MERGED--> all discussion of Israel/Lebanon conflict - Page 12 - U2 Feedback

Go Back   U2 Feedback > Lypton Village > Free Your Mind > Free Your Mind Archive
Click Here to Login
 
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread Display Modes
 
Old 07-17-2006, 09:32 PM   #166
Refugee
 
Westport's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2001
Posts: 2,151
Local Time: 03:13 PM
Quote:
Originally posted by deep




The U S government should insist that the 67 boundaries be honored.
This will mean relocating many Israeli settlements.
I would rather have my tax dollars paying for that
than supporting and defending an Israel that has not honored these boundaries.

The Palestinians will not be happy with only Gaza and the West Bank,
but if Israel will do this, the U. S. and Britain would be able to get The EU behind this,
there could be universal support for a truly reasonable and "fair" settlement by Israel.

The Palestinians will go on about "the right to return" to lands they had
before being pushed out by Israel.
A fund should be set up for these parties to get relief for loss land.
There should be a time limit, say 20 years to make claims.

There would have to be a "corridor" between the West Bank and Gaza for the state to be viable.
There could be fly over bridges to connect the divided parts of Israel.

Hopefully, these two states can coexist and even be trading partners, Israel seems to need a labor force.

What needs to taken out of the current equation is the unresolved issue of one state keeping a group of people under their control.


The more Israel is willing to give up, the more these groups are interested in disrupting the peace process. Interesting ideas but they don't address Hamas, Hezbollah, Syria or Iran who are the ultimate puppeteers. It would be another short term solution but then we're back to where we are now.
__________________

__________________
Westport is offline  
Old 07-17-2006, 09:44 PM   #167
Blue Crack Supplier
 
Irvine511's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: Washington, DC
Posts: 30,499
Local Time: 06:13 PM
Quote:
Originally posted by STING2
[B]


How many times over the past 5 years and for that matter the past 15 years, has Colin Powell had to correct statements made about what he believes and what he is for? Far to many and it appears the Huffington post that your sticking to is just the latest example. Everyone knows about the potential for Civil War in Iraq, but that does not mean the situation is currently a Civil War. If it all it takes is for two armed factions in a country to be fighting each other, there are dozens of other countries around the world where you could claim there is a Civil War even though no describes the situation like that.

The UNITED STATES MILITARY has been in on the ground in Iraq for over 3 years now. They have dealt with several other conflicts around the world where there were Civil War situations. They know more than anyone else about what is happening on the ground and they do not describe no report the situation as being one of Civil War or anarchy. Iraq has an elected government with representation for all the ethinic groups. It just went through a year long election process and approved a constitution. This is not what one would see in a country that is going through a Civil War. At a minimum, you have to have the absence of a united central government and that is not the case in Iraq. You have insurgent groups that often pose as one side or the other in committing attacks in order to create sectarian conflict in area's where none had existed before. The mere presense of sectarian conflict DOES NOT EQUAL Civil War.

Bombings against shia or sunni civilians have been happening since 2003, but prior to the single February Mosque bombing, no one described it as a civil war in the media. Now any violence that happens is often described as being apart of the Civil War or at least as being sectarian in nature, often without ANY EVIDENCE at all.

well, this obviously doesn't make a whit of difference because Colin Powell -- who's various quotes you toss out whenever possible -- thinks Iraq is in the midst of a Civil War.

could it also be that maybe, just maybe, the February Mosque bombing gave a narrative to all the violence that has consumed the country since March of 2003? that it made obvious to the Wesern world what any Iraqi has known: Iraq is in the midst of a sectarian Civil War.

and Colin Powell knows it too.


[q]In regards to resolution 1441 and resolution 1483(1486 was a different resolution), you have yet to answer the following questions:

If the invasion of Iraq was illegal and not approved by the UN where is the UN resolution condemning the invasion or at least the attempt at one? If the invasion of Iraq was illegal and not approved by the UN, where is the UN resolution calling for the immediate withdrawal of coalition forces, or at least the attempt at one? If the invasion of Iraq was illegal and not approved by the UN, why would the UN approve the occupation in resolution 1483? Why would the UN approve any occupation that resulted from what it felt was an illegal action? What was the UN response to Saddam's invasion of Kuwait? Did the UN pass a resolution approving or recognizing Saddam's invasion of Kuwait?

