Nasrallah indirectly admits to effectiveness of Israeli assault

[Aisengard]

http://apnews.myway.com/article/20060809/D8JD2LIG0.html

"In the past we used to oppose or not agree on deployment of the army at the borders," the Hezbollah leader said. Now, he said, "we agree on deployment of the army."

So there you go. Terrorist group is beginning to concede, in favor of them not being completely obliterated.

Not tolerating terrorist attacks FTW.

 

[fallenangel99]

How is his statement even remotely close to your statement "Nasrallah indirectly admits to effectiveness of Israeli assault"???

He is talking about the U.N. Draft Resolution to deploy Lebanese troops in the South, NOT about the Israeli assault or anything of such nature.

He admitted previously to being surprised by the Israeli response, and Israel has also admitted to a tough fight in S.Lebanon (15 soldiers died today in combat).

P.S.: He even released a statement saying, among other things, "We will fight until the last bullet".

Casualties on both sides incoming!

 

[Aisengard]

In the past, Hezbollah used to oppose any kind of loss of control of Southern Lebanon.

Israel attacks and is smothering them.

Now, they support an army because they cannot control Southern Lebanon.

Do you, you know, have any reading comprehension? He's CONCEDING CONTROL to the Lebanese army BECAUSE Israel attacked it. What else could cause him to say such things? WHY are they only now agreeing on deployment of an army at the borders?

(Hint: it has everything to do with the Israeli assault)


EDIT: And why no talk of the 30+ Hezbollah members killed? There have been plenty more Hezbollah casualties than Israeli ones, but why is no one talking about that? Could they be...censoring these things? With all the reports of manipulated photos coming out from not only Reuters but from the AP and even the New York Times, I wouldn't put it past them.

 

[Rainsford]

Originally posted by: Aisengard
http://apnews.myway.com/article/20060809/D8JD2LIG0.html

"In the past we used to oppose or not agree on deployment of the army at the borders," the Hezbollah leader said. Now, he said, "we agree on deployment of the army."

So there you go. Terrorist group is beginning to concede, in favor of them not being completely obliterated.

Not tolerating terrorist attacks FTW.

That's some pretty linear logic. Israel attacks Lebanon, Hezbollah leader concedes a point to the Lebanese government, therefore the attack was effective and a good idea. Never mind the unintended consequences of Israel's actions, which could turn this into a situation of winning the battle and loosing the war.

 

[MadRat]

Why no talk of the 160 Palestinian terrorists in the last month? Isreal is cracking down not only in Lebanon, but the Gaza strip, too.

 

[Aisengard]

Originally posted by: Rainsford

Originally posted by: Aisengard
http://apnews.myway.com/article/20060809/D8JD2LIG0.html

"In the past we used to oppose or not agree on deployment of the army at the borders," the Hezbollah leader said. Now, he said, "we agree on deployment of the army."

So there you go. Terrorist group is beginning to concede, in favor of them not being completely obliterated.

Not tolerating terrorist attacks FTW.

That's some pretty linear logic. Israel attacks Lebanon, Hezbollah leader concedes a point to the Lebanese government, therefore the attack was effective and a good idea. Never mind the unintended consequences of Israel's actions, which could turn this into a situation of winning the battle and loosing the war.

Thanks. Cause and effect, please tell me any other way that would get Hezbollah to concede control.

 

[jpeyton]

I'm sorry, I wasn't expecting a third-rate interpretation. I thought maybe Nasrallah said something like "Israel's assault is effective".

 

[Aisengard]

Originally posted by: jpeyton
I'm sorry, I wasn't expecting a third-rate interpretation. I thought maybe Nasrallah said something like "Israel's assault is effective".

Wow, you are pretty sad. Please, give me a better explanation of his concession? Why, before the Israeli assault did Nasrallah not want to concede control of southern Lebanon, but after the assault, he does?

You won't get much more of a consession from military leaders. They must project strength at all costs.

 

[RichardE]

Originally posted by: Aisengard

Originally posted by: jpeyton
I'm sorry, I wasn't expecting a third-rate interpretation. I thought maybe Nasrallah said something like "Israel's assault is effective".

Wow, you are pretty sad. Please, give me a better explanation of his concession? Why, before the Israeli assault did Nasrallah not want to concede control of southern Lebanon, but after the assault, he does?

