Stratovarius Community

Posted: **Tue Jul 18, 2006 4:03 am**

NeonVomit wrote:
miditek wrote: Lebanon is not a potential threat, but Hezbollah is a real one. Iranian Revoltionary Guards are also on the ground in Southern Lebanon, and should be dealt with accordingly.

NeonVomit wrote:Right, so Lebanon is not the target here. We've established that, right? Iranian links are tentative, Iran has obviously denied the accusations, but no it's not hard to imagine those maniacs getting involved somehow.
Correct. Israel has no quarrel with Lebanon, and certainly not its civilian population, and I'll elaborate further in a moment.

One of the primary objectives of defeating an enemy is to:

a) Cut his supply chains (such as the airport, sea
ports, and the highways)

b) Stop his mobility (again, this is from the air,
land, and sea)

c) Break his will to fight, although the latter certainly takes time.

NeonVomit wrote:So take out the civilian infrastructure? If Lebanon is not a target, try looking up casualty figures. Something like 5 or 6 Hizbollah militants have been killed so far, against almost 200 Lebanese civilians and soldiers.
The civilian infrastructure (airport, seaports, and
highways) are also obviously being used by Hezbollah for manuvering as well as for logistics and supply.
Unfortunately, this makes the infrastructure a legitimate military target. While it is not fair, it is war. To defeat the enemy, you must destroy his capacity to wage war.

It's likely that Hezbollah casualty figures are much higher than is being reported. Neither you nor I really know the actual death toll of Hezbollah members, but with the amount of ordance that is being dropped, I believe that it's safe to say that the toll is much higher. The IDF are much better shots that al-Jazeera or the BBC gives them credit for.

NeonVomit wrote:How is this possibly justifiable? It shows Israel simply disregards civilians and treats everyone as a target. Just like Hizbollah does. So, they're lowering themselves to the terrorists' level. What have Lebanese civilians done to deserve this treatment and having their country put 20 years back?
If Israel were truly indiscriminately targeting civilians, then the death toll would be significantly higher among the civilian population. Hezbollah prefers to setup its CP's (Command Posts) and HQ in heavily populated civilian areas. The use of human shields is a well known trick that Hezbollah learned from Uncle Adolf and Uncle Saddam, and they can scarcely conceal their glee when they parade the civilian dead up and down the streets of Beirut and Ramallah as "proof" of Israel's barbarism.

The Lebanese civilians, in my opinion, should not be used as pawns or as an excuse not to deal severly with Hezbollah.

NeonVomit wrote:I had to re-read that sentence about 4 or 5 times because I couldn't believe what it said. I thought you'd made a typing error or something. May I remind you we speak of innocent civilians here. Like, people like you and me and stuff who go to work and function in society and things.

Terrorists see the killing of civilians as necessary, which is why they do it. Therefore, with this thinking, you justify their conclusions. That's like so unbelievably messed up I cannot comprehend it. Please reconsider what you've written. Because it reads as incredibly cruel and misanthropic.
Please allow me to elaborate on this, and I am sorry if you took it the wrong way. I agree that the civilians are innocent, and that deliberate targeting of civilians is wrong. However, what is your opinion of Hezbollah spreading itself out through civilian neighborhoods? Where is the condemnation for such blatant violations of the Geneva Convention?

It's Hezbollah's responsibility if the civilians get hit. They need to stop putting their artillery as well as rocket launchers in densely populated areas.
If Hezbollah is truly concerned with the civilians, then they should make every effort to coordinate with the Lebanese army to get as many civilians out of harm's way as quickly as possible.

This is war, and I don't know how else to say that Israel has no axe to grind with the Lebanese civilians, and there is no strategic, tactical, nor political gain for Israel to do so. You'd asked if I thought that the members here are stupid; and I don't. However, do you honestly think that Israel is that stupid?

NeonVomit wrote:We're talking about the life of people who have had nothing to do with any terror attacks, people just getting on with their lives who have been caught up in this. Your attitude is frankly revolting. Military action against civilians is unjustifiable no matter what. If 50-60 Hizbollah militants had so far been taken out and a few civilian bystanders, I'd understand that, accidents happen. But in this case the reverse is true. Just like the well-documented and equally sickening case of the suicide bomber in Iraq who killed 22 Iraqi civilians (most of them children) to kill the one US soldier present. He was giving out chocolates.
Again, I am sorry that you've misinterpreted my words, and I am also sorry that you feel that Israel is deliberately targeting civilians. If that were actually true, I would say that your anger would be justified, but 200 civilian casualties is a far cry from 20,000 or 200,000, which is how high the toll would be if Israel were truly targeting civilians.

NeonVomit wrote:Yes, Israeli civilians get attacked, and so have people in London (where I live most of the time) and countless other terrorist targets. I am not trying to marginalise that, I don't like feeling as if I'm a target simply because I live in London. I still get nervous sometimes when the Underground is very busy.
I believe you that you are not trying to minimalize Israeli casualties, and it is my earnest hope that no citizen of the UK will have to endure another subway bombing.

NeonVomit wrote:However, does that mean that Israel must lower themselves to the level of Hizbollah? Any moral high ground that they might have held has been blown away now.
I think that your opinion has been shaped by too much propoganda. I'm not condemning you for this opinion, but I do not agree with that statement. Israel does not blow up pizza parlors with suicide bombers, nor does it decapitate people on live television.

Israelis do not march through the street covered in blood yelling "Death to Lebanon", burn effigies of foreign leaders, send their children to the front lines to throw stones at soldiers, threaten Europe, or teach their children that jihad is the main way to Heaven.

