15
   

ISRAEL - IRAN - SYRIA - HAMAS - HEZBOLLAH - WWWIII?

 
 
old europe
 
  1  
Reply Wed 9 Aug, 2006 01:16 pm
ican711nm wrote:
Use of brute force is a necessary way to resolve the kinds of disputes I described.


Oh really? There exists zero historical evidence of successful examples that support what you allege.
0 Replies
 
blueflame1
 
  1  
Reply Wed 9 Aug, 2006 01:16 pm
0 Replies
 
SierraSong
 
  1  
Reply Wed 9 Aug, 2006 01:21 pm
The so-called 'leader' of the UN (the asswipe known as Kofi) KNEW about these rockets.........--------------------------------------------------------------
10aug06

TWELVE trucks crossed the Syrian border into Lebanon and rumbled south. When they were stopped at a checkpoint a few days later, the Lebanese Armed Forces found the trucks were brimming with ammunition and weapons, including Katyusha rockets that have been raining down on Israel since July 12.

What happened next, in this little-reported incident in late January, goes to the heart of the conflict between Israel and Lebanon. The convoy was waved on and travelled unhindered to its final destination: Hezbollah terrorists in southern Lebanon. The Lebanese army said the transportation and storage of ammunition belonged to the "resistance". Once inside Lebanon it was subject to a ministerial policy statement of the Lebanese Government, which considers the "resistance" to be legitimate.

"As the Government of Lebanon has confirmed, the Lebanese Armed Forces has thus not been authorised to prevent further movement of the ammunitions, which had been a common practice for more than 15 years," UN Secretary-General Kofi Annan said in a letter to the Security Council in April. "Hezbollah publicly confirmed that the arms were destined for the group."

It's this uninterrupted flow of weapons, mostly made in Iran, under the nose of the Lebanese Government, that has allowed Hezbollah to stockpile some 12,000 Katyusha rockets. Over the past 29 days of conflict, Hezbollah has fired more than 3000 rockets into Israel.

Syrian-made rockets, including mid-range 220mm units, have also fallen on Nazareth and Haifa, Israel's third-largest city. The warheads were filled with ball bearings to maximise civilian casualties.

Aside from rocket launchers, armoured personnel carriers, night vision goggles, aerial drones and motorised gliders make up the hardware for a 3000-strong guerilla unit that some say is in fact a well-organised and fierce military force.

"The fact that Hezbollah is difficult to dislodge from their positions is not a surprise for the Israelis or anyone else," David Schenker, a specialist in Middle East affairs at the Washington Institute for Near East Policy, tells The Australian. Schenker also worked for four years at the Pentagon as a Middle East specialist. "Hezbollah fighters are well trained and highly motivated and they are dug in," he adds.

Former CIA officer Robert Baer, who has followed the group since 1983, told US News & World Report he has "a lot of respect for Hezbollah's capabilities". Baer, whose book See No Evil inspired the film Syriana, spent a couple of weeks with Hezbollah last year, touring its facilities. "You've got some of the most experienced operatives in the world there."

When the Israelis left Lebanon in 2000, Hezbollah fortified its position along the northern border and continued to amass its cache of arms. In 2000, Hezbollah was estimated to have 6000 rockets. But in May, Hezbollah leader Hassan Nasrallah claimed to have more than 12,000. "All of northern occupied Palestine is within range," Nasrallah said, referring to Israel. "Its ports, its bases, its factories and everything located there."

Until the Syrian pull-out of Lebanon last year this supply of arms to Hezbollah was relatively easy. Schenker says the route to Hezbollah was traditionally Iranian cargo planes flying into Damascus, Syria, and overland from there. The direct air route to Damascus is over Iraq but Schenker says the US occupation made any airlifts through Iraqi airspace perilous, meaning a more common route became either overland through Turkey and northern Iraq (Kurdistan) and into Syria, or through Turkish airspace.

While Hezbollah's burgeoning arsenal of rockets was well known, what has surprised Schenker and others during the conflict is Hezbollah's use of sophisticated weaponry.

