What's wrong with targeting trucks that look as though they might be carrying missiles? We did a bunch of that ourselves during the Gulf War.

Both reporters said that the trucks fired on looked as though they might be carrying missiles, or were mistaken for that. Nada states that a convoy was fired upon but doesn't describe the looks of the convoy. But these days, I can imagine a convoy looking suspicious.

It wasn't the reporter but a Lebanese official that said the Israelis could be firing on any truck.

I am not saying this is good or bad in anyway, I am just asking what is wrong in and of itself with firing on trucks?

I also have some suspicions that Israel is not in fact firing missiles at just any truck. Missiles are pretty darned expensive, and relatively limited in number. My guess is their is some profile that the truck must fit. That I don't know what that profile is doesn't mean there isn't one.

What's wrong with targeting trucks that look as though they might be carrying missiles? We did a bunch of that ourselves during the Gulf War.

Both reporters said that the trucks fired on looked as though they might be carrying missiles, or were mistaken for that.

What Israel is doing is separating the population from Hezbollah. Hezbollah and Hamas hide their assets in civilian populations, friendly and supportive civilian populations it must be said, and then ask for world condemnation of Israel when the inevitable happens. They might be making a mess of Southern Lebanon but what real choice do they have? Hezbollah will not vacate that territory unless made to do so. That's the sad and ugly truth. It's war and in war there are civilian casualties. There are civilian casualties on the Israeli side too. They have made a decision that even though they know they will suffer civilian and military casualties, it is worth it to push Hezbollah off their border. The civilian population inside Lebanon should head for Syria or the north. Is it fair? One needs to leave that question for another time. Right now, Israel is faced with two choices, allow Hezbollah to periodically kidnap and kill their soldiers, fire rockets into their cities and do nothing or to fight. They chose to fight

Well, why don't you help enlighten us? Is Hezbollah using the 82 or 132mm Katyusha, or the more modern 122mm GRAD? Truck or single lauchers?

What patterns of launches come from correlating input from AN/TPQ-36 radar? Do the Israeli modified E2s and domestic Phalcon systems offer target intelligence?

I remember, during the Cuban Missile Crisis, a large number of recon photos being shown to the international community? Is Israel presenting evidence? That last is not an accusation but a serious request for information.

--
Howard

*equal opportunity offense to both extremes*

Of what missiles are you speaking? I will be happy to be corrected, but, AFAIK, Hezbollah has been using artillery rockets in the Katyusha family.

There are some smaller and some larger, but the original 180 cm (5.9 ft) long, 13.2 cm (5.2 in) in diameter and weighed 42 kg (92 lb). The Soviets designed 48-tube truck mounted launchers, but my impression is that Hezbollah launches 1 or 2 at time from a simple ramp that one man can carry.

These are not ICBMs. My guess is I could fit a couple of dozen into a station wagon. Yes, if the truck-mounted launchers are spotted, by all means bomb them. Otherwise, every good-sized car is suspect.

--
Howard

*equal opportunity offense to both extremes*

Evidence? Cheney probably e-mailed them a copy of the trucks that held the biological weapons of mass destruction in Iraq. 50,000 deaths later...

As the bumper ahead of me tonight proclaimed:

"I am against the NEXT war".

Really strange logic. We did it, so it can't be bad?

Really strange logic. We did it, so it must be bad.

Actually no. Actually during the Gulf War we pretty much paid attention to all those ugly treaties we like to ignore right now.

So yeah, I would think that sending pilots out in a war zone to identify scuds in Western Iraq is very similar to sending out pilots in a war zone to identify missile launchers in Israel.

Sides which, I wasn't making a statement, I was asking a question.

In war, all sides are wrong, no rules are followed when people get desperate. Israel is blaming the Lebanese government for allowing the rockets to be delivered and stored.Hesbollah, vowing to destroy Israel, was part of the government. Thus, the cross border incident that incited Israeli outrage was government sponsored,or allowed. The first bomb was the inclusion of Hezbollah in the government. Same type of thing in Palestine.

Israel is indefensible against modern military arms--too small--too easy to hit every inch of territory. Every incursion threatens its annihilation, and thus, they nip it as early as possible to prevent importation of better arms. They're reacting to tomorrow more than to today. In their shoes, mightn't you walk the same path?

