TranceAddict Forums (www.tranceaddict.com/forums)
- Political Discussion / Debate
-- Breaking News: Isreal and Lebanon at War?
Pages (54): « 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 [28] 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 »
| quote: |
| Originally posted by Sunsnail My mother just arrived from a 2 month vacation in France to see her family, and she came back telling me that the Israeli soldiers that were kidnapped were IN Lebanon when they got kidnapped... is this right at all? Or is the french media fucked up |
| quote: |
| Originally posted by ogvh5150 Yes they were captured in the Lebanese side. But beware of the self-proclaimed foreign policy and military analysts: |
| quote: |
| BEIRUT, Lebanon (AP) - Hezbollah militants crossed into Israel on Wednesday and captured two Israeli soldiers. |
| quote: |
| Hezbollah militants crossed into Israel on Wednesday and captured two Israeli soldiers. |
| quote: |
| Hezbollah militants captured two Israeli soldiers in a cross-border raid ... |
| quote: |
| BEIRUT, Lebanon --Hezbollah militants crossed into Israel on Wednesday and captured two Israeli soldiers. |
| quote: |
| Hezbollah’s assault on Israeli soldiers inside Israeli territory ... |
| quote: |
| Hezbollah fighters seize two Israeli soldiers in a cross-border raid. |
| quote: |
| Hizbollah guerrillas said they had captured two Israeli soldiers in cross-border attacks from Lebanon |
| quote: |
| ... in response to a brazen border raid by the militant group Hezbollah that killed at least seven soldiers in addition to those abducted. |
| quote: |
| Hezbollah sparked the current conflict Wednesday with a cross-border raid that captured two of Israel’s soldiers. |
| quote: |
| Germany condemned Hizbullah's capture of two Israeli soldiers in a cross-border raid ... |
| quote: |
| Six Keys to Peace It isn't rocket science, but the playbook for bringing stability to the Middle East requires American commitment, Israeli restraint, Arab flexibility-and a little luck in Iraq By MICHAEL ELLIOTT Time Magazine - 31st of July upcoming cover story - Six Keys to Peace Web link Posted Sunday, Jul. 23, 2006 With a few bland words�"this Sunday I will travel to Israel and the Palestinian territories, where I will meet with Prime Minister Olmert and his leadership and with President Abbas and his team"�U.S. Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice last week linked her office not just to one summer's crisis but also to the careers and reputations of those who preceded her in high office. Henry Kissinger, Zbigniew Brzezinski, James Baker, Madeleine Albright and others found themselves dragged into the business of trying to bring peace to the Middle East. Year after year, decade after decade, a region that is sacred to three religions and the home of sublime landscapes�yet drenched in blood and covered in the dust of bombed-out rubble�brings those who live in more comfortable neighborhoods back to its old quarrels. Canada, the saying goes, is a nation with too much geography and not enough history. The Levant is the world's un-Canada�a small sliver of land in which ancient grievances are played out again and again as if they held the key to understanding tomorrow. Rice's trip this week marks an implicit recognition by the Bush Administration that there are some burdens that every U.S. presidency has to bear. It is not that Bush has ignored the Middle East; on the contrary, he is fighting a war there, and the commitment of the President to advance the cause of democracy in nations that have long been autocracies amounts to a policy of revolution. But in six years, Bush's team has studiously avoided the habits of the past: shuttle diplomacy, Camp David summits, special envoys. To Bush & Co., those things are naive, incremental, Clintonian. But whether he likes it or not, the President�and his Secretary of State�is deep in the Clinton woods now; the very least that well-wishers can do is point them toward pathways through the thickets. In truth, Bush and Rice know those paths well. Everyone does. There is no mystery to the theory of peace in the Middle East; it's the practice that has proved so difficult. But it is worth setting out the keys to peace that�with time, patience and goodwill in an area where they are in chronically short supply�might one day allow people to concentrate on building a better life for their children rather than scurrying into bolt-holes and shelters. Here are six of them. 1. Get the U.S. Involved It is easy to see why any U.S. administration would want to stay out of Middle East peacemaking. Those who have tried have had little to show for their pains. Jimmy Carter's successful effort to broker a peace between Egypt and Israel at Camp David in 1978 did nothing for his political fortunes. In 1983, during the presidency of Ronald Reagan, 241 members of the U.S. armed forces died after the bombing of a military barracks in Beirut�killed by a suspected Hizballah