For pity's sake [Archive]

Banquo's Ghost

08-08-2006, 13:26

Israel, whose campaign in Lebanon has been such an outstanding success that their enemy is still able to rain rockets down on the north after (http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/middle_east/5249972.stm) 30 days, now threatens even more escalation (http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/middle_east/5255042.stm).

Leaflets dropped in Tyre, the biggest Lebanese city south of the Litani river, said operations against what they described as terrorist elements would be escalated with extreme force.

Any vehicles of any sort moving on the road south of the Litani, they say, will now be attacked on suspicion of carrying rockets, materiel or terrorists.

The people left in Tyre and South Lebanon are those that cannot easily get out, and the combatants. Oh, and the aid agencies that are desperately trying to bring food and water to the trapped civilians. On the news last night, there were pictures of Israeli jets bombing a Medecin sans Frontieres convoy, and those same relief workers later manhandling supplies across a river where the bridge had been destroyed. According to their team leader, the Red Cross in Tyre has been refused permission to move, refused information about which roads will be considered safe from attacks.

Whatever arguments one can bring to support Israel's military actions, surely it can find some humanity and compassion for those innocents it is destroying?

Tribesman

08-08-2006, 15:03

Its a natural step .
It can be quite embarrasing when you bomb the hell out of civilians , so you say the civilians were warned and it is their own fault they got killed .
So when you get embarrased about bombing ambulances , UN vehicles and aid convoys , just give a warning then it will all be the Red Cross/Crescent , UN and aid agencies own fault .
Simple isn't it .

Blodrast

08-08-2006, 19:51

I guess "disgusting" doesn't even begin to cover it, but I'm not sure what else I can say from the comfort of my armchair...:shame:

Blodrast

08-08-2006, 20:07

Refusing to give them information is fine with me.
Bombing the heck out of them, when you _see_ they are Red Cross trucks/vehicles, is not. Sure, one could argue that maybe they're carrying terrorists and weapons - but that's easy to inspect, isn't it ? Have roadblocks, or whatever, and inspect all you want.

And what about the miserable civilians who couldn't get out ? We just cross them out in the "casualties" rubric and shrug saying "Well, you can't make a war without breaking a few eggs!" ?

Ser Clegane

08-08-2006, 20:19

It's war, and you don't win wars by making exceptions.
If the ultimate goal of this war is to create peace than it might be a good idea to make "exceptions" to keep civilian casualties low.
This isn't a wargame were the only think you have to care about is destroying your enemy.

Blodrast

08-08-2006, 20:20

How do you know ? By inspecting them, just like I said. Did you actually read my post ? Roadblocks, etc. How to identify the people ? Documents. Documents, you know. Sure, documents can be forged, but then, anything can, so where do we draw the line ? Let's kill all the damn children, because they might be Hezbollah fighters in disguise, shall we ?

And please don't be condescending, I'm not on any high horses, and I well realize this is a war. Following your logic, they should go to total war and nuke the hell out of everything - that way they can be absolutely, positively sure that they killed all the Hezbollah terrorists.
Considering it's NOT total war, and they are still making pretenses at fighting a somewhat "civilized" war (i.e., 'we're sorry for bombing the UN post' - even if they're not), they should make some concessions - especially regarding civilians. They haven't exactly been considerate towards civilians, as you may have noticed.

Ser Clegane

08-08-2006, 21:11

As I understand it, the goal is to destroy Hizzbolah.
Wrong.
The goal is to protect Israeli citizens and the state of Israel.
Destroying Hezbollah is a means to achieve this, however, indiscriminately killing Lebanese civilians is counterproductive with regard to the actual goal.

Blodrast

08-08-2006, 21:26

Ok, Cube, I understand your position.
As surprising as it may seem to you, I agree with you as per the old adage: "There is no moderation in love and war".
I agree that, if they do indeed want to wage total war, than it should indeed be total. However, I don't think they want that, and I don't think they should do it in this case, either. I don't think it's justified, either (and these are all completely different issues).

Keba

08-08-2006, 21:36

If there's any doubt, sure. It's war. Get out of the warzone and take your children with you, or you risk getting killed. I swear, people these days.. it seems the Israelis are the only modern army with a modicom of common sense.

And how would the people leave? Get in a car and drive on one of the non-existent roads Israel so kindly blew up? Get in a car that Israel has already warned will get blown up just for being there? Most of those left are those way below the poverty line, they can't get out because they either have no money to do so, and now, thanks to the oh-so-kind Israel, can't.

Sure, let the people leave, especially considering that any means of transport will be shot at, and all roads and bridges have been reduced to rubble.

I find I trust Israel litte ... and all of this reeks. Any other country does this, and the USA, NATO and the UN would be at their throats. But not Israel, nooo, they're special, they can get away with bombing the frickin' UN without a whisper against them.

Seamus Fermanagh

08-08-2006, 22:04

I tried to dig into this with my "rules of engagement" thread. The same arguments repeat here and I see no progress.

There seems to exist, both here and in the media at large, a sense that Israel has a right to defend itself from Hezbollah.

At the same time, public sentiment seems to favor an Israeli defense that involves direct counter-attacks with precise targeting against targets conclusively identified and confirmed as Hezbollah only, with no attacks on the infrastructure of Lebanon or its population.

In practice, in a world where the target is moving/hidden/intermingled with non-combatants and where the infrastructure of non-combatants is also the one supporting the combatants, this is impractical at best. A katyusha type rocket fires from a grove, the launcher is tarped, and the truck moves on. There is a bunker for munitions, built into a hillside in close proximity to a village (they hauled the munitions in on that road, who is going to walk a katyusha 600 yards into a deserted swale by hand), making it difficult to penetrate the target without damaging the other structures. The combat uniform of the hezbollah soldier is virtually identical to the daywear of the local inhabitants. In other words, it is virtually impossible to identify a target with certainty unless and until you actively let her/him shoot at you first while in direct visual contact -- and perhaps not even then, since you might duck and miss your chance to conclusively identify the shooter.

In practice, Israel's only choice in truly minimizing civilian casualties in Lebanon is to not counter attack. In this way, no mistaken targets will be harmed and the daily lives of Lebanese citizens will not be disrupted.

