Common lies in the Lebanon war debates.

[elevennevele]

Israel has so far accomplished nothing. Hezbollah’s weaponry is being called the equivalent of firecrackers compared to the high tech USA supplied arsenal of the Israelis. The destructive force of the Katyusha is more relative to WW2 standards as opposed to the 1000 tonne bombs the Israelis have. And yet they have pushed the Israelis army back. Rather than having reduced Hezbollah’s capacity, the Israelis have killed so many civilians instead. Ruined the lives of those who would have been more moderate at dealing with Israel. Ruined those who were part of a fragile evolving democracy in Lebanon whether they were Christian or Muslim.

What an utter failure! What a waste of lives.

Israel has turned Hezbollah from a supposed terrorist group into a national resistance that is causing a grassroots swelling of support across the Middle East and it looks to have a greater risk at destabilizing the region rather than create any sort of ‘new’ peace for Israel. It even adds risk to our mission in what we hope to accomplish in Afghanistan.

“Mission Accomplished!” Let’s all turn off our brains once more and fill our heads with the “Ministry of Information” from the USA and from Israel. It’s like all the sensible people saying, “The Iraq War is a Mistake” and being totally ignored all over again. Now it’s with Israel.

Those who argue for these wars are so overconfident in the weapons. So impressed with USA made killing technology that they dismiss the risks, costs and the actual unpredictable nature of what war ‘really is’. War is truly a meat grinder of human suffering regardless of what side you are on.

As for this poll, I don’t support the war. That is my un-cast vote to a situation (much like the thinking behind this polling) isn’t presented in a way that offers different options.

 

[Just the Facts]

Those who argue for these wars are so overconfident in the weapons. So impressed with USA made killing technology that they dismiss the risks, costs and the actual unpredictable nature of what war ‘really is’.

Aside from the fact that you should speak for yourself, I have yet to hear anyone say this war is justified based on it's winnability, let alone based on weaponry. Bit of a straw man there.

I think you'll actually be hard pressed to find many sane people who "support" war. Yes, we do understand that was is a human meat grinder, and most of those being ground are innocents. The preference would by far and large be for there to be no war.

However, some of us understand that there are forces that make this war inevitable. We understand that if Israel were to pack up her weapons and send the troops home, Hizballah would not do likewise. Hizballah has increased it's military capability by exponential leaps and bounds since Israel left Lebanon six years ago. Hizballah does not share your and my desire for peace and harmony. Hizballah is not shy about stating it's goal of the complete destruction of the state of Israel. Hizballah has no scruples about acting on it's stated goal of the complete destruction of the state of Israel. You cannot ignore these facts if you hope to make a fair and balanced assessment of Israel's actions in Lebanon.

If Israel packs up and goes home, Hizballah will just come back stronger and better armed in a matter of time. They may be using firecrackers today, but if you can't see the writing on the wall as to what they'll be using in the not too distant future, then I don't know what more I can say to you.

http://www.psepc.gc.ca/prg/ns/le/cle-en.asp#h20

The objectives of Hizballah, as derived from its February 16, 1985 political manifesto, include removing all Western influences from Lebanon and from the Middle East, as well as destroying the state of Israel and liberating all Palestinian territories and Jerusalem from what it sees as Israeli occupation, with no option for any negotiated peace.

 

[elevennevele]

Aside from the fact that you should speak for yourself, I have yet to hear anyone say this war is justified based on it's winnability, let alone based on weaponry. Bit of a straw man there.

No straw man at all. Quote me directly where I say people have justified this war on it’s winnability. My statement was that a drive for these wars in the Middle East has been supported with the belief of their winnability due to the capacity of having superior military force.

