brains want to believe.

Subject: RE: BS: Is Hezbollah Winning?
From: GUEST,ifor
Date: 17 Aug 06 - 10:50 AM

To Old Guy
It seems to me that any whisper of criticism of Israel and the critic is painted as Osama Bin Ladin's brother by the Zionists who rush to defend Israel' actions in Lebanon and Gaza.

Some of the most trenchant critics of Israel's aggressive policies towards the Palestinians and Lebanon are Jewish...I am thinking of people like Noam Chomsky,widely regarded as one of the foremost intellectuals in the world, John Rose the British/Jewish writer and Miriam Karlin again a British/Jewish actor.

Ethnic cleansing and the indiscriminate bombing of children is wrong and a war crime.
ifor

Subject: RE: BS: Is Hezbollah Winning?
From: Old Guy
Date: 17 Aug 06 - 12:18 PM

If "Ethnic cleansing and the indiscriminate bombing of children is wrong and a war crime.", why does Hezbollah do it? Why does Noam Chomsky condone it?

Subject: RE: BS: Is Hezbollah Winning?
From: Old Guy
Date: 17 Aug 06 - 12:36 PM

http://www.newcriterion.com/archive/21/may03/chomsky.htm

The hypocrisy of Noam Chomsky
by Keith Windschuttle

"Today, Chomsky’s hypocrisy stands as the most revealing measure of the sorry depths to which the left-wing political activism he has done so much to propagate has now sunk."

Noam Chomsky was the most conspicuous American intellectual to rationalize the Al Qaeda terrorist attacks on New York and Washington. The death toll, he argued, was minor compared to the list of Third World victims of the “far more extreme terrorismâ€쳌 of United States foreign policy. Despite its calculated affront to mainstream opinion, this sentiment went down very well with Chomsky’s own constituency. He has never been more popular among the academic and intellectual left than he is today.....

Subject: RE: BS: Is Hezbollah Winning?
From: GUEST,hugo
Date: 17 Aug 06 - 01:46 PM

Chomsky is no apologist for any form of terrorism! He has however ,forensically pointed out the state terrorism that his own country ,the USA has been involved with for many decades.
To take a few examples:

The CIA sponsored govt of Dr Allende in Chile in 1973 which led to the deaths of thousands of opponents of the military...many more were tortured,others thrown from helicopters into the ocean ,while others fled into an uncertain exile. Thank you Mr Kissinger and Richard Nixon.

Then there was the US attack on Vietnam in which around a million Vietnamese were killed and a country destroyed..it still hasn't recovered and the USA still has not compensated the Vietnamese for the death and destruction it caused.

Then there was the US trained death squads that roamed Central America in the mid 1980s killing tens of thousands of innocent people....we are seeing similar shadowy tactics in Iraq today....courtesy of the School For th Americas which trained a generation of torturers in Georgia,USA.

Saddam Hussein was a close friend and ally of the USA for many years right up until the end of the war against Iran .

There are others almost too numerous to mention.
hugo

Subject: RE: BS: Is Hezbollah Winning?
From: GUEST,hugo
Date: 17 Aug 06 - 03:47 PM

correction to typo error in above
second paragraph should read

The CIA sponsored a military coup which overthrew the elected govy of Dr Allende....
hugo

Subject: RE: BS: Is Hezbollah Winning?
From: Peace
Date: 17 Aug 06 - 03:50 PM

"It has just been demonstrated in Lebanon."

Some stuff fell down, no doubt. Imagine what Lebanon would look like if it had been Israel's intent to destroy as many buildings as possible. Do you think Beirut would look as good as it does? The missile, artilery and bomb damage was restricted and contained to Hezbollah targets. And as we know, Hezbollah started the war.

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

Not according to our illustrious ex-president Carter, Peace. In a interview with Der Spiegel in Germany he referred to Israel's unwarranted attack on Lebanon. I guess that means Israel started the war. After all, Jimmy Boy's got himself a Nobel Peace Prize for bringing "peace" to the Mid-East. (A pause while somebody asks, "What peace")

DougR

Subject: RE: BS: Is Hezbollah Winning?
From: Peace
Date: 17 Aug 06 - 06:11 PM

The man knows his goobers, however.

Subject: RE: BS: Is Hezbollah Winning?
From: Greg F.
Date: 17 Aug 06 - 06:18 PM

Some of the most trenchant critics of Israel's aggressive policies towards the Palestinians and Lebanon are Jewish.

What's more, a substantial segment of the Israeli population is opposed to what's been going on.

I guess they're all self-hating anti-Semites, huh?

***

And Douggie-Boy:

You're not worthy to lick President Carter's boots. What the hell worthwhile have you ever done?

Subject: RE: BS: Is Hezbollah Winning?
From: Peace
Date: 17 Aug 06 - 06:19 PM

However, Doug, you raise a very interesting point that I think should be taken further. Indeed Israel took a sledge hammer to a peanut (I'da said walnut, but the Carter reference has affected my metaphors). And was that response merited?

Hezbollah only killed eight soldiers and kidnapped two others. Hey, what the hell's eight soldiers' lives? They are just soldiers and they get paid to take the risk. But let's assume Israel lets it pass and just continues on as if nothing happened. Soon, it's 8 x 365 = 2920. And 730 kidnapped. Yeah, just eight soldiers, and then the suicide bombings, and just a few rockets per day, nothing substantial. Yeah. Israel, the aggressor nation. Attacking those poor folks with Hezbollah. Jeeze, I feel tears in my eyes . . . .

(Doug: none of that is addressed to you. Just a general statement to keep the terrorist supporters focused on their love of the peace-seeking Hezbollah organization and their hatred of Jews, Zionists and people like me who are neither but still support Israel.)

Subject: RE: BS: Is Hezbollah Winning?
From: bobad
Date: 17 Aug 06 - 06:44 PM

"What's more, a substantial segment of the Israeli population is opposed to what's been going on."

Can you let us know exactlty how many are encompassed by that "substantial segment?"

Subject: RE: BS: Is Hezbollah Winning?
From: Peace
Date: 17 Aug 06 - 06:45 PM

THAT, Walt, is the smartest thing you've said in over a month. Keep it up.

Subject: RE: BS: Is Hezbollah Winning?
From: GUEST
Date: 17 Aug 06 - 07:01 PM

Old Guy: "The death toll, he argued, was minor compared to the list of Third World victims of the “far more extreme terrorism� of United States foreign policy"

This comment on Noam Chomsky is supposed to show him to be heartless and completely out-of-touch with the 'American' psyche. First: if we only ever said what was popular with everyone, we might as well give up and ever hoping to say anything that was true. It might not be popular with American people to start comparing their 9-11 dead with the Third World poor who've died as a result of deeply unjust trade rules that are pushed in tandem with US foreign policy. Noam Chmosky is taking a big risk in even daring to talk about them in such terms. But I think what he's being trying to do is to bring a sense of perspective to the issue that has been lacking because of the emotions raised. 3,000 plus dead is a lot of people, but even though the relatives of those dead might not like to hear it in the same breath, hundreds of millions have died in the Third World thanks to the globalising forces of US foriegn policy. The real emotive problem that they have with it is a deep down and unconscious racism: along the lines of 'one American is worth a hundred slant eyed foreigners'. Therefore one American death is a catastrophe while thousands of foreigners barely rasies an eyelid. (By the way for teh record, I think one American death is as big a disaster as one death anywhere).
Now probably some of you will imediately jump to the attack and demand I produce a raft of facts and figures ("Unless I can put my hands in the wounds in His side, I will not believe") and fair enough, we'd all like facts and figures all the time to back things up. But the facts and figures you'd demand would fill a book and I just have time to write it right now. It's unlikely any of the Doubting Thomases would be happy with the numbers anyway, and would just say 'this or that report was flawed, innaccurate etc.,'
So I'll limit myself to just a few words on it: Someone further back this thread posted a list of countries the US has either directly attacked or whose democracies it has interefered with since WW2, all with disastrous consequences for the people in those countries. But it didn't even start there with the Munroe doctrine - it goes back further. Think of the Phillipines during the Spanish-American war, just over a hundred years ago, etc., etc., It is beyond a shadow of doubt that the US HAS invaded these countries, propped up tin-pot dictators (Saddam was only the latest in a long line around the world) who tortured and terrorised their people into cowed obedience. Now this obedience wasn't just to their tin-pot dictator, but through him, to his American overlords and their economic ideologies. The whoe, point of invading these countries was to bring 'development'. This translates as forcing those countries to open up their markets to corporations that already had a vast headstart, destroying local industry and markets in the process. Enforced monoculture etc., etc., The irnoy is that model hasn't even worked in the US - yes, the country is fabulously wealthy, but the wealth is concentrated in the hands of a few. Alongside them are the thousands of trailer trash, minority groups etc., struggling to get by on $7 an hour shit jobs and gratuities if they're extra nice to the customer (so their bosses don't have to pay them decent wages). Then these corporations show their loyalty to their slaves by downsizing and throwing thousands of them on the breadline just at the very moment they're making record profits. The corporation then relocates to a 'third world country' where they suck the blood dry of the next round of vict- I mean, employees. It was called 'development theory' back in the 1940s when words like 'colonialism' and imperialism were no longer popular. Nowadays, it's cunningly and simply called 'democracy'. Now, who can argue against 'democracy'? Power to the people and all that. Except when you realise that what Bush et al are exporting as 'democracy' is the failed exploitational ideology of the greedy corporations (the ones who really drive White House foreign policy). Finally South America has woken up to the disaster that neo-liberal economics has brought to the region, and are finding a voice of resistance in people like Hugo Chavez, one of the first S.American leaders to actually be doing something to improve the lot of his people. He gets elected democratically, and what does the US do? Does the White House nod approvingly that the people of Venezuela used their vote to choose their leader, as the Arabs of Iraq are called on to do? Not at all! Deeply annoyed that the people didn't vote correctly, and horror of horrors, elected someone with a sense of social responsibility, the White House actually tried to get rid of him in a Coup d'Etat! That alone, if nothing else, makes a mockery of their claims to champions of democracy. If they'd succeeded, there'd be another Pinochet on the puppet throne torturing and 'disappearing' his serfs as big US companies plundered the country and its oil. The US has used terror, torture, threats, bullied you name it, to accomplish its own personal aims. Currently, depsite all Bush's rhetoric about any country harbouring terrorists being terrorists themselves, he continues to give shelter to Luis Posada Carillos, the Cuban terrorist who blew up an airliner because Luis is anti-Castro. So it in fact if the terrorist is on the side of the White House, then it seems he is re-defined as not being a terrorist. That, in essence, is the very definition of terrorism. There's no other way to see it. The US administration (and most republican administrations - eg Regan) are terrorist in nature. Someone back along (Old Guy, I think said "The only people that admire a terrorist organization are terrorists.May a Kaytusha fly up your ass. Or are you launching them?" That makes Old Guy a terrorist. The Bush administration are in fact, basically nothing better than a terror organisation. The only difference between them and say, the Taliban, is that they have the gloss of respectability (based on a highly compromised and suspect election) tons of money and 'wearing suits'. But make no mistake, their aims (reshaping the Middle East, and later, the world to suit their ideology and agenda) and methods (we'll talk to you if you agree to do what we want, but if you refuse we'll bomb you to smithereens) are no different. This places all of us in a quandry! What are we supposed to do when Bush urges us to help in the fight against terrorism, when he himself and his pirate crew are some of the world's top terrorists? Is he telling us to try and stop him?
They remind me sometimes of the Martians in those old B-movies who used to invade Earth. They'd arrive here in their shiny spaceships with their vastly superior technology, talking a gobbledigook no-one could understand, then lay waste to everything round them while saying they come in peace (remember Mars Attacks? 'Don't run away! We come in peace!' ZZap! Psssh! Pow! Don't run away! We come in Peace!') No one and nothing could stop them until they ran out of steam, and by the time they were finished the world had usually been made into a cross betwen a vast rubbish dump and graveyard. There's something deeply Freudian about those movies really - they're not about aliens, they're about history. It made you wonder what was the point of ut all, since by the time they'd won the battle and conquered the earth, there was nothing left to rule over. A bit of a pyrrhic victory really, but unfortunately we all have to suffer for it.

And all for control of a dirty black liquid that drives the wheels of the US economy and keeps it on the move! If some of the billions and bilions of dollars gobbled up in destroying so many lives had been invested instead in finding alternatives to oil and improving lives (how much - or little - did the Katrina victims get, I wonder)...!

By the way, just one more disclaimer: since I have criticised the US, some may accuse me simplistically of being anti-American. To that, I say b******t. I know there are many Americans deeply opposed to the disaster course the White House and its various appendages are determined to drag them. To them, may hat goes off, moreover as they are voicing their opposition at a time when to do so is to draw potential harrasment (you think those wiretap and surveillance laws are all about terrorists, do ya? A 'terrorist' is anyone who disagrees with the Presidnet or people like him!) on themselves. These are the real heroes of our age. It's much easier just to roll over and give in to the bullying of the White House and say all the PC stuff, but it's also the cowards' road.

Subject: RE: BS: Is Hezbollah Winning?
From: Dave (the ancient mariner)
Date: 17 Aug 06 - 07:13 PM

As usual in any crisis, the Middle East rumor, prevarication and excuses mill has been working overtime. A canard circulated by supposedly respectable people claims that the Hezbollah kidnapping of Israeli soldiers was "legitimate" because the Israeli patrol had entered Lebanese territory. So let us be absolutely clear about this: Certainly Hizbollah's attack broke the United Nations rules in southern Lebanon--a "violent breach" of the Blue Line, it was called by Geir Pedersen, the senior UN official in the country--and was bound to unleash the air force, tanks and gunboats of Israel on to this frail, dangerous country".

The source of the above quote is none other than Robert Fisk, who is not suspected of any Zionist sympathies. Even Fisk understands that the Hezbollah, who are allowed by the Lebanese to represent them, committed a clear act of aggression.

A second excuse that has been circulating is that the Hezbollah and Israel are morally equivalent, because the Israelis hold Lebanese prisoners for "no reason," as hostages to be traded. The prisoner whom the Hezbollah want to retrieve apparently is Samir Kuntar. Kuntar has been jailed in Israel since a 1979 attack in the northern town of Nahariyah, in which he entered an apartment and murdered three family members and an Israeli police officer. There is no moral equivalence between imprisoning the murderous Kuntar and kidnapping soldiers or civilians who are going about their business.

A third excuse that has been circulating is that the Hezbollah attacked a "legitimate" target - soldiers. This is very confused and confusing. If the Hezbollah are allowed to attack soldiers, then Israel is at war with Lebanon, and Israel is allowed to retaliate against any and all targets that it considers to be strategic. In any case, the kidnapping was accompanied by a rocket attack on Israel. Rocket attacks are aimed at civilians and are not "legitimate."

Less controversial but more confusing fog surrounds the nature of the missiles or rockets in use by Hezbollah. An Israeli "Saar-5" missile cruiser was hit by an Iranian Fajr missile. It is not clear if these missiles were fired by Iranian crews operating in Lebanon, or by Hezbollah trained in the operation of these missles. It is not clear (to me anyhow) if the reference is to the sophisticated naval missiles developed by Iran, or to a truck mounted Katyusha like rocket, also called "Fajr." Both have been supplied to the Hezbullah by Iran The nature of the rockets that hit Haifa, killing nine people is also in doubt. These are not Katyousha rockets. They are variously identified as "Shaheen" or "Shihab" missiles, but those have a range of up to 1,500 kilometers and clearly are not what struck Haifa. Israeli sources claim that fragments of the rockets indicate that they are of Syrian manufacture.

Much of the Arab world is still of the opinion that this "incident" will end like all the others, in an exchange of prisoners. In Asharq Al Awsa, Abdul Rahman Al-Rashed writes:

It is likely that after the military operations, Israel will release a thousand Palestinian and Lebanese prisoners in return for the release of its three soldiers. All parties will then announce their victories. I hope that then you will look carefully at the situation and whether it was a victory bearing in mind the number of victims, the suffering, the politics and the damages.

If that happens, then of course it will be a victory for the Hizbollah and Iran. President Ahmadinejad is determined to wipe out Zionism and Israel, and he will fight Israel to the last Lebanese, so it would be pure profit. Likewise Hassan Nasrallah will claim a victory. Nobody else will get any victory. However, Israel has upped the ante. Defense Minister Peretz and PM Olmert have both declared that Israel will not stop until the Hezbollah is disarmed and the Lebanese army is deployed along the border with Israel.

The Jihadist forces backed by Iran have clearly hijacked the Palestinian issue and many other issues in the Middle East, as David Brooks notes in the New York Times. They have also hijacked the Lebanese government. Therefore there is no way forward for peace or for Lebanese freedom or any other desirable goal as long as the Hezbollah and the Hamas remain in control of the destinies of Lebanon and Palestine, allowing Iran and Syria to dictate the agenda.

Subject: RE: BS: Is Hezbollah Winning?
From: GUEST,Nick
Date: 17 Aug 06 - 07:39 PM

"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"

I thought you'd be glad most of the missiles fell in open spaces, rather then on houses and densley populated places like the IDF bombs and missiles?


"Jerusalem----February 7.....In response to Iran's best-selling newspaper announcing a competition to find the best cartoons about the Holocaust, the Israel News Agency launched an SEO - Internet search engine optimization marketing contest to prevent Iran news Websites from reaching top positions in Google"

Iran's action in this regard is reprehensible. Disgareeing with someone's politics is one thing, but deliberately poking fun at their suffering is horrible. I wonder how their (Iran's) one Jewish MP feels?
I think it would be sufficent to block these cartoons (if they are ever written) from appearing. I think it'd be only fair though to block cartoons like the one equating Mohammed with a suicide bomber as well (eg. like the ones the Danes printed).

In the aftermath of the tsunami that killed 200,000 people in Indonesia, I saw a little nes insert that said it all. while on the front page of the paper, the headlines proclaimed that the world had already pledged some millions in relief aid for victims of the disaster, on the inside pages, a few inches of news column related how the Kremiln had approved the year's military budget at some $400 million (or billion, I forget, but a a fortune anyway). I guess the US military budget would have been comparable that year. So, we give a few hundred million to helping people, saving lives, and billions to developing better ways to destroy them.

BTW:
Another typical typo from whatever gremlins upload this stuff to the thread: the sentence that reads "But the facts and figures you'd demand would fill a book and I just have time to write it right now" should read "I don't have time to write it right now" obviously.

Once again, forgot to put my name (real name, not a nom-de-plume, by the way) to my last post.

Subject: RE: BS: Is Hezbollah Winning?
From: dianavan
Date: 17 Aug 06 - 07:40 PM

"Soon, it's 8 x 365 = 2920. And 730 kidnapped."

Compared to how many prisoners in Israel?

Seems to me Israel has been jailing Palestinians for a long time.

Just how many do they have? Of course, they don't count because they're Muslim. At one point, it was estimated that 40% of the male population of Palestine had been imprisoned by Israel. Pleas to the international community have fallen on deaf ears.

Those that have returned from Israeli captivity tell tales of torture and most return disabled for life. This has been going on for years! ...and yet when Hezbollah captures two Israeli soldiers they cry foul and respond by bombing Lebanon.

...and you call Hezbollah and Hamas aggressive when they retalliate and then you say they started it.

Get some perspective.

Subject: RE: BS: Is Hezbollah Winning?
From: GUEST,petr
Date: 17 Aug 06 - 07:57 PM

the reasons behind the attack are more complex..
essentially it is a proxy war with The Iranians and Syrians supplying Hizbollah, and the US helping Israel on the other side.
According to Seymour Hersh latest NewYorker article, an intercepted Hamas communique, stated that since the ceasefire by Hamas since it came to office was achieving nothing it was time for action.
It looks like both sides have been preparing for a fight.
On the US and Israeli side, it is a test in possible preparation for knocking out Iranian nuke sites, from the Iranian side it is a test asymetric guerrila missile defence (and judging from Israels inability to win decisively it was successful)
(see technologyreview.com missiles of august)
from Hizbollahs point of view, they come out as victors - at least in the Arab world, and with more power and popular support in Lebanon.
Although its questionable that they gained much other than widespread destruction of Lebanon.
Ultimately there are no victors though, it will probably lead to a more hardline Netanyahu govt in Israel, who will need to come up with a better response to Hizbollah.

Subject: RE: BS: Is Hezbollah Winning?
From: dianavan
Date: 17 Aug 06 - 08:05 PM

If this was a dress-rehearsal for an attack on Iran, I hope they learned their lesson. With or without a nuclear arsenal, the Iranian Army is not to be taken lightly. I hope this, at least, slows the U.S. and makes them think a little bit. The U.S. (and Israel it seems) grossly underestimate the power of their enemies.

Subject: RE: BS: Is Hezbollah Winning?
From: Peace
Date: 17 Aug 06 - 08:12 PM

"Get some perspective."

Eat shit.

Subject: RE: BS: Is Hezbollah Winning?
From: GUEST,Nick
Date: 17 Aug 06 - 08:42 PM

Peace:"Get some perspective." "Eat shit"

I guess that was aimed at me for my second last post. If you disgaree with me, fine. But 'eat shit' is not an argument. It is also oddly out-of-place with your handle / nom-de-plume. Shouldn't you change your handle 'peace' to 'eat shit'? Have you ever seen me tell you to 'eat shit' (your own or anyone else's) just because I don't always agree with your opinions?

Subject: RE: BS: Is Hezbollah Winning?
From: Peace
Date: 17 Aug 06 - 08:49 PM

The remark was from Dianavan and I have asked her not to talk with me on threads. The 'eat shit' was for her. What's it has to do with you I don't know.

Subject: RE: BS: Is Hezbollah Winning?
From: GUEST,Nick
Date: 17 Aug 06 - 08:58 PM

Sorry, my mistake then. I had a similar phrase in one of my posts and thought that was your response to it. Once again, sorry for the misunderstanding.

Subject: RE: BS: Is Hezbollah Winning?
From: Peace
Date: 17 Aug 06 - 09:03 PM

Nothing to be sorry about. Not to worry.

I get tired of the same old same from someone who seems to hate Israelis so much, but has nothing bad to say about a terrorist organization that kills Israelis, Spaniards, Brits--well, damned near anyone they like (or don't like, rather), because they are so hard done-by. They are, IMO, pawns in the game and Iran and Iraq pull their strings. It has nothing to do with the Lebanese people. It is about creating instability and creating discord. However, they messed with the wrong dog. They have decided to pull the tail and now they need help letting go of it. I'd guess that 400 Hezbollah folks have been killed. Too few by thousands.

Subject: RE: BS: Is Hezbollah Winning?
From: dianavan
Date: 17 Aug 06 - 10:38 PM

I was not addressing Peace, directly but responding to his comments.

If "eat shit" is the best he can come up with, I can only say that Israel deserves better. I am absolutely sure that there are better ways to make a point. Emotional outbursts of a personal nature only expose the poster as unable to think clearly about the issues.

We are all entitled to our opinions. I am allowed to criticize Israel, the U.S. or any other government. Israel is not holier than any other nation or morally superior to any other nation. To invade a country on the basis of two captured soldiers is ridiculous and would not be tolerated if it was done by any other nation. By Israeli logic, the Palestinians should have invaded Israel long ago.

It was never about saving the Israeli soldiers. Israel used them launch an invasion that was planned long ago. The Zionists with the help of the U.S. and British are hiding behind innocent Jews throughout the world.

Subject: RE: BS: Is Hezbollah Winning?
From: Old Guy
Date: 17 Aug 06 - 11:09 PM

If Dianavan thinks Hezbollah is so admirable and what Iran is doing is so just, let her go to Iran and write something against the government there.

No one would have to endure her crybaby points of view thereafter.

Maybe prisoners are treated better in Iranian jails than they are treated in Israeli Jails

She is the one lacking perspective.

Subject: RE: BS: Is Hezbollah Winning?
From: GUEST,ifor
Date: 18 Aug 06 - 02:30 AM

Mordechai Vanunu served 18 years in an Israeli jail for confirming that Israel was a nuclear weapons state. He had been kidnapped by Israeli agents from Rome.

He served almost 12 years in solitary confinement.

When he was eventually released after serving his time he was still refused permission to leave Israel.

He has renounced his Israeli citizenship and the Jewish religion and has been "adopted" by an American couple.

He has been ordered not to speak to the press and is living in sanctuary in a church annexe.

He has been threatened with death by Zionist extremists.

This man is a modern day hero .He should be allowed to leave Israel but the zionist state wants to make his life a total misery.
Please dont tell us about Israeli jails.
Free Vanunu!
ifor

Subject: RE: BS: Is Hezbollah Winning?
From: Old Guy
Date: 18 Aug 06 - 11:28 AM

What did he do that was heroic and how did he survive if the jails are so bad. Breaching government secrets is treason. Why wasn't he executed?

Issam Makhoul, head of Israeli Communist Party and a former member of Knesset, calls John Crossman, Vanunu "not a traitor," but "an Israeli hero."

Yeah, Commies know traitors from heros.

Subject: RE: BS: Is Hezbollah Winning?
From: GUEST,petr
Date: 18 Aug 06 - 12:52 PM

no one won.
both sides were itching for a fight and wanted an excuse.
and both sides gladly accepted a ceasefire as the war was getting them nowhere -although possibly Nasrallah came out with more prestige.
in the middle east (still depends on the long term outcome).

from the US standpoint it wasnt just a dress rehearsal for Iran.
it was an attempt to neutralize Hezbollah and reduce any risk to Israel
if there were to be an attempt to take out Irans nuclear sites, which personally I doubt there will be as it would have to be a massive strike accompanied by ground troops - and the US is already overextended.
(even in the US this would still require building support for such an action which I doubt would happen - as the shock of 911 has worn off and the Iraqi WMDs (the main pretext) never materialized.)

In any case Iran could respond by disrupting oil shipping in the persian gulf and world oil prices would double. What the war demonstrated was the massive military advantage doesnt always guarantee victory - especially in days of cheap missile technology.
The Iranians could also use their highspeed torpedoes - knockoffs of the Russian Schkval which can go at 300km/hr underwater - to which the re currently is no easy countermeasure - not just to threaten shipping but also the US navy. (I wouldnt be too overconfident in the US navy's ability to detect enemy vessels - after all one of the carriers bumped into an Iraqi fishing boat last year).

Im not a fan of Irans ruling junta but the US would be better off in getting international cooperation at isolating Iran in trade - especially the oilindustry parts and supporting the opposition in Iran. Even if Iran were to get nukes what is the big deal. After all China and the Russians had them for years and we lived with it. Even Pakistan has the bomb and theyre an ally (if you can call it that).
Guess who was widely in favour of the Iranian nuclear program - Kissinger - and Wolfowitz - but that was back in the seventies and when Kissinger is asked about it his response is 'they were our allies then'.

Subject: RE: BS: Is Hezbollah Winning?
From: GUEST,ifor
Date: 18 Aug 06 - 12:58 PM

What Vanunu did was to reveal to the world that there was a nuclear weapons state in the Middle East with a tendency to use extreme violence towards its neighbours.Many suspected that Israel was a nuclear state but Vanunu confirmed all the suspicions.It has also been revealed that both the USA and the UK helped Israel acquire these weapons ...no wonder the neighbouring states are deeply suspicious of both states.
12 years of solitary confinement ...and to come out sane and still prepared to speak out against nuclear weapons makes Vanunu a kind of hero...and he should be allowed to leave that prison which is Israel.Thee is a right of return but no right to leave.
Free Vanunu!
ifor

Subject: RE: BS: Is Hezbollah Winning?
From: dianavan
Date: 18 Aug 06 - 01:23 PM

Free Vanunu!

Subject: RE: BS: Is Hezbollah Winning?
From: bobad
Date: 18 Aug 06 - 01:23 PM

"a nuclear weapons state in the Middle East "

And that is one of the reasons why it still is (much to your consternation, it would appear) a state in the Middle East.

"a tendency to use extreme violence towards its neighbours."

Only in defense, when threatened or attacked by it's neighbours.

Subject: RE: BS: Is Hezbollah Winning?
From: beardedbruce
Date: 18 Aug 06 - 01:26 PM

Free dianavan's mind!

"At least 13 Jews have been executed in Iran since the Islamic revolution 19 years ago, most of them for either religious reasons or their connection to Israel. For example, in May 1998, Jewish businessman Ruhollah Kakhodah-Zadeh was hanged in prison without a public charge or legal proceeding, apparently for assisting Jews to emigrate.7 "

Subject: RE: BS: Is Hezbollah Winning?
From: dianavan
Date: 18 Aug 06 - 02:20 PM

"182 Palestinian prisoners and detainees have died in Israeli prisons since the beginning of the occupation as a result of torture or the lack of medical treatment."

http://english.aad-online.org/modules.php?name=News&file=article&sid=849

Subject: RE: BS: Is Hezbollah Winning?
From: beardedbruce
Date: 18 Aug 06 - 03:01 PM

"According to B'tselem, the Israeli Information Center for Human Rights in the Occupied Territories, the number of Israelis killed by Palestinians between September 29, 2000, and November 30, 2002, is 640. Of those, 440 are civilians, including 82 under the age of eighteen. Some 335 were killed inside Israel proper, the rest in the West Bank and the Gaza Strip. The Palestinians also killed 27 foreign citizens during this period. "

"From the signing of the Oslo agreements in 1993 until the beginning of August 2002 we know of 198 suicide bombing missions, of which 136 ended with the attackers blowing up others along with themselves."

Subject: RE: BS: Is Hezbollah Winning?
From: Little Hawk
Date: 18 Aug 06 - 03:12 PM

Odd how most people only recognize (or at least object to) casualties on their own side of the imaginary line that separates them from "others", isn't it?

Subject: RE: BS: Is Hezbollah Winning?
From: beardedbruce
Date: 18 Aug 06 - 03:15 PM

Newest "peace" song, at present anti-war demonstrations and pro-Arab rallies:


"All we are saying,
Is Kill All the Jews."

(repeat)

Subject: RE: BS: Is Hezbollah Winning?
From: Dave (the ancient mariner)
Date: 18 Aug 06 - 03:23 PM

The following is an abbreviated article from a military analyst.

Keep in mind exactly what Hezbollah is. It is a radical Islamic organization dedicated to the destruction of Israel, and the eventual establishment of a world-wide Islamic dictatorship (in cooperation with its patron, Iran). Hezbollah has taken control of about a third of Lebanon, and runs it as a religious dictatorship, a branch office of the Iranian religious dictatorship. Hezbollah's power base is the 1.3 million Lebanese who are Shia Muslim (like most Iranians are). The Shia comprise about 35 percent of the Lebanese population, and have long been the least prosperous third of the population. Hezbollah not only helped defend Shia interests during the 1975-90 civil war, but gave out tens of billions of dollars in Iranian money over the years. In return for all these favors, Hezbollah asks only for obedience, and volunteers for its trained terrorist force of several thousand fighters. Pro-Hezbollah Shia also dominate in the Lebanese army, a force put together since 1990 with the assistance of the Syrians. The Syrians are also allies of Iran, and consider most of Lebanon as part of Syria. France assembled Lebanon in the 1920s, after World War I, from bits of the recently disbanded Turkish empire. Historically, "Lebanon" was a string of coastal cities in what is now Lebanon. The French added some more territory inland, territory that had traditionally been considered part of Syria. The Syrians have not forgotten, neither have the Lebanese.

