From Israel to Lebanon

[traveller]

Here's a quick note on the Muslim religion as well. Note the year "the prophet" was born. That is 569 (6th century).
Note the reference to the angel Gabriel, the same angel which is seen throughout Jewish history and in the Bible.


Muhammad ibnu Abdillah was born in Mecca in the year 569 CE. He earned his living as a trader and was known by his people as al-amin. When Muhammad reached the age of 40, the angel Gabriel came to him with revelations that established his prophethood. Muhammad was first ordered to instruct his immediate family on Islam, but eventually it was revealed to him that he should begin delivering the message to all of mankind. Thus the Muslim religion was born.

[traveller]

Lebanon
A nice history of Lebanon can be found at http://www.lebaneseforces.org/lebanon/leb_history.php

[traveller]

Sorry for the additional post, but there is some good stuff coming up for those of you discussing this entire thread.
Seems the Hezbollah is being a bit threatening to the Lebanese Gov that some claim support Hezbollah.

http://www.beirutbeltway.com/beirutbeltway/2006/08/the_decapitator.html

[EmptyneSs]

Don't buy that the tanks are obsolete. The way they are being used is obsolete. If Israel chose to actually use a true combined force campaign with the proper support elements, you would see just how deadly those tanks are. Even if Israel just quit showing restraint and used a full armored assault the results would have be different and you would see less vulnerability in the "Israel" armored arsenal.

you know, i was reading an article the other day were an israeli soldier returning from the front was saying how they werent using their tanks correctly. he was talking about how the israelis were trying to engange anti tank teams with tanks instead of using infantry to keep the tanks safe.

this conflict is for sure going to be studied for many years to come by military analysts.

[traveller]

There was an interview today on a similar topic. Israeli military commanders are complaining that they were held back and could have taken out the Hez strongholds if they were allowed to use there weaponry for what it was designed. All I could think is, gee I think we discussed that on the forum.
And other reporters today seem to be asking the same questions we have already asked and answered here, and I must say "we did a far better job at the asking and the answering."
Speaking of asking and answering when is some one going to answer all my questions a few post back.
Anyway, I discussed the very same things with a few others who I work around and heard far too many senseless theaories of what would happen next. I did not intend to be argumentative, but found myself on the opposite side of every one of their far fetched thoughts.
The good part was nearly all were dismissed with one or two questions, that instead of answering they just said -- oh yeah I guess that's true.
Most of what I asked was simply related history.
One said he thought for sure it would begin open warfare with Lebanon and Syria vs Israel.
"So I asked who did Syria attack in 2005?"
"Why would Lebanon attack, when they are saying they will disarm "H?""
I swear not one of them had caught more than 1 sec of a newsclip and read two words of a story on the entire issue.
So please keep bringing some sound thought to the table folks -- I really need the rational discussion after conversations like today.

[treelizard]

Yes
Yes
No
No
Yes (well, Central America...close enough)
Yes
No

I've only voted in two elections, I voted Green and Dem, but my politics have really changed and I'm now registered as an Independent.

[traveller]

Well, someone who has seen a little bit of the world.
Thanks for the answers.
If we get some more I will try to make a summation on some things and the reason they were asked.
There were a few others even further back if you care to check em out.

[treelizard]

No
Yes
Yes
No
Of course.

[EmptyneSs]

im actually kind of disgusted to see bush and olmert stand up and tell the world that israels campaign was a success. bush also told us the iraq war was over like 3 years ago, yet the truth is we havent even been able to secure bagdad israel didnt achieve any of their goals in the campaign. they were not even able to supress hezbollah rocket fire for even a day despite leveling south lebanon, nor did they get back any of their captured comrades. how can they say their campaign was a sucesss when they had to replace the head of their military in the middle of the campaign? that aint a good sign. i remember in the begining israel said it only needed one week to completely wipe out hezbollah.

another fine example of successful, classicl guerilla warefare waged against a stronger conventional army for the history books.

[traveller]

First
Let me talk to the Bush comments -- if you are talking about when the banner said "Mission Complete" or "Mission Accomplished" that was in reference to the troops on board the AC Carrier group he was visiting, and to the ousting of Sadam. Go back to the speech and listen to what he actually said, not what the screen shot showed or what the media told you he said. In the speech he actually addresses the long road ahead to rebuild and stabilize.
The sign was put there by the carrier crew and was referencing their mission, not the war.
The media is who spun it the other way.
Every thing esle that followed was a completely different phase of the situation and was transitioning to a clean up and rebuild effort, until insurgents heated things up.
Was it a bad publicity move for the Pres to be in front of the banner -- yes.
Was it crappy journalism that screwed up the message yes.

