It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

OK, you've got an opinion? Let's see if it holds water.

page: 3
0
<< 1  2   >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jul, 21 2006 @ 04:06 PM
link   

Originally posted by TheBandit795
Perhaps the control is from both sides?? The global elite have sponsored both sides of the first two world wars to enforce their agenda's of eventual world domination, so why not this one?


REPLY: Way off topic.
Yeah..... an "agenda" of freedom and individual liberty are terrible things to try and spread around the globe.


Ever notice that stable democracies never seem to have wars with each other?




posted on Jul, 21 2006 @ 04:12 PM
link   

Originally posted by Langolier

Absolutely not. However in order to defeat Hezbollah (diplomancy has already been tried and failed, remember that) you must destroy all of their infrastructure. Not just some of it. I wish Hezbollah would start putting on uniforms and fighting out in the open like a respectable military does, but they don't. They wear civilian clothes, man civilian infrastructure, and use the innocent as human shields.

Blame Hezbollah for their inhumane philosophy and tactics, not Israel.



Um, no. They are not destroying Hez's infrastructure, they are destroying Lebanon's. More to come in a bit, as I will show what SHOULD have been done. It goes with what another member posted.



posted on Jul, 21 2006 @ 04:18 PM
link   
Originally posted by intrepid
First thing, I'm stating out front that I blame Hez(Syria, Iran) AND Israel for the suffering of the Lebenese people. The questions that arise:


Could the Lebenese army contain Hez? Appearently not.

The Lebanon army has not even tried ... to talk to the Hezz terrorist. NOTHING much less sent thier army against them if so ... The U N Would have came in and taken are of this problem long ago. What are you talking about ... ???


Could the average Achmed do anything without retaliation to him and his family by Hez? I seriously doubt it. Yes they could speak out and leave the country while this is happening. They could get in protected custody if they really wanted to come out and say something. But they don't because they are getting something out of this. So they take the criticism .. WELL WAIT YOU ARE NOT CRITIZIZING YOU ARE TELLING ME .. AWEE POOR PEOPLE GETTING POOR THINGS DONE TO THEM. LET SOMEONE TRY TO COME OVER HERE and take over Texas .... SHOOOOTTTTT ... WE WOUDL FIGHT FOR OURSELEVES .. if They can't fight for themsleves why the heck are we goign to try and help them out .. The same thing is going to happen again ...

Could Israel have done things differently to handle this situation? DAMN STRAIGHT!

I did a Mapquest search on Syria/Lebenon and there were unoccupied areas that could have been bombed, stopping those routes from rearming Hez. NOT areas that were inhabitted.

Bombing the airport? Hell the Israeli airforce could knock out any Syrian aircraft that was trying to give aid to Hez.

So, Israel has killed infrastructure that the civillians could use to get the hell out of the Dodge, leaving them at the wiles of the competing sides. I wonder WHY?

Thoughts?




posted on Jul, 21 2006 @ 04:24 PM
link   

Originally posted by bombers8


I did a Mapquest search on Syria/Lebenon and there were unoccupied areas that could have been bombed, stopping those routes from rearming Hez. NOT areas that were inhabitted.

What's the point of doing that? You may disrupt the re-stocking of armamnents from Syria and Iran, but you also disrupt the stocking of food and medicince and normal commerce.


Oh, and I'm sure that the destruction of roads and bridges in populated areas were MUCH more helpful getting food and medicine to the populous. C'mon man, use a little bit of logic.

Now, from my last post. The Israeli's could have cut the flow of support to Hez without a prolonged attack on Lebanon. Once the arms started to flow, not like they were doing much damage anyway, nothing could get through. Israel own the sky, now if you aren't intending to occupy, this gives them the option to control what goes where. Hez would be toothless in short order(long range).



Bombing the airport? Hell the Israeli airforce could knock out any Syrian aircraft that was trying to give aid to Hez.

My only guess is that they just wanted to make sure the airport was not used against them.


See my last reply, Israel controls the air, nothing lands or takes off without their letting it.