Do you think for a moment there would have been the same drive to go into Iraq if Americans felt they were going to have as difficult time as they do now? Tell me that the US administration suggested winning the war in Iraq was going to be as hard prior to the invasion?

http://www.state.gov/secretary/former/powell/remarks/2002/8072.htm

Iraq a cakewalk

MR. BLITZER: One other point about Iraq before we move on. Ken Adeleman, a former Pentagon official in the Reagan Administration, wrote in The Washington Post this weekend his assessment, insisting that a US military invasion, a strike against Iraq, would be relatively simple. He said, "I believe demolishing Saddam Hussein's military power and liberating Iraq would be a cakewalk. Let me give simple, responsible reasons: (1) it was a cakewalk last time; (2) they've become much weaker; (3) we've become much stronger; and (4) now we're playing for keeps."

http://www.cnn.com/2003/ALLPOLITICS/03/26/column.novak.opinion.cakewalk/
WASHINGTON -- "There were some who were supportive of going to war with Iraq who described it as a cakewalk," Tim Russert told Donald Rumsfeld on NBC's "Meet the Press" last Sunday.

http://www.newyorker.com/fact/content/articles/031124fa_fact1_c
"It's hard to conceive that it would take more forces to provide stability in post-Saddam Iraq than it would take to conduct the war itself and to secure the surrender of Saddam’s security forces and his army. Hard to imagine." –Deputy Defense Secretary Paul Wolfowitz, testifying before the House Budget Committee prior to the Iraq war, Feb. 27, 2003

http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2003/07/20030702-3.html
Bush: Some feel like they can attack us ... bring 'em on!
Jul. 2, 2003
George W. Bush
There are some who feel like -- that the conditions are such that they can attack us there. My answer is, bring 'em on! We've got the force necessary to deal with the security situation.

Again these are people in positions who could push for war and did so with the concept of having military superiority.

I highly doubt that if Israel knew it was going to turn into what it is now, they would have gone with the type of heavy-handed offensive the undertook. This particular statement however is, 'in this instance', my opinion which you are very welcome to disagree with.

Here is my actual quote:

Those who argue for these wars are so overconfident in the weapons. So impressed with USA made killing technology that they dismiss the risks, costs and the actual unpredictable nature of what war ‘really is’. War is truly a meat grinder of human suffering regardless of what side you are on.

 

[elevennevele]

However, some of us understand that there are forces that make this war inevitable.

A cessation of hostilities is what will amount to any chance for a real future for Israel, not an escalation which is what they have caused by their current approach. Even the protests against the government by Israelis in Israel are recognizing this.

You cannot trust either side to form peace at this point. Prior to catapulting the countries into war, a real effort could have been made to bring in the UN as an arbitrator for the dispute with the kidnappings and border incursions. Therefore any rulings could have been more impartial, and everyone would not lose so much face with the decisions of an international body. If either the Israelis side, or the Lebanon side abused an agreed resolution, then real fault could then be recognized through the objectivity of outside arbitration. This prior to an escalation of war.

At least could have tried it before dropping the bombs! (could of, would of, should of)

You can’t expect those who are involved stroking the fires to be the ones to convince the other side of what is fair in terms for a cessation to be made. That is completely unrealistic. Now everyone is just picking sides and the mess balloons in size.

War is always ‘as inevitable’ in relation to one’s willingness to resort to war. I have listed a more cautious approach that could have been more adamantly exhausted prior to a resort of ‘all out war’.

 

[Kreskin]

I've noticed when people on the streets of Lebanon are asked why they think the radical movements and suicide bombers like Hezbollah exist they chalk it up to being powerless otherwise. They have no armies or even a political platform to have a voice. Even when they are democratically elected, as in Hamas, they are isolated and discarded. The death of their innocent citizens are considered justifiable accidents or collateral damage. Their adversaries are militarized, even stocked with WMD's.

I don't pretend there are any easy answers but as long as one side of the issue is ignored and kept powerless at every level within their own countries there will always be radical activities that will find support on the ground.

 

[Just the Facts]

However, some of us understand that there are forces that make this war inevitable.

A cessation of hostilities is what will amount to any chance for a real future for Israel, not an escalation which is what they have caused by their current approach...At least could have tried it before dropping the bombs! (could of, would of, should of)

That sounds very reasonable, and if you were in charge of Hizballah I'm confidant a negotiated peace and lasting settlement could be reached. Unfortunately, you're not in charge of Hizballah. Unfortunately, history renders your hopes at reason prevailing as nothing more than wishful thinking. Never mind could have, should have, would have...try DID. Israel agreed to pull out of Lebanon on the understanding that the state authorities would disarm Hizballah. Instead, not only did their arming accelerate, they were allowed to weave themselves into the fabric of Lebanese political life. I don't believe Hizbollah and Lebanese officialdom are anywhere near as separate and distinct as many would like us to believe.

