Is Sending Troops to Lebanon a Demonstration of Our Israeli Slavery?

Here is an argument divided into at least three fronts: Propaganda in The Media, The War Itself and The Outcome.

Propaganda In the Media: Part One…
Ok so Israeli had been planning a war with Lebanon for some time

1. www.news24.com...
2. www.sfgate.com.../c/a/2006/07/21/MNG2QK396D1.DTL&hw=kalman&sn=001&sc=1000
3. www.islamonline.net...
4. news.independent.co.uk...

Now you don’t need to be a genius to realise this probably true. After all Hezbollah had been growing stronger literally in front of the Israelis eyes; and who does Israel consult whenever its planning to do something militarily? Why the U.S of course. As their greatest ally it would be unwise for them not too, (even in the hypothetical event they had every intention of ignoring them).

So basically Israel had been looking for a provocation to start a Hezbollah demolition campaign. What this means is that the argument has changed a little. It was no longer Hezbollah which started this war.
This unless of course you accept the argument that Israel did a military invasion in which they wrecked their defence budget, lost over a hundred soldiers to save two soldiers. If true the Israel must be truly insane; it’s a real life Saving Private Brian (without the tragic family history as a justification). Say what you like about Israel but in my opinion “insane” is seldomely a good description.

So every time you here on CNN, Fox, Sky, BBC that “Hezbollah started this war” you are hearing an opinion (and one which simple logic plus evidence dictates is probably wrong). It’s certainly true that Hezbollah provoked this war. Although the kidnapped soldiers was the provocation I doubt that’s what truly provoked it. I think it was their build up of arms that provoked it in truth.

My Point: If this is the reality then how neutral our media is in Israelis favour? It’s a joke; because rather than just saying “the terrorist organisation of Hezbollah provoked this war by building up arms over the border, and Israel initionally lied to the world about this war through saying its simply an operation to recover two kidnapped soldiers” we instead here “Hezbollah started this war”. Not “Hezbollah started this war in our-my-Israelis opinion” but “Hezbollah started this war” as though it’s an undisputed matter of fact.
This isn’t a mistake that’s close to propaganda. Make no mistake; this is propaganda because it deliberately misleads. Arguably its only one example of biases…
Others may include the way we forget to mention the ten to one death ratio, or in light of this give both sides equal reporting time (as though they are suffering equally). Forgetting to call in the military annalists to explain what sort of terrorist target power stations and airports is another example.
But the way they report Hezbollah as starting this war (rather than provoking it) is the clearest example of propaganda amongst them all.

Part Two…The War Itself
Anyway (rightfully or wrongly) Israel has this war against Hezbollah. It was only after Israel starting bombing Lebanon that Hezbollah started bombing Israel. This of course mobilises Israeli public opinion in favour of the war.
They deliberately bomb power stations and airports. They deliberately bomb roads and bridges, blocks of flats and despite what they say (like the PowerStation’s) I'm not sure if all them were bombed because they were terrorist’s targets.

And in any case it’s certainly true that one third of Lebanon’s civilian population left Lebanon which is hardly true of Israel.

The Military Results…
After bombing the hell out of all manor of infrastructure from the sky Israelis discovered that (far from falling) the number of missiles kept on rising. Right from the start new daily records were being set. On the last day before the ceasefire came into effect a new all time record was set (this in my view kind of takes the piss).

So Israel decided the natural thing to do was to launch a ground invasion. Once again they lied to the world by claiming 30,000 troops had been sent when in fact it was closure to 10,000. But by this time they had already demonstrated other PR techniques detrimental to the truth; e.g. by realising a video of Hezbollah missiles being fired from a civilian area; www.israel-mfa.gov.il...
immediately after they had just killed about 90 people in Qana
www.grandforks.com...
The trouble is (as the Israeli military admitted) the two videos were not the same. All the same it was an excellent PR move given how little mention that fact got.

Having sent about 10,000 troops Israel soon discovered they were dropping dead like flies.
1. July 26: 14 dead Israeli troops:
abcnews.go.com...
www.freemuslims.org...
2. July 27: 8 dead: www.telegraph.co.uk.../news/2006/07/27/wmid227.xml
3. August 3rd: 5 dead: www.iol.co.za...
4. August 6th direct hit kills 12: www.iht.com...