So you think that Hezbollah mixing in tightly with the civilian population has nothing to do with civilian casualties?

miditek wrote: Israel does realize that Lebanon was either unable or unwilling to rid itself of Hezbollah, and as such, IDF will be the ones that are forced to do this.

miditek wrote:If Europe was truly serious about resolving this, it would partner with NATO and the US to get some military forces ready to compel Hezbollah to either withdraw or be destroyed. Read my previous post about Israel's requests; return the soldiers, and stop firing the missiles. It is as simple as that, but Hezbollah and Hamas will have none of it.

miditek wrote: Just because Lebanon could not do the job does not mean that NATO does not have the resources to do so. Hezbollah has worn out its welcome in Lebanon, and all of this could have been avoided via UN Resolution 1559- but I guess that we'll have to do this one the hard way.

NeonVomit wrote:Interesting you should say that, Blair and Anan have actually suggested this to Israel but Israel has turned down the offer. They prefer to do it themselves, which is fair enough but again, Israel is not exactly known for care and subtlety in their attacks. I guess when you drop a 1000lb bomb onto a building housing terrorists in a crowded city, accidents can happen huh... or firing a missile from an aircraft to kill a single man in a wheelchair (and a lot of good that did).
Europe has allowed this problem to fester for a long time now, and I can't imagine that they did not see this coming. All that I have heard from EU Foreign Ministers during past atrocities from Hamas and Hezbollah are cyncial and self-righteous lectures about how Israel should show "restraint" when its citizens are terrorized by suicide bombers, shootings, knifings, rocket lanchings, etc.

Then the EU ministers complain that the US is not doing enough to help the peace process, as if the US had any influence over Hezbollah or Hamas. What then, should the US do- ask the Israelis for terms of surrender?

miditek wrote:The true problem is that Hamas and Hezbollah just don't get it. If they continue to launch their terror attacks, they are merely bringing destruction down upon themselves.

NeonVomit wrote:Hizbollah and Hamas are extremist terrorist organisations, no they don't 'get it' and they never will. If they 'got it' they wouldn't even be involved in those sorts of activities. They think dying in the course of their aims is the highest form of glory. Like all religious extremists of any sort, they operate in an entirely different manner from you or I or any other rational person.
With these opinions, I completely agree, but with that being the case, do you really think that it is even possible to negotiate with thugs like this? Is peace even possible with Hamas and Hezbollah? I believe that the short answer is no.

NeonVomit wrote:Again, I have absolutely nothing but contempt for any terrorist organisation and I want to make that absolutely clear. My sister on the train behind the one attacked at Liverpool Street in the London suicide bombings, my aunt was on a plane flying into NYC on the morning of 9/11. No, I do not sympathise with their methods in the least. However, I have the same feelings for any nation which does not discriminate between innocent bystanders and their real targets, which is what Israel seems to be doing.
I don't think that anyone would believe that you would ever actually sympathize with terrorists. You have made some valid arguments and good points, however, we may have to agree to disagree on the point of Israel deliberately targeting civilians. One example of directly targeting civilians that comes to mind was during the occupation of Lebanon when the SLA (South Lebanese Army, a Christian militia) shot 200 to 300 refugees in their camp. That was an abomination, but Israel did not do this.

miditek wrote:America is Israel's only reliable ally in the world, and you can be certain that if Syria or Iran decide upon direct involvement, they will be punished. Syria and Iran have contributed much to the instability of the border between Israel and Lebanon.

miditek wrote:Have you not seen Vice PM Peres' statements? He is dovish by nature, and indicated that Israel does not want war with Lebanon itself.
Europe looks down on Israel with contempt, but seems to coddle radical Islam in every way that it can, despite the widespread terror attacks that Europe itself is not immune from.

NeonVomit wrote:Perhaps Peres' statements have been peaceful, but the bombs falling on Beirut give a rather different impression. If Lebanon itself is not the target, then why destroy all the gas stations and major highways and port facilities and airport? Hizbollah isn't the only one who might sometimes use those facilities. That's like destroying the playground watercooler because the school bully sometimes drinks from it or something.The relatives of people who have died for no crime other than being in the wrong place at the wrong time will not easily accept those words of Peres.
Please see the statements above, regarding destruction of the enemy's transport and logistical capabilities. The weapons are of Syrian and Iranian origin, and the supply and movement of these weapons and munitions to Hezbollah must be stopped.

I realize that if the Lebanese people are presented with the choice of civil war (to get rid of Hezbollah) or open war with Israel is something of a Greek tragedy; it is, nevertheless, the reality of the situation.

If the EU ministers were truly concerned, they would do something other than simply criticize Israel and the US for a lack of participation in peace talks with terror groups that do not want peace to begin with. The EU talks too much, and does too little. Arguing endlessly about the possibilty of sanctions is lazy, arrogant, and the typical modus operandi for many UN and EU bureaucrats. Yes, people are dying, and its essential the radical Islam be stopped, or a global holocaust is inevitable.

A more traditional alliance of the US, UK, France, Germany, Italy, and Russia on a united front, with political and military participation by all would save tens of millions (or possibly hundreds of millions) of lives in the long run.

The alliance should get Hezbollah out of Lebanon, dismantle Hamas, guarantee Lebanon's security, and put the rest of the radical Islamic world, including Damascus and Tehran on notice that their behavior is simply intolerable.

NeonVomit wrote:Of course, the residents of Haifa (one of my dad's friends lives near the building that was hit earlier today, my dad has yet to get in touch with him) are in much the same situation. Again, I am not belittling what Israel is in, I fully understand the need to do something but I am appalled at the casual disregard for innocent lives Israel has thus far shown.

