Propaganda Msg from Hezbollah leader

[Saketi]

oh my god, what on earth! No one has won the battle. Its called a cease fire.

http://news.sky.com/skynews/article/0,,30000-1230763,00.html

 

[Black_Wolf]

Israel did loose,they never crossed the river which was their Objektive.Also they lost a bunch of tanks.If Israel would have been on the winning side,they would have NEVER signed that paper.

 

[Raziaar]

Who won? WTF...

Both sides lost as soon as they started hostilities.

Hezbollah didn't win... by instigating something that angered somebody who killed alot of their civilians.

And Israel didn't win, by being so very bloodthirsty and just destroying everything, including tons of civilians, and losing face in the world arena.

 

[PvtRyan]

In war, everyone loses. It's kind of silly to call yourself a winner when you haven't actually gained anything and are now stuck with cities in rubble.

 

[delusional]

it was already predicted he would declare victory and they accomplished what they wanted
i cant link it since im on a psp but here
http://www.cfr.org/publication/11232/defining_victory.html
this explains their goals

 

[UltraProAnti]

Who won? WTF...

Both sides lost as soon as they started hostilities.

Hezbollah didn't win... by instigating something that angered somebody who killed alot of their civilians.

And Israel didn't win, by being so very bloodthirsty and just destroying everything, including tons of civilians, and losing face in the world arena.

hezbollah only 'started it' if you think history began on the day they grabbed a couple of israeli soldiers. in fact, israel was still occupying part of southern lebanon (their so-called 'security zone'), and had planned the invasion of lebanon months in advance, according to this piece:

http://www.monbiot.com/archives/2006/08/08/israels-attack-was-premeditated/

and was supported by the bush administration as a prelude to an attack on iran, according to seymour hersh:

http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/article14526.htm

The Bush Administration, however, was closely involved in the planning of Israel’s retaliatory attacks. President Bush and Vice-President Dick Cheney were convinced, current and former intelligence and diplomatic officials told me, that a successful Israeli Air Force bombing campaign against Hezbollah’s heavily fortified underground-missile and command-and-control complexes in Lebanon could ease Israel’s security concerns and also serve as a prelude to a potential American preëmptive attack to destroy Iran’s nuclear installations, some of which are also buried deep underground.

...

According to a Middle East expert with knowledge of the current thinking of both the Israeli and the U.S. governments, Israel had devised a plan for attacking Hezbollah—and shared it with Bush Administration officials—well before the July 12th kidnappings. “It’s not that the Israelis had a trap that Hezbollah walked into,” he said, “but there was a strong feeling in the White House that sooner or later the Israelis were going to do it.”

 

[Raziaar]

I was talking about starting the chain of events that led to this particular conflict. The kidnapping of Israeli soldiers that prompted their enemy to invade.

I wasn't trying to declare the actual first causes of things... since it wasn't at those moments back then that prompted this conflict. It was a factor, yes... but it was THAT kidnapping which caused Israeli forces to invade.

 

[Tr0n]

From a political standpoint, yes hezbollah won. Without a doubt...

From a military standpoint it's more of a "meh". They won in a sense that they was able to hold off Israel, but at the same time they lost in a sense due to them not finally reaching their main objective. Which was to pull the IDF in and basically do a insurgency like what's going on in Iraq.

 

[No Limit]

I was talking about starting the chain of events that led to this particular conflict. The kidnapping of Israeli soldiers that prompted their enemy to invade.

I wasn't trying to declare the actual first causes of things... since it wasn't at those moments back then that prompted this conflict. It was a factor, yes... but it was THAT kidnapping which caused Israeli forces to invade.

But how can you believe that if Israel had this planned out long before the soldiers were kidnapped. They were simply waiting for an excuse.

 

[Raziaar]

But how can you believe that if Israel had this planned out long before the soldiers were kidnapped. They were simply waiting for an excuse.

Obviously you're not understanding what I'm saying. I'm saying Hezbollah screwed up too by giving Israel a reason to storm through and cause destruction. Winning does not usually amount to having your enemy wade through and just completely destroy things you likely hold dear.

I was saying both sides screwed up big time.

 

[No Limit]

Obviously you're not understanding what I'm saying. I'm saying Hezbollah screwed up too by giving Israel a reason to storm through and cause destruction. Winning does not usually amount to having your enemy wade through and just completely destroy things you likely hold dear.

I was saying both sides screwed up big time.

