July 14, 2006
Egyptian General : Israel Still Toying with Hizb'Allah
Via Big Pharoah:
Comments are disabled.
Post is locked.
My dad was a general in the Egyptian army. His comments are always so informative especially if they were related to a war that broke out. He had this to say about Lebanon:This idiot Nasrallah. He is so funny. He keeps on issuing threats, he has no idea what he is talking about. What Israel is doing to him now is just gentle padding on the shoulders. Abou Shakha dah didn't see what we saw. Israel fought on 3 fronts in 1967 and it was hell. I was there, I saw it all. He has no tanks, no boats, he has nothing except a few toys he got from Iran and it seems abu shakha dah don't know that Israel confronted 3 of the most powerful armies in the region at the same time. If Israel wanted to brutally crush him it can do so in 1 hour.
Posted by: Ragnar at
10:26 AM
| Comments (12)
| Add Comment
Post contains 158 words, total size 1 kb.
1
Big Pharoah's father was not hiding behind innocent civilians, while Nasrallah is. That's the difference. Israel cannot brutally crush Hisbollah without killing lots of innocent civilians. Nasrallah is counting on that.
Posted by: Jesusland Carlos at July 14, 2006 10:52 AM (8e/V4)
2
Exactly right, Carlos. The response of the Arab world to Israel's fundamental and growing military superiority has not been to further develop their military might, which was how they responded from 1948-1973. Now, they have chosen terrorism, launched from lawless areas (Lebanon, Gaza) where no central authority is directly responsible for the violence, and those responsible hide among civilians. It is cowardly, sick, and effective. Syria and Iran, instead of attacking Israel directly, use their puppets in Gaza and Lebanon.
The truth is, the Arab world has yet to learn the lesson of Napoleon, and the power of the citizen army. Israel wins not only because of its technological advantage and its alliance with us, but also because their military units hold together and fight as teams, whereas Arab militaries are only really good at taking out civilians (Hama) or blunt frontal assaults (Iran-Iraq). Their soldiers don't trust that their governments give a damn about them. That's why, once the 73 war turned against Egypt, it was sandles all the way to the Nile. Run!
This same factor undergirds the current crisis. No Arab nation would respond to the capture of three soldiers the way Israel has. It's because they have a civilian national army. No Israeli PM could allow a soldier to remain captive, and not respond.
The truth is, the Arab world has yet to learn the lesson of Napoleon, and the power of the citizen army. Israel wins not only because of its technological advantage and its alliance with us, but also because their military units hold together and fight as teams, whereas Arab militaries are only really good at taking out civilians (Hama) or blunt frontal assaults (Iran-Iraq). Their soldiers don't trust that their governments give a damn about them. That's why, once the 73 war turned against Egypt, it was sandles all the way to the Nile. Run!
This same factor undergirds the current crisis. No Arab nation would respond to the capture of three soldiers the way Israel has. It's because they have a civilian national army. No Israeli PM could allow a soldier to remain captive, and not respond.
Posted by: jd at July 14, 2006 11:23 AM (aqTJB)
3
"Innocent civilians" is a contradiction in terms. No civilians inhabiting an evil country should be considered "innocent" in the sense that they should deter full military operations - if that is what is warranted - from occuring.
To ask a country to sacrifice its interests, its soldiers and perhaps even its existence in order to protect a group of people too weak, too cowardly or too evil to overthrow a corrupt, evil government (or police its own terrorist organizations) is the height of disgusting self-sacrifice. I deny that Israel has any obligation to not kill a single man, woman or child in Lebanon - if it is in the legitimate interests of Israel's self defense.
I will repeat: so long as Israel continues to restrain itself, it will lose ground, slowly but surely. Eventually, it will lead to another holocaust. Their choice.
To ask a country to sacrifice its interests, its soldiers and perhaps even its existence in order to protect a group of people too weak, too cowardly or too evil to overthrow a corrupt, evil government (or police its own terrorist organizations) is the height of disgusting self-sacrifice. I deny that Israel has any obligation to not kill a single man, woman or child in Lebanon - if it is in the legitimate interests of Israel's self defense.
I will repeat: so long as Israel continues to restrain itself, it will lose ground, slowly but surely. Eventually, it will lead to another holocaust. Their choice.
Posted by: MiB at July 14, 2006 11:55 AM (6jwxg)
4
The Arab militaries are in reality the true paper tigers.
I don't often agree with you, JD, but you're spot on here.
I don't often agree with you, JD, but you're spot on here.
Posted by: Good Lt at July 14, 2006 11:56 AM (jWYAe)
5
jd finally gets it right.
Posted by: Jesusland Carlos at July 14, 2006 12:08 PM (8e/V4)
6
Even a blind pig finds an acorn from time to time.
MiB: Even if Israel's own sense of humanity didn't stop them from launching the type of reckless assaults you advocate, I doubt it would ultimately work. They would lose so much legitimacy in the eyes of the world, particularly us. You may say, well, Europe already hates them, but this isn't true. They benefit immensely from trade and diplomacy with Europe. They could lose it if they slaughtered, say, 35,000 Lebanese civilians going after Hezbollah.
It is NOT the same as two nations at war, at least not exactly. Many of those who would die in Lebanon are not supporters of Nasrallah. Many would be Christians who were his opponents, or Druze, or Sunnis. It would only make radical Islam stronger, in the end, and give it more moral legitimacy.
