Aces High Bulletin Board
General Forums => The O' Club => Topic started by: Edbert1 on August 15, 2006, 12:53:11 PM
-
I looked for a current thread on the cease fire and did not see one to post this report into. I'm very impressed wit this outfit, Strategic Forcasting, this is their VERY recent report:
Cease-Fire: Shaking Core Beliefs in the Middle East
By George Friedman
An extraordinary thing happened in the Middle East this month. An Israeli army faced an Arab army and did not defeat it -- did not render it incapable of continued resistance. That was the outcome in 1948, 1956, 1967, 1973 and 1982. But it did not happen in 2006. Should this outcome stand, it will represent a geopolitical earthquake in the region -- one that fundamentally shifts expectations and behaviors on all sides.
It is not that Hezbollah defeated the Israel Defense Forces (IDF). It did not. By most measures, it got the worst of the battle. Nevertheless, it has been left standing at the end of the battle. Its forces in the Bekaa Valley and in the Beirut area have been battered, though how severely is not yet clear. Its forces south of the Litani River were badly hurt by the Israeli attack. Nevertheless, the correlation of forces was such that the Israelis should have dealt Hezbollah, at least in southern Lebanon, a devastating blow, such that resistance would have crumbled. IDF did not strike such a blow -- so as the cease-fire took effect, Hezbollah continued to resist, continued to inflict casualties on Israeli troops and continued to fire rockets at Israel. Hezbollah has not been rendered incapable of continued resistance, and that is unprecedented.
In the regional equation, there has been an immutable belief: that, at the end of the day, IDF was capable of imposing a unilateral military solution on any Arab force. Israel might have failed to achieve its political goals in its various wars, but it never failed to impose its will on an enemy force. As a result, all neighboring nations and entities understood there were boundaries that could be crossed only if a country was willing to accept a crushing Israeli response. All neighboring countries -- Egypt, Jordan, Syria and Lebanon, prior to the collapses of central authority -- understood this and shaped their behavior in view of it. Even when Egypt and Syria initiated war in 1973, it was with an understanding that their war aims had to be limited, that they had to accept the probability of defeat and had to focus on postwar political maneuvers rather than on expectations of victory.
The Egyptians withdrew from conflict and accepted the Sinai as a buffer zone, largely because 1973 convinced them that continued conflict was futile. Jordan, since 1970, has been effectively under the protection of Israel against threats from Syria and internal dangers as well. Syria has not directly challenged the Israelis since 1973, preferring indirect challenges and, not infrequently, accommodation with Israel. The idea of Israel as a regional superpower has been the defining principle.
In this conflict, what Hezbollah has achieved is not so much a defeat of Israel as a demonstration that destruction in detail is not an inevitable outcome of challenging Israel. Hezbollah has showed that it is possible to fight to a point that Israel prefers a cease-fire and political settlement to a military victory followed by political accommodation. Israel might not have lost any particular battle, and a careful analysis of the outcome could prove its course to be reasonable. But the loss of the sense -- and historical reality -- of the inevitability of Israeli military victory is a far more profound defeat for Israel, as this clears the way for other regional powers to recalculate risks.
Hezbollah's Preparations
Hezbollah meticulously prepared for the war by analyzing Israeli strengths and weaknesses. Israel is casualty-averse by dint of demographics. It therefore resorts to force multipliers such as air power and armor, combined with excellent reconnaissance and tactical intelligence. Israel uses mobility to cut lines of supply and air power to shatter centralized command-and-control, leaving enemy forces disorganized, unbalanced and unsupplied.
Hezbollah sought to deny Israel its major advantages. The group created a network of fortifications in southern Lebanon that did not require its fighters to maneuver and expose themselves to Israeli air power. Hezbollah stocked those bunkers so fighters could conduct extended combat without the need for resupply. It devolved command to the unit level, making it impossible for a decapitation strike by Israel to affect the battlefield. It worked in such a way that, while the general idea of the defense architecture was understood by Israeli military intelligence, the kind of detailed intelligence used -- for example, in 1967 -- was denied the Israelis. Hezbollah acquired anti-tank weapons from Syria and Iran that prevented Israeli armor from operating without prior infantry clearing of anti-tank teams. And by doing that, the group forced the Israelis to accept casualties in excess of what could, apparently, be tolerated. In short, it forced the Israelis to fight Hezbollah's type of war, rather than the other way around.
Hezbollah then initiated war at the time and place of its choosing. There has been speculation that Israel planned for such a war. That might be the case, but it is self-evident that, if the Israelis wanted this war, they were not expecting it when it happened. The opening of the war was not marked by the capture of two Israeli soldiers. Rather, it was the persistent and intense bombardment of Israel with missiles -- including attacks against Israel's third-largest city, Haifa -- that compelled the Israelis to fight at a moment when they obviously were unprepared for war, and could not clearly decide either their war aims or strategy. In short, Hezbollah applied a model that was supposed to be Israel's forte: The group prepared meticulously for a war and launched it when the enemy was unprepared for it.
Hezbollah went on the strategic offensive and tactical defensive. It created a situation in which Israeli forces had to move to the operational and tactical offensive at the moment of Hezbollah's highest level of preparedness. Israel could not decline combat, because of the rocket attacks against Haifa, nor was it really ready for war -- particularly psychologically. The Israelis fought when Hezbollah chose and where Hezbollah chose. Their goals were complex, where Hezbollah's were simple. Israel wanted to stop the rockets, break Hezbollah, suffer minimal casualties and maintain its image as an irresistible military force. Hezbollah merely wanted to survive the Israeli attack. The very complexity of Israel's war aims, hastily crafted as they were, represented a failure point.
The Foundations of Israeli Strategy
It is important to think through the reasoning that led to Israeli operations. Israel's actions were based on a principle promulgated by Ariel Sharon at the time of his leadership. Sharon argued that Israel must erect a wall between Israelis and Arabs. His reasoning stemmed from circumstances he faced during Israel's occupation of Lebanon: Counterinsurgency operations impose an unnecessary and unbearable cost in the long run, particularly when designed to protect peripheral interests. The losses may be small in number but, over the long term, they pose severe operational and morale challenges to the occupying force. Therefore, for Sharon, the withdrawal from Lebanon in the 1980s created a paradigm. Israel needed a national security policy that avoided the burden of counterinsurgency operations without first requiring a political settlement. In other words, Israel needed to end counterinsurgency operations by unilaterally ending the occupation and erecting a barrier between Israel and hostile populations.
The important concept in Sharon's thinking was not the notion of impenetrable borders. Rather, the important concept was the idea that Israel could not tolerate counterinsurgency operations because it could not tolerate casualties. Sharon certainly did not mean or think that Israel could not tolerate casualties in the event of a total conventional war, as in 1967 or 1973. There, extreme casualties were both tolerable and required. What he meant was that Israel could tolerate any level of casualties in a war of national survival but, paradoxically, could not tolerate low-level casualties in extended wars that did not directly involve Israel's survival.
Israeli Prime Minister Ehud Olmert was Sharon's protege. Olmert was struggling with the process of disengagement in Gaza and looking toward the same in the West Bank. Lebanon, where Israel learned the costs of long-term occupation, was the last place he wanted to return to in July 2006. In his view, any operation in Lebanon would be tantamount to a return to counterinsurgency warfare and occupation. He did not recognize early on that Hezbollah was not fighting an insurgency, but rather a conventional war of fixed fortifications.