Israel conceded Lebanon and Hizballah celebrated that as victory. It was seen as weakness and defeat, not concession on behalf of goodwill. I'm afraid Hizbollah is splitting their sides laughing at your suggestion that Israel offer overtures for peace. Read again my link to the synopsis of Hizbollah...note the part about "no option for any negotiated peace" along with the destruction of Israel part. No option for any negotiated peace...that's embedded in their constitution. And you suggest Israel negotiate with them further.

Could have, should have, would have? No, been there, done that.

 

[Just the Facts]

No straw man at all. Quote me directly where I say people have justified this war on it’s winnability. My statement was that a drive for these wars in the Middle East has been supported with the belief of their winnability due to the capacity of having superior military force.

I'm not sure I see the distinction, but that's OK, it's not important.

Do you think for a moment there would have been the same drive to go into Iraq if Americans felt they were going to have as difficult time as they do now? Tell me that the US administration suggested winning the war in Iraq was going to be as hard prior to the invasion?

The war against Iraq was a cakewalk. I believe it was even easier than anyone expected. Bush's war against Saddam ended over three years ago. What's happening there now is Osama's war. Sure, it was precipitated by and made possible by the war against Saddam, but that's very different than saying military analysts were wrong in their cakewalk assessment. Two completely different wars. What the decisions would have been if the tenacity of the Jihadists was understood before hand, I don't care to speculate.

I highly doubt that if Israel knew it was going to turn into what it is now, they would have gone with the type of heavy-handed offensive the undertook. This particular statement however is, 'in this instance', my opinion which you are very welcome to disagree with.

Fair enough, and, OK I will

I think if Israel had understood how well dug in Hizballah was, they would have went in with an even heavier hand. This is not about status for Israel, it's about survival. They're fighting an enemy who has as their raison d'etre, the destruction of Israel. This is not a war based on misunderstanding...this is a banal attempt to stay alive in the face of pure unmitigated hatred. Not an enviable position to be in, even with the support of the U.S.

 

[gopher]

I suppose Israel's apologists will continue to insist that all those dead children in Qana is just another common lie. :roll:

 

[Colpy]

I suppose Israel's apologists will continue to insist that all those dead children in Qana is just another common lie. :roll:

No.

It is atragedy and a damned disgrace.

Heart breaking.

And I hope the Israelis kill every bloody Hezbollah man in Lebanon, as THEY are responsible.

if not for hezbollah, the border area of south Lebanon would be peaceful, a decent place to raise kids.

Hezbollah is sworn to destroy Israel. Hezbollah is the agressor. I hope the Israelis put an end to it, and don't stop until it is ended.

 

[elevennevele]

Do you think for a moment there would have been the same drive to go into Iraq if Americans felt they were going to have as difficult time as they do now? Tell me that the US administration suggested winning the war in Iraq was going to be as hard prior to the invasion?

The war against Iraq was a cakewalk. I believe it was even easier than anyone expected. Bush's war against Saddam ended over three years ago. What's happening there now is Osama's war. Sure, it was precipitated by and made possible by the war against Saddam, but that's very different than saying military analysts were wrong in their cakewalk assessment. Two completely different wars. What the decisions would have been if the tenacity of the Jihadists was understood before hand, I don't care to speculate.

I’m sorry. Your compartmentalization of how to define war really changes the whole situation into a big success.

I guess I shouldn’t have generalized everything into a big picture. Perhaps I should have defined the “mission accomplished banner” as one phase of many in an ever downward spiraling mess.

At this point I think Osama would love to be able to take credit for what has happened in Iraq. Honestly, there is very little Al Qaeda needs to do with Iraq. It’s like a self perpetual clock ticking away, and it follows the pattern of failure comparable to the failures of many occupation scenarios before it. And, it only took a “cakewalk” type of administration to see success going forward, thinking that the very best would happen because they 'believed' it would.

War is unpredictable and in my mind is defined by the level of continued conflict.