Europe looks down on Israel and coddles radical Islam? That has to be one of the most ignorant and blind statements I've yet read here and more importantly, totally out of context with this topic. You said yourself that Europe is not immune from terrorism, so what possible good could come from 'coddling radical Islam'? Is everyone here stupid? The fact that European nations (apart from the UK) don't go around attacking other nations with a flimsy pretext does not mean that Islamic extremism, or extremism of any sort for that matter, is accepted. I think it is because of the realisation that doing that sort of thing will only make things worse. Look at Iraq.
If Europe were not coddling radical Islam, then its foreign ministers would not be insisting that Israel use "restraint" in the face of terror attacks.

Another example; Blair should be deporting the mullahs that are preaching hatred in UK mosques left and right. When France was under attack last summer, when tens of thousands of cars were torched, martial law should have been imposed, and all perpetrators should have been either shot or deported. Yet, Chirac mused on "what led to the youths' dissatisfaction with France." I feel Sarkozy was right when he called the rioters "scum".

The EU would be more concerned about confronting the problem head-on, partnering with the US and Israel, and stop making ridiculous excuses for the jihadists.

Paying lip service to the mullahs will not make Europe one bit more secure. Austria recently sold some sophisticated .50 cal sniper rifles to Iran- where do you think that these rifles will end up? That is only one example, as Russia is doing the same thing with sophisticated air defense and anti-tank missle sales, and not to mention partnerning with Iran on building nuclear reactors.

Yes, I do have some major issues with the EU's spolied, dull, and incompetent bureaucrats and their parlimentary pleasantries, and their supposed sophistication. Small wars must be fought in order to avoid the larger ones. I think that point was proved at Munich, and again with the Nazi-Soviet pact.

We can deal with this now, move on to Syria and Iran, and be done with it- while there is still time to do so. Of course, that is not ever going to happen, which, imho, will ultimately lead to a fire that will not ever be put out. The gangster-states of Syria and Iran must be contained, before it's too late.

Of course, there is always the Samson Option, if that is what the Arab League prefers.

Posted: **Tue Jul 18, 2006 9:01 am**

It needs a lot of time to read all these very long posts so I focus my post on the base:

It needs a lot more for a WW. I don't think it will end in a WW. And better USA is the police (I don't like that and I am not pro-Bush...) than China or another country which has very dangerous weapons and testing and/or playing with bombs. Then it could be for a WW

Posted: **Tue Jul 18, 2006 11:11 am**

Because I havn't much time at the moment, I'll give a short reply.

If Israel was targetting civilians, then obviously the death toll would be far higher. That's logical. Obviously, the 'fog of war' has set in, preventing a clear picture of what's actually going on, so I try to get my information from as many different sources as possible, ignoring the obviously biased ones.

It makes sense for Hizbollah to be hiding in crowded neigbourhoods, that's the sort of thing they'd do but if that's the case then perhaps some other form of attack will be necessary? And not the methods Israel has been using so far, which have led to what I feel are totally unacceptable rates of civilian casualties. The infrasatructure question... again, I feel destroying the airport and port facilites are far disproportionate. That's like demolishing a bridge because some drug pushers use it as a hangout. It may hamper Hizbollah in the short term, but in the long term it will cause nothing but resentment against Israel from the Lebanese population and therefore more support for Hizbollah from the local population.

Some very controversial anti religious-hate laws are in place in the UK and other European nations, but freedom of speech and expression are closely guarded in Europe and Muslims are treated as equal citizens with equal rights. How do you exactly choose who to deport? These issues are far more complex than you make them out to be. Living in the UK, I can say that the Muslim community is more afraid than anything, afraid of itself and of others' perception of them, seeing as 3 of the 4 suicide bombers were in fact British citizens.

And I dare not comment on last year's riots in France as I don't live there and do not possess intimate familiarity with the situation. Should martial law have been declared in LA during the massive riots there 15 or so years ago? You obviously do not know much about French society and the way in which it functions, and neither do I, so perhaps it's best to let someone who lives there and knows what went on to comment on the issue.

The military isn't always the best solution to a problem, and should always be a last resort, as opposed to a first reaction. Again, I agree that Israel needed to do something, and having been trained in POW procedures when I was in the army myself, I can only imagine those soldiers' plight all too well. But I still cannot accept the destruction of the civilian infrastructure of a nation which is perpetually caught in the middle.

So you DO advocate open war with Iran and Syria. Well, if that were the case, I'd fear we are lost. Again, the example of Iraq is all too clear, that sort of war will solve nothing and only cause far more problems and bloodshed. Those are not 'small wars' to avoid a big war. They will achieve nothing but to set the entire middle east on fire. Of course the Russians are selling weapons to them, they sell weapons to anyone, they need the cash. I don't think anyone could figure out what Putin's plans are, he's an exceedingly crafty and intelligent guy.

While it's normal to accuse EU politicians of being useless and incompetant, how are they any worse than those in the US? To me, politicians are the same everywhere. I trust none of them. As for confronting the problem head on, well... we saw how well that's working in Iraq. I don't think any nation is willing to get themselves into that sort of situation, the Iraq predicament is a strong deterrant from such intervention. Afghanistan isn't exactly pleasant either, but is perhaps a better example. However, its relative isolation from other sensitive regions is what allows it to be reasonably (I use the word loosely) calm. A similar situation in Iran or Syria would be exactly like Iraq if not worse.

If a regime is to be brought down, the people themselves must do it, just as they did with Milosevic and Ceucescu. Brutal dictators who met their downfall at the hands of their own people, which is how a dictator should end. Foreign intervention can do absolutely no good in such matters.