Olmert did a rational cost-benefit analysis. First, if the principle of the Gaza withdrawal was to be followed, the last place the Israelis wanted to be was in Lebanon. Second, though he recognized that the rocket attacks were intolerable in principle, he also knew that, in point of fact, they were relatively ineffective. The number of casualties they were causing, or were likely to cause, would be much lower than those that would be incurred with an invasion and occupation of Lebanon. Olmert, therefore, sought a low-cost solution to the problem of Hezbollah.
...continued
-
...continued
IDF Chief of Staff Lt. Gen. Dan Halutz offered an attractive alternative. Advocating what air force officers have advocated since the 1930s, Halutz launched an air campaign designed to destroy Hezbollah. It certainly hurt Hezbollah badly, particularly outside of southern Lebanon, where longer-range rocket launchers were located. However, in the immediate battlefield, limited tactical intelligence and the construction of the bunkers appear to have blunted the air attack. As Israeli troops moved forward across the border, they encountered a well-prepared enemy that undoubtedly was weakened but was not destroyed by the air campaign.
At this point, Olmert had a strategic choice to make. He could mount a multi-divisional invasion of Lebanon, absorb large numbers of casualties and risk being entangled in a new counterinsurgency operation, or he could seek a political settlement. He chose a compromise. After appearing to hesitate, he launched an invasion that seemed to bypass critical Hezbollah positions (isolating them), destroying other positions and then opting for a cease-fire that would transfer responsibility for security to the Lebanese army and a foreign peacekeeping force.
Viewed strictly from the standpoint of cost-benefit analysis, Olmert was probably right. Except that Hezbollah's threat to Israel proper had to be eliminated, Israel had no interests in Lebanon. The cost of destroying Hezbollah's military capability would have been extremely high, since it involved moving into the Bekaa Valley and toward Beirut -- let alone close-quarters infantry combat in the south. And even then, over time, Hezbollah would recover. Since the threat could be eliminated only at a high cost and only for a certain period of time, the casualties required made no sense.
This analysis, however, excluded the political and psychological consequences of leaving an enemy army undefeated on the battlefield. Again, do not overrate what Hezbollah did: The group did not conduct offensive operations; it was not able to conduct maneuver combat; it did not challenge the Israeli air force in the air. All it did was survive and, at the end of the war, retain its ability to threaten Israel with such casualties that Israel declined extended combat. Hezbollah did not defeat Israel on the battlefield. The group merely prevented Israel from defeating it. And that outcome marks a political and psychological triumph for Hezbollah and a massive defeat for Israel.
Implications for the Region
Hezbollah has demonstrated that total Arab defeat is not inevitable -- and with this demonstration, Israel has lost its tremendous psychological advantage. If an operational and tactical defensive need not end in defeat, then there is no reason to assume that, at some point, an Arab offensive operation need not end in defeat. And if the outcome can be a stalemate, there is no reason to assume that it cannot be a victory. If all things are possible, then taking risks against Israel becomes rational.
The outcome of this war creates two political crises.
In Israel, Olmert's decisions will come under serious attack. However correct his cost-benefit analysis might have been, he will be attacked over the political and psychological outcome. The entire legacy of Ariel Sharon -- the doctrine of disengagement -- will now come under attack. If Israel is thrown into political turmoil and indecision, the outcome on the battlefield will have been compounded politically.
There is now also a crisis in Lebanon and in the Muslim world. In Lebanon, Hezbollah has emerged as a massive political force. Even in the multi-confessional society, Hezbollah will be a decisive factor. Syria, marginalized in the region for quite a while, becomes more viable as Hezbollah's patron. Meanwhile, countries like Jordan and Egypt must reexamine their own assumptions about Israel. And in the larger Muslim world, Hezbollah's victory represents a victory for Iran and the Shia. Hezbollah, a *****e force, has done what others could not do. This will profoundly effect the *****e position in Iraq -- where the Shia, having first experienced the limits of American power, are now seeing the expanding boundaries of Iranian power.
We would expect Hezbollah, Syria and Iran to move rapidly to exploit what advantage this has given them, before it dissipates. This will increase pressures not only for Israel, but also for the United States, which is engaged in combat operations in Iraq and Afghanistan, as well as in a vague confrontation with Iran. For the Israelis and the Americans, restabilizing their interests will be difficult.
Now, some would argue that Israel's possession of weapons of mass destruction negates the consequences of regional perception of weakness. That might be the case, but the fact is that Israel's possession of such weapons did not prevent attacks in 1973, nor were those weapons usable in this case. Consider the distances involved: Israeli forces have been fighting 10 miles from the border. And if Damascus were to be struck with the wind blowing the wrong way, northern Israel would be fried as well. Israel could undertake a nuclear strike against Iran, but the threat posed by Iran is indirect -- since it is far away -- and would not determine the outcome of any regional encounter. Certainly, the possession of nuclear weapons provides Israel a final line from which to threaten enemies -- but by the time that became necessary, the issue already would have shifted massively against Israel. Nuclear weapons have not been used since World War II -- in spite of many apparent opportunities to do so -- because, as a weapon, the utility is more apparent than real. Possession of nuclear weapons can help guarantee regime survival, but not, by itself, military success.
As it stands, logic holds that, given the tenuous nature of the cease-fire, casus belli on Israel's part can be found and the war reinitiated. Given the mood in Israel, logic would dictate the fall of Olmert, his replacement by a war coalition and an attempt to change the outcome. But logic has not applied to Israeli thinking during this war. We have been consistently surprised by the choices Israel has made, and it is not clear whether this is simply Olmert's problem or one that has become embedded in Israel.
What is clear is that, if the current outcome stands, it will mean there has been a tremendous earthquake in the Middle East. It is cheap and easy to talk about historic events. But when a reality that has dominated a region for 58 years is shattered, it is historic. Perhaps this paves the way to new wars. Perhaps Olmert's restraint opens the door for some sort of stable peace. But from where we sit, he was sufficiently aggressive to increase hostility toward Israel without being sufficiently decisive to achieve a desired military outcome.
Hezbollah and Iran hoped for this outcome, though they did not really expect it. They got it. The question on the table now is what they will do with it.
Send questions or comments on this article to analysis@stratfor.com.
Anyone want to express their thoughts on the subject of the cease fire?
-
I agree with his analysis almost in its entirety. I think there will be more frequent military actions against Israel now that this has happened.
One difference in this conflict vs the others that Israel has been the victor in was this was not an out in the open fight with a regular armed force of a nation. That is if you don't consider hezballah to be the military force of Lebanon.
This latest conflict was an urban one with a more guerilla style foe rather than a "traditional" military force with all 3 types of military branches (ground air and sea). Both of these circumstance put Israel in the fight it hates the most, urban and guerilla. This is the type of fight that tends to have the most casualties for the least gain of ground. Given Israel’s reticence to incur casualties it was a set piece for hezbollah to demonstrate the validity of the strategy.
I'd wager that there will be more if this style of wear them down tactics in the future. It's already been demonstrated that it's an effective tactic to use against any modern force whose country is not fully behind the conflict. If you have a source of replacements for fighting men it's rather cost effective other wise as it is not equipment intensive. It's also almost always going to work if you have more will to fight and acceptance of casualties than the other side has.
-
good analysis.
-
That about covers it.
-
The review of events and progression is good. However, I do not agree with the conclusions.