Just two days into the war, an Israeli Sa'ar 5 class missile corvette, enforcing the naval blockade off Lebanon, was struck by a C-802 radar-guided anti-ship cruise missile, an Iranian-made version of a missile known as the Chinese silkworm. The explosion claimed the lives of four soldiers and the ship had to return to port.

It was the first time the missile had been used in the war with Israel and military officials reported that the Israeli ship's radar system was not calibrated to detect the missile, which is equipped with an advanced anti-tracking system.

Iran denied any involvement and US and Israeli officials say there was no evidence that Iranian operatives working in Lebanon launched the missile themselves. That made the incident even more curious, observes Schenker.

"It was assumed broadly that the Iranian Revolutionary Guard corp personnel stationed in Lebanon would assist Hezbollah in the technical operation of this equipment," says Schenker. "That would not have been a surprise. What was a surprise is that according to Israelis, a Lebanese Armed Forces naval radar station was used and it was used to lock on the ship."

It meant the land-based radar post communicated with the missile, which allowed the incoming missile to avoid detection.

"This enhanced capability is why the IDF (Israeli Defence Force) destroyed the Lebanese Armed Forces radar station," says Schenker, referring to an IDF strike north of Beirut a few days later.

The incident points to the many sympathies within the Lebanese Armed Forces and the Government to Hezbollah and why the present conflict is so precarious and raising concerns of another civil war in Lebanon.

Lebanese Prime Minister Fouad Siniora has played a delicate act in avoiding the use of the word "militia", which is the definition in UN resolution 1559 that calls for the disarmament of Hezbollah. In fact just as news of that intercepted convoy of arms was breaking in Lebanon, Siniora told Beirut parliament on February 6: "We have never called, and will never call, the resistance by any name other than resistance."

That's an affront to the US because prior to the al-Qa'ida September 11 attacks, Hezbollah - or Party of God - had the ignominious boast that it had killed more Americans than any other terror group.

Hezbollah was formed in 1982 in the ashes of Lebanon's civil war, a fully paid-up subsidiary of Ayatollah Khomeini's Iranian revolution and its vision of Islamic Shia fundamentalism.

US officials believe Iran finances Hezbollah to the tune of $US100 million ($132million) a year, while the Iran Revolutionary Guard trains its fighters.

Hezbollah's terrorist attacks over the year include suicide bombings of the US embassy and Marine barracks in Beirut, the hijacking of TWA flight 847 and bombings of the Israeli embassy in Argentina and US military housing at Khobar Towers in Saudi Arabia.

And it has grown into a potent political force, with two of its members in the Lebanese cabinet and, until Israel's bombing campaign, a well developed network of social services, media outlets and businesses.

As the war drags on, Hezbollah is being severely degraded militarily, according to the IDF, but its political credentials in Lebanon have been enhanced and become "stronger than before in terms of the eyes of the Lebanese people", says Martin Indyk, a former US ambassador to Israel.

Hisham Milhem, Washington correspondent for liberal Arabic newspaper Al-Nahar, says Hezbollah is projecting itself in Lebanon as the protector of the homeland.

"Hezbollah is riding high, not only in Lebanon but throughout the Arab world. (Hezbollah leader) Hassan Nasrallah is lionised. Nasrallah now, from where he is sitting in some bunker in Beirut or in the Bekaa Valley - I don't know where - can claim with a great deal of credence that Hezbollah managed to create a hole in Israel's strategic deterrence.

"He delivered ... not necessarily in a very effective military way, but definitely politically in terms of perception. Hezbollah is standing up to the Israelis and doing relatively well."

Clearly, Israel is attempting to deal Hezbollah a crippling blow by bombing the highways to Syria, and any convoys on it, to shut down Hezbollah's supply routes. But military strategists acknowledge that its air campaign targeting mobile rocket launch sites is counter-productive, particularly when the guerilla forces are hiding among civilians. Israel suffered a significant propaganda defeat and widespread condemnation following the strike in Qana which claimed the lives of 28, including 16 children. It's why Israel has committed more ground forces to try to rout the rocket launchers.

There is also concern the present conflict is a proxy battle in which Iran is observing Israel's military tactics.