I feel intensely sorry for the Lebanese people. They have had no say in this matter, they were unable to do anything about Hizbollah, their weak military could never take on Hizbollah on its own and the fragile coalition government did not want to risk another civil war that Hizbollah is easily capable of starting. They above anyone else in this tale have been the victims. Having their infrastructure which they worked so hard to rebuild after the years of fighting destroyed in the space of a week must be truly heartbreaking.

Wow, guess that wasn't so short after all... perhaps not as well-thought out and structured as could be but oh well.

And yeah miditek, cool to finally have an intelligent and mature debate on this issue

Posted: **Tue Jul 18, 2006 1:14 pm**

Wow... that‘s a real sophisticated debate here. As I still have to learn for some final exams, I can‘t get as deep into the topic as I liked to, but I nevertheless want to comment on some points made here.

I think, at least considering the Hamas, one can see a clear split developing between hardliners (especially the exile-organisation in Syria) and a more pragmatic wing around the palestinian government. The first kidnapping operation seems to have been planned and conducted by the hardliners, probably with the aim of preventing the pragmatic wing of the Hamas to prevail within the whole organisation. The reaction of Israel was exactly what they – the hardliners – needed: A military operation leeds to further radicalization among the palestinian population and therewith strengthens the hardliner‘s position.

The situation on the northern front might be similar: Iran made the Hisbollah provoke Israel in order to trigger a wider conflict, that leads the attention of the world away from their nuclear-program and shows the power of Iran to set the region ablaze if they want to.

I think, Israels reaction is wrong because it benefits the objectives of its enemies.
And as I said, it is impossible to calm down a conflict with military violence, especially regarding the size of the region, the number of people involved and – especially – the religious aspects of the conflict. Without a détente, a negotiated solution between the pragmatic and moderate players of both sides, the situation will escalate; if it won‘t this time, than it will in the not so far future.

Of course this is said much easier, if you sit in a peaceful environment (as I do) than if you are directly threatened by the violence. So I can understand, that you – shurik and miditek – advocate a hard response towards the agressors. But however, it can be taken as a lesson from history, that almost always a solution that is not based on a consensus becomes a breeding-point for future wars. There ARE possible negotiation-partners (Abbas for instance), they have to be taken on board and strengthened, so they can win over the minds of their own population and enable a widely accepted peaceful solution. I don‘t say that this is an easy way, but it seems to me as the only one at all.

So far, I hope I will find the time to comment on this further... now I have to return to my books again :tired:

Posted: **Tue Jul 18, 2006 1:49 pm**

There ARE possible negotiation-partners (Abbas for instance), they have to be taken on board and strengthened, so they can win over the minds of their own population and enable a widely accepted peaceful solution.

The question is - how much influence they really have? As for Abbas - his influence ends outside his office, more or less, he has absolutely no influence on militants, even the ones from his own Fatah organization. More or less the same is with what you call "pragmatic wing" of Hamas. So, how can you negotiate with someone that has no influence on what's going on?

So I can understand, that you – shurik and miditek – advocate a hard response towards the agressors.

You have to understand the mentality of the people we are dealing with. Anything less than total destruction or at least complete disarmament of Hizballa will be translated as Israel's weakness and will lead to further hostilities. If this conflict will end when Hizballa is still armed, they will say that their smal militia (armed with best syrian and iranian weapons) beat and humiliated the big IDF. Same goes for exchange of the abducted soldiers for terrorists in prison - if such an exchange will take place, it will only bring more and more abductions. This a very difficult and dangerous situation, I can safely say that our future depends on the outcome of this conflict. Syria, Iran and their pawns in Hizballa, Hamas and such should understand that messing with Israel brings no profit whatsoever.

Sadly, this is the situation. I'm not enjoying it, it brings me no pleasure to see Beirut being demolished, I can fully understand what are they going through ... After all, I'm supposed to be in the middle of the semester exams - but due to the situation my univercity is closed until further notice and I simply cannot study with the sirens going on and off every hour or so (yesterday it was 4 times in single hour in the afternoon, once in 6 AM and once in the late evening). But Israel cannot continue to live under a constant threat of being bombed whenever Nasralla or his masters want it. It was proven not once that the only language terrorists understand is brutal force.

Posted: **Tue Jul 18, 2006 9:49 pm**

I have a feeling that there will be a bigger scale war. It's just a matter of time. And I fear it leads into a total annihilation.

Posted: **Tue Jul 18, 2006 10:47 pm**

MetalManiac wrote:I have a feeling that there will be a bigger scale war. It's just a matter of time. And I fear it leads into a total annihilation.

You sound scaringly realistic... Shouldn't we keep just a small part of optimism too? Or perhaps I am becoming alarmingly positive about the outcome of this...

Posted: **Tue Jul 18, 2006 11:22 pm**

MetalManiac wrote:I have a feeling that there will be a bigger scale war. It's just a matter of time. And I fear it leads into a total annihilation.

(Apart from music) The lyrics of the album that appears in your avatar represents totally the situation! Always current! (sadly

)

Posted: **Wed Jul 19, 2006 12:26 am**

Rockets fall around my house and I'm not as pessimistic as you are ...

Posted: **Wed Jul 19, 2006 3:28 am**

Shurik wrote:Rockets fall around my house and I'm not as pessimistic as you are ...

It's amazing that you can have a good sense of humor under such, difficult circumstances, but that was funny.

Posted: **Wed Jul 19, 2006 4:31 am**

haha true about that

Posted: **Wed Jul 19, 2006 9:28 am**

I second that.

Posted: **Wed Jul 19, 2006 10:51 am**

miditek wrote:
Shurik wrote:Rockets fall around my house and I'm not as pessimistic as you are ...
It's amazing that you can have a good sense of humor under such, difficult circumstances, but that was funny.

Yeah, I'm like that about the situation here in Cyprus. Most people abroad think it's a lot worse than it actually is...