(All the above is only from a quick Googling)
I use the expression “like flies” because given the little military progress they made it really is quite a lot. And because there are far more Arabs willing to die for Israel than there are Israelis willing to die for Israel. Hence (militarily) Hezbollah can easily afford to loose 3 troops for every Israeli soldier they kill. It’s probably an even better ratio than Iraq; and volunteers come from both home and abroad to fight for that.

Part 3 The Outcome…

Diplomatic…
1. On Saturday 5th of August France and U.S agree draft ceasefire agreement www.dailykos.com...
2. 7th August: Lebanese demand it be revised to demand Israeli withdrew after hostilities have finished: www.haaretz.com...
3. 11th of August: new ceasefire unanimously approved by the U.N registration.ft.com...://www.google.co.uk/search?hl=en&as_qdr=all&q=u.n+ceasefire&meta=&location=http%3A//www.f t.com/cms/s/61ae5bc4-296f-11db-9dcc-0000779e2340.html
4. 12th August: Lebanese cabinet unanimously approves ceasefire: www.jpost.com... (This includes two Hezbollah members)
5. Israeli cabinet approves ceasefire on the 13th of August www.foxnews.com...
6. Lebanese start returning home: news.bbc.co.uk...
7. 20th August: Lebanon demands its people keep the ceasefire: news.bbc.co.uk...

Military Dead….
According to this 16th of August source www.vindy.com...
its 118 Israeli Soldiers and 39 civilians (157 total)
But only 815 Lebanese. We now know this to be in excess of 1000
electronicintifada.net...
www.indybay.org...
news.bbc.co.uk...

Here is an 11th August forum source to back the figures in the first up: www.politics.ie...

As for Hezbollah’s dead: Nobody knows, I guess they were to busy fighting Israeli invaders to spend time demoralising themselves. However the Israeli army claims its 530 on 14th August: www.theaustralian.news.com.au...
Look at the diplomatic timeline and you will see 14th of August is the day the ceasefire came into effect. So Israel is claiming 530 dead for the whole war; they could be exaggerating but I think 530 is a pretty far figure.

Military arms expenditure…
Hezbollah has launched 3 to 4 thousand Katyusha rockets. The 118 Israeli death toll can be explained by first Israelis air raid warning system, and secondly by their extreme in accuracy. Many Katysha’s just ended up in fields. Katyusha’s were first used by the Soviets in World War Two in 1942 en.wikipedia.org...

Israel: I don’t know how many bombs they have dropped. I do know that in one area alone Israel dropped 4000 bombs in seven hours members5.boardhost.com...

Political…
1. Iran is apparently compensating families of Hezbollah dead: www.theaustralian.news.com.au...
2. Hezbollah is compensating victims of Israeli bombing (in U.S dollars): www.rep-am.com... apparently some claimants have received 12,000 dollars.
www.foxnews.com...
www.arabnews.com...
www.manartv.com.lb...
3. Hezbollah support at all time high
A. www.examiner.com...
B.www.speroforum.com...
C. www.scrippsnews.com...
4. U.S Bush Administration rushes to support reconstruction in bid to outdo Hezbollah: www.theage.com.au...
5. 20th August: Israel gets a bloody noise in special ops operation designed to prevent Hezbollah stocking up with new missiles: news.bbc.co.uk...

And someone said Israel had won? Well if Hezbollah’s support is at an all time high (I call this “the Blitz effect”) and if they are rearming, and awash with cash; I would say nothing could be further from the truth. What about those captured soldiers? Never mind the 250 rockets fired on the last day!!!.
Isn’t talk of some sort of Israeli victory just more evidence of the pro Israeli bias in our press? What has Israel accomplished? Personally I would be astonished if the 530 Hezbollah fighters the Israelis say they have killed; haven’t already been replaced with new recruits. Question: Would it be unrealistic to say double-quadruple that is at least in the pipeline?