So, Israel has killed infrastructure that the civillians could use to get the hell out of the Dodge, leaving them at the wiles of the competing sides. I wonder WHY?

My guess is that it was a lesson to the Lebanese gov't that they should have not created the atmosphere that made it possible for Hezbollah to lob rockets into Israel. And it was also a warning to Syria and Iran that Israel was finally putting a stake in the ground that said, enough talk, you've gone too far.


Fine, now it's clear, this is just retribution. :shk:


I have heard mention here several times that Israel is creating the next generation of terrorists. Imo, falling for this line of thinking is to be the ultimate victim of terrorism. To be frightened into inaction because you may stir things up and create more terrorists is pure cowardice. They were never going to be your friend anyway. Giving them the green light to terrorize your citizens because you are afraid of the consequences is exactly what they want to happen.


And this is the thinking 20 years ago that created this situation today. Who will be the next generation? Well, you can start with the family of those killed by Israeli jets this week. Do you think they are going to be OK with what was RAMMED down their throats? Maybe they won't be cowards either.



posted on Jul, 21 2006 @ 04:33 PM
link   

Originally posted by hogtie


I did a Mapquest search on Syria/Lebenon and there were unoccupied areas that could have been bombed, stopping those routes from rearming Hez. NOT areas that were inhabitted.

The poblem with bombing unpopulated areas, is that destroying a road doesn't necessarily provide a choke point. If there are no natural or man made obstacles, then you just drive around the crater. Blow up a road at a bridge or near buildings, it is much harder to move through. Not healthy for the population, but for a military operation it is very practical.


Thus the "free airspace" that Israel enjoys(2000 successful sorties proves that). Jet patrols, strike helicopter patrols. They've got the tech. BTW, I'd wager it would have been less expensive to do this too.



Bombing the airport? Hell the Israeli airforce could knock out any Syrian aircraft that was trying to give aid to Hez.

If the goal is to stop material from coming in to Lebanon by air, this is the only way to do it without shooting down an airplane. No airport, no air traffic. What if Syria packs a bunch of civilians on a cargo plane full of ammo? If Israel shoots it down, its looked at as a massacre. If they don't, Hez has been resupplied. This way, Israel doesn't have to take such a politically dangerous risk.


I don't think Israel is that worried about international opinion. Besides, anything can be "spun".



But the majority of Hez will go with them. Hez just can't slug it out with Israel, especially without politically sensitive targets to tie Israels hands, such as hiding amongst civilians. Before you say that it hasn't stopped Israel so far, to have dropped as much ordinance and have so few civilian casualties is fairly remarkable. Also remember that the trend is to list all casualties as civilian. Its the trend in the ME, and also a legitimate propiganda weapon for them to use. I've accepted that's what they do and see its value. I don't understand why others don't see it at all. So most of Hez goes north, can't take their gear because Israel is watching from the skies, Israel goes in and desroys hardware left behind, or better yet finds new hardware supplied by Syria and Iran.

Good topic.


I hope you're right.

Good post btw.



posted on Jul, 21 2006 @ 04:45 PM
link   

Originally posted by missed_gear

Originally posted by intrepid

Rocket attacks and other such have been occuring for the last 6 years.

Links please? It has been a tired arguement, without substance.


There is a great deal of fault by the ‘press’ on this issue.
Concerning an AP article (one instance):


Perhaps most surprising is that the word "Katyusha" is not mentioned even once on the timeline. The thousands of Katyusha rockets fired at Israel from Lebanon, which for years terrified and traumatized residents of northern Israel forced to spend their days in bomb shelters, are certainly a key part of the Lebanon-Israel conflict and vital to understanding Israel's retaliations/invasions/attacks. CAMERA (Committee for Accuracy in Middle East Reporting in Ameriaca)


Good source for errors and corrections (which often go unread) and points to bias in media coverage through a fairly systematic/thorough approach. Such as:



Reading through some sites/organizations/bias that deal with media corrections, retractions and errors shows a differing light on many, many reports coming from the ME (and elsewhere).

mg


mg


Thank you for the link. You will note though, from YOUR source, that there was a six year hiatus of munitions being fired at Israel. That's what I've been saying all along.