Its very simple, but its not surprising that a forum that is overwhelmingly liberal and anti-Bush in its views is unable to answer the above questions and sticks to the incorrect view that the operation was not approved by the UN and illegal. [/q]


firstly, since we're so into lists, the following countries have officially condemned the occupation:

Russia
China
Pakistan
Morocco
Germany
France
New Zealand
Sweden
Switzerland
Belgium

anyway, your questions have been answered, several times, over and over, in the following threads:

http://forum.interference.com/showth...1&pagenumber=4

http://forum.interference.com/showth...1&pagenumber=3



[q]The United States military is prepared to occupy any country that it would have to to insure United States security. You can't use neighboring countries to occupy Iraq, that would create problems that do not currently exist. The United States military has 88 ground combat brigades of which 17 are currently deployed at any one time in Iraq. It has the forces it needs to respond to the situation in Iraq as well as any immediate situation involving North Korea, Iran, or Syria. Certainly, if you were going for longterm occupations in all those countries at the same time, you would indeed run into a serious problem in terms of numbers of units and rotations. But it is remote and extremely unlikely situation, and even if the US were not in Iraq, handling occupations in all of those countries at once would be extremely difficult.[/q]


just one of the myriad failures that has come out of Iraq is that we have sent a message that we aren't what we say we are, that we are both illegitimate in the eyes of the world as a sheriff that shoots first and asks questions later so there's little international sympathy for various US adventures message and now Iran and North Korea are flexing muscles and seeking attention becuase they know that the U.S. ability to influence events has shrunk, largely because U.S. troops and treasure remain mired in Iraq and Afghanistan, and the Iraq war has diminished foreign confidence in American leadership. the neocons have woken up to the power of history and how the american military isn't much compared to centuries of sectarian strife, and this is reflected in the changing of the rhetoric from the White House which had no needs for allies in 2003, but certainly needs them just 3 years later in 2006.

soft power -- which is the ability to attract others to the legitimacy of US policies, military or otherwise -- has declined as a result of the global anti-americanism that has understandably resulted from Bush's policies. the US is not strong enough to do as it wishes without without approval. the world's only superpower does indeed need allies, especially now that there is no USSR to define ourselves against -- a bipolar world means you have to pick sides; in a unipolar world, everyone can simply define themselves against the big kid on the block. it's at the point where being pro-American is the kiss of death in the domestic policies of other nations. soft power is a means of obtaining outcomes the US wants, like a successful occupation of Iraq.

finally, there's the fact that failures in Iraq and the perception that we have made a big, big mistake and that 2,500 Americans have died for nothing will make the American people far less likely to tolerate any more military adventures. in case you've forgotten, this is a democracy, and Iraq is already deeply unpopular. you've got to get the civilians on your side if you hope to fight a war (which is why they deliberately lied about WMDs and deliberately trumped up hysterical stories about mushroom clouds and did all they could to link SH to 9-11) and if they are not on your side then there will be political hell to pay.

simply, we cannot afford another Iraq, not without a serious dismantling of daily life in the US, and in a democracy, you would be voted out of office, as the Republicans soon would be.



[q]But hey, if you would like to see an increase in the number of active and reserve combat brigades the US has in its force structure, I hope you will be itching to increase the military budget to the required level so those extra combat brigades can be formed.[/q]

if i ever thought the Bushies were remotely serious about anything and had any sense of history or cared about anything other than swinging their dicks, then i would have supported an occupation force of close to 400,000 soldiers because that was what would have been needed to effectively occupy the contry. these are deeply childish, petty men, and the Iraqi Civil War is the result.
__________________

__________________
Irvine511 is online now  
Old 07-17-2006, 09:47 PM   #168
Blue Crack Addict
 
deep's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2002
Location: A far distance down.
Posts: 28,501
Local Time: 03:13 PM
Quote:
Originally posted by Westport
The more Israel is willing to give up, the more these groups are interested in disrupting the peace process. Interesting ideas but they don't address Hamas, Hezbollah, Syria or Iran who are the ultimate puppeteers. It would be another short term solution but then we're back to where we are now.

you ask

Quote:
Instead of the constant bashing of U.S. Foreign Policy...let's hear about solutions


but your reply suggests that all you really wanted
was support for the current course of action
that is just piling more dead bodies on top of more dead bodies
__________________
deep is offline  
Old 07-17-2006, 09:58 PM   #169
Refugee
 
