Okay, I wanna ask a legitimate question, is this forum only dedicated to the discussion of life in the military and the career aspects of it or are we allowed to talk about war history, strategy, gear and equipment, and warriors of the past?

If we could discuss all aspects of military affairs it would be great, as not many of us are enlisted but some of us do like strategic issues and military history.

Also can we talk about guerrilla groups or only about official state armies?

If we can I'd like to make a Hezbullah appreciation thread:

Lately, in uni I've been studying a lot of Lebanese history for my Middle Eastern affairs module and I've found Hezbullah to be a very interesting armed group.

Here I don't want to start a political debate, as it wouldn't belong here, I don't want this to turn into an anti-Muslim or anti-American flamefest, all I want is to discuss Hezbullah as a non-state actor in Lebanon and its fighting capabilities.

The groups was started in the early 80's in Southern Lebanon by the merging of several Shia armed groups who decided to unify in their efforts to resist the Israeli occupation that followed the 1982 invasion.

The groups already in its early days looked at Tehran for moral guidance and Iran did provide training, funds and equipment.

Ze'ev Schiff who is an Israeli defence analyst says that the group is basically a frontal commando of the Iranian Revolutionary Guards, which to a certain extent is true, since thousands of Hezbullah fighters have undergone training in Iran and Iranians have actually been killed by the IDF in the town of Baalbeck during the July 2006 war.

Some have argued that the war in 2006 was nothing but a proxi war between Israel and Iran and possibly the start of a confrontation between the two countries that could continue in the future.

During the 2006 war, Hezbullah fired thousands of rockets on Northern Israel, and although massively bombed by the Israeli Air Force the group was able to fire 200 rockets a day until the very last day of the war.

About 400 Hezbullah fighters were killed, however the group scored a massive victory in the eyes of the public in the Arab world because it managed to hold its ground against the best regional army.

Also Hezbullah fighters managed to hit 47 tanks with anti-tank missiles and of those 16 were destroyed, the Merkava is in the eyes of the Muslim world the symbol of Israeli oppression of the Palestinians, and the images of burning Merkava tanks on Al-Jazeera gave Hezbullah great popularity among the public.

Anyway, officially the group is considered a "terrorist" organization as it was involved in the 1982 bombing of US Marines barracks which claimed 241 dead.

Although acts of terrorism are inexcusable, the group in recent years has refrained from committing such acts and most of its members are actually guerrilla fighters who train to fight Israeli troops.

Israeli intelligence says that since 2006 the groups has replenished its stash of short and medium range rockets and the Lebanese government has failed to disarm the group.

I think it's just a matter of time before there is another confrontation with the IDF.

What do you think? Will they be crushed the next time? Or will they still be able to use their guerrilla tactics to stop the IDF.

Also I think 2006 proved that you cannot rely entirely on airpower, the massive Israeli bombings crippled the Lebanese civilian infrastructure and caused the deaths of 1,200 civilians, however the air strikes did not achieve the goal of destroying Hezbullah portable and easy-to-conceal short range rockets.

Okay, I wanna ask a legitimate question, is this forum only dedicated to the discussion of life in the military and the career aspects of it or are we allowed to talk about war history, strategy, gear and equipment, and warriors of the past?

I'm fine with either of those topics. :]

If we could discuss all aspects of military affairs it would be great, as not many of us are enlisted but some of us do like strategic issues and military history.

Also can we talk about guerrilla groups or only about official state armies?

Thats fine with me. I think Trueborn said something about militia discussion.

I've never heard of Hezbullah before, actually. I'll look more into it online.
I don't keep up with a lot of things. heheh.

Okay good thanks for the reply, there's been much controversy over the creation of this forum, but I think it's actually a good idea to have a place on totse to talk about military-related issues.

If somehow they succed in destroying hezbola, another group will just rise up.

The only way to defeat a guerilla force is to destroy the reason that they are fighting in the first place.

I've never heard of Hezbullah before, actually. I'll look more into it online.
I don't keep up with a lot of things. heheh.

There is a difference between not keeping up, and being oblivious...

http://news.google.ca/news?hl=en&safe=off&resnum=0&q=Hezbollah&um=1&ie=UTF-8&sa=N&tab=wn

Seems to be a lot of news coverage on the subject...