The rockets raining down on Northern Israel are fairly innacurate after all, and aren't killing very many Israelis. Were Israel to provide fairly concentrated military targets -- tightly grouped tent encampments or soft vehicles in open laagers for example -- Hezbollah warriors would gladly (I suspect) target these instead of civilian sites and the IDF's goal of screening and defending the civilian population will have been achieved.

This restraint would also generate a ground swell of support for Israel among arab nations in the region. I conservatively estimate that support for Israel would triple, totalling out at a full .03 percent.

Banquo's Ghost

08-08-2006, 22:12

Cube, I really hope that you are indulging in one of your 'let's see how extreme I can be 'till they get a clue' exercises.

If not, we are not mindless, hatefilled animals to rend each other unto oblivion. There are reasons why civilisation has developed rules such as the Geneva Conventions - and why we deplore those like the terrorists who do not respect them.

Those civilians killed are real people like you and me. Not statistics, not collateral damage, but real human beings. On both sides, and too many on both sides are dying.

Militarily speaking, there are few good reasons why aid agencies cannot be facilitated. The UN and the Red Cross have direct hotline communications with the Israeli command. The IDF has also been remarkably unsuccessful at targetting Hizbollah positions so far, largely because their tactics are too blunt.

I'm sorry, I don't think I can argue this anymore. I shouldn't have posted the thread. :shame:

JimBob

08-08-2006, 22:19

There is no such thing as a limited war, especially where Guerillas and Terrorists are concerned. Short of your little nuke comment (would not jive with common sense), I think your sarcastic comment is on the money--blow up everything. Spare no building, vehicle, or house. They have the equipment, they have the backing, but do they have the will?

How exactly would this would this help things? Do you honestly think that the Lebonese would "get the message" and give up and be submissive to Isreal?

Tribesman

08-08-2006, 22:53

At the same time, public sentiment seems to favor an Israeli defense that involves direct counter-attacks with precise targeting against targets conclusively identified and confirmed as Hezbollah only, with no attacks on the infrastructure of Lebanon or its population.

Seamus , isn't that part of the IDFs doctrine , you know maintaining the moral position of the Israeli armed forces as an example to not only its population but to the world as well .
Do you think they have forgotten it , or did they just alter it and not tell anyone .

Tribesman

08-08-2006, 23:04

Neither. The rest of the world just changes what is "Moral" so as to make sure Israel is the bad guy.
Nope

Purity of Arms - The IDF servicemen and women will use their weapons and force only for the purpose of their mission, only to the necessary extent and will maintain their humanity even during combat. IDF soldiers will not use their weapons and force to harm human beings who are not combatants or prisoners of war, and will do all in their power to avoid causing harm to their lives, bodies, dignity and property.

So where is the purity in blowing up civilians , forcing them from their homes , destroying their towns and denying them medical care and humanitarian relief .
Perhaps they had better update their website to include a new doctrine:idea2:

scotchedpommes

08-08-2006, 23:33

Cube, I really hope that you are indulging in one of your 'let's see how extreme I can be 'till they get a clue' exercises...

Those civilians killed are real people like you and me. Not statistics, not collateral damage, but real human beings.

Regarding your second point, I think the majority conveniently push these
uncomfortable facts aside. It is all very well to say that people should leave the
area of the fighting, but as has been said in this thread, and then ignored,
people aren't able to leave because they are bombed when they move. Israel
could significantly minimise civilian casualties by not bombing vehicles leaving
a town, after having told the inhabitants of that town to leave.

To me it is obvious, but in order to consider the human aspect - perhaps some
people might think how losing someone they know in such an attack would
affect them, if only to understand why Lebanon is now beginning to view
Hezbollah as a national defence force rather than an enemy of the people. When
you see people who have lost several members of their family, or a man
who has lost his wife and only child, to expect him to turn against Hezbollah [as
Israel seemingly expects] is absurd.

To dismiss those same people as an acceptable loss is sickening.

Don Corleone

08-08-2006, 23:52

Takes two to tango guys. I notice, as usual, many of our same old friends here fail to condemn Hezbollah, or their Iranian/Syrian suppliers and advisors. The difference between all of you and those of us supporting Israel is that we can at least admit we're biased towards Israel. You're biased against them and claim that you're impartial.

I've said it before and I'll say it again. Six weeks ago, it was just Hezbollah firing rockets on Israeli citizens. Where was your outrage then?

Reenk Roink

08-09-2006, 00:02

I've said it before and I'll say it again. Six weeks ago, it was just Hezbollah firing rockets on Israeli citizens. Where was your outrage then?

This will quickly lead to a "chicken-egg" argument Don Corleone, as it certainly didn't start with that...

Just to let everyone know how terrible both sides are (at least in my paradigm of war):

Israel:
At least 689 people dead (probably more)
At least 605 civilians (probably more)
29 Lebanese soldiers
At least 55 Hezbollah (the 55 is Hezbollah's number, so probably more, but probably nowhere near the 400 Israel says [it has confirmed 165])

Hezbollah:
97 dead
36 civilians
65 soldiers

Can anybody say one is better than the other...? :no: :shame:

I consider myself neutral-apathetic in this conflict (Israel has a right to exist, unless Arabs defeat Israel)...

I was worried about Hezbollah atrocities more than Israeli at the beginning (didn't foresee such a response), but now am completely convinced that the two need not look no further than each other...

Don Corleone

08-09-2006, 00:05

Okay Reenk. Let's address your chicken-egg moment. Since the US ended the war with Japan with the final strike, does Japan have a blank check to attack the US at any time? Is it not reasonable to start the timeframe for any of these clashes from the cessation of hostilities of the last one?

Reenk Roink

08-09-2006, 00:09

Papewaio

08-09-2006, 00:11

Hezbollah should be wiped out. But the cure should not create an even worse organisation. Pop Quiz: How was Hezbollah created?

Hezbollahs atrocities are not a blank check for Israel to wipe out Lebanese civilians. Collateral damage is the accidental killing of civilians in an attack aimed at non-civilian infrastructure. It is not collateral damage when civilians are the primary target, it is a terrorist attack be it individual, group, state sponsored or state.

Attacking civilians to achieve political change is terrorism. Terrorism is not limited to non-state entities.

=][=

How quick could the US, the worlds lone superpower, remove its citizens from New Orleans in the face of the hurricane?