faction. And Bill Clinton left office bitterly disappointed that all his intelligence and charm were insufficient to bring about a comprehensive settlement between Israel and the Palestinians. But Rice's trip is evidence that the U.S. is involved in the Middle East, whether it wants to be or not. That is not, for once, because it is the world's sole superpower, the policeman to which those in any tough neighborhood eventually turn. It is because the U.S. has a unique relationship with Israel and is committed to guaranteeing its security. That means Washington can talk to the Israelis and, occasionally, convince them that their best interests require them to talk to those whose motives and behavior they despise. As the scale and ferocity of the fighting in Lebanon stunned the world, nations lined up to accuse Israel of a "disproportionate" response to Hizballah's raid two weeks ago, when it kidnapped two Israeli soldiers. But few initially were in doubt as to who started the fight, and it wasn't Israel. "I'm not any more fond of violence or the prospect of a major war than anyone else," says a French official involved in counterterrorism. "But how could Israel not respond to this provocation in a most forceful way?" Even the Saudis, never quick to grant Israel favors, disavowed Hizballah's actions in a remarkable statement that implied that Hizballah should "alone bear the full responsibility of these irresponsible acts and should alone shoulder the burden of ending the crisis they have created." King Abdullah II of Jordan and President Hosni Mubarak of Egypt likewise condemned Hizballah for "adventurism that does not serve Arab interests." There is little mystery about why Saudi Arabia, Egypt and Jordan�all Arab states with predominantly Sunni Muslim populations�would distance themselves from Hizballah. The Lebanese organization is a Shi'ite fighting force, founded and bankrolled by Shi'ite�and non-Arab�Iran. As Tehran flexes its muscles in the region, pursuing technology that could enable it to build nuclear weapons and watching as Shi'ite forces gradually dominate Iraq, Arab powers have become worried. That gives the U.S. an opening. Administration officials say one purpose of Rice's trip is to create an "umbrella of Arab allies" opposed to Hizballah. "She's not going to come home with a cease-fire but with stronger ties to the Arab world," says a U.S. official. "What we want is our Arab allies standing against Hizballah and against Iran." It was, perhaps, the prospect of such an alliance that led Rice last week to say, "What we're seeing here, in a sense, is the birth pangs of a new Middle East." 2. Don't Forget The Palestinians Like any birth, this one won't be easy. The leading Sunni Arab states, if they are to join the U.S in opposition to Hizballah and Iran, are likely to ask for something in return, and it is not hard to divine what it would be: a full-hearted U.S. commitment to revive the peace process between Israel and the Palestinians. For the Arab states, it is axiomatic that a second key for curing the ills that have plagued the region is peace between Israel and the Palestinians. Settle that, many believe, and economic development will proceed apace, extremist groups will lose their reason for being, and public support for violence will evaporate. Even if some of those claims are far-fetched�what, precisely, has Israel done that would explain the woeful economic performance of the Arab world for a generation?�they are deeply held and widely shared. "Terrorism," British Prime Minister Tony Blair told the U.S. Congress in 2003, "will not be defeated without peace in the Middle East between Israel and Palestine. Here it is that the poison is incubated." There is little disagreement among states in the region or outside it about what an ideal peace between Israel and the Palestinians would involve. Since before World War II, most reasonable observers have known that sooner or later, two states�one with a Jewish majority, one with an Arab one�would share the land between the Jordan River and the Mediterranean. That was the basis of the talks between Israel and the Palestinians in the last year of the Clinton Administration; it was acknowledged by the meeting of Arab states in Beirut in 2002, when they committed themselves to "normal relations" with Israel if it withdrew to its pre-1967 borders; it was the basis of the road map adopted by the U.S. and other powers in 2003; and it was accepted, finally, by Israel's old warrior Ariel Sharon, although he ultimately lost faith in negotiations and adopted a policy of unilateral "disengagement" from the Palestinians. As Sharon's heir and successor, Israel's Prime Minister Ehud Olmert also knows that one day a Palestinian state will come. The belief is nearly universal. "We know we can't wind this up with guns and tanks," Israel's Deputy Prime Minister Shimon Peres told Time. "The final solution has to be done diplomatically." But 2006 is not 2000, when negotiations