There is one big difference between Hizballa and say Syria - Hizballa was willing to sacrifice Lebanon for its survival. Even if Lebanon would have been turned to burning ashes, half the population killed and Nasralla would have been alive with a handful of men, he'd still declare victory. Shattered Lebanon economy means little to him and the bombed towns mean construction contracts for it.
Not so Syria or Egypt. They would not agree to be destroyed for a propaganda victory. In the case of Syria, they do not even have international borders with Israel and so they risk loosing even more ground to be annexed by Israel.
-
1. DAMASCUS, Syria (AP) -- Syrian President Bashar Al-Assad said Tuesday that America's plan for a "new Middle East" collapsed after Hezbollah's successes in fighting against Israel, and warned the Jewish state to seek peace or risk defeat in the future.
Israel's foreign minister, meanwhile, warned Syria not to intervene in Lebanese affairs or use the Hezbollah militia to influence the Beirut government.
Al-Assad, speaking to a journalists' association conference, said the region had changed "because of the achievements of the resistance (Hezbollah)."
"The Middle East they (the Americans) aspire to ... has become an illusion," he said.
U.S. Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice said early in the war between Hezbollah and Israel that any settlement should be durable and lead to a "new Middle East" where extremists have no influence.
But after 34 days of fighting, a cease-fire brought a fragile truce, with Hezbollah surviving and Israeli forces unable to score a decisive victory. Hezbollah leader Sheik Hassan Nasrallah has declared "strategic, historic victory" against Israel.
"We tell them (Israelis) that after tasting humiliation in the latest battles, your weapons are not going to protect you -- not your planes, or missiles or even your nuclear bombs ... The future generations in the Arab world will find a way to defeat Israel," Al-Assad said.
2. TEHRAN, Iran (AP) -- Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad said Tuesday that Hezbollah has "hoisted the banner of victory" over Israel and toppled U.S.-led plans for the Middle East.
Hezbollah's main backers -- Iran and Syria -- struck nearly identical tones a day after a cease-fire took effect in Lebanon: heaping praise on the guerrillas as perceived victors for the Islamic world and claiming that Western influence in the region was dealt a serious blow.
"God's promises have come true," Ahmadinejad told a huge crowd in Arbadil in northwestern Iran. "On one side, it's corrupt powers of the criminal U.S. and Britain and the Zionists .... with modern bombs and planes. And on the other side is a group of pious youth relying on God."
In Damascus, Syrian President Syrian President Bashar Assad said Washington's plans for the Middle East were turned into "an illusion" by Hezbollah's resistance to the powerful Israeli military during the 34-day conflict.
"(Israel) was defeated ... and (Hezbollah) hoisted the banner of victory," Ahmadinejad told the crowd, including many people waving yellow Hezbollah banners and Iranian flags.
Ahmadinejad drew cheers when he said Hezbollah foiled plans for Washington and its allies "to create the so-called new Middle East."
"The people of the region are also after the new Middle East, but a Middle East that is free from U.S. and British domination," he said.
Since the war broke out last month, Ahmadinejad and other Iranian leaders have repeatedly denounced the U.N. Security Council for moving slowly toward a cease-fire pact. They also sharply criticized other Muslim nations for what Iran saw as failure to rally to the aid of Hezbollah and Lebanese civilians.
Really, I'm now fed up with this cesspool of a region. Let them kill each other. Pull out, come home and let em spew their hatred towards each other. While the US is at it, pull out of the UN.
-
Whilst I agree with most of it, there is something incorrect in the analysis:
Hezbollah then initiated war at the time and place of its choosing. There has been speculation that Israel planned for such a war. That might be the case, but it is self-evident that, if the Israelis wanted this war, they were not expecting it when it happened. The opening of the war was not marked by the capture of two Israeli soldiers. Rather, it was the persistent and intense bombardment of Israel with missiles -- including attacks against Israel's third-largest city, Haifa -- that compelled the Israelis to fight at a moment when they obviously were unprepared for war, and could not clearly decide either their war aims or strategy. In short, Hezbollah applied a model that was supposed to be Israel's forte: The group prepared meticulously for a war and launched it when the enemy was unprepared for it.
What happened was a Hezbollah border raid to kidnap soldiers for use as hostages in negotiations. The war was an escalation of that initial attack, not something either side deliberately planned.
For example, they claim that rockets on Haifa forced Israel into the fight, but the first rocket fell on Haifa on the evening of the 13th July, Israel had already attacked Beirut airport and imposed a total air and sea blockade of Lebanon by that point.
Indeed, if you look at the Israeli press from the 12th/13th July, all the talk is of retaliation for the kidnapping of the soldiers, there's little mention of rocket fire.
The Israeli government estimated 125 rockets fired at Israel on the 13th July, and 120 - 150 for the 12th and 13th combined (the initial attack on the soldiers was on the morning of the 12th July). If Hezbollah had truly prepared the war in advance (as opposed to preparing for war, which is what all military forces do), then there would have been heavy rocket fire on the 12th, and a diminishing rate as Israeli counterattacks took place. In fact, the 12th saw less rockets than any other day (apart from the 2 day partial ceasefire), and Hezbollah rocket attacks increased as the battle wore on.
-
This is all a pre-courser to the US attacking Irans nukes during the up coming elections.... i'll bet $$ on that.
The IDF won decisively in the past by striking first by surprise and striking hard, they completely obliterated both Egypt & Syrian air forces while they were on the ground... then they proceeded to punish, brutally, all the enemy troops a la the Iraq 'highway of death', I believe some 10,000 Syrian troops were annihilated as they tried to drive their vehicles to safety.
This time they went with the US style air campaign... which wont work against an Army that melts into the civilian population... war has gone full circle, as stupid as these Islam whack jobs are, they adapted and rendered our high tech weapons nearly useless.... if you can't see it from the air, it isn't there... they also know professional armies are trained not to shoot at civilians; dress like a civilian, hide your weapons. Simple but effective tactics.
The only sure way to root out a force like this is WWII style carpet bombing that leaves a mile wide swath of steaming craters... I had kinda hoped Israel was brutal enough to do just that and send a message to Iran / Syria; 'you adapted to our tactics, we adapted back at ya.. send all the jihaders you like and we'll carpet bomb them to allah's door"
Carpet bombing children and so called innocent civilians (some are complicit with Hezbollah) would be horrible PR, probably generate more hatred if that's possible, and be a diplomatic hassle... but it would let every would be attacker, and their population, know.. they will suffer a horrific cost for being a dick.
-
You cannot win a war if you are worried about PR, at least not a "real war", maybe one of theose political wars like the war on drugs or the war on poverty, but not a real one against a determined enemy?
-
Originally posted by x0847Marine
The only sure way to root out a force like this is WWII style carpet bombing that leaves a mile wide swath of steaming craters... I had kinda hoped Israel was brutal enough to do just that and send a message to Iran / Syria; 'you adapted to our tactics, we adapted back at ya.. send all the jihaders you like and we'll carpet bomb them to allah's door"
Carpet bombing children and so called innocent civilians (some are complicit with Hezbollah) would be horrible PR, probably generate more hatred if that's possible, and be a diplomatic hassle... but it would let every would be attacker, and their population, know.. they will suffer a horrific cost for being a dick.
yup.
never happen though.
-
Originally posted by x0847Marine
This is all a pre-courser to the US attacking Irans nukes during the up coming elections.... i'll bet $$ on that.
The IDF won decisively in the past by striking first by surprise and striking hard, they completely obliterated both Egypt & Syrian air forces while they were on the ground... then they proceeded to punish, brutally, all the enemy troops a la the Iraq 'highway of death', I believe some 10,000 Syrian troops were annihilated as they tried to drive their vehicles to safety.