Now image doing that while having all your infrastructure bombed and all your vehicles attacked. Then image being told because those left in New Orleans can't make it out they are going to be executed in mass because they aren't leaving. Any remaining civilians now trying to flee the comming destruction are killed as they leave, while those who remain are wiped out for remaining. Now while you are sending in your medical personnel to look after the elderly, the young and the sick they get their convoy blown up. But instead of turning around they gather up their supplies and walk into New Orleans through destroyed roads, bridges and infrastructure to a place with no power and no real defence against the comming destruction. .

Don Corleone

08-09-2006, 00:12

Well, Reenk, it seems to me that in June of this year, it was pretty damned one sided. Had been all Spring.

Crazed Rabbit

08-09-2006, 00:14

When your enemy builds schools on top of their bunkers, what are you supposed to do?

Crazed Rabbit

Don Corleone

08-09-2006, 00:15

Pape, I have said, and will say again, on the record, that I disagree with the heavy handed tactics Israel is employing, and the US should be forcing them to prosecute their campaign with more restraint. I find it unconcsionable that they are firing on any vehicle that moves, then bomb residential areas claiming that civilians were warned to leave.

But frankly, I only consider my own condemnation to be objective and fair. There is a crowd, in the media and in the backroom that seems to condemn Israel, then forget to blame the atrocities of the other side. Or, they wrap it in blanket statements such as "all are partially to blame". Not all. Switzerland and Swaziland have nothing to do with this. This is Hezbollah, Iran, Syria, and yes, Israel. I can blame Israel, but the blame from the other side coming to Hezbollah, Iran and Syria......well, the silence is deafening.

Tribesman

08-09-2006, 00:53

But frankly, I only consider my own condemnation to be objective and fair.
Don't you find this to be objective and fair........
http://daccessdds.un.org/doc/UNDOC/GEN/N06/437/22/IMG/N0643722.pdf?OpenElement
It seems pretty objective and fair to me .

Is this objective.....I've said it before and I'll say it again. Six weeks ago, it was just Hezbollah firing rockets on Israeli citizens. ....or fair , hey it is fair actually when you think of it , 6 weeks ago Israel wasn't firing rockets at Israeli citizens , apart from the accident at the arms factory in a residential area , but accidents happen :oops:

Seamus Fermanagh

08-09-2006, 02:19

Pannonian

08-09-2006, 02:31

We of the West need to look long and hard at the experience of Israel. It may well be our future. Hezbollah and other groups who share that methodology have established what may well be the norm of our existence in the future -- all marginalized groups employing selective random violence as a means of expression and identity-generation. Chaos becomes the norm and isolated pockets of police-statism the anodyne. Oh brave new world.....
We in Britain need to take a long hard look at how we have dealt with terrorism and other 4gw in the past. We know what works. Now we'll just have to wait for Blair to go before we return to it.

Tribesman

08-09-2006, 03:14

Typical. If Israel does it it's a horrible awful terrible thing on par with the Holocaust; if Hezbollah does it, well.. they're terrorists, its what they do.
Typical GC ???????
Can you read what I wrote or did you just quote it without reading it or the link ?
It should be an interesting answer as your post has absolutely nothing to do with the content .
So what is your explaination for your gibberish ?:inquisitive:

orangat

08-09-2006, 03:22

Marshal Murat

08-09-2006, 04:46

I can see both sides of the argument.
Israel had a right to defend itself, but the heavy handed, blast everything till you have a No-Mans Land is absurd.

Hezbollah should be eradicated, but guerilla warfare makes this impossible.

What I'm thinking is that sooner than later (August 22) Iran is going to have a nuke, and launch it. It could, possibly, hit America, but it'll probably hit Israel. Then the entire region is going to be a nuclear wasteland. Who wants it now? Who wants Tel-Aviv rubble?

I think Israel has reached the limit. Pull out, and get some anti-rocket defense. Something laser like, that can go sizzle boom!
I would say Lebanon needs to root out Hezbollah, but hell, with what is about 70 billion or more in repairs for damages, its going to have a hell of a time doing that.

UN needs to send in peacekeepers, secure the Lebanon AND Israel side of the border. Make it so that there is a no-weapon zone, where only a few rockets could possibly ever reach anywhere in Israel.

Tribesman

08-09-2006, 10:11

The link comes up as an error, so I responded to the nature of you're own writing.
Oh I see , so what part of writing you quote relates to your nonsense .

BTW the link (which I shall see if I can fix) contains a report on the situation for the last 6 months , to refute Dons statement

Tribesman

08-09-2006, 10:21

http://daccessdds.un.org/doc/UNDOC/GEN/N06/437/22/IMG/N0643722.pdf?OpenElement

This one.

Quote:
or fair , hey it is fair actually when you think of it , 6 weeks ago Israel wasn't firing rockets at Israeli citizens , apart from the accident at the arms factory in a residential area , but accidents happen

Oh I see , notice the holocaust comparisons , the condemnation of Israel and yep , just to be sure , excuses for terrorism .
Is English your first language?
It clearly cannot be yours can it , or is it just a mental block ?

Tribesman

08-09-2006, 10:50

So which is it GC , inability to read or complete mental block ?
It has to be one or the other .
Or do you have an alternative explanation ?

Tribesman

08-09-2006, 12:22

I think we have a fundamental transmission error here somewhere, is what I think.
OK , try and fix it then GC , if you need any help there are plenty of online dictionaries .

Redleg

08-09-2006, 13:40

I had problems opening your link Tribesman primarily due to the United Nations web site so I found it a different way.

http://documents.un.org/advance.asp

If this loads you to a language screen then

Click your language preference

Go to advance search

Type in the following in Job number N0643722

If it loads the way it did for me after the second time I tried the link to verify it - it should take you to the advance search screen.

If your still having problems go to the United Nations home webpage, find the document tab on that page, and then go to the search function, and select advance search.

If anyone is interested in reading the document and experienced an error from the UN website - this link will get you access to either the PDF file or you can download a word document. Tribesman provided the correct link, but for some reason errors out at the UN website, when I attempt to load it. (In otherwords its the UN, not the link. I believe it has to due with the the language cookies at the United Nations Website).

scooter_the_shooter

08-09-2006, 13:55

Israel is doing what has to be done to win. That's why I admire that country. While the west plays pansy tag when it comes to.....anything really Israel does what must be done.