As part of the 1990 peace deal, brokered by Saudi Arabia, several divisions of Syrian troops were stationed in eastern Lebanon. These troops were necessary at first, but not for the last decade or so. The Syrians stayed to back up Hezbollah, make money by running the local economy, and because there was no one available to force them out. That changed last year, when years of anger at the Syrian occupation erupted into violent public demonstrations. The Syrians took the hint, and left. The 65 percent of the population that is not Shia (and is mostly Christian), are really unhappy about Syrian influence in Lebanon (the the murder of several Lebanese leaders over the last few years), and the continued existence of Hezbollah. But the Lebanese don't want another round of civil war, just to disarm Hezbollah. Since the Syrian army was sent packing, negotiations were under way with Hezbollah to disarm them, and return "Hezbollahland" to Lebanese control.

Hezbollah was split on the disarmament issue. Many Lebanese Shia wanted to become part of Lebanon, not a state-within-a-state. But the more hardcore Hezbollah believed in the goal of destroying Israel and establishing the worldwide Islamic dictatorship. The hardcore guys pulled off the July 12th kidnapping of two Israeli soldiers. That kind of operation was a violation of the unofficial deal the Israelis and Hezbollah had worked out over the past five years. That raid indicated that Hezbollah was no longer in control of all its fighters.

The Hezbollah attack left Israel with two options. They could either launch a massive invasion, and overrun all of Lebanon and Syria, or do what they did (to encourage the Lebanese and UN to deal with Hezbollah.) The trouble with the second ("small war") option is that it takes longer, and that leaves Hezbollah intact for longer. But the first ("big war") option would leave thousands of Israeli soldiers dead, and involve the occupation, for months, if not years, of Lebanon and Syria. That strategy would involve handing Lebanon back to its elected government with the understanding that there would be no more Hezbollah. But there would still be the a Shia minority, and within that minority there would still be Shia radicals who took orders, or at least direction, from Shia radicals in Iran.

Syria has to be overrun because, if you don't, Hezbollah can retreat to there from occupied Lebanon and set up shop in Syria. Take Syria and you eliminate any refuge (except Iran, where at least the senior Hezbollah people would flee to). While the Syrian military is no pushover, their armed forces have fallen apart since the end of the Cold War, and Soviet subsidies. Syria is a dictatorship run by the Alawite minority. The Alawites are, technically, a Shia sect, and for that reason, Iran subsidizes them. The majority of Syrians are Sunni Moslems. The Alawites have continued to run the nation because they established an efficient police state, and they get enough money from Iran to keep the ramshackle thing going. But the Israeli army could put the Alawites out of business in short order, and turn the place over to the UN for democratic elections (the first in nearly half a century). That would put Sunni Arabs back in power, and eliminate support for Shia Hezbollah.

There's one catch with Syria. Over the last two decades, Syria has invested some of its scan resources in one segment of its armed forces. As a result, Syria has a force of several hundred ballistic missiles, all of which can reach deep into Israel. Syria also has chemical weapons (nerve gas, and others). An attack on Syria puts Israel at risk of taking a few hits from Syrian ballistic missiles armed with chemical warheads. While Israel has its Arrow anti-ballistic missile system, a dozen missiles fired at once could overwhelm it. The risk is several thousand dead Israeli civilians, maybe more. But maybe none, if Israeli plans to take out the Syrian missile forces work. But in the aftermath of this Summers fighting, Israeli planners may have a new respect for possible deceptions and techniques for hiding missiles from attack.

The "big war" strategy has other costs. Mobilizing the entire Israeli armed forces means shutting down much of the Israeli economy, because so many key people are reservists. There is also the risk, however slight, of other Arab states declaring war on Israel. This risk is slight because those other Arab states are Sunni Muslim, and welcome the removal of Iran backed Shia entities (Hezbollah and Syria). But the risk is there.

There's always risk, it's a question of which one you estimate will do you the most good. Israel still has the "big war" option available, and Lebanon and Syria know it. If the small war option doesn't work out, Hezbollah, Lebanon, Syria and Iran know what comes next.

Subject: RE: BS: Is Hezbollah Winning?
From: Little Hawk
Date: 18 Aug 06 - 04:14 PM

To imagine that any movement can successfully establish a worldwide Islamic dictatorship is simply ludicrous. It's like imagining that the Jehovah's Witnesses...or for that matter, the Buddhists, or the Hindus can take over the world.

It ain't gonna happen. Why are you spreading fear about something that simply cannot possibly happen, Dave?


It makes you sound about as irrational as you believe Hezbollah is.

Subject: RE: BS: Is Hezbollah Winning?
From: dianavan
Date: 18 Aug 06 - 04:30 PM

bb - Its pretty hard to argue with someone who keeps changing the topic.

You were talking about prisoners and then you change it to the number of civilian casualties caused by suicide bombers.

If you want to play that game, the number of Lebanese and Palestinian casualties far exceed the number of Israeli casualties.

You are running in circles. Any way you look at it, Israel has killed far more people in the Middle East than anybody else and the number of prisoners in their jails far outstrips the number of Israelis that have been imprisoned. The Israeli jails are full to the limit and they are inviting private contractors to run them.

As far as the thirteen Jews who were executed in Iran, what punishment do you suggest for espionage?

Subject: RE: BS: Is Hezbollah Winning?
From: GUEST,walt
Date: 18 Aug 06 - 06:09 PM

did you know that the zionists are so concerned that they are losing public support across the world that they have set up a specialised website as an instant rebuttal so that its supporters can refer to it for bits of information produced by the govt or its allies.The Israeli govt has appealed for people to use it!! sad but true!
walt

Subject: RE: BS: Is Hezbollah Winning?
From: Dave (the ancient mariner)
Date: 18 Aug 06 - 06:48 PM

LH Islamic militants have stated their goals are to destroy America and the West not just Israel(I can only assume West means Europe in general) If you think this is unlikely, think again before it is too late you are an infidel.

Subject: RE: BS: Is Hezbollah Winning?
From: bobad
Date: 18 Aug 06 - 08:00 PM

"As far as the thirteen Jews who were executed in Iran, what punishment do you suggest for espionage?"

"182 Palestinian prisoners and detainees have died in Israeli prisons since the beginning of the occupation as a result of torture or the lack of medical treatment."

What punishment do you suggest for espionage?

Subject: RE: BS: Is Hezbollah Winning?
From: dianavan
Date: 18 Aug 06 - 08:47 PM

"Currently, more than 600 Palestinians remain in administrative detention. Most of them are held in Ofer Military Camp (in the West Bank) and the Ansar 3/Ketziot Military Camp in the Negev desert, where conditions are extremely harsh.

Amnesty International opposes the practice of administrative detention, and calls for an end to the practice."

Amnesty International considers that the mass arrests and detentions carried out during March and April 2002 were arbitrary.

http://www.amnesty.org.il/reports/MDE_4.html

Subject: RE: BS: Is Hezbollah Winning?
From: Peace
Date: 18 Aug 06 - 08:52 PM

Hezbollah, which is the topic of this thread despite the attempts of some folks to change it are a terrorist organization who started a war and now have folks whining on their behalf because they got their asses kicked. The Hezbollah leader is a pampered arsehole who gladly sends other people's kids off to die on his behalf. I hope his head is removed from his body when he is at last killed. That way, he can spend eternity wondering how many of the 72 belong to his immediate family.

Subject: RE: BS: Is Hezbollah Winning?
From: Peace
Date: 18 Aug 06 - 09:13 PM

BTW.

Yes, Israel has a good army and airforce, and they will hold their land despite being outnumbered 50 to 1. And guess what? Ya don't have to like it.

Subject: RE: BS: Is Hezbollah Winning?
From: Ron Davies
Date: 18 Aug 06 - 09:16 PM

Sorry, Peace--Hezbollah is at least as much a social services organization as a terrorist group--and is seen by most poor Lebanese Shiites as the former--and a long-time bulwark against Israeli aggression. Israel's destruction of bridges, roads, the Beirut airport--and infrastructure all over Lebanon--("to stop resupply of Hezbollah")--and the accompanying "collateral damage"-- has done nothing but strengthen the perception of these--and other--Lebanese--that the strong bulwark is desperately needed.

The crowning irony, as I understand it, is that Olmert, having no military background, felt he had to raise the level of response to Hezbollah provocations in order to defuse right-wing political opponents--to be able to pursue his plan---of further Israeli unilateral withdrawals.

But by this stalemate he may well lose all political power.

Subject: RE: BS: Is Hezbollah Winning?
From: The Fooles Troupe
Date: 18 Aug 06 - 09:17 PM

"The Hezbollah leader is a pampered arsehole who gladly sends other people's kids off to die on his behalf. "

One could also say that about the leaders of US, Britain, Australia, France, Israel, Iran, etc ...

You want the same treatment for them all too? Or not...

Subject: RE: BS: Is Hezbollah Winning?
From: bobad
Date: 18 Aug 06 - 09:22 PM

HUMAN RIGHTS ADVOCATES EMBARRASS THEMSELVES.
Out of Proportion
by Joshua Brook

"Amnesty International has jettisoned international law entirely; instead, the group seems to be defining a war crime as any military action of which Amnesty International disapproves. Its website blithely condemns the Israeli targeting of bridges, roads, power stations, and the Beirut airport as "blatant violations of international law, which include war crimes." This accusation makes no reference to the principle of proportionality or, indeed, to any international legal instrument whatsoever."

Subject: RE: BS: Is Hezbollah Winning?
From: Peace
Date: 18 Aug 06 - 09:22 PM

Yes it is Ron. The part that sticks to social services didn't start a war that has resulted in about 1000 dead people.

Subject: RE: BS: Is Hezbollah Winning?
From: Peace
Date: 18 Aug 06 - 09:25 PM

It's like this, Foolestroupe. The guy that starts the fight seldom gets to say when the fight ends. A swings at B. Then A says, "Fight's over!" Oh yeah? You think that?

Hezbollah started a war with Israel. Israel will finish Hezbollah. Period. AND, I don't blame Israel one friggin' bit, because if they don't do it today they will be dealing with the same shit ten years from now.

Subject: RE: BS: Is Hezbollah Winning?
From: The Fooles Troupe
Date: 18 Aug 06 - 09:33 PM

What? only TEN years?

Subject: RE: BS: Is Hezbollah Winning?
From: Peace
Date: 18 Aug 06 - 09:34 PM

Maybe five if they start now.

Subject: RE: BS: Is Hezbollah Winning?
From: freda underhill
Date: 18 Aug 06 - 09:34 PM

dianavan - thanks for the link to that article - you answered a question I've been asking myself since the start of this war - "who was invading whose territory when it started"

what the hell were Israeli soldiers doing in Lebanon? of course they were kidnapped - they were conducting a military action on foreign territory. There is no righteousness here.

Subject: RE: BS: Is Hezbollah Winning?
From: Peace
Date: 18 Aug 06 - 09:36 PM

Thanks for the link Bobad that shows the Israeli soldiers were actually inside Israel when they were kidnapped and murdered.

Subject: RE: BS: Is Hezbollah Winning?
From: The Fooles Troupe
Date: 18 Aug 06 - 09:44 PM

"Maybe five if they start now. "

Hundred, or thousand years?

Subject: RE: BS: Is Hezbollah Winning?
From: Peace
Date: 18 Aug 06 - 09:44 PM

Your call.

Subject: RE: BS: Is Hezbollah Winning?
From: The Fooles Troupe
Date: 18 Aug 06 - 09:58 PM

You just don't get it mate - total war only brings total peace thru total genocide. As long as ONE of those little hated opponents lives, it never finishes.

Subject: RE: BS: Is Hezbollah Winning?
From: Peace
Date: 18 Aug 06 - 09:59 PM

I agree with you Robin. You fail to understand: we do agree.

Subject: RE: BS: Is Hezbollah Winning?
From: Ron Davies
Date: 18 Aug 06 - 10:09 PM

Sorry again, Peace--many of those deaths were needless--and caused by Israel's insistence on destroying Lebanese infrastructure--to stop resupply of Hezbollah, we are told-- and "taking out" Hezbollah leaders--far from the border.

And it failed.

And that has just strengthened Hezbollah.

From what I read, Hezbollah did not in fact expect the massive Israeli response--but they've certainly made the most of it.

Subject: RE: BS: Is Hezbollah Winning?
From: Peace
Date: 18 Aug 06 - 10:15 PM

All the deaths were needless. That is, any death that was not that of a Hezbollah fighter. The deaths of Israeli civilians was also needless. But folks love to keep the arms manufacturers working and the ideologists love to push their stuff.

Hezbollah has set as one of its goals the destruction of Israel. In turn, Israel has set as one of its goals the destruction of Hezbollah.

Subject: RE: BS: Is Hezbollah Winning?
From: Ron Davies
Date: 18 Aug 06 - 10:32 PM

Many Lebanese would be against the deaths of the Hezbollah fighters. It's not as simple as you paint it.

It also doesn't matter that Israel acted "with restraint". That's not the perception of many Lebanese.

And if they had not acted "with restraint"--you would have seen a real jihad in response.

And that would help nobody--including the Israelis.


It was a miscalculation--first by Hezbollah--but then also by the Israelis.

And now it's Catch-22. No strong multinational force until Hezbollah is disarmed. Hezbollah will not do that unless the Israelis leave Lebanon first--if then. The Israelis won't completely leave until Hezbollah is disarmed.

So--stalemate. Then the war resumes.

Subject: RE: BS: Is Hezbollah Winning?
From: bobad
Date: 18 Aug 06 - 10:36 PM

"So--stalemate. Then the war resumes."

Then Israel destroys Hezbollah - checkmate.

Subject: RE: BS: Is Hezbollah Winning?
From: Peace
Date: 18 Aug 06 - 10:39 PM

I actually wrote to the Ministry of Foreign Affairs (Jerusalem) and said that despite 'winning' the war, they had royally pooched the 'PR' aspect of it all. (In slightly different words, but with that meaning.)

I am not as naive as you might think. I do understand the dynamics at work in this 'war'. The whole damned thing is wrong. It would have been infinitely better for Israel to quietly seek and 'talk' with the Hezbollah leadership. Now, it's too late for that. Unfortunately.

Subject: RE: BS: Is Hezbollah Winning?
From: freda underhill
Date: 18 Aug 06 - 10:43 PM

here is the link to the Forbes article quoted by Dianavan
Hezbollah captures two Israeli soldiers in southern Lebanon

The militant group Hezbollah captured two Israeli soldiers during clashes Wednesday across the border in southern Lebanon, prompting a swift reaction from Israel, which sent ground forces into its neighbor to look for them. The forces were trying to keep the soldiers' captors from moving them deeper into Lebanon, Israeli government officials said on condition of anonymity.

The Israeli military would not confirm the report.

Earlier, Israeli Prime Minister Ehud Olmert called an emergency Cabinet meeting and said Lebanese guerrillas would pay a "heavy price" for Wednesday's attacks. "These are difficult days for the state of Israel and its citizens," Olmert said. "There are people ... who are trying to test our resolve. They will fail and they will pay a heavy price for their actions."

...

note.."Israeli government officials said on condition of anonymity.
" it seems they've changed their story.

Subject: RE: BS: Is Hezbollah Winning?
From: Ron Davies
Date: 18 Aug 06 - 10:45 PM

No--in fact--not checkmate. Given the way Hezbollah is integrated into Lebanese society--and physically dug in--"destroying Hezbollah"--will mean a wider war than just in Lebanon.

Not a good idea for the Israelis.

They may try to "destroy" Hezbollah--but any thorough job of it will bring a higher price than Israel will want to--or should want to--pay.

Subject: RE: BS: Is Hezbollah Winning?
From: number 6
Date: 18 Aug 06 - 10:46 PM

Freda .... why is it that this appears only in this Forbes website ... if there was any ounce of truth in this, it certainly would have appeared elsewhere .... and forgive my ignorance, but what creditibility is there in this Forbes website?

sIx

Subject: RE: BS: Is Hezbollah Winning?
From: Peace
Date: 18 Aug 06 - 10:50 PM

That Forbes article is from July 12, 2006. There were some links (three?) posted that were of a later date that refuted the Forbes article.

Subject: RE: BS: Is Hezbollah Winning?
From: bobad
Date: 18 Aug 06 - 10:51 PM

"-but any thorough job of it will bring a higher price than Israel will want to--or should want to--pay."

If it comes down to a matter of survival - they will pay it.

Subject: RE: BS: Is Hezbollah Winning?
From: bobad
Date: 18 Aug 06 - 10:55 PM

sIx

freda is beating a dead horse, even dianavan has admitted that the article has been refuted.

Subject: RE: BS: Is Hezbollah Winning?
From: number 6
Date: 18 Aug 06 - 10:56 PM

Then I'd have to say that Forbes article is not credible at all.

Thanks Peace.

sIx

Subject: RE: BS: Is Hezbollah Winning?
From: number 6
Date: 18 Aug 06 - 11:00 PM

Thanks bobad .... is it worth debating with these 2 individuals .... I'd say not.

sIx

Subject: RE: BS: Is Hezbollah Winning?
From: robomatic
Date: 18 Aug 06 - 11:07 PM

Again, it's asymmetrical. Everything for Israel is existential. Everything for Hezbollah is preparing for one day being strong enough to finish off Israel. This is even noticeable in Mudcat where many of our guest,posters are pleased to denigrate Israel in anyway but when asked if they acknowledge Israel under any borders at all, they refuse. Therefore, Israel is not fighting for the destruction of Hezbollah so much as the survival of Israel. Hezbollah is fighting for the destruction of Israel rather than the survival of Hezbollah.

Subject: RE: BS: Is Hezbollah Winning?
From: freda underhill
Date: 18 Aug 06 - 11:11 PM

you're right bobad, I've found several other articles that refute that link too - including this one from the washington post:
Hezbollah Raid Opens 2nd Front for Israel

(excerpt) BEIRUT, July 13 -- The Lebanese Shiite Muslim group Hezbollah infiltrated the Israeli border Wednesday in a brazen raid, capturing two Israeli soldiers, killing three others and prompting Israeli attacks on the airport in Beirut and bridges, roads, power stations and military positions across the hillsides of southern Lebanon...
.............

But it's interesting that these sort of border operations by both sides have happened in the past few years without escalating to war. SinceIsrael's withdrawal from southern Lebanon in May 2000, there have been hundreds of violations of the "blue line" between the two countries. The United Nations Interim Force in Lebanon (Unifil) reports that Israeli aircraft crossed the line "on an almost daily basis" between 2001 and 2003, and "persistently" until 2006. These incursions "caused great concern to the civilian population, particularly low-altitude flights that break the sound barrier over populated areas". On some occasions, Hizbullah tried to shoot them down with anti-aircraft guns.

In October 2000, the Israel Defence Forces shot at unarmed Palestinian demonstrators on the border, killing three and wounding 20. In response, Hizbullah crossed the line and kidnapped three Israeli soldiers. On several occasions, Hizbullah fired missiles and mortar rounds at IDF positions, and the IDF responded with heavy artillery and sometimes aerial bombardment. Incidents like this killed three Israelis and three Lebanese in 2003; one Israeli soldier and two Hizbullah fighters in 2005; and two Lebanese people and three Israeli soldiers in February 2006. Rockets were fired from Lebanon into Israel several times in 2004, 2005 and 2006, on some occasions by Hizbullah. But, the UN records, "none of the incidents resulted in a military escalation". (info quoted from a Guardian article by George Monbiot Israel responded to an unprovoked attack by Hizbullah, right? Wrong )

Subject: RE: BS: Is Hezbollah Winning?
From: freda underhill
Date: 18 Aug 06 - 11:14 PM

There is still no serious debate about why the two soldiers were captured: Hizbullah was seeking to exchange them for the 15 prisoners of war taken by the Israelis during the occupation of Lebanon and (in breach of article 118 of the third Geneva convention) never released. It seems clear that if Israel had handed over the prisoners, it would - without the spillage of any more blood - have retrieved its men and reduced the likelihood of further kidnappings. But the Israeli government refused to negotiate. Instead - well, we all know what happened instead. Almost 1,000 Lebanese and 33 Israeli civilians have been killed so far, and a million Lebanese displaced from their homes.

On July 12, in other words, Hizbullah fired the first shots. But that act of aggression was simply one instance in a long sequence of small incursions and attacks over the past six years by both sides. So why was the Israeli response so different from all that preceded it? The answer is that it was not a reaction to the events of that day. The assault had been planned for months.

The San Francisco Chronicle reports that "more than a year ago, a senior Israeli army officer began giving PowerPoint presentations, on an off-the-record basis, to US and other diplomats, journalists and thinktanks, setting out the plan for the current operation in revealing detail". The attack, he said, would last for three weeks. It would begin with bombing and culminate in a ground invasion. Gerald Steinberg, professor of political science at Bar-Ilan University, told the paper that "of all of Israel's wars since 1948, this was the one for which Israel was most prepared ... By 2004, the military campaign scheduled to last about three weeks that we're seeing now had already been blocked out and, in the last year or two, it's been simulated and rehearsed across the board".

A "senior Israeli official" told the Washington Post that the raid by Hizbullah provided Israel with a "unique moment" for wiping out the organisation. The New Statesman's editor, John Kampfner, says he was told by more than one official source that the US government knew in advance of Israel's intention to take military action in Lebanon. The Bush administration told the British government.

Israel's assault, then, was premeditated: it was simply waiting for an appropriate excuse. It was also unnecessary. It is true that Hizbullah had been building up munitions close to the border, as its current rocket attacks show. But so had Israel. Just as Israel could assert that it was seeking to deter incursions by Hizbullah, Hizbullah could claim - also with justification - that it was trying to deter incursions by Israel. The Lebanese army is certainly incapable of doing so. Yes, Hizbullah should have been pulled back from the Israeli border by the Lebanese government and disarmed. Yes, the raid and the rocket attack on July 12 were unjustified, stupid and provocative, like just about everything that has taken place around the border for the past six years. But the suggestion that Hizbullah could launch an invasion of Israel or that it constitutes an existential threat to the state is preposterous. Since the occupation ended, all its acts of war have been minor ones, and nearly all of them reactive.

So it is not hard to answer the question of what we would have done. First, stop recruiting enemies, by withdrawing from the occupied territories in Palestine and Syria. Second, stop provoking the armed groups in Lebanon with violations of the blue line - in particular the persistent flights across the border. Third, release the prisoners of war who remain unlawfully incarcerated in Israel. Fourth, continue to defend the border, while maintaining the diplomatic pressure on Lebanon to disarm Hizbullah (as anyone can see, this would be much more feasible if the occupations were to end). Here then is my challenge to the supporters of the Israeli government: do you dare to contend that this programme would have caused more death and destruction than the current adventure has done?

(... again, taken from George Monbiot article - he says it better than me)

Subject: RE: BS: Is Hezbollah Winning?
From: dianavan
Date: 18 Aug 06 - 11:58 PM

"On July 12, in other words, Hizbullah fired the first shots. But that act of aggression was simply one instance in a long sequence of small incursions and attacks over the past six years by both sides. So why was the Israeli response so different from all that preceded it? The answer is that it was not a reaction to the events of that day. The assault had been planned for months."

Exactly, Freda.

This particular incident had nothing to do with Israel's invasion of Lebanon. That why I said that Israel didn't really care about the kidnapped soldiers. They were looking for an excuse and they got a surprise.

Hopefully it will make the U.S/Britain/Zionist military machinery to think twice about excalating this to include Syria and Iran.

Subject: RE: BS: Is Hezbollah Winning?
From: Peace
Date: 19 Aug 06 - 12:04 AM

Syria and Iran included themselves years ago. The weapons Hezbollah uses don't come from Qatar.

Subject: RE: BS: Is Hezbollah Winning?
From: Peace
Date: 19 Aug 06 - 12:16 AM

"• Hizbollah is a heavily-armed, fanatical fighting force which holds an estimated stockpile of 13,000 missiles and rockets, mainly supplied by Syria and Iran

• Since Israel withdrew from South Lebanon in May 2000, Hizbollah has steadily built up this arsenal, immediately across the border with Israel . Europe and other outside powers have been passive as this build-up has taken place"

Nothing premeditated about this though . . . .

Subject: RE: BS: Is Hezbollah Winning?
From: dianavan
Date: 19 Aug 06 - 12:33 AM

Guess where Israel gets its weapons? Thats about as significant as where Hezbollah gets their weapons.

Thats no reason to draw the country and its people into a brutal war.

Go after the weapons dealers if you must but don't use it for an excuse to bomb the people.

You don't eradicate people in an attempt to end terrorism. The Iranian, Syrian, Lebanese and Palestinians deserve more respect than that.

Disarming Hezbollah is like capturing bin Laden. Neither has been successful.

The Arabs are making fools of the west. I think when it comes to war, they are smarter than the west gives them credit for.

Subject: RE: BS: Is Hezbollah Winning?
From: Peace
Date: 19 Aug 06 - 12:40 AM

"Guess where Israel gets its weapons? Thats about as significant as where Hezbollah gets their weapons."

Then stop moaning about it.


"Thats no reason to draw the country and its people into a brutal war."

I agree. Hezbollah should have considered what they were starting.


"Go after the weapons dealers if you must but don't use it for an excuse to bomb the people."

Absolutely. But then you'd be moaning about Syria and Iran being bombed.


"You don't eradicate people in an attempt to end terrorism. The Iranian, Syrian, Lebanese and Palestinians deserve more respect than that."

At last we agree on something. But you seem to have neglected to include the Israelis in that list.


"Disarming Hezbollah is like capturing bin Laden. Neither has been successful."

The fight against cancer has yet to render a cure for all cancers, but the research has helped to save many people with what was learned along the way.


"The Arabs are making fools of the west. I think when it comes to war, they are smarter than the west gives them credit for.


I agree. The West should use the same tactics against Jihadists/Terrorists that they use against the West.

Subject: RE: BS: Is Hezbollah Winning?
From: Peace
Date: 19 Aug 06 - 01:24 AM

'To understand just how shoddy some of these human rights advocates have been in their legal reasoning, it helps to start with those human rights groups that are actually treating international law seriously. Take Human Rights Watch (HRW) first. On July 17, the organization published a comprehensive document titled "Questions and Answers on Hostilities Between Israel and Hezbollah." The Q&A accurately explains humanitarian law and fairly applies it to the current conflict. With regard to Hezbollah, HRW states that the taking of hostages is "strictly forbidden" and is a "war crime." It further states that the use of imprecise Katyusha rockets in civilian areas "violates the prohibition on indiscriminate attacks and would be a war crime." With regard to targets attacked by Israel, HRW states that civilian targets with military uses (airports, roads, bridges) may, in certain circumstances, be legally attacked, but that Israel is constrained by the principle of proportionality. With regard to whether the destruction of power stations is disproportionate, HRW reserves judgment but notes that "Israel faces a very high burden to justify these attacks." HRW has also urged Israel to cease the use of cluster munitions in populated areas, as such use "may violate the prohibition on indiscriminate attacks contained in international humanitarian law."'

Subject: RE: BS: Is Hezbollah Winning?
From: Old Guy
Date: 19 Aug 06 - 01:30 AM

Where is the armed wing of the Red Cross?

If Hezbollah is justified in having an armed wing that launches rockets at non military targets, The red cross should have one too.

There is a huge fundamental difference between Israel and Hezbollah that all the liberl anti war crybabies refuse to recognize. Hezollah openly admits that their main goal is to kill every Jew and re take Israel.

What is the main goal if Israel? Is their goal to kill all Muslims and take over the middle east? I think their goal is to live peaceably with their neighbors. Why are there Arabs living in Israel? An Arab mother and daughter were killed by a Hezbollah rocket. If they are treated with hostility, why don't they leave Israel? They have more rights there than in Muslim countries.

Why does Israel get along with Jordan? I saw a show on TV where panties were made partially in Israel and sent to Jordan. Jordanese women were putting on the finish touches like ribbons and lace by hand.

Muslim extremists are their own worst enemy. They can't get along and they make their own lives miserable.

http://www.quibbling.net/wparchives/2002/03/
As horrendous and bloody as a war in the Middle East would be, and as much as I would NOT like to see the situation come to that, it is time to stop playing footsie with Yasser Arafat. Let's recap some history:

1948: The State of Israel is established by the UN, which includes an internationally-controlled Jerusalem. It is established in the area commonly known as Palestine, which was under the control of the British Empire at the time, which donated the land for the purpose of founding a Jewish state. Within hours of Israel formally becoming a sovereign state, more or less the entire Arab world launches a war on it.

1949: Israel, which barely had time to pull itself together, succeeds in fighting them off.

1964: The Arab League charters the Palestinian Liberation Organization for the purposes of "the destruction of Israel" and the "establishment of a sovereign Palestinian state."

1967: The USSR tells Syria that Israel is amassing troops on its border (which was a total falsehood), and Syria grabs Egypt and they start amassing troops on Israel's borders. They eventually get the Saudis, Sidan, Algeia, Jordan, and Iraq to join in. Facing a three-front war against Arabs who were literally announcing to the world, "We're ready to attack Israel, y'all!" Israel launches a pre-emptive strike and kicks their asses back to where they came from within 6 days, taking some territory in the process as an insulator. Arabs in general, and Palestinians in particular, start bitching about how Israel is "occupying their territory." Never mind the fact that they tried to occupy Israel's territory by preparing to invade in the first place. Also, the territory Israel annexed had both strategic and spiritual significance. It included the Sinai Desert and the Golan Heights.

It was at this point that Israel started offering "Land for Peace." In other words, "we'll give you back your land if you just stop f'n PICKING ON US."

Oh, and by the time the war started, Israel was officially a nuclear power.

1973: Apparently not learning their lesson, the Yom Kippur war is launched against Israel. Israel beats them back within three weeks.

1974: The Arab League names the PLO "the sole legitimate representative of the Palestinian people," and rejects UN Resolutions 242 and 338, which establish Israel's right to exist within UN-established borders and calls on all parties to abandon belligerency.

1978-79: The Camp David Accords: Egypt and Israel make peace. Israel hands back the Sinai peninsula and Egypt recognizes Israel's right to exist.

As a result of this peace, the Arab League removes its HQ from Cairo, several Arab nations sign a resolution encouraging "progressive and nationalistic" forces in Egypt to overthrow Anwar al-Sadat, the Egyptian leader, and an Arab joint political and military command is formed to coordinate moves against Israel and Egypt. Sadat is assassinated not long thereafter. But to this day, Egypt and Israel are still at peace- Egypt did not attend this most recent Arab summit.

