Hezbollah night-vision gear manufactured in Britain

[tw]

Originally Posted by MaggieL

That's not exactly a unanimous opinion, see the link I posted a while back. There's a bigger struggle playing out here, and it's *far* from over.

Yes the war is far from over. But this battle - which is we call a war and that was really nothing more than Israel's seventh invasion of Lebanon - goes to Hezbollah. Hezbollah that exists only because Israel invades Lebanon and because Israel even made enemies of their Shi'ite friends in Lebanon. Hezbollah that exists because the protagonists will not even negotiate - a 'them is evil' attitude that only means more battles - which we will then call wars.

The victor this year is Hezbollah. A victory was so obvious that the Olmert government may fall early to Likud.

[tw]

Originally Posted by MaggieL

That's not exactly a unanimous opinion, see the link I posted a while back.

Your cited editorial is in direct contradiction to what BBC reporters in those Lebanese towns reported. People with whole towns destroyed blamed Israel and praised Hezbollah. It rather surprised those BBC reporters and it in direct contradiction to what you editorial is based on. Your cited editorial says the innocent Lebanese blamed Hezbollah. Yes, BBC did find some with the opinion. But most all praise Hezbollah - in direct contradiction to a fundamental assumption in your cited editorial.

Meanwhile your editorial also has another problem. It assumes the classic propaganda that Iran had a big part in that Israel / Hezbollah battle. They did not. That Iranian connection is hyped only by US and Israeli propagandists. Just another assumption in that editorial that exposes it as misguided and more typical of someone's propaganda.

Once the report implies all kinds of Iranian government control and intervention, then it is obviously propaganda. Iran is nothing more than a supplier - as Nigeria is a major oil provider for the US.

[9th Engineer]

I'm supprised that Israel hasn't just snapped and issued an ultimatum to Lebanon to the tune of 'unless you immediately disarm and disband Hizbollah we will concider you complicit in their actions. If you refuse to cooperate we will be forced to declare war on the Lebanese state itself". At least then they can do this like a normal war. Does anyone have any idea as to WHY Lebanon would not at least demand that Hizbollah change their objective to something that can actually be accomplished like "the removal of Israeli citizens and forces from all post-1947 Lebanese territory". Israel is NOT GOING ANYWHERE, so as long as anyone is dedicated to their complete destruction this is never going to end.

[Urbane Guerrilla]

Nor is there anything particularly nasty, as weaponry goes, about cluster bombs and bomblets, Hippikos. Only those of little experience of war are going to get extra-specially wound up about this weapon or that being used and on whomever.

Even on Fox News, I noticed rather a lot of that going on, even among newsies who seemed old enough to know better.

The weapons all still blast you, get you all bloody, smack you around, and hurt a lot. A good many of them are deafeningly loud as well. I also don't particularly expect rationality about deciding whether it's napalm or phosgene that is beyond the martial pale.

[MaggieL]

Originally Posted by tw

Your cited editorial is in direct contradiction to what BBC reporters in those Lebanese towns reported.

Oh, now there's a big fucking surprise. BBC, eh...how authoritative and unbiased.

Did you perhaps notice who wrote the editorial in question?

[tw]

Originally Posted by MaggieL

Oh, now there's a big fucking surprise. BBC, eh...how authoritative and unbiased.

Did you perhaps notice who wrote the editorial in question?

Well the Economist is so honest and so confident in their statements as to not use 'fucking'. You use that word for nothing but an emotional response. It says much about your grasp of reality - and therefore getting emotional. MaggieL - you have a Gen Curtis LeMay attitude. You see things biased in a right wing perspective. Get over it. Then you will not have to be so emotional as to use 'fucking' when your biases overwhelm the facts.

[tw]

Originally Posted by 9th Engineer

Does anyone have any idea as to WHY Lebanon would not at least demand that Hizbollah change their objective to something that can actually be accomplished like "the removal of Israeli citizens and forces from all post-1947 Lebanese territory".

That is what Israel was trying to accomplish in its seventh invasion; where the Israeli Air Force attacked innocent targets such as Beirut Airport and even northern cities in Akkar province. Israel cannot do as you have suggested because of what happened in their sixth invasion of Lebanon. People are too opposed to what is the ultimate and classic right wing extremist solution to problems.