"Iran is bringing in to Lebanon sophisticated weaponry," says Lebanon's Druze leader, Walid Jumblatt. "The Iranians are actually experimenting with different kinds of missiles in Lebanon by shooting them at the Israelis. Iran is using this violence to test certain of Israel's abilities," he adds. Jumblatt heads Lebanon's Progressive Socialist Party and is regarded as the most prominent anti-Syrian Lebanese politician.

And he adds of Syria's role: "Syria will likely try to tell the world, 'Look, see, since we left Lebanon, the Cedar Revolution and the forces in Lebanon that got our military out through popular support, those forces are not able to control Lebanon. While we were in control, Lebanon was a safe place. Now it's not. We need to come back in," he predicts.

"I would not be surprised if they even try to wiggle their way into a deal by convincing the Americans that Syrian influence in Lebanon will stabilise the region."

Syria originally sent forces into Lebanon in 1976 during the Lebanese civil war and its military occupied the country until last year when suddenly its troops withdrew after an international outcry over the assassination of former Lebanese prime minister Rafik Hariri, for which Damascus was blamed.

David Makovsky, also a senior fellow at the Washington Institute for Near East policy, wrote that last month's attack from Hezbollah demonstrated the first time the group felt "self-confident enough to claim responsibility for a strike across the internationally recognised border. These events suggest that Iran was pressing for Hezbollah's initiation of the crisis."

And on the day of the Hezbollah attack against Israel, Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad declared: "If the Zionist regime commits another stupid move and attacks Syria, this will be considered like attacking the whole Islamic world and this regime will receive a very fierce response. The stakes for the international community go beyond Israel itself."

Makovsky notes, as Iran pushes the world on its plans for a nuclear program, "Iran sees itself as being on the march".

"This point is not lost on countries such as the US and European and Arab states, which do not want this crisis to end with Iran and Hezbollah feeling emboldened."

http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au/story/0,20867,20074368-31477,00.html
0 Replies
 
Brand X
 
  1  
Reply Wed 9 Aug, 2006 01:50 pm
Quote:
Israel to delay wider ground offensive
09/08/2006 - 16:37:44

The Israeli military will hold off a wider ground offensive in south Lebanon by three days to allow for the UN Security Council to continue its debate for a ceasefire resolution, according to one of the ministers attending a meeting this afternoon.

Israel's security cabinet approved a wider ground offensive in south Lebanon that was expected to take 30 days as part of a new push to badly damage Hezbollah, said Israeli cabinet minister Eli Yishai earlier today.

The decision to expand the offensive was made with nine ministers in favour and three abstaining.

The security cabinet authorised troops to push to the Litani River some 18 miles from the Israel-Lebanon border.

Currently some 10,000 soldiers are fighting Hezbollah in a four-mile stretch from the Israel-Lebanon border.

During the meeting, US Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice called Israeli prime minister Ehud Olmert and the two spoke for half an hour, a cabinet minister said, speaking on condition of anonymity because he was not authorised to reveal the contents of the call.

When Olmert returned to the meeting, he announced that a new diplomatic process would begin simultaneous to the military operation and that a new UN Security Council resolution to end the fighting would be drafted to try to address Lebanon's concerns, the minister said.

Israeli officials assessed that they would have sufficient time to complete their operation and rid south Lebanon of Hezbollah bunkers before a ceasefire is declared.

Yishai said the proposed operation was expected to take 30 days. However, an internationally backed ceasefire was expected to be imposed well before then.

"The assessment is it will last 30 days. I think it is wrong to make this assessment. I think it will take a lot longer," he said.

The decision gave authorisation to defence minister Amir Peretz and Olmert to order the wider offensive and to decide its timing. However, it did not obligate them to act.



Source
0 Replies
 
xingu
 
  1  
Reply Wed 9 Aug, 2006 02:02 pm
This is the democracy supporters of Israel like to boast about. By our standards it is apartheid. The Israelis feel about the Arab population as the Nazis did about the Jewish.

Quote:
The survey and recent election do not hold out the hope for change in Israeli policy, nor do past surveys. A 2002 survey reported that 80 percent of those Israelis polled opposed the participation of Arab Israelis in any "critical decisions affecting the state." So much for democracy.

