Israel's vaunted tanks are succumbing to Hezbollah's powerful missiles

[Jon Snow]

I thought you might be interested in reading this. Cheers.

By Benjamin Harvey
ASSOCIATED PRESS

1:45 p.m. August 4, 2006

JERUSALEM – Hezbollah's sophisticated anti-tank missiles are perhaps the guerrilla group's deadliest weapon in Lebanon fighting, with their ability to pierce Israel's most advanced tanks.

Experts say this is further evidence that Israel is facing a well-equipped army in this war, not a ragtag militia.

Hezbollah has fired Russian-made Metis-M anti-tank missiles and owns European-made Milan missiles, the army confirmed on Friday.

In the last two days alone, these missiles have killed seven soldiers and damaged three Israeli-made Merkava tanks – mountains of steel that are vaunted as symbols of Israel's military might, the army said. Israeli media say most of the 44 soldiers killed in four weeks of fighting were hit by anti-tank missiles.

“They (Hezbollah guerrillas) have some of the most advanced anti-tank missiles in the world,” said Yossi Kuperwasser, a senior military intelligence officer who retired earlier this summer.

“This is not a militia, it's an infantry brigade with all the support units,” Kuperwasser said.

Israel contends that Hezbollah gets almost all of its weaponry from Syria and by extension Iran, including its anti-tank missiles.

That's why cutting off the supply chain is essential – and why fighting Hezbollah after it has spent six years building up its arsenal is proving so painful to Israel, officials say.

Israel's Merkava tanks boast massive amounts of armor and lumber and resemble fortresses on tracks. They are built for crew survival, according to Globalsecurity.org, a Washington-based military think tank.

Hezbollah celebrates when it destroys one.

“A Zionist armored force tried to advance toward the village of Chihine. The holy warriors confronted it and destroyed two Merkava tanks,” the group proclaimed on television Thursday.

The Israeli army confirmed two attacks on Merkava tanks that day – one that killed three soldiers and the other killing one. The three soldiers who were killed on Friday were also killed by anti-tank missiles, the army said.

It would not say whether the missiles disabled the tanks.

“To the best of my understanding, they (Hezbollah) are as well-equipped as any standing unit in the Syrian or Iranian armies,” said Eran Lerman, a retired army colonel and now director of the Israel/Middle East office of the American Jewish Committee. “This is not a rat-pack guerrilla, this is an organized militia.”

Besides the anti-tank missiles, Hezbollah is also known to have a powerful rocket-propelled grenade known as the RPG29. These weapons are also smuggled through Syria, an Israeli security official said, and were previously used by Palestinian militants in Gaza to damage tanks.

On Friday, Jane's Defense Weekly, a defense industry magazine, reported that Hezbollah asked Iran for “a constant supply of weapons” to support its operations against Israel.

The report cited Western diplomatic sources as saying that Iranian authorities promised Hezbollah a steady supply of weapons “for the next stage of the confrontation.”

Top Israeli intelligence officials say they have seen Iranian Revolutionary Guard soldiers on the ground with Hezbollah troops. They say that permission to fire Hezbollah's longer-range missiles, such as those could reach Tel Aviv, would likely require Iranian go-ahead.



This seems (at least to me) as crown evidence that passive defence just doesn't cut it against modern ATGMs. It's time for everyone to start implementing active defensive measures like the ones russians use (drozd, arena, shtora etc.)

[Frisian Viking]

Do you think there is a reason why every other tank in the world has the engine in back instead of the front? Most vulnerable part of the vehicle and they put it in the spot that gets most hits... the front...

[ThronStahl]

Yes you're totally right,

However I wonder why the Hezbollah soldiers are not using strela and igla MPSAM to down the aircraft of the israeli aggressors.

[Jon Snow]

Do you think there is a reason why every other tank in the world has the engine in back instead of the front? Most vulnerable part of the vehicle and they put it in the spot that gets most hits... the front...

Don't get it. Are you saying that Merkava has engine in the front???? :confused:

[Jon Snow]

Yes you're totally right,

However I wonder why the Hezbollah soldiers are not using strela and igla MPSAM to down the aircraft of the israeli aggressors.

MANPADS aren't very effective against fast, high-flying targets.

[Frisian Viking]

Yes it does. In the rear is a small troop compartment.

http://www.3dcenter.ru/blueprints/tanks/merkava-ii.gif

The engine is to the right front of the vehicle. You can also tell by the position of the drive sprockets (in the front).

[ThronStahl]

Is this a military forum or some world of worcraft geeknest?

You mean there is someone here ignoring that the Merkava has a frontal engine???

Jeez, it's only been around for a quarter of a century!

Ok, ok, in 4 evolved incarnations...

[Frisian Viking]

Why are you using a WWII nazi symbol as an avatar?

[Jon Snow]

Is this a military forum or some world of worcraft geeknest?

You mean there is someone here ignoring that the Merkava has a frontal engine???

Jeez, it's only been around for a quarter of a century!

Ok, ok, in 4 evolved incarnations...

Jeeez! What's your problem?
Should I go and shoot myself for not knowing that Merkava has a frontal engine? Arrogant nazi dumbass. :mad:

[ThronStahl]

It's a SUN WHEEL!!!!

Heck, is there any real PERSIAN here????

[ThronStahl]

to jon snow, no, no use in shooting you, yet you could consider picking up a good book on tanks, the ATLAS of Modern Tanks would do just fine and I think you could find it at a bargain price, its latest edition is from 2003 but still more than up to date.

[Darkblade]

Thats no nazi symbol its is a religious symbol that been around for thousands of years and was Stolen by the nazis.

[ThronStahl]

Thank you Ermac, :-)

[Snauhi]

"Israel's Merkava tanks boast massive amounts of armor and lumber and resemble fortresses on tracks. They are built for crew survival, according to Globalsecurity.org, a Washington-based military think tank."

Yeah....

[Roy.cn]

Yes it does. In the rear is a small troop compartment.

http://www.3dcenter.ru/blueprints/tanks/merkava-ii.gif

The engine is to the right front of the vehicle. You can also tell by the position of the drive sprockets (in the front).

good picture,
thanks!

[Jon Snow]

to jon snow, no, no use in shooting you, yet you could consider picking up a good book on tanks, the ATLAS of Modern Tanks would do just fine and I think you could find it at a bargain price, its latest edition is from 2003 but still more than up to date.

No. I don't think I will. You see, I like reading a thing or two about guns when I have some time for it, but I'm not some militaristic gun nut that knows how many missiles some MLRS can fire in a minute or how thick is the armor on some specific tank. I'd rather read a good novel than a bunch of statistics.

If that bothers you, and you think I don't qualify to post on this forum then thats just your problem isn't it? :D

P.S. Besides, most of us here get our info via google & wiki, only some of you like to pretend that you're great experts, with years of war fighting experience. (No offence to those that actually do know what they're talking about)

[Parmenides]

The reason merkava 4 has it's engine in the front is to minimalize troop looses. The engine gives additional layer of defence, so even if a tank is damaged, there is more chance for the soldiers to survive it.

As to the AT missiles: Tanks, even good tanks, are not immune to AT-missiles. Their effectiveness is mesured by the percentage of AT-missile hits that damage or destroy tanks.
So far there were thousands of modern russian AT-missiles fired upon the Israeli tank. Only about 0.1% of Israeli armor was destroyed. I heard an estimate that it might be the best survival rate in such circumstances of any other tank in the world.
Many tanks were hit and not damaged, some were damaged but not destroyed, crew survivability is high. Friends of mine in the army told me that there is a general feeling the tanks are good and safe, and they see a lot of use.

[ThronStahl]

The rationale of placing the engine in the front made partial sense in a scenario of traditional armour meeting encounters, where you may be pretty sure that everything ahead is the enemy and everything behind is friendly.

Merkavas in lebanon are like lumbering mammoths that are often surrounded, ambushed and targeted by mobile, stealthy Hezbollah guerrilla cells.

The engine's frontal position means that every partial penetration will most likely damage the tank's mobility hence making the crew all the more susceptible to small arms fire and sniping when they leave its hulk.

Call me cynical but I would prefer to have one man wounded or killed in my tank and STILL being able to drive the vehicle away from the trouble spot.

[Parmenides]

Israeli tanks don't act alone. They are accompanied by other tanks and infantry (to counter surrounding stealthy Hezbollah guerrilla cells). If a tank is hit, there is evacuation by surrounding forces. The general sentiment in Israel is, it's better to lose a tank then it's crew, due to the importance of human lives.

It's true the merkava tanks aren't built to fight Hezbollah but rather a conventional army. However, Hezbollah can't conquer Israel, so it makes sense to build your MBT to oppose someone with tanks who might try to invade. That is the greater danger. Still, as i said only 0.1% of Israeli armor is destroyed, so they are OK fighting Hezbollah as well.

[ThronStahl]

Sorry but I think that operationally-wise the Merkava is totally unsuited to the nature, rhythm and pace of the operations in Lebanon.

Until Mubarak gets ousted and Egypt decides to drive across Sinai with its M1 abrams or until Syria buys Zolfaqar tanks from Iran and decides to retake the Golan heights the Merkavas would have not had a true field test.

They kind of one in the bekaa valley in 1983 and it's been less than thrilling.

[Mohmar 'Deathstrike']

Why are you using a WWII nazi symbol as an avatar?
He's not. Just because it has a swastika in it, it doesn't necessarily have anything to do with WWII, or nazis.

[Frisian Viking]

He's not. Just because it has a swastika in it, it doesn't necessarily have anything to do with WWII, or nazis.

Think I don't know that? But the symbol used here looks an awful lot like the black sun (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Black_Sun), which is very much so a nazi related symbol :mad:

[ThronStahl]

Again, that symbol is a SUN WHEEL which has been a religious symbol linked to the HISTORY OF PERSIA for centuries, if not millennia.

Given the nature of this forum and my admiration of Persian Civilization, from Cyrus to the Seleucids to Shaphur to the present I thought it was an apt tribute.

This just in, another Merkava blown up by Hezbollah near Abbad, apparently no crewmen survived.

[Jon Snow]

This just in, another Merkava blown up by Hezbollah near Abbad, apparently no crewmen survived.

That's nice to hear! Well, with all respect for those poor bastardz inside that got blown to bits, but they were asking for it. :D

[AK54]

Sorry but I think that operationally-wise the Merkava is totally unsuited to the nature, rhythm and pace of the operations in Lebanon.

Until Mubarak gets ousted and Egypt decides to drive across Sinai with its M1 abrams or until Syria buys Zolfaqar tanks from Iran and decides to retake the Golan heights the Merkavas would have not had a true field test.

They kind of one in the bekaa valley in 1983 and it's been less than thrilling.
the merkava is slow, heavy, and built for crew survival. i think it is well suited for israels "operations"

the M1 abrams is built for speed and destroying other tanks, of course the merkava would be rubble.

[4X-IL]

It's very easy to say " look how those tanks get beated by the Hizballah ", but you can also say that from about 300 tanks that entered \ on the border with Lebanon, 3 was destroyed, but dozens and dozens was hit by Anti-Tank missiles and wasn't destroyed.

[tonahtiu]

It's very easy to say " look how those tanks get beated by the Hizballah ", but you can also say that from about 300 tanks that entered \ on the border with Lebanon, 3 was destroyed, but dozens and dozens was hit by Anti-Tank missiles and wasn't destroyed.
I think mora tanks was destroyed, more or less 12

[Parmenides]

Why would you think that?

[4X-IL]

I think mora tanks was destroyed, more or less 12


take down the 1 and add +1.

3 tanks was destroyed, arguieng about that wont help you, cause it wont change the reallity.

from more than 300, till now, we missed 3 Merkava MK2.

[Snauhi]

Again, that symbol is a SUN WHEEL which has been a religious symbol linked to the HISTORY OF PERSIA for centuries, if not millennia.

Given the nature of this forum and my admiration of Persian Civilization, from Cyrus to the Seleucids to Shaphur to the present I thought it was an apt tribute.

This just in, another Merkava blown up by Hezbollah near Abbad, apparently no crewmen survived.

Source... even Al-Jazeera dint report it

[globetrotter]

Source... even Al-Jazeera dint report it

Al-Jazeera is not a Persian site, but an Arab site. So it is not the best place to look for Persian symbols. I beleive the Hindus are the originators of the so-called "Swastika" symbol........

[ThronStahl]

The official Italian news agency did report it, aaron.

[ThronStahl]

to globetrotter: no aaron was referring to the fact that al-jazeera did not report the nth merkava casualty.

[Mohmar 'Deathstrike']

take down the 1 and add +1.

3 tanks was destroyed, arguieng about that wont help you, cause it wont change the reallity.

from more than 300, till now, we missed 3 Merkava MK2.
I hope you don't mind me going off-topic slightly. I can't remember many facts about all those "which tank is best?" disccusions, but the M1A1 and Challenger 2 faced the Iraqi army, which was better equipped than Hezbollah and lost fewer tanks. This supports the argument that both are better than the Merkava.

[ThronStahl]

The Iraqi army could have been slightly better equipped, but surely was badly led and severely demoralized.
By the way I saw the pics of more charred and destroyed Abrams during the 'actual war' period than I care to remember, and I am not talking about the insurgency, which has destroyed plenty of Abrams' too, I am referring now merely to the drive on Bagdad.
So do not believe to everything that comes from u.s. and israeli sources, the fact that they subcontract their propaganda to various networks does not make it any true-r.

[Mohmar 'Deathstrike']

The Iraqi army could have been slightly better equipped, but surely was badly led and severely demoralized.
By the way I saw the pics of more charred and destroyed Abrams during the 'actual war' period than I care to remember, and I am not talking about the insurgency, which has destroyed plenty of Abrams' too, I am referring now merely to the drive on Bagdad.
So do not believe to everything that comes from u.s. and israeli sources, the fact that they subcontract their propaganda to various networks does not make it any true-r.Intrayging.

[burster]

Mohmar,

I don't think Merkavas have the depleted uranium armor that the US and British tanks do. Also, Merkavas are constructed to save the tank crew, and less to stay healthy on the battlefield. This is why the engine is up front. Of course, with the engine up front, where most of the hits are likely to be, you are going to have a lot more disabled tanks. But the Merkava was built based on Israel's battles in the 1973 war. They found that they could get tanks back into battle fairly quickly, but the problem was getting good tank crews and cleaning up the tank on the inside where all the gore was. If you have a tank like the Merkava, with a quick turnaround time in terms of repair, you are likely to be facing the same tank over and over again with a new engine each time.

I hope you don't mind me going off-topic slightly. I can't remember many facts about all those "which tank is best?" disccusions, but the M1A1 and Challenger 2 faced the Iraqi army, which was better equipped than Hezbollah and lost fewer tanks. This supports the argument that both are better than the Merkava.

[ThronStahl]

Again mentioning the Ramadan War????

a) The Ramadan War was 33 yrs ago

b) It was a CONVENTIONAL CONFLICT, which involved the largest massed
tank battle since KURSK

I mantain the Merkava is totally unsuited to tackle a force so mobile and fluid as Hezbollah and it seems the facts are proving me right,

Hezbollah fighters operate in loosely connected cells supported by highly mobile mortar squads, which can be summoned to lay down supporting fire by any field commander with sufficient status and authority, several cells can join on a pinpointed objective, especially one as massive and lumbering as a Merkava from several directions with little to no forewarning signs, if the israeli commanders had not grown so smug and so overconfident in aerial support (a bad habit inherited by their u.s. stringpullers) they would have left the Merkavas home and would have brought more mobile pillboxes equipped with all-around traversable MGs.

[Mohmar 'Deathstrike']

Mohmar,

I don't think Merkavas have the depleted uranium armor that the US and British tanks do. Also, Merkavas are constructed to save the tank crew, and less to stay healthy on the battlefield. This is why the engine is up front. Of course, with the engine up front, where most of the hits are likely to be, you are going to have a lot more disabled tanks. But the Merkava was built based on Israel's battles in the 1973 war. They found that they could get tanks back into battle fairly quickly, but the problem was getting good tank crews and cleaning up the tank on the inside where all the gore was. If you have a tank like the Merkava, with a quick turnaround time in terms of repair, you are likely to be facing the same tank over and over again with a new engine each time.Hmm imagine this: "Alright guys, we've fixed up the tank real good for you but you'll have to put up with bits of your predecessors. Good luck, bye."

[burster]

Thronstahl,

Of course mention the Yom Kippur War, because that was the basis for the creation of the Merkava. Just because a war was 33 years ago does not mean its lessons aren't relevant.

And no matter how good the Hezbollah fighters are, they don't have staying power. Israel is fighting them with both legs and 1 arm tied behind its back, and 3 fingers of the remaining hand lopped off. If Olmert and Peretz were experienced warfighters rather than leftists with no idea about war and combat, this whole thing would already be over. Instead they listened to the IAF people who told them it could be done relatively bloodlessly. Fools. But I think they have learned the lesson, because the latest war cabinet meeting seems to indicate that they will be taking the gloves off, finally.

Again mentioning the Ramadan War????

a) The Ramadan War was 33 yrs ago

b) It was a CONVENTIONAL CONFLICT, which involved the largest massed
tank battle since KURSK

I mantain the Merkava is totally unsuited to tackle a force so mobile and fluid as Hezbollah and it seems the facts are proving me right,

Hezbollah fighters operate in loosely connected cells supported by highly mobile mortar squads, which can be summoned to lay down supporting fire by any field commander with sufficient status and authority, several cells can join on a pinpointed objective, especially one as massive and lumbering as a Merkava from several directions with little to no forewarning signs, if the israeli commanders had not grown so smug and so overconfident in aerial support (a bad habit inherited by their u.s. stringpullers) they would have left the Merkavas home and would have brought more mobile pillboxes equipped with all-around traversable MGs.

[NEWUSER]

But I think they have learned the lesson, because the latest war cabinet meeting seems to indicate that they will be taking the gloves off, finally.

More Israeli war-crimes coming to a Lebanese city near you.

Don't for a second think that rockets will stop falling on Israel, do not even dream of it.

Hezb'Allah from the first day of the conflict has said, we are ready to go on for a year..

[burster]

Newuser,

Right. But forgive me for not trusting arabs when it comes to reporting war news or bragging about what they are going to do, to whom, and how. "War is deceit." Mohammed said that, I believe. The trouble with arabs is that they tend to actually believe the deceit, rather than simply using it to fool their enemies. If Israel stops messing around and applies its full power and resources, Hezbollah's military wing will not last as a significant military force for another month in southern Lebanon. Note the caveats there. This does not mean Hezbollah rocket attacks can be totally extinguished. But it does mean they can be reduced to nothing more than a nuisance. The only reason Hezbollah has lasted this long is due to the incompetence of Olmert and Peretz and their fear of looking bad and taking casualties.

More Israeli war-crimes coming to a Lebanese city near you.

Don't for a second think that rockets will stop falling on Israel, do not even dream of it.

Hezb'Allah from the first day of the conflict has said, we are ready to go on for a year..

[ThronStahl]

Hey burster...Hizballahi fighters already shown they have a month of staying power, while generals in tel aviv bragged they would have been taken out in a tenday...

...give it some thought.