Anyway, stay safe dude.

Posted: **Wed Jul 19, 2006 11:35 am**

NeonVomit wrote:
miditek wrote:
Shurik wrote:Rockets fall around my house and I'm not as pessimistic as you are ...
It's amazing that you can have a good sense of humor under such, difficult circumstances, but that was funny.
Yeah, I'm like that about the situation here in Cyprus. Most people abroad think it's a lot worse than it actually is...

Anyway, stay safe dude.

That's what happens when you judge about the situation in foreign countries by what CNN and such show

Posted: **Wed Jul 19, 2006 4:35 pm**

Shurik wrote:[That's what happens when you judge about the situation in foreign countries by what CNN and such show

Tell me about it...

http://www.cnn.com/
http://www.cnn.com/2006/WORLD/meast/07/ ... index.html

Current headline- "A Hezbollah rocket attack on Nazareth, revered as birthplace of Jesus, kills two people, Israeli army says"

Hmmmm, another blooper for CNN- the last time I checked, Bethlehem (not Narareth) was the birthplace of Jesus, and it wouldn't take a seminary graduate to know that...

Posted: **Thu Jul 20, 2006 3:16 am**

NeonVomit wrote:Because I havn't much time at the moment, I'll give a short reply.

Very good post on this, NV; I'm also currently short on time at the moment too, but did want to send a brief response now, and more a bit later.

NeonVomit wrote:So you DO advocate open war with Iran and Syria. Well, if that were the case, I'd fear we are lost.

Here's how I see it. What's going on in Gaza and Hezbollah is just a "side show", strategically speaking, that is. Not trying to minimize the suffering, but that's my military viewpoint.

I agree with Shurick that Iran is doing this to distract the West, and put the focus on Lebanon, rather than Tehran. (Good observation there, too, Shurick).

Sanctions are not going to work (in time, at least) for Iran nor Syria. Naval and air blockades would be a good start though. First, Hezbollah must be neutralized. Then, Hamas must be dealt with next. Once those fronts have been cleared, then we can turn our attention towards Damascus and Tehran (while keeping a close eye on them in the meantime.

Assad is weak, and is basically a marinette of the military in Syria. It would not take much to topple him, via a combination of carefully planned covert operations, financial incentives (such as freezing all of Syria's assets in the west), blockades as I mentioned, and yes, if necessary, military operations.

Iran will be a different story though. More on that later. I hate to run, but am really busy at the moment- I still have a few points that I'd like to follow-up on with you.

NeonVomit wrote:And yeah miditek, cool to finally have an intelligent and mature debate on this issue

Likewise, NV. Have a great evening, and will follow-up on your last post soon. Particularly in regards to Uncle Vlad- which was an interesting assessment that you had of him.

Cheers...

Posted: **Thu Jul 20, 2006 7:20 am**

Why do you always think that military options are the only solutions? Why do you think "dealing with the Hamas" would solve the problem? Have you ever asked yourself why those terroristic groups like Hamas or Hisbolla exist? It's because there is a people without perspective, living at the edge of existence, treated like pigs. They see that there is a strong country in a place what was "their territory" for a long time (I don't say it IS their territory, cuz from this viewpoint also Israel has a "historic right" to be there). The shame is for the whole Arab world that they also don't want to deal with the Palestinian problem. For them it's the easiest way to support the terrorists, but not a single Arab country would house the Palestinian people forever. Anyways. If you eliminate these terrosticic groups, only new ones will grow.
And what do you think will happen if you really annihilate the hisbollah, as it is planned now and as it's started to happen? So many Libanese civilians are dying, now also this country will hate Israel for at least three generations.
Fuck it, only if people are willing to help each other, only if they are willing for compromises, the seeds of terrorism will be banned.

Posted: **Thu Jul 20, 2006 8:11 pm**

First of all, Shurik i think you should move to a safe place until the situation calm down, the life is first than any other thing. This situation really sucks, but really i don't think this will end in a global scale (or a "global holocaust" like miditek says) it needs a lot...very much more for that, not easy as say: "wtf those dudes got war, let's do a holocaust or something like that". I feel very bad for the civilians, in a war we/they are the ones who suffer

.

Posted: **Thu Jul 20, 2006 8:51 pm**

I saw the news on TV tonight and as I analysed the situation in Lebanon, I don't think this conflict will turn into a WWIII, as it exists a terror equilibrium between all the nuclear powers. So, it will be better soon, I hope.

Posted: **Thu Jul 20, 2006 10:28 pm**

stratohawk wrote:Why do you always think that military options are the only solutions?

As far as Hamas and Hezbollah are concerned, it is the only viable option. Israel left Gaza last year (which, by the way, never was a 'Palestinian' territory to begin with. Israel captured it from Egypt during the war over the Suez Canal in 1956), and what does Hamas do? They begin firing Qassam rockets into Israeli villages, and kidnapping people.

Israel also left Lebanon a few years ago, after an 18 year occupation, and what does Hezbollah do? Essentially the same thing as Hamas, but on a larger scale, and within a very short timeframe of each other. These people are not going to negotiate, perpetual 'resistance' (read: terror attacks) with Israel is their raison d'etre. The Oslo Accords have proved to be a dismal failure. If you feel that military strikes are not an option, then what would you realistically suggest when dealing with terrorists?

stratohawk wrote:Why do you think "dealing with the Hamas" would solve the problem? Have you ever asked yourself why those terroristic groups like Hamas or Hisbolla exist? It's because there is a people without perspective, living at the edge of existence, treated like pigs.

