|
Breaking News: Isreal and Lebanon at War? (pg. 59)
|
View this Thread in Original format
| skot_e |
| 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.
|
From the link you just posted, so you probably have your answer but for others:
| 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.
|
|
|
|
| Abhay |
| 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. |
WHo are they fighting??? Hizbollah, or Lebanese troops?
Isn't Hezbollah a pov, small, faction of anti-zionist extremists?
If they're fighting Hizbollah, then how can there be an all out guunfight between Israeli troops and hizbollah fighters. In an all out war against tanks, machine guns, and helicopters, along a BORDER, hizbollah would get owned within a day of the first few shots. |
|
|
| tathi |
| 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? |
Perhaps to prevent a humanitarian crisis where thousands more innocent civilians die? |
|
|
| Abhay |
| 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.
|
Hmm....I think Hizbollah is a bit like Al Queda. None of the Arab leaders really like them. It's a thorn in their backsides.
The reality is as i see it, you can supress and outlaw these groups as much as possible, but until u take out the urge and reasoning of people to join up for support of these groups, u'll never really be successful. Pure Agression against these groups and outlawing them and their beliefs will just make them hate you, and make them a very painful thorn.
From my limited experience and readings, it seems Arab leaders really need to give their people a say, and get rid of much of the corruption and unfairness in their economic system. THe people at the top keep the power, and retain it for decades or even centuries, leading to much frustration for people at the bottom of the barrel, who just can't get a fair go no matter what. They have no rights. This, i think, incites terrorism.
Perhaps it's time for a George Bush, Anti-Terrorism, Pro-freedom rhetoric? |
|
|
| WM2 |
| quote: | Originally posted by Abhay
WHo are they fighting??? Hizbollah, or Lebanese troops?
Isn't Hezbollah a pov, small, faction of anti-zionist extremists?
If they're fighting Hizbollah, then how can there be an all out guunfight between Israeli troops and hizbollah fighters. In an all out war against tanks, machine guns, and helicopters, along a BORDER, hizbollah would get owned within a day of the first few shots. |
Hizbollah is quite literally a small Lebanese version of the Iranian army. This isn't some 100 person terrorist cell. It's a fully funded and equiped spin off of the Revolutionary Guard. |
|
|
| Abhay |
| quote: | Originally posted by WM2
Hizbollah is quite literally a small Lebanese version of the Iranian army. This isn't some 100 person terrorist cell. It's a fully funded and equiped spin off of the Revolutionary Guard. |
Then they'd be complete idiots to engage in a full-fledged battle against one of the world's most advanced militaries. They get absolutely pwned.
Israel is a leader in military research, and some of the weapons they make are absolutely incredible. (like the T.A.R 80 for example). |
|
|
| WM2 |
| While I do belive Israel is capable of handling just about every country in the middle east one on one, the situation is a bit to complex for Israel to just flex it's muscule a little and be done. Hizbollah is actually gaining support in the area. That could change at any moment though. |
|
|
| ogvh5150 |
| quote: | Originally posted by skot_e
From the link you just posted, so you probably have your answer but for others: |
Let him speak for himself.
| quote: | Originally posted by Abhay
WHo are they fighting??? Hizbollah, or Lebanese troops?
Isn't Hezbollah a pov, small, faction of anti-zionist extremists?
If they're fighting Hizbollah, then how can there be an all out guunfight between Israeli troops and hizbollah fighters. In an all out war against tanks, machine guns, and helicopters, along a BORDER, hizbollah would get owned within a day of the first few shots. |
+1
But obviously that didn't happen within the first two hours of the incident with Hizbullah claiming a few kills and two captures.
Why are there other reports of the capture happening in Aita al-Shaab in Lebanon rather than just on the border or in Israel? No one is asking that. Somehow we're supposed to believe that the IDF couldn't have gone within enemy territory in the beginning of any firefight within the Lebanese border.
Lebanese security sources said the Hezbollah operation took place across the border from the Lebanese village of Aita al-Shaab.