Israel could be making a very grave mistake right now. If you have any love of Israel you would wish they started doing things to turn back the clock, and if America was smart, they would make that happen now.

www.theglobeandmail.com/servlet/story/LAC.20060731.MIDEASTHEZ31/TPStory/

THE MIDEAST CONFLICT
Did Israel underestimate Hezbollah?
Israeli experts question campaign against 'the best Arab troops we've ever faced'

ESTANISLAO OZIEWICZ

With a report from Agence France-Presse

Despite 19 days of air, sea and land strikes against Lebanon, Israel has been unable to decimate Hezbollah and stop its rain of rockets, leading a former defence minister, a former intelligence official and others to conclude that Israel underestimated the militants and are paying the price for a strategic blunder.

Israel's official line is that Hezbollah is being defanged. "We have made a lot of progress in terms of destroying Hezbollah's capabilities," Daniel Ayalon, Israeli ambassador to Washington, said yesterday.

But Israel's armchair quarterbacks are clearly doubtful.

"Israel is far from a decisive victory and its main objectives have not been met," military analyst Zeev Schiff wrote in the Israeli daily Haaretz.

Amos Harel, a Haaretz colleague, wondered whether the Israeli army had failed. He dismissed the assertion by Lieutenant-General Dani Halutz, Israeli army chief of staff, that the air force had hit most of Hezbollah's command-and-control centres and diminished its long- and medium-range missiles.

"One thinks that if Israelis had been asked on July 12 whether it was possible that Hezbollah would shell the north for two weeks without the [Israeli Defence Force] being able to stop it, most of them would have replied in the negative," Mr. Harel wrote.

Israel's initial battle plan depended on air power, although many military experts have said that strategy almost never works on its own. But subsequent, small infantry strikes have not worked either -- Hezbollah guerrillas have put up stiff resistance -- and although Israel is leery of launching any big land attacks, it has called up as many as 30,000 reservists.

I guess we’ll just have to see how this mistake progresses. Unfortunately, the discussions in Israel right now support the “overconfident theory”.

Forgive my sarcasm. I don’t mean to harm anyone with it. It’s just very frustrating for me to watch things unfold as I predict them.

 

[para-dice]

Yea, lol twist Israel heavy handed lol

 

[para-dice]

Just the Facts said that the war in Iraq is against OBL and his forces - the so called "insurgents." This statement follows from the well worn claims of the neo-cons and their media spin that Iraqi's welcomed Americans, and that the problem in Iraq today, is not the PRESENCE OF A FOREIGN MILITARY FORCE FROM THE WEST, but the "terrorists" from another country.

Absurd.

#1. Anyone would fight against an invader (Americans). So it's a safe bet to say that the vast majority of resistance to Americans is by Iraqi's themselves. Just as it would be for the residents of ANY and EVERY country facing an ILLEGAL FOREIGN MILITARY FORCE.

#2. There is NO WAY a foreign group could sustain itself for 3 years fighting the Americans without HUGE local support. Consequently they are a proxy army for the Iraqi's.

#3. The real reason Americans and the US Press claim the resistance is from non-Iraqi's, is to play into the story about "fighting terror" and the bad insurgents etc.

No, the resistance to the American dogs has similar dynamics found in EVERY resistance to a foreign military presence.

 

[para-dice]

The poor use terrorism to war, the rich use war for terror.

 

[gopher]

RE: Common lies in the Le

"Hezbollah is the agressor"


Yeah, like they invited Israel to cross the blue line 200 times so that they could kill civilians with impunity.

 

[earth_as_one]

Israeli apologists conveniently ignore that Israel committed many acts of war against Lebanon before Hezbollah captured those two Israeli soldiers.

Here's an example of Israeli violations during Novemebr 2005:

On instructions from my Government, I transmit to you herewith a detailed statistical table showing the number of Israeli violations of Lebanese sovereignty
which occurred during November 2005, i.e., a total of 151 violations (see annex).

These violations are in contravention of the relevant Security Council resolutions, the latest of which is resolution 1614 (2005), and go against the Secretary-General’s repeated calls for their cessation, most recently in his report S/2005/460 of 20 July 2005.

Lebanon counts on the United Nations to compel Israel
to desist from those violations, which constitute a threat to international peace and security, and holds Israel responsible for any consequences to which those acts may give rise...

http://www.securitycouncilreport.or...7-4E9C-8CD3-CF6E4FF96FF9}/UNIFIL S2005755.pdf

From the above report:

19 incidents where Israel launched air raids and dropped artillary shells on military and civilian targets, killing of civilians.