6. Meanwhile Israelis and Arabs are unhappy with ceasefire
www.allheadlinenews.com...
www.cbsnews.com...

Personally whilst I'm very glad the fighting has stopped I have to admit so am I. Because if the Israeli public is psychologically damaged enough by their experience in the region to think they should have finished the job; then maybe that would be an excellent idea? Finishing the job would mean losing about 40 Israeli soldiers everyday until the Israeli public realises that no matter how many fighters or civilians it kills their will always be plenty of people willing to fight them.
Even if (hypothetically) Israel nuked the whole surface of Lebanon after day one Hezbollah fighters would emerge from the caves and tunnels even more eager to die knowing they would otherwise suffer the results of radiation poising. After week one Hezbollah would be joined with other Arab fighters across the borders. The nuked out terrain might provide even better sniper-fighter material than if it had been left completely standing.
It’s obvious that the Israeli public (cushioned by the way with news censorship) doesn’t realise this. Their Prime Minister has made his first politically brave decision (really on behalf of his people) by saving them (and the region) the bloodshed that would be needed to get the message over to this messed up public.

Question…
Why are we the west going to send troops to Lebanon?

If it’s to do with human rights and stuff there is another way. We simply say to Israel: Israel you can do your bombing but leave airports, power stations (and most apartment blocks) of the list. If you don’t like that then we won’t supply you with money and weapons. But as you need our money and weapons (just to exist) we know you will comply with basic rules of war in order to have access to those weapons.

This way Israel has it’s war, civilian lives are safeguarded, and in the event Israel doesn’t comply we only need cut its weapons supply of for a week and you can sure that by week two they will comply.

If Israelis think the war in Lebanon was right thing why doesn’t it provide the troops? We after all will inevitably (and I would say wickedly) provide it with both the money and weapons it needs to sustain a war. Why should our troops do anything in Lebanon?

What I See Happening…
1. Ceasefire continues for a bit
2. U.N troops from European countries arrive (Note: these are areas where pro Israelis have great influence over the media).
3. Suddenly the ceasefire is violated; war commences.
4. U.N troops are left with a choice: Who do you fight? Hezbollah or the Israelis? Hezbollah or the Israelis? (Fighting Israelis is a bit like fighting the U.S by the way). I'm not sure if it’s worse or second in U.S policy eyes; but it’s defiantly one of the two.
5. U.N troops basically become reinforcements for the Israeli army.
6. After many casualties; the U.N and the Israeli army looses. At the very least no progress is made; because as long as Hezbollah is a popular defender against Israeli; Hezbollah has everything needed to sustain a guerrilla army.

The Alternative…
Israeli and Lebanese troops are left to sort out everything; because (for the Israelis) there is no one else. We typically (immorally) sustain Israeli from the sidelines with cash and arms; whilst (perhaps) monitoring civilian atrocities with aid threats (which at some point would almost certainly have to be carried out).
Meanwhile we prepare to loose many more of own troops with the war against Iran.

100% My Opinion
This is another war effectively on Israelis behalf because without needing to defend Israel there is no reason why we can’t have peace with Iran. Israel has nuclear weapons and many of Iran’s leader aren’t holy; but people who fear Mutually Assured Destruction as much as any man (because they would go to hell even by the standards of their own religion).
The ones that are holy aren’t completely crazy, and many of them won’t want to explain to Allah why they caused a mass extinction of his believers. You have to be truly insane to fill the portrait of the pro-death, Muslim, fanatical leader seen in our own pro war propaganda. These people don’t actually run Iran; even the Iranian president doesn’t run Iran; the Ayatollah on the over hand does. Anything the Iranian president says is just a damn good way finish a speech.

So ATS What Do You Make of the Comments and Facts I Posted I’ve Posted In This Thread So Far?

Are we behaving like Israeli slaves? Look into Friends of Israel or even this other thread of mine politics.abovetopsecret.com... where I did my own research using political donations data from the electoral commission and you will hopefully see they at least hold a strong influence.


[edit on 090705 by Liberal1984]

Who is this "we" you speak of? As far as i know, the US hasnt sent any troops to Lebanon. In fact the UN itself cant even get countries to commit to sending troops to Lebanon. France pledged 2,000-3,000 troops as part of the cease-fire and now they are talking of sending only 200. So again, who are being slaves of Israel by sending troops to Lebanon?

You obviously haven’t heard. Here is the search result from Google “send troops to Lebanon”… www.google.co.uk...