Lebanese PM: Government was unaware of Hezbollah raid (Haaretz.com article)
|
|
|
| ronk |
| quote: | Originally posted by ogvh5150
Let him speak for himself. |
oh thank you for keeping my rights. :rolleyes:
| quote: | Originally posted by ogvh5150
+1
But obviously that didn't happen within the first two hours of the incident with Hizbullah claiming a few kills and two captures.
Why are there other reports of the capture happening in Aita al-Shaab in Lebanon rather than just on the border or in Israel? No one is asking that. Somehow we're supposed to believe that the IDF couldn't have gone within enemy territory in the beginning of any firefight within the Lebanese border.
Lebanese security sources said the Hezbollah operation took place across the border from the Lebanese village of Aita al-Shaab.
Lebanese PM: Government was unaware of Hezbollah raid (Haaretz.com article)
|
you know, this is really wearying. if you want to question everything, be my guest. you have proofs that the abduction took place within Israel. but no, everybody's wrong. |
|
|
| TranceGiant |
| Is the exact location really that relevant? Even if IDF were attacked on Lebanese soil, the hostile act of killing and kidnapping would still be an unprovoked act of war. Israel and Lebanon had a "cold peace", in which even the crossing of the border could not be seen as an act which would legtimize such a brutal attack. You must not forget that all the surrounding circumstances clearly contradict your theory of "spontaneous armed conflict" as a matter of illegitimate invasion of Lebanese soil: The attack was precisely planned long beforehand, the attack followed the rocketing of Katyushays on Israeli villages as a way to deceive the enemy, the attack was obviously carried out in order to support Hamas. It would be a REAL bewildiering coincidence if Israeli soldiers were to cross the border just in the midst of the parallel totally similar conflict in the Gaza strip and that Hizballah would "spontaneously" respond in such a well-organized fashion. Don't you think? |
|
|
| Q5echo |
| quote: | Originally posted by ogvh5150
Why are there other reports of the capture happening in Aita al-Shaab in Lebanon rather than just on the border or in Israel? No one is asking that. Somehow we're supposed to believe that the IDF couldn't have gone within enemy territory in the beginning of any firefight within the Lebanese border. |
you can ask all day but its the equivalent of not seeing a forest through all the trees.
what was their purpose for the abductions? by their own words was not simply because they, by the extreme remote chance, the IDF soldiers were in Lebanese territory. thats point is moot and detrimental to understanding the conflict as a whole. no ones stoppin ya though.
here are Hizbollah's own words (Nasrallah) in an interview on Arab T.V.
>>Nasrallah interview video<<
partial transcript| quote: | Interviewer: Did you inform them that you were about to abduct Israeli soldiers?
Hassan Nasrallah: I told them that we must resolve the issue of the prisoners, and that the only way to resolve it is by abducting Israeli soldiers.
Interviewer: Did you say this clearly?
Hassan Nasrallah: Yes, and nobody said to me: “No, you are not allowed to abduct Israeli soldiers.” Even if they had told me not to… I’m not defending myself here. I said that we would abduct Israeli soldiers in meetings with some of the main political leaders in the country. I don’t want to mention names now, but when the time comes to settle accounts, I will. They asked: “If this happens, will the issue of the prisoners be over and done with?” I said that it was logical that it would. And I’m telling you, our estimation was not mistaken. I’m not exaggerating. |
|
|
|
| Purple |
| quote: | Originally posted by TranceGiant
Is the exact location really that relevant? Even if IDF were attacked on Lebanese soil, the hostile act of killing and kidnapping would still be an unprovoked act of war. Israel and Lebanon had a "cold peace", in which even the crossing of the border could not be seen as an act which would legtimize such a brutal attack. |
Usually when someone crosses the border it is legitimate enough reason to shot him, and when the person is an Army personal and not some wandering civilian/nomadic people/ tourists; than its double legitimate to shot the alien country's army guy who has infiltrated your border with weapons, and when the situation is as tense and as hostile between the countries like India/Pakistan, Israel/Lebanon, North Korea/South Korea etc than again shoting the person is not unjustified. I have given you 3 legitimate reason why Lebanon as a seperate country has the right to defend its borders/country and to shot dead any Army personal that infiltrates its borders with weapons or without weapons.
But they didnt shot the two guy dead, they arrested them. |
|
|
|
|