1993: The Oslo peace treaty between Israel and the PLO is signed.

1994: Israel and Jordan sign a peace treaty, promising "mutual understanding and cooperation in security-related matters," full diplomatic relations, free trade, and recognition of Israel's right to exist. Jordan, incidentally, also did not attend this most recent Arab summit.

PS: Some of the recent rocket attacks on Israel were from land given back to Lebanon in exchange fpr promise of peace.

Subject: RE: BS: Is Hezbollah Winning?
From: Peace
Date: 19 Aug 06 - 01:31 AM

"Israel has killed far more people in the Middle East than anybody else"

Prove it.

Subject: RE: BS: Is Hezbollah Winning?
From: GUEST,ifor
Date: 19 Aug 06 - 01:35 AM

Israel is a terrorist state. It came into existence through the mass ethnic cleansing of the indiginous Palestinian people who had lived on its soil for many,many, centuries going back to Biblical times.

In 1956 Israel invaded Egypt and has continued its belligerent and militaristic policies against its neighbours ever since.

It still occupies parts of Syria and Lebanon and has invaded and has destroyed Beirut and much of the rest of Lebanon on two occasions.It has also made numerous smaller attacks against that country on other occasions.

Israel has occupied the Palestinian West Bank since 1967 and has kept its Palestinian in thrall since then.It has also invaded and occupied East Jerusalem.Its treatment of he Palestinians is a war crime .It goes in for collective punishment, forced expulsions of people,the demolition of thousands of houses and the imprisonment and torture of palestinians often without any form of trial.

It has settled armed paramilitary colonialists across the West Bankwho are more than willing to show their fanaticism through the shooting of Palestinians on a weekly basis.

One of these armed settlers ,an army reservist, murdered 30 muslim worshippers and injured dozens more at a holy shrine near Hebron.He is widely regarded as a hero by right wing zionist extremists.

Gaza was occupied brutally for many years and its million strong Palestinian population kept in a state of complete control by the Israeli govt which built huge checkpoints,grabbed water supplies ,kept the beaches for Israelis and controlled all aspects of life in the refugee city [most of its palestinian population had fled from what is now Israel ] . Even after the pullout of the military a year or so ago the Israeli military still has complete control of Gaza's air,sea and land borders.

It has fired thousands of shells into the city nd has waged war on its young killing many .The Gazans are half starved as the Israeli attacks continue.

Israel is also a nuclear weapons state which has been armed and supported by both the US and the UK.It has one of the most modern and well equiped armies in the world with apache helicopters,jet warplanes,bunker busting bombs,tanks etc.

It is a higly militarised society.Its Palestinian citizens are treated as unwanted , second class citizens. There are voices in Israel who are calling for their expulsion. It is an expansionist state seeking to conquer or retain more territory .

Yet it is beginning to run into big trouble.Hebollah has given he IDF a bloody nose in Lebanon and there are calls for Olmert and his generals to go.The times are indeed a -changing....
ifor

Subject: RE: BS: Is Hezbollah Winning?
From: Peace
Date: 19 Aug 06 - 01:38 AM

That looks like some other drivel you posted before. Almost word for word.

Subject: RE: BS: Is Hezbollah Winning?
From: Q (Frank Staplin)
Date: 19 Aug 06 - 01:43 AM

Been watching the BBC and CBC today, seeing Hezbollah members passing out usefully large sums of U. S. dollars to rebuild homes in southern Beirut and in several towns in south Lebanon, and manning heavy equipment to clear rubble in preparation for rebuilding. Not only have the Israelis failed to remove Hezbollah from southern Lebanon, but, as apparently few here wish to admit, the Lebanese in the southern part of Beirut and the southern part of the country, mostly Shia, are Hezbollah supporters and contribute to the militias. To remove Hezbollah, one must remove the people.
The Hezbollah are no small band of terrorists, but an important part of the Lebanese people.
The Lebanese army, which includes many Hezbollah members, refuses to disarm their brothers.
I am afraid that lack of support will cause the UN to be an ineffective means of separating combatants, and that hostilities will continue.

The United States must learn to negotiate with peoples of the Middle East other than the Zionists of Israel. Bush has only succeeded in bringing death and destruction to the Middle East through his ignorance and that of his cronies.

Subject: RE: BS: Is Hezbollah Winning?
From: Old Guy
Date: 19 Aug 06 - 02:02 AM

Well is it or isn't it? Point out the inaccracies.

One difference, though, is that inmates in Israeli jails receive visits from family and Red Cross representatives, while Israeli prisoners in Gaza and Lebanon disappear into oblivion. Like Israeli pilot Ron Arad, who was captured by Hezbollah 20 years ago, then sold to Iran, and whose fate has never been determined. That is one reason why Israelis are so maddened by the kidnapping of their soldiers.

Here is an example if drivel (I prefer to call it bullshit:

"In 1956 Israel invaded Egypt and has continued its belligerent and militaristic policies against its neighbours ever since."

For one thing Egypt and Israel signed a peace treaty in 1977 and Anwar Sadat was assasinated by Arabs because of it.

http://www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org/jsource/myths2/1956war.html

MYTH

"Israel's military strike in 1956 was unprovoked."

FACT

Egypt had maintained its state of belligerency with Israel after the armistice agreement was signed. The first manifestation of this was the closing of the Suez Canal to Israeli shipping. On August 9, 1949, the UN Mixed Armistice Commission upheld Israel's complaint that Egypt was illegally blocking the canal. UN negotiator Ralph Bunche declared: "There should be free movement for legitimate shipping and no vestiges of the wartime blockade should be allowed to remain, as they are inconsistent with both the letter and the spirit of the armistice agreements."1

On September 1, 1951, the Security Council ordered Egypt to open the Canal to Israeli shipping. Egypt refused to comply.

The Egyptian Foreign Minister, Muhammad Salah al-Din, said early in 1954 that :

"The Arab people will not be embarrassed to declare: We shall not be satisfied except by the final obliteration of Israel from the map of the Middle East."2

In 1955, Egyptian President Gamal Abdel Nasser began to import arms from the Soviet Bloc to build his arsenal for the confrontation with Israel. In the short-term, however, he employed a new tactic to prosecute Egypt's war with Israel. He announced it on August 31, 1955:

Egypt has decided to dispatch her heroes, the disciples of Pharaoh and the sons of Islam and they will cleanse the land of Palestine....There will be no peace on Israel's border because we demand vengeance, and vengeance is Israel's death.3

fed.jpg (19368 bytes)These "heroes" were Arab terrorists, or fedayeen, trained and equipped by Egyptian Intelligence to engage in hostile action on the border, and to infiltrate Israel to commit acts of sabotage and murder. The fedayeen operated mainly from bases in Jordan, so that Jordan would bear the brunt of Israel's retaliation, which inevitably followed. The terrorist attacks violated the armistice agreement provision that prohibited the initiation of hostilities by paramilitary forces; nevertheless, it was Israel that was condemned by the UN Security Council for its counterattacks.

The escalation continued with the Egyptian blockade of Israel's shipping lane in the Straits of Tiran, and Nasser's nationalization of the Suez Canal in July 1956. On October 14, Nasser made clear his intent:

    I am not solely fighting against Israel itself. My task is to deliver the Arab world from destruction through Israel's intrigue, which has its roots abroad. Our hatred is very strong. There is no sense in talking about peace with Israel. There is not even the smallest place for negotiations.

Less than two weeks later, on October 25, Egypt signed a tripartite agreement with Syria and Jordan placing Nasser in command of all three armies.

The blockade of the Suez Canal and Gulf of Aqaba to Israeli shipping, combined with the increased fedayeen attacks and the bellicosity of Arab statements, prompted Israel, with the backing of Britain and France, to attack Egypt on October 29, 1956. The Israeli attack on Egypt was successful, with Israeli forces capturing the Gaza Strip, much of the Sinai and Sharm al-Sheikh. A total of 231 Israeli soldiers died in the fighting.

Subject: RE: BS: Is Hezbollah Winning?
From: GUEST,jon
Date: 19 Aug 06 - 03:03 AM

Israeli commandos broke the ceasefire when they attacked a village near Baalbak ,in the north of Lebanon in the early hours of saturday morning.The attack was halted by Hezbollah fighters and the commandos had to retreat back to their helicopters.The raid was covered by Israeli jets which attacked targets in the area.
jon

Subject: RE: BS: Is Hezbollah Winning?
From: GUEST,DB
Date: 19 Aug 06 - 05:03 AM

Are they winning?

I hope so - teach those evil israelis not to commit war crimes &attrocities. They worse than the fucking Germans ever were. Come to think of it I wish the Jerries had wiped the evil bastards off the face of the earth.

Subject: RE: BS: Is Hezbollah Winning?
From: GUEST
Date: 19 Aug 06 - 05:50 AM

"As far as the thirteen Jews who were executed in Iran, what punishment do you suggest for espionage? "


IF they were tried and convicted- which does not seem the case. So, you would say

"Subject: RE: BS: Is Hezbollah Winning?
From: dianavan
Date: 18 Aug 06 - 01:23 PM

Free Vanunu! "

and deny ISRAEL the right to punish criminals , but allow Iran to kill them without trial? Seems like a biased viewpoint to me.

Subject: RE: BS: Is Hezbollah Winning?
From: GUEST
Date: 19 Aug 06 - 06:01 AM

"These incursions "caused great concern to the civilian population, particularly low-altitude flights that break the sound barrier over populated areas". "

But random attacks by Katyuska anti-personnel rockets against civilians are ok?

Can't cause any concern to Arabs, but still ok to kill Jews.

Subject: RE: BS: Is Hezbollah Winning?
From: The Fooles Troupe
Date: 19 Aug 06 - 07:57 AM

This thread is now just attracting the trolls - keeping it open serves no useful purpose - close-minded people are just shouting the same things at others, and now anonymous trolls are just stirring up hatred.

Subject: RE: BS: Is Hezbollah Winning?
From: number 6
Date: 19 Aug 06 - 08:02 AM

I agree with Foolestroupe ... maybe it is time to close it down.

sIx

Subject: RE: BS: Is Hezbollah Winning?
From: Ron Davies
Date: 19 Aug 06 - 08:04 AM

It is stupid and wrong--and anti-Semitic-- to say "Israel is a terrorist state".   It is also ridiculously naive to allege that Israel can ever "destroy" Hezbollah. All they can ever hope to do is--hold it at bay--probably by a low-level war --continuing, it looks now, forever.

And, as I said earlier, in large part they have Mr. Bush to thank for the strength and prestige Hezbollah now enjoys throughout the Arab world. (As well as, of course, their own recent spectacular miscalculation of how easy it would be to "take out" Hezbollah.)

By far the most important thing now is to keep nuclear weapons of any kind out of the hands of Hezbollah--probably by strengthening the anti-Hezbollah portions of the Lebanese government which have to monitor any progress Hezbollah might be making towards this. In other words, exactly the opposite of what the Israelis accomplished by the recent devastation of Lebanon--which in turn weakened the Lebanese government--and bolstered pro-Hezbollah sentiment all over Lebanon--and the Arab world.

Subject: RE: BS: Is Hezbollah Winning?
From: The Fooles Troupe
Date: 19 Aug 06 - 08:18 AM

" It is stupid and wrong--and anti-Semitic-- to say "Israel is a terrorist state". "

I'll agree with that, but to many, if it looks like a dog-turd, smells like a dog-turd, tastes like a dog-turd, and walks like a dog-turd. they will not be able, for practical purposes to tell the difference.

I'm happy to keep the thread open if all future submission are as reasoned as Ron's, but the thread has just been going in circles, and many have just been shouting "See! that PROVES your an xxxx-hater!"

Pointless.

"If you hate haters, you may become just another hater yourself."

THE AUTHOR

Subject: RE: BS: Is Hezbollah Winning?
From: freda underhill
Date: 19 Aug 06 - 08:36 AM

The racist comments from "guests" on this page are sick. To any Jew who is arguing on this thread, I say you are welcome to come into my home and have a cup of tea and play some music. I may disagree with the current war in Lebanon, but that disagreement is not with any individual Jew, or with Israel's right to exist. You are my friends, even if some of us argue occasionally.

that's my last word on this thread.

Subject: RE: BS: Is Hezbollah Winning?
From: Old Guy
Date: 19 Aug 06 - 10:19 AM

http://www.nola.com/newsflash/topstories/index.ssf?/base/international-33/1155993552217220.xml&storylist=topstories

8/19/2006, 8:12 a.m. CT
By SAM F. GHATTAS
The Associated Press

BEIRUT, Lebanon (AP) — Israeli commandos raided a Hezbollah stronghold deep inside Lebanon Saturday, sparking a fierce clash with militants that left one Israeli soldier dead. Lebanon called the raid a "flagrant violation" of the U.N.-brokered cease-fire, while Israel said it was aimed at disrupting arms smuggling from Iran and Syria.

Witnesses also said Israeli missiles destroyed a bridge during the raid in what would be the first such airstrike since the cease-fire took effect on Monday, ending 34 days of warfare between the two sides.

The fighting did not appear to be escalating, but it highlighted the fragility of the 6-day-old truce as the United Nations pleaded for nations to contribute to an international peacekeeping force due to patrol southern Lebanon.

The first small contingent of reinforcements for the peacekeeping force — 49 French soldiers — landed Saturday at the southern Lebanese coastal town of Naqoura, with 200 more expected next week.

But Deputy U.N. Secretary-General Mark Malloch Brown said more countries need to step forward to fill out a vanguard of 3,500 troops that the U.N. wants on the ground by Aug. 28 to help ensure that the truce between Israel and Lebanon holds after 34 days of warfare.

Lebanese Prime Minister Fuad Saniora called Saturday's commando raid a "flagrant violation" of the cease-fire, and said he would take the issue up with U.N. Secretary General Kofi Annan.

Under the cease-fire terms, Israel has said it will conduct defensive operations if its troops are threatened. But the raid took place far from positions of Israeli troops in southern Lebanon.

The Israeli military said such operations would continue until "an effective monitoring unit" was in place to prevent Hezbollah from rebuilding its arsenal.

"If the Syrians and Iran continue to arm Hezbollah in violation of the (U.N. cease-fire) resolution, Israel is entitled to act to defend the principle of the arms embargo," Israeli Foreign Ministry spokesman Mark Regev said. "Once the Lebanese army and the international forces are active ... then such Israeli activity will become superfluous."

Such a bold operation, jeopardizing the cease-fire, suggested Israel was going after a major target near Baalbek — perhaps to rescue two Israeli soldiers snatched by Hezbollah on July 12, or to try to capture a senior guerrilla official to trade for the soldiers.

Hezbollah has said it wants to exchange the two soldiers for Arab prisoners, but the U.N. cease-fire resolution demands Hezbollah unconditionally release the soldiers.

The Israeli commandos were dropped by helicopter on a hill outside the village of Boudai west of Baalbek and apparently were seeking a guerrilla target in a nearby school, Lebanese security officials said, speaking on condition of anonymity because they are not authorized to release information to the media.

Local media said Sheik Mohammed Yazbeck, a senior Hezbollah official in the Bekaa and a member of the Shura council of the group, may have been the target. Yazbeck is a native of Boudai.

Hezbollah TV said the guerrillas foiled the raid. Israel said one of its military officers was killed and two other soldiers were wounded, but the force completed its mission.

Lebanese security officials said three guerrillas were killed and three were wounded, but a Hezbollah spokesman said none of his fighters died.

Hezbollah officials at the scene said the Israeli commandos brought two vehicles with them that they used to drive into Boudai. They identified themselves as the Lebanese army when intercepted by Hezbollah fighters in a field, but the guerrillas grew suspicious and gunfire erupted, according to the officials.

Israeli helicopters fired missiles as the commandos withdrew and flew out of the area an hour later, they said.

Witnesses saw bandages and syringes at the landing site outside Boudai, about 10 miles west of Baalbek and 15 miles west of the Syrian border, the Israelis suffered casualties. A bridge was destroyed bridge about 500 yards from the area in what witnesses said was an Israeli airstrike.

Baalbek is the birthplace of the Iranian and Syrian-backed Hezbollah. The area in the eastern Bekaa Valley, 60 miles north of the Israeli border, is a major guerrilla stronghold.

On Aug. 2, Israeli commandos targeted the Iranian-funded, Hezbollah-run Dar al-Hikma Hospital in Baalbek. The commando assault and Israeli strikes around the ancient town killed 16 people, according to Lebanese police. Baalbek residents said the Israelis took four people as prisoners, and that none were Hezbollah fighters.

Israel had said the building was a Hezbollah base, not a hospital, and that its soldiers captured five guerrilla fighters and killed 10 others before withdrawing.

Lebanese Foreign Minister Fawzi Salloukh told reporters he protested the Israeli violation in talks with U.N. envoy Terje Roed-Larsen in Beirut on Saturday and said the U.N. team would raise the issue with Israeli authorities.

"If Israel continues its violations, it is the responsibility of the (U.N.) Security Council to take action and ask Israel to stop these violations," Salloukh said.

Also Saturday, a Lebanese civilian was killed when unexploded Israeli munitions from the offensive detonated in the village of Ras al-Ein, outside Tyre, said the Syrian Baath Party, of which the man was a member.

Roed-Larsen said the cease-fire brought a "huge opportunity" for the Lebanese government to extend its authority over southern Lebanon, which has been dominated for years by Hezbollah guerrillas.

Under the cease-fire plan, some 15,000 Lebanese troops are to move into the south, backed by the beefed-up U.N. peacekeeping force known as UNIFIL, as Israeli forces withdraw. Once there, the troops are to enforce the cease-fire. Lebanon has said Hezbollah will not be allowed to bring its weapons out in public — though it has not said whether it will try the more controversial step of disarming the guerrillas.

The Lebanese army has deployed more than 1,500 troops in three sectors that Israeli forces have left, and the U.N. force — which currently numbers 2,000 — has set up checkpoints and started patrolling the areas.

The 49 French troops that landed by inflatable dinghy at Naqoura were the first forces in the expansion of UNIFIL, which is planned to reach 15,000 soldiers.

So far, Italy and Finland have promised troops — and in an effort to encourage more countries to sign on, Annan said the peacekeeping force would not "wage war" on Israel, Lebanon, or Hezbollah militants.

"It is not expected to achieve by force what must be realized through negotiation and an internal Lebanese consensus," Annan said in a report to the U.N. Security Council on implementation of the Aug. 11 cease-fire resolution.

A key concern of many countries is whether the U.N. force will be called on to disarm Hezbollah fighters, as called for in a September 2004 U.N. resolution. They want to study the rules of engagement and concept of operations for the force before making a decision on troops.

Malloch Brown said countries needed to understand that the force would not be offensive. "It's not going to go in there and attempt large-scale disarmament," he said.

Subject: RE: BS: Is Hezbollah Winning?
From: bobad
Date: 19 Aug 06 - 11:03 AM

How Israel won the war
Barry Rubin
Citizen Special
Saturday, August 19, 2006

TEL AVIV - If you don't know that Israel won the recent war with Hezbollah it's because you haven't heard the behind-the-scenes story of the fighting.

A good place to start is to ask why, despite many televised threats from Hezbollah leader Hassan Nasrallah, Hezbollah did not hit Tel Aviv. The answer is that using a combination of intelligence and technical means, Israel identified the location of Hezbollah's longer-range missiles and knocked them out with amazing speed and efficiency.

About 90 per cent of them were destroyed quickly in the war. Nasrallah could not deliver on what he considered to be his ultimate weapon.

An equally remarkable success, despite being taken for granted, is Israel's domination of the air. More plane and helicopter combat flights were flown than in any previous war by Israel, yet only one helicopter was shot down.

This was not due to Hezbollah lacking advanced anti-aircraft systems. In fact, they had the best light equipment available. Highly secret Israeli counter-measures, however, ensured that every anti-aircraft missile missed. Throughout the war, Israel retained full air superiority, which meant that its planes could go anywhere in Lebanon and hit any target.

While Hezbollah lost the war militarily, it did score significant victories in terms of public relations. One of the biggest hoaxes of modern media history was how Hezbollah manipulated the media. Photographs were falsified by those fooled by or aiding Hezbollah. All Lebanese casualty figures came from the Lebanese government, of which Hezbollah is part, and these never admitted that anyone killed was a Hezbollah gunmen or that any target hit was a military one.

Yet Israel has firm evidence that around 450 Hezbollah soldiers were killed -- more than half the purported civilian death toll -- and large numbers of Hezbollah facilities and arms dumps were destroyed. This is roughly 20 per cent of Hezbollah's best soldiers. Proportionate to forces in the field, Hezbollah's death toll alone was more than 30 times higher than Israel's.

One of Israel's most impressive achievements, which has still not been fully comprehended, was its ability to hit incoming shipments of arms from Syria. In many cases, trucks were hit within moments of crossing the Syria-Lebanon border. Hezbollah was using up munitions far faster than they were coming in. If the war had not ended when it did, they would have suffered an even more visibly humiliating defeat.

Another factor that has not yet registered is the deaths of high-ranking Hezbollah officials, several of whom are still missing, due to Israeli attacks on their headquarters and hiding places. One known name is Sajed Dawayer, head of Hezbollah's special forces. At one point, Mr. Nasrallah threatened to attack Tel Aviv if Israel struck at central Beirut. But why central Beirut when Hezbollah's followers live in south Beirut? Presumably, he was hiding in the centre of the city.

Given the huge number of rockets fired at Israeli civilians, the Israeli civil defence system functioned reasonably well. A key element there was the post-1992 policy of mandating that all newly built apartments have a specially reinforced room that could serve as a bomb shelter. Many lives were saved by this method. While losses were serious and social disruption tremendous, Hezbollah's claims of inflicting heavy losses should be weighed against the fact that single suicide bombings have killed almost as many Israelis as did 4,000 Hezbollah rockets.

The war also saw some firsts in imaginative psychological warfare. Israeli technicians broke into Hezbollah's al-Manar television broadcasts to send their own messages to its viewers. Recorded messages were sent to Lebanese telephone numbers warning of Hezbollah's inevitable defeat.

Unquestionably, Israel made mistakes in the war, many of them due to the political leadership's slow start and to an over-dependence on air power early on. Hezbollah also used some new techniques and advanced weapons that caused Israel troubles and casualties. Bolder techniques -- such as the reserve paratroopers' operation, which killed several dozen Hezbollah men with no Israeli losses -- came later in the campaign.

But less visible is the fact that Israel quickly adjusted to these conditions. Already, committees have been meeting and making recommendations -- in some cases already in the process of being implemented -- to correct faults. For example, tanks are going to be fitted with better defensive systems against advanced missiles. The anti-rocket Nautilus system will be developed for the future. A different approach will be used for attacking fortified bunkers, avoiding the use of tanks when possible.

One technique to which Israel caught on was Hezbollah's setting up of scattered rocket batteries activated by a two-man crew racing around on a motorcycle to fire them. And most important of all was the new type of army created by Hezbollah with the help of Iran and Syria. Its secrets include the fact that it is a regular army operating as guerrillas, possessing the world's most advanced arms, and ready to behave like suicide soldiers.

As U.S. forces found in fighting against the Japanese in the Second World War, it takes longer and costs more casualties to root out an enemy that prefers death to surrender or retreat. Yet suicide techniques are ineffective in winning victories. Such an army loses its best men and much equipment as a result, rather than falling back to fight another day.

Hezbollah also set its victory conditions very low. It was sufficient to survive and inflict losses on Israel. By this standard, however, many losers in war could claim success. The question is whether Hezbollah really is better off now with Lebanese army and international forces -- even if far from fully effective -- deploying in the south.

Moreover, its own constituents are not pleased with Hezbollah for bringing on their sufferings. Other Lebanese forces are outraged at it for dragging the country into a devastating war.

In the end, defeat on the battlefield cannot be wished away by claiming victory in speeches.

Barry Rubin is director of the Global Research in International Affairs (Gloria) Center, editor of the Middle East Review of International Affairs (MERIA) Journal, and editor of Turkish Studies.
© The Ottawa Citizen 2006

Subject: RE: BS: Is Hezbollah Winning?
From: Old Guy
Date: 19 Aug 06 - 11:16 AM

http://www.un.org/News/Press/docs/2004/sc8181.doc.htm

Security Council declares support for free, fair presidential election
in Lebanon; calls for withdrawal of foreign forces there

Resolution 1559 (2004)

Adopted by Vote Of 9 in Favour, to None Against, with 6 Abstentions

The Security Council this evening declared its support for a free and fair presidential election in Lebanon conducted according to Lebanese constitutional rules devised without foreign interference or influence and, in that connection, called upon all remaining foreign forces to withdraw from Lebanon.

By a vote of 9 in favour (Angola, Benin, Chile, France, Germany, Romania, Spain, United Kingdom, United States) to none against, with 6 abstentions (Algeria, Brazil, China, Pakistan, Philippines, Russian Federation), the Council adopted resolution 1559 (2004), reaffirming its call for the strict respect of Lebanon's sovereignty, territorial integrity, unity, and political independence under the sole and exclusive authority of the Government of Lebanon throughout the country.

In a related provision, the Council called for the disbanding and disarmament of all Lebanese and non-Lebanese militias. It also called upon all parties concerned to cooperate fully and urgently with the Council for the full implementation of all its resolutions concerning the restoration in Lebanon of territorial integrity, full sovereignty and political independence.

Requesting the Council to withdraw its consideration of that resolution before the vote, Secretary-General of the Ministry of Foreign Affairs and Emigrants of Lebanon, Mohamad Issa, said that friendly Syria had helped Lebanon to maintain stability and security within its borders. Syrian troops had been deployed and redeployed at Lebanon's request, and had contributed to rebuffing the radical reactions emanating from repulsive Israeli actions. Also, the matter was purely internal and related to the upcoming presidential elections in Lebanon.

Asserting that the Syrian actions in the past week had made a "crude mockery" of the principle of a free and fair presidential electoral process, the United States' representative said the Syrian Government had imposed its political will on Lebanon and had compelled the Cabinet and Lebanese National Assembly to amend its constitution and abort the electoral process by extending the term of the current President by three years. Clearly, the Lebanese Parliament had been pressured, and even threatened, by Syria and its agents to make them comply.

Similarly, the representative of France, who, along with the United States, had introduced the resolution, worried that persistent serious interference in the political life of Lebanon might cause it to retreat from the objectives that had been reaffirmed constantly by the international community. That was why a rapid mobilization and a decisive reaction from the Council had seemed essential. By refraining to act, the Council would have sanctioned interference in the internal affairs of another State. By acting in a robust manner, it was showing its confidence in Lebanon's future, which must include its full restoration of sovereignty, and not the intensification of interference.

Having abstained in the voting, China's representative said that respect for the principles of sovereignty, independence, territorial integrity and non-interference in internal affairs constituted a centrepiece of China's foreign policy and were principles of the United Nations. In adherence to those principles, he supported safeguarding the sovereignty, independence and territorial integrity of Lebanon. But, the draft resolution touched on the question of the presidential elections in Lebanon, and such questions fell within Lebanon's internal affairs and should be decided by the Lebanese people themselves.

The representative of the Russian Federation said that, with tensions high in the region, any wrong step might exacerbate the situation and lead to a new focal point of instability. He had tabled amendments to the text, aimed at moving it towards the context of a Middle East settlement as a whole and preventing the document from being one-sided and from concentrating solely on domestic Lebanese affairs. His proposals would have improved the draft by making it more acceptable to Council members. Their lack of acceptance, however, had made it impossible for him to support the resolution.

Pakistan's speaker said he had also abstained, as the resolution was not consistent with the Council's functions and responsibilities. Moreover, there was no evidence of any urgent threat to peace. There had been no complaint from the country whose sovereignty and integrity the draft purported to uphold. On the contrary, the Lebanese representatives had communicated to the Council their opposition to consideration of the resolution. Besides, the text addressed the wrong threat. If there were a threat to Lebanon, that was well known and did not arise from Syria.

Explanations of vote were also made by the representatives of Algeria, Brazil, Chile, Angola, Philippines and Benin.

The meeting began at 7:38 p.m. and was adjourned at 8:38 p.m.

Resolution

The text of resolution 1559 (2004) reads as follows:

"The Security Council,

"Recalling all its previous resolutions on Lebanon, in particular resolutions 425 (1978) and 426 (1978) of 19 March 1978, resolution 520 (1982) of 17 September 1982, and resolution 1553 (2004) of 29 July 2004 as well as the statements of its President on the situation in Lebanon, in particular the statement of 18 June 2000 (S/PRST/2000/21),

"Reiterating its strong support for the territorial integrity, sovereignty and political independence of Lebanon within its internationally territorially recognized borders,

"Noting the determination of Lebanon to ensure the withdrawal of all non-Lebanese forces from Lebanon,

"Gravely concerned at the continued presence of armed militias in Lebanon, which prevent the Lebanese government from exercising its full sovereignty over all Lebanese territory,

"Reaffirming the importance of the extension of the control of the Government of Lebanon over all Lebanese territory,

"Mindful of the upcoming Lebanese presidential elections and underlining the importance of free and fair elections according to Lebanese constitutional rules devised without foreign interference or influence,

"1.   Reaffirms its call for the strict respect of the sovereignty, territorial integrity, unity, and political independence of Lebanon under the sole and exclusive authority of the Government of Lebanon throughout Lebanon;

"2.   Calls upon all remaining foreign forces to withdraw from Lebanon;

"3.   Calls for the disbanding and disarmament of all Lebanese and non-Lebanese militias;

"4.   Supports the extension of the control of the Government of Lebanon over all Lebanese territory;

"5.   Declares its support for a free and fair electoral process in Lebanon's upcoming presidential election conducted according to Lebanese constitutional rules devised without foreign interference or influence;

"6.   Calls upon all parties concerned to cooperate fully and urgently with the Security Council for the full implementation of this and all relevant resolutions concerning the restoration of the territorial integrity, full sovereignty, and political independence of Lebanon;

"7.   Requests that the Secretary-General report to the Security Council within thirty days on the implementation by the parties of this resolution and decides to remain actively seized of this matter."

Statements

MOHAMAD ISSA, Secretary-General of the Ministry of Foreign Affairs and Emigrants of Lebanon, said that there were no militias in Lebanon. There was only the national Lebanese resistance, which appeared after the Israeli occupation and which would remain so long as Israel remained. The resistance force existed alongside the Lebanese national forces. Lebanon determined the presence and size of the force, depending on the country's need. The authority of Lebanon extended to all parts of Lebanon except those areas occupied by Israel.