I really hope we don't get in the same situation as israel because the west will not last, We have the wrong mindset to survive. The west has not been in a "win or die" war for too long (which is a good thing) and we are to comfortable and unwilling to do what needs to be done.(and that is bad)

(when I say we I mean the majority of the west)

Back OT as long as every one is notified not to go there....what's the problem?

Tribesman

08-09-2006, 15:57

Israel is doing what has to be done to win. That's why I admire that country. While the west plays pansy tag when it comes to.....anything really Israel does what must be done.

There lies the problem Ceasar , Israel is not winning , and what it is doing is guaranteeing that it does not win .

I had problems opening your link Tribesman primarily due to the United Nations web site so I found it a different way.

Easiest way Red is to go to the Lebanon backround/history page and scroll down till the last 6 monthly report link , or alternatively go through all the 6 monthly reports links on that page for a fuller picture on the ups and downs in the situation and the violations by all parties .

Redleg

08-09-2006, 16:09

I had problems opening your link Tribesman primarily due to the United Nations web site so I found it a different way.
[/B]
Easiest way Red is to go to the Lebanon backround/history page and scroll down till the last 6 monthly report link , or alternatively go through all the 6 monthly reports links on that page for a fuller picture on the ups and downs in the situation and the violations by all parties .

The job number for the report was in your link, which made it even easier to find the exact report that you were refering to. Much easier then scrolling down the list of reports that are on the web pages..:laugh4:

Marshal Murat

08-09-2006, 17:18

Back on topic si'l vous plait.

Americans aren't willing to face the fact that in war, PEOPLE ARE KILLED!
Compared to previous wars, we are doing pretty good. 2,600 is a number, that albiet is a little high, is minor compared to Vietnam, Korea, American Revolution, WW2, WW1, American Civil War.

I hate to say it, but I'm still rooting for Israel. This whole invasion thing was a farce after the second week or so. Before, Israel was deemed to have been justified. Now, it's kinda like "Okay, fun's over, lets stop this now"

JimBob

08-09-2006, 18:50

1) Comparing this to other wars casualties is a bit ridiculous. Vietnam was 8 years long, the American Revolution was about 8, WWI was 4 WWII was 6 both were fought by every major nation in the world.

2) To the gung ho they do what they have to do crowd, do you honestly think this works? Why? How? Please explain.

Marshal Murat

08-09-2006, 18:58

Crimean War-3 Years-200,000 casualties for Russians, more than 100,000 total Allied losses.
Boer War-4 years- 30,000 military casualties, 24,000 Boer civilians dead.

Redleg

08-09-2006, 18:59

2) To the gung ho they do what they have to do crowd, do you honestly think this works? Why? How? Please explain.

If a nation is attacked from a bordering nation - does that nation not have the right and the obligation to protect its citizens?

JimBob

08-09-2006, 19:09

If a nation is attacked from a bordering nation - does that nation not have the right and the obligation to protect its citizens?
Yes I agree, I have friends you have had to flee Haifa because of the missles. I want them to be protected. But my question is; does bombing everything that moves really work? Do you honestly believe that if Isreal flattens Beruit that Hezbollah will walk out and surrender? Let's look at results, a heavy bombing campaign has increased support for Hezbollah, has increased anti-Isreali sentiment, and has not stopped the missles. Infact the missles have moved closer to Tel Aviv.

ChewieTobbacca

08-09-2006, 19:25

I have to believe that Israel has a right to protect itself BUT its doctrine right now with dealing with Hezbollah is probably going the wrong direction.

First, people ask why Israel cannot simply set up road blocks, etc. - it's because of Israeli doctrine. The first time they moved into Lebanon, they didn't go into Beirut - they stopped short because they didn't want to engage in urban warfare, which has very high attrition. Keep in mind the Israeli mindset - EVERY citizen is required to serve time in the armed forces. Thus, every soldier killed isn't just a soldier - its a neighbor, it's a friend, it's a companion that you might have served with.

And in that way, so far Israel has not tried to hold road blocks, enter cities, and so on where they can present targets for attrition warfare. It is also the reason that in previous wars, they were willing to use first-strike tactics and so on to make sure that the enemy could not fight a war of attrition, for Israel is heavily outnumbered and cannot sustain such a war for long if it has to call up all citizens to defense (for your support infrastructure wouldn't last long without people running it). Hence all the air-strikes right now.

But on that note, I remember when the Israeli air chief said they would bomb them back 20 years. I remembered a quote that went something like this: "You can keep your atom bombs, tanks, and planes. In the end, it will take an infantry man with his rifle and bayonet to get the bastard out of his foxhole to sign the peace treaty." Air strikes alone cannot force a country into submission - especially an enemy that doesn't fight in the traditional sense.

And that is my second part where I think the doctrine right now is wrong - people are advocating they fight a total war against an enemy that isn't. This is as much a war against an enemy as a war to win the Lebanese people against those who have held the government and military hostage. You can win against the enemy on the battlefield but losing the people can make it disastrous, and when one is unwilling to fight a war of attrition, there will be problems. This reminds me too much of the American doctrine in Vietnam.

Don Corleone

08-09-2006, 19:44

JimBob, Israel cannot disarm Hezbollah directly. Their only hope is to: 1) remove their capability for long range strikes into Israeli territory (they've marginally accomplished this) 2) make life so poor for the Lebanese population at large, they will no longer tolerate Hezbollah operating among them (here, they have failed... if anything support for Hezbollah has grown). I believe at this point, Israel is fighting to reduce resistance at the peace talks. You're more likely to pay for heating oil in January then in July, and you're more likely to agree to force Hezbollah to disarm when you have your infrastructure being torn up then if the Israelis halted and simply asked nicely.

Not particularly pleasant, but there you go.