at Camp David got mired in the devilish details of a deal�how Jerusalem would be governed, how much land Israel would retain on the West Bank, how Palestinian refugees should be handled. Since then, Israel has seen suicide bombers flock to its cities from the West Bank and watched rockets sail into its towns from Gaza and Lebanon, areas from which it had withdrawn all its soldiers�in the case of Lebanon, a full six years ago. Within that context, it isn't the details of a two-state solution that matter now; it is something much more elemental. Israel needs to know that in any deal with the Palestinians, its people will be safe. 3. Guarantee Israel's security For that reason, the third key to peace is to find a way to convince Israelis that they and their children can sleep easy at night. And here Israel finds itself in a dilemma. The Jewish state's superb armed forces never failed when asked to fight against massed armies in conventional wars. But Israel is not fighting a standard war now; with Hamas and Hizballah, it is battling against cells of well-trained militias energized by religious fervor. Armies surrender when their leaders tell them to; guerrillas just slip back to a safe house and wait to fight another day. Worse, today's irregular foes live in villages, hide in houses and are sheltered by civilians (or force civilians to shelter them). All that means that Israel has to fight a war that inevitably results in terrible and visible damage to towns and cities�and costs innocent lives. In the court of world public opinion, that is a fight Israel ultimately can never win. Worse, precisely because the collateral damage of such a war is so immense�witness the areas of southern Lebanon that have been turned into a wasteland of shattered masonry�Israel risks creating a new generation of Arabs that hates it with a passion. By trying to guarantee its security today, Israel may be merely threatening its security tomorrow. In any two-state solution, Palestinians would control the West Bank. But the need to maintain Israeli security has compelled some observers to rethink how an Israeli withdrawal from the region should be handled. Dennis Ross, Middle East envoy for Presidents George H.W. Bush and Clinton, criticizes the way Israel left Gaza last year. "The withdrawal," says Ross, "should not have taken place unless the Palestinians were going to create the security force to ensure security on their side, so that there weren't attacks out of Gaza into Israel." Given all that has happened, says Ross, Olmert will be able to pull out of the West Bank only if one of two conditions are met: "Either his withdrawal is geared only to [Israeli] settlers and not soldiers ... or the Palestinians are able to put together a credible security force." 4. Stabilize Lebanon By leaving soldiers in the west bank after any withdrawal, Israel might hope to guarantee security on its eastern border. But the same tactic wouldn't work to the north; nobody is going to countenance Israel's occupying a swath of southern Lebanon again (as it did from 1982 to 2000) to deny Hizballah room from which to fire its rockets�least of all Israelis themselves, who are horrified by the idea of a re-occupation. That is why the fourth key to peace is to stabilize Lebanon. In part, that means propping up the fragile government of technocrats led by Fouad Siniora and pumping donors to help Lebanon rebuild itself (again)�which will be the focus of a high-level international meeting in Rome this week. But it also means ensuring that Hizballah can no longer use its strongholds in the south to threaten regional peace. That explains why Rice has been at pains to insist that her mission is not to restore the status quo ante but to change the game in Lebanon so that Hizballah is out of the picture. Rice and other top U.S. officials do not expect that Hizballah will be completely disarmed by Israel anytime soon; but they would not be sorry to see its power sufficiently undermined so that other nations can contribute to what Rice calls the "robust" force that will be needed to police the border when hostilities cease. Getting those forces in place may be easier said than done. When Israeli officials are pressed on who, precisely, might man the border and face down the remnants of Hizballah, they throw out names�Turkey, Egypt, "the Europeans"�in a way that suggests the plan has not yet been thought through. Israeli officials take refuge in the hope that other nations will recognize that Iran, Hizballah's sponsor, is sufficiently dangerous to regional peace that defanging its proxy becomes something that every sensible party would want to do. "Iran," says Peres, "is trying to make a mockery of world institutions." That thought leads to the fifth key to peace�and perhaps the hardest of all to pin down. 5. Handle Iran The one factor that truly distinguishes this summer's crisis from earlier ones is the realization that Iran is a central player. Among Israelis, it is