This time they went with the US style air campaign... which wont work against an Army that melts into the civilian population... war has gone full circle, as stupid as these Islam whack jobs are, they adapted and rendered our high tech weapons nearly useless.... if you can't see it from the air, it isn't there... they also know professional armies are trained not to shoot at civilians; dress like a civilian, hide your weapons. Simple but effective tactics.
The only sure way to root out a force like this is WWII style carpet bombing that leaves a mile wide swath of steaming craters... I had kinda hoped Israel was brutal enough to do just that and send a message to Iran / Syria; 'you adapted to our tactics, we adapted back at ya.. send all the jihaders you like and we'll carpet bomb them to allah's door"
Carpet bombing children and so called innocent civilians (some are complicit with Hezbollah) would be horrible PR, probably generate more hatred if that's possible, and be a diplomatic hassle... but it would let every would be attacker, and their population, know.. they will suffer a horrific cost for being a dick.
amen brother....
-
Agree.
I think this cease fire is a joke anyway. Just gives morons time to get more crap to do moronic things with. But , Im in Texas....I don't give a dang if they kill eachother off by the hundreds or thousands. Just hope Isreal comes out on top.
-
Excellent analysis, particulary the point that Hezbolla was no longer fighting an insurgency but rather a conventional war of fortifications.
There's an interesting tactical aspect of the fighting that the article doesn't address, which relates to both the nature of the conflict itself and Iran's involvement in it.
In an article titled "Hizbollah ATGM tactics" (http://www.strategypage.com/htmw/htarm/articles/20060815.aspx), StrategyPage notes that Hizbollah used high end antitank missiles as
long range direct fire infantry support weapons. That included not only earlier models of Soviet ATGMs like the Spandrel, but also top of the line current models like the Kornet, which is designed as an M1 tank killer.
These are EXTREMELY expensive rounds to use in an anti-infantry role, and I doubt that many armies (including the US) could afford to burn up their ATGM inventory this way over an extended period.
Lesson to be learned? When they're backed by petrodollar-glutted sponsors like Iran, the image of raggedy-arse guerillas hiding in the bush hoping not to get spotted goes out the window and asymmetrical warfare becomes a lot more symmetrical.
If Israel is thinking about round 2 (which IMHO they won't be able to avoid if they want to retain their military credibility) they're going to have to be a lot more decisive and a lot less casualty-averse. Given the unstable nature of ANY political regime in the Middle East (including Jordan and Egypt), the outcome of the next round may very well be a matter of national survival.
-
I think that analysis is kinda stupid actually.
Israel are victorious, hezbollah now have to fire their rockets through 15000 UN Peacekeepers and while the short term risk for israel has been alienating the rest of the world, hezbollah is now placed in that position. Should there be repeats of the marine barracks bombings I think the world will throw in the towel on lebanon and let the israeli's go for broke.
IMHO israel played a perfect game, set, and match.
-
Israel are victorious,
I respectfully disagree. By virtue of merely surviving, I feel Hebollah won a decisive and dangerous victory. They have to be encouraged by Israel's seeming reluctance to asborb many casualties...the kind of casualties it would take to route out the Hezis. The Hezis won, IMHO from both a tactical and PR standpoint.
They won the actual battle by surviving and they certainly won the PR war. Foolish people around the world were quick to ignore their sense of right and wrong(if they had one in the first place) and somehow equate the Hezi's and IDF. I refer to all the insane/virtueless people who spouted that Israel was overreacting. I feel that as soon as this began happening that it was the beginning of a PR victory for the Hezi's.
This is why I call the Hezi victory dangerous. It's dangerous in that there are more than enough people in the world who seem to think there is a place in the world for Hezbollah. Just look at the posters on this board who claimed Israel went too far. They called for negotiations and restraint on the behalf of Israel but when asked, and you had to really hammer them with the question or they simply ignored it, they didn't have any idea how to deal with Hezbollah, all they cared about was that civilians were dying. Most of them refused to admit that the Hezi's were even terrorists and needed to be eliminated. There are enough of these kind of amoral apologists in the world to pressure the would be virtuous( as far as warring on terror) nations from following through decisively. Thus I feel it was a huge PR victory for Islamic fascists.
hezbollah now have to fire their rockets through 15000 UN Peacekeepers
I hope you are right but I don't think the UN peacekeepers will suddenly become an effective force. I think they will be ineffective at best, a shield for the Hezi's(whether a willing shield or not) for the Hezi's to hide behind as they rain rockets on Israel at worst. I suspect the latter as UN sloth and inaction will allow the Hezi's to act w/ near impunity in the UN peacekeeping zone. This of course will begin after the Hezi's, now protected by the UN from Israeli attack, rearm from shipments out if Iran and Syria.
-
A real army doesn't fight its wars from behind the skirts of women and children. Put them in ANY sort of stand-up fight and Hezbollah is history
-
A real army doesn't fight its wars from behind the skirts of women and children. Put them in ANY sort of stand-up fight and Hezbollah is history
I don't mean to sound rude but.....it's never going to happen so what does this have to do with anything?
-
I didn't read all of it but I'm not sure I agree with his conclusion. That being that because Israel didn't defeat Hezbollah utterly Arabs would increase their attacks. He cited many instances in which Israel did render their enemy impotent and yet they regroup and come back for more, time after time. Little doubt they will continue to do the same.
-
End point being...
1) Israel did not meet its military objectives
2) Its soldiers are still in the hands of terrorists
3) This truce is merely a respit. Round II will resume anytime.
4) The UN will only scold Israel, it will not do so in regards to Lebanon or Hezbollah. The UN is a very very one-sided negotiator
5) As far as military operations went, this was a cluster fk from the get go.
Looks like Israel needs a regime change
-
Originally posted by Vulcan
I think that analysis is kinda stupid actually.
Israel are victorious, hezbollah now have to fire their rockets through 15000 UN Peacekeepers and while the short term risk for israel has been alienating the rest of the world, hezbollah is now placed in that position. Should there be repeats of the marine barracks bombings I think the world will throw in the towel on lebanon and let the israeli's go for broke.
IMHO israel played a perfect game, set, and match.
No, Iran and Syria will resupply Hezbollah during yet another "ceasefire", under yet another UN resolution, while the helpless UN looks on and wonders speechlessly. Then Hezbollah will fire the rockets from BEHIND the UN peace keepers, and when Israel retaliates and takes them out, Israel will be blamed for the hog tied helpless UN peacekeepers that end up as smoking holes in the ground, as well as countless civilians. The same people that pissed and moaned about Israel THIS time, will piss and moan about Israel NEXT time, just like they always have and they always will.
A wise man once said "the definition of insanity is doing the same thing over and over again, and expecting a different result." It isn't insanity though, it is stupidity and arrogance.
-
Originally posted by LePaul
End point being...
1) Israel did not meet its military objectives
2) Its soldiers are still in the hands of terrorists
3) This truce is merely a respit. Round II will resume anytime.
4) The UN will only scold Israel, it will not do so in regards to Lebanon or Hezbollah. The UN is a very very one-sided negotiator
5) As far as military operations went, this was a cluster fk from the get go.
Looks like Israel needs a regime change
Bollocks. You don't know for sure what israel's objectives were.