Meanwhile, Hezbollah is not a significant problem to justify an eight invasion. Hezbollah drove Israel out of Lebanon to end the sixth invasion. Enough intelligent people remember that fact.

Hezbollah's hyped objectives are negotiation points. All sides have extremist rhetoric. Once Israel decides to return to a mentality that permitted the Oslo Accords, then we will all be 'surprised' at how quickly all that rhetoric changes. Since Israel does not talk to Hezbollah and since the US is also so right wing wacko now, then we will continue to hear propaganda type rhetoric about the destruction of Israel and evil Arabs. Unfortunately not enough people are dying so extremist right wing wacko solutions (air force bombing of all Lebanon) are still advocated.

Your post suffers too much from what Peter Jennings worried about. Americans get too much 'one sided' reporting amplified by AIPAC propaganda. Too many confuse pictures and proclamations, stated only for propaganda purposes, with real world intent. You somehow think force will solve things? That is the wacko right wing agenda.

Until negotiations break out, we will continue to hear how evil the other side is. Propaganda. Nothing more. Meanwhile, the UN can barely find troops for a ceasefire because neither Israel nor Hezbollah yet wants to negotiate. A situation so volatile that troops are only entering under a UN Chapter Six mandate - which is an admission that those troops are toothless. A UN admission that neither side wants peace yet. A situation that means not enough people have died. The death numbers must be higher and equal on both sides for negotiations to break out. Currently, death rates are nothing more than death rates on highways - trivial.

Without negotiations, then advocate massive deaths as an only solution. The disagreement is trivial; made only worse because right wing extremists on both sides always see solutions only in war and not in negotiations.

[Ibby]

God fucking dammit, tw, what the hell do you fucking have against cussing and shit? I mean fuck, man, are you like, a total son of a motherfucking bitch, you damn bastard?

..Kidding, of course. Before you freak out at me. I know you regard emotion as an unwanted malfunction.

EDIT: wow, 'wacko' used a buncha times...
Your use of the word 'wacko' shows that you are going for an emotional response... Emotions baaaaad! Bad tw. Go sit in the corner and think about what you've done.

[MaggieL]

Originally Posted by tw

Well the Economist is so honest and so confident in their statements as to not use 'fucking'. You use that word for nothing but an emotional response. It says much about your grasp of reality - and therefore getting emotional. MaggieL - you have a Gen Curtis LeMay attitude. You see things biased in a right wing perspective. Get over it. Then you will not have to be so emotional as to use 'fucking' when your biases overwhelm the facts.

I want to see tw implement a moratorium on his use of the words "reality", "bias" and "facts" until he's able to demonstrate he knows what they mean.

As for "fucking", "get over it" is my reaction exactly. BBC really doesn't have much credibilty with me anymore; sorry if you're still sopping it up. Kind of funny considering how much you mock other news outlets.

So...now...about the author of that editorial...you really think he has less cred on Lebanon issues than the BBC stringers?

Why?

[Hippikos]

Originally Posted by MaggieL

Hezbollah apparently belived they did, since that's what they were doing. That's the great thing about being "the party of God", wnhatever you want to do is OK. Almost "angelic".

You can claim that Israel bombed indiscriminately, but that's not actually the case. You seem to be having a problem with meaning of the word "indiscriminate". Its meaning doesn't include "attempting to avoid collateral damage" or "operating under restrictions as to their use".

However, launching missiles with high-explosive shrapnel warheads and primitive or no guidance systems into a city does qualify as "indiscriminate".

Both sides claim their right on religeous grounds. Most settlers are orthodox Jews claiming religious reasons for their territory.

Cluster bombs are indiscriminate weapons. The fact that they were used proof the fact. It is not my claim, just the simple fact they used it.

Both sides use indiscriminate weapons, albeit Israel on a much larger scale and that's what I meant with the splinter and the beam.

Did you perhaps notice who wrote the editorial in question?

It is wrong because it doesn't fit your high moral world view?

Nor is there anything particularly nasty, as weaponry goes, about cluster bombs and bomblets, Hippikos. Only those of little experience of war are going to get extra-specially wound up about this weapon or that being used and on whomever.