And yes it is another fine lesson for the history books.
Never fight guerrillas as if they are conventional -- blow them to hell or stay away.

Note -- I am not sure of anyone else's affiliations, but I have lost a number of friends and coworkers to this little fiasco in Iraq, but I still see the entire picture and not simply what the media would have the sheeple beleive. Take a close look at your sources whether they be pro- or anti- and put your personal biases aside. Both are master spin doctors.
I may have an advantage over some as well due to the number of people I know in the region, but trust me, the picture tube in the living room and the local newspaper and internet are barely telling half the story and the half they like to tell is their own.

[traveller]

My last post will probably label me as a Republican or Conservative, because it is a snapshot.
I typically consider myself an Independent. Not simply because of party line rhetoric, but because I choose to look at the facts and speculation myself and make my decisions rather than allow others to tell me what is going on in the news.
When gun control is addressed I look at CDC reports to confirm what the talk show host, reporter, etc, stated. I research the studies they site. It is very amusing how a question asking how many people have fired a weapon while angry – equates to a Nationwide survey result that states – “9 out of ten gun owners say they would fire in anger.”
When it comes to criminal and juvenile behavior issues, I have an expert in the house who provides me with the sources to review.
Now in the last 5 years I have been leaning more conservative as far as politics go, but not necessarily philosophy wise. Mainly because I see the democrat party and its primarily liberal agenda as a broken organization that has no unified agenda. They seem to consistently be on the “cause of the moment” and have set no strong foundation that I can agree with.
In the past year I have been driven back to a more neutral political stance for almost the same reason. The Republican Party, usually labeled conservative, has splintered and is not showing much of a definitive agenda either.
I voted for Bush both times, because I thought he was the man for the moment. I thought his competitors were lacking more character and integrity than he did, and could not demonstrate strong enough leadership in what I predicted would be trying times for U.S. international policy.
Next election I will look for the same things. If the person that has the qualities I am concerned about is a Dem, Rep, Green, or some crazy independent from the sticks that will be the person I vote for.

Back to the thread. I don’t know what Bush was actually thinking with his comments of “success.” Even if it was successful, I would have preferred for him to stay low on this.
The question is was it successful or not. What was Israel’s real agenda? – see my other post regarding this – Did they really intend to destroy “H?” They did knock out numerous long range weapons “H” had stored. Was their "we can take them out in X amount of days" statement intended as “this is what will happen?” Or was it simply rhetoric to grab attention?
I doubt seriously that Israel considers this a loss. They forced the UN to move from a passive "6" type resolution to a "7." The difference being that as a "7" UN members are obligated to support the dismantling of “H.” Prior to that there was nothing binding for member nations to get involved. It also forces Lebanon to take action or face sanctions themselves. Seeing as the Lebanese military has historically been divided amongst itself due to party and religious lines (actually one in the same in their form of government) they will need assistance.
It also got the glorious “H” leader to declare his victory and then make stupid statements which alienated him from his few friends in the Lebanese political circle, and view him as a threat to them as well as their adversaries. Now the Lebanese government sees his intentions to become a formal part of the government with is own official seat and they don’t like that. It would disrupt an already fragile federation.
Now once UN forces and Lebanese forces are fired upon by “H” that allows Israel to potentially get involved this time with the backing of the UN.
If it was indeed the intent of Israel to force the UN to provide a new more binding resolution, then they have indeed been successful.
This is not the first time Israel has used these tactics, so I doubt my thoughts are all that far fetched.
I, like Emptyness, question why our government has to be the ones to stand with Israel though. The terrorist and evolutionary elements of the middle east already see Israel as our vanguard in the region. Perhaps if we didn’t keep making it appear that way, we could turn some attention away from us.
That is not to say we turn our back completely, but we could try a bit harder to develop strong relations with other governments.

[treelizard]

4. BUSH: HIZBULLAH WILL BE OUSTED FROM LEBANON
By Tzvi Ben Gedalyahu

Hizbullah lost its war against Israel because an int'l force will cut
off arms supplies to the terrorist group and allow Lebanon to govern
the southern part of the country, the US President said.

Speaking at the State Department, U.S. President George W. Bush stated
that Hizbullah has "a fantastic propaganda machine" but it
nevertheless lost the war.

Earlier in the day, White House press secretary Terry Snow admitted
that Israel did not succeed in knocking out the entire Hizbullah
terrorist infrastructure. However, President Bush asserted that the
United Nations Security Council resolution, brokered by the United
States and France, is "an important step forward that will help bring
an end to the violence."

Blaming the terrorist organization for starting the war, he said that
Israel's retaliation showed the world "what it means to confront
terrorists" and that "you got to have hope that ultimately freedom
will prevail. The Israelis grieve over the deaths of innocents, while
Hezbollah supporters celebrate."