18 incidents where Israel directed gunfire and missiles across Lebanon's border or infiltrated Lebanon's borders with ground forces.

79 airspace violations with military aircraft.

That's just in one month. Does this sound like Israel had a peaceful relationship with Lebanon?

How come the news didn't report all these Israeli violations of UN resolutions? Why didn't the UNSC do anything about Israel's constant violations of its resolutions?

No wonder Hezbollah attacked and captured Israeli soldiers.

The news has created a false perception Israel began killing Lebanese civilians in response to Hezbollah attacks on Israeli citizens. The timeline below shows clearly Israel killed many Lebanese civilians before Hezbollah even fired its first rocket aimed at Israeli civilians.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/5179434.stm

Hezbollah's initial raid was an act of war, not a war crime. Hezbollah attacked military targets without causing any civilian casualties.

Israel's initial response to target only military targets like Hezbollah positions in southern Lebanon in response to Hezbollah's act of war was completely justified. Unfortunately for Israel, their military response against Hezbollah was ineffective and resulted in heavy Israeli casualties.

That's when Israel decided to escalate this conflict and commit war crimes by deliberately killing Lebanese civilians. At this point in the battle, Hezbollah hadn't killed a single Israeli citizen.

After Israel had been killing Lebanese civilians for nearly 24 hours from one end of Lebanon to the other, Hezbollah alledgedly fired a single rocket at Israeli civilians. It was probably meant as a warning to Israel to stop its criminal killing of Lebanese civilians.

Hezbollah finally declared "open war" on Israel in response to Israeli attacks in southern Beruit which levelled entire neighborhoods and killed hundreds of civilians. That means Hezbollah endured nearly two days of deliberate attacks on Lebanese civilians before responding with its own attacks on Israeli civilians.

How many Lebanese civilians can Israel kill before Hezbollah is justifed in targetting Israeli civilians in response? Is 100 dead Lebanese civilians enough? Should Hezbollah have waited for Israel to kill 1000 civilians? Israel only stopped killing Lebanese civilians when they realized they couldn't stop Hezbollah from killing their citizens. If Hezbollah hadn't retaliated, who knows how many Lebanese civilians Israel would have killed.

So now Hezbollah observe a ceasefire designed by Israel/US. The only benefit to the Lebanese, is that Israel no longer targets Lebanese civilians.

But Israel has continued to violate the terms of its own ceasefire, just like it did for four years preceding this latest battle:

Lebanon PM protests Israeli airspace violations
Published: 8/21/2006

http://www.turkishpress.com/news.asp?id=138507

...“I also raised the question of the blockade of Lebanon which the Lebanese authorities raised with me and which I will also be discussing tomorrow with the Prime Minister. And the need to lift that blockade as soon as possible in order to allow Lebanon to go on with normal commercial activities and also rebuild its economy.”

Mr. Annan, who flew to Israel after two days of high-level meetings in Lebanon, described the cessation of hostilities between Hizbollah and Israel as still being “very fragile,” and he discussed with the Defence Minister the fact that “most” of the violations had come from the Israeli side...

http://www.un.org/apps/news/story.asp?NewsID=19657&Cr=Leban&Cr1=

Does this Israeli raid sound like a ceasefire?

The dawn battle between Israeli soldiers and Hezbollah guerrillas took place just a few hundred meters (yards) away.

Late Friday, under cover of darkness and shielded by warplanes launching mock air raids, Israeli helicopters landed two Humvees near the eastern town of Baalbek some 20 kilometers (12 miles) from Buday.

The vehicles were painted in Lebanese army colors and the Israeli soldiers were wearing Lebanese army uniforms, so the Israeli soldiers were able to move freely for several hours, residents say.

But on the outskirts of Buday, Hezbollah guerrillas were maintaining a strict patrol, and they stopped the Israeli vehicles.

After brief questioning, the Israeli soldiers responded in Arabic that they were on the same side.

Their unusual accents gave them away. The Hezbollah watchman sounded the alarm and the clash erupted.

Hezbollah fighters then rushed in from throughout the surrounding areas, says Suheil Qana, 37, who says he slept with his Kalashnikov in his hand to be ready to defend his family.