This is a problem that probably won't ever be solved. However, Israel, as with any other country, has a right to defend itself. Some nations have made peace with Israel, such as Egypt and Jordan, so while it is certainly possible, it is very unlikely that Hamas or Hezbollah will ever negotiate with a country it has sworn to destroy.

It's also important to note that Hamas plays a cynical game with their own people. What do you think happens to all of the billions of dollars in aid that has been given to them?

Hamas *wants* Israel to strike them, *wants* them to damage their infrastructure, and *wants* to see their people suffer- this justifies their position of Israel being the "little Satan", while America, as always, is the "great Satan".

Hezbollah has also recently threatened war against the US and its interests worldwide, which I can assure you is one thing that they definitely don't want.

stratohawk wrote:hey see that there is a strong country in a place what was "their territory" for a long time (I don't say it IS their territory, cuz from this viewpoint also Israel has a "historic right" to be there). The shame is for the whole Arab world that they also don't want to deal with the Palestinian problem. For them it's the easiest way to support the terrorists, but not a single Arab country would house the Palestinian people forever. Anyways. If you eliminate these terrosticic groups, only new ones will grow.

The Arab world, and also the Persians (Iranians) are similiar to Hezbollah and Hamas. They don't care if the people in Gaza and the West Bank are suffering, in fact, they are doing their utmost to force Israel to use military action. What do you think the US would do if Mexico (admittedly, a hypthetical situation) started launching missiles across the border into Texas or California?

Will new terror groups spawn from the embers of the ones that have been destroyed? Most definitely. However, that is no excuse not to deal with them swiftly and severly. What should Israel do, surrender? That is not realistic, and won't happen.

Even if Israel did not exist, the Middle East would still be a cauldron of trouble. Secular vs. religious, Sunni vs. Sh'ite, Kurd vs. Turk, Arab vs. Persian, Pakistani vs. Indian, and so on. There would still be plenty of terror and war to go around.

stratohawk wrote:And what do you think will happen if you really annihilate the hisbollah, as it is planned now and as it's started to happen?

The UN Peacekeepers were given a chance to provide security in Lebanon, and it did not happen. And yes, I do believe that Israel will annihilate Hezbollah, and yes, it is completely justified. Any Iranian Revolutionary Guards that are caught inside of Lebanon should also be summarily dispatched.

stratohawk wrote:So many Libanese civilians are dying, now also this country will hate Israel for at least three generations.

Yes, there have been some civilian deaths; the last I heard that toll was about 200-300, and yes, that was very tragic. No one wants to see civilians hurt or killed.

It's important to note though that far less civilians have been killed in this operation than were killed at the Sabra and Shatila massacres by the SLA in 1982. I think that should offer at least some evidence that Israel is being as careful as it possibly can. Civilian casualties are unavoidable in war, but every effort should be made to minimize them.

For example, thousands of French civilians were killed during the carpet bombing of the Normandy coastline just prior to the invasion on D-Day, and it's very apparent that this was certainly not intentional.

stratohawk wrote:Fuck it, only if people are willing to help each other, only if they are willing for compromises, the seeds of terrorism will be banned.

I think that Israel is certainly willing to negotiate, as proved during the Oslo accords. Also, they did sign peace treaties with Egypt, and Jordan. They have a good relationship with Turkey. They gave the Sinai back to Egypt, left Gaza, left Lebanon, are willing to negotiate on the West Bank, certainly; but nothing they agree to or propose is good enough for Hamas or Hezbollah.

But groups such as Hamas and Hezbollah will not compromise, and neither will Iran. Syria could/should, but probably won't as long as Assad and his gang are in power, and Damascus remains in league with Tehran. Please realize that their goal is not the liberation of Palestine, but the destruction of Israel. What would you do if that were the case if you were the Israelis?

Posted: **Thu Jul 20, 2006 10:34 pm**

MetalAngel wrote:I saw the news on TV tonight and as I analysed the situation in Lebanon, I don't think this conflict will turn into a WWIII, as it exists a terror equilibrium between all the nuclear powers. So, it will be better soon, I hope.

I agree in the fact that it won't be WWIII- at least, not just yet. I do think that it will come eventually though, and most likely within the next 5-10 years, or possibly less.

However, I do think that a nuclear strike against the West will happen. The Balance of Terror served us well during the Cold War years, but if a nuclear device slips through security and gets detonated in Washington, New York, Paris, London, etc., against whom do you retaliate when the perpetrator is not clearly evident? It's easy to track a missile on radar, but much more difficult to detect a IND (Improvised Nuclear Device) in a shipping container.

Posted: **Thu Jul 20, 2006 10:41 pm**

I read again in the news that the president of Libanon asks the world to help them to disarm the Hisbollah, and that the Hisbollah has become a "state in the state". He also asks Israel to stop it's attacks to prevent more bloodshed amongst the civilians.
He is right. Libanon was never strong enough to disarm Hisbollah, though the real pro-Libanon-forces (not the pro-Syria-ones) always wanted it to. This people is longing for peace, for a normal life. They don't want war with Israel, and they don't want the Hisbollah. But they were never let to be strong enough to deal with that problem.
Now ruining the whole country will change NOTHING! And what do you mean with "self-defence"? I mean, the Hisbollah kidnapped Israeli soldiers, yes. But firing those rockets started after Israel attacked Libanon.
It's a vicious circle. It's going on and on and will never end, unless one side is willing to stop force and violence. Even if in the first place this would seem like weakness to the other side, in the long term peace could prevail. Because it would give all those weak parts (like the government of Libanon) a chance.
But if that fucking idiot of George W. Bush is barracking only Israel and is absolutely not willing to help Libanon, where is the chance? The whole world has to deal with this problem. But the US is blocking the security council every time their own interests seem to be in danger. All this leads to situations like now. And nobody wants to help Libanon. The killing will continue, and even if Israel annihilates the Hisbollah (when should that be?) it will cost the lifes of hundres of civilians and create the roots for new terror organisations. Terrorist groups have no recruiting problem...