160 rockets on Haifa today, their ratio and frequency NOT EVEN SLOWN DOWN BY THE TERROR BOMBINGS!

[Mahati]

Hey burster...Hizballahi fighters already shown they have a month of staying power, while generals in tel aviv bragged they would have been taken out in a tenday...

...give it some thought.

160 rockets on Haifa today, their ratio and frequency NOT EVEN SLOWN DOWN BY THE TERROR BOMBINGS!

"Terror Bombings?" And what do you call those 160 rockets that are falling all over Isreal? Fireworks? Your hypocrisy is amusing.

[NEWUSER]

Right. But forgive me for not trusting arabs when it comes to reporting war news or bragging about what they are going to do, to whom, and how. "War is deceit." Mohammed said that, I believe.


That ok because I and most Arabs will never believe anything that comes out of Israel, so it’s fair and square.

You have used this in the past and I refuted it by pointing out the structure of that hadith’s and the fact it was taken out of pretext, you are just bringing lies into your comments to justify the lies that will follow, how embarrassing of you.

Once again I will correct you even though I know you and the like of Robert spencer will continue to twits words and accuse the prophet out of your intellectual bankruptcy... I'm certain you learned of this falsely-reported hadith in one of his many articles which spencer always uses.


Volume 4, Book 52, Number 267:


The term war is pretext was taken from the following hadith’s, when the prophet stated it to refer to an event in the future.


Narrated Abu Huraira:

The Prophet said, "Khosrau will be ruined, and there will be no Khosrau after him, and Caesar will surely be ruined and there will be no Caesar after him, and you will spend their treasures in Allah's Cause." He called, "War is deceit'.


Volume 4, Book 52, Number 268:
Narrated Abu Huraira:
Allah's Apostle called,: "War is deceit".


Volume 4, Book 52, Number 269:
Narrated Jabir bin 'Abdullah:
The Prophet said, "War is deceit."

http://www.usc.edu/dept/MSA/fundamentals/hadithsunnah/bukhari/052.sbt.html (http://www.usc.edu/dept/MSA/fundamentals/hadithsunnah/bukhari/052.sbt.html)

[ThronStahl]

mahati, I don't know if you suffer from low-attention disorder but I will remember you that Hezbollah started firing rockets on israel IN RETAILATION for its indiscriminate bombing of lebanese civilian infrastructure, hence its actions would be covered by the right to reprisal, the same right that allowed the RAF to bomb Koeln indiscriminately after the luftwaffe raid on Coventry.

[Night]

Hezb'Allah rockets havent killed a single person yesterday :)

[Mohmar 'Deathstrike']

Hezb'Allah rockets havent killed a single person yesterday :)while Israeli missiles and shells killed scores of civilians :)

[tonahtiu]

Israel wants expand its territory, they want water from litani river.

[kryp]

while Israeli missiles and shells killed scores of civilians :)

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4vPAkc5CLgc&eurl=

rockets lunch close to civilians buildings :
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=I0s_l8VYNP4

rockets fired from QUNA:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tC3kAWavYs4

thats why civilians die.
the know they should leave to the north. we always say them go north.
the knew and know that rockets lunch from their area, but they don't leave, so they will die.

[burster]

Newuser,

Now don't get mad just because people in the west are finally figuring out the fault lines in Islam. "War is deceit" is a perfectly valid thing to say for any war leader, an important part of the psychological aspect of battle. That is not important. What is important is that arabs, for whatever reason, tend to exaggerate their strengths and poo poo their weaknesses. The perfect example is Baghdad Bob, the spokesman for the Iraqi military during Operation Iraqi Freedom in 2003. Now old Bob wasn't just saying what he did to try and convince a skeptical western news media. No, he actually BELIEVED the jibberish he was spouting. This is the disconnect many arabs seem to have between reality and fantasy. They think that if they just believe hard enough, reality will alter to match their beliefs. Which is true in a sense if you are the absolute dictator of a country, as the sultan of the Ottoman empire was and as Saddam was. The problem is that reality has a tendency to eventually bite such people right on the behind.

So if Olmert ever gets his head of his anal opening and stop dithering, you will see the reality of what the IDF can really do, rather than this mindless stooging around on the Lebanon border.

I don't put out much hope for this, however. The US is beginning to realize that Olmert is a clutz who doesn't have a clue in the military sphere. So they will try to bail him out at the UN. It will then be time for Hezbollah to cut a deal. They come out smelling like a rose and can reap in the praise and money for standing up to the ferocious IDF far longer than any other arab army has in the past.

Nasrallah better stay close to a bomb shelter, however. The IDF have long memories, and Mossad even longer.

That ok because I and most Arabs will never believe anything that comes out of Israel, so it’s fair and square.

You have used this in the past and I refuted it by pointing out the structure of that hadith’s and the fact it was taken out of pretext, you are just bringing lies into your comments to justify the lies that will follow, how embarrassing of you.

Once again I will correct you even though I know you and the like of Robert spencer will continue to twits words and accuse the prophet out of your intellectual bankruptcy... I'm certain you learned of this falsely-reported hadith in one of his many articles which spencer always uses.


Volume 4, Book 52, Number 267:


The term war is pretext was taken from the following hadith’s, when the prophet stated it to refer to an event in the future.


Narrated Abu Huraira:

The Prophet said, "Khosrau will be ruined, and there will be no Khosrau after him, and Caesar will surely be ruined and there will be no Caesar after him, and you will spend their treasures in Allah's Cause." He called, "War is deceit'.


Volume 4, Book 52, Number 268:
Narrated Abu Huraira:
Allah's Apostle called,: "War is deceit".


Volume 4, Book 52, Number 269:
Narrated Jabir bin 'Abdullah:
The Prophet said, "War is deceit."

http://www.usc.edu/dept/MSA/fundamentals/hadithsunnah/bukhari/052.sbt.html (http://www.usc.edu/dept/MSA/fundamentals/hadithsunnah/bukhari/052.sbt.html)

[MrWanted]

while Israeli missiles and shells killed scores of civilians :)

(Unfortunatly) Today they did. However they aiming on lot's of objectives in these cities, as your beloved IDF has hide most of it's assests in urban area's.

Besided most of the people have already left the cities in North (eg Naharia today 12 000, out of 58 000) so it's getting really hard to find them ;)

What if south is getting some hit? Were would they go? Right into the sea? Let's hope IAF isn't going to bomb Beirut.

[Snauhi]

Newuser,

Now don't get mad just because people in the west are finally figuring out the fault lines in Islam. "War is deceit" is a perfectly valid thing to say for any war leader, an important part of the psychological aspect of battle. That is not important. What is important is that arabs, for whatever reason, tend to exaggerate their strengths and poo poo their weaknesses. The perfect example is Baghdad Bob, the spokesman for the Iraqi military during Operation Iraqi Freedom in 2003. Now old Bob wasn't just saying what he did to try and convince a skeptical western news media. No, he actually BELIEVED the jibberish he was spouting. This is the disconnect many arabs seem to have between reality and fantasy. They think that if they just believe hard enough, reality will alter to match their beliefs. Which is true in a sense if you are the absolute dictator of a country, as the sultan of the Ottoman empire was and as Saddam was. The problem is that reality has a tendency to eventually bite such people right on the behind.

So if Olmert ever gets his head of his anal opening and stop dithering, you will see the reality of what the IDF can really do, rather than this mindless stooging around on the Lebanon border.

I don't put out much hope for this, however. The US is beginning to realize that Olmert is a clutz who doesn't have a clue in the military sphere. So they will try to bail him out at the UN. It will then be time for Hezbollah to cut a deal. They come out smelling like a rose and can reap in the praise and money for standing up to the ferocious IDF far longer than any other arab army has in the past.

Nasrallah better stay close to a bomb shelter, however. The IDF have long memories, and Mossad even longer.

They will see what IDF can do in the end of this week... For the first time IDF will be allowed to operate as a mechanized force.

And the new UN resolution will have Resolution 1559 in it!

[MrWanted]

Newuser,

Now don't get mad just because people in the west are finally figuring out the fault lines in Islam. "War is deceit" is a perfectly valid thing to say for any war leader, an important part of the psychological aspect of battle. That is not important. What is important is that arabs, for whatever reason, tend to exaggerate their strengths and poo poo their weaknesses. The perfect example is Baghdad Bob, the spokesman for the Iraqi military during Operation Iraqi Freedom in 2003. Now old Bob wasn't just saying what he did to try and convince a skeptical western news media. No, he actually BELIEVED the jibberish he was spouting. This is the disconnect many arabs seem to have between reality and fantasy. They think that if they just believe hard enough, reality will alter to match their beliefs. Which is true in a sense if you are the absolute dictator of a country, as the sultan of the Ottoman empire was and as Saddam was. The problem is that reality has a tendency to eventually bite such people right on the behind.

So if Olmert ever gets his head of his anal opening and stop dithering, you will see the reality of what the IDF can really do, rather than this mindless stooging around on the Lebanon border.

I don't put out much hope for this, however. The US is beginning to realize that Olmert is a clutz who doesn't have a clue in the military sphere. So they will try to bail him out at the UN. It will then be time for Hezbollah to cut a deal. They come out smelling like a rose and can reap in the praise and money for standing up to the ferocious IDF far longer than any other arab army has in the past.

Nasrallah better stay close to a bomb shelter, however. The IDF have long memories, and Mossad even longer.

OUld you stop to give strategic comments? Again we have some I-know-you-pretty-well dude talking about Baghdad Bob. Well Baghdad Bob was one guy when everybody else was saying what was happening. He was a great source of amusement.

NOWADAYS we don't need Baghdad Bob because we have Bobs from Shemona to Tel Aviv. yeah Ok you just reached Litani, NOT. Even not from the eastern border which would be less than 2 hours walking.

YOU WAS THE GENIUS GUY WHO STATED THAT GO FOR BENT JUBAIL, FROM THEN IT"S A ROLL DOWN THE HILL TO LITANI RIGHT?

I can't quote you because of the incident with this forum.

After IDF has been incompetent on the battlefield with guns, instead of stones, all to blame is Olmert? And you think the hype about most overrated military will stay a life?

[MrWanted]

They will see what IDF can do in the end of this week... For the first time IDF will be allowed to operate as a mechanized force.

And the new UN resolution will have Resolution 1559 in it!

This is the 5th week your government is stating this... please give us a new oneliner, we are patientless.

I realy can't imagine what they would do, that haven't been tried by now, beside going to chemicals and napalms type of weapons which is a clear war crime. However in your zionist mind everything is allowed against Maggots.

[Night]

This is the 5th week your government is stating this... please give us a new oneliner, we are patientless.

I realy can't imagine what they would do, that haven't been tried by now, beside going to chemicals and napalms type of weapons which is a clear war crime. However in your zionist mind everything is allowed against Maggots.

Chemicals and Napalm :rolleyes: I don't know what your smoking but it must work well...

[PersianPrince]

They use Napalm,Cluster bombs,and Phosphereous gas all banned by the Geneva Convention.

[PersianChico]

i love russian rpg

[NEWUSER]

http://www.aljazeera.net/mritems/images/2006/8/10/1_637444_1_34.jpg

Picture from todays fight

http://www.aljazeera.net/NR/exeres/8703FC72-ECC0-4716-BA2A-837ECB649333.htm

[seraosha]

AK-47, n00b.

[PersianChico]

hi noob nice to meet you..so stfu

[kryp]

They use Napalm,Cluster bombs,and Phosphereous gas all banned by the Geneva Convention.

moron , we don't use those weapons. if we use napalm, we will win in few days,every singel terrorist will die.

stop the lies, dumb.

[Mohmar 'Deathstrike']

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4vPAkc5CLgc&eurl=

rockets lunch close to civilians buildings :
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=I0s_l8VYNP4

rockets fired from QUNA:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tC3kAWavYs4

thats why civilians die.
the know they should leave to the north. we always say them go north.
the knew and know that rockets lunch from their area, but they don't leave, so they will die.
If that's your excuse don't get mad when Israeli civilians are roasted. After all, soldiers are often based near civilians in Israel too. Hezbollah also warns Israeli civilians of attacks, just like Israel.

[Night]

If that's your excuse don't get mad when Israeli civilians are roasted. After all, soldiers are often based near civilians in Israel too. Hezbollah also warns Israeli civilians of attacks, just like Israel.

Israeli bases are based near civilians to protect the civilians. Hezb'Allah bases itself near the civilians to protect Hezb'Allah. Hezb'Allah doesn't really care about civilians, they pretend to and whine about it to the international community, HA is the cause of so many civilian casualties.

[NEWUSER]

Israeli bases are based near civilians to protect the civilians. Hezb'Allah bases itself near the civilians to protect Hezb'Allah.

It’s allowed for us and forbidden for them; mother of all hypocrisy.

You were better off staying quiet!

:roflmao3:

[MrWanted]

Israeli bases are based near civilians to protect the civilians. Hezb'Allah bases itself near the civilians to protect Hezb'Allah. Hezb'Allah doesn't really care about civilians, they pretend to and whine about it to the international community, HA is the cause of so many civilian casualties.

:worried2:

[Mohmar 'Deathstrike']

Israeli bases are based near civilians to protect the civilians.If that was the case, then they were doing a piss-poor job :p Tell, me, how exactly do you defend against Katyusha rockets?
Hezb'Allah bases itself near the civilians to protect Hezb'Allah

Hezb'Allah doesn't really care about civilians, they pretend to and whine about it to the international community, HA is the cause of so many civilian casualties.^The usual rethoric:3eyes4:

[Vane]

Hey guys about the patrols that are gaurding the merkava4 during the war
they got roasted too. a group aim there rocket launchers at them and another group at the merkava4.too easy.Plus I have evidence in the quran that says that the jews love there life more than anything and the proof is
that Merkava=Survival.I dont get it how do they fight if they are scared
for there life?

[Mohmar 'Deathstrike']

Plus I have evidence in the quran that says that the jews love there life more than anything:roflmao3:

and the proof is
that Merkava=Survival.I dont get it how do they fight if they are scared
for there life?
Dead soldiers don't fight very well, do they? For a fighting force to be successful they must protect their own lives, especially if their numbers are of the same order of magnitude as the enemy's.

[Vane]

wait I get so they shoot a bullet then hide then shoot another bullet then hide.It sounds pretty noobish.CMON FACE ME IF YOU ARE A MAN.

[Mohmar 'Deathstrike']

Any tactic that is not readily counterable has been labelled as cowardice throughout history (suicide bombing, high-altitude bombing etc). If I ever fight, I fight to win and live, not to "be a man".

[Vane]

MAN.Jihad learned us not to takecare for our life.GIVE ME VICTORY OR GIVE ME DEATH.

[Mohmar 'Deathstrike']

MAN.Jihad learned us not to takecare for our life.GIVE ME VICTORY OR GIVE ME DEATH.Whatever. It's not a teaching I intend to follow.

[Power_Serj]

Hey guys about the patrols that are gaurding the merkava4 during the war
they got roasted too. a group aim there rocket launchers at them and another group at the merkava4.too easy.Plus I have evidence in the quran that says that the jews love there life more than anything and the proof is
that Merkava=Survival.I dont get it how do they fight if they are scared
for there life?

Loving life has nothing to do with being scared in combat. One can love life and be brave in combat.


MAN.Jihad learned us not to takecare for our life.GIVE ME VICTORY OR GIVE ME DEATH.

Exactly because religious political leaders use so called "jihadists" to fight for them.They misuse religion to brainwash into having people to fight for them. You don't see the high leaders suicide bombing or fighting in combat, do you? Look at Osama, he's a jihadist. Shouldn't he be fighting "infidels" and risking or sacrificing his life? He's out hiding in the mountains, why doesn't he sacrifice his life? Because he already has loyal people who will die for him. I bet he doesn't want to die. His hiding in the mountains proves it.

[Mohmar 'Deathstrike']

Shouldn't he be fighting "infidels" and risking or sacrificing his life? He's out hiding in the mountains, why doesn't he sacrifice his life? Because he already has loyal people who will die for him. I bet he doesn't want to die. His hiding in the mountains proves it.
Bin Laden may not be willing to sacrifice his like like a suicide bomber would but he certainly has been risking it for his cause ever since he took up arms against the Soviets.

[mirza]

Why are you using a WWII nazi symbol as an avatar?

to educate guys like you , how swastika was used in different parts of the ancient world without any realtions to the nazi germany

[mig21bis]

Well said Mirza....not all who use swastika are nazis....here is first swastika used in Finland in first FAF aircraft when Swedish Count Von Rosen granted Thulin Typ D Morane Saulnier plane to Finland....

http://fi.wikipedia.org/wiki/Morane-Saulnier_Parasol

See swastika in wing....year was 1918....and before nazis ;)

[mango994]

The tanks aren't succumbing.
How many tanks were inside lebanon? nearly thousand.
How many tanks were destroyed? few.
How many of them were Merkava 4? NONE.

It's all statistics. The Iraqis also managed to take down some american abrahamses, should we put them out of use?

[WGREE2]

As far as I have read those Merkava's faired quite well. If it had been any other tank the losses would have been much higher.

[mirza]

Well said Mirza....not all who use swastika are nazis....here is first swastika used in Finland in first FAF aircraft when Swedish Count Von Rosen granted Thulin Typ D Morane Saulnier plane to Finland....

http://fi.wikipedia.org/wiki/Morane-Saulnier_Parasol

See swastika in wing....year was 1918....and before nazis ;)

bravo , the blue swastika ,here is another 1 being used in modern times :
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/3/3c/Ilmav_SK_ja_lippu.jpg

and this one from pre-achamenid rasht in northern iran lol :
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/9/9b/Swastika_iran.jpg

but it's interesting how different relegions' obsession with this symbol (from korea and japan to pre colonial america) may suggest all relegions origin from a big ancient bullcrap


i guess awhile ago there was a similar dispute about the roman salute after an italian soccer player got punished for doing it in front of a crowd

[Mohmar 'Deathstrike']

As far as I have read those Merkava's faired quite well. If it had been any other tank the losses would have been much higher.ANY other tank? What about Leo2A5+, Leclerc or M1A2?

[Mohmar 'Deathstrike']

but it's interesting how different relegions' obsession with this symbol (from korea and japan to pre colonial america) may suggest all relegions origin from a big ancient bullcrap:roflmao3:

i guess awhile ago there was a similar dispute about the roman salute after an italian soccer player got punished for doing it in front of a crowdI'm pretty sure in that instance it was intended to be a fascist salute. Punishing it, however, is retarded, IMO. You don't hurt anybody by doing it, you just look like a dumbass :D

[mirza]

:roflmao3:

I'm pretty sure in that instance it was intended to be a fascist salute. Punishing it, however, is retarded, IMO. You don't hurt anybody by doing it, you just look like a dumbass :D

i dont know the details , i just remember those who were defending argued that the gesture was actually a roman salute and still common in that part of italy

[WGREE2]

ANY other tank? What about Leo2A5+, Leclerc or M1A2?

Nope, the merkava is the most heavily armoured MBT around. Sloping turret and engine place in the front for added crew protection. There were quite a few merkavas hit and were still salvagable.

[Mohmar 'Deathstrike']

i dont know the details , i just remember those who were defending argued that the gesture was actually a roman salute and still common in that part of italyI kinda doubt that, but I've not been in Rome often.