He said that submitting the draft resolution confused two matters. The first was the distinguished relations linking Lebanon and Syria, which achieved their joint interests, particularly the interests of Lebanon. < font color=red>Friendly Syria had helped Lebanon to maintain stability and security within its borders. It had warded off radicalism and violence, fed by the violence exercised by Israel against the Palestinians. Secondly, the matter was purely internal, and related to the presidential elections to be held in Lebanon. Syrian troops came to Lebanon in accordance with legitimate requests. Their presence was guarded by an agreement concluded by two sovereign States. Those troops had been redeployed several times. They contributed to rebuffing the radical reactions emanating from repulsive Israeli actions.

Hence, saying that Syria supported radical movements in Lebanon was not true. To the contrary, Syria supported the Lebanese national resistance, which desired to liberate the territories occupied by Israel. The draft resolution was talking about supporting free and just elections in Lebanon. He did not believe that that internal matter had ever been discussed in the Council relating to any MemberState. It was an internal matter, he stressed. The United Nations had not interfered in that matter with regard to any other State. There was no justification for the draft resolution, which constituted an interference in the internal affairs of a MemberState.

In addition, it discussed bilateral relations between two friendly nations, neither of which had filed any complaint concerning those relations. He called for the withdrawal of the draft resolution.

Action on Text

Next, the Council adopted the resolution by a vote of 9 in favour (Angola, Benin, Chile, France, Germany, Romania, Spain, United Kingdom, United States) to none against, with 6 abstentions (Algeria, Brazil, China, Pakistan, Philippines, Russian Federation).

Speaking after the vote, JOHN DANFORTH (United States) said that the Security Council had consistently affirmed that it supported the full sovereignty and independence of Lebanon, free of all foreign forces. Lebanon should be allowed to determine its own future and assume control of its own territory, yet the Lebanese people were still unable to exercise their rights as a free people. With France, the United States had introduced the resolution, joined by several other co-sponsors. He had asked for a vote tonight because the situation in Lebanon was moving very quickly.

He explained that the Syrian Government had imposed its political will on Lebanon and had compelled the Cabinet and Lebanese National Assembly to amend its constitution and abort the electoral process by extending the term of the current President by three years. The final vote in the Assembly was scheduled for Friday so it was imperative for the Council to address the issue now. The Lebanese Parliament and Cabinet should express the will of the Lebanese people through a free and fair presidential electoral process. What the Lebanese people and he had witnessed in the past week in terms of Syrian actions was a "crude mockery" of that principle.

Clearly, he continued, the Lebanese Parliament had been pressured, and even threatened, by Syria and its agents to make them comply. He strongly supported the extension and control of Lebanon's Government over all Lebanese territory, including southern Lebanon, as called for by the Council for the past four years. The continued presence of armed Hezbollah militia and the presence of Syrian military and Iranian forces in Lebanon hindered that goal.

He said that that situation, 14 years after the end of Lebanon's civil war and four years after the Council had accepted unanimously the Secretary-General's report that Israel had complied fully with Council resolution 425, was simply unacceptable. It was wrong for Syria to continue to maintain forces in Lebanon in "flat contravention" of the spirit and clear intent of the Taif Accord, and it would be very wrong for it to continue to interfere in the presidential electoral process in Lebanon....

Subject: RE: BS: Is Hezbollah Winning?
From: Old Guy
Date: 19 Aug 06 - 11:35 AM

http://www.lgic.org/en/history_lebanon1990.php

History of Lebanon Syrian Occupation (1991 AD - 2000 AD)

Proxy Regime

The Syrian status quo imposed what became known as the "Taef Accord". The Arab-League-brokered "Taif Agreement" called for political reforms and for disarming all militias in Lebanon.

On the other hand, it legitimized the Syrian army's occupation of Lebanon and mentioned only a partial redeployment of the Syrian troops upon the request of the (pro-Syrian) government in Lebanon.

The Syrian-appointed government in Lebanon exiled the Lebanese Premier to France and 'legitimized' the Syrian occupation of Lebanon. Syria took drastic measures to enforce its martial and political presence in Lebanon by occupying more than 90% of Lebanese territory, including the capital, airport, harbors and all major cities.

Syria disarmed most Lebanese militia except for those affiliated with it, such as Hezbollah, Amal and the radical Palestinian militias. The Lebanese army was restrained from performing any major activities and was directed to internal security functions.

The puppet regime of Lebanon amended the Lebanese constitution to allow for the election and renewal of Syrian-imposed presidents in Lebanon. It also drew several agreements with the Syrian regime giving Syria the rights to use Lebanese natural resources and abuse the free-market benefits in Lebanon.

The Lebanese community, especially university students, engineers, physicians, lawyers and workers, started a peaceful revolution to implement the UN Security Council Resolution 520 which calls for Syrian pullout of Lebanon.
Syrian Persecution

90% of the Lebanese population eligible to vote boycotted the Syrian-arranged parliamentary elections that resulted in the puppet parliament of 1992.

This Lebanese popular refusal to legitimize the Syrian occupation of Lebanon was answered by Syrian measures aiming to change the ethnic and religious demography of Lebanon.

Syrians forced their proxy government to naturalize around half of a million Syrians and Palestinians, and granted them the night to vote. That was equivalent to 20% of the population of Lebanon at the time.

This act was rejected by the highest Lebanese judiciary council in 2003, yet around half of a million non-Lebanese people still lived around the world, falsely holding Lebanese citizenship.

Meanwhile, Syrian troops in Lebanon kept protecting 1.5 million illegal Syrian workers, about half the population of Lebanon, which forced more than 35% of the Lebanese to leave their country in search for work.
Israeli Pullout and Hizballah

In the 1990's, with Syria occupying 90% of Lebanon and Israel occupying the remaining 10%, Hezbollah guerrilla gained some popularity as a means of resistance against one of the two occupiers, fighting against the Israeli occupation of Lebanon (for Details).

In May 2000, Israel pulled out of South Lebanon per the UN resolution 425 in respect to the Lebanese international borders. Hezbollah militia refused to disarm and enroll in the civilian social and political life after the Israeli withdrawal, which deprived it from most of its Lebanese popularity.

It occupied the Southern territories that were evacuated by the Israelis, while the Syrian regime prevented the Lebanese army from deploying in these territories. Post Israeli pullout, more national, regional and international voices pressured the Syrian regime to pull its troops out of Lebanon .

The Syrian Baath regime tried to cause conflicts with the United Nations and Israel over the 'Shebaa Farmland' in order to keep tension between Lebanon and Israel and to distract the international community from its occupation of Lebanon (for Details).

Some radical and terrorist Palestinian groups who are protected by the Syrian army continued to practice their authority over Palestinian camps in Lebanon and terrorize Lebanese civilians while the Lebanese security lacked any power of control over them.

Subject: RE: BS: Is Hezbollah Winning?
From: Old Guy
Date: 19 Aug 06 - 11:37 AM

Contemporary Lebnaon (2001 AD - 2004 AD)

August 7 th 2001 Events

In the new millennium, the Syrian army and intelligence members still continue to occupy Lebanon, devastating its people. Hundreds of Lebanese have been arrested, abducted, tortured, imprisoned and killed; moreover, many of them have even been subjected to chemical and biological experiments in Syrian prisons. (for Details)

In August 7 and 8, 2001, the Lebanese Maronite-Catholic Patriarch Nasrallah Peter Sfeir sponsored a historic reconciliation between Druze and Christian former militias that had confronted each other in fierce battles during the war in Lebanon.

The Syrian regime and its proxy government in Lebanon were not pleased with the reconciliation, which was seen as a potential threat to the influence of the Syrian regime in Lebanon. Security forces in occupied Lebanon arrested hundreds of Lebanese opposition activists and leaders from their homes and businesses.

Males and females aging between 16 and 77 were abducted and detained without legal charges. Around a hundred of them were sent to martial courts with political charges; some spent years in jail.

People from Lebanon and the world were astonished by scenes of civilians protected by Syrian troops and their proxy regime in Lebanon, attacking Lebanese students who were protesting, in what later became known as the "Events of August 7 th".

Millions of Lebanese descendants around the world were moved by the devastation and the active Lebanese movements in occupied Lebanon. Lebanese organizations, exiled Premier and individuals around the world struggled to bring international attention to the small occupied country of Lebanon.

Remarkable efforts were shown in the United States of America, France, the United Kingdom, Canada and Australia.
September 11 th Attacks and Lebanon

The terrorist attacks on the Twin Towers and other targets in the United States of America rearranged the priorities of the most powerful countries and drew attention to some previously neglected cases such as the Lebanese crisis.

The deterioration of democracy in Lebanon, the freedom that some extremist Palestinian militia enjoyed in protected zones, and the uncontrolled fund transactions in the free-market-Lebanon became major concerns in the global war against terrorism.
Lebanon's MTV

With more pressure from local and international groups, the Syrian regime tried to shape up its image in Lebanon; it announced partial redeployments from several areas around and north of Beirut. However, these steps were not convincing at any level to either local opposition groups or the international community.

The opposition groups and parties were growing stronger because of the illegal aspect of the continuous Syrian control over Lebanon, and the negative social and economical consequences it brought to Lebanon.

In 2002, after the death of a legislator in the Syrian-controlled parliament of Lebanon, a bi-election took place.

The Syrian regime planned to appoint a legislator through a phony election process. However, the opposition groups wanted to prove their strength and planned to run Gabriel Murr against the Pro-Syrian candidate Mirna Murr, and since the elections were taking place in one district only, this would make it harder to manipulate the results.

The pro-Syrian regime was so confident of its victory because of the deceiving techniques it employs, such as forcing citizens to fill their voting ballots in public, and allowing the illegal naturalized citizens to vote. Despite all the illegal methods used, the Anti-Syrian candidate won the highest number of votes with about 45% while the pro-Syrian candidate received 43% of the votes.

The Pro-Syrian government in Lebanon annulled the results, and appointed a third candidate who got only 2% of the votes for the empty seat. Furthermore, it shut down completely the Murr television station (MTV) and Radio Mount-Lebanon, owned by the Anti-Syrian candidate, and sent hundreds of families to unemployment.

Subject: RE: BS: Is Hezbollah Winning?
From: Old Guy
Date: 19 Aug 06 - 11:38 AM

Syria Accountability and Lebanese Sovereignty Restoration Act of 2003

The Lebanese lobbying groups in the United States managed to draft a bill with the American legislators supporting the freedom of Lebanon. The Syria Accountability and Lebanese Sovereignty Restoration Act was passed by the United States Congress, and signed by President George W. Bush in 2003.

The act called "to halt Syrian support for terrorism, end its occupation of Lebanon, stop its development of weapons of mass destruction, and cease its illegal importation of Iraqi oil and illegal shipments of weapons and other military items to Iraq".

It finally restored the importance of supporting Lebanon's independence by stating that "the full restoration of Lebanon's sovereignty, political independence, and territorial integrity is in the national security interest of the United States."

The French government and several other European states followed the United States' steps calling for a full Syrian withdrawal of its army and security forces from Lebanon. However, the Syrian regime kept trying to release the pressure by announcing partial redeployments in Beirut suburbs.
UN Security Council Resolution 1559 of 2004

The International community was growing convinced that the Syrian regime did not play any positive role in Lebanon, not to mention its negative role in supporting the ex-dictator regime of Saddam Hussein, and the insurgents in Iraq against the new Iraqi government.

The Syrian control of Lebanon was very obvious when the Syrian government wanted to renew the expired term of the Syrian-appointed president in Lebanon Emile Lahoud. The Syrian regime found in Lahoud an ally that no one could match, so they worked to amend the Lebanese constitution which prevents the re-election of presidents.

The United States and France drafted a resolution that was adopted by the United Nations Security Council on September 2, 2004 as Resolution 1559. It supported a free and fair presidential election in Lebanon to be conducted according to Lebanese constitutional rules, devised without foreign interference or influence, and called upon all forces to withdraw from Lebanon.

The resolution called also for the disbanding and disarmament of all Lebanese and non-Lebanese militias in the country.

The Syrian regime ignored the resolution and forced the puppet parliament in Lebanon to amend the constitution of Lebanon and extend the Pro-Syrian's president term for three more years despite the wide public opposition to Lahoud.

The Secretary General of the United Nations Kofi Annan reported to the Security Council in the end of September 2004. His report stated that the Syrian regime refuses to pull its troops and security forces from Lebanon, and that neither the Syrian government nor its proxy government in Lebanon is working to disarm the militias in the country such as Hezbollah and the radical Palestinian militias.
Growing Opposition to Syrian Occupation

The United Nations Resolution showed a regional and international interest in the case of our small Lebanon. Arabic media sources from several Arabic countries broke the conventional taboo of criticizing other Arabic regimes.

Terms such as "pro-Syrian government in Lebanon", "Pro-Syrian president of Lebanon" and "Syrian-appointed president" were utilized in the Arabic media joining the international community in describing the Syrian homogony over Lebanon. Voices from Jordan and the Arabian Gulf countries called openly on Syria to implement Resolution 1559.

By the end of 2004, the public opposition to the Syrian occupation and its proxy regime in Lebanon grew substantially and attracted many political leaders including even some of those who were previously allied with the Syrian regime such as prominent Muslim-Sunni leader Rafik Hariri, and Druze leader Walid Juomblat.

The Lebanese opposition built a wide Christian-Muslim opposition front and decided to participate in the general elections expected in May 2005 benefiting form the international attention to the Lebanese cause.

The conflict regarding resolution 1559 in Lebanon remained ongoing between those who are hoping to implement it, and those who are afraid of loosing their major power in the country – their martial force. As the resolution calls for full withdrawal of Syrian forces, and the disarming of Hezbollah and radical militias, the latter three parties are striving to prevent its implementation so they can maintain an exceptional power through the use of physical control.

The Lebanese who oppose the Syrian occupation and support the UN resolution 1559, faced physical and mental persecution from the pro-Syrian regime in Lebanon, and had to face the armed forces who oppose the resolution.

The task was not easy with hundreds of Lebanese fearing the fate of those who were killed in Lebanon or those who have been in Syrian prisons for more than twenty years; imprisoned, tortured and killed.

Subject: RE: BS: Is Hezbollah Winning?
From: Old Guy
Date: 19 Aug 06 - 11:41 AM

History of Lebanon The Cedar Revolution of 2005 AD

The Cedar Revolution

Syria kept persecuting the Lebanese leaders who resisted its occupation of Lebanon.Exiled Premier General Michel Aoun is threatened to be arrested if he tries to return to Lebanon, while the leader of the Lebanese Forces ex-militia Samir Gaegae is imprisoned in Lebanon since 1994.

Joumblat's first aid Marwan Hamade escaped an assassination attempt by a car bomb in October 2004. Former premier Rafik Hariri was assassinated in Beirut on February 14, 2005 by a massive car bomb that killed sixteen other people.

The opposition met after Hariri's assassination later that night and publicly accused the pro-Syrian government and Damascus of being behind the assassination. They called for the Syrian troops to pullout of Lebanon, demanded an international protection for captured Lebanon, and called on the pro-Syrian illegal government to resign.

On February 18, 2005, the opposition launched the "Independence Peaceful Uprising" to liberate Lebanon, motivating the Lebanese mass to support its move. The Lebanese in occupied Lebanon and in Diaspora held mass rallies to support the freedom of their occupied motherland. The protests continued -- larger, louder and bolder -- until the pro-Syrian government in Lebanon resigned on February 28, 2005.

On March 5, 2005 the Syrian president bowed down to the national and international pressure, and announced that the Syrian army would pull out from Lebanon in two stages, without setting a timeline for the withdrawal, yet proclaiming the implementation of the UN resolution 1559. The Syrian troops started a partial withdrawal from Beirut and Northern Lebanon on March 8 th. The popular demonstrations continued and reached their peak on March 14, 2005 when the Lebanese people rallying against Syrian occupation held the largest demonstration in Lebanon 's history with over a million demonstrators.

By the end of March 2005, the Syrian government pulled most of their troops and dismantled all of its intelligence stations in Beirut and north Lebanon . While the Lebanese were celebrating the withdrawal of the Syrian army in the areas they evacuated, pro-Syrian militants made several appearances as several bomb explosions took place around the country. The Lebanese opposition, the United Nations and the international community held the Syrian regime and its proxy government responsible for any security problems against the people of Lebanon.

On February 26, 2005 , a United Nations fact-finding mission held Syria and its proxy regime in Lebanon responsible for the political events that led to Hariri's assassination. It also accused the pro-Syrian government in Lebanon of misleading the investigation and hiding evidence to cover up the crime. On April 7, 2005 , the United Nations Security Council ordered an international investigation into Hariri's assassination opposition through resolution 1595.

In response to the continuous United States-led pressure and in face of popular protests, the Syrian government pledged to pull out by April 30, 2005 .

The peaceful "Cedar Revolution" continued in Lebanon and around the world, seeking the independence of Lebanon, and calling for general elections free from Syrian interference. The Syrian army withdrew its troops from Lebanon end of April 2005 after 30 years of occupation.

Subject: RE: BS: Is Hezbollah Winning?
From: dianavan
Date: 19 Aug 06 - 11:54 AM

When the trolls start spewing their hatred of Jews, its time for me to leave. I don't like the Zionist State of Israel any more than I like the administration of the U.S. but it doesn't mean I hate Jews or Americans.

Subject: RE: BS: Is Hezbollah Winning?
From: GUEST,DB
Date: 19 Aug 06 - 12:20 PM

Goodbye - mug!

Drop a sheckel in the hat on your way out. Jews have meant trouble ever since they butchered Jesus!

Subject: RE: BS: Is Hezbollah Winning?
From: Ron Davies
Date: 19 Aug 06 - 12:21 PM

Old Guy--

Next time how about a blue clicky instead? Too bad you didn't spend your time actually reading what you posted--you might learn something.

Subject: RE: BS: Is Hezbollah Winning?
From: Ron Davies
Date: 19 Aug 06 - 12:25 PM

DB--your pal Goebbels is calling you home to join him.

Subject: RE: BS: Is Hezbollah Winning?
From: Old Guy
Date: 20 Aug 06 - 12:50 AM

How do you know what I spend my time doing oh learned one?

Subject: RE: BS: Is Hezbollah Winning?
From: Slag
Date: 20 Aug 06 - 02:23 AM

See what happens when I turn my back for a few moments??? You all just go ALL OVER THE PLACE. I can't begin to repond to all the specious, ludicrous, asinine, self-serving, illogical, propagandistic, dopey, dumb, deceitful, duplicitous remarks: And that just Guest ifor!! For a lot of you I recommend lessons in Arabic because whether its Hezbolla, Hamas, Al Qaeda or some other group...! LH, remember Christianity. It was 12, then 24, then 5000 +, then back to 12 then 3,2,1 then NONE, then 1, then 2,4, 12, 120, 500, 5000, and away it went, millions! ifor, are you intentionally ignoring the history of the Jews and the Diaspora? The fact that Hadrian created "Palestine" when he murderously and forcefully evicted the Jews from THEIR homeland??

Guest DB is not behaving as a very nice guest. Your remark demonstrates clear anti-semitism and an absysmal comprehension of Christianity. You parrot Hitler's utterly fallacious contention that it was the Jews who were the "Christ-killers".

Here's a little different take on the whole affair and I apologize before hand: I just skimmed the enteries since my last post to this thread so someone may have suggested this already. Israel in the past has always taken immediate and necessary steps to eliminated those who attack her regardless of world opinion. The current regime, however reflects the more liberal Jews and they have taken the weak-willed, namby-pamby George Bush, et al ( et al being every US President back to the post-atomic bomb Truman) approach of stopping short of victory. This means just checking your enemy and then allowing him to go free. In WWII the US under MacArthur in the Pacific theater, DEFEATED Japan and forced an unconditional surender. This meant that Japan faced utter, total annihilation if they didn't cede to OUR terms. They did and we were magnanimous. Their country, ours and the world benefited from our victory. Unfortunately in Europe we stopped short (Eisenhauer, the first RINO) and Eastern Europe suffered and the Western World was dragged into the Cold War and all the evils THAT spawned. Ever since, all "wars", police actions and conflicts have solved NOTHING. They have left enemies and hatreds, old and new to foment and fester and so for that we are a weaker power by half at least and the world is a powderkeg. I don't LIKE war. I hate it but by not concluding a war we or, as in this case, Israel, still has the initial problem PLUS added animosity from those who were undecided, who suffered collateral damage, death and destruction. Believe me Hezbolla would not have hesitated had they really had the advatage the claimed after the Israeli action. They would have told the World that black was white and kept right on killing and destroying were they able or had any inkling that victory could have been theirs. I have to admire them for that. They know what they are about.

Back in the late sixties and early seventies the Oakland Raiders had quite a (an American) football team. They played their hearts out every minute and the last two minutes of a Raiders game was a delight. But as their successes mounted and they began to dominate earlier in the game they adopted something that was coming into vogue called the "Prevent Defense" where you'd get an advantage, a lead and then sit on- play tepid, defensive football- and hope you could last it out to the final clock. No more desparation football, no more razzle-dazzle, no more George Blanda and Daryl Lamonica and ultimately, no more wins. Not very exciting football ( I know, Ken Stabler, etc. but I'm trying to make a point here, OK?). Well maybe I shouldn't have picked a spectator sport for an analogy. War is no "sport" and the outcome is infinitely more serious. Stopping half way or using half-hearted measures serve no one but an enemy in waiting.

Subject: RE: BS: Is Hezbollah Winning?
From: The Fooles Troupe
Date: 20 Aug 06 - 03:46 AM

I have noted that the Mudcat rule on lengthy "cut and pastes" on non-music subjects has one noticeable exception.

And that claque has the audacity to level hostility and accusations at anybody who does not "toe the party line"!

Says it all really, I need say no more...


Mr Cynic.

Subject: RE: BS: Is Hezbollah Winning?
From: Ron Davies
Date: 20 Aug 06 - 06:51 AM

Old Guy---it's fairly obvious.

Subject: RE: BS: Is Hezbollah Winning?
From: Ron Davies
Date: 20 Aug 06 - 06:58 AM

Old Guy--

And by the way, I'd be curious to hear your take on it: did the Israelis bolster their position by dramatically escalating the conflict in the recent war--which started as a series of border clashes?

Yes or no?

And if yes--exactly how?

And please give your sources--and your own thoughts.

The topic is actually very worthwhile--and a civil debate--as disinguished from a slagging match or a cut-and-paste war--should in fact be possible.

Subject: RE: BS: Is Hezbollah Winning?
From: Ron Davies
Date: 20 Aug 06 - 07:00 AM

And do you recall how World War I started? There are striking similarities.

Subject: RE: BS: Is Hezbollah Winning?
From: Old Guy
Date: 20 Aug 06 - 01:58 PM

Obvious to who?

Subject: RE: BS: Is Hezbollah Winning?
From: GUEST
Date: 20 Aug 06 - 02:12 PM

well lets not kid ourselves that the invasion started because of the capture of 2 Israeli soldiers...it was planned months ago and given the green light by Bush.
hugo

Subject: RE: BS: Is Hezbollah Winning?
From: Peace
Date: 20 Aug 06 - 02:45 PM

That would explain why Hezbollah built up an inventory of war materiel.

Subject: RE: BS: Is Hezbollah Winning?
From: Peace
Date: 20 Aug 06 - 02:51 PM

"Come to think of it I wish the Jerries had wiped the evil bastards off the face of the earth."

That remark comes from someone who has been posting as GUEST for many moons now. This sick sonuvabitch is quite capable with the English language--I don't doubt he has a degree from a university, because from many of his posts months back he demonstrates that his skills with grammar, diction and punctuation are excellent. This recent stuff he posts simply disguises a deep hatred of Jews.

Subject: RE: BS: Is Hezbollah Winning?
From: number 6
Date: 20 Aug 06 - 04:02 PM

Guest would certainly not show their true identity with those statements ... and I wonder why. Sad that that post has been left to publicy smear this site with hate.

sIx

Subject: RE: BS: Is Hezbollah Winning?
From: Ron Davies
Date: 20 Aug 06 - 04:46 PM

It pains me more than I can say to have to agree with an anonymous "Guest"--but you all should check a recent New Yorker article by Seymour Hersh--(Jewish, I believe, no?) on this topic.

Called "Watching Lebanon":   Quote: "Shabtai Shavit, a national-security advisor to the Knesset who headed the Mossad, Israel's foreign-intelligence service from 1989 to 1996, told me, "...It was just a matter of time. We had to address it" (attacking Hezbollah on a large scale).

And another: Said Yossi Melman, journalist for Ha'aretz: " The neocons in Washington may be happy but Israel did not need to be pushed, because Israel has been wanting to get rid of Hezbollah. By provoking Israel, Hezbollah provided that opportunity."

Yet another: "Earlier this summer, before the Hezbollah kidnappings, the US goverment consultant said, several Israeli officials visited Washington separately, "to get a green light for the bombing operation and to find out how much the United States would bear. Israel began with Cheney...After that, persuading Bush was never a problem."

If you don't believe this, please say exactly why.

As I said earlier, Hezbollah miscalculated. But then so did Israel--and the latter was far more serious.

Subject: RE: BS: Is Hezbollah Winning?
From: Ron Davies
Date: 20 Aug 06 - 04:47 PM

And what about the similarities between this situation and the start of World War I--any thoughts?

Subject: RE: BS: Is Hezbollah Winning?
From: pdq
Date: 20 Aug 06 - 04:50 PM

"49 French troops that landed by inflatable dinghy"

Subject: RE: BS: Is Hezbollah Winning?
From: Ron Davies
Date: 20 Aug 06 - 05:07 PM

The Israelis may not have received an explicit go-ahead from the US for the massive attack after the kidnapping of the 2 soldiers---but they had already received the green light---months in advance.

Subject: RE: BS: Is Hezbollah Winning?
From: Folkiedave
Date: 20 Aug 06 - 06:56 PM

The idea the Hezbollah could wipe out Israel is ludicrous.

The idea that Israel might invade Lebanon.........not so daft.

As for Hizbollah building up an inventory of arms - bit like the USA supplying Israel really.

Subject: RE: BS: Is Hezbollah Winning?
From: bobad
Date: 20 Aug 06 - 07:04 PM

"As for Hizbollah building up an inventory of arms - bit like the USA supplying Israel really."

Right, and Israel is massing it's troops and weapons on it's neighbour's borders and vowing to wipe them off the map.

Get a grip on reality F**kiedave.

Subject: RE: BS: Is Hezbollah Winning?
From: Ron Davies
Date: 20 Aug 06 - 07:37 PM

It's not beyond belief that Hezbollah--with nuclear weapons--could wipe out Israel--but that's why any attempts to procure such weapons need to be closely watched. And it's therefore why Israel's attack on Lebanon generally (as opposed to a limited campaign to secure border territory)-- was criminally stupid---it has strengthened Hezbollah, in fact driven many former Hezbollah opponents into Hezbollah's camp--and weakened the anti-Hezbollah parties of the Lebanese government.

And I said so at the start of the war.

I questioned how many Germans had been convinced to desert Hitler by the firebombings of Dresden etc.--and how many had been just drawn together in adversity.   There is a parallel--in fact it's even worse in the Lebanon case.   Germans were not convinced to support Nazis by the firebombings--just to try to survive. But Hezbollah has positively benefited--and continues to do so.

Subject: RE: BS: Is Hezbollah Winning?
From: Folkiedave
Date: 20 Aug 06 - 07:46 PM

Bobad - do you honestly and sincerely believe that Hizbollah could wipe Israel off the face of the map? With what?

Now do you also honestly and sincerely believe that Israel will not invade another country and possibly wipe it off the map? With its aircraft, tanks, and nuclear bomb?

We both have different realities that's all, mine is based on facts.

Subject: RE: BS: Is Hezbollah Winning?
From: bobad
Date: 20 Aug 06 - 09:10 PM

"Bobad - do you honestly and sincerely believe that Hizbollah could wipe Israel off the face of the map?"

Dave, I can't seem to be able to find the post wherein I made that statement, would you be so kind as to direct me to it.

Subject: RE: BS: Is Hezbollah Winning?
From: Old Guy
Date: 21 Aug 06 - 12:25 AM

I would rather have RD explain everything. It is fairly obvious that he has read everything and knows everything.

Please start with the stated goals of Hezbollah and Israel. And state your sources too.

Subject: RE: BS: Is Hezbollah Winning?
From: Old Guy
Date: 21 Aug 06 - 01:38 AM

http://www.opinionjournal.com/best/?id=110008703

BY JAMES TARANTO
Tuesday, July 25, 2006 4:27 p.m. EDT

Funny Money?
A reader noticed something curious in a video from last night's "NBC Nightly News." Richard Engel, the network's Beirut bureau chief, is reporting from southern Lebanon, and at 1:07 in the video, as he's saying, "In Sidon, we found part of the financial district flattened," you briefly see an image of what look like uncut sheets of U.S. hundred-dollar bills.

Now, it's possible to buy uncut sheets from the Bureau of Engraving and Printing, at premiums ranging from 12.5% to 275% over face value--but apparently only in denominations of up to $50. Anyhow, somehow we doubt these were collectibles.

A Treasury Department press release dated June 10, 2004, reports that Hezbollah has been involved in counterfeiting American money:

    One of the most prominent and influential members of the Hizballah terrorist organization, along with two of his companies, was designated by the Treasury Department today under Executive Order 13224. Assad Ahmad Barakat has close ties with Hizballah leadership and has worked closely with numerous Islamic extremists and suspected Hizballah associates in South America's tri-border area (TBA), made up of Brazil, Paraguay and Argentina. . . .

    Barakat has also been involved in a counterfeiting ring that distributes fake U.S. dollars and generates cash to fund Hizballah operations. As of early 2001, Barakat was one of two individuals reportedly in charge of distribution and sale of the counterfeit currency in the TBA.

Subject: RE: BS: Is Hezbollah Winning?
From: The Fooles Troupe
Date: 21 Aug 06 - 07:28 AM

"In Sidon, we found part of the financial district flattened," you briefly see an image of what look like uncut sheets of U.S. hundred-dollar bills."

OK, now I understand WHY certain areas were bombed - makes much more sense that Israel helped out its "Big Brother" the USA using the alleged 'real reason' as cover.

Subject: RE: BS: Is Hezbollah Winning?
From: Folkiedave
Date: 21 Aug 06 - 09:05 AM

Right, and Israel is massing it's troops and weapons on it's neighbour's borders and vowing to wipe them off the map.

I figured you were really referring to Hizbollah there in a sort of ironic way.

You don't have to have made the statement.

The question is: "Do you believe.........

Of course you are not obliged to answer....

Subject: RE: BS: Is Hezbollah Winning?
From: GUEST,Nick
Date: 21 Aug 06 - 06:54 PM

Someone back along this lengthy thread pointed out that Israel destroyed large stockpiles of Hezbollah weapons (ie. rockets) - and indeed they did, by prompting Hezbollah to fire as many of them as they could into Israel at an accelerated rate. That's one way of getting rid of the enemy's stockpiles, I suppose.