I think Israel gave up hope that the non-Hezbollah affiliated Lebanese (the other 65% of the country) were willing to do anything to stop the 35% that was causing Israel all it's troubles. What they've done is effectively slide the support rate for Hezbollah up to over 75%. But, what were their alternatives? Hezbollah wanted this conflict, and would have done anything to get it. If Israel had just let the missiles continue, they would have kidnapped a few a more IDF soldiers and started beheading them on Al Jazeera. Why? Because their boss told them to. What boss? You remember, the Iranians that were hard at work developing a nuclear bomb that we forgot all about for the past 6 weeks? How's the security council doing with that resolution to require Iran to halt? What's that, they haven't touched it in 6 weeks? Brilliant!

Brenus

08-09-2006, 21:03

“the US should be forcing them to prosecute their campaign with more restraint”: Why US should do that? Israel is actually employing US tactic: heavy bombardment, shelling, emptying villages and towns (in another war it was considered as ethnic cleansing), forbidding Humanitarian Relief… Correct me if I am wrong but I think it was how it was done in Faludja…
It was what the US sponsored Croatian Offensive did as well.
And the fact that when Milosevic employed the same method in Kosovo was considered as war crime doesn’t matter…

“the silence is deafening.”: I agree with that. The Hezbollah started. The Hezbollah, as Israel, shoot to a UN post (according to the Canadian (Quebec) TV), and no furore in the world. The Hezbollah is targeting civilian zones (that is a long tradition) and pretends to do it in retaliation…

“Israel is doing what has to be done to win. That's why I admire that country. While the west plays pansy tag when it comes to.....anything really Israel does what must be done.” It is what they thought during the first invasion… Didn’t worked very well did it?

“If a nation is attacked from a bordering nation - does that nation not have the right and the obligation to protect its citizens?” Did England bomb Ireland because IRA had shelter in its territory? Or killing IRA agents in the US when they were collecting money… Err…, the last one probably…

Don Corleone

08-09-2006, 21:08

Yes, yes of course Brenus. We all know no atrocity in the world is committed without somehow, someway, the US being responsible. :dizzy2:

By the way, that war of Croatian Offensive, as you put it... what were the Serbs and the Croats doing to the local muslims that was so terrible that it would make a peace-nik like Clinton, darling of the Left and Europe, bomb them into the stone age? I think somebody's only remembering one side of the story...

Reenk Roink

08-09-2006, 21:12

I'm getting pretty tired of this "the silence is deafening" with regards to Hezbollah. Who was internationally condemned for kidnapping 2 soldiers and killing 8? Who did Egypt, Jordan, and Saudi Arabia, no friends of Israel mind you, blame at the beginning? Who had the worse (unfair) end of the first resolution?

The fact is, Hezbollah after the kidnappings, has not been able to keep up with Israeli atrocity.

Don Corleone

08-09-2006, 21:18

I would imagine you would be getting tired of hearing it Reenk. But in reality, Hezbollah has done a lot more in the past year then just kidnap 2 soldiers. Or was firing rockets into civilian towns within Israel for several months no big deal for you? Well, it was for me.

Reenk Roink

08-09-2006, 21:25

I would imagine you would be getting tired of hearing it Reenk.

That's just a wonderful little comment now is it Don Corleone? Why don't you just go out and say it? Wanna keep accusing people who don't agree with Israeli action, and call out the "defense" that Israeli apologists use as Hezbollah supporters? :rolleyes: Cause it would really destroy your credibility...

Go on Don Corleone, make a poll. Make two. Then maybe you can see for yourself that people who call out Israel for their atrocity don't support Hezbollah one bit. But of course, you are the most objective here... :rolleyes:

But in reality, Hezbollah has done a lot more in the past year then just kidnap 2 soldiers. Or was firing rockets into civilian towns within Israel for several months no big deal for you? Well, it was for me.

Of course they have, and so has Israel, was that a big deal for you?

http://documents-dds-ny.un.org/doc/UNDOC/GEN/N06/437/22/img/N0643722.pdf?OpenElement

16. Prior to the outbreak of hostilities across the Blue Line on 12 July, the
situation in the UNIFIL area of operation during most of the reporting period was
tense and volatile, although generally quiet. The ceasefire was breached and heavy
exchanges across the Blue Line occurred at the beginning of February and at the end
of May. One Lebanese civilian and one Hizbollah member were reportedly killed,
and three Israeli soldiers, three Lebanese civilians and a number of Hizbollah
members were wounded in the fighting. Tension along the Line was elevated, and
IDF troops were on a high state of alert during the months of March, May, June and
July. Israeli air violations decreased during the first half of the reporting period, but
occurred again more frequently during the second half of May. Ground violations of
the Line were attributable primarily to crossings by Lebanese shepherds and
continued on an almost daily basis.

17. On 1 February, IDF opened fire and killed a young Lebanese shepherd inside
Lebanese territory in the general area of the Shab’a farms. IDF claimed that the
shepherd had been armed and that he had crossed the Blue Line on two earlier
occasions that day. A UNIFIL investigation found no evidence to suggest that the
shepherd had had any hostile intentions or that his weapon had been used. The
shooting incident underlined the need for IDF to act with maximum restraint and to
respect fully the Blue Line. It also illustrated the necessity for the Government of
Lebanon to make additional efforts to prevent ground violations of the Blue Line,
including in the Shab’a farms area.

18. On 3 February, Hizbollah launched rocket attacks on a number of IDF
positions in the Shab’a farms area, wounding one soldier. The attack was reportedly
in retaliation for the killing of the shepherd two days earlier. IDF responded with air
strikes and artillery, mortar and tank fire against Hizboilah positions in the area
from which Hizbollah fire had emanated. Hizbollah responded with rocket and
mortar fire in the area. UNIFIL recorded one incident of IDF firing close to a
UNIFIL position near Kafr Shuba. One Lebanese civilian was wounded in the air
strike. After a one-and-a-half-hour exchange, UNIFIL succeeded in brokering a
ceasefire through the liaison channels with the parties.

19. In a serious breach of the ceasefire in the early morning of 28 May,
unidentified armed elements launched at lcast eight rockets fiom the general area of
Aynata across the Blue Line into Israel. Three rockets impacted inside an IDF
position on Mount Meron, in Upper Galilee, some 8 kilometres south of the Line,
causing material damage and lightly wounding one soldier. Hizbollah denied any
involvement in the attack. Palestinian Islamic Jihad in Lebanon initially claimed
responsibility in retaliation for the killing of a leading member in Lebanon and his
brother on 26 May in a car bomb explosion in Saida. The claim was retracted later
that day. The Lebanese authorities have taken an official position against attacks
emanating from their territory. In a letter dated 1 June 2006, they informed me that
the Lebanese Army Command, in conjunction with UNIFIL, would conduct the
investigations necessary to ascertain the circ~~in~tanocfe sth e firing of missiles from
Lebanese territory with a view to putting an end to them. The Lebanese Government
subsequently alleged that Israel was involved in the attack in Saida; Israel denied it.