But Israeli policy toward Palestinian Arabs has been consistent since the founding of Israel in 1948. After all, Israel is a settler state founded on the principles of Zionism which only recognize the existence of a "Jewish state". Zionists believe that they have the right to occupy "historic Israel", meaning the lands that were allegedly once part of a Jewish kingdom 20 centuries ago. Of course among the Zionists they have been unable to agree on the geographic boundaries encompassed by "historic Israel." For some, the West Bank and parts of Egypt, Syria, Jordan, Lebanon, and even Iraq fall within the boundaries.

But in twentieth century this land was occupied by Palestinian Arabs and also a Jewish minority. In the 1948 war, the Zionists used terrorism and massacre to expel much of the existing Palestinian population. Before the war there were approximately 850,000 Arabs within what became Israel. After the war about 130,000 remained. These Palestinian Arabs eventually became Israeli citizens, albeit second class ones. Today, they and their descendants number over a million and are about one-fifth of the Israeli population.

The displaced Arabs were replaced by the immigration of Jews from all over the world. Under the Zionist Law of Return, any Jew has the right to immigrate to Israel and is automatically granted citizenship, along with spouses, children and grandchildren. At the same time, some Israeli Arabs have been denied the right of return after taking vacations out of the country or visiting relatives in the occupied territories.

Even the U.S. government has had to admit that the Arab segment of the population is oppressed. In the 2004 Country Reports on Human Rights Practices published by the U.S. State Department it is stated, "The [Israeli] Government did little to reduce institutional, legal, and societal discrimination against the country's Arab citizensÂ…"

This is in direct contravention of Article 26 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR) adopted by the U.N. General Assembly in December 1966 which states, "All Persons are equal before the law and are entitled without any discrimination to the equal protection of the law. In this respect the law shall prohibit any discrimination on any grounds such as race, color, sex, language, political or other opinion, national or social origin, property, birth or other status."

SOURCE

Funny how many times the state of Israel has defied and ignored the UN. But let a Muslim nation defy the UN and our good conservatives hypocrites want to nuke them.
0 Replies
 
SierraSong
 
  1  
Reply Wed 9 Aug, 2006 02:11 pm
Quote:
The French U.N. delegation has joined with Arab nations and is now calling for a complete and immediate Israeli withdrawal from Lebanon as a condition of any cease-fire, the sources said.


LOL. The French were irrelevant long before they said that Iran was a stabilizing force in the Middle East.
0 Replies
 
ican711nm
 
  1  
Reply Wed 9 Aug, 2006 02:16 pm
old europe wrote:
ican711nm wrote:
Use of brute force is a necessary way to resolve the kinds of disputes I described.


Oh really? There exists zero historical evidence of successful examples that support what you allege.


I agree!

That's true, since historically there is only one example of an extermination conflict as opposed to a power conflict. Terrorist group(s) like I described that seek extermination of opponents, not merely power over opponents, first came into existence in the last quarter of the 20th century. This/these terrorist group/s has/have not yet been stopped by negotiations or brute force, or by brute force and negotiations. I'm betting that eventually brute force followed by negotiations--with what is left of this/these terrorist group/s --will stop this/these terrorist group/s.

Historically, many power conflicts as opposed to extermination conflicts were stopped by brute force followed by some negotiations. Here are some examples --

American Revolutionary War
American War of 1812
American Civil War
Spanish American War
WWI
WWII
Korean War
Vietnam War (I think USA lost because of its inadequate use of brute force)
Bosnian War
Kuwait War

I did not mention the Afghanistan War or the Iraq War as examples because these wars are not over. I bet the reason they are not over already is because of inadequate use of brute force by America and the Coalition.

I cannot think of any rational argument to support the hypothesis that, while many power conflicts require brute force followed by negotiations to be ended, extermination conflicts can be ended by negotiations without the use of brute force. The problem is that while not all power conflicts incur the use of brute force, all extermination conflicts by their intrinsic nature incur the use of brute force by at least one of the conflicting parties.
0 Replies
 
Foxfyre
 
  1  
Reply Wed 9 Aug, 2006 02:38 pm
old europe wrote:
Foxfyre wrote:
OE is the one who put the IRA and Northern Ireland together in the same sentence. I was just accommodating him.