You won't get much more of a consession from military leaders. They must project strength at all costs.

Don't worry, these are the same people who will not belive Iraq was a failure until Bush comes out and says it. On national tv.

 

[Aimster]

Lebanan's army in the South will mean Hezbollah's 3,000 man army can grow to 73,000 + 50,000 reserve army.

That would be their dream. More troops to fight off the 30,000 Israeli troops.

 

[Aisengard]

Originally posted by: Aimster
Lebanan's army in the South will mean Hezbollah's 3,000 man army can grow to 73,000 + 50,000 reserve army.

That would be their dream. More troops to fight off the 30,000 Israeli troops.

With that many troops, though, how would they hide behind the Lebanese women and children?

 

[linkgoron]

Originally posted by: Aimster
Lebanan's army in the South will mean Hezbollah's 3,000 man army can grow to 73,000 + 50,000 reserve army.

That would be their dream. More troops to fight off the 30,000 Israeli troops.

But then Israel could attack soldiers and instead of 1.5/1 civilians per soldier, it'll change to 1/5 civilians per soldier, and then all of you guys crying would say that now everything's ok...

 

[Rainsford]

Originally posted by: Aisengard

Originally posted by: Rainsford

Originally posted by: Aisengard
http://apnews.myway.com/article/20060809/D8JD2LIG0.html

"In the past we used to oppose or not agree on deployment of the army at the borders," the Hezbollah leader said. Now, he said, "we agree on deployment of the army."

So there you go. Terrorist group is beginning to concede, in favor of them not being completely obliterated.

Not tolerating terrorist attacks FTW.

That's some pretty linear logic. Israel attacks Lebanon, Hezbollah leader concedes a point to the Lebanese government, therefore the attack was effective and a good idea. Never mind the unintended consequences of Israel's actions, which could turn this into a situation of winning the battle and loosing the war.

Thanks. Cause and effect, please tell me any other way that would get Hezbollah to concede control.

I'll have to think about that one a little bit, but I'm not sure you understood what I said. It doesn't matter if this was the best way possible to get Hezbollah to make this concession...I'm saying it might not have been worth it...Israel might get the concession but at what cost in terms of broader strategic goals? They've effectively ruined their reputation around the world, and given terrorist organizations the best recruiting campaign imaginable. Thus the "winning the battle and loosing the war" and linear thinking.

 

[Aisengard]

Originally posted by: Rainsford

Originally posted by: Aisengard

Originally posted by: Rainsford

Originally posted by: Aisengard
http://apnews.myway.com/article/20060809/D8JD2LIG0.html

"In the past we used to oppose or not agree on deployment of the army at the borders," the Hezbollah leader said. Now, he said, "we agree on deployment of the army."

So there you go. Terrorist group is beginning to concede, in favor of them not being completely obliterated.

Not tolerating terrorist attacks FTW.

That's some pretty linear logic. Israel attacks Lebanon, Hezbollah leader concedes a point to the Lebanese government, therefore the attack was effective and a good idea. Never mind the unintended consequences of Israel's actions, which could turn this into a situation of winning the battle and loosing the war.

Thanks. Cause and effect, please tell me any other way that would get Hezbollah to concede control.

I'll have to think about that one a little bit, but I'm not sure you understood what I said. It doesn't matter if this was the best way possible to get Hezbollah to make this concession...I'm saying it might not have been worth it...Israel might get the concession but at what cost in terms of broader strategic goals? They've effectively ruined their reputation around the world, and given terrorist organizations the best recruiting campaign imaginable. Thus the "winning the battle and loosing the war" and linear thinking.

I'll counter your reputation point by saying that Israel never had a good reputation around the world to begin with. Believe it or not, but there is still worldwide anti-semitism. I don't know what it is, and it's less now, but back in World War II I would wager there was as much worldwide anti-semitism as racism in America. Things changed, in America at least, after the Holocaust but Israel was created not so much as a treat to the Jews but more as a place for Jews to go so they wouldn't have to stay in European countries.

Anyway, this is getting a bit off-topic, but the same goes for the creation of terrorists. There is as much hatred imbued into those poor Arab children as can fit already. I will state that Israel can not do much else to lower their reputation among the Middle East. Until there is a radical change in thinking, caused by people within, not without, the Arab community, then these kinds of things will keep happening.