I saw on the news yesterday that Isarel has already broken the terms of the Ceasfire by conducting a commando raid deep into Lebanon to supposedly disrupt arms supply line. Apart from the obvious furore that would be caused if Hezbollah raided deep into Israel to cut its arms supplies from the US, it demonstrates yet again how 1) Israel has no regard for formalities like Ceasefires, unless they happen to coincide with Israel's agenda and 2) Isarel has no regard for Lebanese sovereignty. These guys seem determined to keep a war going at all costs. I wonder now that the lebanese army is occupying the southern part of their country, if they will be able to prevail on Isarel to respect their sovereignty and pull out of the Shaaba farms. Don't hold your breath, though.

Meanwhile in Palestine, the West Bank and Gaza strip, Palestinian civilains continue to be killed in Isareli military incursions into refugee camps etc., in a side show to the main war.

Subject: RE: BS: Is Hezbollah Winning?
From: The Fooles Troupe
Date: 21 Aug 06 - 07:33 PM

"prompting Hezbollah to fire as many of them as they could into Israel at an accelerated rate. That's one way of getting rid of the enemy's stockpiles"

Yep, and then you can claim the Righteous Victim Underdog Status because you can claim that their unsophisticated weapons are 'targeting' anything...



Lose - Lose Situation.

Subject: RE: BS: Is Hezbollah Winning?
From: bobad
Date: 21 Aug 06 - 07:37 PM

"prompting Hezbollah to fire as many of them as they could into Israel at an accelerated rate. That's one way of getting rid of the enemy's stockpiles"


A good place to start is to ask why, despite many televised threats from Hezbollah leader Hassan Nasrallah, Hezbollah did not hit Tel Aviv. The answer is that using a combination of intelligence and technical means, Israel identified the location of Hezbollah's longer-range missiles and knocked them out with amazing speed and efficiency.

About 90 per cent of them were destroyed quickly in the war. Nasrallah could not deliver on what he considered to be his ultimate weapon.

Subject: RE: BS: Is Hezbollah Winning?
From: Old Guy
Date: 21 Aug 06 - 08:53 PM

"to supposedly disrupt arms supply line"? It is more than a supposition.

"if Hezbollah raided deep into Israel to cut its arms supplies from the US" According to the ceasfire agreement, Hezbollah is supposed to disarm, Not Israel. Yes that would cause quite a furor.

So if Hezbollah is being rearmed unstead of disarmed, who the fuck is breaking the terms of the cease fire?


Who fired these mortars?:

The Israel Defense Forces reported that about four mortar rounds were fired inside southern Lebanon after the cease-fire, which went into effect early Monday. But none of them hit Israeli territory, and Israel decided not to respond, an IDF spokesman said. (Watch tensions remain as cease-fire begins -- 1:09)

Several small clashes between Hezbollah fighters and Israeli soldiers were also reported, in which at least six Hezbollah militants were killed. But so far, there have been no large-scale violations of the U.N.-brokered cease-fire.

Explosions were heard in southern Lebanon after nightfall, but the IDF attributed them to the ongoing destruction of Hezbollah weapons caches and unexploded rockets.
http://www.cnn.com/2006/WORLD/meast/08/14/mideast.main/index.html

Subject: RE: BS: Is Hezbollah Winning?
From: The Fooles Troupe
Date: 21 Aug 06 - 09:21 PM

" IDF attributed them to the ongoing destruction of Hezbollah weapons caches and unexploded rockets."

which means that the IDF has not 'ceased fire'...

Subject: RE: BS: Is Hezbollah Winning?
From: Peace
Date: 21 Aug 06 - 09:58 PM

"Israel has no regard for formalities like Ceasefires"

Part of the cease-fire deal was that the Lebanese Army (or UN force or mixture of both) would not allow Hezbollah to re-arm. Hezbollah, Lebanon and the friggin' UN broke the cease-fire deal.

Subject: RE: BS: Is Hezbollah Winning?
From: Ron Davies
Date: 21 Aug 06 - 11:08 PM

OK Old Guy--your wish is my command:

Goals

Hezbollah--wipe Israel off the map
Israel--survival

I don't think I have to provide a source since I suspect those are also the goals you believe each side has.

As I've said before--if you'd take some time out of your busy schedule of needless cut-and-paste to actually read what I've written--I fully support Israel's right to exist and to defend its borders.

But it would be better done with some intelligence--not the criminally stupid-- (I like that phrase)-- approach just taken--which has strengthened Hezbollah and therefore made the situation more, not less, dangerous. And I've already told you how. Please read what I've already written. The gist of it is that 1)   Israel has raised Hezbollah to superstar status--as the one Arab group that has fought the area's greatest military machine to a standstill and 2) Israel's policy of attacking all of Lebanon has alienated--needlessly--the majority of Lebanese--not just Shiites. I've given you a lot more detail in previous postings--if you're willing to read.

Now, I've answered your question--and directly. How about answering mine?

Once more:   In your judgment has Israel improved its situation by the recent war? If so, how? Can you answer the the question without cut-and-paste---for once?

Looking forward to your typically incisive and perceptive posting.

Subject: RE: BS: Is Hezbollah Winning?
From: Peace
Date: 21 Aug 06 - 11:14 PM

Israel has so frigged-up this war it's unreal. They have buggered the propaganda side, badly. Hezbollah has done wonders in that department. I think when things return to normal, Israel should pursue a path similar to that taken by Hamas and Hezbollah. Selective kidnappings and assassinations. Hell, learn from the masters. And Hezbollah and Hamas ARE the masters. If it's good enough for them it should be good enough for Israel, and I think then that no one will complain.

Subject: RE: BS: Is Hezbollah Winning?
From: bobad
Date: 21 Aug 06 - 11:18 PM

Hell, why not throw in a few suicide bombings of innocent civilians, that'd really show them.

Subject: RE: BS: Is Hezbollah Winning?
From: Peace
Date: 21 Aug 06 - 11:20 PM

Just like Hezbollah and Hamas. We're onto something here, Bobad.

Subject: RE: BS: Is Hezbollah Winning?
From: GUEST,ifor
Date: 22 Aug 06 - 01:36 AM

reply to Peace
Its not just that Israel "buggered up the propoganda war".The monstrous and criminal bombing of civilans at Qana and the car convoys were there on our television screens night after night.That was the reality for the Lebanese ...and it was seen by millions across the world.
The Israeli military on the ground found the Hezbollah fighters formidable foes and from the reports I have read the Israeli reservists themselves are as mad as hell at the leaders who sent them into battle with the wrong tactics,the wrong equipment and lacking food and water.
The bombing of Lebanon was shameful and resulted in the deaths and maiming of many,many children.
This was a defeat for Israel on all counts although I think another attack , aided by the USA , is likely quite soon.
Ifor

Subject: RE: BS: Is Hezbollah Winning?
From: GUEST,jon
Date: 22 Aug 06 - 01:42 AM

Two elderly Lebanese men,aged 70 and 80 were held in chains on a military bus after beingin Lebanon by Israeli soldiers.They had to share the bus with Israeli soldiers but were eventually released as having no links to Hezbollah.Now that is what I call a war on terror!
jon

Subject: RE: BS: Is Hezbollah Winning?
From: The Fooles Troupe
Date: 22 Aug 06 - 08:38 AM

" Selective kidnappings and assassinations. Hell, learn from the masters."

They have done that ever since they started - with the ex-nazis...

Subject: RE: BS: Is Hezbollah Winning?
From: Old Guy
Date: 22 Aug 06 - 12:34 PM

I think Israel had not worsened or improved it's situation.

I think Hizbollah is winning a PR war on gullible people with the help of MSM.

Would you like have the US not help out Israel and have them wiped off of the map? Before that happens, they would use their nukes. Maybe that would be the final answer.

Subject: RE: BS: Is Hezbollah Winning?
From: GUEST,ifor
Date: 22 Aug 06 - 01:59 PM

The USA has made the Israeli military one of the most powerful,formidable and most technologically advanced war machines in the world with its modern jet warplanes, apache helicopters and merkova tanks etc. The USA and the UK also helped turn Israel into a nuclear weapons state.

The USA has armed Israel because it has straegic and oil interests in the region which it intends to maintain and extend.Basically , the surrounding states have to do as they are told or else !

This benefits US capitalism and Zionist interests but has been a tragedy for the peoples of the region especially the Palestinians who have been expelled from their homeland,slaughtered in their refugee camps,surrounded and shelled in Gaza and terrorised and imprisoned on the West Bank.

There needs to be a proper just settlement which does not involve the Palestinians living in "bantustans" and imprisoned behind the disgusting apartheid wall which is so big it puts the Berlin Wall to shame.

The attack on Lebanon and the arrest of half the Hamas government is not going to resolve anything. While the Israeli government is still strutting its macho right wing politics ,despite the bloody nose it received in Southern Lebanon , there will be no moves to a lasting settlement and the Palestinians will continue to suffer and die.
Free Palestine!
ifor

Subject: RE: BS: Is Hezbollah Winning?
From: number 6
Date: 22 Aug 06 - 02:04 PM

Then why rag on Israel ... The U.S. has been manipulating many, many countries .... centre you protests on The Government of the U.S.A.

sIx

Subject: RE: BS: Is Hezbollah Winning?
From: Old Guy
Date: 22 Aug 06 - 02:20 PM

"The attack on Lebanon" I though it was an attack on Israel.

I guess this idiot, Ifor, has his own version of reality.

Is it true, Ifor, that Isreal retreatd from Lebanon in return for peace?

Israel has long sought a peaceful northern border. But lebanon's position as a haven for terrorist groups has made this impossible. In March 1978, plo terrorists infiltrated Israel. After murdering an American tourist walking near an Israeli beach, they hijacked a civilian bus. The terrorists shot through the windows as the bus traveled down the highway. When Israeli troops intercepted the bus, the terrorists opened fire. A total of 34 hostages died in the attack. In response, Israeli forces crossed into lebanon and overran terrorist bases in the southern part of that country, pushing the terrorists away from the border. The Israel Defense Forces (IDF) withdrew after two months, allowing united nations forces to enter. But un troops were unable to prevent terrorists from reinfiltrating the region and introducing new, more dangerous arms.

Violence escalated with a series of plo attacks and Israeli reprisals. Finally, the United States helped broker a cease­fire agreement in July 1981. The plo repeatedly violated the cease-fire over the ensuing 11 months. Israel charged that the plo staged 270 terrorist actions in Israel, the West Bank, and gaza, and along the lebanese and jordanian borders. Twenty-nine Israelis died and more than 300 were injured in the attacks.

Meanwhile, a force of some 15-18,000 plo members was encamped in scores of locations in lebanon. About 5,000-6,000 were foreign mercenaries, coming from such countries as libya, iraq, india, sri lanka, chad, and mozambique. Israel later discovered enough light arms and other weapons in lebanon to equip five brigades. The plo arsenal included mortars, Katyusha rockets, and an extensive anti-aircraft network. The plo also brought hundreds of T­34 tanks into the area. syria, which permitted lebanon to become a haven for the plo and other terrorist groups, brought surface-to-air missiles into that country, creating yet another danger for Israel.

Israeli strikes and commando raids were unable to stem the growth of this plo army. The situation in the Galilee became intolerable as the frequency of attacks forced thousands of residents to flee their homes or to spend large amounts of time in bomb shelters. Israel was not prepared to wait for more deadly attacks to be launched against its civilian population before acting against the terrorists.

The final provocation occurred in June 1982 when an arab terrorist group led by abu nidal attempted to assassinate Israel's Ambassador to Great Britain, Shlomo Argov. The IDF subsequently attacked Lebanon again on June 4-5, 1982. The plo responded with a massive artillery and mortar attack on the Israeli population of the Galilee. On June 6, the IDF moved into lebanon to drive out the terrorists in "Operation Peace for Galilee."

Former Secretary of State Henry Kissinger defended the Israeli operation: "No sovereign state can tolerate indefinitely the buildup along its borders of a military force dedicated to its destruction and implementing its objectives by periodic shellings and raids" (Washington Post, June 16, 1982).

"On Lebanon, it is clear that we and Israel both seek an end to the violence there, and a sovereign, independent lebanon," President Reagan said June 21, 1982. "We agree that Israel must not be subjected to violence from the north."

The initial success of the Israeli operation led officials to broaden the objective to expel the PLO from Lebanon and induce the country's leaders to sign a peace treaty. In 1983, Lebanon's President, Amin Gemayel, signed a peace treaty with Israel. A year later, Syria forced Gemayel to renege on the agreement. The war then became drawn out as the IDF captured Beirut and surrounded Yasser Arafat and his guerrillas.

plo Tyranny In lebanon

For arab residents of south lebanon, plo rule was a nightmare. After the plo was expelled from jordan by king Hussein in 1970, many of its cadres went to lebanon. The plo seized whole areas of the country, where it brutalized the population and usurped lebanese government authority.

On October 14, 1976, lebanese ambassador Edward Ghorra told the un general assembly the plo was bringing ruin upon his country: "palestinian elements belonging to various...organizations resorted to kidnaping lebanese--and sometimes foreigners--holding them prisoner, questioning them, torturing them, and sometimes killing them" (New York Times, October 15, 1976). Columnists Rowland Evans and Robert Novak, not known for being sympathetic toward Israel, declared after touring south lebanon and beirut that the facts "tend to support Israel's claim that the plo has become permeated by thugs and adventurers" (Washington Post, June 25, 1982). Countless lebanese told harrowing tales of rape, mutilation, and murders committed by plo forces.

New York Times correspondent David Shipler visited Damour, a christian village near beirut, which had been occupied by the plo since 1976, when palestinians and lebanese leftists sacked the city and massacred hundreds of its inhabitants. The plo, Shipler wrote, had turned the town into a military base, "using its churches as strongholds and armories" (New York Times, June 21, 1982).

When the IDF drove the plo out of Damour in June 1982, Prime Minister Menachem Begin announced that the town's christian residents could come home and rebuild. Returning villagers found their former homes littered with spray-painted palestinian nationalist slogans, fatah literature, and posters of yasir arafat. They told Shipler how happy they were that Israel had liberated them.

The plo's Reluctant Retreat

When the IDF captured beirut, the civilian population was forced to suffer because of the plo's refusal to surrender. By mid-June, Israeli troops had surrounded 6,000-9,000 terrorists who had taken up positions amid the civilian population of west beirut. To prevent civilian casualties, Israel agreed to a cease-fire to enable an American diplomat, Ambassador Philip Habib, to mediate a peaceful plo withdrawal from lebanon. As a gesture of flexibility, Israel agreed to permit plo forces to leave beirut with their personal weapons. But the plo continued to make new demands.

The plo also adopted a strategy of controlled violations of the cease­fire, with the purpose of inflicting casualties on Israel and provoking Israeli retaliation sufficient to get the IDF blamed for disrupting the negotiations and harming civilians. For more than a month, the plo tried to extract a political victory from its military defeat. arafat declared his willingness "in principle" to leave beirut, then refused to go to any other country. arafat also tried to push the US to recognize the plo. Throughout the siege, the plo hid behind innocent civilians, accurately calculating that if Israel were to attack, it would be internationally condemned.

"The Israelis bombed buildings, innocent looking on the outside, where their intelligence told them that plo offices were hidden," wrote Middle East analyst Joshua Muravchik ("Misreporting Lebanon," Policy Review, Winter 1983). "Their intelligence also told them of the huge network of underground plo storage facilities for arms and munitions that was later uncovered by the lebanese army. No doubt the Israelis dropped some bombs hoping to penetrate those facilities and detonate the dumps. The plo had both artillery and anti­aircraft [equipment] truck mounted. These would fire at the Israelis and then move." The Israelis would fire back and sometimes miss, inadvertently hitting civilian targets.

In numerous instances, the media mistakenly reported that Israel was hitting civilian targets in areas where no military ones were nearby. On one night in July, Israeli shells hit seven embassies in beirut. NBC aired a report that appeared to lend credence to plo claims that it had no military positions in the area. Israel, Muravchik noted, "soon released reconnaissance photos showing the embassy area honeycombed with tanks, mortars, heavy machine guns, and anti­aircraft positions."

The lebanon war provoked intense debate within Israel. For the first time in Israel's history, a consensus for war did not exist (though it did at the outset). Prime Minister Menachem Begin resigned as demands for an end to the fighting grew louder. The national coalition government that took office in 1984 decided to withdraw from lebanon, leaving behind a token force to help the South Lebanese Army (which Israel had long supported) patrol a security zone near Israel's border.

Though the IDF succeeded in driving the plo out of lebanon, it did not end the terrorist threats from that country. The war was also costly, 1,216 soldiers died between June 5, 1982, and May 31, 1985.

Ongoing Violence

Jerusalem has repeatedly stressed that Israel does not covet a single inch of lebanese territory. Israel's 1985 withdrawal from lebanon confirmed that. The small 1,000-man Israeli force, deployed in a strip of territory extending eight miles into south lebanon, protected towns and villages in northern Israel from attack. Israel had repeatedly said it would completely withdraw from lebanon in return for a stable security situation on its northern border.

Most of the terrorist groups that threaten Israel have not been disarmed. For example, several thousand terrorists currently in lebanon are members of hezbollah. The group receives financial support and arms from iran, usually via damascus. hezbollah--which had initially confined itself to launching Katyusha rocket attacks on northern Israel and ambushing Israeli troops in the security zone--has in recent years stepped up its attacks on Israeli civilians.

In April 1995, the IDF mounted "Operation Grapes of Wrath" to halt hezbollah's bombardment of Israel's northern frontier. During the operation, Israeli artillery mistakenly hit a un base in kafr kana, killing nearly 100 civilians. Afterward, a joint monitoring machinery, including American, French, syrian, and lebanese representatives, was created to prohibit unprovoked attacks on civilian populations and the use of civilians as shields for terrorist activities.

The syrian-backed lebanese army has yet to take action against hezbollah, or other terrorist organizations, such as the popular front for the "liquidation" of palestine (pflp), popular front for the "liquidation" of palestine--general command (pflp-gc), or the democratic front for the "liquidation" of palestine (dflp), which have bases in the syrian-controlled Beka'a Valley in eastern lebanon. syria, in fact, declared its unqualified support for stepped­up violence in the area. Consequently, attacks against Israeli troops in the Security Zone and civilians in northern Israel continued.

Israel Withdraws

Israel pulled all its troops out of southern lebanon on May 24, 2000, ending a 22-year military presence there. All Israel Defense Forces and South Lebanon Army outposts were evacuated. The Israeli withdrawal was conducted in coordination with the un, and constituted an Israeli fulfillment of its obligations under security council resolution 425 (1978).
        

Subject: RE: BS: Is Hezbollah Winning?
From: Old Guy
Date: 22 Aug 06 - 02:41 PM

U.N. Security Council Resolution 425 was issued five days after the Israeli invasion to Lebanon on March 14, 1978 in what was referred to as Operation Litani. This invasion was triggered by the March 11, 1978 massacre of 37 Israeli civilians riding in a bus in the Tel Aviv area by members of Palestine Liberation Organization (PLO) infiltrating from Lebanon -- See Coastal Road massacre. This attack was, however, just the latest and most deadly in a string of attacks launched from Lebanese territory.

The stated objective of the Operation Litani was to clear out the PLO bases located inside Lebanon, south of the Litani River, in order to better secure northern Israel.

Following Lebanese government claims, the United Nations, driven by the United States, began seeking a peacekeeping force for the area that Israel had occupied in order to bring about a withdrawal of the Israeli forces, and to reintroduce the authority of the Lebanese government in southern Lebanon.

These efforts culminated in Resolution 425, during the 2074th meeting of the United Nations Security Council on March 19, 1978. That led to the formation of UNIFIL, the objective of which was to confirm Israeli withdrawal from Lebanon, restore international peace and security, and help the Lebanese Government restore its effective authority in the area.

The resolution text

    "The Security Council,
    Taking note of the letters from the Permanent Representative of Lebanon and from the Permanent Representative of Israel, Having heard the statement of the Permanent Representatives of Lebanon and Israel, Gravely concerned at the deterioration of the situation in the Middle East and its consequences to the maintenance of international peace, Convinced that the present situation impedes the achievement of a just peace in the Middle East,
    1. Calls for strict respect for the territorial integrity, sovereignty and political independence of Lebanon within its internationally recognized boundaries;
    2. Calls upon Israel immediately to cease its military action against Lebanese territorial integrity and withdraw forthwith its forces from all Lebanese territory;
    3. Decides, in the light of the request of the Government of Lebanon, to establish immediately under its authority a United Nations interim force for Southern Lebanon for the purpose of confirming the withdrawal of Israeli forces, restoring international peace and security and assisting the Government of Lebanon in ensuring the return of its effective authority in the area, the Force to be composed of personnel drawn from Member States;
    4. Requests the Secretary-General to report to the Council within twenty-four hours on the implementation of the present resolution."

Aftermath

The first UNIFIL troops arrived in Lebanon on March 23, 1978, just four days after the resolution was passed. Israel did not accept the resolution, and refused to withdraw. No international pressure was exercised on it to abide by the resolution. Israel, however, expanded its occupation in a larger-scale invasion in June 1982, in which Israeli troops occupied the capital city of Beirut -- See 1982 Lebanon War. Other major attacks within Lebanon took place in July 1993 and April 1996 --See Operation Accountability and Operation Grapes of Wrath.

In May 2000, more than 22 years after resolution 425 was passed, Israel withdrew its troops from southern Lebanon. Prior to the withdrawal, opposition voices inside Israel pressured the government to withdraw from Lebanon, as they saw no valid reason to stay there and sustain Lebanese attacks.
The Blue Line covers the Lebanese-Israeli border as well as the Lebanese-Golan Heights border.
Enlarge
The Blue Line covers the Lebanese-Israeli border as well as the Lebanese-Golan Heights border.

The UN Secretary-General concluded that, as of June 16, 2000, Israel had indeed withdrawn its forces from Lebanon, in accordance with resolution 425 (1978). The border recognized by the UN is known as the "Blue Line".

Lebanon, however, claims that Israel is still keeping Lebanese land under its occupation, mainly in Shebaa Farms. Israel says, and the UN agrees, that Shebaa Farms is Syrian and not Lebanese, and therefore it is not included under resolution 425. Lebanon's claim to Shebaa Farm arose for the first time in 2000, and all published maps from the prior century indicate the land to be in Syrian (or Israeli-occupied) territory.

Lebanon has not extended control over south Lebanon, though it was called on to do so by UN Resolution 1391 of 2002 (see http://www.un.org/Docs/scres/2002/sc2002.htm) and urged by UN Resolution 1496 of 2003. Israel has lodged multiple complaints regarding Lebanon's conduct.

Immediately after the withdrawal, Israeli aircraft crossed the Blue Line on an almost daily basis, penetrating deep into Lebanese airspace. Since mid-December 2005, the number of Israeli air violations has decreased. Israeli warships also continued to violate the Lebanese territorial waters. On October 22, 2005 a Lebanese fisherman was reported missing. His boat ran aground in Israel, and was returned by the Israeli army. There were a number of bullet marks on the boat. The IDF explained that they had opened fire as a precaution in case the boat was booby-trapped, but that it was already empty at the time Many other incidents were reported along the Blue Line such as gunfire and cross border attacks. Both Lebanon and Israel have lodged multiple complaints regarding the other party's violations.

Hezbollah, a Shiite paramilitary group which exercises de facto sovereignty over much of South Lebanon, continues to launch attacks against Israeli troops from time to time, primarily inside the Shebaa Farms area. Lebanon also calls on Israel to free the prisoners of war and to hand over the maps of the land mines in the area that was under its occupation.

Subject: RE: BS: Is Hezbollah Winning?
From: GUEST,ifor
Date: 22 Aug 06 - 03:20 PM

Israel has been occupying the Shebaa farms whih is Lebanese territory for years. Israel has also used its armed forces to kidnap,kill and intimidate Lebanese people for decades.

It never completely withdrew from Lebanese territory after the 1982 invasion but did leave the gift hundreds of thousands of landmines which have killed and maimed civilians for years.It also refused to hand over the maps that show where these landmines have been laid.

Last month it used cluster bombs in huge amounts on towns and villages across Southern Lebanon.The victims of these vicious weapons have been mainly children.

However,in the villages close to the border, Hezbollah aided by thousands of ordinary Lebanese residents fought the Israelis to a standstill forcing them to withdraw.
The ceasefire also meant that Lebanese refugees were able to pour back into the south before the Israelis were able to establish themselves close to the Litani river.
The Israelis may yet go back for more but the Lebanese resistance won this round.

ifor

Subject: RE: BS: Is Hezbollah Winning?
From: Old Guy
Date: 22 Aug 06 - 03:36 PM

You are right Ifor, Israel is a bunch of terrorist bastards that lie their asses off and The PLO is just a bunch of happy peace loving good guys that never lie and wouldn't hurt a flea.

Live long and prosper.

Subject: RE: BS: Is Hezbollah Winning?
From: C. Ham
Date: 22 Aug 06 - 03:43 PM

Israel has been occupying the Shebaa farms whih is Lebanese territory for years.

Just because Ifor tells lies on Mudcat, it doesn't make them true. Even when he/she repeats them over and over and over again.

The Shebba Farms were captured from Syria -- NOT LEBANON -- during the Six-Day War in 1967. They are part of the Golan Heights.

Subject: RE: BS: Is Hezbollah Winning?
From: number 6
Date: 22 Aug 06 - 03:55 PM

Getting back on focus to the subject of this thread ...

when the question of "who won" was asked to the Israeli Foreign Minister Tzipi Livni ... her reply was "the good guys won"

Well ... there ya go ... that's who won.

sIx

Subject: RE: BS: Is Hezbollah Winning?
From: GUEST,Nick
Date: 22 Aug 06 - 04:56 PM

"Getting back on focus to the subject of this thread ...

when the question of "who won" was asked to the Israeli Foreign Minister Tzipi Livni ... her reply was "the good guys won"

Well ... there ya go ... that's who won.

sIx"

I didn't know Tzipi Livni was a supporter of Hezbollah! (he he!, sorry, couldn't resist that one!)

Subject: RE: BS: Is Hezbollah Winning?
From: GUEST,mg`
Date: 22 Aug 06 - 05:07 PM

as an aside, someone mentioned "apache" helicopters. I don't know what the Queen's English prefers, but out of respect for the Native American tribe these helicopters are named after, I would recommend capitalizing the word Apache. Likewise Chinook. Also in respect for those who fly and maintain them. mg

Subject: RE: BS: Is Hezbollah Winning?
From: Sorcha
Date: 22 Aug 06 - 05:10 PM

OK...but why are helicopters named after Indian tribes?????

Subject: RE: BS: Is Hezbollah Winning?
From: Peace
Date: 22 Aug 06 - 05:17 PM

The AH-64 Apache Attack Helicopter was designed to be tough and survive under combat conditions. Much like The Apache themselves. Certainly amongst the finest guerrilla fighters the world ever produced.

Subject: RE: BS: Is Hezbollah Winning?
From: GUEST,walt
Date: 22 Aug 06 - 05:22 PM

Salute the Apaches, sort of the Hezbollah of their day...opponents of US expansionism!
walt

Subject: RE: BS: Is Hezbollah Winning?
From: Peace
Date: 22 Aug 06 - 05:27 PM

Well, the Apache didn't have the support of Iran or Syria.

As to the question posed in the thread title, Hezbollah HAS won round one. Israel's approach to the war was stupid and ill-considered. When they have time to reflect, I think they will come to the same conclusion (as some of Israel's citizens and soldiers already have).

The second round will have to be very different. Israel needs to take an etymology lesson and give study to the word 'hashish' and its origins.

Subject: RE: BS: Is Hezbollah Winning?
From: number 6
Date: 22 Aug 06 - 05:50 PM

Nick .... ok, i know ya had to throw that in :).

LH ... The Apache's mandate wasn't the total destruction of the white settlers ... no comparison the Hezbollah at all.

Let's stick to the subject of the thread and leave the indigenous people of north america out of it ... or maybe start a new thread ... how about that.

sIx

Subject: RE: BS: Is Hezbollah Winning?
From: Peace
Date: 22 Aug 06 - 05:57 PM

Official history of the Middle East.

Subject: RE: BS: Is Hezbollah Winning?
From: Peace
Date: 22 Aug 06 - 06:03 PM

Hezbollah have nowhere near the abilities of the Apache. So let's forget THAT analogy.

Subject: RE: BS: Is Hezbollah Winning?
From: The Fooles Troupe
Date: 22 Aug 06 - 07:02 PM

Isn't Shambles an Old Guy?

Subject: RE: BS: Is Hezbollah Winning?
From: number 6
Date: 22 Aug 06 - 07:12 PM

"Isn't Shambles an Old Guy?"

Hmmmmmm .... good analogy.





but then ... so am I.


sIx

Subject: RE: BS: Is Hezbollah Winning?
From: The Fooles Troupe
Date: 22 Aug 06 - 07:35 PM

Sorry, six,

sometimes I put the course before the hart.

Subject: RE: BS: Is Hezbollah Winning?
From: Ron Davies
Date: 22 Aug 06 - 10:21 PM

Old Guy--"not worsened or improved it's (sic) situation"

Fascinating that the Israelis themselves seem to disagree with you. Olmert pressed to resign. Protests by soldiers in the streets. Yup, sure sounds like nothing has happened--no change, just like you said.

And you're right--gullible people-- for instance the Wall St Journal--which every day points out how Hezbollah has risen in the Arab world--especially in prestige amd power in Lebanon.


What are you smoking?

And please point out to me exactly where I advocated that the US not support Israel with foreign aid--if you'd be so good.

But thanks for refraining from cut-and-paste. There, that didn't hurt much, did it? See, you can do it.

I wonder if you can refrain from cut-and-paste twice in a row. It would be a new record for you.

Subject: RE: BS: Is Hezbollah Winning?
From: Old Guy
Date: 22 Aug 06 - 10:27 PM

Apache also means a Parisian gangster or thug

Subject: RE: BS: Is Hezbollah Winning?
From: Ron Davies
Date: 22 Aug 06 - 10:40 PM

"power and prestige"

Subject: RE: BS: Is Hezbollah Winning?
From: Old Guy
Date: 22 Aug 06 - 11:55 PM

RD youre just itchin for a fight. I never said you advocated not supporting Isreal and I don't smoke.

That seems to be a common phrase here as if everybody smokes dope and anyone not following the hate america crowd is accused of smoking something else.

I will cut and paste when it pleases me and you are invited do whatever you want.

Subject: RE: BS: Is Hezbollah Winning?
From: Greg F.
Date: 22 Aug 06 - 11:59 PM

but out of respect for the Native American tribe these helicopters are named after, I would recommend capitalizing the word Apache.

Or, the U.S. government could show REAL respect for the indigenous peoples by not naming the damn machine "Apache" or the missle "tomahawk" & etc. in the first place.

Funny, ain't it, you don't see "Irishman" or "Anglo-Saxon" helicopters or other agents of death & destruction ... wonder why that be?