Westport's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2001
Posts: 2,151
Local Time: 03:13 PM
Quote:

Please explain the correct way to negotiate the end of the war on terror. [/B]
__________________
Westport is offline  
Old 07-17-2006, 10:02 PM   #170
Refugee
 
Westport's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2001
Posts: 2,151
Local Time: 03:13 PM
Quote:
Originally posted by deep



you ask





but your reply suggests that all you really wanted
was support for the current course of action
that is just piling more dead bodies on top of more dead bodies



No, my reply suggests that there is a bigger picture here. Your reply sends us back to the same cycle.
__________________
Westport is offline  
Old 07-17-2006, 11:47 PM   #171
New Yorker
 
Join Date: Nov 2005
Posts: 2,846
Local Time: 11:13 PM
Just one question , anybody , anyone from Israel has any idea when the bombings will stop ..... Coz everyday it pass I get more this thing of that , which is pretty much clear , everyday passes and the bombin continues , the terrorists will love it , coz Israel's image is going to get worse and worse , as if they were villains like .... The amount of victims , and be clear INTERNATIONAL victims is ridiculous ...... If for One I understand Israel's attitude and all , but tell me didn't have any other way of acting or better tryin to go for the real military targets , coz everyday passes I see more houses and houss gettin shot ..... I just still didnt get how exactely that brazilian family in Srifa was killed . 4 persons , of which 2 were children ..... Now I ask ya for example did Israel made a pronoucement about his , did they even gave the knowledge they know what happened ......
__________________
J_NP is offline  
Old 07-18-2006, 12:44 AM   #172
Rock n' Roll Doggie
FOB
 
Join Date: Oct 2001
Posts: 8,876
Local Time: 11:13 PM
Quote:
Originally posted by Irvine511



well, this obviously doesn't make a whit of difference because Colin Powell -- who's various quotes you toss out whenever possible -- thinks Iraq is in the midst of a Civil War.

could it also be that maybe, just maybe, the February Mosque bombing gave a narrative to all the violence that has consumed the country since March of 2003? that it made obvious to the Wesern world what any Iraqi has known: Iraq is in the midst of a sectarian Civil War.

and Colin Powell knows it too.


[q]In regards to resolution 1441 and resolution 1483(1486 was a different resolution), you have yet to answer the following questions:

If the invasion of Iraq was illegal and not approved by the UN where is the UN resolution condemning the invasion or at least the attempt at one? If the invasion of Iraq was illegal and not approved by the UN, where is the UN resolution calling for the immediate withdrawal of coalition forces, or at least the attempt at one? If the invasion of Iraq was illegal and not approved by the UN, why would the UN approve the occupation in resolution 1483? Why would the UN approve any occupation that resulted from what it felt was an illegal action? What was the UN response to Saddam's invasion of Kuwait? Did the UN pass a resolution approving or recognizing Saddam's invasion of Kuwait?

Its very simple, but its not surprising that a forum that is overwhelmingly liberal and anti-Bush in its views is unable to answer the above questions and sticks to the incorrect view that the operation was not approved by the UN and illegal. [/q]


firstly, since we're so into lists, the following countries have officially condemned the occupation:

Russia
China
Pakistan
Morocco
Germany
France
New Zealand
Sweden
Switzerland
Belgium

anyway, your questions have been answered, several times, over and over, in the following threads:

http://forum.interference.com/showth...1&pagenumber=4

http://forum.interference.com/showth...1&pagenumber=3



[q]The United States military is prepared to occupy any country that it would have to to insure United States security. You can't use neighboring countries to occupy Iraq, that would create problems that do not currently exist. The United States military has 88 ground combat brigades of which 17 are currently deployed at any one time in Iraq. It has the forces it needs to respond to the situation in Iraq as well as any immediate situation involving North Korea, Iran, or Syria. Certainly, if you were going for longterm occupations in all those countries at the same time, you would indeed run into a serious problem in terms of numbers of units and rotations. But it is remote and extremely unlikely situation, and even if the US were not in Iraq, handling occupations in all of those countries at once would be extremely difficult.[/q]


just one of the myriad failures that has come out of Iraq is that we have sent a message that we aren't what we say we are, that we are both illegitimate in the eyes of the world as a sheriff that shoots first and asks questions later so there's little international sympathy for various US adventures message and now Iran and North Korea are flexing muscles and seeking attention becuase they know that the U.S. ability to influence events has shrunk, largely because U.S. troops and treasure remain mired in Iraq and Afghanistan, and the Iraq war has diminished foreign confidence in American leadership. the neocons have woken up to the power of history and how the american military isn't much compared to centuries of sectarian strife, and this is reflected in the changing of the rhetoric from the White House which had no needs for allies in 2003, but certainly needs them just 3 years later in 2006.