Hey I just noticed your Yuri Red Alert 2 signature :DNope, the merkava is the most heavily armoured MBT around. Sloping turret and engine place in the front for added crew protection. There were quite a few merkavas hit and were still salvagable.Crew protection perhaps, but not engine protection. There were quite a few M1s hit in other wars that were still salvageable.

[mango994]

Guys, it's all statistics.
Compare the number of the destroyed Merkavas to the number of Merkavas that were active inside Lebanon. It's nothing. It's all media noise.
Country X and country Y wage a war. Country X has 1,000 soldiers, and only one was killed, while many on Y's side were killed.
The whole media makes a huge noise of the single dead soldier on X side, to such a level that it looks like a serious damage.

[Mohmar 'Deathstrike']

Guys, it's all statistics.
Compare the number of the destroyed Merkavas to the number of Merkavas that were active inside Lebanon. It's nothing. It's all media noise.
Country X and country Y wage a war. Country X has 1,000 soldiers, and only one was killed, while many on Y's side were killed.
The whole media makes a huge noise of the single dead soldier on X side, to such a level that it looks like a serious damage.Well if you replace "soldiers" with tanks, country X had 1,000 of them, while country Y had 0.

[mango994]

Country Y had RPGs, it doesn't matter.

[Tallgeese]

The tanks aren't succumbing.
How many tanks were inside lebanon? nearly thousand.
How many tanks were destroyed? few.
How many of them were Merkava 4? NONE.

Actually if a 1,000 tanks are inside Lebanon then it's odious to think that they didn't achieve the objectives of preventing Hezbollah rockets. Either that or they were sight seeing. What's more, most statistics suggest that upwards of 200-250 Israeli Merkavas were sent (Mk.1 - Mk.4) & if the combat was enough to suggest that Merkava Mk.4 production should be halted then obviously there are teething issues with the tank & room for improvement. In fact, of the 50 tanks hit (according to reliable sources) some 30 Israelis were killed. Considering how all Israel's tanks have a crew of four, that translates to 15% casualty rate (dead) & with 100 injuries, that's another set of casualties.

In total, if you have 130/400 crew members who were injured in one form or another on face value that may seem to suggest that a majority of casualties were in Israel's older tanks. However, according to Israeli sources, Hezbollah used clever 'selection' processes, & used the latest ATGW on the latest armour (Merkava Mk.3B/Mk.4) & older systems on the older armour (M-60A3, M-48A7 etc) that & the halting of Merkava Mk.4 production for a while suggests that the tank didn't fare as well as the Israelis had hoped, or a Merkava Mk.4B is intended for production to surpass the basic Mk.4.

My own analysis is that Israel's Merkava Mk.4B or Mk.5 (whatever it's called) will be tested against the Metis M & other ATGW before it is put into production & that the Merkava Mk.4 (from reliable sources) didn't perform as it was expected. Part of the problem was with flawed Israeli tactics to begin with, but the main thing is the fighting standard of Hezbollah that undid Israeli operations.

One interpretation of the statistics was Israel's reluctance to engage in combat with Hezbollah & this is evidenced by the fact that everytime engagements did occur Israel suffered heavy losses. In retrospect, the Israelis' cautious approach may have minimised casualties (the good news for Israel) but at the same time didn't help them put out the rockets (the bad news for Israel) due largely to Hezbollah's excellent defensive posture, & hard-hitting approach. Rather than 'hit & run' in the traditional sense, Hezbollah would 'hit' & the Israelis would 'run' (or regroup) & decide on how to strike again.

Concealment, surprise, stealth & the advantage of position proved to be the evening factor for Hezbollah.

It's all statistics. The Iraqis also managed to take down some american abrahamses, should we put them out of use?

The Americans have admitted to the inferiority of the M-1A2 to the Challenger 2, & they also admit that it's in need of modification. The KORNET (designed for DU armoured tanks) undid US 'Abrams' in Iraq where the METIS (designed for ERA equipped tanks) did to the Merkava. Obviously Russian weaponry at its best is a devastating force, particularly against sub-standard equipment.

Why do you think a majority of NATO allies have opted for the Leopard 2A4, which isn't even the best in Germany's inventory? The Leopard 2A5/A6 series, & the Swedish variant are unequivocally the best tanks in the world today.

[mango994]

It's easy to listen when they say the MK4 is halted, but it's way harder to listen when they say that the project was resumed since no problems were found with the MK4. Tough, isn't it?

Israeli troops suffered losses, but have u thought of the HA losses? and considering that Hizbolla was defending a territory it prepared for such an attack for 6 years? We didn't prepare. At all. The government's call to attack hizbolla in response to the kidnap was sudden, kinda surprising. Hizbolla prepared ambushes, holdings and plans for 6 years, since they are the aggressors, and they are the ones to make the first strike, which will invite israel into south lebanon.
Israel, on the other hand, wasn't thinking of a conflict with hizbolla. Since 2000 most conflicts were very small, along the border.
Next time, we'll be prepared too. And then we'll see.

[mirza]

Hey I just noticed your Yuri Red Alert 2 signature :D

it might sound funny but i actually believe in it , not of course the way yuri did

[4X-IL]

Actually if a 1,000 tanks are inside Lebanon then it's odious to think that they didn't achieve the objectives of preventing Hezbollah rockets. Either that or they were sight seeing. What's more, most statistics suggest that upwards of 200-250 Israeli Merkavas were sent (Mk.1 - Mk.4) & if the combat was enough to suggest that Merkava Mk.4 production should be halted then obviously there are teething issues with the tank & room for improvement. In fact, of the 50 tanks hit (according to reliable sources) some 30 Israelis were killed. Considering how all Israel's tanks have a crew of four, that translates to 15% casualty rate (dead) & with 100 injuries, that's another set of casualties.

In total, if you have 130/400 crew members who were injured in one form or another on face value that may seem to suggest that a majority of casualties were in Israel's older tanks. However, according to Israeli sources, Hezbollah used clever 'selection' processes, & used the latest ATGW on the latest armour (Merkava Mk.3B/Mk.4) & older systems on the older armour (M-60A3, M-48A7 etc) that & the halting of Merkava Mk.4 production for a while suggests that the tank didn't fare as well as the Israelis had hoped, or a Merkava Mk.4B is intended for production to surpass the basic Mk.4.

My own analysis is that Israel's Merkava Mk.4B or Mk.5 (whatever it's called) will be tested against the Metis M & other ATGW before it is put into production & that the Merkava Mk.4 (from reliable sources) didn't perform as it was expected. Part of the problem was with flawed Israeli tactics to begin with, but the main thing is the fighting standard of Hezbollah that undid Israeli operations.

One interpretation of the statistics was Israel's reluctance to engage in combat with Hezbollah & this is evidenced by the fact that everytime engagements did occur Israel suffered heavy losses. In retrospect, the Israelis' cautious approach may have minimised casualties (the good news for Israel) but at the same time didn't help them put out the rockets (the bad news for Israel) due largely to Hezbollah's excellent defensive posture, & hard-hitting approach. Rather than 'hit & run' in the traditional sense, Hezbollah would 'hit' & the Israelis would 'run' (or regroup) & decide on how to strike again.

Concealment, surprise, stealth & the advantage of position proved to be the evening factor for Hezbollah.



The Americans have admitted to the inferiority of the M-1A2 to the Challenger 2, & they also admit that it's in need of modification. The KORNET (designed for DU armoured tanks) undid US 'Abrams' in Iraq where the METIS (designed for ERA equipped tanks) did to the Merkava. Obviously Russian weaponry at its best is a devastating force, particularly against sub-standard equipment.

Why do you think a majority of NATO allies have opted for the Leopard 2A4, which isn't even the best in Germany's inventory? The Leopard 2A5/A6 series, & the Swedish variant are unequivocally the best tanks in the world today.


Sorry mate but you're totally wrong here.

The Merkava MK4 was a total success in Lebanon.
Its production was halted for about a week after the war, so the IDF will see what happened with it in Lebanon.
After the investigation started, it was obvious from the beginning that the Mark 4 was almost undefeatable in Lebanon.
One single tank was knocked out, preparable, but knocked out, and it was after not less than 8 Anti-Tank missiles hit it, I assume some hit in a sensetive spot.
There were reports about MK4's that was hit 13 hits, most of it direct hits, and none stopped, with all systems online.

The Production of the Merkava continued, and stopping it is not in the plan right now.

[Mohmar 'Deathstrike']

it might sound funny but i actually believe in it , not of course the way yuri didIn a way it's true since the brain definitely sends signals out to activate muscles.

[mirza]

In a way it's true since the brain definitely sends signals out to activate muscles.

that s true , but i was thinking of it in another way , based on the stuff i ve read about different ways of thinking and their association with the two halves of brain ,
if u read the book "in the mind's eye" they talk about how a unique way of thought process could lead to one's immunity to propaganda and.....

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Picture_thinking

[Tallgeese]

It's easy to listen when they say the MK4 is halted, but it's way harder to listen when they say that the project was resumed since no problems were found with the MK4. Tough, isn't it?

Project hasn't as yet resumed at full pace. One Israeli commentator suggested that it wasn't related to the summer conflict but dur to technical & production issues. However, it's clear that the Merkava Mk.4B (or Mk.5?) will be produced & derive many lessons from the 2006 conflict.

Israeli troops suffered losses, but have u thought of the HA losses?

Hezbollah losses aren't as big an issue, plus 130-150 Israeli military casualties versus some 250 Hezbollah isn't new, as Hezbollah generally took heavier casualties. In gurriella warfare that's generally the case. The Viet Cong & NVA (North Vietnamese Army) suffered many more losses than the Americans in combat, & the Afghan rebels suffered far greater losses to the Soviets during that conflict.

Furthermore, Israel has planes, tanks, expensive (& 'smart') artillary etc & high power precison weaponry, compared to what one Israeli called of Hezbollah's 'junky' rockets. Well, obviously in proportion to firepower Hezbollah's losses in men & material were modest by comparison of what Israel should have, would have, could have achived.

What else is new?

and considering that Hizbolla was defending a territory it prepared for such an attack for 6 years? We didn't prepare. At all. The government's call to attack hizbolla in response to the kidnap was sudden, kinda surprising.

& due to six years of preparation, Israel was unable to defeat or dislodge Hezbollah & didn't (despite gaining a hold on Lebanese territory) stop the rockets Hezbollah fired en-mass into Israel. In the end, Israel suffered losses on the ground where the real fight was, & didn't do much to stop the rockets. Put another way, 300 rockets were fired into Israel some 24-36 hours before the ceasefire went into effect (I think it was the second or third highest volly) so ask yourself, what did your offensive acheive?

Furthermore, the six years of preparation, coupled with combat experience, coupled with some new weaponry, training etc, pulled off together sufficient resistance to repel Israeli forces, & maintain strategic leverage over Israel in the form of rocket attacks. To say, "we didn't prepare" is like saying that Israel was not ready for conflict. Israel is always ready for conflict, & if we go by what you say, then let's underline this point in a nutshell. Israel's intellegence failed as it did in the winter of 1973. as Israel was unprepared then for heavy ATGW or SAM umbrella or the rapid speed/surprise that Egyptian+Syrian forces achieved, despite Israel having an overwhelming advantage in other aspects.

Finally, it was a capture, not a kidnapp. Israel kidnapps Lebanese at gunpoint, & usually unarmed, where Hezbollah ATTACKED Israeli solidiers on occupied land, & captured the two survivors from that attack. Get a dictionary.

Hizbolla prepared ambushes, holdings and plans for 6 years, since they are the aggressors, and they are the ones to make the first strike, which will invite israel into south lebanon.

Israel already occupied part of (& maintains) occupation of that part of Southern Lebanon in the area called Shebba (or Chebba as the Lebanese spell it) & hence, Hezbollah's operation was in response to the real aggressor which is & always was Israel.

PS: The Viet Cong, Mujahideen, etc prepared ambushes, booby traps etc, what else is new?

Israel, on the other hand, wasn't thinking of a conflict with hizbolla. Since 2000 most conflicts were very small, along the border.Next time, we'll be prepared too. And then we'll see.

The particular incident of the capture of the two solidiers was also small. Israel's Olmert had to act tough where an old grouch like Sharon wouldn't have had to. A couple of artillarly vollies, some . Next time, I'll keep some pop corn. Rambo-type events are fun to watch, especially when the Israelis are on the recieving end.

[mango994]

You still ignore the fact that hizbolla is not an ordinary army, it uses the sneaky tiny warfare.
Nearly every HA missle launcher was bombed after shooting.
The problem is, that these aren't true launchers. Notice that ALL, ALL of the long range launchers were shot down on the first days. Bad israeli intelligence, isn't it?
Hizbolla's launchers are small. Many of them can be placed within houses.
Now imagine that i'm giving u an airplane with a mission to bomb every house that its family has a dog. When your time runs out I'll laugh and say u didn't manage to take out all of the dogs.
Israel could solve this very easily with its available power, but the point is- the investing. Tyre, the missle launching center- we could simply bomb it with our really serious bombs and demand Hizbolla to stop firing or Tyre will turn to ashes.
In another way, we had the option to invade Tyre and give it some good strike. Most rockets came from Tyre, since Tyre is a city, and launchers are harder to be tracked.
But the point is the price... the IDF was not prepared for this scenario.
Israel, unlike Hizbolla, had the options to end it all once and for all, but at a political cost.
Nasrallah claimed that missles will fall over Tel-Aviv if Beirut will be touched. lol. The Dahiya is ruins. Has anything touched Tel Aviv?

Tallgeese, this "war" was a mere field test, or more like an emergency test. Ever had an emergency test in your school (earthquake threat)? same thing. We saw the problems, and we're fixing. The next war will be the real thing, and I really don't mind if u want to keep dreaming that Israel "lost".
At the same way I can say that Hizbolla lost since it didn't manage to free prisoners and return Sheeba.

[NEWUSER]

... it uses the sneaky tiny warfare.

In war anything goes, sneaky tiny or otherwise, that is why it's called WAR.

If Israeli officials admitted defeat then dreaming is no long necessary. (I'm sure you will ask for a link and ignore the many threads created on this very forum, outlining Israeli army comments over how they LOST THE WAR against Hezb'Allah)

Israeli prisoners, will go back in the same way it was stated from day one by Hezb'Allah, in exchange for all Lebanese in Israeli jails -- Israel started the war just to free them and it failed miserably and beyond all expectations, even inside ISRAEL, and outside including the American's who were left scratching their heads and wondering where all the millions of dollars in American aid for Israel military went!

Frankly, the way you talk, and as far as I'm concerned, indicates nothing but defeat.

[Vane]

So if the IDF wernt ready why did they start the scenario at the first place.

[Yoni45]

Finally, it was a capture, not a kidnapp. Israel kidnapps Lebanese at gunpoint, & usually unarmed, where Hezbollah ATTACKED Israeli solidiers on occupied land, & captured the two survivors from that attack. Get a dictionary.

http://www.m-w.com/dictionary/kidnap

"Main Entry: kid·nap
Pronunciation: 'kid-"nap
Function: transitive verb
Inflected Form(s): -napped also kid·naped /-"napt/; -nap·ping also -nap·ing
Etymology: probably back-formation from kidnapper, from kid + obsolete napper thief
: to seize and detain or carry away by unlawful force or fraud and often with a demand for ransom."

The hezbollah attack falls under that. There was seizure and detention, they were carried away, and unlawful force was used... [Israeli jurisdiction, and Hezbollah is not a government body capable of declaring a state of war between Lebanon and Israel]


Israel already occupied part of (& maintains) occupation of that part of Southern Lebanon in the area called Shebba (or Chebba as the Lebanese spell it)...

Not according to the UN [which certified the 2000 Israeli withdrawal as complete], Israel [which agreed with the UN], Syria [which has never agreed to demarcate the area as Lebanese, and even have Shebaa farms as part of Syria on government websites], and even Lebanon [which also accepted the UN decision, although reluctantly, which certified the Israeli withdrawal as full...]

[MrWanted]

Notice that ALL, ALL of the long range launchers were shot down on the first days. Bad israeli intelligence, isn't it? I know. You also downed their space station. That's why they didn't put a laser beam on your apartheit regime.

When Israel said it will bomb down town Beirut, Nasrallah said well in that case we use our long range rockets. Israel never did escalate like that? Why? should it be, may be, by a little chance, the fact that Nasrallah did kept to his promises?:laugh4:

[Behrooz Boonabi]

The IDF has no experience defending. They only know how to murder the indigenous people. There army is lazy due to the massive welfare they receive. Alone, they can only walk on there knees.

[WGREE2]

The IDF has no experience defending. They only know how to murder the indigenous people. There army is lazy due to the massive welfare they receive. Alone, they can only walk on there knees.
Please tell me you are jesting. The IDF has played major defensive roles in many wars throughout history. On more than a couple occasions they have had great success in bringing several invading armies simultaneously to their knees, typically out manned and out gunned. And lazy? Hardly, regardless of the aid Israel recieves, they are at the cutting edge in military technology, maybe they would'nt be where they are today without it, but my words can not even begin to describe the ignorance and imbecility in your statement. Smarten up.

[Behrooz Boonabi]

Please tell me you are jesting. The IDF has played major defensive roles in many wars throughout history. On more than a couple occasions they have had great success in bringing several invading armies simultaneously to their knees, typically out manned and out gunned. And lazy? Hardly, regardless of the aid Israel recieves, they are at the cutting edge in military technology, maybe they would'nt be where they are today without it, but my words can not even begin to describe the ignorance and imbecility in your statement. Smarten up.

Dude, israel is the invaders. To ignore that fact is just ignorance in its purest form. They are purely offensive in every way, not defensive. They are cutting edge in military technology because they are given it, not earning it. They should be taken off welfare so they can learn how to feed themselves. Many years of welfare made them lazy and incompetent in doing things for themselves and taking hard working peoples tax dollars at the same time. By the way, IDF only has recent history. Israel was created only a short time ago on other peoples property. Israel is still attacking the indigenous people. This is not defense. It is pure evil.

[WGREE2]

Hear this you delusional troll, read your own god damn post first before making a pathetic attempt for a rebuttal. Now, you said exactly this; "The IDF has no experience defending". Perhaps you should indulge yourself in some history mate, so next time you don't sound like a complete idiot. Arab Israeli war '48, six day war '67, war of attirition '68, yom kippur, etc. etc. etc. I’m not going to argue about what goes on in Palestine, or Lebanon, or whatever that’s not what I attacked you for. Simply realize that Israel has an outstanding history of defensive tactics in times of war, and even today their army is structured upon those very lessons.

[Behrooz Boonabi]

Hear this you delusional troll, read your own god damn post first before making a pathetic attempt for a rebuttal. Now, you said exactly this; "The IDF has no experience defending". Perhaps you should indulge yourself in some history mate, so next time you don't sound like a complete idiot. Arab Israeli war '48, six day war '67, war of attirition '68, yom kippur, etc. etc. etc. I’m not going to argue about what goes on in Palestine, or Lebanon, or whatever that’s not what I attacked you for. Simply realize that Israel has an outstanding history of defensive tactics in times of war, and even today their army is structured upon those very lessons.