To expand a bit...

As you've noted, air raids against guerilla forces such as the paramilitary wing of Hezbollah are basically fruitless. You can't really destroy their factories because they have none; you can't destroy their airfields because they have none. You get the idea.

However, it has been proven in Iraq that specifically targeted air strikes CAN defeat leaders as was the case with the US air raid on Abu Musab al-Zarqawi (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NlXall-71Wk).

Unfortunately, this is about the *only* effective method of attack in this manner. You can't defeat an ideology despite the fact that many have tried. But you sure as hell can make life miserable for those who choose to do nothing but fight.

I've never heard of Hezbullah before, actually. I'll look more into it online.I don't keep up with a lot of things. heheh.

I guess that's the American Bubble of Reality™ for you.

And it's Hezbollah.

Unfortunately, this is about the *only* effective method of attack in this manner. You can't defeat an ideology despite the fact that many have tried. But you sure as hell can make life miserable for those who choose to do nothing but fight.

Effective? What kind of blockhead thinking is that?

These people aren't stupid, killing the leaders will most likely require you to bomb a civilian target killing innocent women and children in the process. Guess how that will get reported in the Palestinian press. You will do nothing but help propagate a new crop of fighters, whose hatred of you exceeds any discomfort you can possibly inflict upon them.

As much as it may gall some, negotiation is the only effective way of dealing such people, The Good Friday Agreement being a prime example.

Slave of the Beast is right, that's why this whole war on terror's only accomplishment is making the biggest generation of terrorists we've seen.

Fortunately NATO is negotiating in Afghanistan with the Taliban, that way we can leave one front where fuck all is being accomplished.

Also, I'm not sympathetic with the Hezbollah, what you said is right, it's basically an Iranian militia. Lebanon is being turned to shit because of a power struggle between 2 different countries. Poor people.

Effective? What kind of blockhead thinking is that?

What is it with you, Hoss? You really have an "all or nothing" view of things. I used the term "effective" in a relative sense. Of course you can't just air raid like that all the time. Zarqawi was dumb enough and arrogant enough to think he was safe hiding in a farmhouse away from everything.

And Zarqawi's death has achieved what, exactly?

And Zarqawi's death has achieved what, exactly?

It stopped a diabolical murderer bent on purposely targeting and killing masses of unarmed, innocent civilians and destroying any little bit of progress Iraq makes towards establishing a working democratic federalism. Even if this isn't your choice of government, it's still a closer step towards peace in that country.

Zarqawi

destroyed the U.N. headquarters in Baghdad, killing the Brazilian envoy Sérgio Vieira de Melo in the process
assassainated Shiite Ayatollah Hakim in Najaf, bringing Iraq a step closer to civil war
directed the beheading of Nick Berg
declared jihad against the entire Shiite population
His death is one of the best things to happen in Iraq. His death SAVED lives.

It stopped a diabolical murderer bent on purposely targeting and killing masses of unarmed, innocent civilians and destroying any little bit of progress Iraq makes towards establishing a working democratic federalism. Even if this isn't your choice of government, it's still a closer step towards peace in that country.

Zarqawi

destroyed the U.N. headquarters in Baghdad, killing the Brazilian envoy Sérgio Vieira de Melo in the process
assassainated Shiite Ayatollah Hakim in Najaf, bringing Iraq a step closer to civil war
directed the beheading of Nick Berg
declared jihad against the entire Shiite population
His death is one of the best things to happen in Iraq. His death SAVED lives.

You forgot or purposely missed out the words "alleged", "the CIA claims" and "according to the Washington Post".

You forgot or purposely missed out the words "alleged", "the CIA claims" and "according to the Washington Post".

So you're saying you really don't think he did any of that?

So you're saying you really don't think he did any of that?

What I think (which is that his death left this world smelling a bit sweeter) ain't the point.

I know it maybe be an alien concept to members of the military but the rest of us get concerned about piddling little trifles like evidence.

It stopped a diabolical murderer bent on purposely targeting and killing masses of unarmed, innocent civilians .