So what SHOULD Israel do? I actually think they are doing okay right now, and in the long run, they should try to get another Sinai deal, with the Palestinians, Lebanon, and eventually Syria. Sinai has worked. Not perfectly, of course. But land for peace between Begin and Sadat worked.
MiB: Even if Israel's own sense of humanity didn't stop them from launching the type of reckless assaults you advocate, I doubt it would ultimately work. They would lose so much legitimacy in the eyes of the world, particularly us. You may say, well, Europe already hates them, but this isn't true. They benefit immensely from trade and diplomacy with Europe. They could lose it if they slaughtered, say, 35,000 Lebanese civilians going after Hezbollah.
It is NOT the same as two nations at war, at least not exactly. Many of those who would die in Lebanon are not supporters of Nasrallah. Many would be Christians who were his opponents, or Druze, or Sunnis. It would only make radical Islam stronger, in the end, and give it more moral legitimacy.
So what SHOULD Israel do? I actually think they are doing okay right now, and in the long run, they should try to get another Sinai deal, with the Palestinians, Lebanon, and eventually Syria. Sinai has worked. Not perfectly, of course. But land for peace between Begin and Sadat worked.
Posted by: jd at July 14, 2006 12:22 PM (aqTJB)
7
No man has the right to claim another cannot defend himself to the utmost for his own sake.
If Israel's "reckless" assaults would make it lose legitimacy in the world - it had any to begin with, one, and two, the moral shortcomings of your neighbors should not have any bearings on your own actions.
I am sure many in Germany died who were not supporters of Hitler. Certainly, many in the Soviet Union would have died who not only were not supporters of the regime, but hated it. Neither of these facts cracks the moral legitimacy of destroying either country. The fact of the matter is that no person can claim the right to deny another the right to self-defense for their own sake.
It is high time Israel stopped kowtowing, trying to gain "legitimacy" in the rest of the world which it does not need nor should it pursue.
If Israel's "reckless" assaults would make it lose legitimacy in the world - it had any to begin with, one, and two, the moral shortcomings of your neighbors should not have any bearings on your own actions.
I am sure many in Germany died who were not supporters of Hitler. Certainly, many in the Soviet Union would have died who not only were not supporters of the regime, but hated it. Neither of these facts cracks the moral legitimacy of destroying either country. The fact of the matter is that no person can claim the right to deny another the right to self-defense for their own sake.
It is high time Israel stopped kowtowing, trying to gain "legitimacy" in the rest of the world which it does not need nor should it pursue.
Posted by: MiB at July 14, 2006 12:34 PM (6jwxg)
8
You are making a lot of sense, MiB. I withdraw the moral claim, but still hold fast to the utility claim--if Israel behaves in a way that is insensitive to civilian deaths, it will lose its valued relationships with Europe. True, Israel will have to balance that versus its assessment of whether killing those civilians will lead to enhanced security.
Posted by: jd at July 14, 2006 02:09 PM (aqTJB)
9
There is no value to be gained from any relationship with an entity that denies that you have the right to exercise self defense to the utmost.
Posted by: MiB at July 14, 2006 02:16 PM (6jwxg)
10
I posted this elsewhere today, but it needs to be said again.
It is wearisome to see so many people (influential and otherwise) calling for Israel to "restrain" itself.. usually this comes from people who are under the (wrong)impression that Israel is the big schoolyard bully picking on defenseless children.. these defenseless children are actually remorseless, bloodthirsty savages (terrorists, if you are PC).
In case no one has noticed, Israel is defending itself from brutal and ceaseless murders from the hands of blind followers of a false religion. Israel is fighting for its very survival, again.
In Genesis 12:3, God says to Abraham on the founding of the Israeli nation, "I will bless them that bless thee, and curse him that curseth thee."
We really need to stay on Israel's side. Those who think otherwise are in for a rude awakening.
Chris Tucker, American.
It is wearisome to see so many people (influential and otherwise) calling for Israel to "restrain" itself.. usually this comes from people who are under the (wrong)impression that Israel is the big schoolyard bully picking on defenseless children.. these defenseless children are actually remorseless, bloodthirsty savages (terrorists, if you are PC).
In case no one has noticed, Israel is defending itself from brutal and ceaseless murders from the hands of blind followers of a false religion. Israel is fighting for its very survival, again.
In Genesis 12:3, God says to Abraham on the founding of the Israeli nation, "I will bless them that bless thee, and curse him that curseth thee."
We really need to stay on Israel's side. Those who think otherwise are in for a rude awakening.
Chris Tucker, American.
Posted by: JeepThang at July 14, 2006 03:54 PM (0411H)
11
sssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssss
Posted by: youssef at July 17, 2006 01:52 PM (yco1K)
12
It is written that God gave " license " to the jews to crush empires, not because the Jews are righteous or deserve it, rather that the empires they will crush are so much more evil and worthy of contempt in the eyes of God.
Posted by: Last gasp Larry at July 17, 2006 07:17 PM (gLMre)
37kb generated in CPU 0.0137, elapsed 0.1025 seconds.
34 queries taking 0.0939 seconds, 167 records returned.
Powered by Minx 1.1.6c-pink.
34 queries taking 0.0939 seconds, 167 records returned.
Powered by Minx 1.1.6c-pink.