soft power -- which is the ability to attract others to the legitimacy of US policies, military or otherwise -- has declined as a result of the global anti-americanism that has understandably resulted from Bush's policies. the US is not strong enough to do as it wishes without without approval. the world's only superpower does indeed need allies, especially now that there is no USSR to define ourselves against -- a bipolar world means you have to pick sides; in a unipolar world, everyone can simply define themselves against the big kid on the block. it's at the point where being pro-American is the kiss of death in the domestic policies of other nations. soft power is a means of obtaining outcomes the US wants, like a successful occupation of Iraq.

finally, there's the fact that failures in Iraq and the perception that we have made a big, big mistake and that 2,500 Americans have died for nothing will make the American people far less likely to tolerate any more military adventures. in case you've forgotten, this is a democracy, and Iraq is already deeply unpopular. you've got to get the civilians on your side if you hope to fight a war (which is why they deliberately lied about WMDs and deliberately trumped up hysterical stories about mushroom clouds and did all they could to link SH to 9-11) and if they are not on your side then there will be political hell to pay.

simply, we cannot afford another Iraq, not without a serious dismantling of daily life in the US, and in a democracy, you would be voted out of office, as the Republicans soon would be.



[q]But hey, if you would like to see an increase in the number of active and reserve combat brigades the US has in its force structure, I hope you will be itching to increase the military budget to the required level so those extra combat brigades can be formed.[/q]

if i ever thought the Bushies were remotely serious about anything and had any sense of history or cared about anything other than swinging their dicks, then i would have supported an occupation force of close to 400,000 soldiers because that was what would have been needed to effectively occupy the contry. these are deeply childish, petty men, and the Iraqi Civil War is the result.
Once again, you have failed to provide any evidence that this what Colin Powell truely thinks. Why would you simply believe something that is posted on a site by Arianna Huffington? Considering how often in the past people have made mistaken claims about Colin Powells positions on various issues, why would conclude from a Huffington Post that this is indeed the case?

How many countries can you name that are in the middle of a "CIVIL WAR" are able to hold nationwide elections, approve a constitution" and form a united central government? The mere presense of sectarian violence in a country does NOT equal a Civil War.

If China and Russia officially condemned the occupation, why did they vote to approve resolution 1483 which approves the occupation of Iraq?


None of your links answered any of the following questions:

If the invasion of Iraq was illegal and not approved by the UN where is the UN resolution condemning the invasion or at least the attempt at one? If the invasion of Iraq was illegal and not approved by the UN, where is the UN resolution calling for the immediate withdrawal of coalition forces, or at least the attempt at one? If the invasion of Iraq was illegal and not approved by the UN, why would the UN approve the occupation in resolution 1483? Why would the UN approve any occupation that resulted from what it felt was an illegal action? What was the UN response to Saddam's invasion of Kuwait? Did the UN pass a resolution approving or recognizing Saddam's invasion of Kuwait?



Not enforcing UN Security Council Resolutions against Saddam, 17 of them passed under Chapter VII rules, the UN's most serious resolutions, made the UN and the whole process a laughing stock. The invasion and enforcement of those resolutions after a decade has added credibility and strength again to what the UN says especially in respect to resolutions passed under Chapter VII rules.

North Korea has been "flexing its muscles since 1994". Iran has been doing the same since 1979. Once again, you'll notice these things if you can take a longer view of the situation than just since Bush has been President. I asked you to name what Iran has done recently that you claim it has not done before, but you have yet to answer that question yet.

Once again, its a myth that the United States had abandoned Allies and was unilateral back in 2003 and suddenly it has reversed course. The United States went back to the UN in 2003 and secured another resolution although legally, the coalition already had authorization from previous resolutions to act militarily against Saddam given his non-compliance. The Bush administration helped to assemble a coalition in 2002-2003 that included more countries than the first Gulf War and had more legal and UN documents supporting the use of military force than the first Gulf War.