Oct. 7, 2000: Hezbollah attacks an Israel military post and raids Israel, kidnapping three Israeli soldiers. The soldiers are later assumed dead. In mid-October, Hezbollah leader Nasrallah announces the group has also kidnapped an Israeli businessman. In 2004, Israel frees over 400 Arab prisoners in exchange for the business man and the bodies of the three soldiers.

March 1, 2001: The British government adds Hezbollah’s "military wing" to its list of outlawed terrorist organizations.

Dec. 11, 2002: Canada lists Hezbollah as a terrorist organization.

June 5, 2003: Australia lists Hezbollah’s "military wing" as a terrorist organization.

Sept. 2, 2004: United Nations Security Council Resolution 1559 calls for "the disbanding and disarmament of all Lebanese and non-Lebanese militias," a reference to Hezbollah.

December 2004: Both the United States and France ban Hezbollah’s satellite television network, Al Manar. A U.S. State Department spokesman notes the channel "preaches violence and hatred."

March 10, 2005: The European Parliament overwhelmingly passes a resolution stating: "Parliament considers that clear evidence exists of terrorist activities by Hezbollah. The (EU) Council should take all necessary steps to curtail them." The European Union nonetheless refrains from placing the group on its list of terror organizations.

July 12, 2006: Hezbollah attacks Israel with Katyushas, crosses the border and kidnaps two Israeli soldiers. Eight other soldiers are killed. Israel launches operation to rescue the soldiers and push Hezbollah from its border. Hezbollah attacks towns across northern Israel with rocket fire.



posted on Jul, 21 2006 @ 04:59 PM
link   

from intrepid
More to come in a bit, as I will show what SHOULD have been done. It goes with what another member posted.

Thanks a lot, intrepid...I just love being the class example!





Originally posted by intrepid
Oh, and I'm sure that the destruction of roads and bridges in populated areas were MUCH more helpful getting food and medicine to the populous. C'mon man, use a little bit of logic.

The infrastructure destruction was intentional. It was part of Israel's plan to extend a buffer zone into southern Lebanon.


The Israeli's could have cut the flow of support to Hez without a prolonged attack on Lebanon. Once the arms started to flow, not like they were doing much damage anyway, nothing could get through. Israel own the sky, now if you aren't intending to occupy, this gives them the option to control what goes where. Hez would be toothless in short order(long range).

To accomplish this would require that Israel occupy Lebanon, because otherwise, it is too easy to ship armaments among civilian traffic, air or otherwise. And I do not think that Israel intends to occupy Lebanon. They know how much they can get away with; destruction is one thing, occupation quite another.


Fine, now it's clear, this is just retribution. :shk:

People can still get out of Dodge; witness all the evacuees on their way to Cyprus. And there is auto traffic out of Lebanon, also. Yesterday was a story about some American students who got to Syria from Beirut via bus.

What is much more difficult now is the re-stocking of arms by Hezbollah.


And this is the thinking 20 years ago that created this situation today. Who will be the next generation? Well, you can start with the family of those killed by Israeli jets this week. Do you think they are going to be OK with what was RAMMED down their throats? Maybe they won't be cowards either.

What created today's situation was not cowering in a corner because of fear of upsetting the terrorists. It had nothing to do with that attitude.

I stand by my assessment: if you fail to act because you are afraid of reaction, then you are a true victim of terrorism. Hezbollah is not interested in peace or negotiation. They are only interested in driving Israel into the sea.



posted on Jul, 21 2006 @ 05:24 PM
link   

Originally posted by intrepid

Good post btw.


Thanks. It will take historians decades to sort the whole mess after this, the whole ME crisis, is all over, if there is anything left to sort through. Politics and subterfuge make it almost impossible to apply common sense to any of it, at this point.