Subject: RE: BS: Is Hezbollah Winning?
From: Peace
Date: 23 Aug 06 - 12:01 AM

I do not hate America. I think America--meaning the US--could do much better than having Bush lead the country, but Americans are good

Subject: RE: BS: Is Hezbollah Winning?
From: Peace
Date: 23 Aug 06 - 12:02 AM

folks basically. And I smoked lots in the '60s and '70s.

Subject: RE: BS: Is Hezbollah Winning?
From: Ron Davies
Date: 23 Aug 06 - 06:38 AM

Old Guy--

I have no doubt that you will cut and paste when it pleases you. And your selfishness in that regard can be considered abusing our hospitality.

I note with interest that you have not contradicted my analysis of how the Israelis themselves see the outcome of the recent war.

So much for your bald statement that nothing has changed in the balance between Israel and Hezbollah.

It's also interesting, as Peace notes, that you seem to have no recourse but to fall back on the typical Bushite accusation that anybody who does not agree with you is part of the "hate America crowd"-- which establishes more clearly than anything else could the bankrupcy of your position.

As for "itching for a fight"--I just happen to be interested in facts--which are easily obtainable from certified leftist rags like the Wall St. Journal.   And I also don't seek to bury my debate opponents in long excerpts easily obtainable elsewhere.

Subject: RE: BS: Is Hezbollah Winning?
From: Ron Davies
Date: 23 Aug 06 - 07:04 AM

"bankruptcy"

Subject: RE: BS: Is Hezbollah Winning?
From: bobad
Date: 23 Aug 06 - 07:36 AM

"Funny, ain't it, you don't see "Irishman" or "Anglo-Saxon" helicopters or other agents of death & destruction "

Oh yeah, what about pole-axe eh? eh?

Subject: RE: BS: Is Hezbollah Winning?
From: The Fooles Troupe
Date: 23 Aug 06 - 08:07 AM

I thought they were from Poland.

Subject: RE: BS: Is Hezbollah Winning?
From: GUEST,number 6
Date: 23 Aug 06 - 08:43 AM

"Anglo-Saxon" helicopters or other agents of death & destruction "

'The Hughie' helicopter.

'The minuteman rocket"

'The Abrams" tank

'the Bradly' tank

to name just a few.

sIx

Subject: RE: BS: Is Hezbollah Winning?
From: GUEST,walt
Date: 23 Aug 06 - 09:54 AM

Amnesty International today issued a report accusing the Israeli military of committing war crimes in the Lebanon.In particular it pointed to the bombing of the civilian infrastructure and the killing of innocent people in the attack on the Lebanon.
It is to deal with Hezbollah in a separate report.
walt

Subject: RE: BS: Is Hezbollah Winning?
From: Leadfingers
Date: 23 Aug 06 - 10:00 AM

400 !!!

Subject: RE: BS: Is Hezbollah Winning?
From: Leadfingers
Date: 23 Aug 06 - 10:01 AM

Honest - It only showed 399 when I posted !!

Subject: RE: BS: Is Hezbollah Winning?
From: Old Guy
Date: 23 Aug 06 - 10:54 AM

Well mr Davies, I disagree with you. In my oppinion, the only thing the Israelis did wrong is they did not go all out in ther retaliation. They were held back by Olmert who is evidently not a warrior.

Therefore they did not gain anything. Nor did they loose anything. The stage is being set for round 2 and maybe this time they will go all out.

It seems that they are afraid of the bad pr generated by Hezbollah courtesy of MSM.

I think it is notable that Iran is not in such good financial shape despite oil revenuse. An economic emabrgo would bring it to it's knees but Russia and China and others would not participate.

That's my opinion.

Subject: RE: BS: Is Hezbollah Winning?
From: GUEST,hugo
Date: 23 Aug 06 - 01:37 PM

Actually the Israels were held up by the Lebanese resistance led by Hezbollah who turned their border villages into strongholds where the Israeli soldiers had to fight for every house.The surrounding hills were also occupied and it meant that the Israeli got ambushed with RPG s and anti tank missiles,snipers and landmines.

Almost all the villages were gutted by Israeli shell fire ,tank round and machine gun bullets.The devastation has been immense but the Israelis lost tanks,armoured bulldozers and men.They will try again but I dont think the ground war will resume in the immediate future.More likely the Israelis will continue tio destroy the civilian targets mentioned in the Amnesty Report issued today.
hugo

Subject: RE: BS: Is Hezbollah Winning?
From: dianavan
Date: 23 Aug 06 - 02:24 PM

Here's a link to the amnesty international report.

The environmental damage inflicted by Israel will plague the Lebanese for years to come.

I wonder if Israel will help pay for the clean-up and reconstruction?

Subject: RE: BS: Is Hezbollah Winning?
From: Peace
Date: 23 Aug 06 - 02:29 PM

"Civilian victims on both sides of this conflict deserve justice. The serious nature of violations committed makes an investigation into the conduct of both parties urgent. There must be accountability for the perpetrators of war crimes and reparation for the victims."

"Amnesty International is calling for a comprehensive, independent and impartial inquiry to be urgently established by the UN into violations of international humanitarian law by both sides in the conflict. It should examine in particular the impact of this conflict on the civilian population, and should be undertaken with a view to holding individuals responsible for crimes under international law and ensuring that full reparation is provided to the victims."

Two parts of the report that will no doubt be overlooked by some people.

Subject: RE: BS: Is Hezbollah Winning?
From: Peace
Date: 23 Aug 06 - 02:32 PM

From Amnesty's site:

Lebanon
In Lebanon, hundreds of civilians were killed by Israeli forces in attacks on residential areas causing massive destruction. Others were killed in attacks on vehicles as villagers were heeding the calls by the Israeli army to leave their homes in South Lebanon.

On 7 August, more than 50 civilians were killed in one of Beirut's neighbourhoods, Shyah. Amnesty International (AI) delegates in the country visited the area the day after Israeli bombardment and found a scene of utter devastation, with bodies of women and children still being pulled from beneath the rubble. Israeli forces had not issued any prior warning to the inhabitants of the impending air strikes. Shyah, had been considered safer than other districts and people who had fled their homes from other parts of the country, had sought shelter there.

As more areas were targeted by Israeli forces the number of displaced people grew: a month into the conflict about one million people – a quarter of the entire population of Lebanon – had fled. Since the ceasefire, many are returning home, but tens of thousands have no home to return to.

Israel
In Israel, some 40 civilians were killed in attacks by Hizbullah on towns and villages, including Haifa, Kiryat Shmona, Nahariya, Safed, Ma'alot and Acre. Hizbullah launched thousands of rockets into northern Israel, many of them in areas populated by civilians. AI delegates who visited the north of Israel to investigate the attacks found evidence that some of the rockets used by Hizbullah contained thousands of metal ball bearings. These increase the potential for fatalities as people not in immediate vicinity can be killed or seriously injured by the spray of ball bearings.

Subject: RE: BS: Is Hezbollah Winning?
From: GUEST,Nick
Date: 23 Aug 06 - 07:09 PM

sIx -

Sure enough, fair point! I know I know I depart from the thread topic sometimes, I see connections between all sorts of things and have to see where they lead... but I'll try to desist in future!

BTW - (and this is the last one, promise!) : true, the Apaches didn't have wiping out the white man off their agenda, they just wanted to be let live as they always had, free to go where they pleased in their own land. And look what happened to them!

Subject: RE: BS: Is Hezbollah Winning?
From: Old Guy
Date: 23 Aug 06 - 09:24 PM

The Amnesty International report is a two parter. The first part is about what Israel did and the forthcoming second part will be abut what Hezbollah did.

Stay tuned

Subject: RE: BS: Is Hezbollah Winning?
From: Ron Davies
Date: 23 Aug 06 - 10:57 PM

Well, Mr. Guy-- (can I just call you Old?)--you have admitted the Israelis did not go "all out". This perception has caused a lot of discontent in Israel--it's as if they could not decide whether it was purely a military campaign or also a political maneuver. As a result they wound up doing neither well.

Also, if you don't think solidifying opposition against you, which Israel did do with its destruction of Lebanese infrastructure (and accompanying "collateral damage") is a negative development--you should think again.

And it was totally unnecessary--seizing border territory, in response to Hezbollah's provocations, would have incurred much less opposition from Lebanese in general--and not inflamed the Arab world. So it would have been a temporary solution--this is the Mideast---attempts at permanent change can easily backfire. Consider Mr. Bush's campaign to push democracy--in Lebanon, Iraq and the Palestinian territories. Not precisely the results he wanted.

From what I read, Israel's attack on Lebanon far from the border was also premeditated--it was hoped that this would raise opposition to Hezbollah by Christians and others who would resent the destruction Hezbollah had brought on Lebanon.

And it worked--for a few days.

Then, as the civilian death toll rose, the tide shifted against Israel. And the continued bombing solidified that trend.

As I said earlier, Hezbollah miscalculated--but Israel did also--and the latter was far more serious.

And if you think "going all out" is the solution, you must have been a big fan of World War I--that's how it started. Now, as then, the other powers will not sit idly by.

Good thing your power to set foreign policy is limited, to say the least.

Subject: RE: BS: Is Hezbollah Winning?
From: bobad
Date: 23 Aug 06 - 11:06 PM

The Israelis made some mistakes.

They will learn from them.

They won't make the same mistakes twice.

Subject: RE: BS: Is Hezbollah Winning?
From: Ron Davies
Date: 23 Aug 06 - 11:14 PM

There are plenty of other mistakes to be made.

Interestingly enough, I've read recently--believe it was in the Economist--speculation that the ceasefire may in fact last longer than expected--since Hezbollah won't be eager to jeopardize their new position as heroes of the Arab world--and since they also now have responsibilities---I gather in the reconstruction activities in Lebanon.

But it also would not be smart for Israel to start up the war again.

Subject: RE: BS: Is Hezbollah Winning?
From: Old Guy
Date: 23 Aug 06 - 11:24 PM

Ron:

One of Hezbollah's justifications for the attack was because Israel is still occupying land that Lebanon claims was taken from them even though it was taken from Syria. I don't see how taking more land fixes anything.

Any retaliation that is not premeditated is belligerence which is what the Lebs are claiming.

I think the Christians and non Hezbollah supporters are more pissed off at Hezbollah after the destruction but how would we know with Hezbollah faking the "news" you see coming out of Lebanon.

From what I gather, you can't tell the Hizbollah fighters from the innocent civilians because they don't have uniforms. 90% of the innocent victims might not be innocent. They were told to leave because the shit was going to hit the fan. Even leaflets were dropped. Why didn't they leave if the were not Hizbollah?

Then there is the Martyr thing. They are told their life will never be worth a shit because of the evil enemy. If they die they will help their country, go to heaven and be honored as a Martyr.

I think WWI started when Archduke Ferdinand got assassinated on a bridge in Sarajevo.

They got archdukes in Lebanon? They sure don't have many bridges left.

The only way Hezbollah is won is by bullshitting gullible people into thinking they won.

Let them pound their chest and mount an even fiercer attack and see what happens.

Subject: RE: BS: Is Hezbollah Winning?
From: Ron Davies
Date: 23 Aug 06 - 11:28 PM

Old Guy--try doing some reading about World War I--especially about the interlocking alliance systems.

Subject: RE: BS: Is Hezbollah Winning?
From: Ron Davies
Date: 23 Aug 06 - 11:36 PM

And you're right about the bridges--one of Israel's more stupid moves. That's the sort of thing perceived as senseless destruction by most Lebanese--the argument of preventing resupply of Hezbollah doesn't cut much ice with them. It just turns their anger toward Israel--and their support to any group that opposes Israel--e.g. Hezbollah.

Subject: RE: BS: Is Hezbollah Winning?
From: Old Guy
Date: 23 Aug 06 - 11:36 PM

Try reading about Muhammad taking Mecca. What is a Hudna?

This ceasefire is a Hudna.

I think that is more germaine to what is happening in Lebanon.

Subject: RE: BS: Is Hezbollah Winning?
From: Slag
Date: 24 Aug 06 - 01:14 AM

OK. Very Good. We've had a nice debate that has run on and probably equals any debate at the UN. AND we have accomplished about as much as the UN. Now contestants, the time has come to cast your votes as to the question, "Is Hezbollah Winning?" We shall ignore the question of winning "WHAT?" and only focus on winning "WHERE?" If you think Hezbollah has won on the ground, put a YES by the number 1 (see below). If not, place a NO by your number 1.

If you believe that Hezbollah has won in the main-stream American media, place a YES by your number 2. If not then a NO by number 2.

Thirdly if you believe Hezbolla has carried the day at this Mudcat Thread, place a YES by the number 3. If not, then a NO by your number 3.

A word of caution to those who may be of the female gender who support the Hezbollah postion. Your are not allowed to vote. You are to remain ensconced in your burkahs with veil in place and keep silent.

1. NO
2. YES
3. NO

Subject: RE: BS: Is Hezbollah Winning?
From: Peace
Date: 24 Aug 06 - 01:16 AM

Jarema Wisniowiecki. Don't know why he seems to fit right into the present theme.

Subject: RE: BS: Is Hezbollah Winning?
From: GUEST,hugo
Date: 24 Aug 06 - 01:47 AM

I think you will find that very few women in Lebanon wear the burkha....that's worn in afghanistan which is several thousand miles further east.Just another example of the islamophobia among the zionist supporters on this site.Actually the Israels slaughtered christians,muslims and secularists during their invasion.
hugo

Subject: RE: BS: Is Hezbollah Winning?
From: Slag
Date: 24 Aug 06 - 02:36 AM

hugo, that last line WAS A JOKE! Get it? Don't be so serious. Grow a sense of humor and above all else vote!

Subject: RE: BS: Is Hezbollah Winning?
From: The Fooles Troupe
Date: 24 Aug 06 - 06:50 AM

This is a time of terror, no voting aloud.

Subject: RE: BS: Is Hezbollah Winning?
From: beardedbruce
Date: 24 Aug 06 - 08:01 AM

1. No
2. Yes
3. No

Subject: RE: BS: Is Hezbollah Winning?
From: bobad
Date: 24 Aug 06 - 08:14 AM

1. NO
2. YES
3. NO

"Jarema Wisniowiecki" Didn,t he play in the outfield for the Red Sox?

Subject: RE: BS: Is Hezbollah Winning?
From: Greg F.
Date: 24 Aug 06 - 09:20 AM

LOL! Fat Old Woody talking about "bullshitting gullible people"!!!

Subject: RE: BS: Is Hezbollah Winning?
From: Old Guy
Date: 24 Aug 06 - 01:59 PM

Hugo the expert on Lebanon:

Do the women vote in Lebanon?

Howcome Hezbollah goes around handing out those evil $100 US bills instead of Livres, Rials or Syrian Pounds?

Where did the $100 bills come from? Tehran or Syria?

Why is it necessary to doctor photos and fake "news" footage if the truth is so obvious?

Maybe you shoud read this book:
Pity the Nation: The Abduction of Lebanon
From Publishers Weekly
Fisk, a former Middle East correspondent for the London Times , details violence, sundry political factions, the 1982 invasion of Israel, the efforts of the multinational peace-keeping force and the taking of Western hostages. "A passionate and often angry book describing how Lebanon 'humiliated the West, brought shame upon Israel, corrupted the Syrians and destroyed itself,'

Subject: RE: BS: Is Hezbollah Winning?
From: dianavan
Date: 24 Aug 06 - 02:36 PM

Old Guy - The truth is that with digital photography, you can't believe any of the images you see anymore but you keep referring to
photos and fake "news" footage. Do you have proof of this or is this a general statement referring to all news coverage?

Subject: RE: BS: Is Hezbollah Winning?
From: Slag
Date: 24 Aug 06 - 02:47 PM

Come on Old Guy. You started a great thread but the time has come to cast your vote. We gotta clear the way for the next round and the subsequent debate: VOTE   VOTE    VOTE

Subject: RE: BS: Is Hezbollah Winning?
From: beardedbruce
Date: 24 Aug 06 - 04:12 PM

"14. Calls upon the Government of Lebanon to secure its borders and other entry points to prevent the entry in Lebanon without its consent of arms or related materiel and requests UNIFIL as authorized in paragraph 11 to assist the Government of Lebanon at its request;

15. Decides further that all States shall take the necessary measures to prevent, by their nationals or from their territories or using their flag vessels or aircraft:

(a) The sale or supply to any entity or individual in Lebanon of arms and related materiel of all types, including weapons and ammunition, military vehicles and equipment, paramilitary equipment, and spare parts for the aforementioned, whether or not originating in their territories; and

(b) The provision to any entity or individual in Lebanon of any technical training or assistance related to the provision, manufacture, maintenance or use of the items listed in subparagraph (a) above; except that these prohibitions shall not apply to arms, related material, training or assistance authorized by the Government of Lebanon or by UNIFIL as authorized in paragraph 11;"


http://en.wikisource.org/wiki/UN_Security_Council_Resolution/1701

Subject: RE: BS: Is Hezbollah Winning?
From: beardedbruce
Date: 24 Aug 06 - 04:14 PM

"Emphasizing the need for an end of violence, but at the same time emphasizing the need to address urgently the causes that have given rise to the current crisis, including by the unconditional release of the abducted Israeli soldiers,

Mindful of the sensitivity of the issue of prisoners and encouraging the efforts aimed at urgently settling the issue of the Lebanese prisoners detained in Israel,

Welcoming the efforts of the Lebanese Prime Minister and the commitment of the Government of Lebanon, in its seven-point plan, to extend its authority over its territory, through its own legitimate armed forces, such that there will be no weapons without the consent of the Government of Lebanon and no authority other than that of the Government of Lebanon, welcoming also its commitment to a United Nations force that is supplemented and enhanced in numbers, equipment, mandate and scope of operation, and bearing in mind its request in this plan for an immediate withdrawal of the Israeli forces from southern Lebanon,"

Subject: RE: BS: Is Hezbollah Winning?
From: Ron Davies
Date: 24 Aug 06 - 11:12 PM

BB--

Fine words, but as to the peace-keeping force which is supposed to oversee all this--and prevent a recurrence of war--Steven Colbert of all people hit pretty close to the mark, discussing the fact that France has pledged 400 soldiers.

"400 soldiers--ce n'est pas une Peace-Keeping Force."

But I also think Israel is foolish to raise yet more obstacles to the "peace-keeping force". The more soldiers--from any country---in this proposed multinational force which is to stand between Israel and Hezbollah, the better for Israel.

Subject: RE: BS: Is Hezbollah Winning?
From: Old Guy
Date: 24 Aug 06 - 11:30 PM

There have been dozens of articles about how footage is staged and photos have been altered to make things look bad in Lebanon.
If you havent seen it you must be blind. Remember the fact that Reuters canned someone who faked photos? Look at my posts of 08 Aug 06 - 08:21 &08:26 PM.

http://www.ouwet.com/n10452/personal-opinions/hizbullah-s-filthy-methods/

Hezbollahs Filthy Methods

For the past 11 days, we have seen Israel bomb all sorts of targets and I am sure most of us were wondering why would Israel bomb a certain factory or a construction yard or a truck..

If we can for a moment turn off all the local and international channels who have nothing to do but show little dead children and dismembered bodies that touch the viewer to a certain degree that it would blind them, and think about the reasons behind those hits.

From a military point of view, you have a fully equipped army, ranked in the top 5 armies in the world fighting against a guerrilla militia with absolutely no info on its fighters, weapons and locations.

Even though the Israeli army is way superior in terms of weapons, technology and size than Hezbollah, its war must be a very cautious and tactical one since its fighting a guerilla militia.

We have seen Israel for example hitting a tissue factory in a small village in the south. The reason for that would be Hezbollah move around with a missile in a truck, park near a factory and fire a rocket then flee. The origin of the rocket being the factory, Israelis respond by hitting it.

A witness to a similar action went on TV and urged Hezbollah fighters to stop coming into his village to shoot rockets and then run away since the village is being destroyed.

Same for the truck that was carrying civilians and that became very suspicious when it was not allowed to enter the UN offices.

Fighting a guerrilla is very hard and knowing that they could shoot from anywhere, we should expect attacks on unusual places.

Innocent people are dying this is true, but I believe the way Hezbollah is operating and its filthy methods in infiltrating villages and using them as launch positions is causing all those casualties.

Of course Israelis have hit bridges recklessly during the day killing innocent civilians trying to cross the bridge, but its war and you always have victims.

On the other hand, the party thats hitting civilians randomly and threatening innocent lives is Hezbollah who is launching rockets with no sense of direction whatsoever. I have seen rockets land on balconies, small cafes, walls… anything but military targets.

Finally, I heard that Hezbollah has accepted that the government negotiate on the prisoners fate today, therefore I hope that they realized they haven't achieved anything except self destruction politically and militarily and most of all the destruction of Lebanon and putting it in economical ruin for the next 5 years.

Subject: RE: BS: Is Hezbollah Winning?
From: Old Guy
Date: 25 Aug 06 - 12:08 AM

1. NO
2. Yes but not just American MSM
3. Can't figure out the question

Where is Hugo with the answers?

Subject: RE: BS: Is Hezbollah Winning?
From: GUEST,hugo
Date: 25 Aug 06 - 12:26 AM

It's fair to assume that if the Palestinians kidnapped John Prescott or Dick Cheney ,the govts of Britain and the US would unleash a storm of protest followed by a firestorm on anyone who defended the action.

Yet when Israeli Defence Force soldiers arrested the Palestinian deputy prime minister Nasser Shaer last weekend there was barely a whisper.The next day troops surrounded the home of Mahmoud Al Rahami _secretary general of the Palestinian Legislative Council _and detained him in broad daylight.

With these arrests five members of the Hamas led Palestinian cabinet and some 25 Hamas MPs are now in Israeli custody.

Even before the Lebanese war ,Israel was carrying out musrder.In July it the Israeli military killed 163 Palestinians in Gaza and 36 of those were children.
The number of Palestinian fatalities in July was the highest ofany month since april 2002
.
Having lost in Lebanon ,Israel is now punishing the Palestinians even further .
hugo

Subject: RE: BS: Is Hezbollah Winning?
From: Old Guy
Date: 25 Aug 06 - 12:55 AM

Not a single Answer from Hugo, Only more propaganda.

How does this sound Hugo Ol Pal:

"Throughout the years, the subject of Hezbollah has become somewhat taboo in Lebanon and ill speaking of the Party of God can, even to this very day, land you in a jail cell courtesy of the Military Intelligence service, or much worse, a bullet in the head ( Ten days after the beginning of the conflict, a major Lebanese broadcasting station announced that eighteen people were summarily executed by the Hezeb after having been accused of spying for Israel)."

The sad truth about Hezbollah tactics - a detailed follow up
I am writing it for several reasons, the main one to clear many misunderstandings created by my previous document, and also to shed more light as to why I am doing this.

In the following lines, I will try to describe in the best way possible, what is meant by the article.

I broke it down into three main parts to enable the reader to fully grasp the ideas I am trying to convey:

    * Who I am and a general background about me
    * Why I am doing this
    * The facts used to reach the conclusions

Firstly, let me introduce myself. I am a Lebanese citizen. I am a Christian, of Maronite confession.

For me, Lebanon comes first before anything else. This is how I was raised.

For close to two years, as a fighter in the Lebanese Forces, I resisted the Syrian plans to occupy the Christian sector of Beirut, then, when the inevitable happened and they finally took the whole country, I endured their occupation for nearly fifteen years, and resisted in the shadows alongside many of my fellow Lebanese brothers.

The last civil war that ravaged my country taught me a very important lesson, and that is, no foreign country wishes any good for Lebanon. They all seek to complete their own agendas, at the expense of the Lebanese people, regardless of religion:

    * The Arabs (Gulf and Egypt): after two unsuccessful wars against Israel, in 1967 and 1973, found it easier to fight Israel using Lebanon as a proxy
    * The Palestinians: after seeking refuge in Lebanon, they used it to launch attacks against Israel
    * The Americans: they usually made sure Israel's best interests were kept , and they also wanted to resist the spread of communism to the Middle East Region.
    * The Soviets mainly supported the Arab countries in their fight against Israel, as they saw it as an opportunity to export communism to the area.
    * The Israelis: even though they assisted the Christian militias in their fight against the Palestinians (PLO) from the mid seventies to the early eighties, they were doing so for their own benefits
    * The Syrians: many of them refuse to consider Lebanon as a free sovereign state and consider it a part of Syria. In 1976, they entered Lebanon as a peace keeping force and soon turned into an occupation force, an occupation that lasted to the year 2005.
    * The Iranians: after the Iranian revolution in the late seventies, they saw the Lebanese Shiites as a medium to expand their Islamic revolutionary ideologies and export them to the other countries.

It is important to note that there is a very big struggle between Iran and Saudi Arabia, a struggle that has its roots in the differences between the Shiite and the Sunni confessions dating back to the assassination of the grandson of the Prophet, Hussein ibn Ali by the Sunnis in Karbala' which is now in Iraq (around the 7th century AD)It is also important to note that throughout the Lebanese Civil war, many Lebanese militias and groups were supported by the different countries listed above, and finally that the war was actually an extrapolation of the Cold war that opposed at the time the two super powers, namely USA and the USSR.

A third point worth mentioning is that 1990, as a reward for its participation in the first Gulf war, Syria was given the green light by America to take over Lebanon. It was by agreement with Israel that Syrian planes flew over Beirut, for the first (and last time), to bombard Christian sectors thus opening the way for Syrian troops to advance.

Also, there has not been a single shot fired in the Golan heights which are originally Syrian but have been occupied by Israel since the six days war of 1967 and war of Yom Kippur in 1973.

So the reader can see why, as a Lebanese citizen, I look at any kind of foreign intervention or assistance with a great deal of skepticism and reluctance.

This said, I will now dive into the second section, which is why I condemn Hezbollah for its use of civilians as shields in the latest conflict that is ravaging Lebanon.

Firstly, I would like to stress that in no way is this a mea culpa or a form of attenuating the impact of my first article which ruffled some feathers among readers who support Hezbollah.

Another important point is that in this is not meant to help, assist, or excuse the Israeli actions. I consider their attack on Lebanon an infringement of Lebanese sovereignty and I demand that this useless bloodshed be stopped immediately.

All the Lebanese agree that there are more peaceful ways in solving the Hezbollah weapons issue, most important being that Syria officially acknowledges the Lebanese identity of the Shebaa Farms, thus allowing it to fall under the mandate of UN resolution 425, which would lead to Israel pulling its troops out, and removing any excuse for an armed resistance within the Lebanese territory.

Throughout the years, the subject of Hezbollah has become somewhat taboo in Lebanon and ill speaking of the Party of God can, even to this very day, land you in a jail cell courtesy of the Military Intelligence service, or much worse, a bullet in the head ( Ten days after the beginning of the conflict, a major Lebanese broadcasting station announced that eighteen people were summarily executed by the Hezeb after having been accused of spying for Israel).

Because of this, many of the party's actions are swept under the proverbial carpet, including the usage of civilians as shields. Had this topic been brought to the open, many lives would have been spared.

To further understand the modulus operandi of this armed faction, it is important to go deeper in their religious beliefs.

Shi'ite religion was founded as a cult of mourning around Hussein, the third Imam. It is dominated by black flags and veils, the ubiquity of mourning, penitence and death, a conspicuous enthusiasm for self-sacrifice, the celebration of suffering, the reverence for martyrdom and the veneration of individual martyrs.

The Shi'ite religion is rooted the concept that while each Shi'ite shares in guilt for the death of the martyrs, one can nevertheless find redemption through a properly repentant attitude - above all through the intercession of an Imam, that is to say: a martyr. And naturally also by following Hussein into martyrdom itself. [1]

Thus, for the Shi'ite, martyrdom is the key to heaven, and this is the main creed of the Hezbollah fighters who do not fear death on the battlefield, but rather seek it.

This is the main key behind the strength of the Party of God and behind their formidable standoff against the repeated onslaught of the Israeli army, and also the main key to understanding the concept of death for those people. To be killed in the war is an honor for them, be you a militant or a civilian.

The main form of fighting used by Hezbollah fighters is guerilla warfare. In fact they have no apparent bases, no barracks where they regroup or any of the standard military formation that is seen in most armies. As guerillas, they fight a mobile war based on hit and run operations. They know that a war of attrition is the worst kind of war Israel can endure and therefore make the most of it. They also know what kind of impact the death of civilians has on the international community and make use of it to the extreme.

I believe that enough has been said about the conflict in the different news medias, so I will not go into how it started or why.

I would like to concentrate more specifically on the latest incident, the massacre of Qana which took place on Sunday July 30, 2006 and where fifty-five civilians, thirty-seven of which were children, and the rest women, perished when a building that sheltered them was bombarded by the Israeli Air force.

In my previous article, I had discussed why, in my opinion, Hezbollah was to blame for this massacre although it was carried out by the IAF. Now, I will describe how, not only myself, but many other Lebanese, have come to this conclusion.

Firstly, as in any investigation, we have to ask the question "who benefits from this".

Although perpetuated by Israeli war planes, and the victims are Lebanese citizens, the beneficiary of this horrible deed is not Israel, this being for many reasons:

    * Despite the American green light, and the UN turning a blind eye, claiming that Israel has the right to defend itself, the Israeli attack on Lebanon was criticized by many communities world wide
    * Anti-Israeli sentiments, initially large among Arab communities, have grown even larger in the aftermath of the Qana tragedy.
    * Israel has much to gain in a swift, surgical victory over Hezbollah, and the longer the conflict lasts, the more innocent civilians are killed, the less surgical and precise the Israeli operation appears.

On the other hand, Hezbollah has a lot to gain in making the conflict last longer since:

    * It demonstrates its efficiency and might in battles lead on the ground.
    * It humiliates the IDF and at the same time, the Arab countries that initially criticized the abduction of the two soldiers in the cross border raid of July 12th. The reader recalls that the combined Arab armies were unable to defeat Israel in two wars.
    * The more civilians are hurt in the conflict, the greater the humiliation of IDF since it appears clumsy, inaccurate and unable to finish off a militia made up of a couple of thousand fighters, when its army counts around fifteen thousand soldiers
    * In addition, the higher the civilian casualty count leads to greater anti Israeli sentiments amongst the Lebanese population and other countries, specifically Arab Muslim ones and therefore to more support for the Hezbollah cause.
    * According to Israeli Foreign Minister Tzipi Livni, Israel's scope for political maneuvering had been reduced following the events in Qana, as was the amount of European support Israel is receiving for its operation in Lebanese soil[2]

Once the beneficiary has been established, we can move to the second point and that is the evidence on hand.

On the second day of the Israeli attack (July 13th 2006), an inhabitant of one of the southern villages called the Lebanese Broadcasting Cooperation to inform them about Hezbollah militants firing rockets at Israel from the center of the town. Israel retaliated by bombarding the location from which rockets were fired. Luckily, no casualties were reported.