generally assumed that Hizballah had Iran's encouragement when it kidnapped the soldiers. And that view isn't held just in Jerusalem. "There isn't the slightest degree of ambiguity or doubt as to Iran's role in this," says a French foreign-affairs official. "How much coincidence could there be in Hizballah kidnapping the Israeli soldiers on the same date that ministers met in Paris to decide what measures to take on the Iranian nuclear issue? None, in our opinion." Avi Dichter, Israel's Internal Security Minister, calls on other countries to help Israel show that "Iran's strategy has failed in Lebanon" and claims that if Iran is not faced down, it will try to destabilize oil states in the Gulf. Assuming Iran was indeed behind Hizballah's raid, what happens next? The U.S. and other powers are discussing how to rein in Iran's nuclear program, and it may be easier to jointly impose sanctions now that Iran is viewed as responsible for mayhem in Lebanon. But what then? Take a look at a map. Iran is an oil-rich nation that borders Pakistan, Afghanistan, Turkey and Iraq, among others. It has a strategic position in Eurasia that cannot be wished away. European officials talk of a "constructive dialogue" with Tehran that involves recognizing it as an important regional power while maintaining the right to sanction it if it breaks the nuclear rules. But Israel�along with many supporters in the U.S.�thinks dialogue with a nation whose leader has said that Israel "must be wiped off the map" is a waste of breath. The U.S., meanwhile, has had few substantive talks with Iranian officials for the past 26 years�and it is anything but clear what levers Washington and its allies think they can pull if Iran really does seek a position of hegemony in the region. Yet even if Iran was to be contained or if it changed its tune, it is hardly certain that Hizballah would follow suit. There is even less reason to think Hamas would. Israel's Dichter claims that Iran made its first overtures to Hamas in 2001 and that Khaled Mashaal, the Syrian-based leader of Hamas, is a "frequent flyer between Damascus and Tehran." But Hamas is a Sunni organization rooted in Palestinian resistance. It doesn't need Iran's encouragement to fight Israel. 6. PRAY FOR IRAQ There is, finally, the matter of Iraq. The original U.S. hopes for Iraq were not implausible: a successful democracy there would indeed help bring stability to the whole region. But the failure of the U.S. to impose order in Iraq after the invasion of 2003 has emboldened all those who believe that further spasms of violence will force Washington and its allies to give up their push for fundamental change. And there are worse possible outcomes. Iraq could become the launching pad for a full-on war between Sunni and Shi'ite, with Iran entering the fray on the Shi'ite side and the Arab states defending Iraq's Sunnis. In the bitter Iran-Iraq war of 1980-88, more than a million people were killed or wounded�and any repeat of that carnage would take place in the context of a region where at least one power, Iran, is determined to develop nuclear weapons. Seen in that light, there's little wonder that Rice is off on her travels. Her predecessors may have found their shuttles around the Middle East both vexing in their detail and disappointing in their outcome. But they knew that for the U.S. and the world, staying at home was more dangerous still. Rice and her boss, it seems, have got that message. |
| quote: |
| Originally posted by ronk please, show me one case of Israeli civilians that have been killed because they have been used as a human shields against their will. (note that if Hezbollah uses human shield NOT against the civilians will, I count them as Hezbollah militants.) |
| quote: |
| Originally posted by ronk I think I made my point.. |
| quote: |
Pictures from Tel Aviv antiwar protest 7/22 set browser to unicode-8 to read text below or visiting site.  פעילי "גוש שלום" בין הצועדים. השלט בערבית: "ממשלת אולמרט ופרץ מבצעת פשעי מלחמה!" Gush Shalom activists among the marchers. Arabic poster: "The Olmert-Peretz Government is Committing War Crimes!"  חלק מההמון בכיכר הסינמטק Some of the 5000 protesters at Cinemateque Square  "די להרג אזרחים", "טוב שחרור אסירים מחפירת קברים!" Marching through the streets of central Tel-Aviv. "Stop Killing Civilians", "Exhanging Prisoners is Better than Digging Graves"  קטע מהמצעד ברחוב איבן גבירול Veteran marchers  השורה הראשונה, מאחורי שרשרת ביטחון Leading the march, behind protective line  אורי אבנרי נואם בעצרת Uri Avnery addressing the thousands  ח"כ לשעבר עיסם מחול נואם Communist leader Issam Makhoul speeking  אביר קופטי מ"נשים נגד מלחמה" בחיפה Abeer Kopti, from Haifa sectiob of "Women Against War". צילום: רחל אבנרי Photo: Rachel Avnery |
| quote: |
| Originally posted by psychosomatica I really don't see your point. Both sides use human shields. Both sides are wrong. Don't condemn the other side for doing what you've done (and I believe are still doing.. ) |
).