The United States NEVER abandon the use of diplomacy or what many call soft power. NATO is currently operating in Afghanistan, and members in the Al Quada organization continue to be captured all over the world by other countries in support of US policies. The United States has received unprecidented support from states of the former Soviet Union to include the use of bases and supplies to support US operations in the region.


The actions and sacrifices of the United States military, in Iraq have NOT been for nothing and it is a repulsive and ignorant thing to say.

Iraq is not deeply unpopular when 40% of the country according to the Gallup poll still say that removing Saddam was the right thing to do. As late as last summer, the number supporting the removal was still above 50%. More important, the United States had an election on this important issue in November 2004 and those that were against the war were soundly defeated in that election. Bush won by more than 3 million votes and achieved the first majority by any president in an election since 1988. On a more historic note, he was the first President in history to be re-elected with increases by his party in both the House and Senate.

As the situation in Iraq improves over the next few years, the opinion polls will swing back in favor of support for the removal of Saddam. Eventually, opposition to the war will seem as curious as opposition to the first Gulf War was. How many people do you find today who are still opposed the 1991 Gulf War?

The Bush administration controls both houses of Congress and has for most of the past 6 years. The Presidents approval rating has risen over the past 3 months from 31% back up to 40%. At that rate, the the opinion poll retoric used so often over the past year will be dead by the November elections. The Democrats of no chance to take back the Senate, and only a slim shot to take back the House. The party in power is not divided, its the party out of power that is really divided when it comes to policy.

Bush and his cabinet never lied about WMD's in Iraq. Its a myth repeated so often by so many people that its assumed by so many to be fact. There was certainly an opportunity for there to be political hell to pay if the population believed in the liberals view of the war. That was November 2004, and the libs were soundly defeated in that election from the House, to the Senate, to the White House.

Bush, Rice, Cheney, Rumsfeld and Powell are not childish petty men and the nation agreed when they re-elected the team in November 2004 after a childish inaccurate movie by Mr. Moore and perhaps the strongest liberal crusade to remove a President from office in history. The American population rejected their call, and re-elected Bush as well as increasing the majorities of the Republicans in the House and Senate.
__________________
STING2 is offline  
Old 07-18-2006, 12:48 AM   #173
Rock n' Roll Doggie
Band-aid
 
trevster2k's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2001
Posts: 4,330
Local Time: 07:43 PM
I find it interesting how people differentiate the deaths of civilians by Hezbelloh compared to the Israel government forces. One deliberately targets civilians while the other does not. Ok, this sounds great, very pure and clear.

Can someone point out how shooting shells and missiles at buildings which have a bizarre reaction of collapsing and destroying surrounding areas along with possible secondary explosions is targeting the terrorists? The best way to limit the deaths of civilians is to directly engage Hezbelloh on the ground but this could lead to a large number of casualities amongst the military. I appreciate how some government officials have said they told civilians to leave certain areas but when the roads and bridges are being destroyed, along with a naval blockade and shutting down of the major airport, it kind of makes it hard to leave for average schmos, remember how the poor in New Orleans couldn't just get up and leave?

Now it's starting to turn into an international humanitarian crisis with nationals from all over the globe looking to be extracted from Lebanon. Canada lost 7 citizens this week from a missile attack, 4 children amongst them. What irks me most about the killing of civilians is the casual reaction by the government spokespeople, this applies to all governments. It reminds me of a Cheers episode where Norm shows great empathy for firing a worker and they give him the job of firing people because he makes them feel better cause he is so emotional when he fires them. But eventually, he develops a tolerance for it, and no longer can feel emotion for his coworkers. I wonder if governments truly worry about hitting civilians anymore. Collateral damage is a great euphemism for accidentally wiping out human life.

I don't support Hezbelloh, and hope the fuckers disappear but I don't think Israel is innocent in "their right to defend themselves". Do I have a solution, nope, but I don't think this campaign will solve anything except increase business for funeral companies.
__________________
trevster2k is offline  
Old 07-18-2006, 01:06 AM   #174
Rock n' Roll Doggie
FOB
 
Join Date: Oct 2001
Posts: 8,876
Local Time: 11:13 PM
Quote:
Originally posted by trevster2k
I find it interesting how people differentiate the deaths of civilians by Hezbelloh compared to the Israel government forces. One deliberately targets civilians while the other does not. Ok, this sounds great, very pure and clear.