As the days went by, more and more reports were coming from the South about how Hezbollah fighters would fire rockets from locations amidst civilian homes, causing retaliatory bombardment.

The reports came in shyly at first as many people feared retaliation from the fighters, and communications with the rest of the country were cut off by air raids.

But as refugees started to poor into the capital, the stories grew more concrete, yet all the people refused to talk in front of cameras or to be quoted.

The writer had interviewed many of those refugees and the stories told were shocking:

"They would come in on bikes, set up the launcher, fire and then disappear before the airplanes could arrive" said one man from a Christian border village.

"I start to shiver any time I hear a humming noise as it could either be an Israeli Drone plane filming the location in preparation for a raid or the bikes used by the fighters as they come in to shoot their rockets" said a young mother nursing her two month old infant…

A third witness told of how Hezbollah fighters had shaved their beards and come to live in with them in their houses:

"They would leave at sunset to go to the battle field and return at dawn to rest… until the mayor issued a curfew forbidding any one to leave their homes after 19:00h" he added, eyes looking around as if fearful that a word would have been heard by anyone.

"My two sons were shot at as they attempted to leave the town and were forced by the fighters to return to their home" all those reports told of people held prisoners in their own homes as the fighters hid among them.

Some international papers featured articles with pictures. Those papers included:

    * The New York Times, dated July 28th, had an article by Sabrina Tavernise about Hezbollah actions in a southern Christian village named Ain Ebel.
    * The Sunday Herald Sun in the July 30th edition ( ) which showed three pictures of Hezbollah using high-density residential areas as launch pads for rockets and heavy-calibre weapons.
    * The Guardian which featured an article about Hezbollah modulus operandi ()
    * CNN which showed footages obtained from cameras in drone and fighter planes that clearly indicated how civilian homes were used to hide rocket launchers
    * The Lebanese Forces Blog Site featured many articles describing the actions of Hezbollah guerillas and warning of carnages like the Qana massacre. Some articles include reports from one of the villages where those acts were commited.

Besides the above, it is very interesting to note that Sunni border villages like the village of Shebaa (not to be mistaken with Shebaa farms), where the presence of Hezbollah guerillas is not tolerated nor welcome, was virtually unharmed throughout the onslaught.

In terms of motives, what could have been the motives of the Party of God to commit such a horrible act?

Firstly there is the aspect of causing more humiliation to the IDF as well as provoking the international community into a stronger condemnation of the Jewish state.

But if one was to look closely at the timing of the operation, one would realize the magnitude horror and the cold calculations that took place:

On the nineteenth day, Hezbollah appeared to be making a heroic defense stance, warding off every single advancement attempt by the IDF, while demanding an unconditional cease fire.

For them, an immediate and unconditional cease fire would have been very beneficial since it would allow them to "catch their breath", rearm and reorganize and possibly make a comeback to the battlefield.

Yet, things were seen differently on the international scene.

The Lebanese government, along with the United Nations, had proposed a seven-point plan for the hostilities to cease. The plan was a total solution to the problem and not a simple request for cease fire. The major points were deployment of the army to the south, resolving the Shebaa farms issue, which would lead to the disarmament of Hezbollah.

At first, the plan was vehemently opposed by Hezbollah ministers and representatives, then, on the day following the announcement of the plan by Lebanese Premier Siniora (Thursday July 27th), Hezbollah declared that it supported the seven-point plan.

The declaration surprised many, yet was welcome as a sign of goodwill.

Three days later, the massacre occurred and Hezbollah declared that the seven-point plan was void, that they rejected any talks with Israel as long as there was no UNCONDITIONAL cease-fire. The region was back to square one.

So we have beneficiary, evidence as well as motives determined, I guess that we can clearly rest the case.

Let it be a lesson for the future, keeping silent about such wrong doings will only open the door to more massacres of innocent civilians.

http://www.ouwet.com/othello/other/the-sad-truth-about-hezbollah-tactics-a-detailed-follow-up/

Subject: RE: BS: Is Hezbollah Winning?
From: Old Guy
Date: 25 Aug 06 - 01:02 AM

Photos that damn Hezbollah

Chris Link July 30, 2006 Sunday Herald Sun

THIS is the picture that damns Hezbollah. It is one of several, smuggled from behind Lebanon's battle lines, showing that Hezbollah is waging war amid suburbia.

The images, obtained exclusively by the Sunday Herald Sun, show Hezbollah using high-density residential areas as launch pads for rockets and heavy-calibre weapons.

Dressed in civilian clothing so they can quickly disappear, the militants carrying automatic assault rifles and ride in on trucks mounted with cannon.

Subject: RE: BS: Is Hezbollah Winning?
From: dianavan
Date: 25 Aug 06 - 03:32 AM

Gee, Old Guy, do you think you could put that in your own words?

I didn't think so.

Aren't cut n' paste articles limited to under a page?

I thought so.

Subject: RE: BS: Is Hezbollah Winning?
From: Wolfgang
Date: 25 Aug 06 - 07:05 AM

But the site from which Old Guy copied the long article is quite interesting to have a look at and to read the different opinions:

Personal views and opinions of Lebanese forces members

(Lebanes Forces Wikipedia article about them so you know where this comes from. It's not the Lebanese army, it's a small Christian party and former militia)

Wolfgang

Subject: RE: BS: Is Hezbollah Winning?
From: beardedbruce
Date: 25 Aug 06 - 07:15 AM

"the long article is quite interesting to have a look at and to read the different opinions:"

dianavan has shown that she is not interested in different opinions- only those that agree with her preset judgements.

Subject: RE: BS: Is Hezbollah Winning?
From: The Fooles Troupe
Date: 25 Aug 06 - 07:29 AM

"Aren't cut n' paste articles limited to under a page?"

Not for those to who The Almighty speaks directly!


"threatening innocent lives is Hezbollah who is launching rockets with no sense of direction whatsoever."

I'm getting sick of this tired old line being dragged out all the time...

That is all they have, they don't have the luxury of Israel with billions of dollars of donated sophisticated weaponry So let them get some 'real weapons' like Israel has, then we'll see if they really WANT to 'target civilians'...


And I'm also getting sick of this tired old line being dragged out all the time...

"Dressed in civilian clothing so they can quickly disappear"

Uniforms COST MONEY better spent on whatever weapons they can get their hands on! It's a luxury they can't afford - you wanna donate to the 'buy a freedom fighter a uniform' fund?

"(pictures show them) using high-density residential areas as launch pads for rockets and heavy-calibre weapons."

So when you have nice expensive precise guided weaponry, you STILL need to carpet bomb 10 or more city residential blocks?



"Communism"

Us political code word for 'anybody with an independent mind who won't do what we want them to do, when we want them to do it'.

Subject: RE: BS: Is Hezbollah Winning?
From: beardedbruce
Date: 25 Aug 06 - 07:51 AM

"Dressed in civilian clothing so they can quickly disappear"

Uniforms COST MONEY better spent on whatever weapons they can get their hands on! It's a luxury they can't afford - you wanna donate to the 'buy a freedom fighter a uniform' fund?



A simple black band ( or other color) indicating affiliation with Hezbollah, and NOT REMOVED when being attacked would suffice. Too bad they can't do that, and that they hide behind women and children.


And they seem to have uniforms in all those pictures of them marching in parades, and shouting "Kill all the Jews"

Subject: RE: BS: Is Hezbollah Winning?
From: Old Guy
Date: 25 Aug 06 - 12:36 PM

AS has been said may times before, Joe has a larger screen than most people.

The main objection to this cut and paste is that it runs counter to what the liberals here want to see.

I think it is more dramatic an pertinent in the writer's own words, much better than I could do because I am not there.

This person might be a Christian but he is Lebanese and has the same rights to speak as other Lebanese.

It contains some anti America sentiment so you cannot claim it is completely biased.

Is there anything in my post that you can disprove? If so, have at it. Cut and paste gladly accepted.

Subject: RE: BS: Is Hezbollah Winning?
From: dianavan
Date: 25 Aug 06 - 12:39 PM

Old Man - It looks like Reuters is pretty vigilant about digitally enhanced photos but...

Like I said, you can't believe any of the photos you see because of our ability to manipulate the images.

Just because one or two have been caught, doesn't mean that all photographs of Lebanon, Israel, Darfut, etc. are fake but...

You have to take it with a grain of salt.

Its certainly not just one side that's doing the doctoring.

bb - I am tempted to use very foul language when replying to your insults but I'll just let you blather on so that everyone knows that you are unable consider the sanctity of human life, regardless of religion.

Subject: RE: BS: Is Hezbollah Winning?
From: Old Guy
Date: 25 Aug 06 - 01:05 PM

Are you going to threaten me with violence?

Seems to me all this Liberalisim leads to more death. Yeah, We should have pity on this killer and let him out of jail so he can kill some more.

Pregnant? We can't have that. Out out damned spot.

More than a few photos were faked. Now which photos from the "other side" have been doctored?

Which "side" has the footage showing the same old woman crying over the rubble of her house in two places? Did she own more than one house and both of them were destroyed?

Also do you know if women ca vote in Lebanon?

Subject: RE: BS: Is Hezbollah Winning?
From: beardedbruce
Date: 25 Aug 06 - 01:05 PM

"I'll just let you blather on so that everyone knows that you are unable consider the sanctity of human life, regardless of religion. "



Unlike some here, I do consider human life REGARDLESS OF RELIGION, sacred.





It seems that some here have a new "peace" song...


"All we are saying....
Is kill all the Jews.

( repaet forever.)"

Subject: RE: BS: Is Hezbollah Winning?
From: Old Guy
Date: 25 Aug 06 - 03:20 PM

IDF: Hizbullah may infiltrate Lebanese army
Ilan Marciano
Hezbollah in the Lebanese Army

There is nothing in the world anyone could do if Hezbollah's armed forced become a part of the Lebanese Army. Israel will have to swallow that pill, no matter how bitter. After all, the Hezbollah forces are Lebanese. One should not forget the fact that the PM of Lebanon has endorsed and praised Hezbollah for the resistance and sacrifice.

Nazim , Brussels, Belgium (08.15.06)
http://www.ynetnews.com/Ext/App/TalkBack/CdaViewOpenTalkBack/0,11382,L-3291682-2,00.html

Subject: RE: BS: Is Hezbollah Winning?
From: beardedbruce
Date: 25 Aug 06 - 05:10 PM

btw, from UNS1701

"Expressing its utmost concern at the continuing escalation of hostilities in Lebanon and in Israel
*********************************************************

since Hizbollah's attack on Israel on 12 July 2006,

*********************************************************

which has already caused hundreds of deaths and injuries on both sides, extensive damage to civilian infrastructure and hundreds of thousands of internally displaced persons,

Emphasizing the need for an end of violence, but at the same time emphasizing the need to address urgently the causes that have given rise to the current crisis,

**************************************************************

including by the unconditional release of the abducted Israeli soldiers,"
**************************************************************

Subject: RE: BS: Is Hezbollah Winning?
From: The Fooles Troupe
Date: 25 Aug 06 - 09:35 PM

"Joe has a larger screen than most people"

I have a 20GLsi 1280x1024...

post of 25 Aug 06 - 12:55 AM was MUCH bigger than just one screen...

Now if Joe wants to brag that his is bigger than mine, I'll buy him a beer if he can demonstrate in public...

Subject: RE: BS: Is Hezbollah Winning?
From: The Fooles Troupe
Date: 25 Aug 06 - 09:41 PM

Oh, should have added, not in winter...

Subject: RE: BS: Is Hezbollah Winning?
From: Slag
Date: 26 Aug 06 - 02:05 AM

Hey Old Guy, You gotta love dianavan's argument: ignore the content of the excellent, intelligent and informative article and criticize the fact that you didn't "follow the rules" concerning cut and paste. What happened to that old situational ethic? Oh, I forgot, rules are for the OTHER guy to follow, right out of Brother Marx and Lenin's manifesto.

Subject: RE: BS: Is Hezbollah Winning?
From: dianavan
Date: 26 Aug 06 - 02:30 AM

Whatsamatter, Slag, you can't stand on your own two feet? You wanta gang up with the Old Guy?

btw - I have nothing to say about the article. Maybe if he would try putting it in his own words...

...or just make a statement and back it up with a portion of the article.

I already get your point and quite frankly, you're both dogmatic authoritarians. I tolerate you but I don't have to agree with you.

Subject: RE: BS: Is Hezbollah Winning?
From: The Fooles Troupe
Date: 26 Aug 06 - 07:40 AM

I can't tolerate Intolerance - I think it's a slow boring movie.

Subject: RE: BS: Is Hezbollah Winning?
From: Ron Davies
Date: 26 Aug 06 - 09:25 AM

Some of you people do not like their fellow man--and I hate people like that.

Subject: RE: BS: Is Hezbollah Winning?
From: Wolfgang
Date: 26 Aug 06 - 09:29 AM

"To tell the truth, we were surprised by the seriousness and the large scale of the operation. We had expected that Israel would respond with one or two days of bombing, rstricted attacks on selected targets".

Naim Kassem (deputy leader of Hezbollah) in interview with Egyptian paper 'an-Nahar'

(my translation of a German translation)

Wolfgang

Subject: RE: BS: Is Hezbollah Winning?
From: Ron Davies
Date: 26 Aug 06 - 10:23 AM

That confirms my sources--Hezbollah miscalulated--but then so did Israel. And the latter was much more serious.


However, very intriguing column in the Wall St Journal yesterday. Though as a column it certainly has no pretense to objectivity, still I don't think all the quotes were made up. Therefore it seems clear that even within the Shiite community in Lebanon there's a split on the recent war--it's by no means endorsed by all Shiites in Lebanon.

Sayyed Ali-al-Amin called "the grand old man of Lebanese Shiism" in the article, states "The Shiite community never gave anyone the right to wage war in its name".

Mona Fayed, "a prominent Shiite academic in Beirut", in an article published last week, sarcastically defines a Shiite in Lebanon as "he who takes his instructions from Iran, terrorizes fellow believers into silence and leads the nation into catastrophe without
consulting anyone".

Even within Hezbollah there has been criticism. "Some in the political wing expressed dissatisfaction with his (Nasrallah's) overreliance on the movement's military and security apparatus. Speaking on condition of anonymity, they described Mr Nasrallah's style as "Stalinist"."

Nasrallah acted at the start of the war "without informing even the two Hezbollah ministers in the Siniora cabinet or the 12 Hezbollah members of the Lebanese cabinet".

And this is particularly fascinating: "Mr Nasrallah was also criticized for his acknowledgment of Ali Khamenei" (in Iran) " as Marjaa al Taglid (Source of Emulation", the highest theological authority in Shiism". "Many Lebanese resent this because Mr Khameni, a powerful politician but a lightweight in theological terms, is not recognized as Marjaa al-Taglid in Iran itself. The overwhelming majority of Lebanese Shiites regard Grand Ayatollah Ali Sistani, in Iraq, or Ayatollah Muhammed Hussein Fadhlallah, in Beirut, as their "Source of Emulation".

Of course all the quotes by specific people are from members of the intelligentsia. The question is how many Shiites would fit this description, and how many are just poor people. This is particularly significant since, according to the column, anybody who can prove his home was damaged in the war receives $12,000 "a tidy sum in wartorn Lebanon".

I suspect Hezbollah's diligence in taking care of such people--and its largess-- is helping counter a lot of possible resentment----especially since Israel played into Hezbollah's hands by bombing all over Lebanon.

Nonetheless it's interesting to hear of dissenting voices--even in the Lebanese Shiite community.

Subject: RE: BS: Is Hezbollah Winning?
From: Ron Davies
Date: 26 Aug 06 - 10:25 AM

"miscalculated"

Subject: RE: BS: Is Hezbollah Winning?
From: Old Guy
Date: 26 Aug 06 - 10:29 AM

Why does putting something into your own words make it more truthful?
It makes it more biased.
I think the writing of someone that has experienced something first hand to be the most pertinent and have more impact.

You can put things into your own words if you want but that does not change fiction into fact.

You might consider cut and paste as being lazy. I think it is laziness not to go out and look beyond what has been put into someone else's words and find something that is not biased.

When someone says "a few images were doctored" How do they know? Have they looked and read? Once you see faked images or staged news footage, a cautious person would distrust anything coming from that camp.

The stuff I find is either not being sought out and read by the Pro Hezbollans or it is being ignored if they find it.

I am constantly learning things as I search for real information.

I asked twice if Lebanese women can vote . There was no answer. Afraid to look? Don't care? To lazy to find out? Don't have the skills to find out? Afraid it will weaken you Pro Hizbollah stance?

If you notice I am not pro Isreal. I am anti any bunch of assholes who's stated purpose is to wipe out another race.

If you stand in that camp, you are not only a racist but a lunatic.

I dare you to read this
"Within a month of Nasrallah's taking over as leader, Hezbollah (with the help of Iranian intelligence) bombed the Israeli embassy in Buenos Aires, killing 29 and injuring over 200. The next attack perpetrated by Hezbollah—again with Iranian help—was the bombing of the Jewish community center in Buenos Aires, killing 86 and injuring over 200."

In the words of Nasrallah:

"If we searched the entire world for a person more cowardly, despicable, weak and feeble in psyche, mind, ideology and religion, we would not find anyone like the Jew. Notice, I do not say the Israeli." (New Yorker, Oct. 14, 2002)
"If they (Jews) all gather in Israel, it will save us the trouble of going after them worldwide. (Daily Star, Oct. 23, 2002)"
"The Palestinian National Charter will live on as long as there is a knife in a Palestinian woman's hand with which she stabs an Israeli soldier or settler ... as long as there are suicide bombers in Jerusalem and Tel Aviv ... and as long as there is a child who throws a stone in the face of an Israeli soldier. (AP, Dec. 12, 1998)"

Rather harsh words from someone whith Jewish ancestry wouldn't you say?

"Let the entire world hear me. Our hostility to the Great Satan [America] is absolute ...
    I conclude my speech with the slogan that will continue to reverberate on all occasions so that nobody will think that we have weakened. Regardless of how the world has changed after 11 September, Death to America will remain our reverberating and powerful slogan: Death to America. (BBC Monitoring: Al-Manar, Sep. 27, 2002)"

Should we send them some aid so they can use it to kill us?

I could go on and on but I have a window to replace.

Subject: RE: BS: Is Hezbollah Winning?
From: dianavan
Date: 26 Aug 06 - 11:22 AM

Putting something in your own words does not make it more truthful, Old Man. Its just easier to read. Condense the article in your mind, make a statement and back it up with a quote. Not everybody is going to read your lengthy cut n paste.

As far as news being biased or pictures being 'doctored', its not just one side doing it. Both sides do it.

Can women in Lebanon vote? I don't know. Its beside the point. Besides that, you don't want the answer because you already know. Since you know the answer, just make a statement, otherwise its a rhetorical question.

Subject: RE: BS: Is Hezbollah Winning?
From: Wolfgang
Date: 26 Aug 06 - 12:21 PM

from CIA world factbook (Lebanon):

Suffrage:
        
21 years of age; compulsory for all males; authorized for women at age 21 with elementary education

Wolfgang

Subject: RE: BS: Is Hezbollah Winning?
From: Ron Davies
Date: 26 Aug 06 - 12:33 PM

Wolfgang--

Danke tausendmal. Great idea. I've now bookmarked the CIA World Factbook. Facts are always useful--even if some would rather just spout rhetoric.

Subject: RE: BS: Is Hezbollah Winning?
From: Wolfgang
Date: 26 Aug 06 - 01:02 PM

Yes, the factbook is usually reliable.
(I bet they have a much larger version only accessible with a password)

I often turn to it for instance for the English names of countries and, in particular, of the inhabitants. My guesses in cases like 'Ivory Coast' are too often wrong.

But they have gaps. One example (just to remain in the area dealt with in this thread): They don't give a noun how to call the inhabitants of 'Gaza Strip'. In an old thread, I wrote that 'Gaza strippers' sounds good to me. More seriously, I'd call them Palestinians. The Factbook doesn't know that.

Wolfgang (asking himself whether the inhabitants of the Holy See are called Holy Seers, another deplorable gap in the factbook)

Subject: RE: BS: Is Hezbollah Winning?
From: Ron Davies
Date: 26 Aug 06 - 01:18 PM

"Gaza Strippers" and "Holy Seers"--I love it.   Wolfgang, Sie sind eine echte Freude (besser wirkliche?.)

Subject: RE: BS: Is Hezbollah Winning?
From: Wolfgang
Date: 26 Aug 06 - 01:48 PM

Ron, both are possible, 'echte' is a tiny bit better ('wahre Freude' would be another possibility). But I'd expect the familiar 'Du' instead of 'Sie'.
(When to use 'Du' or 'Sie' is a very difficult problem in German and the unwritten rules change locally and with time)

Wolfgang

Subject: RE: BS: Is Hezbollah Winning?
From: Ron Davies
Date: 26 Aug 06 - 02:09 PM

Wolfgang--

Thanks, I didn't realize if I could use the Du form with you--I've been told, when in doubt be conservative on that--don't assume familiarity.

Gee, I think I've committed egregious "thread creep".

Subject: RE: BS: Is Hezbollah Winning?
From: dianavan
Date: 26 Aug 06 - 02:39 PM

Gaza Strippers could be called Gazanians.

Subject: RE: BS: Is Hezbollah Winning?
From: The Fooles Troupe
Date: 26 Aug 06 - 08:10 PM

"I am constantly learning things as I search for real information."

Which means that you cannot ever cling indefinitely to any particular starting position - new things learnt affect old things already known, throwing them into a a new light of reintrepertation.


"find something [on the internet] that is not biased."

You are having a lend of us? Everything said by anyone contains their own personal biases.


"I could go on and on but I have a window to replace. "

But you DO, and you shouldn't provoke your neighbours to throw stones then...

Subject: RE: BS: Is Hezbollah Winning?
From: Old Guy
Date: 27 Aug 06 - 01:06 AM

"Both sides do it." I have presented the evidence of one side, whatever side that is, of faked photos and footage coming out if Lebanon. Where is your evidence of faked photos coming from the other side, who ever that is?

You can't even say which side you are talking about much less provide any proof.

You don't want to read the cut and pastes because the contents makes you wrong. Others read them and like the contents.

Tell me, If you had a son, would you send him off to be a suicide bomber?

If you had children would you be a suicide bomber ourself and leave your children for "Allah" to take care of?

Subject: RE: BS: Is Hezbollah Winning?
From: dianavan
Date: 27 Aug 06 - 01:56 AM

I immigrated to Canada so that my son would not be drafted by the U.S. government.

I am not an uneducated, poverty stricken, Muslim woman who's only hope is Allah. In her circumstances, I don't know what I'd do.

Subject: RE: BS: Is Hezbollah Winning?
From: The Fooles Troupe
Date: 27 Aug 06 - 04:43 AM

Logical fallacies...

"Others read them and like the contents"

1: SOME read them ...

2: SOME like the contents...

3: the two sets above do not form a unique single cojoined set...

Subject: RE: BS: Is Hezbollah Winning?
From: The Fooles Troupe
Date: 27 Aug 06 - 04:55 AM

4: the two sets, whether cojoined or not, do not constitute the whole UOD.

Subject: RE: BS: Is Hezbollah Winning?
From: Old Guy
Date: 27 Aug 06 - 01:09 PM

Factual falacies: There is no draft.

"Others read them and like the contents"

If you can find fault with this statement is is because you don't have any facts to present. Where is the faked photos from the others side and what is the other side?

Subject: RE: BS: Is Hezbollah Winning?
From: Old Guy
Date: 27 Aug 06 - 01:19 PM

PS:

You can use all the foul languge you want. This is America and free speech is protected, unlike the countries and ideologies you are supporting.

And why didn't you move to Lebanon or Iran to protect your son from the non existant draft?

Are you afraid he might then become a suicide bomber?

Subject: RE: BS: Is Hezbollah Winning?
From: dianavan
Date: 27 Aug 06 - 01:53 PM

Old Guy -

You make an awful lot of assumptions.

When I moved to Canada, there was a draft in the U.S. Iran also had a draft. I don't know about Lebanon. Why would I want to move to the Middle East? Are you stupid?

Do you have a son? Has he enlisted? Has anyone in your family enlisted?

Any photo can be digitally enhanced. I look at all photos with that in mind.

Subject: RE: BS: Is Hezbollah Winning?
From: Ron Davies
Date: 27 Aug 06 - 02:03 PM

Mr Guy--

Yup, you can use all the foul language you want--and it says worlds about your intelligence, poverty of vocabulary and bankruptcy of your position.

Subject: RE: BS: Is Hezbollah Winning?
From: Peace
Date: 27 Aug 06 - 02:15 PM

He asked for faked photos from the 'other side', meaning Israel. That's a fair question.

Subject: RE: BS: Is Hezbollah Winning?
From: Old Guy
Date: 27 Aug 06 - 02:22 PM

I have 2 sons. They went to military school and were part of the ROTC but my Jello Brain ex wife convinced them to drop out.

I had 2 brothers in the Navy. I and another brother were 4F. I think my dad was 4F for some reason.

Now where are those examples of digitally altered photos from "the other side" what ever that is?

What you fail to understand that if those poor Plaestininas and Lebanese would forget their genocidal doctrine and join the modern world, their problems could be solved. They are their own worst enemy.

Do you think your flailing around in defence of them will help them? Face reality. The reality is terrorisim is bad and it will lead nowhere.

Their leaders have them convinced that their life is not worth living because "the enemy" will never allow them to have a good life. Therefore they are better off dead. They will be honored as a
Martyr and they will benefit those still alive.

The Hezbollah in Lebanon *WANT* civilians to be killed by Israel for their propaganda war.

Meanwhile the PA steals money given as aid for the Palestinians. Yasser Arafat stold billions and now his lovely wife Suha is living high on the hog Paris. How come she is not strapping on a suicide vest? If ever there was an instance of the haves exploiting the have nots, it is amongst the terrorists and their leaders

You can go along supporting that position if you want but I think it is a disservice to them and ultimately lead to more deaths than a rejection of terrorist tactics and sentiment.

Subject: RE: BS: Is Hezbollah Winning?
From: Ron Davies
Date: 27 Aug 06 - 04:18 PM

Old Guy-

If Hezbollah wants civilians to be killed by Israel, in order to serve their propaganda interests, why do you suppose Israel is so stupid as to comply with this wish of Hezbollah?

Subject: RE: BS: Is Hezbollah Winning?
From: Peace
Date: 27 Aug 06 - 04:22 PM

If the UN decides that there was targetting of civilians--understand that to me the intentional targetting of civilians with the intent to kill them specifically--the first letter I send will be to Israel calling the IDF a bunch of fucking butchers.

However, that's to find out. I think some of you here have no bloody morals at all. You pass over intentional targetting by Hezbollah of Israeli citizens like it means nothing. For those of you who do, a pox on your house.

Subject: RE: BS: Is Hezbollah Winning?
From: Ron Davies
Date: 27 Aug 06 - 04:39 PM

Obviously, Hezbollah has no morals when it comes to attacking civilians. I don't believe they ever claimed they did. Then there is also the question of whether the Hezbollah rockets could be precisely targeted, even if Hezbollah wanted to. It appears not--otherwise Hezbollah might have been more careful, for instance, not to kill the (Palestinian?) workers in the orchard in Israel.

Subject: RE: BS: Is Hezbollah Winning?
From: Peace
Date: 27 Aug 06 - 04:42 PM

I just sent an e-mail to Amnesty asking when their report about Hezbollah war crimes will be out. They were quick enough to jump on Israel. I will post their response when and if.

Subject: RE: BS: Is Hezbollah Winning?
From: The Fooles Troupe
Date: 27 Aug 06 - 09:45 PM

"my Jello Brain ex wife "

... not as dumb as you thought she was, then, eh? :-)


"I think my dad was 4F for some reason."

Seems as if there is hope for some of your descendents....


"I and another brother were 4F."

Ah - explains the 'gung-ho kill-em-all' attitude then...


"Now where are those examples of digitally altered photos from "the other side" what ever that is?"

With very skilled people, and the latest equipment - after all they are much more civilised, and richer and more technically advanced than their 'cave-squatting sheep-herding monkeys' antagonists, how would us poor ignorant uneducated slobs ever KNOW?


"What you fail to understand that if those poor Palestinians and Lebanese would forget their genocidal doctrine and join the modern world, their problems could be solved. They are their own worst enemy."

There, that step wasn't so hard was it? What you fail to understand is that they are demonstrating the same attitude as many of those whom they are 'targeting', and those cheering on their 'opponents'.

Old World - Kill-em-all
New World - Love thy enemies

Subject: RE: BS: Is Hezbollah Winning?
From: number 6
Date: 27 Aug 06 - 10:02 PM

I also posted this link in the voice for peace in Israel thread ... but regardless it should pertain to this thread ...

Subject: RE: BS: Is Hezbollah Winning?
From: number 6
Date: 27 Aug 06 - 10:03 PM

sorry ... here's the link.

Hassan Nasrallah is sorry


sIx

Subject: RE: BS: Is Hezbollah Winning?
From: Old Guy
Date: 27 Aug 06 - 10:38 PM

Well the obvious reason is because their people were being killed and they wanted it stopped. They did stop it. It is up to intelligent people to see through the Hezbollah propaganda. and realize that most of those civilian casualties were the result of them using civilians and human shields.

Nasrallah:

"We do not want to...leave our homeland to Israel... Therefore, we are not interested in our own personal security. On the contrary, each of us lives his days and nights hoping more than anything to be killed for the sake of Allah. (MEMRI: Al-Manar TV , Feb. 18-19, 2005)"

Subject: RE: BS: Is Hezbollah Winning?
From: The Fooles Troupe
Date: 27 Aug 06 - 11:05 PM

It is up to intelligent people to see through the Hezbollah propaganda.

It is up to intelligent people to see through the Israeli propaganda.

It is up to intelligent people to see through the US propaganda.

It is up to intelligent people to see through the Russian propaganda.

It is up to intelligent people to see through the Chinese propaganda.

It is up to intelligent people to see through the Korean propaganda.

It is up to intelligent people to see through the Iranian propaganda.

It is up to intelligent people ...

Subject: RE: BS: Is Hezbollah Winning?
From: number 6
Date: 27 Aug 06 - 11:32 PM

It is up to intelligent people to realize that posting to this thread is just a waste of time.

Subject: RE: BS: Is Hezbollah Winning?
From: The Fooles Troupe
Date: 27 Aug 06 - 11:42 PM

This is a WORN thread...

Write Once, Read Never...

Subject: RE: BS: Is Hezbollah Winning?
From: Old Guy
Date: 27 Aug 06 - 11:46 PM

Nasrallah in that BBC article looks and sounds like a perfectly innocent old man that wouldn't harm a flea.

However at other times he says:

"Martyrdom operations - suicide bombings - should be exported outside Palestine. I encourage Palestinians to take suicide bombings worldwide. Don't be shy about it. (Washington Times, Dec. 6, 2002)".