You still don't get it. Israel is in Arab land. Arabs are not in israeli land. That makes it very simple. Israel attacks, not defends. If they had no welfare from the US, there would be no israel going around murdering people in there own home. Israel could not stand for a whole day without help from the US. If they murdered all those indigenous people on there own, that would be impressive but they didn't. Without there big brother they would be brought to justice. They suck because they are useless without welfare and criminal activity. Israel has no experience in defending, only offending.

[WGREE2]

Forget it, I could'nt argue that the sky was blue with you. I repeat myself and for the last time, I could care less whos f*cking land that is, thats not the topic here, all I am trying to get across is how foolish that statement of yours was. I gave you examples, factual histoy, dates, and what do you offer in return? "Israel has no experience in defending, only offending." Unbelieveable. Save your morallic indoctrinations for someone else, Don't even respond to this post, Im done here.

[Power_Serj]

You still don't get it. Israel is in Arab land. Arabs are not in israeli land. That makes it very simple. Israel attacks, not defends. If they had no welfare from the US, there would be no israel going around murdering people in there own home. Israel could not stand for a whole day without help from the US. If they murdered all those indigenous people on there own, that would be impressive but they didn't. Without there big brother they would be brought to justice. They suck because they are useless without welfare and criminal activity. Israel has no experience in defending, only offending.


Israel is a Hebrew land, get your facts straight. You should go check up history.

[Behrooz Boonabi]

Forget it, I could'nt argue that the sky was blue with you. I repeat myself and for the last time, I could care less whos f*cking land that is, thats not the topic here, all I am trying to get across is how foolish that statement of yours was. I gave you examples, factual histoy, dates, and what do you offer in return? "Israel has no experience in defending, only offending." Unbelieveable. Save your morallic indoctrinations for someone else, Don't even respond to this post, Im done here.

You sound angry.:)
First, you need take account israel is not meant to be there. If they where meant to be there they would not have any opposition. If a country is occupied, the invading force is the force that is attacking. Not the other way around. You don't seem to have the capacity for simple logic so I will take the time to break it down for you.

If somebody breaks into your house and shoots you when you come through the door, they are attacking, not defending. Clear enough?

[Tbagger]

The IDF has no experience defending.
:roflmao3:

IDF stands for: Israel DEFENSE Forces.

Israel has defended itself from aggressors in more than 5 wars. There goes your "the IDF has no experience defending" assertion.

[Behrooz Boonabi]

:roflmao3:

IDF stands for: Israel DEFENSE Forces.

Israel has defended itself from aggressors in more than 5 wars. There goes your "the IDF has no experience defending" assertion.

Just because you "defense" in your name does not mean you "defend".

Israel has always been the aggressors.

[Tbagger]

Just because you "defense" in your name does not mean you "defend".
Of course they defend! Hence the name, defense force. If they were aggressors then they should be called an offense force.

[Behrooz Boonabi]

Of course they defend! Hence the name, defense force. If they were aggressors then they should be called an offense force.

Then they should change there name to be realistic.

[Yoni45]

I know. You also downed their space station. That's why they didn't put a laser beam on your apartheit regime.

When Israel said it will bomb down town Beirut, Nasrallah said well in that case we use our long range rockets. Israel never did escalate like that? Why?

Perhaps because Israel has no use attacking Central Beirut? It attacked the Beirut outskirts wherever it needed to...

Nasrallah may as well have declared:

"IF ISRAEL ATTACKS CHINA, WE WILL RETALIATE WITH OUR FULL NUCLEAR ARSENAL, LAUNCHED FROM OUR SPACE STATION, AND WE'LL DO IT!!!!!!!11"

[Tallgeese]

You still ignore the fact that hizbolla is not an ordinary army, it uses the sneaky tiny warfare. Nearly every HA missle launcher was bombed after shooting.The problem is, that these aren't true launchers. Notice that ALL, ALL of the long range launchers were shot down on the first days. Bad israeli intelligence, isn't it?

Actually you're mistaken there. The long-range launchers were introduced mid-way through (when did the first launchers go to Haifa beyond it?) so I guess that they needed launchers unless Hezbollah have found a way to launch them without a big launcher. In the end, even these big launchers (I mean, a URGAN truck for example) can be concealed.

Hizbolla's launchers are small. Many of them can be placed within houses. Now imagine that i'm giving u an airplane with a mission to bomb every house that its family has a dog. When your time runs out I'll laugh and say u didn't manage to take out all of the dogs.

That's an interesting analgey but it's not an answer to why Israel failed to take out the rocket launchers & bleed Hezbollah to defeat. You're right about one thing, they are no ordinary army, & you're practically admiting that Israel failed & are citing the reasons but it's too difficult to say that Israel did not achive its objectives.

Israel could solve this very easily with its available power, but the point is- the investing. Tyre, the missle launching center- we could simply bomb it with our really serious bombs and demand Hizbolla to stop firing or Tyre will turn to ashes.

In another way, we had the option to invade Tyre and give it some good strike. Most rockets came from Tyre, since Tyre is a city, and launchers are harder to be tracked.

But the point is the price... the IDF was not prepared for this scenario.
Israel, unlike Hizbolla, had the options to end it all once and for all, but at a political cost.

Israel caused more destruction on Lebanon (especially Beruit) than it did on other areas, in fact, you'd think that most of the action was over Beirut. Hezbollah rockets did land near Tel Aviv (some short) but the threat could have materialised into a promise.

My own guesstimate is that difficulty in transporting the heavier rocket launchers as Israeli reece assets were probably monitoring the South of Lebanon (I also suspect that most of the launchers were at least 10-25km inside Lebanon thus shortening the range & lessing the accuracy once fired. Movement of larger vehicles to come within range of Tel Aviv would have been risky but tried if the order was sent.

On top of everything else, Israel did cause tremendous destruction in Tyre & other cities (aside from Beruit) resulting in the refuguee crisis.

Yes, Israel can drop bombs randomly, but it is sheer idiocy to do so. Ever been in a boxing match? What's the point of paunching someone who's elbows are up & guarding his head? Your hardest punches will not be as effective, & you'll just punch yourself out. The best thing is to aim for the head, &, failing to do so, painful body shots. Israel was punching thin air half the time.

Nasrallah claimed that missles will fall over Tel-Aviv if Beirut will be touched. lol. The Dahiya is ruins. Has anything touched Tel Aviv?

Close, but as I said before.


Tallgeese, this "war" was a mere field test, or more like an emergency test. Ever had an emergency test in your school (earthquake threat)? same thing.

Ironic you should say 'earthquake' because 'Zilzal' (the missile) means earthquake. Yes, I have been in a drill, but there was never an earthquake or a fire that I've had to face, not even a small one such as that 'small war'

We saw the problems, and we're fixing. The next war will be the real thing, and I really don't mind if u want to keep dreaming that Israel "lost".
At the same way I can say that Hizbolla lost since it didn't manage to free prisoners and return Sheeba.

Hezbollah won this round of the Hezbollah-Israel war, but when you think about it, it's not a war in the sense that it's a full scale one. Yes, Israel will improve its tanks, its reece assets, coordination, & more troops will get Tavors (anything else?) yes, Israel plans on a series of new UAV with attack capability (I could go on & on).

Do you think Hezbollah didn't learn anything? Hassan Nassrullah's promise to attack Tel Aviv didn't materialise, & certainly is one hair on the cake to Hezbollah's performance (Israel has more hair than cake to chew on) but Hezbollah's rockets will fly farther, longer, & with more powerful warheads, & possibly acquire some guidance systems.

They are also going to study ways of hitting harder at Israeli tanks, undermining Israeli air and especially reece operations, & possibly acquiring jamming systems to handle LGBs and JDAM (the Iraqis managed to jam the JDAM with some Russian-made systems forcing the Americans to change tactics) & these are all options. Likewise, Hezbollah's mines are likely to become more nasty (one reason why Israel wants its Merkava to have a thicker belly since Hezbollah mines are more advanced than Palestinian types -which are ingenious for something made in a garage-).

[Tallgeese]

http://www.m-w.com/dictionary/kidnap

"Main Entry: kid·nap
Pronunciation: 'kid-"nap
Function: transitive verb
Inflected Form(s): -napped also kid·naped /-"napt/; -nap·ping also -nap·ing
Etymology: probably back-formation from kidnapper, from kid + obsolete napper thief
: to seize and detain or carry away by unlawful force or fraud and often with a demand for ransom."

Hezbollah captured those two Israeli solidiers in occupied land (which is lawful resistance) & we know it's no fraud, Shebba is Lebanese, & even if it wasn't there, then it's part of the major ransom to get Lebanese land and prisoners who were kidnapped in their own homes (unlawfully, by force, & fraud-wise as 'barginning chips' many of whom have no connection to Hezbollah.

The hezbollah attack falls under that. There was seizure and detention, they were carried away, and unlawful force was used... [Israeli jurisdiction, and Hezbollah is not a government body capable of declaring a state of war between Lebanon and Israel]

They could have killed them off. What would you have prefered? Besides, Hezbollah have kept them alive so far.

Not according to the UN [which certified the 2000 Israeli withdrawal as complete], Israel [which agreed with the UN], Syria [which has never agreed to demarcate the area as Lebanese, and even have Shebaa farms as part of Syria on government websites], and even Lebanon [which also accepted the UN decision, although reluctantly, which certified the Israeli withdrawal as full...]

Who cares, as long as Lebanon claims Shebba as Lebanese, Israel may as well hand it over to Lebanon & let Lebanon-Syria fight it out between them & say 'not our problem' release all Lebanese prisoners, & it ends Hezbollah's role, & increases pressure on Hezbollah to disarm or amalmagate with the Lebanese army or whatever.

[Yoni45]

Hezbollah captured those two Israeli solidiers in occupied land (which is lawful resistance)...

Actually, I've already shown it isn't lawful resistance. International law has demarcated that land as not being Lebanese, making it under Israeli jurisdiction. As Hezbollah does not represent the government of Lebanon, it also has no legal basis on which to make such an incursion in a framework of a war.

It fits every single one of the criteria for "kidnapping"... As you said, "get a dictionary", so I did.

then it's part of the major ransom to get Lebanese land and prisoners who were kidnapped in their own homes (unlawfully, by force, & fraud-wise as 'barginning chips' many of whom have no connection to Hezbollah.

Actually, the three Lebanese prisoners Israel has were captured in Israel proper. Samir Kuntar was captured after killing a man and his daughter, both unarmed civilians, at point blank, the daughter rather brutally. Yehia Skaff was captured after his involvement in the coastal road massacre. Nissim Nasser was actually an Israeli caught spying for Hezbollah. The fisherman, Ali Faratan, also would have been captured in Israeli waters, but that's just a random claim by Hezbollah. He disappeared, and there's no evidence he was actually captured by Israel...

Those are the three men Hezbollah was fighting to have released...

Who cares...

Israel cares, and Israel happens to have the land. Pretty much all relevant parties agree, the land is Syrian. It is a Syrian-Israeli issue...

[javid khan]

Actually, I've already shown it isn't lawful resistance. International law has demarcated that land as not being Lebanese, making it under Israeli jurisdiction. As Hezbollah does not represent the government of Lebanon, it also has no legal basis on which to make such an incursion in a framework of a war.


Hezbollah has members in lebanon goverment, hezbollah can bring millions onto streets inside 24hours, hezbollah control from south lebanon to beirut, hezbollah is as much political party as military with alot of influence in lebanon internal affairs


It fits every single one of the criteria for "kidnapping"... As you said, "get a dictionary", so I did.


lead by example relase palestinains hezbollah will leave yours


Actually, the three Lebanese prisoners Israel has were captured in Israel proper. Samir Kuntar was captured after killing a man and his daughter, both unarmed civilians, at point blank, the daughter rather brutally. Yehia Skaff was captured after his involvement in the coastal road massacre. Nissim Nasser was actually an Israeli caught spying for Hezbollah. The fisherman, Ali Faratan, also would have been captured in Israeli waters, but that's just a random claim by Hezbollah. He disappeared, and there's no evidence he was actually captured by Israel...


Oh what a shame i feel so sorry for the innocent jews killed, have you forget Settler Baruch Goldstein who opens fire on Muslims praying in the Tomb of Abraham mosque in Hebron which killed 50 and injured 170 innocent in 1994 suffering from short term memory loss?

come on now im beating you at your own game



Those are the three men Hezbollah was fighting to have released...



Israel cares, and Israel happens to have the land. Pretty much all relevant parties agree, the land is Syrian. It is a Syrian-Israeli issue...


Controling and occupying other borders is clear violation of international law so it mean it is international issue!!

if this was a election it would have been a landslide thanks come again

[Tallgeese]

Actually, I've already shown it isn't lawful resistance. International law has demarcated that land as not being Lebanese, making it under Israeli jurisdiction. As Hezbollah does not represent the government of Lebanon, it also has no legal basis on which to make such
an incursion in a framework of a war.

Actually Israel declared war on Lebanon for Hezbollah's attack and Hezbollah and Lebanon declare it to be occupied Lebanese land. Also the International Law was never respected by Israel besides, when did the international community and especially USA and Israel in particular legtimise Hezbollah resistance.

It fits every single one of the criteria for "kidnapping"... As you said, "get a dictionary", so I did.

Not really, as long as it's Lebanese-claimed land (which is may well be) then it's not Israel's to hold. It's like saying, "we choose to occupy it from Syria" where the Syrians themselves aren't complaining or laying claims to it.

Actually, the three Lebanese prisoners Israel has were captured in Israel proper. Samir Kuntar was captured after killing a man and his daughter, both unarmed civilians, at point blank, the daughter rather brutally. Yehia Skaff was captured after his involvement in the coastal road massacre. Nissim Nasser was actually an Israeli caught spying for Hezbollah. The fisherman, Ali Faratan, also would have been captured in Israeli waters, but that's just a random claim by Hezbollah. He disappeared, and there's no evidence he was actually captured by Israel...

Those are the three men Hezbollah was fighting to have released...


The Hezbollah list is actually much longer than that.

Israel cares, and Israel happens to have the land. Pretty much all relevant parties agree, the land is Syrian. It is a Syrian-Israeli issue...

I suppose the Lebanese government which claims it to be Lebanese is also a revelent party or is it when you want it to be?

[Yoni45]

Actually Israel declared war on Lebanon for Hezbollah's attack

Correct. Any capture of soldiers after that declaration of war would have been legitimate [actually it would have been questionable, but regardless]. Beforehand, it wasn't, making the kidnapping definition accurate...

Not really, as long as it's Lebanese-claimed land (which is may well be) then it's not Israel's to hold. It's like saying, "we choose to occupy it from Syria" where the Syrians themselves aren't complaining or laying claims to it.

Actually, the Syrians are complaining and laying claims to it. They have never agreed to demarcate it as Lebanese, and their government maps include it as Syrian. The Lebanese can claim it all they want. Just because they claim Alaska as theirs, doesn't mean the US has to evacuate. All relevant bodies, Lebanon included, have either considered it Syrian, or have agreed to Israel's withdrawal from Lebanon as "complete"

The Hezbollah list is actually much longer than that.

Actually, the Hezbollah list is not. Feel free to prove me wrong.

I suppose the Lebanese government which claims it to be Lebanese is also a revelent party or is it when you want it to be?

They're a relevant party. They agreed to comply with the UN resolution that declared the Israeli withdrawal from Lebanon as "complete".

[Yoni45]

Hezbollah has members in lebanon goverment...

Correct, but it doesn't solely control the government, and thus does not have the authority to declare a state of war on behalf of Lebanon

lead by example relase palestinains hezbollah will leave yours

Irrelevant. Not only are the Palestinians in a different situation, but Hezbollah has also stated a number of times they are not fighting for the Palestinians.

Oh what a shame i feel so sorry for the innocent jews killed, have you forget Settler Baruch Goldstein...

Relevance? What does he have to do with any of this? Is he a prisoner on any side?

Controling and occupying other borders is clear violation of international law so it mean it is international issue!!

Actually, it isn't. Not in a blanket manner like that anyway.

[mirza]

Then they should change there name to be realistic.

they ve gave explanation for that before , they say : we defend our country there so we dont have to fight in our homeland

or we are simply "bringing the fight to them"

[javid khan]

Correct, but it doesn't solely control the government, and thus does not have the authority to declare a state of war on behalf of Lebanon
.

no they dont but do they need to declare state of war, they single handidly stopped a israeli advance last summer when lebanon army was sitting in barracks


Irrelevant. Not only are the Palestinians in a different situation, but Hezbollah has also stated a number of times they are not fighting for the Palestinians.
.

you mean to say relevent, hezbollah kidinapped israeli soldiers when israel was attacked gaza strip and it was favour for palestinians done by hezbollah why do u thinl palestinains support hezbollah?


Relevance? What does he have to do with any of this? Is he a prisoner on any side?
.

nice to see you qucikly backpeddle and side step the issue but that isnt going to cover up israeli crimes against humanity which are against all UN resoltuions and genevea conventions


Actually, it isn't. Not in a blanket manner like that anyway.

coming from you that isnt suprsing, i stepped on it this time

[Behrooz Boonabi]

they ve gave explanation for that before , they say : we defend our country there so we dont have to fight in our homeland

or we are simply "bringing the fight to them"

If thats the case where is it going to end? They are invaders no matter what way we look at it.

[mirza]

If thats the case where is it going to end? They are invaders no matter what way we look at it.

that s not my opinion bra , i meant they can come up with all kinds of explanation but any smart enough man can understand the situation as it is

it s just like when they say : might defines right

[Yoni45]

no they dont but do they need to declare state of war...

Yes, they do. Otherwise, what they are doing is illegal under both Lebanese and Israeli jurisdictions, which makes the "kidnapping" label relevant.

you mean to say relevent, hezbollah kidinapped israeli soldiers when israel was attacked gaza strip and it was favour for palestinians done by hezbollah why do u thinl palestinains support hezbollah?

That's still not relevant to the fact that Hezbollah "kidnapped" the Israeli soldiers.

In fact, you admit that yourself in your own words...

nice to see you qucikly backpeddle and side step the issue but that isnt going to cover up israeli crimes against humanity which are against all UN resoltuions and genevea conventions

Again, relevance? We were discussing the jurisdiction under which the Lebanese prisoners were captured, that being under Israeli jurisdiction. Baruch Goldstein's terrorist attack has nothing to do with that, nor does it draw any relevant parallels as he wasn't a prisoner at any point...

coming from you that isnt suprsing, i stepped on it this time

Huh? "stepped on it"? What does that even mean? Occupation on its own is not against international law. In fact, there is international law that deals with how occupation should be carried out...

Feel free to bring forth international law that illegalizes occupation on its own...

[Tallgeese]

Correct. Any capture of soldiers after that declaration of war would have been legitimate [actually it would have been questionable, but regardless]. Beforehand, it wasn't, making the kidnapping definition accurate...

The fact of the matter is, Israel hasn't withdrawn on all Lebanon's land (including the land it claims) & has NOT released all Lebanese prisoners according to Hezbollah's list (which as I said is much longer) & as long as the land is disputed (between Syria-Lebanon) then Israeli occupation of that land means that Hezbollah is laying claim regardless of who is occupying it at any given time. While I doubt they'd go to war with Syria over it (if Israel handed it back to Syria) as negociations can take place more fruitfully with a state that is hardly an aggressor state (i.e. did not occupy Lebanese land).