Amongst them is: Italy, France, Turkey and the democratically troubled country of Egypt. www.foreignpolicy.com...

See also: “Italy aggress to send troops to Lebanon” www.ynetnews.com...

Maybe titles like that are just a pile of rubbish? Ether way enjoy you’re reading.

[edit on 090705 by Liberal1984]

Ummmm as far as i know, no troops from any of those countries have been deployed? Im sorry, your information seems to be flawed. At the present, its only the same UNIFIL force thats been in Lebanon and the Lebanese troops who have been deployed.

Did you even read my previous post concerning the ZFrench troops or rather lackthereof?

[edit on 20-8-2006 by princeofpeace]

Well I guess just about every newspaper I’ve been reading over the last few days has also been “flawed”. You should consider really getting in touch with the press complaints commission.

At present all the talk is of expanding the UNIFIL.
I Still don’t see why we (the West) should be sending our boys to die in yet another conflict zone? This is especially because since Israel has such a first rate army; and because they have (apparently) been somewhat victories (as opposed to completely un-victories as well as somewhat murderous) they should be perfectly capable of sorting out the mess themselves.
As I said (in the main post) we don’t need to worry about human rights. If things like Israel using white phosphorus on ambulance workers, blowing up “terrorist” airports and power stations bothers us we can just threaten the aid money pile we send into Israel. I see no reason why we should be sending our boys to die; or even money, unless someone really needs it.

posted by princeofpeace

Did you even read my previous post concerning the French troops or rather lack thereof? [Edited by Don W]

There is something missing here. The French - like most all countries except our own - are very responsible and reliable.

I did hear the “fine print” of the UN agreement included the Israeli withdrawal before the UN went in, but the Israeli are saying today, that the UN must be there “as they withdraw.

If we ever needed a live demonstration why the UN is not too happy about helping clean up our mess in Lebanon, keep in mind Israel has already violated the agreement even before it has gone into effect.

That proves to me the French are correct in waiting. The French do not treat dead French soldiers as cavalier as we treat dead American GIs.



[edit on 8/20/2006 by donwhite]

posted by Liberal1984

“ . . the talk is of expanding the UNIFIL. I Still don’t see why we should be sending our boys to die in yet another conflict zone? As I said in the main post we don’t need to worry about human rights. I see no reason why we should be sending our boys to die; or money, unless someone really needs it.
[Edited by Don W]

The current screw-up in the ME - now also in Lebanon - can be back dated to March 18, 2003. The older screw-up began in 1948. We - the West - inserted the Jewish people into old Palestine now Israel and the Occupied Territories, to salve our own consciences.

As we have paid no regard to the local inhabitants anywhere beginning in North America in 1607, so we paid no attention to the people who lived there before 1948. Or in Iraq. Or in Vietnam. Or anywhere.

It is analogous to me coming to your house and telling you I’m taking half of it for these new fellows and you have to move over. Then you resist and now we have kicked you out of half of the half we left you with at first. You keep mucking with us and you will be out altogether, which is our plan. So are you supposed to like this approach?

I think your last post Donwhite gave some extremely good reasons for not getting involved militarily in this part of the Middle East (in any form).
Anyway we were hardly welcomed last time we went there; back in 1982 our troops took some serious suicide blasts (one killed over 200 soldiers).

As for the French thing (you mentioned before) well it’s obvious. The French don’t want to fulfil my “prophecy” were all hell brakes loose once foreign countries have sent their troops inside. Given the way the Israelis “respected” that other U.N post (the one which got bombed after the people inside had given there coordinates about ten times) I half think we should be withdrawing; not adding to troop numbers.

I would be extremely surprised if they would politically get away with firing on Israeli soldiers (in almost any circumstances). If so the U.N presence constitutes nothing but an extension of the Israeli forces. Israel has its own forces. And if Israel’s public are so keen for them “to finish the job” then I half think: “no atrocities thank you; but go ahead; we’ll see you in the next life!!!”

Anyway if a war with Iran is mostly on Israelis behalf (which it almost pretty much is) then I’m sure its only fair (and certainly convenient) if Israel takes some of the death toll of fighting this country. www.theconservativevoice.com...
(at least that’s what Israeli television apparently said) www.captainsquartersblog.com...