My humble uninformed view is this:
Israel at some stage identified a weapons buildup in southern lebanon, including upgrades to more complex weaponary. Sooner or later those weapons were going to be used. Israel have never shied from a pre-emptive attack. The kidnapped soldiers were a good excuse (and I'm not saying it was a bad reason to go postal either).
So what does Israel hope to acheive? Well, you can't really kill terrorist organisations. But you can strip them of their assetts. Hezbollah has 3 groups of assets, first its own people, second its weapons, and third the south lebanonese civilians who it hides behind.
So, if Israel hits southern lebanon hard enough, turns it into a no mans land, pushes the civilians out, then it denies hezbollah one of its primary assets. IMHO Israel didn't plan to stay in Sth Lebanon, they just wanted a moonscape to make hezbollahs life miserable and discourage civilians from living there, thus removing hezbollahs 'cover'.
The UN Response to israeli actions was predictable. So israel have dropped a massive problem on hezbollah's lap. 15000 UN Peacekeepers. Historically hezbollah have not got on well with peacekeepers, and while israel may have lost the short term PR war I think you'll see things swing against hezbollah in the coming years as they revert to their old habits.
Either way, I see it as a medium term israeli victory. The outcome is either hezbollah is neutered on the northern border (unlikey) or hezbollah goes to war with the UN (most likely), or theres a remote possibility that the UN pulls out (as in somalia) and lets israel and lebanon duke it out. If it does get to option 3 then hezbollah have probably lost the PR war already.
Iran also risks getting a wet slap on the hand from the UN should iranian weaponary start being used against UN peacekeepers in lebanon.
So... who says israel lost?
-
Is it going to be 15,000 armed UN peacekeepers or will it be 15,000 UN hostages and human shields?
-
So... who says israel lost?
I did. see my above post
-
Well, Vulcan, let's examine the equation:
1. What did Israel lose? You did not refute Stratfor's point that Israel lost the legacy of 48 years of unquestioned victory (in every previous conventional military action, at the conclusion the enemy was incapable of continuing the contest).
2. What did Israel gain? By your calculations it has:
a. Deprived Hezbollah of its weapons. Iran, however, can buy LOTS more.
b. Turned S. Lebanon into a "moonscape" which the population vacates and Hezbolla's life is miserable because it's cover is removed. This might be valuable IF Hezbolla were waging a true guerilla insurgency a la Algeria or Vietnam (although US moonscape-creation was not notably successful as a counter-insurgency tactic in Vietnam). In any event, you did not refute Stratfor's point that this is not truly an insurgency.
c. Given Hezbollah the "massive problem" of 15,000 UN peacekeepers, whom Hezbollah will likely either fight or force to withdraw, thereby losing the "PR war". Hmmmm, UN peacekeepers, however numerous, seldom seem to be much of a problem for anyone ready, willing and able to kill them. It also seems unlikely that the PR war that Hezbollah and its Iranian masters are most interested in (think the Al Jazeera audience) would be anything but impressed if Hezbollah ran the UN's bellybutton clean out of Lebanon, just like they did with the US and French in the early '80s and the Israelis in 2000.
Upon due reflection, if I were the Israelis I wouldn't trade their former legacy of invincibility for everything they "gained" plus the town hall clock.
-
1) lost what? A war? The only people touting an israeli loss at those who delight in such trophies, real or not.
2a) Lebanon might think twice about what they let the iranians move into lebanon, especially now israel has demonstarted a more we don't give a *** about what we hit attitude. Plus any iranian weaponery or troops will be sitting next to UN peacekeepers, iran might want to think twice about that and its implications should hostilities between the UN and hezbollah include the IRG.
2b) You miss the point. Lebanese civilians are now adversed to living in the twenty miles north of the israeli border. As such two lifeforms will occupy this area, hezbollah and UN peacekeepers. Makes it easy to pick hezbollah out. Hezbollah have relied heavily on that civlian population as a human shield of sorts. Its nearly gone now.
2c) What PR war on Al Jazeera. Theres nothing israel could do short of nuking itself to please that audience. I'm talking the broader world stage.
Israel is setting a scenario in lebanon that will be to its advantage, its has dragged the rest of the world in kicking and screaming. Now hezbollah and iran are not just fighting israel, but the whole world. If I was an israeli politician i'd be happy with that ;)
edit: just learned the lebanonese army will have 15000 troops in with the 15000 UN Peace keepers. 30,000 troops for hezbollah to play with... oh my ;)
-
Now hezbollah and iran are not just fighting israel, but the whole world
You live on a different world than me, if this is the case on your world.
just learned the lebanonese army will have 15000 troops in with the 15000 UN Peace keepers. 30,000 troops for hezbollah to play with... oh my
Once again you seem to think the UN peacekeepers are a copmpetent and trustworthy force.... you seem to be assuming this about the lebanese as well... who had indicated the would fight on the side of Hezbollah. Your conclusions are....... unfathomable to me.
You seem to think that simply because I think the Hezi's won that:
The only people touting an israeli loss at those who delight in such trophies, real or not.
This is just plain .... incorrect. I wanted to see Hezbollah annihilated. From my POV you are wrong on several counts.. time will tell... and it won't take but a few months.
-
Lebanese civilians are now adversed[sic] to living in the twenty miles north of the israeli border.
Just how do you know this, exactly?
-
The IDF also embedded its forces among arab civilians in northern Israel, using them as shields. Both sides are complicit and neither are saints in this regard.
Syria has not supplied arms or cash to Hezbollah since 2000. It does offer advice, areas for training and a supply route for Iranian arms. Of course, Syria is more interested in its own agenda for Lebanon than in the agenda of Lebanese people, including Hezbollah, but let's be precise about the language used to define their role.
Hezbollah will never be annihilated without annihilating over a million supporters in Lebanon and tens of millions of regional supporters who view it's role differently than Israel does. Not a likely or plausible strategy either.
So, what does that leave? It leaves what it has always left - negotiation followed by periods of relative calm, followed by renewed fighting, followed by negotiation, followed by...
I still fail to understand why this is so emotionally important to people in Texas, or California, or Florida, or New Zealand. Hezbollah has no interest in you, their interests lie with Lebanon. There are dozens of regional conflicts in Africa and Asia that kill many more people. Is it because they are Arabs and Arab Islamics are the "fear de jour?"
-
The IDF also embedded its forces among arab civilians in northern Israel, using them as shields.
Really? source??
-
Hmm.. if Israel's goal was to get the UN and Lebanese forces into the area, then how come they lost as per Stratfors analysis? Both of the forces were forced to move into the area and Israel severely hammered Hezbollah's assets. It wouldn't been a smart idea to move into Lebanon for a more permanent stay than this. Get in, wreck a havoc, pull out and let the others do rest of the work. I thought that was the main idea for Israel's invasion in Lebanon.
Hezbollah may declare themselves as the winners as many times as they wish, they'd do it even with a single man left. There would be no relation to the real outcome.
-
Originally posted by Nashwan
For example, they claim that rockets on Haifa forced Israel into the fight, but the first rocket fell on Haifa on the evening of the 13th July, Israel had already attacked Beirut airport and imposed a total air and sea blockade of Lebanon by that point.
I don't know which they you refere to but Israel did not go into the war because of the rockets on Haifa. Hizballa's attack on the kidnapping day included fire on Israeli posts in a wide area all along the border as a diversion and to slow down any assistance. This was just one attack too much. Add to that the issue of the kidnapped soldier in Gaza and Israel could not take it quietly any more.