Israel would be doing itself a favour by creating a Hezbollah-Syria rift by handing over what it already considers to be occupied land.

Actually, the Syrians are complaining and laying claims to it. They have never agreed to demarcate it as Lebanese, and their government maps include it as Syrian. The Lebanese can claim it all they want. Just because they claim Alaska as theirs, doesn't mean the US has to evacuate. All relevant bodies, Lebanon included, have either considered it Syrian, or have agreed to Israel's withdrawal from Lebanon as "complete"

Like I said before, 'relevent' is who you want to be relevent, when you want them to be relevent (in this case the Syrians too) but Israel's selectivity in this game doesn't lay any form of legitimacy. Are you seriously saying that Israel is in effect holding on to land that is Syrian, & 'safe-keeping' while Syria complains that Lebanese (Hezbollah especially) claims are flawed?

Besides, Syria isn't complaining about Hezbollah's resistance (curiously because the Syrian regime itself doesn't sponser resistance on the Golan itself) but as long as Hezbollah's doing their work, I don't see why they should.

Actually, the Hezbollah list is not. Feel free to prove me wrong.

Why don't you watch Al-Manar & check out the list of Lebanese citizens who remain unaccounted for in Israel.

They're a relevant party. They agreed to comply with the UN resolution that declared the Israeli withdrawal from Lebanon as "complete".

& they claim that 23/24 official maps 'proves' that Shebba is Syria & not Lebanese. The Lebanese accused the UN of being bias. Sound farmiliar? Whatever the case, Hezbollah isn't budging as long as the national consensus in Lebanon regards it as Lebanese.

[Yoni45]

The fact of the matter is, Israel hasn't withdrawn on all Lebanon's land (including the land it claims)

Actually, it has, once again according to: The UN, Israel, Syria [who lays claim to the land], and reluctantly, Lebanon.

has NOT released all Lebanese prisoners according to Hezbollah's list (which as I said is much longer)

Nor does it have to. Not only were they captured in Israeli jurisdiction, but were also charged with crimes. You might "say" it's much longer, but you haven't shown a single piece of evidence showing such. In the meanwhile, credible news sources state three.

as long as the land is disputed (between Syria-Lebanon) then Israeli occupation of that land means that Hezbollah is laying claim regardless of who is occupying it at any given time.

Hezbollah can lay claim for it all they want. It doesn't mean it's a legitimate claim. Especially since they're not an authority to be making such a claim. As such.


state that is hardly an aggressor state (i.e. did not occupy Lebanese land).

Haha, Syria didn't occupy Lebanese land? Sorry, that made me chuckle... Try telling some Lebanese that...

(if you'd like, try also telling them that Syria doesn't have thousands of Lebanese prisoners vs the three that Israel holds...)

Israel would be doing itself a favour by creating a Hezbollah-Syria rift by handing over what it already considers to be occupied land.

Or it'd be shooting itself in the foot handing over one of the most strategically important areas in the region...

Like I said before, 'relevent' is who you want to be relevent, when you want them to be relevent

No, relevant is whoever can be shown to be relevant. Israel occupies the land, they are relevant. The UN is an international body that deals with such issues, they are relevant. Lebanon is a country which supposedly lays claim to the land, they are relevant. Syria is a country which supposedly lays claim to the land, they are relevant.

Are you seriously saying that Israel is in effect holding on to land that is Syrian, & 'safe-keeping' while Syria complains that Lebanese (Hezbollah especially) claims are flawed?

That's almost right. Except Israel isn't "safe-keeping" it, it's holding onto it while the Syrian-Israeli situation is being resolved, and Syria doesn't complain, it just doesn't acknowledge any Lebanese sovereignty over the land...

Besides, Syria isn't complaining about Hezbollah's resistance (curiously because the Syrian regime itself doesn't sponser resistance on the Golan itself) but as long as Hezbollah's doing their work, I don't see why they should.

Thanks for making my point for me. Who'se work is Hezbollah doing? Syria's, that's correct.

Why don't you watch Al-Manar & check out the list of Lebanese citizens who remain unaccounted for in Israel.

Haha. First off, you don't even have a link or a specific source. Second off, Al-Manar? You expect Al-Manar to be considered credible in any way?

they claim that 23/24 official maps 'proves' that Shebba is Syria & not Lebanese. The Lebanese accused the UN of being bias. Sound farmiliar? Whatever the case, Hezbollah isn't budging as long as the national consensus in Lebanon regards it as Lebanese.

That's correct. Lebanon was only capable of finding one map showing it as Lebanese, while maps from before, during and after the same time period showed it as Syrian. This ranges from the 1920's all the way to 2000.

As for Lebanon. Once again: Lebanon agreed to comply with the UN decision to acknowledge the Israeli withdrawal from Lebanon as "complete".

[Mohmar 'Deathstrike']

http://www.m-w.com/dictionary/kidnap

"Main Entry: kid·nap
Pronunciation: 'kid-"nap
Function: transitive verb
Inflected Form(s): -napped also kid·naped /-"napt/; -nap·ping also -nap·ing
Etymology: probably back-formation from kidnapper, from kid + obsolete napper thief
: to seize and detain or carry away by unlawful force or fraud and often with a demand for ransom."

The hezbollah attack falls under that. There was seizure and detention, they were carried away, and unlawful force was used... [Israeli jurisdiction, and Hezbollah is not a government body capable of declaring a state of war between Lebanon and Israel]Correct. Therefore, the Israeli police should've contacted the Lebanese police to resolve the matter together, not bombed Lebanese civilians. But since that didn't happen, it was Israel that attacked Lebanon.I know. You also downed their space station. That's why they didn't put a laser beam on your apartheit regime:roflmao3: Love it.


When Israel said it will bomb down town Beirut, Nasrallah said well in that case we use our long range rockets. Israel never did escalate like that? Why? should it be, may be, by a little chance, the fact that Nasrallah did kept to his promises?:laugh4:According to news I got in Europe, Beirut was bombed (many tall buildings reduced to rubble) but no tatgets deep within Israel were hit.

[Mohmar 'Deathstrike']

:roflmao3:

IDF stands for: Israel DEFENSE Forces.
Names don't mean jack crap. It's called the "United States Department of Defense", yet all they do is attack defefenseless countries. During and just before WW2 the German armed forces were called Wehrmacht, which means, guess what: DEFENSE Force

Israel has defended itself from aggressors in more than 5 wars. There goes your "the IDF has no experience defending" assertion.Israel has only defended foreign land occupied by it in 2 wars and attacked other countries in 3 wars. Having said that, I agree that Israel is indeed well equipped for defense.

[Yoni45]

Correct. Therefore, the Israeli police should've contacted the Lebanese police to resolve the matter together, not bombed Lebanese civilians. But since that didn't happen, it was Israel that attacked Lebanon.

I agree with you, and in a (relatively) ideal situation where a nation has control over its country, that's what would have happened...

Unfortunately, the Lebanese authorities do not have the power (and arguably, they also don't have the will) to do anything about Hezbollah...

Further, this would only address one of the reasons for Israel going to war with Hezbollah... (that being the soldiers...)

[Vane]

HESBOLLAH=THe people the army the police=LEBANON.Lebanon is nothing without him.

[MrWanted]

I agree with you, and in a (relatively) ideal situation where a nation has control over its country, that's what would have happened...

Unfortunately, the Lebanese authorities do not have the power (and arguably, they also don't have the will) to do anything about Hezbollah...

Further, this would only address one of the reasons for Israel going to war with Hezbollah... (that being the soldiers...)

You just had to negotiate and do a prisoner exchange. You chose not to because of US who wanted you to get rid of Hezb. But hey that's what you gonna do just like Nasrallah told you on day one:"Even if the whole world comes here at the end you have to negotiate on them".

Ideal situation.....tssss

[Yoni45]

You just had to negotiate and do a prisoner exchange. You chose not to because of US who wanted you to get rid of Hezb. But hey that's what you gonna do just like Nasrallah told you on day one:"Even if the whole world comes here at the end you have to negotiate on them".

Ideal situation.....tssss

again, at best case scenario, this only resolves the kidnapped soldiers issue, which is only one of the reasons Israel went to war in Lebanon...

[Xerxes]

Israel is a Hebrew land, get your facts straight. You should go check up history.

Doesnt this statement make United States, Canada and Austerlia as being the land of Indians and natives. or is that privilige only to be used by Israel.

[Xerxes]

:roflmao3:

IDF stands for: Israel DEFENSE Forces.

Israel has defended itself from aggressors in more than 5 wars. There goes your "the IDF has no experience defending" assertion.


FIVE WARS ,,,,, :roflmao3:

I know the 1948 war and the 1973 war, where IDF practiced defence. Last I checked, the '56 war was a covert attempt along with France and UK to overthrow Nasser and last I checked Six day war was initiated by Israel.

Though I admire IDF's efficiency in that war, nevertheless a pre-emptive strike is aggression or are you suggesting the Japanese defended themselves by attacking US fleet in Preal Harbor ,,,, surely that goes against the teaching of US history. Is German pre-emptive strike against Poland and USSR in 1939 and 1941 to be called defensive war as well.

ohhh I get it ... because you are American, therefore you in your book if the pre-emptive strike is done by America or Israel it is okay ... it is the work of genuis, it is glorious, it is defensive ... like the Six Days War and the Iraqi 2003 War,

while if it is done by an enemy of the free world is merely cowardice and aggression. Like the German pre-emptive strike against Poland and USSR in 1939 and 1941, and the Japanese aggression

[Yoni45]

Though I admire IDF's efficiency in that war, nevertheless a pre-emptive strike is aggression or are you suggesting the Japanese defended themselves by attacking US fleet in Preal Harbor ,,,, surely that goes against the teaching of US history. Is German pre-emptive strike against Poland and USSR in 1939 and 1941 to be called defensive war as well.

Were the US, Polish, and Russians threatening to decimate the Germans and Japanese off the face of this earth, while mobilizing their forces on their borders?

Last I checked, no, they weren't...

Furthermore, if you wish to get technical, it would be Egypt that first broke the Israeli-Egyptian cease-fire by kicking out the UN peacekeepers from the Sinai, the deployment of whom was a condition of the ceasefire...

[Xerxes]

Were the US, Polish, and Russians threatening to decimate the Germans and Japanese off the face of this earth, while mobilizing their forces on their borders?

Last I checked, no, they weren't...


funny that you do refer to the German and Japanese pre-emptive strikes but not to the 2003 Iraq war case .. would that be the case of being biased.

So from your point of view a pre-emptive strike is only allowed if alternative is total extinction!!!! from a German point of view, the Communist Russia threaten the very survival of Nazism. There was going to a major war between the two great powers, Germany striked first before Soviet could fully updates its armed forces. Frankly, it is quit similiar to the Israel case where Israel striked first against Egypt. The difference is that time-domain is scale-up. If the Israel did not attack first in six days war, perhapes a day or two later it would have met a grave threat. Had Germany not invaded USSR in 1941, from German point of view (and quite rightly) the USSR would have entered a war in few years at the time when Germany could not possibly hope to match. Disclaimer: I am not comparing Nazism to Israeli nation, if that what you think I am doing. It is view and frankly in my view a right one.

The Polish question is simply that of pure German arrogance, but I will tell you that German armed forces in 1939 were pretty weak and it was not like Iraq vs Kuwait in 1991.

About the Japanese pre-emptive strike, it is common knowldege that once US imposed its sanctions against Japan the moderate Japanese goverment collapsed and it was replaced by Prince Konoye and later Tojo himself. Not to fight a war against the United States would have perhapes not meant the extinction of Japanese nation - as would have the Israeli case been - but it would been the total exctinction of their empire, their total dependence on America and their submission into a vassal-state. As you may or may not know, FDR made it clear that sanctions would be removed only after Japanese withdraw from Asiatic territories. Now isnt that a decleration war on itself. Sounds a bit like when the Persian emperor in 4th centuary AD telling the Caesar of Rome - Alexander Severous - to withdraw from all their (Roman) Asiatic provinces (Egypt, Syria, Palestine and Asia Minor), because some 800 years ago their part of the Persian Empire. That was a decleration war on itself upon the majesty of Rome.

Furthermore, if you wish to get technical, it would be Egypt that first broke the Israeli-Egyptian cease-fire by kicking out the UN peacekeepers from the Sinai, the deployment of whom was a condition of the ceasefire...

that is fact but that does not mean it is Egypt that stareted the conflict.

who do you think started the Iran-Iraq war???

[Yoni45]

funny that you do refer to the German and Japanese pre-emptive strikes but not to the 2003 Iraq war case .. would that be the case of being biased.

Why would I mention the 2003 Iraq war? I was responding to the specific cases you brought forth...

So from your point of view a pre-emptive strike is only allowed if alternative is total extinction!!!!

When did I say that? Threat of "total extinction" isn't necessary to justify a pre-emptive strike...

I would say a pre-emptive strike is justified if there is an imminent attack that cannot be thwarted in any other way, while a pre-emptive strike would mitigate damage undertaken in that attack...

from a German point of view, the Communist Russia threaten the very survival of Nazism. There was going to a major war between the two great powers, Germany striked first before Soviet could fully updates its armed forces. Frankly, it is quit similiar to the Israel case where Israel striked first against Egypt. The difference is that time-domain is scale-up. If the Israel did not attack first in six days war, perhapes a day or two later it would have met a grave threat. Had Germany not invaded USSR in 1941, from German point of view (and quite rightly) the USSR would have entered a war in few years at the time when Germany could not possibly hope to match.

Well, if the case can be made that Russia would have attacked Germany sooner or later, regardless of any other circumstances, then sure, why not...

The Polish question is simply that of pure German arrogance, but I will tell you that German armed forces in 1939 were pretty weak and it was not like Iraq vs Kuwait in 1991.

Well then, no, it wasn't a defensively oriented pre-emptive strike :)

About the Japanese pre-emptive strike, it is common knowldege that once US imposed its sanctions against Japan the moderate Japanese goverment collapsed and it was replaced by Prince Konoye and later Tojo himself. Not to fight a war against the United States would have perhapes not meant the extinction of Japanese nation - as would have the Israeli case been - but it would been the total exctinction of their empire, their total dependence on America and their submission into a vassal-state. As you may or may not know, FDR made it clear that sanctions would be removed only after Japanese withdraw from Asiatic territories. Now isnt that a decleration war on itself. Sounds a bit like when the Persian emperor in 4th centuary AD telling the Caesar of Rome - Alexander Severous - to withdraw from all their (Roman) Asiatic provinces (Egypt, Syria, Palestine and Asia Minor), because some 800 years ago their part of the Persian Empire. That was a decleration war on itself upon the majesty of Rome.

If you consider it a declaration of war, then it wouldn't have been a pre-emptive strike, but merely a first strike in a war between the US and Japan...

Going by my meter, if there was no imminent US attack that could not otherwise have been thwarted or mitigated than by the Japanese attack, then it wasn't a defensively oriented pre-emptive strike...

that is fact but that does not mean it is Egypt that stareted the conflict.

Actually, I think it does. If you break the conditions of the cease-fire, then you're returning the situation to conflict...

who do you think started the Iran-Iraq war???

I believe it was Iraq who attacked Iran, although my details on that war are muddled at best...

[Tallgeese]

Actually, it has, once again according to: The UN, Israel, Syria [who lays claim to the land], and reluctantly, Lebanon.

Actually Lebanon doesn't reluctantly lay claim, & has claimed it for years. It's possible that the Shebba farmlands (or part of it) is actually Syrian & Lebanese, although the actual border between Syria-Lebanon in the Bekka is by no means finalised, & a 'grey area' exists in some parts. In fact, only recently did Saudi-Yemen solve their border dispute & finalise the borderlines.

Nor does it have to. Not only were they captured in Israeli jurisdiction, but were also charged with crimes. You might "say" it's much longer, but you haven't shown a single piece of evidence showing such. In the meanwhile, credible news sources state three.

Your 'evidence' merely comes from pre-supposed claims that the land itself is Syrian (Lebanese don't agree there) & as I said, it's quite possible that it represents a 'grey line' in terms of the border between Syria-Lebanon.

Hezbollah can lay claim for it all they want. It doesn't mean it's a legitimate claim. Especially since they're not an authority to be making such a claim. As such.

Lebanon makes the claims, Hezbollah merely re-enforces that claim. Their resistance against the Israeli occupation of Southern Lebanon was based on just that but the occupation remains of Shebba which they continue to claim as Lebanese (against a counter-claim of being Syrian).

One UN official (Larson I believe) claimed that only one map (from 24 historic maps) cited the Shebba farmlands as Lebanese, but the Lebanese claim considerable biases & that he used primarily Syrian sources. As such, one begins to ask, does it fall in the 'grey area' that suggests that it may be Lebanese or at least a part of it?

Haha, Syria didn't occupy Lebanese land? Sorry, that made me chuckle... Try telling some Lebanese that...

Since when are you a Lebanese spokesperson? Try telling the hundreds of thousands who demonstrated against the Sinoura government. Syria hasn't occupied anybody, where Israel has. Besides, if Syria occupied Lebanon (as you suggest it did) then it would look more like Iraq, the West Bank/Gaza, or any place that is occupation.

Furthermore, Syria's domination of Lebanese politics can hardly be called occupation. Syrian troops (& military hardware) in Lebanon was actually more of a favour for the Lebanese, as it would have meant that Syria would have been held responsible for Lebanon's defence if Israel decided to launch a full scale assault as it did in the summer of 2006.

(if you'd like, try also telling them that Syria doesn't have thousands of Lebanese prisoners vs the three that Israel holds...)

'Had' is the keyword, but most of the Lebanese prisoners in Syria were collaborators with Israel & they don't belong anywhere else except behind bars. Hezbollah also didn't take out the former SLA members who returned to Lebanon following the 2000 Israeli retreat/withdrawal, even though it was an option, Lebanese courts let them off easy.

PS: Hezbollah's list is longer than three.

Or it'd be shooting itself in the foot handing over one of the most strategically important areas in the region...


:roflmao3:

No, relevant is whoever can be shown to be relevant. Israel occupies the land, they are relevant. The UN is an international body that deals with such issues, they are relevant. Lebanon is a country which supposedly lays claim to the land, they are relevant. Syria is a country which supposedly lays claim to the land, they are relevant.

Supposedly, only when you want them to be. Some Israelis claim the UN isn't relevent & bias & it goes without saying that Israel hasn't applied international law since 1967 (on the West Bank, Gaza, & the Golan etc) nor has Israel applied UN resolutions calling on it to withdraw from ALL occupied territories & even more mundane ones.

That's almost right. Except Israel isn't "safe-keeping" it, it's holding onto it while the Syrian-Israeli situation is being resolved, and Syria doesn't complain, it just doesn't acknowledge any Lebanese sovereignty over the land...

Israel could just hand it over to Lebanon, & let Syria+Lebanon fight it out between them. That would be much easier for Israel to do.

Thanks for making my point for me. Who'se work is Hezbollah doing? Syria's, that's correct.