Also, who can they negotiate with? Not Lebanon, and Hezbollah won't talk to that which it doesn't recognize.

Lastly, a la Bush, if Heabollah is not the Lebanese government, do rules of war apply? And no, I don't favor torture--nor do I agree with all out bombing, I just have questions. And I'm scared. Religious wars are nonsensical--and never ending.

"They might be making a mess of Southern Lebanon but what real choice do they have?"

Here we see the primary talking about: "What real choice do they have?"

Tons. Thousands. This is the only rational answer to a rhetorical question that predefines the only acceptable answer.

The reductio argument to "two choices" - surrender or fight - is another rhetorical ploy.

I don't play this game.

The proper response is that Israel start by removing the reasons for Hizballah to exist which consist of its previous actions and current actions. Release Lebanese prisoners, give up Shebaa Farms, and make a reasonable deal with the Palestinians.

That should hold them for a good several years of negotiations.

Meanwhile, stop killing civilians and fomenting a humanitarian crisis in Lebanon just because you can't protect your troops from a bunch of guerrillas.

Your first sentence starts out right, then the post goes downhill from there.

1) Israel is wrong for blaming the Lebanese government for anything because the Lebanese government does not control the situation. That wipes out most of Israel's legitimacy in this situation right there.

2) Israel KNOWS this, which TOTALLY removes any concept of legitimacy from anything they say about the situation.

3) "Every incursion threatens its annihilation." This is utterly false in every respect and reflects a complete lack of knowledge of Israel's military superiority and essential complete security absent a nuclear incident - which it risks by having a nuclear arsenal in the first place.

4) "Hezbollah won't talk to that which it doesn't recognize." Neither will Israel. And both statements are wrong because both sides have done exactly that in the past over the exact same situations.

5) "Lastly, a la Bush, if Heabollah is not the Lebanese government, do rules of war apply?" Of course they do, because Israel is not only a government, they are a member of the UN and bound to honor the UN Charter and UN resolutions - which they have ignored for fifty years - oh, except for the ONE UN Resolution calling on Lebanon to disarm Hizballah (which as stated Lebanon cannot do.)

"I just have questions."

Yes - rhetorical questions.

And now you have answers.

Can you have rhetorical answers? An enemy that isn't controlled by a government is massing weapons on your border. These weapons are getting sophisticated enough to destroy major population centers, how do you react? That's not rhetorical--that's what's going on. This enemy believes in martyrdom, is well funded, and has a history of destruction. How does "military superiority" help if you don't use it?

In the past, Israel fought government sanctioned armies, and as such, diplomacy had a chance. Now it is fighting a religious movement fighting to the death. Israel was founded by people that were being persecuted to death, so ironically, they are fighting people very much like themselves--paranoid. And that's what scares me.

You gave me no answers. Also, the UN charter recognizes self defense--you don't. I don't want WWIII, neither does Israel, but Hezbollah might, as might enRaptured Bush. His roadmap has led to this--he would have taken the credit if peace broke out, thus, he gets the blame for war.

Israel's response goes far beyond "self-defense." Dan Halutz specifically threatened to "turn Lebanon's clock back twenty years." Bombing population centers with no relation to Hezbollah is not self-defense. Bombing a Lebanese army barracks and killing eleven Lebanese soldiers is not self-defense, particularly not when Israel claims that it's not attacking Lebanon (they're attacking Hezbollah), and that they want the Lebanese army to come south and engage Hezbollah. Forcing the mass migration of hundreds of thousands is not self-defense (it's a form of genocide).

Have one question. If the Arab countries were bombing the Hell out of Israel's infrastructure and cities because IDF Reserves lived there, would everyone here be just as casual about civilian casualties and it's just what happens in war?

One more question. How is Israel's directive for 300,000 people to move out of southren Lebanon any different from Serbia's actions in Kosovo?

I think I understood exactly what he said, which is why I called his answer stupid and glib and suggested that Israel was in fact removing the reason by forcefully ejecting the terrorists war criminals in Lebanon, something no one else will do.

Now if you want a more sophisticated shades of grey answer, I am eager to participate, but there is no conversation with Mr. Glib Israel should just unilaterally disarm and do nothing to terrorists that indiscriminately kill its citizens but get along better with everyone.