20. Later in the morning of 28 May, IDF retaliated with air strikes against military
installations of the Popular Front for the Liberation of Palestine - General
Command in Naameh, 15 kilometres south of Beirut, and in the Sultan Yacoub area
in the Bekaa Valley. One nieinber was reportedly killed and eight were wounded in
the air strikes.

21. In the afternoon of the same day, unidcntified armed elements fired small arms
from the general area of Hula on the Lebanese side, directed at Manara village on
the Israeli side. One IDF soldier was reportedly seriously wounded. There was no
claim of responsibility, and Hizbollah denied any involvement in the shooting. The
incident triggered a major exchange of fire in different areas along the Blue Line,
from the coast to the Shab’a farms in the east. IDF retaliated with a significant
number of air strikes and artillery, mortar and tank fire, causing extensive damage to
a number of Hizbollah positions. One Hizbollah nieiiiber was killed and several
more were injured. Two Lebanese civilians were also wounded, and several houses
of civilians were damaged. Hizbollah responded with rocket, mortar and small-arms
fire. UNIFIL was in close contact with the parties during the exchange of fire with a
view to arranging a ceasefire and preventing fLirtlier escalation. After approximately
two hours of heavy exchanges, UNIFIL and my senior representatives in the area
succeeded in brokering a cessation of hostilities.

Redleg

08-09-2006, 21:29

“If a nation is attacked from a bordering nation - does that nation not have the right and the obligation to protect its citizens?” Did England bomb Ireland because IRA had shelter in its territory? Or killing IRA agents in the US when they were collecting money… Err…, the last one probably…

Try answering the question versus attempting a comparison.

Its not a question about method but does the nation have a right and an obligation to its citizens.

Not a question that is all that hard to understand.

If one has paid attention to my posts in the past about Israel - one will quickly discover that I am often concerned about Israel's methods. But does the method mean that the nation does not have an obligation to protect its citizens? Does the method mean that a nation under attack does not have the right to self-defense?

Now if someone asked me should Israel destroy Lebanon because of Hezbollah's attack - my answer is no - the amount of response Israel should apply should be relative to the type of attack being mounted against it. A few missile strikes require that an aggressive counterbattery program be mounted to destroy the firing capablity of the opposing force. One does this through active radar acquistion and observations. Working on the response time to either destroy the enemy ablity to launch his missiles either while its being set up or before he can get away.

Now the kidnapping of two soldiers is a different matter. Diplomacy should first be used, and force when the diplomacy method has failed.

Hince if you can not answer the question without the false comparison because you failed to understand the nature of the question the onus is on you and your attempt here is nothing but a smoke and mirror attempt to avoid actually answering.

Don Corleone

08-09-2006, 21:34

I don't know how much clearer I need to be. I have said Israel is wrong for their tactics. I've said the USA should be doing more to reign them in. I've said that even using Israel's stated goals as the metric, they're being ineffective.

As for what I'm implying, I've said it outright, several times. People that tend to focus on criticizing Israel never seem to get around to criticizing the other parties that are equally, if not more (in my opinion) guilty... Hezbollah, Syria and Iran. I haven't heard you support Hezbollah once Reenk. I've also not heard you criticize them either.

I never claimed to be objective. I said, in another thread, that I find my own criticisms of Israel to be more objective, because they're not a knee-jerk reaction. Most of the folks around here that criticize Israel would do so even if they had just fired a single rocket back in response. Heck, there's a fairly vocal bunch that says Israel brought it all on just by existing, and if they weren't there, there'd be no trouble. But I'm the one who's over the top?

Big_John

08-09-2006, 21:35

why does the discussion of the current israeli action against lebanon, which under any reasonable definition must be considered criminal, turn to how much condemnation hezbollah drew from whomever?

is this the key? need a nation simply find some terrorists who have committed crimes and then deem that not enough arms are upraised about it.. and after this, now that nation has a green light to destroy an involved third party? kill hundreds of civilians by deliberately targeting their homes, cripple a country, just finding it's legs, by destroying it's infrastructure and economy?

damn, i wish i had condemned the hezbollah terrorists a bit more now, maybe then israel wouldn't have destroyed lebanon with these "heavy-handed" crimes against humanity... it's all about personal responsibility, after all. my bad. :embarassed:

Brenus

08-09-2006, 21:35

“We all know no atrocity in the world is committed without somehow, someway, the US being responsible”: I didn’t said that I just said it was a normal procedure to sent more fire to the enemy to unable him to answer…:book: I think it is Collin Powel's doctine, but I am not sure he was really the father of it...

“By the way, that war of Croatian Offensive, as you put it... what were the Serbs and the Croats doing to the local muslims that was so terrible that it would make a peace-nik like Clinton, darling of the Left and Europe, bomb them into the stone age? I think somebody's only remembering one side of the story...”
Obviously you do…
For your information, it was the Croatian offensive against the Serbs, 1994. The bombing (into the stone age is a little bit exaggerate) of Serbia was done for Kosovo after the US decided that the terrorist KLA was in fact freedom fighters…
But thank you to give me the opportunity: What was destroyed in Serbia: 5 tanks, but bridges, railways, electricity plants, tobacco factory (and that was probably the most efficient strike to low the Serb moral) TV buildings, administration, Chinese embassy, some houses in Rumania or Bulgaria (don’t remember) etc. That cost a fortune in bombs, cruise missile and few planes down, even a B2 (sorry, we didn’t see it: It is actually what is written on a Serbian Postcard). I don’ count to two Apache down, they did it by themselves…:sweatdrop:

But you will agree it is exactly what Israel is doing… So next time, read what I wrote, don’t interpret it…:dizzy2:

Reenk Roink

08-09-2006, 21:55

I do my fair share of Israel criticizing yes. I'll be the first to admit, I'm no fan.