All tough talk from your comfy EZ chair, UG. Come back to me when you find them in your room and back garden. And tell Maggie when she goes bezerk again about these nasty Katushas...

[tw]

Originally Posted by MaggieL

I want to see tw implement a moratorium on his use of the words "reality", "bias" and "facts" until he's able to demonstrate he knows what they mean.

But MaggieL? How then would I categorize each of your conclusions? One thing I can count on. If it is what Gen Curtis LeMay would have said, then MaggieL will probably post same.

Centrist news sources just don't have credibility with MaggieL. Fox News and Rush Limbaugh are considered legitimate fact sources. Same news sources that insisted Saddam had WMDs - no doubts? Same 'biased' news sources that refused to report 'facts' that the George Jr administration knew they were lying when they lied. And that is 'reality'. Same news sources that even condemned the Jersey Girls. Things that BBC, instead, reported honestly and correctly.

Oh my gosh. I just cited 'history' again. Maybe I should also be banned from citing 'history' because 'history' also exposes a right wing "Curtis LeMay" political agenda. That is the problem with facts, reality, bias, and history. Without those words, then MaggieL could constantly post a Curtis LeMay agenda unchallenged.

[MaggieL]

Originally Posted by Hippikos

It is wrong because it doesn't fit your high moral world view?

I was actually addressing tw, who would still rather call me names rather than respond to the question. I think I'll go back to ignoring him now (since he's actually ignoring me); it's a fitting punishment. Far be it from me to continue to try to convince him that he might listen to a Lebanese national rather that his "centrist" (now there's a howler...pardon me, a fucking howler) BBC.

(I guess refusing to use the word "terrorist" at all might look "centrist" next to those who call the Israelis "terrorists". But I think that's a funny place to put your "center". )

There's a difference between using an area weapon and indescriminate bombing. An area weapon targets an area rather than just a point, but in the case of a cluster bomb the area is precicely determined because the weapon is precicely guided to a selected target.

A shrapnel-fiilled high-explosive warhead with no guidance system is indiscriminate; the person firing it has very little idea of or control over who it kills.

Of course, a nail-studden Semtex vest detonated in a pizza shop is an area weapon, but also indiscriminate; even though the human bomb is much more *capable* of controlling who is killed than a Hezbollah rocket artilleryman, he or she simply doesn't care; after all, Allah knows his own.

[Hippikos]

There's a difference between using an area weapon and indescriminate bombing. An area weapon targets an area rather than just a point, but in the case of a cluster bomb the area is precicely determined because the weapon is precicely guided to a selected target.

Maggie, do you have any idea what utter nonsense you're excreting? Although mines are banneed under the Ottawa Treatment, cluster bombs have caused more civilian casualties in Kosovo and Iraq than mines. UN experts found at least 100,000 unexploded bomblets at over 300 sites in Lebanon. Do you really think cluster bombs are precisely guided? The area affected by a single cluster munition, also known as the footprint, can be as large as two or three football fields. Again, you call this precisely? Israel knows exactly what damage cluster bombs do to civillian population. But maybe that's allowed from your moral point of view?

(since he's actually ignoring me)

I see a message from TW just above yours, do you have a selective sight?

[MaggieL]

Originally Posted by Hippikos

I see a message from TW just above yours, do you have a selective sight?

When I put a question in a discussion, my sight becomes rather selective in searching for an actual response. "Messages" there are plenty of, but the noise level is extremely high. In fact, if there's one thing tw is good at, it's noise generation.

An area weapon can cover a large area. But which area that is is controlled.

You can't say the same for what are essentially WW II era antipersonnel rockets, they fly off, and end up somewhere miles away vaguely in the direction it is pointed. There is no way to use them other than indiscriminately. While the area covered by a cluster bomb can be adjusted to be up to the size of football fields, the center and size of that area is controlled.

With Hezbollah's rockets, they can't even control the point of impact within several football fields, nor do they particularly care, as long as it hits something.

[MaggieL]

Originally Posted by Hippikos

Although mines are banneed under the Ottawa Treatment, cluster bombs have caused more civilian casualties in Kosovo and Iraq than mines.

If mines are banned, then it's hardly surpising that cluster bombs are more common, is it?