Hezbolla

[EternalOptimist]

The additional factor is clearly the huge media exposure and international scrutiny which accompanies any conflict nowadays. Each event is picked over by the public at large and supported/condemmed, spawning thousands of blog entries, forum threads etc. It gives a huge advantage to terrorists, but at least it limits casualties because no-one wants to be seen as the bad guy.

I dont agree. The huge media exposure can have an influence on this type of conflict, but it wouldnt matter a bit in a major war. The debate has shifted away from the real issue and has settled on the civilian cost, as usual. What I want to know is what has changed recently in the way that the militia in Lebanon operated. AtW puts it down to better equipment and defending in cities but thats not enough.

[BlasterBates]

The Israelis always argue that they don't target innocent civilians, but one thing I have noticed is 10 times the number of civilians die in an Israeli reprisal, always factor 10. So if Hamas kill 2 Israelis you can bet your bottom dollar there'll be an "assassination" in a crowded market place in the middle of the afternoon, which kills 20 Palistinians whereas if there was a failed rocket attack on a settlement then a terrorist workshop will be destroyed in the middle of the night.

Of course it may just be coincidence.

[wendigo100]

The Israelis always argue that they don't target innocent civilians, but...

Some might say weasel words BB. You might have missed this:

* Hezbollah do target civilians

* Israel do not target civilians

* Hezbollah position themselves among Lebanese civilians to protect themselves or, if attacked, give Israel bad world-wide press

I'm amazed that so many people swallow that bad press hook, line and sinker. Israel have nothing to gain and everything to lose by deliberately targeting civilians.

[milanbenes]

can one of you esteemed please explain why the following became Lebanese targets:

the airport

Oil/Petrol terminals and storage

Power stations and electricity stations

Water treatment plants

Infrastructure / motorways


can one of you esteemed please explain what has been
achieved through this universally acclaimed disproportionate use
of force ?

Milan.

[BlasterBates]

I'm not moralising far from it.

One thing I have learned is that there are no bad guys or good guys just "guys whose guns are loaded or guys who are dead" (The Good, the bad and the Ugly).

But if you look for example at assassination. The Israeli's are perfectly capable of assassinating Palistinians in other countries without killing any bystanders, but when they do it in Gaza it usually involves an F16 fighter destroying the entire appartment block.

Its quite normal to target civilians after all that's exactly what the British did in the 2nd world war. Its just these days the it isn't politically correct.

[EternalOptimist]

I'm not moralising far from it.

One thing I have learned is that there are no bad guys or good guys just "guys whose guns are loaded or guys who are dead" (The Good, the bad and the Ugly).

But if you look for example at assassination. The Israeli's are perfectly capable of assassinating Palistinians in other countries without killing any bystanders, but when they do it in Gaza it usually involves an F16 fighter destroying the entire appartment block.

Its quite normal to target civilians after all that's exactly what the British did in the 2nd world war. Its just these days the it isn't politically correct.

Political correctness will be the first thing to go if we ever get into a serious war.
Hands up if you think there will never be a major conventional war that involves this country. I am talking similar to WWII

[oraclesmith]

I dont agree. The huge media exposure can have an influence on this type of conflict, but it wouldnt matter a bit in a major war. The debate has shifted away from the real issue and has settled on the civilian cost, as usual. What I want to know is what has changed recently in the way that the militia in Lebanon operated. AtW puts it down to better equipment and defending in cities but thats not enough.

Yes but the media interest and the scrutiny of powerful third parties such as the US, Russia, the UN etc have moderated the rules of engagement. You're right in an all out war, these factors would be minimized and there would be little attention paid to international condemnation. The more major the war, the less outside interest there is and the less influential it is. eg. with WW2 most countries were drawn into it by about 1943.

Israel are in a difficult position; they need to identify and eliminate some militia within a country they do not actually want to be at war with and without that country's government allowing them to occupy it. Accurately identifying individual enemies has become the major problem, the need for which stems from the rules of engagement.

[AtW]

What I want to know is what has changed recently in the way that the militia in Lebanon operated. AtW puts it down to better equipment and defending in cities but thats not enough.

1) Israel grew complacent - they were used to rolling Palestinians with tanks that could not be hit with old RPG-7s, plus terrain was in Israel's favour there

2) Hezbollah got new equipment - not just new RPG-29s, but also guided anti-tank missiles that were shown on video to hit Israeli tanks hard - terrain makes it easy

3) Hezbollah got trained by pros, and probably had key teams manned by Iranian and Sirian officers.

But they key is that Israeli's expectations were hit and morale sunk - they were just used to hardware superiority so much that taking fairly small infantry and tank losses really killed the morale. The other side has just got a lot better, while Israel remained as good, if not worse, than before.

This is a big thing because Israel's army was meant to be the best there, and it really raises big question whether invading Iran is actually doable without tens of thousands of soldiers losing their lifes in battles.

[AlfredJPruffock]

invading Iran is actually doable without tens of thousands of soldiers losing their lifes in battles.

A mere detail.

Soldiers by definition are expendable resources.

Perfect.

I always knew I should have had a a career in HR.

[Fleetwood]

Or "Personnel", as it used to be called....