My point was, however, that there is no comparison between Northern Ireland and the IRA and Lebanon and Hezbollah.


Well, I was answering to ican (probable a mistake) who claimed there was absolutely no other way of dealing with terrorists than killing them, and absolutely no historical evidence that any method other than brute force has ever been successful vis-a-vis a terrorist group.

That was where I mentioned the IRA and Northern Ireland (and the McCartney sisters) "together in the same sentence".

As you know as well as anybody who's been following the discussion, you were the one who started comparing Northern Ireland and the IRA and Lebanon and Hezbollah.


No, I was REFUSING to compare Northern Ireland and the IRA with Lebanon and Hezbollah as I think there is no comparison of any kind there. The IRA had a specific objective in mind which was to unify a country. Hezbollah has a specific objective in mind which is to exterminate Israel, the USA, and Europe and establish Islam as the ruling authority in all the world.

Now you can compare Hezbollah with Hamas or Al Qaida or the Ayatollahs of Iran and maybe even Nazi extremists and I would agree there is a comparison. So far, when you make real comparisons such as these, Ican's statement holds up really well.
0 Replies
 
freedom4free
 
  1  
Reply Wed 9 Aug, 2006 03:03 pm
Fox Military Analyst on Syria: 'We Can Talk To Them When We Line Them Up and Kill Them'

Watch it:

http://thinkprogress.org/2006/08/09/syria-fox/
0 Replies
 
Foxfyre
 
  1  
Reply Wed 9 Aug, 2006 03:08 pm
From Michael Goodwin's essay today:

". . . . .Lieberman's decision to stay in the race as an independent is the right one. Given the close margin, all the state's voters deserve a chance to have their say. Perhaps they will fix what the Democrats broke.

That many Americans are disgusted with events in Iraq is understandable. Nothing has gone as planned or promised, a point Lieberman made with some regularity. But wars never go easily, and thus are always unpopular at some point.

Even "good" wars have their bad moments, causing otherwise sensible people to look for the exits.

That is happening across our nation with Iraq, which, given the lousy intelligence on weapons of mass destruction, never was a "good" war. Yet Iraq, in all its hellishness, is important, even vital to regional stability and American security. Unplug America's commitment there, which is what the Lamont crowd is about, and how exactly does that help us? Will the terrorists suddenly stop attacking us and our allies?

And does the price of peace also require us to abandon Israel and the moderate Arab governments who are our allies in fighting the terrorists? Indeed, there was a surreal quality to the television news last night: Stations cutting away from the Israeli-Hezbollah war to update the election results, and vice versa. Too bad no one thought to link them as two parts of one story, which is what they are.

Congressional Democratic leaders recently demanded that Bush begin withdrawing our troops this year, regardless of events in Iraq. They called it a "redeployment." When I said that redeployment was another word for retreat, a top party operative disagreed. He said, earnestly, that Dems favored keeping about 35,000 troops "in the region" as something like a police force. "We could go back into Iraq if we had to," he said.

This is fantasy. And that's what Lamont's victory is based on. That somehow we can pull out of Iraq, tell the terrorists they win - and we and our allies will not suffer any consequences. And if those Islamists misbehave, well, we'll just scoot back over there with our police force and arrest those naughty fellows.

I believe that Islamic terrorists will stop at nothing in their mad quest to rule the globe. As a result, World War III has started, whether we like it or not. It will continue, whether we fight back or not. But if we think we can win by not fighting, then we're not just wrong. We're nuts. As in nutmeg. "
SOURCE
0 Replies
 
gungasnake
 
  1  
Reply Wed 9 Aug, 2006 03:09 pm
http://i5.photobucket.com/albums/y197/txtm/Hezbochicks.jpg
0 Replies
 
freedom4free
 
  1  
Reply Wed 9 Aug, 2006 03:32 pm
http://www.indymedia.org.uk/images/2001/12/218702.gif
0 Replies
 
gungasnake
 
  1  
Reply Wed 9 Aug, 2006 04:48 pm
http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v188/sycamore/new%20album/axisvsallieds-1.jpg
0 Replies
 