As for this Iran stuff; I’ll agree with anyone Israel did the right thing, (if in return) we stay out of the conflict. Obviously Israel really did a bad thing. This area’s full to the brim with reasons why we should stay out. Amongst them is “if Israel behaves itself there won’t be a problem”. Given how quite things had been before I would say this view was at least roughly right. If correct I’d be surprised if Israel’s PM really wanted peace; otherwise he could have implemented this perspective.
Personally I'm wondering if what he really wanted was a war that would make him incredibly popular. If so we should be particularly glad it’s not turning out this way.

quote "At present all the talk is of expanding the UNIFIL."


Exactly bro so far its all talk!!! You are starting a thread trying to argue a point that hasnt yet happened and as of right now, has a better chance of not happening than happening!!! Dont get so freakin defensive until you see the UN force on the ground and whom its made up of.

[edit on 20-8-2006 by princeofpeace]

Originally posted by donwhite
There is something missing here. The French - like most all countries except our own - are very responsible and reliable.

The French are requesting a review of the specifics concerning UN 1701 and desire clear definitions of certain terms from the UN.

But as the one of the primary authors of the ceasfire agreement, one would hope the French had a ‘grasp’ and understood its’ commitments by considering what to anticipate…this would speak volumes in their abilities concerning diplomacy had they not.

Originally posted by donwhite
I did hear the “fine print” of the UN agreement included the Israeli withdrawal before the UN went in, but the Israeli are saying today, that the UN must be there “as they withdraw.

Upon full cessation of hostilities, calls upon the government of Lebanon and Unifil as authorised by paragraph 11 to deploy their forces together throughout the South and calls upon the government of Israel, as that deployment begins, to withdraw all of its forces from southern Lebanon in parallel”
BBC Text Version UN 1701

The French commander, UN, Israeli and Lebanese government further hashed out the terms for withdraw in first days following the ceasfire. The agreement was as the UN or Lebanese military under UN observation enters, the IDF will withdraw. My understanding they have drawn sectors for an orderly withdraw.

Originally posted by donwhite
keep in mind Israel has already violated the agreement even before it has gone into effect.

I am not sure how one “violates an agreement before it has gone into effect” but;
Hezbollah broke the ceasfire late in the first day with attacks in violation of OP1 UN 1701.

Originally posted by donwhite
That proves to me the French are correct in waiting. The French do not treat dad French soldiers as cavalier as we trat dead American GIs.

What a crap comment…go ask the French soldiers in Africa.


mg

Although I understand Italy is committed; and that the French will still send several hundred engineers (yes they are definitely squeamish about the troops). But I accept what you say about not jumping the gun.
I guess the way to analyse the question in this thread works like this…
1. No extra troops: definitely not Israeli slaves
2. Some extra troops-engineers: Means nothing; as it’s exactly what you would expect of us in a conflict zone, in this part of the world.
3. Lots of extra troops, having the guts ripped out them as they fight Hezbollah: Equals Israeli slaves. It’s not in our interests, we can anticipate this before it happens, and Israel is perfectly entitled and responsible for fighting its own enemies.

Media
However on the media front I think it’s definitely fair to say that almost all (if not all) the mainstream media has been biased in Israelis favour. This is best demonstrated by the way they accepted that a kidnapping of two soldiers was the reason for this war; and that this therefore made Hezbollah responsible for starting this war.
This point of view is particularly wrong if it’s true that Israel had been planning this war in advance and had been looking for a provocation. They have over reported the status of the kidnapping been the provocation for this war; whilst under reporting the significance of the other provocation (Hezbollah’s build up of arms over the last 6 years).

Defeat
They have generally (but not completely) failed to educate the public about the significance of Israel’s strategic defeat in this war. This is because Hezbollah is both more popular and awash with cash than ever before; because of this Hezbollah is unlikely to have many problems replacing the missiles it’s used on Israel. The Israeli military has suffered many losses in return for little military victory; and that this draws us some serious lessons about our own ability to fight terrorism in the way they have done.