I haven't heard you support Hezbollah once Reenk. I've also not heard you criticize them either.

I actually went and dug up some statements:

Contrasting Israeli and Hezbollah tactics. Israeli is bad, Hezbollah is worse. (https://forums.totalwar.org/vb/showpost.php?p=1194768&postcount=66)

Pannonian makes 4 points (https://forums.totalwar.org/vb/showpost.php?p=1195484&postcount=100), I agree with 1-3 (note: point 1 is was Israel justified in attacking Hezbollah [yes]) (https://forums.totalwar.org/vb/showpost.php?p=1195513&postcount=101).

I can't claim that Israeli kills civilians without mentioning Hezbollah. (https://forums.totalwar.org/vb/showpost.php?p=1196391&postcount=134)

The atrocity on both sides. (https://forums.totalwar.org/vb/showpost.php?p=1211366&postcount=21)

Incongruous

08-09-2006, 22:42

I would just like to ask GC whether he as ever been a civilian in a warzone?
If not, then take you're pathetic pre-conceptions and do something rather unpleasant to them.
Because I suppose its all well and good being at home typing that these buggers should just bugger off from their homes in which their family may have dwelt for generations. One could tell the same thing to the Isrealis no?

Marshal Murat

08-09-2006, 23:06

I say that Israel could have done something. Drop leaflets, offering to spare the town any and all bombardment if they hand over any weapons or munitions they have. If they refuse to do so, then blast apart the largest buildings, and offer again. If not, then blast apart the town.

What would be nice is if Hezbollah killed someone important in Iran/Syria/Lebanon. Turn popular support against them. Israel could even stage an assasination.

Hezbollah caused the conflict, Israel responded to severly. I support Israeli actions to a point. Two weeks after, I accuse Israel of exceeding all neccesary attacks.

Don Corleone

08-10-2006, 00:58

I do my fair share of Israel criticizing yes. I'll be the first to admit, I'm no fan.

Okay, I'm big enough to admit when I'm wrong. I'll only give you credit for the 3rd link, where Pannonian makes 3 good points and you agree with them (the other 3 links are not exactly what I'd describe as condeming of Hezbollah in tone). But, Pannonian didn't leave much wriggle room in his statement, and you did agree.

I was.... WRONG :bow: My wife usually loves that part.

Tribesman

08-10-2006, 01:32

Now if someone asked me should Israel destroy Lebanon because of Hezbollah's attack - my answer is no - the amount of response Israel should apply should be relative to the type of attack being mounted against it. A few missile strikes require that an aggressive counterbattery program be mounted to destroy the firing capablity of the opposing force. One does this through active radar acquistion and observations. Working on the response time to either destroy the enemy ablity to launch his missiles either while its being set up or before he can get away.

An interesting angle to explore .
Would the reported destruction of the IDF command center at the very start of this current escalation hamper an effective counter-battery program .
It would explain the complaints being made at battery and battalion level that their given targets are being based on inteligence that is several months out of date , which may explain the IDF report on thurs/friday that despite the tens of thousands of artillery rounds expended they have only managed to hit "not more than 10" launchers .

And just for the hell of it , any comments about the alledged (as in Israel is not confirming the destuction of the bunker) location of this military target .~;)

Redleg

08-10-2006, 03:43

An interesting angle to explore .

And the reason I mentioned it.

Would the reported destruction of the IDF command center at the very start of this current escalation hamper an effective counter-battery program .

All depends if the IDF command center happen to also be the command center for the counter battery effort. :dizzy2:

It would explain the complaints being made at battery and battalion level that their given targets are being based on inteligence that is several months out of date , which may explain the IDF report on thurs/friday that despite the tens of thousands of artillery rounds expended they have only managed to hit "not more than 10" launchers .

Have you ever tried to manage an effective counterbattery fire program? :dizzy2: Oh wait - I forget who I am addressing..... A google search just might inform you on how counterbattery fire works - I suggest going to the Fort Sill or National Training Center's web pages.

I will give you a clue - when facing a mobile artillery threat - it takes a lot of ammunition and coordination to hit the target. Out of date intelligence does not explain the failure of an effective counterbattery mission, since counterbattery normally requires something to have happened.... I will let you figure it out the rest of it.

And just for the hell of it , any comments about the alledged (as in Israel is not confirming the destuction of the bunker) location of this military target .~;)

Then its only alledged now isn't.....:juggle2:

Xiahou

08-10-2006, 05:39

According to their team leader, the Red Cross in Tyre has been refused permission to move, refused information about which roads will be considered safe from attacks.Hmm, now why would they deny that info to the Red Cross?

Maybe because they saw the NYT story about the Red Cross helping shuttle Hezbollah fighters and supplies across a river.... link (http://www.nytimes.com/2006/08/10/world/middleeast/10river.html?_r=1&hp&ex=1155182400&en=ab596ea7e78f3738&ei=5094&partner=homepage&oref=slogin)

Papewaio

08-10-2006, 06:33

Have you ever tried to manage an effective counterbattery fire program? :dizzy2: Oh wait - I forget who I am addressing..... A google search just might inform you on how counterbattery fire works - I suggest going to the Fort Sill or National Training Center's web pages.

I will give you a clue - when facing a mobile artillery threat - it takes a lot of ammunition and coordination to hit the target. Out of date intelligence does not explain the failure of an effective counterbattery mission, since counterbattery normally requires something to have happened.... I will let you figure it out the rest of it.

No idea on the idea but without further research including googling I will build my own counterbattery concept.

Counter... so something has to have happened, it is reactive.
Battery... more then one piece firing.

So it has to wait until the opponent fires and then fires back. Now to figure out where they are firing from would require triangulation. This I assume would be done by a minimum of two radars.

Now to get enough coverage and accuracy it would require depth and breadth to both radars and counterbatteries. If anything you would need less depth of batteries if you can get them close enough to the enemy, but having depth in deployment would make them safer and more likely to help cover each others fire zones so you could saturate a location.

The more batteries you have the wider the area you can saturate in one go. Meaning that your counterfire has longer to fire back as they can more easily hit a moving target with a bigger area of fire.

Given that you would have many batteries and many radar sites (ground and in the air) I doubt that hitting a single command post would ruin the network. If it did they really are a bunch of idiots for not deploying enough redundancy that even a civilian would to cover day to day normal breakdowns let alone those of war.