From their perspective they're doing their own work, from the Syrian perspective, they don't mind resistance, as long as it's not Syrian. The other card is that Syria won't come down hard on Lebanon's Hezbollah because it doesn't want to aggrevate relations with its only friend in the whole world, that is Iran. Keep in mind, as long as Syria-Iran are friendly, Hezbollah's actions won't go without much scrutiny by Syria.

Haha. First off, you don't even have a link or a specific source. Second off, Al-Manar? You expect Al-Manar to be considered credible in any way?

Yes, save for Al-Jazeera & Al-Arabiyah (because of their greater resources) Al-Manar is practically the 'next best thing' Al-Jazeera has more credibility than CNN, FOX, etc & is close to BBCW in terms of quality. Manar is more modest in terms of resources but reports the news quite objectively, albiet with a pro-Hezbollahline (natural since it's their media outlit) no more than Israeli TV channels are. But that being said, there are no reluctant Lebanese claims on Shebba except maybe Fouad Sinoura who is a caterer to Lebanon's mafia lobbies.

That's correct. Lebanon was only capable of finding one map showing it as Lebanese, while maps from before, during and after the same time period showed it as Syrian. This ranges from the 1920's all the way to 2000.

Again, the Lebanese claim that their viewpoint wasn't represented fairly, & that the land (or at least part of it) is Lebanese. In fact, the Israelis are effectively holding Syrian land & doing the Syrians a favour by protecting it for them against Lebanese claims. Syria probably muses while Hezbollah attacks Israel in the process claiming the land as Lebanese, so effectively the Syrians get what they don't want to achive (resistance) & the land is being held by Israel (as occupied land) for their Syrian enemies.

As for Lebanon. Once again: Lebanon agreed to comply with the UN decision to acknowledge the Israeli withdrawal from Lebanon as "complete".

Lebanese claims differ, & the Lebanese government didn't agree to complete UN withdrawal, but said 'except Shebba'

[Yoni45]

Actually Lebanon doesn't reluctantly lay claim, & has claimed it for years...

"Lebanon's claim to Shebaa Farm arose for the first time in 2000, and all published maps from the prior century indicate the land to be in Syrian (or Israeli-occupied) territory."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_Nations_Security_Council_Resolution_425

It's possible that the Shebba farmlands (or part of it) is actually Syrian & Lebanese...

"Israel says, and the UN agrees, that Shebaa Farms is Syrian and not Lebanese, and therefore it is not included under resolution 425."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_Nations_Security_Council_Resolution_425

Your 'evidence' merely comes from pre-supposed claims that the land itself is Syrian (Lebanese don't agree there) & as I said, it's quite possible that it represents a 'grey line' in terms of the border between Syria-Lebanon.

"On 15 May 2000, the United Nations received a map, dated 1966, from the Government of Lebanon which reflected the Government's position that these farmlands were located in Lebanon. However, the United Nations is in possession of 10 other maps issued after 1966 by various Lebanese government institutions, including the Ministry of Defense and the army, all of which place the farmlands inside the Syrian Arab Republic. The United Nations has also examined six maps issued by the Government of the Syrian Arab Republic, including three maps since 1966, which place the farmlands inside the Syrian Arab Republic."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shebaa_farms

One UN official (Larson I believe) claimed that only one map (from 24 historic maps) cited the Shebba farmlands as Lebanese, but the Lebanese claim considerable biases & that he used primarily Syrian sources. As such, one begins to ask, does it fall in the 'grey area' that suggests that it may be Lebanese or at least a part of it?

Except it was up to the Lebanese to provide maps to prove their case, and they could only provide one. Meanwhile, as you can see above, at least 10 Lebanese maps showed it on the Syrian side.

'Had' is the keyword

Actually, 'has' is the keyword.

http://www.google.ca/search?client=firefox-a&rls=org.mozilla%3Aen-US%3Aofficial&channel=s&hl=en&q=syria+lebanese+prisoners&meta=&btnG=Google+Search

PS: Hezbollah's list is longer than three.

Again, provide evidence, still waiting.

Here's a breakdown on the three (+1) that Hezbollah is actually out for...

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/5211930.stm

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lebanese_prisoners_in_Israel

Israel could just hand it over to Lebanon, & let Syria+Lebanon fight it out between them. That would be much easier for Israel to do.

Again, giving up the most strategically important highlands in the region? Fortunately you're not a military commander, for either side...

Al-Manar is practically the 'next best thing'...

Hah yeah right...

"Al-Manar calls itself the "station of resistance" (qanat al-muqawama), and is instrumental in what Hezbollah calls its "psychological warfare against the Zionist enemy[4]in[5],..."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Al-Manar

Yeah, real reliable...

(These are also the guys that claimed that no Jews died in the WTC attacks because of advanced warning... :roflmao3: )

http://www.snopes.com/rumors/israel.htm

Again, the Lebanese claim that their viewpoint wasn't represented fairly

Using their own maps? Right...

[mig21bis]

""Israel says, and the UN agrees, that Shebaa Farms is Syrian and not Lebanese, and therefore it is not included under resolution 425.""


++++ UN does not agree....UN has formed mapmakers team to solve shebaa dispute ( after 2006 summer war ).....which one it belongs....Lebanon or Syria.....Lebanon and Syria says it belongs to Lebanon....

[Behrooz Boonabi]

""Israel says, and the UN agrees, that Shebaa Farms is Syrian and not Lebanese, and therefore it is not included under resolution 425.""


++++ UN does not agree....UN has formed mapmakers team to solve shebaa dispute ( after 2006 summer war ).....which one it belongs....Lebanon or Syria.....Lebanon and Syria says it belongs to Lebanon....

The israeli's lie so much they are not believable at all.

[Yoni45]

++++ UN does not agree....UN has formed mapmakers team to solve shebaa dispute ( after 2006 summer war ).....which one it belongs....Lebanon or Syria.....Lebanon and Syria says it belongs to Lebanon....

First off, Syria has never officially ceded the land to Lebanon. A few officials have made some unofficial remarks, but no official steps have ever been taken by Syria, even though they've been provided the opportunity to do so a number of times.

Syrian government maps still include Shebaa Farms under Syrian territory...

Heck, Syria barely recognizes Lebanon as a sovereign nation... Syrian textbooks describe it as part of "Greater Syria"...

As for the UN position:

UN:

"On 15 May 2000, the United Nations received a map, dated 1966, from the Government of Lebanon which reflected the Government's position that these farmlands were located in Lebanon. However, the United Nations is in possession of 10 other maps issued after 1966 by various Lebanese government institutions, including the Ministry of Defense and the army, all of which place the farmlands inside the Syrian Arab Republic. The United Nations has also examined six maps issued by the Government of the Syrian Arab Republic, including three maps since 1966, which place the farmlands inside the Syrian Arab Republic."

Kofi:

"With reference to the disturbances along the Blue Line emanating from Lebanese territory, I call on the Government of Lebanon and all relevant parties to condemn and prevent such violations. The Security Council itself confirmed in June 2000 that Israel had withdrawn from southern Lebanon in compliance with UN Security Council resolutions 425 and 426. Attacks at any point along the Blue Line, including in the Shebaa Farms area in the occupied Golan Heights, are violations of Security Council resolutions. Respect for decisions of the Security Council is the most basic requirement of international legitimacy."

UN Secretary General:

"The continually asserted position of the Government of Lebanon that the Blue Line is not valid in the Shab'a farms area is not compatible with Security Council resolutions. The Council has recognized the Blue Line as valid for purposes of confirming Israel’s withdrawal pursuant to resolution 425 (1978). The Government of Lebanon should heed the Council’s repeated calls for the parties to respect the Blue Line in its entirety."

[mig21bis]

Un is working about shebaa farms issue.....that is last year result...


UN starts mapping disputed Shaba Farms on Lebanon border
By Avi Issacharoff and Akiva Eldar

The United Nations has started work on mapping the Shaba Farms area on the northern border, using available maps and satellite photographs. The disputed territory, or parts of it, is claimed by Syria, Lebanon and Israel.

The main problem facing the experts at UN Headquarters in New York in their efforts to map the area, is that in talks on the Shaba Farms in recent years, a fundamental element has been missing: The overall territory and borders of the disputed area are unclear.


Western diplomats say the interpretations each side offers on the size of the territory and its ownership are completely different from those offered by the others.

Another issue delaying a solution to the problem of Shaba Farms stems from the disagreement between Lebanon and Syria on ownership. The Syrians refuse to define the borders in the Shaba Farms area, and claim the dispute will be resolved only when a diplomatic solution between Syria and Israel is achieved and the Golan Heights are returned to Syria.

Recently, European diplomats proposed to Israel that it transfer control over the Shaba Farms to the government of Lebanon without waiting for the completion of the UN mapping, as a gesture that would bolster the government of Prime Minister Fouad Siniora. In the proposals, received at the Foreign Ministry in Jerusalem, it was said that such a move would strip Hezbollah's leader, Hassan Nasrallah, of his main argument for retaining an armed force, and would undermine popular support to his claims that Hezbollah is resisting Israeli occupation of Lebanese soil.

The Europeans, concerned with the recent turmoil in Lebanon and the murders of anti-Syrian public figures, believe that with the right timing, such a move by Israel will serve as a great boost for the teetering Siniora government.

Political sources in Jerusalem said no discussion on the European proposal had been held to date.

The mapping of the area comes as part of the implementation of Security Council Resolution 1701 of 11 August 2006, which brought about an end to the second Lebanon war through a cease-fire between Israel and Hezbollah.

In Article 10 of the resolution, UN Secretary-General Kofi Annan calls for defining the borders in contested areas, including the Shaba Farms.

Diplomats do not consider the mapping process to be a preliminary stage leading to an Israeli withdrawal from Shaba Farms, but as an interim pinpointing of the border.

Another problem facing the mapping experts is the fact that much of the ownership evidence comprises deeds from the Ottoman era, in the 19th and early 20th centuries, which is causing delays in effective translation.

According to diplomats, the work of the mapping experts is not expected to be completed before Annan retires from the post of secretary-general at the end of December. Israeli sources maintain that the mapping efforts will take many months to complete.

A western diplomat stationed in Israel told Haaretz yesterday that Annan had asked Terje Roed-Larsen, the UN official assigned to implement Security Council Resolution 1559 on Lebanon, to dispatch experts to map the Shaba Farms area, but this had not happened.

The head of the Planning Directorate at the Israel Defense Forces, Major General Ido Nehushtan, was in Paris recently for talks with senior French military officials on the continued overflights of Lebanese airspace by Israel Air Force jets. The flights have caused tension with France, which deployed troops to the United Nations peacekeeping force in southern Lebanon, UNIFIL. France claimed that the air force overflights pose a threat to its troops.

The chief of the Air Force General Staff, Major General Amir Eshel, met with senior UNIFIL officers in Israel to discuss the same issue.

Nehushtan and Eshel explained that Israel continues the overflights in order to gather essential intelligence on the smuggling of arms to Hezbollah from Iran and Syria. Israel says the arms shipments to Hezbollah are meant to replenish its arsenal of rockets.



http://www.haaretz.com/hasen/spages/794497.html




SECRETARY-GENERAL :

20 July 2006

An international conference should be organized, with broad national and international participation, to develop precise timelines for a speedy and full implementation of the Taef agreement and further measures needed for Lebanon to comply with its international obligations under Council resolutions 1559 and 1680. The conference would also endorse a delineation of Lebanon's international borders, including a final resolution on all disputed areas, especially the Shebaa Farms.

http://unispal.un.org/unispal.nsf/0/e6aeb2d3b10499c8852571b2004d21cf?OpenDocument

[Yoni45]

Un is working about shebaa farms issue.....that is last year result...

They can do that, but until they assert something new as to the situation, their position is still:

"The continually asserted position of the Government of Lebanon that the Blue Line is not valid in the Shab'a farms area is not compatible with Security Council resolutions. The Council has recognized the Blue Line as valid for purposes of confirming Israel’s withdrawal pursuant to resolution 425 (1978)."

[Tallgeese]

Yoni45:


Lebanon's claim to Shebaa Farm arose for the first time in 2000, and all published maps from the prior century indicate the land to be in Syrian (or Israeli-occupied) territory.

That is not correct (from wikipedia)

"Israel says, and the UN agrees, that Shebaa Farms is Syrian and not Lebanese, and therefore it is not included under resolution 425."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_...Resolution_425

Actually it's disputed between Syria and Lebanon, but not being included in Resolution 425 doesn't prove anything.

"On 15 May 2000, the United Nations received a map, dated 1966, from the Government of Lebanon which reflected the Government's position that these farmlands were located in Lebanon. However, the United Nations is in possession of 10 other maps issued after 1966 by various Lebanese government institutions, including the Ministry of Defense and the army, all of which place the farmlands inside the Syrian Arab Republic. The United Nations has also examined six maps issued by the Government of the Syrian Arab Republic, including three maps since 1966, which place the farmlands inside the Syrian Arab Republic."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shebaa_farms

That isn't agreed upon by Lebanese that the land is Syrian, & the dispute actually begins between both countries starting before Israel's own creation. It should be noted that the French wanted to make Lebanon much smaller than what it became.

Except it was up to the Lebanese to provide maps to prove their case, and they could only provide one. Meanwhile, as you can see above, at least 10 Lebanese maps showed it on the Syrian side.

That is far from conclusive, because who ultimately set the borders? Neither the Lebanese nor the Syrians.


PS: Hezbollah's list is longer than three.

Again, provide evidence, still waiting.

Here's a breakdown on the three (+1) that Hezbollah is actually out for...

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/5211930.stm

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lebanes...ners_in_Israel

Again, giving up the most strategically important highlands in the region? Fortunately you're not a military commander, for either side..

Howso? Furthermore, the Golan itself is more strategic, the Shebba farms happen to rich in farming capacity (one reason why Israel wants to keep them). & believe me, if I was a military commander, you'd have a lot to be afraid of.

Al-Manar is practically the 'next best thing'...

Hah yeah right...

"Al-Manar calls itself the "station of resistance" (qanat al-muqawama), and is instrumental in what Hezbollah calls its "psychological warfare against the Zionist enemy[4]in[5],..."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Al-Manar

& they do a good job of it too. They also report the regular news as well. But then again, CNN+FOX are practically the Pentagon's mouthpieces.

Yeah, real reliable...

Moreso than Israeli TV.


(These are also the guys that claimed that no Jews died in the WTC attacks because of advanced warning... )

http://www.snopes.com/rumors/israel.htm

Actually Al-Manar did not convy that, but some Arab media outlits plus rumour stations did. Al-Jazeera & Al-Arabiyah were not among them.


Using their own maps? Right...

Why should Syrian maps be more reliable? Besides, there were French maps dividing territory.

[Yoni45]

That is not correct (from wikipedia)

Feel free to it wrong (burden's on you since proving the opposite would require proving a negative...)

Feel free to show a single reliable source showing Lebanese claims for the land prior to the Israeli withdrawal or news thereof (~2000)...


Actually it's disputed between Syria and Lebanon, but not being included in Resolution 425 doesn't prove anything.

It proves the UN consensus on it not being part of Lebanon.

That isn't agreed upon by Lebanese that the land is Syrian, & the dispute actually begins between both countries starting before Israel's own creation. It should be noted that the French wanted to make Lebanon much smaller than what it became.

Except all Lebanese maps ever since the 1920's have shown the Shebaa Farms to be Syrian, with the exception of one that according to one official was even believed to be a forgery...

That is far from conclusive, because who ultimately set the borders? Neither the Lebanese nor the Syrians.

Relevance? Whoever set the borders, the vast amount of Lebanese maps (with exception of one potentially forged one) agreed with it by placing Shebaa Farms in Syria...

Howso? Furthermore, the Golan itself is more strategic...

Ah indeed, my mistake. Regardless, it gives Hezbollah more land from which to fire. Hezbollah has since laid claim to more areas within Israel that they claim is part of Lebanon in a few of their statements, you know, in case they actually get the farms...

"However, an Israeli withdrawal from Shebaa will have little impact on Syrian-sponsored paramilitary attacks against Israeli forces. Lebanese officials and Hezbollah leaders have already begun making claims to a village called Nkhaile on the Israeli side of the blue line. During a press conference on May 22, senior Hezbollah commander Hajj Mustafa pledged to continue fighting for "as long as there is an inch of land under occupation." Asked if Hezbollah will fight to liberate Nkhaile in the event that Israel pulls out of the Shebaa Farms, Mustafa replied, "This is for [consideration] afterward."14" ( 14 The Daily Star (Beirut), 23 May 2001.)

http://www.meib.org/articles/0105_l1.htm

& they do a good job of it too. They also report the regular news as well. But then again, CNN+FOX are practically the Pentagon's mouthpieces.

Evidence?

Moreso than Israeli TV.

Evidence?

Actually Al-Manar did not convy that, but some Arab media outlits plus rumour stations did. Al-Jazeera & Al-Arabiyah were not among them.

Evidence? I've already provided a [fairly] reliable source stating Al-Manar did. What do you have to show for the contrary?

Why should Syrian maps be more reliable? Besides, there were French maps dividing territory.

Um, they were Lebanese maps, I've already stated that...

[Xerxes]

Why would I mention the 2003 Iraq war? I was responding to the specific cases you brought forth...

doesnt matter why? is that a case of US aggression or not??



When did I say that? Threat of "total extinction" isn't necessary to justify a pre-emptive strike... I would say a pre-emptive strike is justified if there is an imminent attack that cannot be thwarted in any other way, while a pre-emptive strike would mitigate damage undertaken in that attack...



agreed ,.. but then again I dont remember of any imminent attack that cannot be thwarted in any other way from Iraq. Am I correct?


Well, if the case can be made that Russia would have attacked Germany sooner or later, regardless of any other circumstances, then sure, why not...


i like you Yoni ... you are not too hard of a person, you can agree when it is needed regardless of the current mumbo jumbo about who is evil and who is good


Well then, no, it wasn't a defensively oriented pre-emptive strike :)
(Poland case)


couldnt agree more ... again much like Iraq


If you consider it a declaration of war, then it wouldn't have been a pre-emptive strike, but merely a first strike in a war between the US and Japan...

it is figure of speech .. it means that there is no other way but way. As clauswitz said: war is continution of politics. Therefore, when the negociation failed between US and Japan, then for sure there was going to be war.

Therefore, do I have your consent, that the Japanese attack on Preal Harbor was not a cowardice act - as presented by Americans - and there was no other way (much like the six days war) short of becoming a vassal-state to the United States. Ofcourse in the case of Israel - a small nation - it would have its very end, while in case of Empire of Japan it would have been the end of its empire all that she invested herself in the past 50 years. The point is, it is the same situation but in relative.


Going by my meter, if there was no imminent US attack that could not otherwise have been thwarted or mitigated than by the Japanese attack, then it wasn't a defensively oriented pre-emptive strike...


Please think in relative terms .... when I put a noose around your neck and strangel you, i dont have to punch and kick you for you to die. But you must fight me back with all your might to stop me, therefore punching and kicking.

Japan had enough oil only for 2-3 more years after the US cut, after that her large navy - which was her main bargaining chip in the Pacific - would have become obsolete. Tell me what would US do if Iran stops the flow of oil from the Strait of Hormuz. In case of a pre-emptive US strike against Iran, can I say ....