To tell Israel to turn the other cheek, like some mangled teaching of Jesus, is ridiculous. I maintain that they did absolutely the right thing in showing Hezbollah and terrorists worldwide that their actions will not be tolerated. Since I don't think they can make these people hate them even more, save firing nukes directly at Mecca and that other city that's more holy to Muslims than Jerusalem, deterrent by force is the best option.

 

[Rainsford]

Originally posted by: Aisengard

Originally posted by: Rainsford

Originally posted by: Aisengard

Originally posted by: Rainsford

Originally posted by: Aisengard
http://apnews.myway.com/article/20060809/D8JD2LIG0.html

"In the past we used to oppose or not agree on deployment of the army at the borders," the Hezbollah leader said. Now, he said, "we agree on deployment of the army."

So there you go. Terrorist group is beginning to concede, in favor of them not being completely obliterated.

Not tolerating terrorist attacks FTW.

That's some pretty linear logic. Israel attacks Lebanon, Hezbollah leader concedes a point to the Lebanese government, therefore the attack was effective and a good idea. Never mind the unintended consequences of Israel's actions, which could turn this into a situation of winning the battle and loosing the war.

Thanks. Cause and effect, please tell me any other way that would get Hezbollah to concede control.

I'll have to think about that one a little bit, but I'm not sure you understood what I said. It doesn't matter if this was the best way possible to get Hezbollah to make this concession...I'm saying it might not have been worth it...Israel might get the concession but at what cost in terms of broader strategic goals? They've effectively ruined their reputation around the world, and given terrorist organizations the best recruiting campaign imaginable. Thus the "winning the battle and loosing the war" and linear thinking.

I'll counter your reputation point by saying that Israel never had a good reputation around the world to begin with. Believe it or not, but there is still worldwide anti-semitism. I don't know what it is, and it's less now, but back in World War II I would wager there was as much worldwide anti-semitism as racism in America. Things changed, in America at least, after the Holocaust but Israel was created not so much as a treat to the Jews but more as a place for Jews to go so they wouldn't have to stay in European countries.

Anyway, this is getting a bit off-topic, but the same goes for the creation of terrorists. There is as much hatred imbued into those poor Arab children as can fit already. I will state that Israel can not do much else to lower their reputation among the Middle East. Until there is a radical change in thinking, caused by people within, not without, the Arab community, then these kinds of things will keep happening.

To tell Israel to turn the other cheek, like some mangled teaching of Jesus, is ridiculous. I maintain that they did absolutely the right thing in showing Hezbollah and terrorists worldwide that their actions will not be tolerated. Since I don't think they can make these people hate them even more, save firing nukes directly at Mecca and that other city that's more holy to Muslims than Jerusalem, deterrent by force is the best option.

I'm not worried about Israel making Hezbollah or other terrorist organizations hate them more, I'm worried about them making the average Muslim decide that maybe picking up a gun isn't such a bad idea. All rhetoric aside, terrorist organizations are a minority in the Muslim world. But I think that if Israel and Israel's supporters continue to have their way, we really will be facing a war with the entire Muslim world...and you're only making it worse with the assumption that using direct force is OK because Israel can't possibly make any more enemies.

 

[Orignal Earl]

Originally posted by: Aisengard
I don't know what it is, and it's less now, but back in World War II I would wager there was as much worldwide anti-semitism as racism in America. Things changed, in America at least, after the Holocaust but Israel was created not so much as a treat to the Jews but more as a place for Jews to go so they wouldn't have to stay in European countries.

Most of what I'd thought about the fort's role in World War II turned out to be wrong as well. A little background may be helpful first.

Although numerous European governments on both sides of the conflict appealed to the U.S. to shelter some Jews from the Holocaust, FDR was adamant about not letting a single Jew become an American citizen throughout the war and he was also adamantly opposed to temporarily sheltering any refugees. However, by 1944 pressure from countries such as England had become so intense that FDR felt he had to make at least a token gesture. Consequently, it was decided to accept one boatload of refugees.

I'd thought that these 982 people, most of them Jews, were saved from the Holocaust. However, I learned from Patrick that they'd already escaped the death camps and were residing in liberated Italy. Thus, the U.S. was really doing the Italians a favor by taking 982 mouths to feed off their hands.