This is off topic, but I want to go on the record by predicting that Sec State Rice will be crucial in brokering a resolution, something substantial and lasting that guts Hez, and she will run for President based on a ME peace success that even Clinton could not achieve. Just a thought, and maybe more suited for ATS, but stranger things have been arranged. Interesting way for Israel to guaruntee that there will be a pro-Israeli president in 2008.



posted on Jul, 22 2006 @ 01:03 PM
link   

Originally posted by intrepid
Thank you for the link. You will note though, from YOUR source, that there was a six year hiatus of munitions being fired at Israel. That's what I've been saying all along.


No…there was not a six year “hiatus”.

…and I explained the source’s purpose previously; what you chose was merely a “archived piece” from a larger article that explains how the AP’s time line is rife with bias.

The timeline you cite was the response from CAMERA that mirrored the biased AP’s timeline “for major events”. Also pointed out by my source that the AP time line of “major events” is by mo means exhaustive and shows Israel in an improper light…the timeline you cite was RE-written for that purpose only by CAMERA for comparison, (see Update July 17, 2006, article from the same home page, they are linked under a topic header) with the following important observations:


Ostensibly, the July 12 timeline provides historical context to the latest outbreak of hostilities. In fact, it distorts the history of conflict between the two sides, focusing almost exclusively on Israel's response to aggression from Lebanon while ignoring Palestinian and Lebanese assaults:
-[snip]-
Virtually every entry starts by naming Israel as the actor–"Israeli forces invade..."; "Israeli invades again..."; "the Israeli army moves into Beirut..."; "Israeli troops abduct Lebanese guerrilla..."; etc. By contrast, no aggressor is specified for the "attack on an Israeli bus" in 1978, nor the "guerrilla attacks" in 1996. Likewise, using the passive voice in the 1997 entry, AP avoids naming the killers of the Israeli soldiers.
-[snip]-
More recent Hezbollah attacks are ignored as well. The fatal July 2004 attack, and Hezbollah assaults on May 28, 2006, Feb. 3, 2006, Nov. 21, 2005 (to name a few) are not on the AP timeline.
Source Page

A copy of the AP timeline can be found through the link above as well so you can compare the ‘verbage’.

This is MY point:

The source I cite explains how prolific the bias in ME news is from many sources…and not just concerning Israel. Failure to recognize Hezbollah for 'minor'/other events ...such as the thwarted kidnapping attempt of IDF soldiers in Dec 2005, daily rocket attacks, suicide bombings, arming the West Bank, smuggling weapons, etc...all undermine the peace process while Israel is labled the agressor by the 'press'. The omissions about Hezbollah and focus on Israel is causing the confusion through poor reporting/distortion of fact (as pointed out many times above).

Sadly, people believe the front page and move on...

This same bias is reflected (regurgitated) in some of the many views on this board. But importantly to answer your original question, I’ll repeat that which also reflects as to the remainder of the above biased AP timeline you have chosen:


Perhaps most surprising is that the word "Katyusha" is not mentioned even once on the timeline. The thousands of Katyusha rockets fired at Israel from Lebanon, which for years terrified and traumatized residents of northern Israel forced to spend their days in bomb shelters, are certainly a key part of the Lebanon-Israel conflict and vital to understanding Israel's retaliations/invasions/attacks.


Here is an example of both a distortion and misrepresentation of events that occurred against Israel by Hezbollah in 2004.

mg



posted on Jul, 22 2006 @ 10:31 PM
link   
Well then, could you provide me with a true account on these "daily bombings" then? 2000 to 2006 should suffice.



posted on Jul, 23 2006 @ 11:22 AM
link   

Originally posted by intrepid
Well then, could you provide me with a true account on these "daily bombings" then? 2000 to 2006 should suffice.


“Daily” has never been used in any of my statements…has Hezbollah instigated attacks over the “last six years”?….absolutely!….via rockets, suicide bombers, mortars, antitank attacks, previous attempts to capture and ransom IDF soldiers, anti-aircraft fire etc.

When searching, one should easily find evidence of Hezbollah instigated attacks occurring during the mentioned period. Also, the information and just the few dates listed in the links I have provided should suffice as evidence of attacks after 2000.