Once the airforce started to hit more than the usual 2 Hizballa outposts, Hizballa started to fire rockets on Israel northern settlements. Here you are right Nashwan. Hizballa did not forsee, expect or planned a war. They tried to announce an immediate cease fire to stop the retaliation and celebrate their success..
Israel declared that if rockets would fall on Haifa, Dahia, the Hizballa neighborhood in south Beirut would be attacked in an attempt to create a deterance ballance. After the first rocket landed in Haifa, Hizballa came out with an immediate strange statement to the media: "we didn't do it". Either someone there acted without authorization, or it was a mistake, or they paniced.
Originally posted by Rolex
The IDF also embedded its forces among arab civilians in northern Israel, using them as shields. Both sides are complicit and neither are saints in this regard.
]
lol, what have you been reading?
Hizballa fired its rockets into arab settlments as well as to Jewish settlements. Haifa is a mixed city and they hit arab neighborhoods as well, killing a few.
-
Originally posted by Fishu
Hmm.. if Israel's goal was to get the UN and Lebanese forces into the area, then how come they lost as per Stratfors analysis?
That analysis as well as many others give a huge credit to Israel army reputation in preventing future wars. They ignore simple things like the greatest military victory of 67 did not prevent Egypt from starting a standoff war as early as 1970 and a major successful offensive in 1973, a mere 6 years later.
Even though 1973 war ended in complete failure to Egypt and Syria, they consider it a huge success due to the good initial offensive. This allowed Anuar Saadat to sign peace with Israel without loosing face. BTW, he was murdered during a parade in honor of the 1973 victory.
This time, Olmert chose to play they diplomatic front instead of the military front, limiting the army's ground offensive. He and the chief of staff Dan Halutz caught a lot of fire from the media for this. I said in one of my first posts on this war, in another thread, that Lebanon goverment must not be the looser of this war. The current deal places them as a major player and the sovereign of Lebanon, if they only rise to the occasion. If they do, they'll likely be the ones "freeing" Shab'a farms and Lebanese prisoners.
The out come will be critical to Israel's future policies and strategies. If turning to the international community and UN forces fails, next war will be an all out offensive and I don't even want to imagine the consequences to Lebanon. It will also have critical implications on the Palestinian issue if international treaties and UN resolutions fail to guaranty Israel's security.
-
Originally posted by Rolex
Hezbollah will never be annihilated without annihilating over a million supporters in Lebanon and tens of millions of regional supporters who view it's role differently than Israel does. Not a likely or plausible strategy either.
I think you are right, that IS the only way to end this insanity, it worked on Naziism and Bushido too. But I also agree it is not likely, the American people have lost their stomach for "real war" and are more willing to live with perpetual terrorism than to do what it takes to end it.
-
The problem is that hezbollah is an occupying force in a pacified country. They have the lebanese population just as terrified as anyone else, and they really don't care about the nation as a whole. Like the external forces feeding the fires in Iraq, they care only about winning. The day to day welfare of the battleground is barely a tertiary consideration, useful only in the propaganda battle. The more beat down the population is, the easier it is to continue their occupation.
-
If there was an Israeli defeat here it was due in large part to the tremendous international pressure on them to stop the bombing of "civilian" targets.
Since the violence began, some in the international community have been all atwitter at the mere possibility of an Israeli defeat.
I'm really surprised that the Israelis bowed to that pressure...except for the fact that many of the Jews in Israel are becoming ever more sensitive to world opinion and are desperate for peace.
While Hezbollah may not have been totally eradicated their forces and weaponry have been seriously degraded. Certainly they will rearm. And recruit. And now they have an additional asset to use in the struggle against the IDF...the 15,000 human shields so graciouisly provided by the UN.
This settlement almost seems like a return to the status quo.
-
it seems to me that hezbollah has taken over lebanon. they`ll rebuild some of the homes and other stuff,on money from iran,wich is free cash from oil. so they`ll become even more popular. that puny unifil force won`t be able to stop them. the french won`t have the stomach to die for israel (as they`d see it), iran will test their first nuke over tel-aviv,delivered by hezbollah from lebanon.
-
Uhm... why is it again that France has to 'die' for Israel?
-
He didn't say they had to "die for Israel". I understood what he said perfectly.
He said that they'd refuse to fight against the Islamofascists in the GWOT, their pro-terrorist government and activists would couch their arguments against defeating terrorism in terms like that. They will expect other contries to do the actual work, just like in the last few centuries. All the while speaking out against those western democracies that have a will to fight to preserve their way of life.
-
Originally posted by Saintaw
Uhm... why is it again that France has to 'die' for Israel?
what do u mean again? btw i meant that the french would see it as if they were dying for israel.
if they leave or don`t even show up, i hope nobody will ever care about what they have to say about anything.
-
"the french won`t have the stomach to die for israel"
Those are the words i read, perhaps this is some different sort of english?
"just like in the last few centuries." Nice selective memory there.
Anyway...I'm not here, I'm not reading this board... you haven't seen me.
-
Originally posted by Edbert1
He didn't say they had to "die for Israel". I understood what he said perfectly.
He said that they'd refuse to fight against the Islamofascists in the GWOT, their pro-terrorist government and activists would couch their arguments against defeating terrorism in terms like that. They will expect other contries to do the actual work, just like in the last few centuries. All the while speaking out against those western democracies that have a will to fight to preserve their way of life.
And it's cretin, we are doing our share of the work and btw we where doing it long before a big country over the atlantic as hurt on his soil.
-
Originally posted by ~Caligula~
what do u mean again? btw i meant that the french would see it as if they were dying for israel.
if they leave or don`t even show up, i hope nobody will ever care about what they have to say about anything.
Actualy ,I don't see any reason to die for Israel.
Btw are YOU willing to die for Israel ?, have you done your time ?
-
The IDF tanks took some serious beating in that conflict, but now Israel has time to renew their tactics to better suit field combat where AT activity is high and rather lethal.
-C+
PS.
"I'm really surprised that the Israelis bowed to that pressure...except for the fact that many of the Jews in Israel are becoming ever more sensitive to world opinion and are desperate for peace."
Maybe they understand that if a massive war escalates they will suffer one way or the other, whether they win or lose, and the price just seem too high and the gains are temporary at best?
***
-
Originally posted by straffo
And it's cretin, we are doing our share of the work and btw we where doing it long before a big country over the atlantic as hurt on his soil.
I'm not sure what you mean by some of that, like "it's cretin" and "as hurt on his soil" but I do gather that you are saying that france is doing it's share to defeat Islamofacsist. Can you give me examples of the work being done toward seeing these diaperheads defeated? Examples I see are the French government stepping in and trying to force other western nations to stop killing terrorists all the while sending their money to Sadaam and Tehran. Sometimes they do it themselves, sometimes they sheild themselves via the UN.
Please let us know exactly how France is trying to defeat terrorists rather than support and defend them.
-
I'm lazy , you can either search in this BBS or read those links :
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Air_France_Flight_8969
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1995_bombings_in_France
http://www.time.com/time/nation/article/0,8599,176139,00.html
-
Originally posted by straffo
I'm lazy , you can either search in this BBS or read those links :
http://www.time.com/time/nation/article/0,8599,176139,00.html
"and a set of laws that would (and in France at times did) make civil libertarians' hair stand on end."
"There, the military-backed government overturned elections won by the Islamists, banned their party and drove its most extreme elements underground — where they've led a merciless war of terror against politicians and citizens alike."