| quote: |
| Originally posted by ogvh5150 Joseph Panossian had changed his story (later in the day) if you bothered to look at the time stamps for the reports he filed with AP. Keep relying heavily on the media, remember they parroted the US when Saddam supposedly had nukes. You remember Iraq don't you? Or did you forget already? |
| quote: |
| Originally posted by KrazyDJs You still didn't proved that the IDF used human shields (If you said it that is, too lazy to look up for that post ).EDIT ogvh5150, I doubt if 1% of them have been hiding in the shelters for the last 12 days. I'm pretty sure they all live their lives in Tel Aviv, or any other city that doesn't get bombed. They still can voice their opinions, but it's easy to protest against a war you don't even "feel", isn't it? |
| quote: |
| Originally posted by ronk how blind can you be? I'm not relying on those news articles in the internet I posted above, and I couldn't care less about that AP guy. this 'war' broke because of the violation of these borders and the abduction. we got out of Lebanon 6 or so years ago, why would we even want to be there? I saw a video (yeah, with my own eyes) about it. the soldiers were in the middle of a patrol along the border within the territories of Israel. Hezbollah fired at them, killed three as far as I recall, and abducted two from the Israeli territories. I saw the soldiers vehicle, it was in Israel. |
| quote: |
| Originally posted by venomX Thats quite the claim, its pretty random that someone would be shooting a video at that monent, any links? |
| quote: |
| Originally posted by KrazyDJs You still didn't proved that the IDF used human shields (If you said it that is, too lazy to look up for that post ).EDIT ogvh5150, I doubt if 1% of them have been hiding in the shelters for the last 12 days. I'm pretty sure they all live their lives in Tel Aviv, or any other city that doesn't get bombed. They still can voice their opinions, but it's easy to protest against a war you don't even "feel", isn't it? |
| quote: |
| Originally posted by venomX But then those who 'dont feel it' can use their intellect to come up with more reasonable plans. The problem with 'feeling' is that i clouds judgement and leads to irrational behavior. If we all guided ourselves by feeling organized society would not be able to exist. In the heat of battle, in the middle of a crisis, the only way to make objective decisions is to distance yourself a bit from what you 'feel'. I dont the time to look up the sources right now but psychologicial studies have proven that when performing tasks with heavy cognitive demands unless one is extremely proficient in them the presence of adrenaline in the bloodstream decreases effeciency by a great degree ie. making tough decisions with a hot head leads to bad decisions. |
interesting article:
| quote: |
| Why they love to hate us Some 1,500 years of anti-Semitism have taught us that there is something about us that annoys the world One hundred years of conflict, 6.5 years of war, billions of wasted dollars, tens of thousands of people killed, not including the boy lying next to me on a rocky beach at Lake Karon in '82, with his guts spilling out of his body. Both of us staring the wound until he was evacuated by helicopter. Until this day I do not know if he is alive or dead. All this, and it is still impossible to understand. It's not only what has happened. It is also what did not occur - the hospitals that were never built, the universities that never opened, the roads that were never paved, three years stolen from the lives of millions of young people in uniform. Despite everything, we are still clueless as to the core of the riddle. Why do they hate us so much? I am not talking about the Palestinians this time. The conflict with them is intimate, focused, and has a direct impact on their day to day living. Without getting into who is right or wrong, it is clear their reasons for not wanting us here are very personal. We all know that in the end it will be resolved: Between us, in blood, sweat and tears that will soak the pages of the agreement that is signed. Until then, this is a war we can understand, even if no sane person can understand the way in which it is being waged. But the others. They are impossible to understand. Why does Hassan Nasrallah - together with his tens of thousands of minions - dedicate his life and his considerable talent as well as the fate of his country in order to wage a war against a country that he has never seen, people he has never met and an army he has no reason to fight? Why do children in Iran who cannot even point to Israel on a map (mostly because it is so small) burn its flag in the city square and volunteer to commit suicide in order to destroy it? Why do Egyptian and Jordanian intellectuals incite the naive and helpless against the peace treaties, knowing full well that revoking them will set their countries back 20 years. 