----

Now to counter radar based counterbatteries I would use rockets. Particulary rockets that didn't fly in particularly straight lines. For instance Cruise missiles would be nigh on impossible to figure out their launch sites using triangulation.

----

Additional ways of spotting launch sites for counterbatteries... spotter planes, sats, on the ground observors etc... these all require the eyes in the right place at the right time.

Banquo's Ghost

08-10-2006, 07:00

Hmm, now why would they deny that info to the Red Cross?

Maybe because they saw the NYT story about the Red Cross helping shuttle Hezbollah fighters and supplies across a river.... link (http://www.nytimes.com/2006/08/10/world/middleeast/10river.html?_r=1&hp&ex=1155182400&en=ab596ea7e78f3738&ei=5094&partner=homepage&oref=slogin)

I promised myself to stay out of this, but Xiahou you really take the biscuit.

The article actually notes that they were helping wounded Hizbollah fighters away from the fighting. Just like the Red Cross does across the world - helps the wounded. They help Israelis too, where needed. Even Americans!

I supposed you'd rather the Red Cross was an armed assassination unit. In the unlikely event you or GC ever experienced combat, I can tell you that you'd be very, very grateful for the Red Cross' neutrality if you got into a rough place.

Oh and the 'supplies' appear to be canned tuna and processed cheese. Food.

:no: :shame:

Tribesman

08-10-2006, 10:17

I will give you a clue - when facing a mobile artillery threat - it takes a lot of ammunition and coordination to hit the target. Out of date intelligence does not explain the failure of an effective counterbattery mission, since counterbattery normally requires something to have happened.... I will let you figure it out the rest of it.

Thanks red , for all your flippancy you manged to give the correct answer , Israels claims are a load of bollox .:2thumbsup:

Redleg

08-10-2006, 15:47

No idea on the idea but without further research including googling I will build my own counterbattery concept.

Counter... so something has to have happened, it is reactive.
Battery... more then one piece firing.

So it has to wait until the opponent fires and then fires back. Now to figure out where they are firing from would require triangulation. This I assume would be done by a minimum of two radars.

One radar is enough - the radars do a plot based upon multiple acquistions of the incoming round.

Now to get enough coverage and accuracy it would require depth and breadth to both radars and counterbatteries. If anything you would need less depth of batteries if you can get them close enough to the enemy, but having depth in deployment would make them safer and more likely to help cover each others fire zones so you could saturate a location.

The more batteries you have the wider the area you can saturate in one go. Meaning that your counterfire has longer to fire back as they can more easily hit a moving target with a bigger area of fire.

Given that you would have many batteries and many radar sites (ground and in the air) I doubt that hitting a single command post would ruin the network. If it did they really are a bunch of idiots for not deploying enough redundancy that even a civilian would to cover day to day normal breakdowns let alone those of war.
----

Now to counter radar based counterbatteries I would use rockets. Particulary rockets that didn't fly in particularly straight lines. For instance Cruise missiles would be nigh on impossible to figure out their launch sites using triangulation.

----

Additional ways of spotting launch sites for counterbatteries... spotter planes, sats, on the ground observors etc... these all require the eyes in the right place at the right time.

Very good Papewaio :2thumbsup: Other then most counterbattery radars do a decent job of targeting where missiles come from also. The only problem that I know of concerning counter battery radars - is that there is a limited arc of coverage.

Redleg

08-10-2006, 15:49

Papewaio

08-11-2006, 01:23

Very good Papewaio :2thumbsup: Other then most counterbattery radars do a decent job of targeting where missiles come from also. The only problem that I know of concerning counter battery radars - is that there is a limited arc of coverage.

I should have thought about the ability of a radar to plot a course, I was thinking more of a single blip on the radar and matching from that. Also using multiple radar sites would allow better resolution (thats what they use with deep space radar)... essentially the distance between them becomes the size of the radar.

So the counter would be evasive missiles that fly under the radar.

So what happens if the enemy start using radar seeking missiles? Then your counter battery radars are in danger... I assume then that the radars have to be placed away from the batteries themselves otherwise the enemy get a two for one hit.

spmetla

08-11-2006, 04:36

Seamus Fermanagh

08-11-2006, 13:35

Isn't the biggest problem for counter battery against Katushyas being that once the rockets are fired they drive off somewhere else at top speed? Then by the time the counterbattery comes down on the firing location the rocket truck is long gone.

In the classic "truck-borne" deployment that is precisely one of the problems. The katy launcher has absolutely no influence on the rocket once the launch is complete -- its under its own power and unguided, the extra degree of accuracy that classic artillery gets from keeping still does not obtain here, so fire and scoot would be the norm.

This is, of course, one of the reasons that the IDF was so adamant about targeting trucks and vans.

Part of the problem with counter-battery here is that the Hez forces are choosing launch sites near developed areas and using shoot and scoot. If you do not, literally, have someone watching the launch, there is almost no way for the IDF to target the launcher precisely enough in the short window of opportunity of a launch and its immediate aftermath.

Philippus Flavius Homovallumus

08-11-2006, 23:19

In the classic "truck-borne" deployment that is precisely one of the problems. The katy launcher has absolutely no influence on the rocket once the launch is complete -- its under its own power and unguided, the extra degree of accuracy that classic artillery gets from keeping still does not obtain here, so fire and scoot would be the norm.

This is, of course, one of the reasons that the IDF was so adamant about targeting trucks and vans.

Part of the problem with counter-battery here is that the Hez forces are choosing launch sites near developed areas and using shoot and scoot. If you do not, literally, have someone watching the launch, there is almost no way for the IDF to target the launcher precisely enough in the short window of opportunity of a launch and its immediate aftermath.

Which is what invalidates Isreal's whole stratagy. You can't fight these guys with tanks and bombs. You have to get boots on the ground and flush them out. I can understand that destroying the infastructure traps Hezbollah, but it also traps, and angers, everybody else. The next generation grows up hating Isreal just as much as their fathers.

Isreal could have withstood the attacks, had they not reacted as they did and instead requested intervention from out friends in blue hats they would have looked good and maintained the moral high ground. In another 20 years Hezbollah would be totally burnt out.