Won'y fly in the USA.
-
well how about sending some troops to lebanon,with the will to disarm hezbollah RF NOW. don`t do it for israel,do it for the lebanese. if there will be a next round, they`ll get hurt lot more than they did before.
otoh if france and the rest won`t do anything to solve this problem other than talking and sending silly e-mails to nasralla, just stfu. it`s our *ss on the line.
btw i want to live in israel,not die for it.
-
5- Flamebaiting, trolling, or posting to incite or annoy is not allowed.
-
Originally posted by Edbert1
The first two are examples of France being victimized by terrorists, mostly the result of French colonialism,
Algerian war stopped in 1962 and the bomb in 1995 ... talk about being slow !
Early 1990s eh? Guess that article was written before lthe recent Islamic-riots, were these the same neighborhoods?[/B]
You call it Islamic riot ,I don't thing it was the case (or Los Angeles riots where christina riots ?)
I guess that means that France is not only a socialist paradise but also a totalitarian paradise. I guess they did learn some things about how to implement security while under Nazi rule for all those years before liberated by US and British forces..."Vee must zee zur papellen", has become standard nowadays.[/B]
You expect me to answer this insulting part ???
I will acknowlege that France is at least trying to combate terrorists within their borders or colonies, I just wish they'd stop supporting them in other countries like Lebanon/Iraq/Iran. [/B]
It's well known we are financing Iran with all the oil we have around Paris ...
-
Errm... Straffo, that ain't oil around Paris, it's cra... OUCH! hey stop it!!! :D
-
Originally posted by straffo
You call it Islamic riot ,I don't thing it was the case (or Los Angeles riots where christina riots ?)
If you're referring to the LA riots of the 90's they were about perceived injustice and brutality of police against a minority race. If by "cristina" you mean "katrina" there was looting but no real rioting.
I think your recent rioting in France was very similar to the Rodney King riots in LA.
-
In answer to your question, ponydriver:
One of the most horrific things any terrorist could do - something that is everyone's worst nightmare scenario - is something the hezbollah is guilty of. When they're searching for someone in an area they occupy, they grab random young people (teenagers who live in the neighborhood) around the neck and hold them in front of them as human shields as they search with their weapons drawn. Sometimes the hostages are killed in the process and sometimes they are made to drag out the bodies of the people killed.
That image is horrific and would make anyone's blood boil. It's like something from a movie, but it's real with no fake blood or special effects. If one of the hostages were, heaven forbid, a relative, you'd want revenge and would be capable of strangling the terrorist with your bare hands, wouldn't you?
The tactic is called the "neighbor procedure," and it has been an Israeli military tactic, not a hezbollah tactic. You think I'm nuts or making it up, right?
Well, the Supreme Court of Israel had a hard time stomaching it, even though the government attempted to justify it. Even after the Supreme Court placed a temporary ban on it, the IDF continued to do it in violation of their own Supreme Court because it had become part of the culture of the Israeli military.
The Israeli Supreme Court documents are available.
Link (http://www.hrw.org/reports/2002/israel2/index.htm#TopOfPage)
This just illustrates the futility of the region. It seems as if everyone on both sides has a personal grudge, or knows someone with a personal grudge and the cycle continues.
There are many villians on both sides.
-
Originally posted by Saintaw
"the french won`t have the stomach to die for israel"
Those are the words i read, perhaps this is some different sort of english?
i wrote: the french won`t have the stomach to die for israel (as they`d see it),
-
I read the context and a couple of the case studies. I see there is nothing to support their statements of alleged ..... abuses. Am I supposed to take some Palestinians word at face value? I have a hard time believing anyone from a society that produces people who believe it is honorable to strap explosives to oneself and murder civilians iin a suicidal explosion.
OTOH, I must also assume that the IDF contains extreme members who use excessive force and other inhumane tactics. I think every country, including my own, has some bad apples in their military.
That said, I refuse to assign equal culpability in the conflict between the Hezbo's and Israel. Do you feel both sides are equally responsible?
-
Originally posted by Edbert1
The first two are examples of France being victimized by terrorists, mostly the result of French colonialism, the third is a CNN article (via Time) that says they've combatted terrorists within their borders.
As I'm sure Straffo won't object to me pointing out, the point is that France has proven it can deal at least as effectively as the US with these extremists. By the way, the Air France episode actually originated outside of France's borders. Personally, if I was Bush I would want France on-side in the fight against Islamic nutters given their experience both in dealing effectively with the issue and with the middle-east in general. Maybe you could refect on that whilst chewing your freedom fries?
I also find it interesting that you're happy to attribute terrorism against France to the consequences of their actions in Algeria but have trouble acknowledging that the Iraqi insurgency is a consequence of anglo-US actions in Iraq, specifically in this thread. (http://www.hitechcreations.com/forums/showthread.php?s=&threadid=184656&pagenumber=3). Care to explain the logic of that apparent contradiction?
I guess that means that France is not only a socialist paradise but also a totalitarian paradise. I guess they did learn some things about how to implement security while under Nazi rule for all those years before liberated by US and British forces..."Vee must zee zur papellen", has become standard nowadays.
Says the guy who was whining about personal attacks merely days ago. Brilliant.
I will acknowlege that France is at least trying to combate terrorists within their borders or colonies, I just wish they'd stop supporting them in other countries like Lebanon/Iraq/Iran.
Nice hyperbole. Which terrorists does France support, and how? Details please, with sources.
-
4- Members should post in a way that is respectful of other users and HTC. Flaming or abusing users is not tolerated.
-
4- Members should post in a way that is respectful of other users and HTC. Flaming or abusing users is not tolerated.
-
http://www.adalah.org/features/humshields/05_02_humshields_briefing.pdf
-
4- Members should post in a way that is respectful of other users and HTC. Flaming or abusing users is not tolerated.
-
4- Members should post in a way that is respectful of other users and HTC. Flaming or abusing users is not tolerated.
-
Originally posted by Momus--
Says the guy who was whining about personal attacks merely days ago. Brilliant.
Saying that France's internal security methods as quoted in the article of detaining people without charges and police checkpoints ("spot ID checks") are similar tactics to those used by the Nazis when France was occupied does not equal a personal attack. I guess the nerves over Hitler's famous walk through downtown Paris are still close to the surface for some, close enough for it to be taken PERSONAL instead of historical.
...and for the record, France's long history of colonialism around the world is NOT any sort of justification for terrorism...ever...period!
I did not think I'd have to say that "out loud", I just wanted to clear that up in case anyone else thought I was in any way justifying it. If a 'resistance' wants to form to fight against an occupying force, be it in Algeirs, Vietnam, or Bahgad then more power to them and I might even have some sympathy with their cause, since I would be the same way if another country were occupying mine. But when they direct their resitance against civilian "soft targets" instead of military assets then they lose any intellectual/moral/human sympathy whatsoever.
-
Originally posted by lukster
If you're referring to the LA riots of the 90's they were about perceived injustice and brutality of police against a minority race. If by "cristina" you mean "katrina" there was looting but no real rioting.
I think your recent rioting in France was very similar to the Rodney King riots in LA.
well I was thinking of Christians :)
-
Originally posted by straffo
well I was thinking of Christians :)
When did the "Christians" riot here in the US? Oh, I see what you're saying. Trust me, not all of those rioting in LA were christian. Islam is a fast growing religion among blacks in america.