It's stupid glib answers like Transhumans that make people ask questions of why is Israel being blamed for Hezbulla terrorism and have folks rooting for Israel even if it means many innocent civilians are hurt or killed.

The attacks may be made without the explicit approval of Lebanon's government, but why would Israel, or anybody else, give a damn whether the government of which Hezbollah is part, and which has tolerated Hezbollah's accumulation of weapons and attacks, bothered to issue a press release saying they thought the attacks were a good idea?

If they didn't want to be held complicit in an act of war, they should have openly admitted to having lost control of part of their country, and either officially abandoned it to Hezbollah, or asked for international aid in reclaiming control.

Having done neither, they're in a piss poor position to complain abut having missles coming back at them.

Check the rest of this thread or any other thread about the current conflict. There's lots they can do, but the main is DON'T BOMB AREAS THAT HAVE NOTHING TO DO WITH HEZBOLLAH.

Remember, Hezbollah hadn't fired any rockets at Israel until AFTER Israel had started indiscriminately bombing Lebanon. Israel's initial bombing was the first undue and ineffective escalation.

Even if it was necessary for Israel to bomb Hezbollah, Israel should have at least confined the bombing to the south of Lebanon, which is where the rockets are being fired from.

Oh yeah, and Israeli leadership has admitted that the bombing campaign has little chance of either freeing the Israeli soldiers or destroying Hezbollah. So explain again to me how it's about self-defense? The Israeli campaign is a callous political move by a weak government being run by the military.

If you can think of any way to defend the targeted bombing of a Lebanese army barracks in which 11 soliders died, I'd like to hear it. Keep in mind that Israel claims that 1) it's not attacking Lebanon, but Hezbollah, and 2) it wants the Lebanese army to come south to engage Hezbollah. Oh, also, the unit bombed wasn't even a combat unit.

By all acounts, Hizballah has not done any serious rocket firing for a year or so, except when Israel violated the Lebanese border with their aircraft, which they do frequently.

News reports today indicate military analysts have pretty much concluded that Israel has been planning this operation for a year, and Hizballah has been planning for the Israeli invasion for the last six years.

In other words, this appears to be a continuation of the events that created Hizballah in the first place.

The only difference is the timing - that appears to be based either on Israel's perception that time for continued support of its program is running out, OR that Israel or the US sees an opportunity to roll up all its enemies by starting a war with Syria and Iran - depending on which analyst you read.

Nasrallah told Israel five months ago that if Israel didn't release Lebanese hostages that Hibzallah would take an Israeli soldier hostage in order to arrange a swap.

So Israel knew this was coming for at least five months - and did nothing to prevent it or open negotiations.

It's stupid glib answers like Transhumans that make people ask questions of why is Israel being blamed for Hezbulla terrorism and have folks rooting for Israel even if it means many innocent civilians are hurt or killed.

And again, its really silly to say that Transhuman makes you blindly root for Israel. Does every glib comment you hear force you to lose your critical faculties? Give me a break.

I think you need better reading skills.

Just say no to 0 ratings. Especially from petey, the ratings spammer.

To spell it out for Howard, who rated the above post a 1 without including his reasoning or counterargument, I NEVER SAID WHAT IT WAS CLAIMED I SAID.

I said, "in my perverse moments" meaning, that is not what I normally think. And I said, something like "makes people ask" meaning that some people are swayed by that.

So I don't really fit into the claim that I lose my critical thinking when faced with a glib argument. Just that I get annoyed with glib arguments.

So then Mr. Howard Ratings 1 Giver, see how much more interesting a conversation is, than just randomly rating up or down without providing your reasoning?

I realize guys this is controversial, but your ratings should not be based on whether or not you personally approve of the argument.

And instead of downrating, about just uprating, and walking away?

Just say no to 0 ratings. Especially from petey, the ratings spammer.

The rockets that Hezbollah are firing are unaimable and only carry a couple hundred pounds of explosives. That isn't to minimize the loss of life that they are causing, or to suggest that Hezbollah firing them is acceptable (it isn't). However, how can they destroy major population centers with them?

"unaimable" bombs cause terror and are untenable. Hidden amongst the general population, by an accepted faction of the central government, are cause for war. The fact that this was allowed to happen, for as long as the builup took, shows how stupid the "roadmap" was. Add to this the civil war in Iraq, and we have the ingredients for the war to end all wars.