'So many ways to love your brother' Why are the Syrians willing to stay a pathetic and oppressive third world country in exchange for the questionable privilege of serving as patron to terror organizations that in the end will threaten them too? Why do they hate us in Saudi Arabia? In Iraq? In the Sudan? What have we done to them? How are we even relevant to their lives? What do they even know about us? And why do they hate us so much in Afghanistan where they are starving. Where do they even have the strength to hate? So many answers to this question and yet it is an enigma. There's the religious issue but religious people make their own choices. The Koran (together with the 'Shariya' - like the Halacha or Jewish code of laws) has thousands of laws. Why do we preoccupy them so much? There are after all a number of other countries that have given them more of a reason to be angry. We didn't start the Crusades, and we didn't rule over them during the Colonial era, and we never forced them to convert. The Mongols, the Seliceans, the Greeks, the Romans, the Crusaders, the Ottomans and the English, all occupied them, destroying and pillaging the entire region. We did not even try so how is it that we are the enemy? Is it about solidarity with their Palestinian brothers and sisters? If so then where are the tractors from Saudi Arabia for rebuilding Gush Katif? Where is the Indonesian team that is supposed to come and build a school in Gaza? Where are the doctors from Kuwait with the latest in surgical equipment? There are so many ways to love your brother, why do they prefer to help him to hate? Is it something that we have done? 1,500 years of anti-Semitism have taught us an excruciatingly painful lesson - there is something about us that annoys the world. So we did the thing that everyone wanted - we left. We established our own tiny country where we could annoy each other without bothering anyone else. We did not ask for much to do this. Israel sits on an area comparable to maybe one percent of the total area of Saudi Arabia. We have no oil, no natural resources. We did not occupy the territory of another sovereign country. 'The Iranians are responsible' Most of the towns and cities bombed this week were not stolen from anyone. Nahariya, Afula and Carmiel never existed until we founded them. Other Katyushas fell in places that no one ever doubted our rightful ownership on them. Haifa has history of Jewish presence since the third century before the Common Era. Tiberias played host to the last Sanhedria so no one can claim we stole these places from someone else. Nevertheless the hatred continues as if we do not share a common fate. The hate is operative, toxic, and insatiable. Last week the Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinijad called for the State of Israel 'to be eliminated' as if we were some kind of bacteria. We've become so accustomed to his declarations that we don't even argue. Israel never wanted to see Iran disappear. There were even diplomatic relations for as long as Iran wanted them. We don't have a common border or even bad memories. But they are still ready and willing to confront the entire western work, to face international sanctions, put their standard of living at risk, destroy what is left of their economy all for the privilege of rabidly hating us. I am trying but cannot remember: What did we do to them? When? How? Why is the Iranian president saying that 'The Moslem world's main problem is Israel.'? There are more than a billion Moslems in the world. Most live in substandard conditions. They suffer from hunger, poverty, ignorance; blood soaked conflicts that extend from Kashmir to Kurdistan and from Darfur to Bangladesh. And we are their main problem? How exactly are we bothering them? I refuse to accept the argument that 'that is the way they are'. 'They' used to say that about us and we've grown to suspect the statement. There has to be another reason, a dark secret that convinced residents of southern Lebanon to escalate things along a quiet border, to kidnap soldiers of an army that had withdrawn from their territory, and to turn their country into islands of rubble precisely at a time that they had finally extricated themselves from 20 years of rack and ruin. We have become accustomed to telling ourselves things like: 'The Iranians are responsible,' or 'Syria is stirring things up behind the scenes.' But that is really too simplistic. What about the people? What do they think? What about their hopes, their loves, their aspirations and dreams? What about their children? Do they really believe that hating us is enough of a reason to send their children off to die? |
| quote: |
| Originally posted by KrazyDJs ogvh5150, I doubt if 1% of them have been hiding in the shelters for the last 12 days. I'm pretty sure they all live their lives in Tel Aviv, or any other city that doesn't get bombed. They still can voice their opinions, but it's easy to protest against a war you don't even "feel", isn't it? |
| quote: |
| Originally posted by ronk how blind can you be? |
| quote: |
| I'm not relying on those news articles in the internet I posted above, and I couldn't care less about that AP guy. |
| quote: |
| this 'war' broke because of the violation of these borders and the abduction. we got out of Lebanon 6 or so years ago, why would we even want to be there? |
| quote: |
| I saw a video (yeah, with my own eyes) about it. the soldiers were in the middle of a patrol along the border within the territories of Israel. Hezbollah fired at them, killed three as far as I recall, and abducted two from the Israeli territories. I saw the soldiers vehicle, it was in Israel. |
A missile has landed today on the house of one of the protesters from yesterday...straight into his living room.