Going by my meter, if there was no imminent Iranian attack that could not otherwise have been thwarted or mitigated than by the American attack, then it wasn't a defensively oriented pre-emptive strike...


Actually, I think it does. If you break the conditions of the cease-fire, then you're returning the situation to conflict...


true ... enough ... but nevertheless it was Israel that started the full-scale war just as inthe case of Iran-Iraq war, where it was Iraq that started the full-scale war, eventhough there were clashes on the border.

If you and someone get into an argument, you as party of two person argument, can take the argument into a higher phase by increasing your tone, the person responds; the you or him can the take argument to a higher level by start pushing each other, then again to a higher level, with a stirke from the hand or a kick, then to a higher level when you are both really get pissed off enough it is all out. You may even kill a person.

The matter of the fact is Israel started the full-scale war against those nations in six days war, doesnt matter if there was casual clashes before and the samething applies to Egypt that started the the full-scale war of Yom Kipper on '73 against Israel even though there was an attrition war before that.

It is all about taking the intensity of the fight to a higher level, which egypt did in 73 and Israel did in 67.

[Yoni45]

doesnt matter why? is that a case of US aggression or not??

Well it matters why, because you alluded to a bias in my previous statement based on less-than-justifiable reasoning :)

http://dictionary.reference.com/search?r=2&q=aggression

I think definition 1 is probably most appropriate for this scenario. I'd say the point on which this can go in either direction would be "unprovoked", which I'm sure we can argue plenty.

If you believe it was unprovoked, then it would be aggression as the rest of the conditions look fulfilled. If it was provoked, then it wouldn't fit that definition... ^^

agreed ,.. but then again I dont remember of any imminent attack that cannot be thwarted in any other way from Iraq. Am I correct?

Correct you are. The invasion of Iraq was by no means a pre-emptive strike. Whether or not the invasion was justified is a different story, but it was not "pre-emptive"...

couldnt agree more ... again much like Iraq

I'd say the two scenarios are quite different from each other, but neither was a pre-emptive strike...

it is figure of speech .. it means that there is no other way but way. As clauswitz said: war is continution of politics. Therefore, when the negociation failed between US and Japan, then for sure there was going to be war.

Therefore, do I have your consent, that the Japanese attack on Preal Harbor was not a cowardice act - as presented by Americans - and there was no other way (much like the six days war) short of becoming a vassal-state to the United States. Ofcourse in the case of Israel - a small nation - it would have its very end, while in case of Empire of Japan it would have been the end of its empire all that she invested herself in the past 50 years. The point is, it is the same situation but in relative.

It still wouldn't be a pre-emptive strike, as there was no American threat of attack that could be mitigated by that strike.

Can the attack be justified by other means? Sure. Pre-empting an enemy attack isn't the only "legitimate" reason for attacking "first"...

Please think in relative terms .... when I put a noose around your neck and strangel you, i dont have to punch and kick you for you to die. But you must fight me back with all your might to stop me, therefore punching and kicking.

Japan had enough oil only for 2-3 more years after the US cut, after that her large navy - which was her main bargaining chip in the Pacific - would have become obsolete. Tell me what would US do if Iran stops the flow of oil from the Strait of Hormuz. In case of a pre-emptive US strike against Iran, can I say ....

These would be arguments for the legitimization of an attack against the US or a US strike against Iran... Same idea as above... (As for the noose analogy, placing a noose around one's neck is an obvious case of assault, which doesn't require actual physical harm, but merely the threat of harm :))

true ... enough ... but nevertheless it was Israel that started the full-scale war just as inthe case of Iran-Iraq war, where it was Iraq that started the full-scale war, eventhough there were clashes on the border.

Yes, perhaps Israel was the one that "initiated" a "full-scale" war, however, there is more than enough evidence to conclude this was done to preempt an Egyptian "initiation" of that full scale war that would result in a clearly lost Israeli advantage...

The other general argument rests on a technicality that Israel "hit first", well, if we go by technicalities, my point is that Egypt broke the cease-fire first... ^^

(if we go past technicalities and examine that situation, then it becomes clear that this was a pre-emptive strike...)

[mango994]

Sheeba was conquered from Syria in '67, yet its future is to be discussed with Syria. Sheeba is Syria's according to the UN.

But sheeba is a mere excuse. The Hizbolla will not cease even when it gets Sheeba and all of its prisoners. Hizbolla is Iran's hand, in a coalition with Syria and Palestine. We're not that innocent to think that Hizbolla will simply leave the game when it gets sheeba... they'll keep fighting against Israel forever.
The struggle between Israel and Hizbolla is eternal, and no arrangements over lands and prisoners will end it. This war will continue until one is destroyed.

[Tallgeese]

Feel free to it wrong (burden's on you since proving the opposite would require proving a negative...)

Feel free to show a single reliable source showing Lebanese claims for the land prior to the Israeli withdrawal or news thereof (~2000)...

You have to get Lebanese sources, since the propaganda is undermining the issue. Keep in mind, the Lebanese governments (led by Harriri) didn't show as much concern for the occupied Southern Lebanon, while the Christians were more concerned about the SLA, & Harriri was more concerned about making profits in Beruit. Belatedly did he contgrate Hezbollah's resistance, as it has the support of the people who matter, that is the population of Lebanon who (or at least most of them) want their land back & that includes Shebba.

It proves the UN consensus on it not being part of Lebanon.

Doesn't mean that Lebanese claims aren't valid, or don't warrant discussion. Like I said before, the Bekaa vally/Syrian border have grey areas, which suggests that part of the land actually belongs to Lebanon.

Except all Lebanese maps ever since the 1920's have shown the Shebaa Farms to be Syrian, with the exception of one that according to one official was even believed to be a forgery...

Actually it's disputed land between Syria & Lebanon (in fact there's also disputed areas in the Bekka vally as well),

Relevance? Whoever set the borders, the vast amount of Lebanese maps (with exception of one potentially forged one) agreed with it by placing Shebaa Farms in Syria...

Not really, Lebanese maps don't confirm the UN claims, just one which was believed to be a forgery but all of them are approximations of the French Mandates in Lebanon & Syria, so the actual borderline is difficult to pinpoint.

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/2/2d/Shebaa_Farms.jpg

As you can see, Shebba is actually inside Lebanon, & the residents lay relevent claims to the land that was occupied by Israel in 1967. It is obvious that there is a land dispute, since the residents of Shebba did work on the land & they are of course Lebanese Shias.


As for Walid Jumblat, well, he was once in bed with the Israelis so we know what he may say today doesn't hold for tomorrow.

Ah indeed, my mistake. Regardless, it gives Hezbollah more land from which to fire. Hezbollah has since laid claim to more areas within Israel that they claim is part of Lebanon in a few of their statements, you know, in case they actually get the farms...

If they actually get the farmlands, & make new claims then they will have no legtimacy to go on from that point onwards. They couldn't care less what the Syrians think or claim, they may as well get into war with Syria over it. The Syrians themselves are in a catch 22 situation where if they say, 'yes it's Lebanese' they will undermine the attempts to retrive the Golan & if they say 'no it's not Lebanese' they'll be under pressure to tell Hezbollah to stop claiming it.

The Syrians prefer to praise anything that attacks Israel regardless of the motivation but you've missed a point.

Let me ask you, WHY do you think Syria hasn't sponsered resistance on the Golan?


Evidence? I've already provided a [fairly] reliable source stating Al-Manar did. What do you have to show for the contrary?

I watch Al-Manar, & I never found this point to be expressed by Al-Manar (except some viewers or guests who believed so) so what evidence do you have except selective sources.

Um, they were Lebanese maps, I've already stated that...

It's not what the residents of Shebba claim.

[Yoni45]

You have to get Lebanese sources, since the propaganda is undermining the issue. Keep in mind, the Lebanese governments (led by Harriri) didn't show as much concern for the occupied Southern Lebanon, while the Christians were more concerned about the SLA, & Harriri was more concerned about making profits in Beruit. Belatedly did he contgrate Hezbollah's resistance, as it has the support of the people who matter, that is the population of Lebanon who (or at least most of them) want their land back & that includes Shebba.

So in other words, you are incapable of finding a single example of Lebanon claiming Shebaa farms before 2000? (or say, 1999 just to be safe?)

Yeah, I didn't think so.

Doesn't mean that Lebanese claims aren't valid, or don't warrant discussion. Like I said before, the Bekaa vally/Syrian border have grey areas, which suggests that part of the land actually belongs to Lebanon.

It received discussion. Lebanon brought 1 map that was believed to be a forgery to support its position, while the UN found at least 10 Lebanese maps, as well as numerous other maps that placed Shebaa Farms within Syrian borders.

Actually it's disputed land between Syria & Lebanon (in fact there's also disputed areas in the Bekka vally as well),

That has nothing to do with the fact that:

"Except all Lebanese maps ever since the 1920's have shown the Shebaa Farms to be Syrian, with the exception of one that according to one official was even believed to be a forgery..."

Not really, Lebanese maps don't confirm the UN claims, just one which was believed to be a forgery but all of them are approximations of the French Mandates in Lebanon & Syria, so the actual borderline is difficult to pinpoint.

As you can see, Shebba is actually inside Lebanon, & the residents lay relevent claims to the land that was occupied by Israel in 1967. It is obvious that there is a land dispute, since the residents of Shebba did work on the land & they are of course Lebanese Shias.

:roflmao3: :roflmao3: :roflmao3:

I'm sorry, but did you just bring some random map of Lebanon that isn't even cited or dated as evidence that Lebanese maps don't show the farms in Syria?

Wow. I think I should stick with debating Xerxes...

If they actually get the farmlands, & make new claims then they will have no legtimacy to go on from that point onwards.

Thanks for agreeing. They did the same thing in 2000 with Shebaa Farms, which were never an issue before Israel decided to withdraw from southern Lebanon...

Let me ask you, WHY do you think Syria hasn't sponsered resistance on the Golan?

Because they'd rather use Lebanon as a punching bag so what happened over the summer in Lebanon doesn't happen to them? (especially since it'd be much worse since Syria as a country would be the one attacked...)

I watch Al-Manar, & I never found this point to be expressed by Al-Manar (except some viewers or guests who believed so) so what evidence do you have except selective sources.

Haha, amazing. You now expect the fact that you "watch" Al-Manar and didn't notice that report to be evidence of that report not being broadcast by Al-Manar?

http://www.google.ca/search?client=firefox-a&rls=org.mozilla%3Aen-US%3Aofficial&channel=s&hl=en&q=al+manar+jews+4000+work+9%2F11&meta=&btnG=Google+Search

Plenty of sources confirm it, many (relatively) reliable ones including:

http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2002/09/04/60II/main520768.shtml

http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=35516

http://www.newsmax.com/archives/articles/2006/9/5/160156.shtml?s=lh

Now again, what evidence do you have that this wasn't Al-Manar's incredible standards of journalism that let this gem slip by?

[mig21bis]

Flashpoint farmland


Lebanon's prime minister has been in Britain seeking support in a land row, writes Brian Whitaker

Wednesday May 10, 2006
Guardian Unlimited

The Lebanese prime minister, Fuad Siniora, has just ended a three-day visit to London that included talks with Tony Blair. Among other things, Mr Siniora was seeking Britain's help over the obscure but thorny issue of the Shebaa Farms, a contentious bit of territory where the borders of Lebanon, Syria and Israel meet.

The farmland covers a mere 25 square miles on the western slopes of Mount Hermon, and both Lebanon and Syria insist that it is Lebanese. The United Nations begs to differ.

Israeli forces moved into the Shebaa Farms during the 1967 war, though according to Mr Siniora they did not take over the whole area then but extended their occupation "piecemeal" between 1967 and 1989.

There was not much fuss about it at the time, Mr Siniora told British journalists at a breakfast meeting yesterday, because the area was of interest onlly to goats and smugglers.

Article continues
The real problem began in 2000, when Israel decided to pull its troops out of southern Lebanon but remained in the Shebaa Farms.

This led to complaints that the Israeli withdrawal was incomplete and provided Hizbullah, the militant Lebanese Shia organisation, with a reason - or a pretext - to launch sporadic attacks against Israel. That, in turn, led to reprisal raids by Israel and provided a reason - or a pretext - for very frequent Israeli incursions into Lebanese airspace.

At the time of the Israeli withdrawal from Lebanon in 2000, the UN studied various maps and decided that the Shebaa Farms area belonged to Syria and was therefore not covered by security council resolution 425, which had called on Israel 22 years earlier to "withdraw forthwith its forces from all Lebanese territory".

Despite the maps, the nationality of the Shebaa Farms area is open to dispute. The online encyclopedia, Wikipedia, explains some of the complex historical background

"The dispute over the sovereignty of the Shebaa Farms originated with the failure of the French Mandate administrations to properly demarcate the border between Lebanon and Syria. Documents from the 1920s and 1930s show that the local inhabitants regarded themselves [as] part of Lebanon, for example paying taxes to the Lebanese government, but that French officials often expressed confusion on the question of where the border lay. A French official in 1939 expressed the belief that the uncertainty was sure to cause trouble in the future.

"When detailed maps of the border region were finally prepared by the French and British military administration during [the second world war], they showed the region in Syria, but the commission responsible for demarcating the border did not act decisively on the dispute before the French mandate ended in 1946. When the newly formed Lebanese and Syrian governments asked the French government for official information on their common border, it was revealed that almost nothing existed.

"Border disputes arose frequently, leading to the formation of a joint Lebanese-Syrian border demarcation commission. That commission decided in 1964 to include the Shebaa Farms in Lebanon, but apparently no official demarcation of the border actually occurred and the older maps showing the Shebaa Farms in Syria continued to be used.

"The local residents continued to regard themselves as Lebanese and the Lebanese government agreed but showed little interest. However, the Syrian government imposed itself on the region, at one point forcibly replacing the villagers' Lebanese identity cards with Syrian ones. On the eve of the 1967 war, the region was under effective Syrian control."

Although the land itself is of little consequence, resolving the issue is one of the keys to political progress in Lebanon and to ensuring tranquillity on Israel's northern border.

The Ta'if Accord of 1989, which ended the Lebanese civil war, and security council resolution 1559, approved in 2004, both seek to dismantle militias in Lebanon. So far, this has not happened in the case of Hizbullah, which still maintains military control over some parts of the country in place of the Lebanese army.

Hizbullah, which has been undergoing a gradual transition from a militia into a normal political party, justifies retaining its armed wing on the grounds that it is still engaged in a "national struggle" against Israeli "occupation" - which in effect means the Shebaa Farms area and violations of Lebanese airspace.

Hizbullah has a few other demands from Israel too. It wants several Lebanese detainees to be released from Israeli jails and it wants Israel to supply maps showing where it planted landmines in southern Lebanon. These are comparatively minor matters, however. Solving the Shebaa Farms issue would remove Hizbullah's main argument for retaining its militia.

Dismantling the militia, in the words of Mr Siniora, "would allow Lebanon to reach a point where the state could have sole authority in the country". The effect of that would be to consolidate Lebanon's internal stability and enhance its independence by further weakening Syrian influence in the country.

Mr Siniora's strategy is first to persuade the UN that the Shebaa Farms are Lebanese territory, then to get Israel to leave and make Hizbullah lay down its arms - hopefully with some assistance from Mr Blair.

Lebanese leaders, in one of the national dialogue meetings, agreed recently to seek a formal demarcation of their borders with Syria. In theory, Syria should have no problem accepting a border that includes the Shebaa Farms as part of Lebanon, since it has already said it regards the area as Lebanese. It might try to delay such an agreement in order to protect Hizbullah and its militia, however, because Hizbullah is one of Syria's main proxies in Lebanon.

Iran, Hizbullah's other international backer, would also not be keen to see the Shebaa Farms question resolved just yet - especially in view of the looming crisis over its nuclear programme.

Israel, though, is in a position to hurry along the border demarcation process with Syria. Whether the Shebaa Farms area is really Syrian or Lebanese, Israel has no business being there and it could bring matters to a head by pulling its forces out or announcing its intention to do so.

Given the current state of international relations with Syria and Iran, that would not only assist Lebanon but could also turn out to be a smart move from Israel's point of view.




http://www.guardian.co.uk/elsewhere/journalist/story/0,,1771766,00.html







Long-forgotten papers may offer a new road map for peace

*
* Email
* Print
* Normal font
* Large font

Jonathan Pearlman
August 3, 2006

COMMENT

THE key to unlocking the Lebanese crisis may come down to a small plot of land, a badly drawn map, a softly spoken historian and some long-forgotten papers in an archive in Paris.

For almost 40 years, a stumbling point between Syria, Lebanon and Israel has been the ownership of a sparsely populated enclave called the Shebaa Farms, which sits on the border of the three states and was seized by Israel from Syria in the 1967 war.

US Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice has raised the Shebaa Farms as central to finding a long-term resolution to the conflict. Rice has reportedly asked Israel, which does not claim the land, to hand it over to the Lebanese Government as a goodwill gesture. The US believes this could bolster Lebanese Prime Minister Fouad Siniora, who would then be expected to call for an international force in southern Lebanon and assist with the disarming of Hezbollah.

The problem is that the land has been claimed by both the Syrians and the Lebanese — ever since French mandate officials began drawing lines between the two countries over an 1860s Ottoman-era map.

Since gaining independence in 1946, Syrian maps have included the land while Lebanese maps, and its 1000-pound note, put the territory in Lebanon.

To settle the dispute, negotiators have long sought proof to show that the land belongs to one side or the other. Four years ago, while rummaging through government archives in Paris, a historian at the Hebrew University in Jerusalem, Asher Kaufman, stumbled on documents that appear to resolve the dispute.

Kaufman, who bears a slight physical resemblance to Indiana Jones, discovered a set of papers from the French mandate era from 1920 to 1941 that show that French officials in the 1930s had accidentally put the Shebaa Farms in Syria.

The papers reveal that the officials realised their error and wanted to correct the maps, which had been drawn without surveyors or cartographic equipment, but the mistake was never fixed.

After Kaufman published his findings, an editorial in Lebanese newspaper the Daily Star chided the Lebanese academic community and claimed it was embarrassing that the discovery had been left to an Israeli researcher.

An Israeli journalist, Akiva Eldar, urged the UN to revisit its Lebanese resolutions.

"If the Lebanese or Syrians had reached the archives in Paris in time and presented the evidence that Kaufman found, the UN's decision would look very different," Eldar observed four years ago.

But Kaufman's findings were published two years after Israel's Lebanon pull-out in 2000 and were not considered by the UN team that investigated where to draw the border.

At the time, Lebanon presented the UN with a map from 1966 that showed the land was Lebanese, but it was later shown to be a forgery. Eventually, after examining almost 100 maps, the UN declared that "on all maps the UN has been able to find, the farms are seen on the Syrian side".

The Israeli withdrawal was rubber-stamped by the UN and the dispute over the Shebaa Farms put aside for future negotiations between Syria and Israel. But Lebanon never ceded its claim.

Israeli officials have long dismissed Hezbollah's claims to the territory as an excuse to attack Israel, but Prime Minister Ehud Olmert has this week reportedly expressed a willingness to return the land to the Lebanese Government.