Roosevelt wanted to make sure that these folks never became permanent U.S. residents and imprisoned them in Fort Ontario behind barbed wire. I thought that he'd succeeded and that they were eventually deported. However, I learned that the imprisonment wasn't comprehensive during the war, for school-age children were let out during the day to attend Oswego Public Schools, and I also learned that FDR's plan was thwarted.

Congress was also opposed to letting the refugees stay, but Harry Truman felt sorry for them. In 1946, when Congress was in recess, Truman unilaterallly ordered all 982 across the border into Canada for a day and then readmitted to the U.S. by special presidential order; 899 ultimately settled permanently in the U.S. and 50 or 60 returned recently for the 50th anniversary of the Fort Ontario camp.

Oswego

 

[GoPackGo]

Originally posted by: Rainsford

Originally posted by: Aisengard

Originally posted by: Rainsford

Originally posted by: Aisengard

Originally posted by: Rainsford

Originally posted by: Aisengard
http://apnews.myway.com/article/20060809/D8JD2LIG0.html

"In the past we used to oppose or not agree on deployment of the army at the borders," the Hezbollah leader said. Now, he said, "we agree on deployment of the army."

So there you go. Terrorist group is beginning to concede, in favor of them not being completely obliterated.

Not tolerating terrorist attacks FTW.

That's some pretty linear logic. Israel attacks Lebanon, Hezbollah leader concedes a point to the Lebanese government, therefore the attack was effective and a good idea. Never mind the unintended consequences of Israel's actions, which could turn this into a situation of winning the battle and loosing the war.

Thanks. Cause and effect, please tell me any other way that would get Hezbollah to concede control.

I'll have to think about that one a little bit, but I'm not sure you understood what I said. It doesn't matter if this was the best way possible to get Hezbollah to make this concession...I'm saying it might not have been worth it...Israel might get the concession but at what cost in terms of broader strategic goals? They've effectively ruined their reputation around the world, and given terrorist organizations the best recruiting campaign imaginable. Thus the "winning the battle and loosing the war" and linear thinking.

I'll counter your reputation point by saying that Israel never had a good reputation around the world to begin with. Believe it or not, but there is still worldwide anti-semitism. I don't know what it is, and it's less now, but back in World War II I would wager there was as much worldwide anti-semitism as racism in America. Things changed, in America at least, after the Holocaust but Israel was created not so much as a treat to the Jews but more as a place for Jews to go so they wouldn't have to stay in European countries.

Anyway, this is getting a bit off-topic, but the same goes for the creation of terrorists. There is as much hatred imbued into those poor Arab children as can fit already. I will state that Israel can not do much else to lower their reputation among the Middle East. Until there is a radical change in thinking, caused by people within, not without, the Arab community, then these kinds of things will keep happening.

To tell Israel to turn the other cheek, like some mangled teaching of Jesus, is ridiculous. I maintain that they did absolutely the right thing in showing Hezbollah and terrorists worldwide that their actions will not be tolerated. Since I don't think they can make these people hate them even more, save firing nukes directly at Mecca and that other city that's more holy to Muslims than Jerusalem, deterrent by force is the best option.

I'm not worried about Israel making Hezbollah or other terrorist organizations hate them more, I'm worried about them making the average Muslim decide that maybe picking up a gun isn't such a bad idea. All rhetoric aside, terrorist organizations are a minority in the Muslim world. But I think that if Israel and Israel's supporters continue to have their way, we really will be facing a war with the entire Muslim world...and you're only making it worse with the assumption that using direct force is OK because Israel can't possibly make any more enemies.

How can Hezbollah, which is really the mercenary front for Iran, hate Israel anymore?

The destruction of Israel has been called for...what will they call for next...double destruction?

 

[Aisengard]

Double secret destruction.

That's what's been happening, apparently. Nasrallah has been promising the obliteration of Israel and all the Jews around the world for like 20 years, and all he's been able to do is fire some crappy rockets into northern Israel.

And now he's even said Southern Lebanon will be a Jewish graveyard. I guess Israel as a Jewish graveyard is too much of a reach for him.

Props to Israel for finally marginalizing this lunatic.

 

[IrateLeaf]

Originally posted by: Rainsford

Originally posted by: Aisengard
http://apnews.myway.com/article/20060809/D8JD2LIG0.html

"In the past we used to oppose or not agree on deployment of the army at the borders," the Hezbollah leader said. Now, he said, "we agree on deployment of the army."