Zarqawi was killed on June 7, 2006, while attending a meeting in an isolated safehouse approximately 8 km (5 mi) north of Baqubah.[117] At 14:15 GMT two United States Air Force F-16C jets[118] identified the house and the lead jet dropped two 500-pound (230kg) guided bombs, a laser-guided GBU-12 and GPS-guided GBU-38 on the building located at 33°48′02.83″N, 44°30′48.58″E. Six others - three male and three female individuals - were also reported killed (see below).[119] Amongst those killed were his teenage wife and their child.

Don't think anything more needs to be said.

What I think (which is that his death left this world smelling a bit sweeter) ain't the point.

I know it maybe be an alien concept to members of the military but the rest of us get concerned about piddling little trifles like evidence.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/12480229/

But I can guess where that will lead.

Don't think anything more needs to be said.

I'm glad you brought that up, because I was actually waiting for Slave of the Beast to say it.

Collateral damage is a part of war. It's unfortunate that it happens. But it does happen. So what's the difference between Zarqawi and a soldier from a country that follows Geneva convetions and the law of armed conflict (http://usmilitary.about.com/cs/wars/a/loac.htm)? Zarqawi purposely went after innocent people.

And it's Hezbollah.

.

No it depends on the source, like with Chinese names you see it spelled in several different ways, on the Foreign Affairs article I was reading before making the thread it was spelled with the "o", in a book about Lebanon with the "u".

I totally agree with what you say, the Israeli have been conducting "targeted kiilings" against militant leaders for years, they even killed the Hamas leader, however the only effect this had is furtherly radicalizing the militants and give them new recruits.

You can kill one Bin Laden, but your actions will generate many more.

Zarqawi purposely went after innocent people.

2 words for ya True......

Hiroshima, Nagasaki

Your good ole USA has the market cornered on PURPOSELY (and quite effectively) targeting innocent civilian targets. To the tune of at LEAST 300,000 casualties. Think about that for a moment. For us to endure those kind of casualties, we would have to suffer another 100 or so 9/11's.

Now before you say..."but it saved many of OUR lives"...there is a bigger picture here. Targeting women, children, and the elderly DID in fact put a big fat bullseye on our chests for generations to come afterwards. You take those heinous actions and couple it with our decadence, wastefulness, and such nonchalance about the world and the environment.....it sure as hell don't take much coaxing to recruit people AGAINST us for those that aren't drinking the Koolaid marked "America is so noble".

Zarqawi purposely went after innocent people.

And two laser guided 230kg bombs dropped on a civilian house containing a suspect and his family isn't purposely going after innocents?!

Refresh my memory please, was Zarqawi convicted of the crimes you listed by a jury of his peers?

No?

Well, and this quaint notion will amuse you soldier-boyz, he was an INNOCENT.

I believe its says so in that Constitution of yours, that you are supposedly defending.

*edit before any one says 'yes in Jordan' remember those convictions, in absentia, were based on toture evidence and therefore invalid in just about every civilised country, even the US.

It stopped a diabolical murderer bent on purposely targeting and killing masses of unarmed, innocent civilians and destroying any little bit of progress Iraq makes towards establishing a working democratic federalism. Even if this isn't your choice of government, it's still a closer step towards peace in that country.

How do you discernibly measure that progress? From where I'm sitting Iraq is a gigantic fucking mess, riddled with insurgency forces who are tearing the country apart in Zarqawi's total absence.

His death is one of the best things to happen in Iraq. His death SAVED lives.

Your arguments have already been throughly shredded by 'Ketch and DaGuru, so I'll just ask this:

In order to categorically state his death has "SAVED" lives you've obviously calculated the inspirational effect of his maytrdom versus the weight his alleged crimes, both past and future, and come to the conclusion that people who would otherwise be dead are now alive.

So, omitting the blunt fact you cannot possibly know who he would or would not have killed, if anybody, how have you did you make this calculation? All that be known for sure is that excluding Zarqawi, American bombs killed six innocent people and that Iraq is currently stranded in a quagmire of murderous violence, in spite of his death.

I have a friend who flew a bombing mission for the IDF in the 2006 assault on Hezbullah.

He said that opposed to the media coverage, all the raids he took part in were only targeted out in the desert on obvious training camps and rocket positions.

Just for your thoughts.

Yeah.. It is not like Israel can just sit there and let people send rockets at them. I think they need a dual, armed defence and negotiation strategy.