Can someone point out how shooting shells and missiles at buildings which have a bizarre reaction of collapsing and destroying surrounding areas along with possible secondary explosions is targeting the terrorists? The best way to limit the deaths of civilians is to directly engage Hezbelloh on the ground but this could lead to a large number of casualities amongst the military. I appreciate how some government officials have said they told civilians to leave certain areas but when the roads and bridges are being destroyed, along with a naval blockade and shutting down of the major airport, it kind of makes it hard to leave for average schmos, remember how the poor in New Orleans couldn't just get up and leave?

Now it's starting to turn into an international humanitarian crisis with nationals from all over the globe looking to be extracted from Lebanon. Canada lost 7 citizens this week from a missile attack, 4 children amongst them. What irks me most about the killing of civilians is the casual reaction by the government spokespeople, this applies to all governments. It reminds me of a Cheers episode where Norm shows great empathy for firing a worker and they give him the job of firing people because he makes them feel better cause he is so emotional when he fires them. But eventually, he develops a tolerance for it, and no longer can feel emotion for his coworkers. I wonder if governments truly worry about hitting civilians anymore. Collateral damage is a great euphemism for accidentally wiping out human life.

I don't support Hezbelloh, and hope the fuckers disappear but I don't think Israel is innocent in "their right to defend themselves". Do I have a solution, nope, but I don't think this campaign will solve anything except increase business for funeral companies.
If Israel wanted to just kill civilians, they could enter Lebanon and virtually kill everyone that could not get out of the country in time. Israel does everything it can to prevent civilian casualties. Images of suffering or dead civilians do not help the Israelies politically and that is why they are doing everything they can in this situation prevent the losses. Going in on the ground does not mean that more civilian lives will be saved, it could in fact increase the number of civilian casualties. The Normandy invasion in World War II resulted in the deaths of 20,000 French civilians. They were not the target, but the operation was necessary and the casaulties could not be avoided.
__________________
STING2 is offline  
Old 07-18-2006, 01:18 AM   #175
Rock n' Roll Doggie
Band-aid
 
trevster2k's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2001
Posts: 4,330
Local Time: 07:43 PM
Well, they are firing missiles all over Lebanon. Are we supposed to believe that every single missile is targeted to disable Hezbelloh? I call bullshit. I don't think they are deliberately targeting civilians but I don't think they really give a damn anymore either. There is an eye for an eye thing in the back of their minds too.

I fear that this tit for tat policy will just continue to escalate the violence from both sides and the people of Lebanon will be back where they started over a decade ago.
__________________
trevster2k is offline  
Old 07-18-2006, 02:16 AM   #176
Blue Crack Addict
 
deep's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2002
Location: A far distance down.
Posts: 28,501
Local Time: 03:13 PM
Quote:
Lebanon toll passes 200

Tuesday 18 July 2006 3:32 AM GMT



At least six people have been killed in the latest air strikes by Israeli warplanes in Lebanon, raising the death toll there to more than 200.

The six, all civilians from one family, were killed during an air raid that hit a house early on Tuesday in a Lebanese border village, as diplomatic efforts brought no signs of an end to the week-old assault launched in retaliation against Hezbollah attacks.

"We are working with our bare hands and so far we have recovered six bodies. More are still under the rubble," Salim Mourad, head of Aytaroun's village municipality, told Hezbollah's Al-Manar television.

Israel's military action in Lebanon has so far killed 210 people, all but 14 of them civilians, and inflicted the heaviest destruction in the country for two decades, with attacks on ports, roads, bridges, factories and petrol stations.

Israeli aircraft also struck Beirut's southern suburb and an army position overlooking the capital as well as two other Lebanese towns.

Television footage showed balls of fire and clouds of smoke billowing from a Lebanese army position east of Beirut after repeated Israeli air raids in the early hours of Tuesday. Several soldiers were wounded, a security source said.

Loud explosions caused by raids on Beirut's southern suburb were also heard across the capital. Previous strikes on the area had destroyed Hezbollah's headquarters.

Raids on the Christian coastal town of Byblos north of Beirut damaged two trucks without inflicting casualties, police said. Warplanes also hit the eastern town of Baalbek.