So there you go. Terrorist group is beginning to concede, in favor of them not being completely obliterated.

Not tolerating terrorist attacks FTW.

That's some pretty linear logic. Israel attacks Lebanon, Hezbollah leader concedes a point to the Lebanese government, therefore the attack was effective and a good idea. Never mind the unintended consequences of Israel's actions, which could turn this into a situation of winning the battle and loosing the war.

Actually hisa logic makes perfect sense. You have to admit ther is no reason for Hezbollah to agre to anything it would have never in the past agreed to unless they were getting their butts kicked and looking for an out without losing clout in the arab world!

 

[jpeyton]

Originally posted by: RichardE

Originally posted by: Aisengard

Originally posted by: jpeyton
I'm sorry, I wasn't expecting a third-rate interpretation. I thought maybe Nasrallah said something like "Israel's assault is effective".

Wow, you are pretty sad. Please, give me a better explanation of his concession? Why, before the Israeli assault did Nasrallah not want to concede control of southern Lebanon, but after the assault, he does?

You won't get much more of a consession from military leaders. They must project strength at all costs.

Don't worry, these are the same people who will not belive Iraq was a failure until Bush comes out and says it. On national tv.

Iraq is a big failure and I've known it for years.

 

[Moonbeam]

I, myself, am quite ignorant on this subject but it's nice to be surrounded by such knowledgeable people.

 

[BBond]

Originally posted by: jpeyton

Originally posted by: RichardE

Originally posted by: Aisengard

Originally posted by: jpeyton
I'm sorry, I wasn't expecting a third-rate interpretation. I thought maybe Nasrallah said something like "Israel's assault is effective".

Wow, you are pretty sad. Please, give me a better explanation of his concession? Why, before the Israeli assault did Nasrallah not want to concede control of southern Lebanon, but after the assault, he does?

You won't get much more of a consession from military leaders. They must project strength at all costs.

Don't worry, these are the same people who will not belive Iraq was a failure until Bush comes out and says it. On national tv.

Iraq is a big failure and I've known it for years.

Iraq is clearly a total and complete failure and Israel's mad-dog attack against Lebanon is strengthening the hand of Syria and Iran while destroying a true fledgling democracy like the fake one our moron in chief claims he's building in Iraq.

Lebanon is a big failure. At least the rest of the world recognizes it even if the U.S. press and certain Israel-partial posters here don't.

Why are Americans so complacent? look at the difference in how they see the world with four newspapers from August 5, 2006

 

[SamurAchzar]

Again, Muslims can - and will - hate Israel for all they like. Israel should defend itself and make sure the price for aggression towards it is untolerable by any society hosting those who attack it.
It's very simple, really.

After this is over, will Hizbullah still be present on the international border? Will it still have the same number of rockets threatning Israeli cities? Will it continue kidnapping Israelis?

If you've answered any of those questions with a "No", Israel has achieved its goal in this war.

Muslims will continue hating Israel for the forseeable future, with or without military actions on Israel's part. They are raised and brainwashed into hating it.
The only way to stop the aggression is to make sure its price is too high.

 

[daniel49]

Originally posted by: Moonbeam
I, myself, am quite ignorant on this subject but it's nice to be surrounded by such knowledgeable people.

Your best post this month.:gift:

 

[ayabe]

Originally posted by: Aisengard

Originally posted by: Rainsford

Originally posted by: Aisengard
http://apnews.myway.com/article/20060809/D8JD2LIG0.html

"In the past we used to oppose or not agree on deployment of the army at the borders," the Hezbollah leader said. Now, he said, "we agree on deployment of the army."

So there you go. Terrorist group is beginning to concede, in favor of them not being completely obliterated.

Not tolerating terrorist attacks FTW.

That's some pretty linear logic. Israel attacks Lebanon, Hezbollah leader concedes a point to the Lebanese government, therefore the attack was effective and a good idea. Never mind the unintended consequences of Israel's actions, which could turn this into a situation of winning the battle and loosing the war.

Thanks. Cause and effect, please tell me any other way that would get Hezbollah to concede control.

I blame the UN, they never enforced their mandate and haven't given the Lebonese government the support they needed.