Strategy?
Frankly with the way Israel attacked things like power stations and airports its almost like they were fighting a battle against hearts and minds rather than for them. Why else did the arrogant fools fight this war in this way? Do they really believe you can bomb a population into firstly submission and then secondly into somehow being on your side?
Perhaps it’s true with their own psychology? (I guess trying to understanding their logic). If so does history show this with the rest of Humanity? I think of every war were civilians have been obliterated, and I think not. As far as PR goes I think ether killing or disrupting the lives of the general public is a damn good way of generally uniting them against you. Maybe if Israel hadn’t fought this war in this way it would still be ok-relatively safe to send troops to Lebanon? Isn’t it like they’ve dirtied their own nest?

You have voted Liberal1984 for the Way Above Top Secret award. You have one more vote left for this month.

Agrees with you Liberal, its funny how this was planned months in advance eh....

Er.. have you ever even seen Saving Private Ryan? Because uh.. it isn't Brian?

Of course I stoped at that because I thought it was funny and while your thread is well researched I find that I am not in the mood to read it. Till next time.

Originally posted by donwhite

posted by princeofpeace

Did you even read my previous post concerning the French troops or rather lack thereof? [Edited by Don W]

There is something missing here. The French - like most all countries except our own - are very responsible and reliable.

I did hear the “fine print” of the UN agreement included the Israeli withdrawal before the UN went in, but the Israeli are saying today, that the UN must be there “as they withdraw.

If we ever needed a live demonstration why the UN is not too happy about helping clean up our mess in Lebanon, keep in mind Israel has already violated the agreement even before it has gone into effect.

That proves to me the French are correct in waiting. The French do not treat dead French soldiers as cavalier as we treat dead American GIs.



[edit on 8/20/2006 by donwhite]

WWWHHHAAAATTTT!!!?!?!?!?!?!?

FRANCE.... RELIABLE.. those words are polar oppsites my friend.

A list of all things great about France. Please, read and laugh at French history.

France and Her Military Might

France offered troops to Lebanon, wanted to lead the operation, then couldnt get enough troops, and have sense relied on some 200 engineers and no troops. Go france.

French army is always there when they need you.

posted by Rockpuck

FRANCE . . RELIABLE . . those words are polar opposites . . France offered troops to Lebanon to lead the operation, then couldn’t get enough troops and have since relied on 200 engineers and no troops. French army is always there when they need you. [Edited by Don W]

I am convinced there are good and valid reasons why we in the US have the impression the French backed out of a “deal” that we regarded as “made.” What are the British papers saying about this mysterious shortfall in Lebanon? I’d guess it relates to the French not having agreed to send in forces to MAKE peace but rather to send in forces to KEEP the peace.

In any case, the United States would be the Dominion of America had it not have been for the French. And New York City would be the capital and there would still be swamps on the banks of the Potomac.

At the decisive battle of Yorktown, about half the soldiers on our side were French soldiers. Our own soldiers were wearing uniforms made in French, carrying muskets made in France and shooting shot and powder imported from France. If they had any money in their pockets, it was French supplied. Finally, Lord Conwallis’ plan to retire - retreat - to NYC was thwarted by Admiral de Grasse whose French fleet kept the British navy from evacuating the Red Coats. Add to that France was the first continental European power to recognize our fledgling government and you have a debt owed to France we have not yet repaid. Vive la France!

Click Here to Vote for the Automotive Forum
www.abovetopsecret.com...



[edit on 8/21/2006 by donwhite]

At the decisive battle of Yorktown, about half the soldiers on our side were French soldiers. Our own soldiers were wearing uniforms made in French, carrying muskets made in France and shooting shot and powder imported from France. If they had any money in their pockets, it was French supplied. Finally, Lord Conwallis’ plan to retire - retreat - to NYC was thwarted by Admiral de Grasse whose French fleet kept the British navy from evacuating the Red Coats. Add to that France was the first continental European power to recognize our fledgling government and you have a debt owed to France we have not yet repaid. Vive la France!

Okay and the US helped destroy the Nazis and liberate France. What is your point?

Liberal for some reason is writing things, and I have not grasped what he/she is talking about.

France was supposedly going to be the leader of sending troops there. They are now sending 400, and only 200 are combat trained. It sounds a lot like France was trying to be the savior of the day in writing, but now...???