Posted: **Fri Jul 21, 2006 11:49 pm**

nepi wrote:It needs a lot of time to read all these very long posts so I focus my post on the base:

It needs a lot more for a WW. I don't think it will end in a WW. And better USA is the police (I don't like that and I am not pro-Bush...) than China or another country which has very dangerous weapons and testing and/or playing with bombs. Then it could be for a WW

We'll definitely be hearing more from China in the coming months and years. Here is an interesting question; why would a Maoist flavored regime such as China tolerate the world's last Stalinist regime (North Korea) for no apparent reason? Why would China build reactors for someone as unstable as Kim?

Why would Russia build reactors for the obviously crazy mullahs in Iran? Why do Russia and China thwart virtually all US-sponsored security council resolutions to reign in terror sponsoring states such as Iran, NK, and Iraq?

The ultimate goal for Iran and North Korea's apologists (Russia and China) is nothing short of a proxy nuclear war against the United States. They cannot launch their ICBM's directly into the US, as NORAD would certainly track them, and the retaliatory strikes would destroy the ones that fired the first shots. Improvised nuclear devices detonated in the US homeland would obviously cause chaos- and I feel that this is invevitable, as do the 9/11 Commission chairmen.

This would weaken the US, as it would no longer be the superpower it is now, and Russia and China would then be waiting to take advantage of the situation.

They lack the conventional military strength to defeat the US, but they have found a better way. As I've previously said, everything else is a just distraction and a side show.

In fact, the bulk of the weapons in the Middle East (apart from weapons provided to Israel and Saudi Arabia, which are, of course, of US origin) have been provided by Russia and China. The missile that hit the Israeli warship in the Mediterranean Sea was likely a 701 or 801 series cruise missile provided by China, and launched by Iran's Revolutionary Guards. Katyushas are not nearly sophisticated enough to have hit the ship, as they have no guidance system.

These two countries will provide weapons to almost anyone that has an anti-American and/or anti-Israeli agenda, and most importantly, groups or regimes that will actually use them. The cruise missile strike in the Mediterranean was an excellent test for Beijing.

The longer range missiles that are now falling on Haifa also provide Iran's forward observers with another good test of these newer, more sophisticated weapons.

So it seems to me that the radical Islamists are really little more than puppets of much larger states, with a sinister and Machivellian agenda.

Posted: **Fri Jul 21, 2006 11:51 pm**

Shurik wrote:
There ARE possible negotiation-partners (Abbas for instance), they have to be taken on board and strengthened, so they can win over the minds of their own population and enable a widely accepted peaceful solution.
The problem that I see with Arab moderates, such as Abbas, is that they have no record of any substansial influence over the radical groups.

I have seen very little success with the moderates, although I do believe that their intentions are well meaning, if not effective.

Posted: **Sat Jul 22, 2006 12:08 am**

NeonVomit wrote:
So you DO advocate open war with Iran and Syria. Well, if that were the case, I'd fear we are lost. Again, the example of Iraq is all too clear, that sort of war will solve nothing and only cause far more problems and bloodshed. Those are not 'small wars' to avoid a big war.

I disagree that small wars don't help avoid big ones.
The reintroduction of universal conscription in Germany in 1935 was the first indication of Hitler's intent, and the West did not even protest, despite the fact that Versailles prohibited this.

Look at the reoccupation of the Rhineland in 1936, for example, again, a clear violation of Versailles. What could three battalions of German troops do vs. seventy divisions of French troops? That would have been a "turkey shoot" so to speak, as Colonel General Heinz Guderian was quoted that they would have been compelled to withdraw with their tails between their legs, with no resources for even a moderate resistance.

Munich in 1938 was another undeniable warning. Hitler said that the Sudatenland was "the last territorial claim that I have in Europe". This was a lie, and he then gobbled up the rest of Czechoslovakia, and again, with Allied acquisensce being the primary enabler.

By the time the Polish question arose, it was too late to contain Germany short of another major war, although an all-out offensive in the West by Britain and France against the then thinly defended Siegfried Line would have been a success, with the bulk of Germany's forces being tied down in Poland.

Another modern example of military might helping to topple a dictator was NATO's bombing campaign in 1999 over Serbia. That was a Clinton initiative, and we did not hear one word about "unilaterlism" While Milosevic was deposed by internal opponents, I am certain that the NATO campaigns helped to end his rule.

There are plenty of warning signs regarding Iran and North Korea, but it is unlikely that anything will be done before it is too late.

Posted: **Sat Jul 22, 2006 12:14 am**

Heiserich wrote:The situation on the northern front might be similar: Iran made the Hisbollah provoke Israel in order to trigger a wider conflict, that leads the attention of the world away from their nuclear-program and shows the power of Iran to set the region ablaze if they want to.

A very good assessment, and one that I completely agree with, Heiserich. You may want to check the post that I just made regarding China's and Russia's ambitions.

Former Israeli PM Benjamin "Bibi" Netanyahu has made some recent comments that while Israel is the little Satan, it is America that is the "great Satan", while Europe is considered the "medium sized Satan", and that the jihadists have a long range plan for waging perpetual terror war with Israel and all of the west.

The ultimate goal is a world wide Islamic caliphate, although I do believe that China and Russia have agendas of their own, and appear confused by the fervor of the radical Isalmic world- but they will continue to arm them, nevertheless.