How do you discernibly measure that progress? From where I'm sitting Iraq is a gigantic fucking mess, riddled with insurgency forces who are tearing the country apart in Zarqawi's total absence.



Your arguments have already been throughly shredded by 'Ketch and DaGuru, so I'll just ask this:

In order to categorically state his death has "SAVED" lives you've obviously calculated the inspirational effect of his maytrdom versus the weight his alleged crimes, both past and future, and come to the conclusion that people who would otherwise be dead are now alive.

So, omitting the blunt fact you cannot possibly know who he would or would not have killed, if anybody, how have you did you make this calculation? All that be known for sure is that excluding Zarqawi, American bombs killed six innocent people and that Iraq is currently stranded in a quagmire of murderous violence, in spite of his death.

Okay then. Let me put it this way:

I believe his death saved lives BECAUSE of the type of person he was and because of the things he actively pursued. His death only upsets me to the point that "someone died."

His death is one of the best things to happen in Iraq. His death SAVED lives.

What was that word, what was that phrase..?

Oh yes ...I remember

baseless conjecture, and presenting opinion as fact. There is a large difference between saying "X is Y" and "I believe X is Y because of Z".

Okay then. Let me put it this way:

I believe his death saved lives BECAUSE of the type of person he was and because of the things he actively pursued. His death only upsets me to the point that "someone died."

Or, in other words, you haven't got a clue what the real effect of his death has been. You haven't even acknowledged the possible effect he could have as a martyr, i.e. a propaganda tool to encourage more violence than he alone could have committed.

No wonder the place is in such a fucking mess.

Or, in other words, you haven't got a clue what the real effect of his death has been. You haven't even acknowledged the possible effect he could have as a martyr, i.e. a propaganda tool to encourage more violence than he alone could have committed.

No wonder the place is in such a fucking mess.

No real effect other than the reports that Shiias didn't like him because he was trying kill them and the Sunnis and Al Qaeda didn't appreciate his self-serving tactics and the reputation he was giving them.

I don't know how well evidenced these reports are, but more info can be found here (http://www.slate.com/id/2143305/).

I don't think anybody can question the fact that Al-Zarqawi was a thug and didn't belong in the human family, no doubts about that, it's also a matter of fact that it's better to have him dead.

The only issue is that in many instances, when conducting targeted killings, innocents get hurt and that is never justified, the army uses it's terminology like "collateral damage", but that's innocent human lives that are being wasted.

You want to kill an Al-Qaeda/Hamas/whatever leader, use a sniper, kill him, just him, not innocent bystanders.

It's like if an Israeli jet fires a missile at a car where a Hamas leader is travelling, only problem the car is in a crowded market street, the missile kills the Hamas leader but also scores of innocents who were shopping at the market.

Officially this is not terrorism, because civilians were not deliberately targeted, however, the military is aware that its ordnance has a specific killing radius, therefore by shooting a missile at that car, they knew that civilians around it would get killed.

I think you can say it's "collateral damage" only when the bomb misses its target and ends up hitting civilians, however if before dropping it you were aware that it would cause civilian casualties then you are deliberately killing innocents and guess what that makes you a terrorist.

There's another aspect that you guys are really glossing over...that is that Hezbollah/Hizbollah/Hezbullah is a recognized political party in Lebanon as well, and the only post-Civil War group allowed to remain armed. In an attempt to bring this thread back around to the original subject, doesn't this lack of a strong attempt by the then-newly revised postwar Lebanon government to coerce Hezbollah into disarming really hurt their attempts at national unity and directly contribute to their prolonged infighting?

1.) This forum is not for political debate. A thread perceived as pursuing such discussion will either be closed, deleted, or moved to the appropriate forum at the full discretion of the moderators.

There's another aspect that you guys are really glossing over... that is that Hezbollah/Hizbollah/Hezbullah is a recognized political party in Lebanon as well, and the only post-Civil War group allowed to remain armed. In an attempt to bring this thread back around to the original subject, doesn't this lack of a strong attempt by the then-newly revised postwar Lebanon government to coerce Hezbollah into disarming really hurt their attempts at national unity and directly contribute to their prolonged infighting?

That is not appropriate OO RAH! material.

Sorry. :(