"Hezbollahhas served as a role model for terror groups around the world ... Al Qaeda learned the value of choreographed violence from Hezbollah "

"put a knife in your shirt, then get close to an Israeli occupier and stab him." (Nightline, Oct. 19, 2000)"

Subject: RE: BS: Is Hezbollah Winning?
From: The Fooles Troupe
Date: 28 Aug 06 - 07:56 AM

Better keep your mouth shut and to be thought a terrorist, than to open it and remove all doubt.

Subject: RE: BS: Is Hezbollah Winning?
From: beardedbruce
Date: 01 Sep 06 - 02:13 PM

"Nasrallah's admission, vastly underplayed in the West, makes clear what the Lebanese already knew. Hezbollah may have won the propaganda war, but on the ground it lost. Badly.

True, under the inept and indecisive leadership of Ehud Olmert, Israel did miss the opportunity to militarily destroy Hezbollah and make it a non-factor in Israel's security, Lebanon's politics and Iran's foreign policy. Nonetheless, Hezbollah was seriously hurt. It lost hundreds of its best fighters. A deeply entrenched infrastructure on Israel's border is in ruins. The great hero has had to go so deep into hiding that Nasrallah has been called "the underground mullah."

Most important, Hezbollah's political gains within Lebanon during the war have proved illusory. As the dust settles, the Lebanese are furious at Hezbollah for provoking a war that brought them nothing but devastation -- and then crowing about victory amid the ruins.

The Western media were once again taken in by the mystique of the "Arab street." The mob came out to cheer Hezbollah for raining rockets on Israel -- surprise! -- and the Arab governments that had initially criticized Hezbollah went conveniently silent. Now that the mob has gone home, Hezbollah is under renewed attack -- in newspapers in Saudi Arabia, Kuwait and Egypt, as well as by many Lebanese, including influential Shiite academics and clan leaders. The Arabs know where their interests lie. And they do not lie with a Shiite militia that fights for Iran."

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/08/31/AR2006083101444.html

Subject: RE: BS: Is Hezbollah Winning?
From: beardedbruce
Date: 01 Sep 06 - 02:14 PM

"Which is why the expected Round Two will, in fact, not happen. Hezbollah is in no position, either militarily or politically, for another round. Nasrallah's admission that the war was a mistake is an implicit pledge not to repeat it, lest he be completely finished as a Lebanese political figure.

The Lebanese know that Israel bombed easy-to-repair airport runways when it could have destroyed the new airport terminal and set Lebanon back 10 years. The Lebanese know that Israel attacked the Hezbollah TV towers when it could have pulverized Beirut's power grid, a billion-dollar reconstruction. The Lebanese know that the next time, Israel's leadership will hardly be as hesitant and restrained. Hezbollah dares not risk that next time."

Subject: RE: BS: Is Hezbollah Winning?
From: bobad
Date: 01 Sep 06 - 03:09 PM

Yesterday's "Talk Of The Nation" program on NPR discussed the war in Lebanon from the perspective of Arab Americans. I didn't catch the entire show but one snippet I did catch was a Lebanese-American telling about how his uncle's 100 unit apartment building in Lebanon was destroyed by Israel's bombing.

The part that surprised me was that his uncle had sympathy for Israel and layed the entire blame on Hezbollah (contrary to what the propagandists have been spinning). He told about how Hezbollah set up their rockets in proximity to his apartment building and would ride up on scooters, fire them off the take off on their scooters knowing full well that the Israeli's would bomb the location and civilian structures would be hit.

I suspect that many more Lebanese have the same opinion of Hezbollah but are afraid to voice it for fear of retribution.

The program can be heard here

Subject: RE: BS: Is Hezbollah Winning?
From: Lepus Rex
Date: 01 Sep 06 - 08:33 PM

As both Lebanese-American guests on the TOTN episode commented, the "Lebanese-American" caller (beginning at 17:16) pronounced "Hezbollah" in an Israeli fashion. Yanno, the one where anyone within five feet is splattered with phlegm. And he didn't even take a crack at at Mr. Siblani's last name, calling him instead "Osama I'm sorry I forgot his last name." Yeah, that dude was "Lebanese." :P

---Lepus Rex

Subject: RE: BS: Is Hezbollah Winning?
From: bobad
Date: 01 Sep 06 - 08:41 PM

That's it, shoot the messenger - if you can't refute the facts discredit the presenter - a tired old ploy.

Subject: RE: BS: Is Hezbollah Winning?
From: Lepus Rex
Date: 01 Sep 06 - 10:10 PM

Well, when the messenger is claiming to be Lebanese, but is clearly not, uh, yeah, I'll go ahead and "shoot" him. Nothing about him, from his name ("Babado"?!) to his pronunciation ("Chhhhhhhizbollah") to his apparent hatred of Arabs, seemed very "Lebanese," to me. And at the end, when he goes all frothy and starts babbling about... "a culture of death and murder." Typical right-wing Israeli/American bullshit. As if a Lebanese-American, with relatives who've had their properties destroyed by Israel, would use common right-wing blogspeak to describe his people.

But most impotantly, there's his claim that his uncle's properties in Beirut were used by Hezbollah to fire rockets... Rockets? Beifuckingrut? Rockets weren't being fired into Israel from Beirut. They were being fired from southern Lebanon. Beirut... The rockets they were firing don't have that kind of range. In other words, the dude was lying. Look it up, stupid.

---Lepus Rex

Subject: RE: BS: Is Hezbollah Winning?
From: GUEST
Date: 03 Sep 06 - 06:28 AM

"But most impotantly, there's his claim that his uncle's properties in Beirut were used by Hezbollah to fire rockets... Rockets? Beifuckingrut? Rockets weren't being fired into Israel from Beirut. They were being fired from southern Lebanon. Beirut... The rockets they were firing don't have that kind of range. In other words, the dude was lying. Look it up, stupid. "


Well, having looked it up, it seems that Israel DID target missle launches from Beirut and point farther north. Hebollah and a limited number of longer range raclkets, courtesy of Iran, and threatened to use them- Remember? The destruction of those much larger missles was a top priority to the Israelis, as they threatened civilians as far from Lebanon as Tel Aviv. ( 100 KM+ range, 1200KG warheads)

So who is it that is lying?

Subject: RE: BS: Is Hezbollah Winning?
From: GUEST,Sandy Duppleburg All American.
Date: 03 Sep 06 - 06:56 AM

Thank God everything is back to normal In Iraq, Afghanistan, and Lebanon, and this weary trooper can return to the good old USA.

Subject: RE: BS: Is Hezbollah Winning?
From: Lepus Rex
Date: 03 Sep 06 - 01:32 PM

Oh, yeah. Israel targeted all sorts of things in Beirut and "point(s) farther north," GUEST, some of which it claimed were rockets and rocket launchers. And yeah, Hezbollah supposedly has some longer-range rockets that can reach Tel Aviv. But... and I'm put this in bold so you notice it... they didn't fucking launch those rockets into Israel. They launched nothing into Israel from Beirut, and no one, except you, bobad, and the similarly-named "Babado" (hmm) are claiming they did. Again, look it the fuck up. No-one.

Oh, sometimes it hurts to be stupid, doesn't it, GUEST? Especially when you out-stupid bobad.

---Lepus Rex

Subject: RE: BS: Is Hezbollah Winning?
From: Peace
Date: 03 Sep 06 - 02:05 PM

The war in Lebanon and Israel got nothin' on us . . . .

Subject: RE: BS: Is Hezbollah Winning?
From: GUEST
Date: 03 Sep 06 - 03:59 PM

Lepus Rex has a history of supporting Islamic terrorists (not to mention his pathological hatred of America, Israel, Jews, etc.) on Mudcat that goes right back to September 11, 2001, if not before.

Subject: RE: BS: Is Hezbollah Winning?
From: Lepus Rex
Date: 03 Sep 06 - 10:35 PM

Pfft. Care to cite any examples of my Jew-hatin', pro-terrorist ways, GUEST? Yeah, didn't think so. Don't be such a fucking sore loser.

---Lepus Rex

Subject: RE: BS: Is Hezbollah Winning?
From: bobad
Date: 04 Sep 06 - 10:59 AM

New anti-Semitism
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Fischel cites the French philosopher Pierre-André Taguieff who argues, in Rising From the Muck: The New Anti-Semitism in Europe (2002), that over the last 30 years, Judenhass based on racism and nationalism has been replaced by a new form based on anti-racism and anti-nationalism, wherein "among the left, Israel has come to personify the pre-eminent apartheid state." [12] Taguieff argues that traditional anti-Jewish slogans have been merged with anti-Zionist rhetoric to create a syllogism:

    * Jews are all more or less crypto-Zionists.
    * Zionism is a form of colonialism, imperialism and racism.
    * Therefore Jews are colonialists, imperialists and racists, whether overt or covert. [12]

Fischel argues that the widespread dissemination of these arguments has resonated with intellectuals in France and Germany, both countries with large Muslim populations. By representing Zionism as evil, "an anti-Jewish vision of the world reconstituted itself in the second half of the 20th century that replicates the vicious stereotypes about Jews which laid the propagandistic groundwork for the Holocaust." [10]

Subject: RE: BS: Is Hezbollah Winning?
From: Old Guy
Date: 04 Sep 06 - 11:56 AM

http://www.debka.com/headline.php?hid=3109

DEBKAfile Exclusive: Israeli Air Force builds up presence in Beirut skies Sunday night to pre-empt long-range Iranian-made Zelzal missile launch against Tel Aviv

August 13, 2006, 11:20 PM (GMT+02:00)

Our military sources report that the night before the Monday morning 0800 hours ceasefire deadline, Hizballah crews were sighted preparing to fire one of those heavy missiles which can reach central Israel and the Tel Aviv conurbation. After a brief consultation with security officials, prime minister Ehud Olmert decided not to place Tel Aviv on prior alert, although the air force aborted two Hizballah drones packed with explosives en route to Tel Aviv.

One of the drones was intercepted over the Mediterranean opposite the Israeli town of Nahariya heading for Tel Aviv. A second fired from Tyre in southern Lebanon crashed into the sea shortly after its launch.

Civilians of northern Israel are advised to stay in shelters Sunday night and until further notice, not to rely on the ceasefire going into effect Monday at 0800. No one knows what Hizballah will do.

Sunday, Aug. 13, Hizballah fired a record barrage of 252 rockets. An elderly man was killed in Yaara, 3 civilians were seriously injured in the Haifa region, 11 in Safed and 5 in Shlomi.

Five Khaibar-1 missiles hit the Beit Shean and Jezreel valleys south of Haifa. The port city and it's the bayside suburbs took a beating. Many buildings and vehicles caught fire.

Subject: RE: BS: Is Hezbollah Winning?
From: pdq
Date: 04 Sep 06 - 12:31 PM

When I was a kid, Lebanon was listed in text books as a Christian country. Now it is Moslem.

Here are two possible explanations:

               1) A those sorry li'l Christians 'saw the light' and converted to Islam.

               2) The Christians were driven from Lebanon or murdered by Moslems.

Subject: RE: BS: Is Hezbollah Winning?
From: GUEST
Date: 04 Sep 06 - 01:48 PM

A secret document leaked by the Pentagon indicates that they have a nonviolent method to end the Middle East. Not the war, the Middle East.

In a document discovered by ***** ******* just two days ago, the Pentagon has said it will be making emulsions from hogs and aerial spraying the entire Middle East. It is expected that everyone with a religion that prohibits ingesting pork will have to move elsewhere for a period of years. There is expected to be a housing crisis of a magnitude never witnessed before. If you invest in the stock market, keep your eye on hog futures. And the construction trades.

Subject: RE: BS: Is Hezbollah Winning?
From: pdq
Date: 04 Sep 06 - 01:55 PM

That brings a whole new meaning the the phrase "pork barrel politics".

Subject: RE: BS: Is Hezbollah Winning?
From: robomatic
Date: 04 Sep 06 - 02:36 PM

While we're on the subject of fake news breaks, I was listening to a year-old recording off of the radio where one of those irritating predicters of imminent disaster was being interviewed. He was displaying a lot of the mannerisms of the professional prophet of doom, but right in the middle of his argument that suitcase nukes existed, were on the market and were going to be used in the near future, he came out with: "Iran has given Hizbollah the green light to open a northern front against Israel. They have 13,000 rockets."

Subject: RE: BS: Is Hezbollah Winning?
From: Lepus Rex
Date: 04 Sep 06 - 05:27 PM

Bobado: So... since you're answering my posts to him/her now, can I assume that was you posting as the GUEST that was defending you in those recent exchanges with me, then?

As for the content of your last post... so what? What does that have to do with me? Taguieff claims, and I'd agree to some extent, that anti-Zionist views have been co-opted by anti-"Semitic" people and groups to make their racism more palatable to a wider audience. And? Where have I ever expressed a hatred of Jews, or even Israelis? Go ahead, check. Well, as I know you're so very, very lazy, I'll save you the time: As I recall, my only comment on my wishes for the future of Israel and the Israeli's are here. And that's still my view, five years later. I wouldn't want to see a single hair on their fuzzy little heads damaged, Bobado. Sorry to disappoint.

Besides, Israel barely cracks my top-five list of colonialist nations I'd like to see dismantled. If you are going to wrongly accuse me of being anti-anything, make it Chinese or Russian, please. They're tied for one and two.

Again, don't be such a sore loser. Calling me a racist just because I outed you as the kind of wanker who calls into a national radio show with a false name and identity, makes some ridiculous claims, and then posts to his favourite web forum the next day about this hot young firecracker he heard on the radio, check him out, he's the future of the Middle East!!! Yeah, that's just cheap. Get over it, and back the fuck down.

pdq: Really? Those are the only two ways a Muslim majority (split into three main branches) could arise in Lebanon? Not, as actually is the case in Lebanon, by Muslims, particularly those from the the poor Shi'a underclass, having a much higher birth rate than Lebanese Christians, out-breeding them since those far-distant days of your boyhood? Or could the fact that the Christian population, with their extensive contacts in the West, had more options for emigration during the civil war have anything to do with it? Yeaaaahh. I mean, fuck, dude, it's not as if Christians no longer exist in Lebanon. They're still one of the largest and most important groups (or collection of groups) in the country (note the president of Lebanon, who by law must be a Maronite), making up, like, 30-40% of the population. There's not fewer of them than when you were a kid, there's more. Their population just hasn't grown at the same rate as that of the assorted Muslims.

Lebanon isn't "Muslim," and it isn't "Christian." It's a piece of land, and it's populated by both. It is now, and it was when you were young. Why are you people so willfully lazy? Why can't you look this shit up? It's all... all of it, anything you could possibly care to know, right there, on your screen, just a few clicks away. Why don't you just... try?

robomatic: Dude, you're here? You should totally whip out that "Israeli Occupation of Arab Land" link again! Yanno, the one that lists Armenia and Tajikistan as "Arab Countries? That shit's classic!

Subject: RE: BS: Is Hezbollah Winning?
From: Peace
Date: 04 Sep 06 - 05:30 PM

Religions: Sunni Muslim 85%, Shi'a Muslim 5%

From the CIA Fact Book regarding Tajikistan. Arab is the wrong term. Muslim is the right term. It happens.

Subject: RE: BS: Is Hezbollah Winning?
From: bobad
Date: 04 Sep 06 - 07:50 PM

"As I recall, my only comment on my wishes for the future of Israel and the Israeli's are here. "

From: Lepus Rex - PM
Date: 01 Apr 02 - 03:19 PM

"scrap the Apartheid state of Israel"

From: Lepus Rex - PM
Date: 21 Sep 01 - 03:00 AM

"the Zionists to steal huge portions of it from the natives and set up a "Jewish State" there. "

From: Lepus Rex - PM
Date: 21 Sep 01 - 12:29 AM

"Ultimately, Israel as we know it, like all the previous Crusader States, is doomed. "

"Israel will be a "Jewish State" in the same way that Apartheid-era South Africa could have been called a "White State."

From: Lepus Rex - PM
Date: 20 Sep 01 - 05:21 PM

"I happen to consider myself pro-Palestinian and anti-Israel,"

From: Lepus Rex - PM
Date: 20 Sep 01 - 03:27 AM

"I use 'anti-Jewish' or 'anti-Judaic,' myself."

From: Lepus Rex - PM
Date: 14 Sep 04 - 01:59 PM

"I'm strongly anti-Israel"

Subject: RE: BS: Is Hezbollah Winning?
From: Lepus Rex
Date: 04 Sep 06 - 09:35 PM

Heh. Well, Bobado, for the record, the comment I linked to in my last post went like this:

Subject: RE: Anti-semitic and inflammatory editorial
From: Lepus Rex - PM
Date: 21 Sep 01 - 12:29 AM

Ooh, I forgot about this thread...

Well, Deda, religious homelands (like Pakistan and Israel) are anachronisms, I think, and have no place in our modern world. The "'land' of diaspora" is where the majority of the Jews live already, and where the majority will continue to live.

That said, I'd like to see (if I could wave my magic wand, *poof*) a secular, multicultural state in Israel's place, where Jews and Arabs could live happily ever after...

Since I don't have a magic wand, though... Ultimately, Israel as we know it, like all the previous Crusader States, is doomed. The Israeli Arabs and the Palestinians have higher birthrates than the Israeli Jews, and it won't be long before they are the majority within the legally recognised borders of Israel and in the Occupied Territories (even without a 'right of return' for Palestinian refugees). When that happens, Israel will be a 'Jewish State' in the same way that Apartheid-era South Africa could have been called a 'White State.' Hopefully, the natives will be more pleasant to the Israeli Jews than the Israeli Jews were to them. But with Israel's continued terrorism and slow-motion genocide, that's unlikely, I think.

I'm wondering, Deda, since you seem to be pro-Israeli (Maybe I'm wrong): Do you also support an independent Khalistan for the Sikhs, who are twice as numerous as the Jews? How about nations just for the Zoroastrians, Mormons, or Asatrúar? Or, especially, maybe one for the Roma diaspora? Just a dumb question I like to hear the answer to. :)

And Troll, OK, SPECIFICALLY, I meant 'the modern state of Israel.' :)

---Lepus Rex

Everything you've since quoted, or selectively quoted bits of, is in line with those statements. Yes, I oppose the existence the "Jewish state" of Israel, which I consider to be a Western colony. But never have I expressed a desire to see the people of Israel harmed, or even expelled from Palestine.

The way you mis-quoted me, by the way, was despicable. Here's the actual, full quotes that you twisted, with blue clickies, which you must have "forgotten" to add to your post...

1. Bobado's Quote: "scrap the Apartheid state of Israel"

Actual Quote: "(So {waving my magic wand}, scrap the Apartheid state of Israel, screw the fragmentary Palestinian 'state,' and make a new, secular state of Palestine, full of lollypops and free puppies for Jews and Arabs alike. :} )"


2. Bobado's Quote: "the Zionists to steal huge portions of it from the natives and set up a 'Jewish State' there."

Actual Quote: "But... I don't think that just because "it has been the dream of Jews for two thousand years to return to Jerusalem" that it was OK for the Zionists to steal huge portions of it from the natives and set up a 'Jewish State' there. Why should the dreams of the Jews supersede those of the Palestinians? Just because some Middle-Eastern fable tells them they're God's Chosen People? Modern states shouldn't be built on folk-tales and legends, no matter how charming or influential they might be.


3 & 4. Bobado's Quotes: "Ultimately, Israel as we know it, like all the previous Crusader States, is doomed."

"Israel will be a 'Jewish State' in the same way that Apartheid-era South Africa could have been called a "White State."

Well, with these two, you re-quoted the post (RE: Anti-semitic and inflammatory editorial - Sep 21 2001 12:29AM) that I'd already linked to (and pasted in full, above), and you even quoted it twice, to make it look like two "anti-Semitic" comments. Which I suppose you thought was really clever. Heh.

Actual Quote: See above.


5. Bobado's Quote: "I happen to consider myself pro-Palestinian and anti-Israel."

Actual Quote: "Oh, really, Deda. Being pro-Palestinian is not the same as being anti-Semitic (By 'anti-Semitic,' I'm guessing you mean anti-Judaic). I happen to consider myself pro-Palestinian and anti-Israel, but also pro-Jewish. You CAN oppose the illegal occupation of Palestine without wishing harm on the civilian Jewish occupants.


6. Bobado's Quote: "I use 'anti-Jewish' or 'anti-Judaic,' myself."

Trying to turn a discussion of semantics into something anti-Semitic, eh? Pfft.

Actual Quote: When I say 'anti-Semitic,' it's like the title of this thread, applying to the specific Semitic group that is the focus of the anti-Semitism. It doesn't make sense to use such a broad term for just one group of Semitic people. It's like using 'anti-germanic' to single out the Icelanders. Just because the 'anti-Jewish' definition of 'anti-Semitic' is POPULAR doesn't make it correct. :)

I use 'anti-Jewish' or 'anti-Judaic,' myself."


7. Bobado's Quote: "I'm strongly anti-Israel"

Actual Quote: Personally, I have no desire to 'get to know' a racist like MG, and anyone who does is tainted by their association with him, IMO. But I'm glad that he's allowed to post here. I value diverse opinions, even racist ones like Martin's. Plus, since I'm strongly anti-Israel, I really enjoy the little bit of damage MG does to his own cause with every uninformed, bile-choked post. You don't even have to argue with him... Just wind him up, and watch the hate and vulgarity fly. He does all the work. :)

...

You are slime, Bobado. :)

And Peace: Well, yeah, lazy people make those kind of mistakes, I guess. But Armenia? That's just fucking retarded.

---Lepus Rex

Subject: RE: BS: Is Hezbollah Winning?
From: bobad
Date: 04 Sep 06 - 09:38 PM

Sometimes even the Bunny King must stand naked.

Subject: RE: BS: Is Hezbollah Winning?
From: Lepus Rex
Date: 04 Sep 06 - 10:19 PM

Dude, did you even read what I posted? You replied within three minutes of my post. Lazy, Bobado, lazy.

---Lepus Rex

Subject: RE: BS: Is Hezbollah Winning?
From: Old Guy
Date: 04 Sep 06 - 11:24 PM

Is Hezbollah winning or is it over?

If it's over who won?

They've even got the Rev pissed off at them:

Jackson lectures Hezbollah on hostages

BEIRUT, Lebanon, Sept. 4 (UPI) -- U.S. civil rights leader Jesse Jackson Monday urged Hezbollah officials in Lebanon to offer proof that two captured Israeli soldiers remain alive.

Jackson, who has been leading a delegation representing Jewish, Muslim, Roman Catholic and Protestant groups in the Middle East, said during the meeting that proof of the soldiers' safety would allow the negotiation process for their release to begin, Ha'aretz reported.

The civil rights leader said Hezbollah's continued holding of the soldiers, who were captured in a July 12 raid that triggered 34 days of heavy fighting between Israel and the group, is "becoming a magnet to attract a second round" of fighting.

Jackson told reporters he hoped to receive a response from the unnamed Hezbollah officials later Monday, possibly in the form of video evidence.

Meanwhile, the Egyptian newspaper Al Hayat quoted Lebanese sources as saying that Hezbollah has insisted that Israel pull all forces out of Lebanon before hostage negotiations begin.

http://www.upi.com/NewsTrack/view.php?StoryID=20060904-112909-3955r

Subject: RE: BS: Is Hezbollah Winning?
From: robomatic
Date: 05 Sep 06 - 12:34 AM

Just for you, dude!

http://canadiancoalition.com/forum/messages/16041.shtml

There's one for every occasion, but I trust you can ferret it out for yerself, dude.

Subject: RE: BS: Is Hezbollah Winning?
From: dianavan
Date: 05 Sep 06 - 12:50 AM

Thank-you for bringing this to light, Lepus Rex;

Amazing how words can be taken from context and turned around.

bobad the troll.

...and that guy, he never gives up

...persistently stupid.

Subject: RE: BS: Is Hezbollah Winning?
From: Peace
Date: 05 Sep 06 - 01:40 AM

Sir Walter Scott

Canto Sixth

I

Breathes there the man, with soul so dead,
Who never to himself hath said,
"This is my own, my native land!"
Whose heart hath ne'er within him burned,
As home his footsteps he hath turned,
From wandering on a foreign strand!
If such there breathe, go, mark him well;
For him no Minstrel raptures swell;
High though his titles, proud his name,
Boundless his wealth as wish can claim;
Despite those titles, power, and pelf,
The wretch, concentred all in self,
Living, shall forfeit fair renown,
And, doubly dying, shall go down
To the vile dust, from whence he sprung,
Unwept, unhonoured, and unsung.

I would think that the Israelis feel this way, too. As do the Palestinians.

Subject: RE: BS: Is Hezbollah Winning?
From: robomatic
Date: 05 Sep 06 - 01:40 AM

Di-van: for lying by or on.

Subject: RE: BS: Is Hezbollah Winning?
From: Lepus Rex
Date: 05 Sep 06 - 06:31 AM

robomatic: That's the one! Now, check out this one, which I made in under ten minutes, using the totally shitty Paint program that comes with Windows. I just snagged a map of the Arab League nations, lopped off Djibouti and Somalia, coloured Israel in red, moved some stuff around, and voi-fucking-là, a better map than you've got! In minutes! With Paint, even! Imagine what you could do, if you applied yourself! Dude! :D

dianavan: Bobado the troll. :)

---Lepus Rex

Subject: RE: BS: Is Hezbollah Winning?
From: beardedbruce
Date: 22 Sep 06 - 10:22 AM

http://www.cnn.com/2006/WORLD/meast/09/22/lebanon.rally.reut/index.html

"BEIRUT, Lebanon (Reuters) -- Hezbollah chief Hassan Nasrallah has appeared in public for the first time since a 34-day war with Israel despite Israeli threats to kill him.

Nasrallah waved at supporters at a giant rally in Beirut that he called to celebrate Hizbollah's "divine victory" in the war. He was expected to address the crowd of several hundred thousand later.

Organizers expect hundreds of thousands of people from across the country to attend the defiant evening rally in the Muslim Shiite southern suburbs, which were heavily bombed during the 34-day war.

Such a large turnout in a country of just four million would also mark a challenge to the coalition government of Prime Minister Fouad Siniora, which includes Hezbollah but is mostly opposed to the group's Syrian and Iranian alliances.

A Lebanese political source said Nasrallah would not let the risk of possible Israeli attack stop him from attending the rally.

"God was generous to us and granted us this victory against our enemy. He was generous to us and gave us Sayyed Hassan Nasrallah so we come here to celebrate with him," Hussein Kaddouh, 29, from the southern village of Yater, told Reuters.

"We are willing to respond to Sayyed Nasrallah's call with our blood, children and everything that we own."

.....

"Hezbollah has declared it won the war which killed nearly 1,200 people in Lebanon, mostly civilians, and 157 Israelis.

"I call on you all to participate in a victory rally, your victory ... in the southern suburb, the suburb of honor, glory, faith, steadfastness and victory for the whole country," Nasrallah said on Al-Manar."

.....

"Under an August truce which ended the fighting, United Nations reinforcements and Lebanese army forces are deploying in the south to monitor the cease-fire and try to assert the authority of the Beirut government.

But Nasrallah has said his fighters remain on the border with Israel and Hezbollah has dismissed demands that it disarm."

Subject: RE: BS: Is Hezbollah Winning?
From: Old Guy
Date: 22 Sep 06 - 10:39 AM

I never called you stupid, just Naive and evasive.

Should I add namecalling to that list?

Subject: RE: BS: Is Hezbollah Winning?
From: beardedbruce
Date: 22 Sep 06 - 12:32 PM

"Nasrallah: Weapons won't be surrendered
AP - 50 minutes ago
BEIRUT, Lebanon - Hezbollah leader Sheik Hassan Nasrallah told hundreds of thousands of supporters Friday that his guerrillas will never surrender their weapons — including 20,000 rockets he claims his group has left after its 34-day war with Israel. "No army in the world will be able to make us drop the weapons from our hands," the black-turbaned cleric said defiantly in his first public appearance since the start of the war in July. "


UN Security Council Resolution/1701

...– full implementation of the relevant provisions of the Taif Accords, and of resolutions 1559 (2004) and 1680 (2006), that require the disarmament of all armed groups in Lebanon, so that, pursuant to the Lebanese cabinet decision of 27 July 2006, there will be no weapons or authority in Lebanon other than that of the Lebanese State;




So only Israel has to comply with the UN ceasefire terms, and they do not even get the kidnapped soldiers back ( as promised)- Tell me again why Israel should trust the UN in any life-or-death matter?

Subject: RE: BS: Is Hezbollah Winning?
From: beardedbruce
Date: 22 Sep 06 - 12:44 PM

Oh, yeah- let me see.

Hezbollah starts with 12,000 rockets.

Hezbollah shoots over 4,000 rockets.

Hezbollah now has 20,000 rockets.






UN Security Council Resolution/1701


15. Decides further that all States shall take the necessary measures to prevent, by their nationals or from their territories or using their flag vessels or aircraft:

(a) The sale or supply to any entity or individual in Lebanon of arms and related materiel of all types, including weapons and ammunition, military vehicles and equipment, paramilitary equipment, and spare parts for the aforementioned, whether or not originating in their territories; and

(b) The provision to any entity or individual in Lebanon of any technical training or assistance related to the provision, manufacture, maintenance or use of the items listed in subparagraph (a) above; except that these prohibitions shall not apply to arms, related material, training or assistance authorized by the Government of Lebanon or by UNIFIL as authorized in paragraph 11;

Subject: RE: BS: Is Hezbollah Winning?
From: Old Guy
Date: 22 Sep 06 - 10:30 PM

Stand by for round 2.

Subject: RE: BS: Is Hezbollah Winning?
From: GUEST
Date: 23 Sep 06 - 05:30 PM

Yeah. Doesn't matter. Israel will get the blame. What's new.

Subject: RE: BS: Is Hezbollah Winning?
From: GUEST,Stymie
Date: 09 May 08 - 10:27 AM

YES THEY ARE

Subject: RE: BS: Is Hezbollah Winning?
From: Teribus
Date: 09 May 08 - 10:38 AM

What the Lebanese Government wants to do is to go the UN Security Council and demand that its UNHCR Organisation disarms all militias currently present in UN Refugee Camps in Lebanon and that the UN should assists the UNHCR in the accomplishment of this aim with military force if necessary.

Hezbollah are "Guests" in Lebanon and have no right whatsoever to challenge the elected Government of their host nation.

I am sure that both Israel and US would only be too pleased to offer their services.

Subject: RE: BS: Is Hezbollah Winning?
From: Wolfgang
Date: 27 May 08 - 01:38 PM

Very soon and very likely, there will be a prisoner exchange, the two Israeli soldiers against five Hezbollah prisoners in Israel. That the ratio is so low, only 5 to 2, makes it very likely that Hezbollah will return two bodies.

Wolfgang