Kaufman's papers, which may convince Syria to relinquish its claim, could be the key to peace.





http://www.theage.com.au/news/world/longforgotten-papers-may-offer-a-new-road-map-for-peace/2006/08/02/1154198206054.html

[mango994]

If u want Sheeba, talk to Syria, not to Israel.
The conflict over Sheeba was there before '67.
Israel holds it, and two want to take it. The two must arrange it.

[mig21bis]

Yeah....shebaa farms is between Lebanon and Syria....

[Yoni45]

Yeah....shebaa farms is between Lebanon and Syria....

You should learn to make your points concise...

Let's take a look at 2 excerpts from your two articles:

"At the time of the Israeli withdrawal from Lebanon in 2000, the UN studied various maps and decided that the Shebaa Farms area belonged to Syria and was therefore not covered by security council resolution 425, which had called on Israel 22 years earlier to "withdraw forthwith its forces from all Lebanese territory"."

--Article 1

"At the time, Lebanon presented the UN with a map from 1966 that showed the land was Lebanese, but it was later shown to be a forgery. Eventually, after examining almost 100 maps, the UN declared that "on all maps the UN has been able to find, the farms are seen on the Syrian side".

The Israeli withdrawal was rubber-stamped by the UN and the dispute over the Shebaa Farms put aside for future negotiations between Syria and Israel. But Lebanon never ceded its claim."

--Article 2

Thanks for making my point for me, as far as UN agreement goes, the land is Syrian.

[Tallgeese]

So in other words, you are incapable of finding a single example of Lebanon claiming Shebaa farms before 2000? (or say, 1999 just to be safe?)

Yeah, I didn't think so.

That's because Shebaa was understood to be part of Southern Lebanon (as opposed to a seperate piece of land) & when Israel withdrawal was completed it remained the last frontieer that Hezbollah said was not withdrawn from. It goes without saying that Shebaa was assumed by Hezbollah & the Lebanese government to be part of Southern Lebanon.

It received discussion. Lebanon brought 1 map that was believed to be a forgery to support its position, while the UN found at least 10 Lebanese maps, as well as numerous other maps that placed Shebaa Farms within Syrian borders.

That's not accurate, as Lebanese reside in Shebaa & the town of Sheeba happens to be inside Lebanon, & hence the farmers/inhabitants have been working on this land as Lebanese nationals. As such it goes without saying that the farmlands are more likely to be Lebanese than Syrian unless of course part ofi it actually is in Lebanon.

That has nothing to do with the fact that:

"Except all Lebanese maps ever since the 1920's have shown the Shebaa Farms to be Syrian, with the exception of one that according to one official was even believed to be a forgery..."

Believed, not certain. If the people of the town of Shebaa (that's clearly in Lebanon) you have a grey area that suggests that the Shebaa farms is in Lebanon, & the fact that Lebanese lived & worked the land until Israeli-SLA occupation, as well as ambiguity about the maps that don't consider this fact but were drawn up by Frenchis dividing Syria & Lebanon. You don't expect maps to be accurate, & a 0.5 cm line means several kms on a map so therefore this 'grey area' probably belongs to Lebanon.

I'm sorry, but did you just bring some random map of Lebanon that isn't even cited or dated as evidence that Lebanese maps don't show the farms in Syria?

Wow. I think I should stick with debating Xerxes...

You missed the point. If the town of Shebaa is inside Lebanon, & if the residents worked on the Shebaa farmlands for generations before the 1920s & even up until it was occupied then it suggests that the issue of the land is one between Lebanon & Syria.

Thanks for agreeing. They did the same thing in 2000 with Shebaa Farms, which were never an issue before Israel decided to withdraw from southern Lebanon...

Hezbollah+Lebanese government always assumed that the Shebaa farmlands were part of occupied Southern Lebanon.

Because they'd rather use Lebanon as a punching bag so what happened over the summer in Lebanon doesn't happen to them? (especially since it'd be much worse since Syria as a country would be the one attacked...)

Syria is blamed for Hezbollah's activities. One reason why Israel didn't attack Syria is because Syria has over 1,200+ SCUDs ready to fire, (& about 200 or so launchers) all zeroed in to strike. They didn't expect Hezbollah to have so many rockets to strike at Israel, & certainly not with the sheer veracity that they did. Needless to say, Hezbollah's new weapons from Russia did damage the Israeli war machine, & Israel wasn't expecting such a hit. I reckon Israel will think twice/thrice/ten times before it strikes Lebanon again.

Haha, amazing. You now expect the fact that you "watch" Al-Manar and didn't notice that report to be evidence of that report not being broadcast by Al-Manar?

I don't listen to what is said about Al-Manar, I watch Al-Manar to find out what is being said ON Al-Manar, & I have found that it's been propagaded as a radical channel by those who may have never watched it, let alone regularly. It may be difficult for some, I speak Arabic, not every Westerner or Israeli does & Al-Manar is broadcast mostly in Arabic.

Certainly their 'video-clips' of resistance & so on are easier to understand (when you Hezbollah troops busting an Israeli buncker, destroying an Israeli tank, or pictures of the Palestinian resistance) & so on but that is hardly 'anti-semetic' even if it is anti-Israel.


http://www.google.ca/search?client=firefox-a&rls=org.mozilla%3Aen-US%3Aofficial&channel=s&hl=en&q=al+manar+jews+4000+work+9%2F11&meta=&btnG=Google+Search

Plenty of sources confirm it, many (relatively) reliable ones including:

http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2002/09/04/60II/main520768.shtml

http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=35516

http://www.newsmax.com/archives/articles/2006/9/5/160156.shtml?s=lh

Now again, what evidence do you have that this wasn't Al-Manar's incredible standards of journalism that let this gem slip by?

Actually your sources don't include reliable sources (such as BBCW or Al-Jazeera) granted you didn't stoop low to include FOX news, but as a regular viewer of Al-Manar, yes, they did broach the topic, & some expressed their opinion that Jews were evacuated before the 9/11 attacks, but that's not Al-Manar's official line.

[Yoni45]

That's because Shebaa was understood to be part of Southern Lebanon (as opposed to a seperate piece of land) & when Israel withdrawal was completed it remained the last frontieer that Hezbollah said was not withdrawn from. It goes without saying that Shebaa was assumed by Hezbollah & the Lebanese government to be part of Southern Lebanon.

Right, which is once again, why the Lebanese government, save for one that may have even been a forgery, included Shebaa Farms on the Syrian side of the border...

That's not accurate...

How is that not accurate? Do you have evidence to show that Lebanon did not have Shebaa Farms on the Syrian side of the border on virtually all of their maps as shown by the UN?

...as well as ambiguity about the maps that don't consider this fact but were drawn up by Frenchis dividing Syria & Lebanon. You don't expect maps to be accurate, & a 0.5 cm line means several kms on a map so therefore this 'grey area' probably belongs to Lebanon.

Again, these were Lebanese maps that showed Shebaa Farms on the Syrian side of the border on the vast majority...

You missed the point. If the town of Shebaa is inside Lebanon, & if the residents worked on the Shebaa farmlands for generations before the 1920s & even up until it was occupied then it suggests that the issue of the land is one between Lebanon & Syria.

Perhaps, but in the meanwhile, it's considered Syrian, and is a Syrian-Israeli issue.

Hezbollah+Lebanese government always assumed that the Shebaa farmlands were part of occupied Southern Lebanon.

Would that be why virtually all Lebanese maps showed Shebaa Farms to be on the Syrian side of the border?

Would that also be why after 1967 and before the Israeli invasion of Lebanon there wasn't a single voice that pointed out that Israel is occupying Lebanese land?

Actually your sources don't include reliable sources (such as BBCW or Al-Jazeera) granted you didn't stoop low to include FOX news, but as a regular viewer of Al-Manar, yes, they did broach the topic, & some expressed their opinion that Jews were evacuated before the 9/11 attacks, but that's not Al-Manar's official line.

Haha, a flood of google results, including CBS News is "unreliable"... Burden of proof is on you to show CBS deliberately lying on their broadcasts...

[Tallgeese]

Right, which is once again, why the Lebanese government, save for one that may have even been a forgery, included Shebaa Farms on the Syrian side of the border...

The Lebanese government never acknowledged that fact entirely, & even then the land dispute between Syria & Lebanon stems from the fact that Shebba resisdants (as in people who live in the town of Shebba) have crossed over to the Shebba Farms for generations & that land has been claimed by Lebanese residents of the town, even after it was occupied in 1967. So retrospectively

How is that not accurate? Do you have evidence to show that Lebanon did not have Shebaa Farms on the Syrian side of the border on virtually all of their maps as shown by the UN?

The maps don't suggest that it is Syrian (at least not all of it) but the fact remains that Lebanese have worked it & the town of Shebba is actually INSIDE Lebanon, hence, there is some error in the drawing of the map between Lebanon & Syria. Keep in mind, the Lebanese haven't been able to fully present their case.

Again, these were Lebanese maps that showed Shebaa Farms on the Syrian side of the border on the vast majority...

Not all the maps, & certainly not all the ones presented.

Perhaps, but in the meanwhile, it's considered Syrian, and is a Syrian-Israeli issue.

But it doesn't stop the fact that Lebanese citizens have been working on it & denied since 1967.

Would that be why virtually all Lebanese maps showed Shebaa Farms to be on the Syrian side of the border?

Would that also be why after 1967 and before the Israeli invasion of Lebanon there wasn't a single voice that pointed out that Israel is occupying Lebanese land?

Whatever way you look at it, Lebanese have worked the land ever since the borders were drawn, & hence from their perspective they've been denied the land since 1967. The Syrians may well have allowed them to or by some reason may have offered a land-swap. Keep in mind, it's probably a grey area between Syria & Lebanon.

Haha, a flood of google results, including CBS News is "unreliable"... Burden of proof is on you to show CBS deliberately lying on their broadcasts...

CBS is not objective.

[Yoni45]

The Lebanese government never acknowledged that fact entirely

They didn't have to. Were they capable of producing more than one map that delineated Shebaa Farms as Lebanese?

No.

The maps don't suggest that it is Syrian (at least not all of it)

Let's ask the UN that actually looked at the maps:

"However, the United Nations is in possession of 10 other maps issued after 1966 by various Lebanese government institutions, including the Ministry of Defense and the army, all of which place the farmlands inside the Syrian Arab Republic."

Not all the maps, & certainly not all the ones presented.

Once again, with the exception of one map that may have even been a forgery, every Lebanese map found or presented by the Lebanese showed Shebaa Farms on the Syrian side of the border.

If you dispute this, feel free to provide support proving that as such.

But it doesn't stop the fact that Lebanese citizens have been working on it & denied since 1967.

Many people work in the land of other countries.

CBS is not objective.

As I said, feel free to provide evidence of CBS deliberately miscontronstruing fundamental facts.

[mig21bis]

"Let's ask the UN that actually looked at the maps:

"However, the United Nations is in possession of 10 other maps issued after 1966 by various Lebanese government institutions, including the Ministry of Defense and the army, all of which place the farmlands inside the Syrian Arab Republic."



++++ Lets see news at 12 December 2006.....


"The recent appointment by Mr. Annan of a senior cartographer to “review relevant material and develop an accurate territorial definition of the Shab’a Farms area” was also welcomed."


Strange if everything is known and maps are clear....still they must study issue....



http://www.un.org/apps/news/story.asp?NewsID=20962&Cr=leban&Cr1=

[Yoni45]

"Let's ask the UN that actually looked at the maps:

"However, the United Nations is in possession of 10 other maps issued after 1966 by various Lebanese government institutions, including the Ministry of Defense and the army, all of which place the farmlands inside the Syrian Arab Republic."



++++ Lets see news at 12 December 2006.....

"The recent appointment by Mr. Annan of a senior cartographer to “review relevant material and develop an accurate territorial definition of the Shab’a Farms area” was also welcomed."

Strange if everything is known and maps are clear....still they must study issue....



http://www.un.org/apps/news/story.asp?NewsID=20962&Cr=leban&Cr1=

Odd, I kept looking through your link for a statement in which the UN stated they retract their previous assessment of the Shebaa Farms ownership, yet couldn't find anything.

Just because they said they'll give it another look doesn't mean that negates their previous assertions. The previous assertions and the UN willingness to review it again are not mutually exclusive...

[mig21bis]

Odd....they didnt say either that old statements are so sure that there is no need to take a new look....

[Yoni45]

Odd....they didnt say either that old statements are so sure that there is no need to take a new look....

They didn't have to, re-affirmation of previous statements is not a requirement to their validity.

[mig21bis]

Few days after SC confirmed Israeli withdraw....raised issue :


"At a press encounter after that meeting, the Secretary-General said that he realized that both sides had problems with the "blue line" that the United Nations marked on the ground for the purpose of confirming Israeli withdrawal. But he emphasized that marking a line of withdrawal was not the same as demarcating a border."

+++ http://unispal.un.org/unispal.nsf/9a798adbf322aff38525617b006d88d7/56621ff17e00345a8525690500504533!OpenDocument




"UN to map Shaba Farms
By Aluf Benn

The United Nations will appoint a cartographer to map the precise location and area of the Shaba Farms, Foreign Minister Tzipi Livni reported to the cabinet yesterday.

The status of the territory on the slopes of Mount Hermon is disputed by Lebanon, Syria and Israel and its boundaries have never been precisely defined.
Advertisement

Livni said the cartographer would start working in mid-November from UN headquarters in New York, and not conduct surveying at the site itself at this stage.

The move was decided on following the periodical report of UN envoy Terje Larsen about the implementation of Security Council Resolution 1559.

Israel took over the area in 1967 and sees it as part of the Golan Heights. The UN accepted this position following the IDF's pullout from Lebanon in May 2000 but Hezbollah and Lebanon claim that this is Lebanese territory still under Israeli occupation.

During the recent war in Lebanon, Prime Minister Fouad Siniora said Israel should leave the Shaba Farms and place the area in UN custody until the sovereignty issue is settled.

United States Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice tried to persuade Prime Minister Ehud Olmert to agree to discuss Shaba Farms, but he refused. "



http://www.haaretz.com/hasen/spages/780977.html

[mango994]

You guys keep arguing over Sheeba? lol.
Isn't it clear that Sheeba is just an excuse for struggle for Hizbolla?

[mig21bis]

You guys keep arguing over Sheeba? lol.
Isn't it clear that Sheeba is just an excuse for struggle for Hizbolla?


++++ Excuse yes if that area doesnt belong to Lebanon....no if it belongs....

[mango994]

Sheeba is lebanese, but it serves a mere excuse for war. Hizbolla will keep opposing Israel even when Sheeba will be back and all of the prisoners will be released. They'll always have an excuse- they're the long hand of Iran, not Lebanon's. Will the dog become peaceful to the cat if he gives him his bone back?

[mig21bis]

Sheeba is lebanese, but it serves a mere excuse for war. Hizbolla will keep opposing Israel even when Sheeba will be back and all of the prisoners will be released.

++++ Now you can give me this weeks lottery numbers....you have skills of fortune teller....which one you use.....crystal ball or deck of cards ?





They'll always have an excuse-

++++ Excuse yes not to give land back which doesnt belong to Israel....




they're the long hand of Iran, not Lebanon's.

++++ Hezbollah has different view of this....is Israel also "the long hand of USA" because US supports Israel....?




Will the dog become peaceful to the cat if he gives him his bone back?


++++ Maybe because cat doesnt do with that bone nothing and it belongs to that dog....

[Yoni45]

Few days after SC confirmed Israeli withdraw....raised issue :


"At a press encounter after that meeting, the Secretary-General said that he realized that both sides had problems with the "blue line" that the United Nations marked on the ground for the purpose of confirming Israeli withdrawal. But he emphasized that marking a line of withdrawal was not the same as demarcating a border."


+++ http://unispal.un.org/unispal.nsf/9a798adbf322aff38525617b006d88d7/56621ff17e00345a8525690500504533!OpenDocument


Okay? So he acknowledged the fact that "both" sides had issues with the blue line...

Again, I didn't notice him retracting the UN decision marking the Israeli withdrawal final...

[mango994]

Mig21, you're so innocent.
Hizbolla is fueling the whole world for that piece of land? do u even know that land's size? Nothing.
Hizbolla is allied with Hamas, Iran and Syria on one target to oppose Israel, and none of them will quit the game until we're off. Hamas says it'll keep fighting even if they get 67, jerusalem and all that crap they want. Iran will maintain that too, and so Hizbolla. Nasrallah's interviews point on his interest- Hizbolla is fighting for palestine and iran, not for Lebanon.
And sheeba is their excuse.

[Snauhi]

Mig21, you're so innocent.
Hizbolla is fueling the whole world for that piece of land? do u even know that land's size? Nothing.
Hizbolla is allied with Hamas, Iran and Syria on one target to oppose Israel, and none of them will quit the game until we're off. Hamas says it'll keep fighting even if they get 67, jerusalem and all that crap they want. Iran will maintain that too, and so Hizbolla. Nasrallah's interviews point on his interest- Hizbolla is fighting for palestine and iran, not for Lebanon.
And sheeba is their excuse.

Yep... I cant understand that some people cant see that... After we will give them Sheeba then they will demand that we have to return Golan to Syria and it will continue until we are in the sea...

Mig do you really believe that Iran is wasting billions of dollars into HA to get Sheba back.

[Vane]

guys this thread is about tanls and rockets not about peice of lands.

[mango994]

hehe that's what topics are made for.. to discuss another topic :P

[Mohmar 'Deathstrike']

hehe that's what topics are made for.. to discuss another topic :PHehe, too true.

[mig21bis]

Mig21, you're so innocent.
Hizbolla is fueling the whole world for that piece of land?

++++ Yes they are...




do u even know that land's size?

++++ Yes i know...i have been close there and see it....have you ?



Nothing.
Hizbolla is allied with Hamas, Iran and Syria on one target to oppose Israel,

++++ And Israel is allied with who ?...so what....



and none of them will quit the game until we're off.

++++ Right....they will quit when Israel is off from their land....



Hamas says it'll keep fighting even if they get 67,

++++ Hamas has said that Israel must withdraw to 67 border....



jerusalem and all that crap they want.

++++ Now Jerusalem is crap....




Iran will maintain that too, and so Hizbolla.

++++ Nothing wrong in that....



Nasrallah's interviews point on his interest- Hizbolla is fighting for palestine and iran, not for Lebanon.

++++ ....omg....



And sheeba is their excuse.


++++ Excuse of wanting what belongs to them....



Snauhi :

"Yep... I cant understand that some people cant see that

++++ Maybe you are blind then....


... After we will give them Sheeba then they will demand that we have to return Golan to Syria

++++ Very legitimate issue....and right one...



and it will continue until we are in the sea...

++++ Golan is some kilometers away from sea....i dont see how giving area which is quite opposite direction can cause Israelis end up in the sea....




Mig do you really believe that Iran is wasting billions of dollars into HA to get Sheba back.

++++ I dont know for sure....give me a proof that it is the case in here....

[Vane]

LETS GET BACK TO THE TANK THINGY TOPIC.ALL I HAVE TO SAY THAT I HAVE EVIDENCE THAT THE MODERN ISRAELI MERKAVA CANT SAND INFRONT OF
EGYPT.I am not going to post in evidence here.try talking with the big egyptian boys.