Before his speech, he spoke with Defense Department Secretary Donald
Rumsfeld. Flanked by Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice and Vice
President Dick Cheney, Bush stated that the war Israel waged against
Hizbullah terrorist was part of the global war for freedom threatened
by terrorism.

He pointed out that the war never would have started had the United
Nations carried out a previous resolution for Lebanon to deploy its
army in southern Lebanon.

"Lebanon can't be a strong democracy when there is a state within a
state and that's Hizbullah," President Bush said. He denounced Syria
and Iran for arming Hizbullah, and added that Iran cannot be allowed
to become a nuclear power.

[EmptyneSs]

The question is was it successful or not. What was Israel’s real agenda? – see my other post regarding this – Did they really intend to destroy “H?” They did knock out numerous long range weapons “H” had stored. Was their "we can take them out in X amount of days" statement intended as “this is what will happen?” Or was it simply rhetoric to grab attention?
I doubt seriously that Israel considers this a loss. They forced the UN to move from a passive "6" type resolution to a "7." The difference being that as a "7" UN members are obligated to support the dismantling of “H.” Prior to that there was nothing binding for member nations to get involved. It also forces Lebanon to take action or face sanctions themselves. Seeing as the Lebanese military has historically been divided amongst itself due to party and religious lines (actually one in the same in their form of government) they will need assistance.
It also got the glorious “H” leader to declare his victory and then make stupid statements which alienated him from his few friends in the Lebanese political circle, and view him as a threat to them as well as their adversaries. Now the Lebanese government sees his intentions to become a formal part of the government with is own official seat and they don’t like that. It would disrupt an already fragile federation.
Now once UN forces and Lebanese forces are fired upon by “H” that allows Israel to potentially get involved this time with the backing of the UN.
If it was indeed the intent of Israel to force the UN to provide a new more binding resolution, then they have indeed been successful.
This is not the first time Israel has used these tactics, so I doubt my thoughts are all that far fetched.
I, like Emptyness, question why our government has to be the ones to stand with Israel though. The terrorist and evolutionary elements of the middle east already see Israel as our vanguard in the region. Perhaps if we didn’t keep making it appear that way, we could turn some attention away from us.
That is not to say we turn our back completely, but we could try a bit harder to develop strong relations with other governments.

actually, if you remeber israel rejected the ceasefire more than few times in the begining because it thought it only needed a week or two to completely wipe out hezbollah. i think they realized they had no choice but to accept the ceasefire when they realized that they could not beat hezbollah or stop their rocket fire militarily. israelis were growing impatient with the constant rocket fire that kept them underground for a month.

[grappler-jordan]

First
Note -- I am not sure of anyone else's affiliations, but I have lost a number of friends and coworkers to this little fiasco in Iraq, but I still see the entire picture and not simply what the media would have the sheeple beleive. Take a close look at your sources whether they be pro- or anti- and put your personal biases aside. Both are master spin doctors.
I may have an advantage over some as well due to the number of people I know in the region, but trust me, the picture tube in the living room and the local newspaper and internet are barely telling half the story and the half they like to tell is their own.

Lost 2 very close friends I was stationed with, and have several still over there. 1 more a friend since we were in high school leaves again in 2 weeks... it always changes the perspective when you have personal relationships that connect you to the problem. Plus having been there for the kick off of OIF myself I know the reality better then the average guy.

Honestly, if I wasn't still connected to friends that are in Iraq and other places, if I still didn't get the full story other places and didn't take the time to REALLY find out what's happening. I would have a tragically skewed view of the war, and my opinions would be much different in relation to the situation at hand in Iraq and Israel/Lebanon...

[traveller]

"E" Yes they did, but I don't think Israel is that simple minded of a player here. They have worked this all to their advantage regardless of when they accepted the ceasefire or how many times they refused it, and I am sure each step was very calculated based upon the timing of the ceasefire request.
"H" is now taking fire in the press that supported them only a few weeks ago. The same bloggers that were "Israel haters" are now bashing "H" leadership and saying nearly exactly what Bush said "Lebanon can't be a strong democracy when there is a state within a state and that's Hizbullah."
I don't see victory or failure for either side in this one, but right now Israel has the political advantage with the UN and Lebanon.
"H" could regain this advantage but they will have to tone down the rhetoric, and if they don't at least partially comply with disarmorment they will appear that they just want to pick a fight eslewhere. If they start openly fighting with the Lebanese forces right now, they will lose any support they currently have.
Overall Israel has the upperhand at the moment because they do not have to do anything to maintain their position -- they have successfully stalled out there opponent this round.
Let's see what round two brings

G-J: sorry for your losses.