That's assuming what hezbollah did wasn't justified. I do not support the killing or kidnapping of anyone, however, you have to understand Israel has been doing this for years. They continue to hold innocent prisoners and as you just saw they have absolutely no remorse about killing hundreds of innocents.

 

[Raziaar]

You're still not understanding me here No Limit. Listen.

I'm not casting support for either side. I haven't been. So don't be talking to me about who's justified or not because right now I don't feel either side is justified for what they did, or the severity of what they did.

 

[delusional]

is it propoganda?

 

[Raziaar]

is it propoganda?

It's as much propoganda as the united states trying to declare that "We won the war on terror"

 

[No Limit]

You're still not understanding me here No Limit. Listen.

I'm not casting support for either side. I haven't been. So don't be talking to me about who's justified or not because right now I don't feel either side is justified for what they did, or the severity of what they did.

I hear you, and I mainly agree. I simply don't agree with the premise that hezbollah gave Israel a reason to do this. I think Israel was going to do this eighter way, this was just an excuse.

 

[Raziaar]

But it happened just how it happened... And that's what matters.

 

[MjM]

I think Israel has lost allot. I mean they come off looking worst in terms killing and destruction, and it is right to hold Israel to higher standards. They have not achieved their military objectives. Hezbollah still exists with the capability to launch rockets into Israel.

But if anything Lebanon has lost ... the civilian loss of life, the destruction of infrustructure and their economy. I doubt Israel will pay reparations to Lebanon, just as Hezbollah won't pay for damages caused to Israel.

Hezbollah and Israel more or less continue along on the status quo.

 

[delusional]

while israel was planning this war hizbollah was planning for it too. this war was inevitable
israels military objectives were to cripple hizbollah so they cant re-arm to the same level and create a buffer zone and they seem to have done that

 

[15357]

We should all have a friendly month-long war now and then.

 

[VictimOfScience]

Here is what STRATFOR has to say about it:

Implications for the Region

Hezbollah has demonstrated that total Arab defeat is not inevitable -- and with this demonstration, Israel has lost its tremendous psychological advantage. If an operational and tactical defensive need not end in defeat, then there is no reason to assume that, at some point, an Arab offensive operation need not end in defeat. And if the outcome can be a stalemate, there is no reason to assume that it cannot be a victory. If all things are possible, then taking risks against Israel becomes rational.

The outcome of this war creates two political crises.

In Israel, Olmert's decisions will come under serious attack. However correct his cost-benefit analysis might have been, he will be attacked over the political and psychological outcome. The entire legacy of Ariel Sharon -- the doctrine of disengagement -- will now come under attack. If Israel is thrown into political turmoil and indecision, the outcome on the battlefield will have been compounded politically.

There is now also a crisis in Lebanon and in the Muslim world. In Lebanon, Hezbollah has emerged as a massive political force. Even in the multi-confessional society, Hezbollah will be a decisive factor. Syria, marginalized in the region for quite a while, becomes more viable as Hezbollah's patron. Meanwhile, countries like Jordan and Egypt must reexamine their own assumptions about Israel. And in the larger Muslim world, Hezbollah's victory represents a victory for Iran and the Shia. Hezbollah, a Shiite force, has done what others could not do. This will profoundly effect the Shiite position in Iraq -- where the Shia, having first experienced the limits of American power, are now seeing the expanding boundaries of Iranian power.

We would expect Hezbollah, Syria and Iran to move rapidly to exploit what advantage this has given them, before it dissipates. This will increase pressures not only for Israel, but also for the United States, which is engaged in combat operations in Iraq and Afghanistan, as well as in a vague confrontation with Iran. For the Israelis and the Americans, restabilizing their interests will be difficult.

Now, some would argue that Israel's possession of weapons of mass destruction negates the consequences of regional perception of weakness. That might be the case, but the fact is that Israel's possession of such weapons did not prevent attacks in 1973, nor were those weapons usable in this case. Consider the distances involved: Israeli forces have been fighting 10 miles from the border. And if Damascus were to be struck with the wind blowing the wrong way, northern Israel would be fried as well. Israel could undertake a nuclear strike against Iran, but the threat posed by Iran is indirect -- since it is far away -- and would not determine the outcome of any regional encounter. Certainly, the possession of nuclear weapons provides Israel a final line from which to threaten enemies -- but by the time that became necessary, the issue already would have shifted massively against Israel. Nuclear weapons have not been used since World War II -- in spite of many apparent opportunities to do so -- because, as a weapon, the utility is more apparent than real. Possession of nuclear weapons can help guarantee regime survival, but not, by itself, military success.