Hezbollah attacks

Hezbollah fired dozens of rockets at the Israeli city of Haifa on Monday and medics said a three-storey building collapsed, wounding two people. Israel closed Haifa's port.

An Israeli home is wrecked after
being hit by a Katyusha rocket.
Another wave of rockets struck deep inside Israel, including the town of Afula 50km south of the border. One rocket landed next to a hospital in Safed, wounding six people.

Hezbollah's attacks on a naval vessel off Beirut and the firing of hundreds of rockets at northern Israel have killed 24 people so far, 12 of them civilians.
Who is killing civilians?
__________________
deep is offline  
Old 07-18-2006, 03:12 AM   #177
Rock n' Roll Doggie
Band-aid
 
trevster2k's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2001
Posts: 4,330
Local Time: 07:43 PM
Anyone have information on the weapons being used by Hezbelloh and Israel in terms of control and accuracy? I'm wondering how the targeting mechanisms work in these rockets.

There are two flaws with using rockets and shells. First, your target has to be determined, how do they decide what is or isn't a target and is it based on present intelligence or just a best guess. Second, the rockets or shells may veer of course because they aren't perfect. Even if Hezbelloh was hoping to hit the infrastructure of Israel or the military, are their rockets capable of that kind of accuracy? Or do they just shoot em off hoping for a hit? BTW, nice to see those US Patriot missiles continuing to be a useless waste of money.
__________________
trevster2k is offline  
Old 07-18-2006, 10:58 AM   #178
Rock n' Roll Doggie
ALL ACCESS
 
Justin24's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: San Mateo
Posts: 6,716
Local Time: 04:13 PM
Quote:
Originally posted by trevster2k
Anyone have information on the weapons being used by Hezbelloh and Israel in terms of control and accuracy? I'm wondering how the targeting mechanisms work in these rockets.

There are two flaws with using rockets and shells. First, your target has to be determined, how do they decide what is or isn't a target and is it based on present intelligence or just a best guess. Second, the rockets or shells may veer of course because they aren't perfect. Even if Hezbelloh was hoping to hit the infrastructure of Israel or the military, are their rockets capable of that kind of accuracy? Or do they just shoot em off hoping for a hit? BTW, nice to see those US Patriot missiles continuing to be a useless waste of money.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Hezbollah missile capability estimates


KATYUSHA
An artillery rocket, the generic term Katyusha is used to describe a number of different rockets, potentially including the Haseb, Noor, Arash and Shahin-1/2. On the battlefield, Katyusha launchers are mounted on trucks and fired in salvos. To do meaningful damage to a population center, Katyushas would have to be fired in much larger salvos than the small volleys so far reported.

.

Length: 9.8 feet

Diameter: 4.8 inches

Range: 12 miles

Warhead: 40 pounds



--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
FAJR-3 and FAJR-5
"Dawn" in Arabic, at least two of the rockets that struck Haifa have been Fajr-3s.

FAJR-3

Length: 17.1 feet

Diameter: 9.5 inches

Range: 28 miles

Warhead: 100 pounds

.

FAJR-5

Length: 21.3 feet

Diameter: 13.1 inches

Range: 45 miles

Warhead: 200 pounds

The Fajr-3 and -5 are essentially very large artillery rockets.



--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
ZELZAL-2
The Zelzal is thought to be a derivative of the 1960s-era Soviet FROG-7.

Length: 27.2 feet

Diameter: 24 inches

Range: 130 miles

Warhead: 1,300 pounds




Well Hezbolla is attacking civilians where as the israelies are trying to avoid civilian casualties.
__________________
Justin24 is offline  
Old 07-18-2006, 12:28 PM   #179
Rock n' Roll Doggie
Band-aid
 
trevster2k's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2001
Posts: 4,330
Local Time: 07:43 PM
^well, both suck at their goals at the moment.
__________________
trevster2k is offline  
Old 07-18-2006, 12:43 PM   #180
Rock n' Roll Doggie
ALL ACCESS
 
Justin24's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: San Mateo
Posts: 6,716
Local Time: 04:13 PM
That information on the missiles I got from www.sfchronicle.com
__________________

__________________
Justin24 is offline  
 

Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are Off
Pingbacks are Off
Refbacks are Off



All times are GMT -5. The time now is 06:13 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.8 Beta 1
Copyright ©2000 - 2017, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.
Design, images and all things inclusive copyright © Interference.com