-
Originally posted by Edbert1
Saying that France's internal security methods as quoted in the article of detaining people without charges and police checkpoints ("spot ID checks") are similar tactics to those used by the Nazis when France was occupied does not equal a personal attack. I guess the nerves over Hitler's famous walk through downtown Paris are still close to the surface for some, close enough for it to be taken PERSONAL instead of historical.
No. You just labelled France as a totalitarian state and implied they used tactics comparable to the Nazis in a post directed at a frenchman while such a slur added nothing at all to the debate.
...and for the record, France's long history of colonialism around the world is NOT any sort of justification for terrorism...ever...period!
Who said anything about justification? You said the terrorism was a result of "French" colonialism. I asked why you've got such a problem with the same thing being true in other parts of the middle-east? You haven't answered that yet. Why not?
-
4- Members should post in a way that is respectful of other users and HTC. Flaming or abusing users is not tolerated.
-
Originally posted by PonyDriver
See Rule #4
:rofl :rofl
-
Momus, for some reason you are a particularly obtuse person to have a conversation with, I'm starting to question why I try.
Originally posted by Momus--
You just labelled France as a totalitarian state...
I said totalitarian paradise, meaning a place where folks who like living under totalitarian rule would not find objectionable. We here in the USA (most of us at least) would find such tactics objectionable. The same is true for my comment about being a socialist paradise, while there's a growing number of Americans who would like to see us join the ranks of socialist paradises, I am not one of them.
Originally posted by Momus--
...and implied they used tactics comparable to the Nazis in a post directed at a frenchman while such a slur added nothing at all to the debate.
The tactics are similar, truth does not equal a slur, and saying that such tactics are totalitarian does not equal a personal attack.
Originally posted by Momus--
Who said anything about justification? You said the terrorism was a result of "French" colonialism.
Decades of colonial rule will often result in an uprising, it happened to your King as well (I am assuming you are from the UK, perhaps wrongly) when we were ruled via totalitarian techniques by colonial rulers, but when said resistance resorts to terrorism it looses all justification on intellectual/ethical/human grounds. What is so hard to figure out about that?
Originally posted by Momus--
I asked why you've got such a problem with the same thing being true in other parts of the middle-east? You haven't answered that yet. Why not?
Where in the middle east, nay...anywhere is the USA engaged in colonialism, anywhere except perhaps Guam and Puerto Rico?
-
Originally snivelled by PonyDriver
See Rule #4
Translation: Ponydriver has no argument....
Glad we got that cleared up then.
Originally posted by Edbert
I said totalitarian paradise, meaning a place where folks who like living under totalitarian rule would not find objectionable
And France isn't a totalitarian state or paradise by any possible stretch. Furthermore, no reasonable person would label it as such; therefore you're either unreasonably ignorant or trolling for effect. People can make their own mind up as to which..
The tactics are similar, truth does not equal a slur
See the point above.
Decades of colonial rule will often result in an uprising, it happened to your King as well (I am assuming you are from the UK, perhaps wrongly) when we were ruled via totalitarian techniques by colonial rulers, but when said resistance resorts to terrorism it looses all justification on intellectual/ethical/human grounds. What is so hard to figure out about that?/
That's a great statement on...well, whatever it was about. I'm not quite sure which point it is addressing though...
Where in the middle east, nay...anywhere is the USA engaged in colonialism, anywhere except perhaps Guam and Puerto Rico?
I'll repeat the question from earlier that you still haven't answered.
I also find it interesting that you're happy to attribute terrorism against France to the consequences of their actions in Algeria but have trouble acknowledging that the Iraqi insurgency is a consequence of anglo-US actions in Iraq[....] Care to explain the logic of that apparent contradiction?
When you've done with that one, how about another you still haven't answered?
Which terrorists does France support, and how? Details please, with sources.
Whenever you're ready..
-
(http://www.palmpaints.com/VC_.jpg)
-
Originally posted by Momus--
That's a great statement on...well, whatever it was about. I'm not quite sure which point it is addressing though...
I'm trying to explain to you the difference in nuance between "result" and "justification", you have asked repeatedly and I've tried repeatedly. one more time....nahhhh....I am finished trying. Enjoy your trolling, cya.
-
Originally posted by Edbert1
Momus, for some reason you are a particularly obtuse person to have a conversation with, I'm starting to question why I try.
My sole reaction reading your post was "C'est l'hopital qui se moque de la Charité" (I think the correct translation is : "the pot calling the kettle black")
And I skipped the rest
-
Funny Edbert,
You label a major democracy a totalitarian and terrorist-supporting state then dance around the fact that you can't back it up for a few posts, and then you call me a troll for calling you on it?
:rofl
-
Originally posted by Rolex
Is it because they are Arabs and Arab Islamics are the "fear de jour?"
Yes. It also doesn't hurt that there are far more economic interests in the region for the US than there are in Asia and Africa. Thus, the middle east gets the media coverage, while the west gives a collective "tough ****" to Africa.
-
Originally posted by straffo
And I skipped the rest
Don't feel bad, he did too, all the while saying I was not answering him. That is assuming he's not so dense as to not see me answer or elaborate, over and over and over. Maybe it was the use of complex sentences that made it hard to understand. Let me try to make some simple and short statements that he can understand, not that it will help...
===================================
France uses techniques at home that would be unconstitutional in the USA.
Such techniques are considered to be totalitarian by many, inlcuding liberals.
Such techniques were used by the Nazis.
I object to such totalitarian techniqes.
The term "totalitarian state" implies there is no freedom.
I do not beleive France is a totalitarian state.
I beleive that colonialism breeds contempt among the colonials.
The USA is not a colonial power, in fact is was once a colony itself.
I beleive that the majority of the violence in Iraq today is not an insurgency.
I beleive the majority of the violence in iraq is a civil war.
I beleive the people of Iraq are not ready/willing/able to have a peaceful democracy any time soon.
I do understand why they want the US military out of their country, we want that too.
I do not understand why they choose civil war.
They are more afraid of the terrorists than they are of us.
I do beleive that the USA has mishandled the post-war situation in Iraq.
I beleive that Lebanon/Iran/Syria are states which sponsor terrorism.
I beleive Hezbollah/Hamas/PLO/AlQuaeda are terrorist organizations.
I beleive there are secular Arab governments in the ME who are not state-sponsors of terrorism.
I beleive terrorists live in those states that do not sponsor it at the state level.
I beleive there can be no negotiation with terrorists.
I don't beleive we should try to understand them.
I do not beleive they can be redirected from their jihad.
I beleive the only way to defeat them is to kill as many of them as possible.
I beleive that France is not willing to confront the threats of terrorism in the ME.
I beleive that France has sided with Hezbollah and Iran in the recent flare-up in Lebanon.
I beleive that France is putting short-term economic interests above the long term defeat of Islamofacists.
I beleive that France is willing to let their grandchildren deal with the problem.
I want the terrorists dead or marginalized before my time on earth is passed so my grandkids wont have to.
I beleive that the USA has let Israel down by not holding off the UN brokered rearm plan for Hezbollah.
I beleive Olmert has failed to destroy Hezbollah, he blinked.
I beleive there will be another conflict between Hezbollah and Israel in Lebanon.
I beleive other members of the UN-SC want the rearm period because they sell arms to Hezbollah.
I beleive most of the second page of this thread should have been in the "France sides with Hezbollah" thread.
I beleive that when you ignore someone's answer to your questions and ask the question again you are trolling.
I beleive he's trying to get this thread locked like the other one.
I will not respond to any more trolls from Momus.