Qana awoke in the night to the sound of explosions caused when Apache helicopters fired missiles and machine gun rounds as F-16 fighters and Israeli drones overflew the area to provide cover for the commando launch.

By 6 am on Saturday it was all over...

http://news.yahoo.com/s/afp/20060819/wl_mideast_afp/mideastconflictlebanon

Normally a ceasefire means a temporary stoppage of a war, or any armed conflict, where each side of the conflict agrees with the other to suspend aggressive actions to cease firing.

In this case, one side, Hezbollah wasn't consulted and the other side, Israel, continues firing.

It would seem that Israel's definition of a ceasefire includes disguising its soldiers as Lebanese soldiers in order to launch commando raids, violating Lebanese airspace with military aircraft, dropping bombs and assassinations.

 

[Colpy]

Excuse me, Earth as One, but the reason Israel does not have a peaceful relationship with Lebanon can be summed up in one word: HEZBOLLAH.

 

[gopher]

Correction: two words = Zionist terrorism.

 

[gopher]

Israeli apologists conveniently ignore that Israel committed many acts of war against Lebanon before Hezbollah captured those two Israeli soldiers.



The repeated and neurotic denials by Israel's apologists borders on insanity. How many instances of israel's endless violations of UNSCRs must we continue to post on this forum before these liars will admit that it is their Zionist heroes who are the imperialistic aggressors in this conflict?

Each and every time we continue to post proofs of Zionist aggression but all they post is repeated denials.

Isn't time for them to end their neuroses????

 

[damngrumpy]

I agree Bush should be booted out, however I also agree more with Israel on this battle. As a rule I do not side with the Israelies, buth this time the fight started from the Lebanon side of the boarder.
When people hide their weapons and manpower in residencial areas ordinary people are going to be killed, thats war.
During the second world war the allies pounded civillian sections of German cities everyday. Germany bombed London day and night, so what?
People want a war to be fought with all the civil politeness of the politically correct. That however is not reality.

 

[Just the Facts]

Re: RE: Common lies in the Lebanon war debates.

Just the Facts said that the war in Iraq is against OBL and his forces

Actually I called it Osama's war, then went on to specify that it was a Jihad. Osama's "forces" are a red herring. He's more of a figurehead than a general. Jihadi's worldwide are inspired by him. He doesn't have to have command of them.

This statement follows from the well worn claims of the neo-cons

Maybe so, but that's not where I get my opinions. My opinions are based on the facts. Just the facts.

#1. Anyone would fight against an invader (Americans). So it's a safe bet to say that the vast majority of resistance to Americans is by Iraqi's themselves. Just as it would be for the residents of ANY and EVERY country facing an ILLEGAL FOREIGN MILITARY FORCE.

The trouble is, they're killing very few Americans and very many Iraqi's. And not by accident or collaterally.

#2. There is NO WAY a foreign group could sustain itself for 3 years fighting the Americans without HUGE local support. Consequently they are a proxy army for the Iraqi's.

Of course. The Jihad is global. There are many Iraqi's who lend their support. There are, however, even more Iraqi's that just want to get on with life. But the Jihadi's keep blowing them up. They blow them up just for having the audacity to try to rebuild the country...to get the electricity up and the water flowing. Sorry, that's not resistance to a foreign power.

#3. The real reason Americans and the US Press claim the resistance is from non-Iraqi's, is to play into the story about "fighting terror" and the bad insurgents etc.

Also, it has a lot to do with all the non-Iraqi's joining the Jihad in Iraq. You don't need to get that info fron neo-cons, whatever that is, you can get it from the Jihadi's themselves. Going to Iraq to join the Jihad is like a pilgrimmage. But that in no way equates to saying that the "resistance is from non-Iraqi's". Of course Iraqi's are involved. It's just not much of a resistance, more of a perpetuation of misery.

No, the resistance to the American dogs has similar dynamics found in EVERY resistance to a foreign military presence.

Oh really. Blowing up your own people while they shop. Killing them for daring to join construction crews to rebuild roads and power lines, beheading them for daring to join the police force to attempt to restore law and order to the nation. These are traits common to EVERY resistance to a foreign military presence? I don't think so. I think you'll also be hard pressed to find examples of foreign occupiers who arrange for free elections to replace themselves with.

No, it's nothing like ANY resistance to a foreign military presence.