As it stands, logic holds that, given the tenuous nature of the cease-fire, casus belli on Israel's part can be found and the war reinitiated. Given the mood in Israel, logic would dictate the fall of Olmert, his replacement by a war coalition and an attempt to change the outcome. But logic has not applied to Israeli thinking during this war. We have been consistently surprised by the choices Israel has made, and it is not clear whether this is simply Olmert's problem or one that has become embedded in Israel.

What is clear is that, if the current outcome stands, it will mean there has been a tremendous earthquake in the Middle East. It is cheap and easy to talk about historic events. But when a reality that has dominated a region for 58 years is shattered, it is historic. Perhaps this paves the way to new wars. Perhaps Olmert's restraint opens the door for some sort of stable peace. But from where we sit, he was sufficiently aggressive to increase hostility toward Israel without being sufficiently decisive to achieve a desired military outcome.

Hezbollah and Iran hoped for this outcome, though they did not really expect it. They got it. The question on the table now is what they will do with it.

 

[Tr0n]

You and me are like the stratfor guys or something. ^_^

 

[15357]

http://uncyclopedia.org/wiki/UnNews:Hell:_We_Won

 

[CptStern]

We should all have a friendly month-long war now and then.

over 1000 people lost their lives ..try to show some measure of maturity and refrain from always being the military supporting ninny that you are ..dont you have anti-totalitarian protestors to denouce as unpatriotic or neighbours you could report to the authorities as possible communist spies? your song and dance has gotten past being tiring

 

[15357]

The thing is, thousands of people die every day, 60 per minute. I'm not saying that I supported this war, but one thousand people in a region that has some 300 million people is statistically not very much. Just like 9/11 wasn't statistically not very much, in accordance with percentage. Of course, the media turned this into a tregedy, which isn't something they do often with people dying in other 'unimportant' places, and this is why you are all sad and bleh.


***

Anyway, is there such a thing as a friendly war? And, no. The phone lines are off again, I can't call the KANSPC.

 

[CptStern]

The thing is, thousands of people die every day, 60 per minute.

not violently

I'm not saying that I supported this war, but one thousand people in a region that has some 300 million people is statistically not very much. Just like 9/11 wasn't statistically not very much, in accordance with percentage.

like that matters to the victems or the survivors

Of course, the media turned this into a tregedy,

yes numbers you can sit at your pc in your cushy little world that was bought and paid for by the sweat of your parents and go on and on how civilians dying in a military engagement is trivial because you dont have to live that reality. Continue living with your head in the sand you never know what tommorrow will bring ....oh btw if the US ever decides to invade North Korea dont be surprised if your little sheltered little world comes crumbling down as wartime tends to wreak havoc on one's standard of living

 

[Black_Wolf]

numbers,when people get shredded into bits,then its a tragedy,stop being so insensitive.

 

[15357]

not violently

......

I meant as in die of unnatural causes. Like murder, fires, ect...

like that matters to the victems or the survivors

Point noted.

yes numbers you can sit at your pc in your cushy little world that was bought and paid for by the sweat of your parents and go on and on how civilians dying in a military engagement is trivial because you dont have to live that reality. Continue living with your head in the sand you never know what tommorrow will bring ....oh btw if the US ever decides to invade North Korea dont be surprised if your little sheltered little world comes crumbling down as wartime tends to wreak havoc on one's standard of living

Of course. The main reason we haven't invaded North Korea sometime during the last 5 decades is the economical problems that would occur in wartime. The reason we aren't invading now, is because our president is a retard who'd rather be red than free along with reducing defense costs and wants to kill Japan instead for some weird reason. Civilians always die, percentages are trivial. I sit at my PC in my 'cushy little world' and go on how people dying is trivial because it is. 6,500,000,000 people inhabit this planet; you are not special in any way. Only what you do is. Oh, you look different, you have some different 'personality' but that is really irrevelent. Of course, I'd be extremly sad and devastated if my family died, but thinking at an national level, it's almost as if nothing has happened.

numbers,when people get shredded into bits,then its a tragedy,stop being so insensitive.

Of course it is. But it's of no effect.

 

[Black_Wolf]

dude,you are heartless Robot :|

 

[15357]

Heartless?

I'd like to call it being 'sober'. Or whatever the word is in English.