Posted: **Sat Jul 22, 2006 10:02 am**

miditek wrote: The ultimate goal is a world wide Islamic caliphate, although I do believe that China and Russia have agendas of their own, and appear confused by the fervor of the radical Isalmic world- but they will continue to arm them, nevertheless.

Are you really afraid of this? A world wide Islamic caliphate? I guess you don't know very much Muslims. Of course the extremists may have such surreal dreams. But I tell you: The major problem and the main reason for terrorism is, that the Arab world lives in circumstances that are more or less Third World-like. And the Jewish and the Christians live in wealth and plenty. Once an Arab country gets into a higher stage of development, once there is social structure and coverage, nobody's thinking of war against "the West" anymore. Look at for example Turkey. None of them would admit it. But if the "poor Arab countries" would live in better circumstances, there would be no need to join suicidal commandos anymore. They are also humans, they also long for peace and a good life. But if you have no perspective, if you feel treated unjustly, what would you do?
That's why I won't stop saying, that the major issue should be to give the Palestinian people better surroundings to live. They need help. Just as other Arab countries. All of my friends in Germany that are from Arab countries spit on those terrorists, they despise them. The problem is the Gap between the West and the Arab world. Most Arab countries live in development stages like Middle Age (except that they have the weapons of today). This must change.

Posted: **Sat Jul 22, 2006 6:27 pm**

stratohawk wrote:
miditek wrote: The ultimate goal is a world wide Islamic caliphate, although I do believe that China and Russia have agendas of their own, and appear confused by the fervor of the radical Isalmic world- but they will continue to arm them, nevertheless.

stratohawk wrote:Are you really afraid of this? A world wide Islamic caliphate? I guess you don't know very much Muslims. Of course the extremists may have such surreal dreams.
Radical Islam is committed to a worldwide empire, and there should be no illusions of this. Also, Russia and China would love to see America thrown into a tailspin, as would Iran.

As I'd discussed in previous posts in Tolkki's forum (you may not have seen these) I've actually got quite a few friends that are Arabs, from Syria, Egypt, and Jordan. Two of these guys I work very closely with in the IT (information technology) sector, and we are good friends. They are certainly not radicals, although we obviously have some significant differences in religious and political opinions though.

stratohawk wrote: But I tell you: The major problem and the main reason for terrorism is, that the Arab world lives in circumstances that are more or less Third World-like. And the Jewish and the Christians live in wealth and plenty.
I disagree, as those are generalizations, rather than an absolute truth. For instance, I have some friends that live in Dubai, and they have encouraged me to consider selling my business, and move it there to work. Dubai, the UAE, Saudi Arabia, etc. are all very advanced societies. There are nations in South America, such as Mexico and Brazil that have large Catholic populations, and yet poverty is widespread.

Also, there are many poor Jews in Russia and Eastern Europe as well. There is poverty in every country, even the United States, but I do not believe that the problem of poverty discriminates due to national origin or religion. There are plenty of poor Christians even in my city that just barely make ends meet.

stratohawk wrote: Once an Arab country gets into a higher stage of development, once there is social structure and coverage, nobody's thinking of war against "the West" anymore. Look at for example Turkey. None of them would admit it. But if the "poor Arab countries" would live in better circumstances, there would be no need to join suicidal commandos anymore. They are also humans, they also long for peace and a good life. But if you have no perspective, if you feel treated unjustly, what would you do?
Turkey has made a lot of progress, and has definitely done well for itself. It's also important to note that Turkey also is an international trade partner of Israel, rather than an adversary. Turkey is also a country comprised primarily of Turks, who are not Arab by ethnicity. My Syrian friends have told me a great deal about how bad the regime in Damasacus is- and yet this is the fault of the US?

stratohawk wrote:That's why I won't stop saying, that the major issue should be to give the Palestinian people better surroundings to live. They need help. Just as other Arab countries. All of my friends in Germany that are from Arab countries spit on those terrorists, they despise them. The problem is the Gap between the West and the Arab world. Most Arab countries live in development stages like Middle Age (except that they have the weapons of today). This must change.
The 'Palestinians' would have a much better infrastructure and civil services if they were not locked in a perpetual state of war with Israel. If they would learn to leave the Israelis alone, then they would not have suffered even a tenth of the damage that they already have. Billions of dollars have been poured in from a variety of sources, and yet it gets siphoned off by crooked goverment officials. Arafat's estate, for example, was estimated to be worth over a billion dollars, and yet this guy never had a real job, nor never had his own business, so where did he accumulate his wealth?

Posted: **Wed Aug 02, 2006 2:45 pm**

So, 20 days into this conflict, what does Israel have to show?

Hizbollah is still launching rockets, and it seems like they haven't been affected at all by the attacks...

Posted: **Wed Aug 02, 2006 3:02 pm**

@NeonVomit : your sense of humour is bad.

Moreover, if Hezbollah is still launching rockets, that's because they are not brave at all, hiding themselves among innocents families, using children and women as human shields and israeli army doesn't want to kill innocent people as islamists always do.

Stratovarius Community

WWIII -?

Re: WWIII -?

Re: WWIII -?

Re: WWIII -?

Re: WWIII -?

Re: WWIII -?

Re: WWIII -?

Re: WWIII -?

Re: WWIII -?

Re: WWIII -?

Re: WWIII -?

Re: WWIII -?

Re: WWIII -?

Re: WWIII -?

Re: WWIII -?

Re: WWIII -?

Re: WWIII -?

Re: WWIII -?

Re: WWIII -?

Re: WWIII -?

Re: WWIII -?

Re: WWIII -?

Re: WWIII -?

Re: WWIII -?

Re: WWIII -?

Re: WWIII -?

Re: WWIII -?

Re: WWIII -?

Re: WWIII -?

Re: WWIII -?

Re: WWIII -?