freedom4free
 
  1  
Reply Wed 9 Aug, 2006 05:00 pm
http://www.infopalestina.com/images/Kartun/target%20israel.jpg
0 Replies
 
gungasnake
 
  1  
Reply Wed 9 Aug, 2006 05:18 pm
"Palestinian Slammites Celebrating 9/11[/color]

http://www.faithfreedom.org/Gallery/9-11.jpg

http://www.faithfreedom.org/Gallery/9_11_Palestinian2.jpg

http://www.faithfreedom.org/Gallery/palestinians.jpg

http://www.faithfreedom.org/Gallery/palescelebration.jpg

http://www.humanists.net/alisina/9_11_Palestinians.jpg

http://www.faithfreedom.org/Gallery/14.htm

http://www.faithfreedom.org/
0 Replies
 
timberlandko
 
  1  
Reply Wed 9 Aug, 2006 05:47 pm
One is given little cause to suspect reason and maturity soon will be attributes of this discussion and those of its like. The conflict more than has a life of its own; its perpetuation is a reason for life for many, as evidenced plainly and unambiguously by the postings here of some. Idiocy is exclusive to no particular ideology, no particular theology; it is an equal-opportunity affliction.
0 Replies
 
dyslexia
 
  1  
Reply Wed 9 Aug, 2006 06:09 pm
So from this godless communist comes the thought that hezbollah will rip israel a new asshole forcing israel to actually have to negoiate terms of peace with palestine and lebanon. carry on with your mindless chatter folks.
0 Replies
 
xingu
 
  1  
Reply Wed 9 Aug, 2006 06:10 pm
freedom4free wrote:
Fox Military Analyst on Syria: 'We Can Talk To Them When We Line Them Up and Kill Them'

Watch it:

http://thinkprogress.org/2006/08/09/syria-fox/


It's this type of attitude that led to 9/11. It's going to lead to thousands of more Americans deaths. That's one of the problems with being to strong, you get to think that everyone has to do what you want. You begin to think that your self-interest is the only interest that matters. Pride and arrogance will be our downfall.

If we don't stop behaving like the British Empire, we will end up like the British Empire.
~Pat Buchanan
0 Replies
 
gungasnake
 
  1  
Reply Wed 9 Aug, 2006 06:49 pm
xingu wrote:


If we don't stop behaving like the British Empire, we will end up like the British Empire.
~Pat Buchanan


Buchanan makes it sound like the empire is what undid England. What undid England was Darwinism, secular humanism, and two world wars based on those ideas. Take all of that out of the picture and the British Empire would still be flourishing, and the people living under it would be enormously better off than they are now in all but the rarest cases.

Nobody was starving in Rhodesia under the British Empire. Starving in places like Rhodesia or the Ukraine is exactly the same proposition as not being able to get laid in a whorehouse.
0 Replies
 
dyslexia
 
  1  
Reply Wed 9 Aug, 2006 06:57 pm
gungasnake wrote:
xingu wrote:


If we don't stop behaving like the British Empire, we will end up like the British Empire.
~Pat Buchanan


Buchanan makes it sound like the empire is what undid England. What undid England was Darwinism, secular humanism, and two world wars based on those ideas. Take all of that out of the picture and the British Empire would still be flourishing, and the people living under it would be enormously better off than they are now in all but the rarest cases.

Nobody was starving in Rhodesia under the British Empire. Starving in places like Rhodesia or the Ukraine is exactly the same proposition as not being able to get laid in a whorehouse.
Can we assume that you have not been taking your meds gunga?
0 Replies
 
 

Related Topics

Israel's Reality - Discussion by Miller
THE WAR IN GAZA - Discussion by Advocate
Israel's Shame - Discussion by BigEgo
Eye On Israel/Palestine - Discussion by IronLionZion
 
Copyright © 2024 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.06 seconds on 10/12/2024 at 01:29:53