Hizbulla must be loling at this 
| quote: |
| Originally posted by ogvh5150 Really? Then why post the following: That is what the media is saying but somehow you talk out of the other side of your mouth by saying your "not relying on those news articles in the internet". Not confirming what you've just typed but just where exactly in what town, city, province, county or village did the first attack on July 12th happen? |
Let me rephrase what I asked:
Just where exactly in what town, city, province, county or village did this kidnapping/capture on July 12th happen?
I already know that there was an artillery exchange in Zarit and Shetula. All the news reports do not say where the capture happened. All they say is that there was a "cross-border" or "border" raid and never mentioning an exact location where.
| quote: |
| Originally posted by ogvh5150 Let me rephrase what I asked: Just where exactly in what town, city, province, county or village did this kidnapping/capture on July 12th happen? I already know that there was an artillery exchange in Zarit and Shetula. All the news reports do not say where the capture happened. All they say is that there was a "cross-border" or "border" raid and never mentioning an exact location where. |
Where did the kidnapping happen? To say Israel makes it too general an answer.
Name the town, city, proper, province, village, borough or commonwealth.
In war, truth is the first casualty
Aeschylus
| quote: |
| The concept of fighting a war for a limited, pre-established duration is, to put it gently, a post-modern one. Prior to the left's call for a time-table in Iraq, I'm not aware of any precedent for this peculiar approach to warfare. So it is fair to ask, what are the reasons why Israel should be allowed only a few weeks to finish a military operation it initiated in order to prevent its citizens from being bombed by an enemy committed to Israel's destruction? |
Hmmm, interesting:
According to GOC Northern Command Udi Adam, the IDF had no intelligence warnings of the Hezbollah attack. After Shalit was kidnapped, he said, the army decided to up the alert level in the north for fear of a similar attack, but a few days ago, the alert was lowered again.
Haaretz on 14/07/2006
IDF retrieves bodies of four tank soldiers killed in south Lebanon
Would a lowered alert come with stepped down patrols? Makes one wonder.
| quote: |
| Originally posted by ogvh5150 Where did the kidnapping happen? To say Israel makes it too general an answer. Name the town, city, proper, province, village, borough or commonwealth. |
| quote: |
| As the jeeps passed between Moshav Zarit and Moshav Shtula, Hezbollah attacked. An initial inquiry revealed that the Hezbollah operatives had crossed the border earlier via a "dead zone" in the border fence not visible from any of the IDF observation posts. There are dozens of similar "dead zones" along the northern border, though the IDF said that observation cameras to cover this particular spot were due to be installed next week. The assailants may have used a wheeled ladder to climb over the fence. The operatives hid themselves in an overgrown wadi about 200 meters on the Israeli side of the fence and waited until the IDF troops arrived, whereupon they attacked, apparently with a combination of explosives and anti-tank missiles. Three soldiers were killed during the initial assault, while one soldier was seriously wounded, another lightly wounded and a third suffered a shrapnel scratch. In addition, the assailants kidnapped the two soldiers. According to the IDF, Hezbollah probably had an escape vehicle waiting on the other side of the fence. The entire incident took no more than 10 minutes, and the Israeli soldiers apparently never fired a shot. |
| quote: |
| Originally posted by ronk IDF forces crossed the border into Lebanon and took control over some Hezbollah posts. along the Israeli-Lebanese border there is heavy gunfire, including tanks, choppers, machine guns etc. |
| quote: |
| The concept of fighting a war for a limited, pre-established duration is, to put it gently, a post-modern one. Prior to the left's call for a time-table in Iraq, I'm not aware of any precedent for this peculiar approach to warfare. So it is fair to ask, what are the reasons why Israel should be allowed only a few weeks to finish a military operation it initiated in order to prevent its citizens from being bombed by an enemy committed to Israel's destruction? |
| quote: |
| Originally posted by Fir3start3r You'll notice that all the other Arab states are pretty quiet about all this. Could it be that even they understand that the Hizbullah doesn't serve any purpose and legitimately forward their people? Hizbullah has only ever been a proxy/patsy for others' agendas and now that they are actually being challenged, its time to drop them. That's the whole purpose of having a proxy; plausible deniability. |
Powered by: vBulletin
Copyright © 2000-2021, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.