As for a “true account”...unfortunately Media “watch” groups exist because of the inaccuracies and flagrant bias in today’s reporting from major media outlets. The more sources taken into account, the clearer the picture becomes…which is often not the one originally presented. In this case, you will find errors in many reports wrongfully labeling Israel as the agressor and the agressons of Hezbollah omitted (my earlier evidenced point).



mg



posted on Jul, 23 2006 @ 01:59 PM
link   
For what it's worth, this is my opinion.
It's a photo from the BBC website.

It happens to be in Beirut, but it needn't be just there, I'm sure this could just as likely be from Haifa, or indeed from any other city on Earth come to that. No idea what happened to the kid, or his parents, or the people next door, the people from up the street ...



That's my opinion, right there in that one picture.

[edit for spelling !]

[edit on 23-7-2006 by 0951]



posted on Jul, 24 2006 @ 08:29 PM
link   
Ok, if I say something that's already been said, sorry, I'm groggy from not sleeping, and yeah.


I have to agree with alot of the people posting, Israel could have done things a whole h*** of a lot better.

When this whole thing started, and even now, I've had this feeling that Israel's trying to invade ant take over lebanon, and make lebanon a part of Israel, now I'm not sure how realistic that is, but it's a feeling I have deep down.


EDIT:
Fixed spelling and removed overly sobering suggestion.

[edit on 7/24/2006 by iori_komei]



posted on Jul, 25 2006 @ 07:47 AM
link   
Hezbollah provocked this current round of fighting, and did it with malicious intent. They most emphatically do not care if Lebanon is destroyed around them, so long as they can score their little political points with the Arab world "oooh look what those evil Jews are doing to poor little us..." or something along those lines. If they cared about the Lebonese who surround them, they wouldn't be hiding in amongst them, now would they?

What was Israel supposed to do? You can only turn the cheek so many times. They've tried to negotiate, remember Camp David, Mr. Clintons attempts, and many other attempts. They've pulled out of previously occupied territory, now Hezzbollah, or Hamas, or whoever are using that area to launch their rocket attacks. I repeat, what was Israel supposed to do?Negotiate...they are weak. Attack...they are evil incarnate. No matter what they do, they will lose in the court of public opinion...it's just as well that they really couldn't care less what the rest of the world thinks...

Let's mourn the innocents...they did nothing to deserve this. If blame is to be placed, lets place squarely where it belongs...on Hezzbollah and their odious ilk.



posted on Jul, 25 2006 @ 08:15 AM
link   
I believe Israel's operations have two primary intentions: prevent the movement, operations and re-supply of Hezbollah and demonstrate to the Lebanese government the cost of not controlling Hezbollah. As an example of the latter point consider the bombing of the banks. Some banks known to act as treasuries for Hezbollah have been destroyed outright --- including the home of at least one of their bank managers. Other banks that had lesser roles were intentionally damaged. After the dust settles and a Hezbollah operative comes into a bank looking to establish a working relationship I would suspect far fewer banks will take that risk. Money is key. If Israel plays its cards right it will take a major, visible role in helping Lebanon rebuild. Not that the inevitable backlash from this can be averted but perhaps at least mitigated to some extent.



posted on Jul, 25 2006 @ 09:02 AM
link   
With any luck these idiots (both sides) will wipe each other out.That way our friendly corporations of haliburton, coca cola, kraft, boeing, lockheed martin, shell, nike, etc. can get on with improving our lives and advancing the glorius imperium of the new world order, without the hindrance of backwards natives clogging up the works........I only wish i could be here a few hundred years from now to hear tribal elders telling cautionary fairy tales of great and mysterious civilisations that destroyed themselves because of ignorance and greed, hatred and intolerance, etc.
Humanity sucks, and we deserve everything we get, especially the outcome of this burgeoning insanity that will no doubt be remembered as the precursor to all out WW3, because we demanded nothing of our leaders to stop it.
To hell with all of us, and good riddance.



posted on Jul, 25 2006 @ 04:10 PM
link   
I've been thinking about the best answer for what Israel could have done, and I've come up with it...They should move the country to Europe, or somewhere that actually does'nt want to destroy them.



new topics

top topics



 
0
<< 1  2   >>

log in

join