You finally picking up on that this is basic Terrorist 101 M.O.?
They do their little attacks, the country does some meaningless counter, and life goes on until the next one. Think of the USA in the 90s. Finally someone realized that you know, to stop terrorists from killing your civilians (cause that's who they usually kill.. did you guys realize that?), you actually have to kill the terrorists. Like all of them.
Oh what am I saying.. Israel is the real hate mongering war state.
I think you've got me confused with Tim, or McCullough.
Ok, I'll buy that they didn't expect it. But their fingers were definately crossed.
That guy is either lying through his teeth or Hezbollah's incredibly stupid. Not that the two things are mutually exclusive, of course.
Is there a reason the press just kinda ignores how Hezbollah killed eight soldiers while capturing two others?Originally Posted by AP
Why would they report the whole story?
Obviously it's because of the Jewish-controlled media.
Waitaminit... that can't be right...
Well duh; even Israel admitted as much. Isn't that odd how, after years of launching missiles at Israel and decades of calling for death to all Jews, Israelis and Americans (even Americans named Tim and Jason), Israelis might consider Hezbollah a threat worth taking out?
Tim isn't American (assuming you mean Tim "THE HAMMER" Partlett). And Jason is a dirty commie, which supercedes nationality.
I theorised that this was Hezbollah's position
Do I get a P&R cookie?
Because Israel and Hezbollah were in a low-intensity conflict and were regularily killing each other before then, and because the two captured soldiers is what the Israeli leadership gave as their reason for the action.
In the first day or two after the kidnapping, Nasrallah pretty much said "bring it on." Something to the effect of let Israel just try to attack Lebanon, Hezbullah would be ready for them, much stronger than before, and so on.
Plus, there were a lot of folks (even some experts on this board :-) ) saying that an attack was exactly what Hezbullah wanted. (After all, the kidnapping happened in the middle of a huge Israeli offensive in Gaza--it's not like a a massive response would be unexpected)
I think that they're starting to catch shit from Iran, and are trying to back-pedal a bit.
I think he is lying. Hezbollah wanted a reaction, and knew they would get one. Maybe they didn't think quite so many people would die, but they would have expected a pretty heavy response based on what happened in Gaza. I think he is saying this because Hezbollah are losing popularity because they are seen to have brought the death and destruction on the Lebanese.
I don't think they wanted one Tim, in any case they would be better off without any response. But they did expect a symbolic action, which fits thier prespective about Israel as portrayed in Nasrallah's speeches over the years.
They have been killing Israeli soldiers from time to time and kidnapping others over the past years and nothing like this has happened. The Sharon administration agreed to "prisoner" swaps in the past under similar circumstances to my understanding.
It's perfectly understandable why they may not have expected this level of response, based on the past course of affairs. Whether they really did not expect it or try to trigger it is unknown, of course.
I'm really hearing mixed reports on that account, Tim. Some Lebanese do sound frustrated that they are in a war they didn't want but I read about Sunni and even Christian Lebanese that are much more furious with Israel than Hizbullah. I'm not sure whether, in fact, Hizbullah is losing or gaining support domestically.
There's no way of telling what Hizbullah thought would happen. On one hand, yes, they might have been trying to provoke a Gazalike overreaction to lure Israel in for a fight it doesn't seem likely to win (long term). On the other hand, they might have imagined that Israel was already preoccupied with Gaza and wouldn't want to open up a second front. I don't know.
Squirrel, I know you don't have to think about this one for too long before coming up with the most logical conclusion.
Here, I'll give you some help:
"The situation is made all the more complicated by the nature of Hezbollah. It functions as a civil aid group as well as a militia, helping with schools and in hospitals, and in many cases providing essential public services at times in the years of the war when the government was simply not able. It has a savvy media operation, with a spokesman who takes groups of journalists on tours of the devastation in southern Beirut with a truck that blares Hezbollah fighting songs from rows of speakers." - New York Times
awww, Hezbollah is a charitable organization!
"Do you live in Gaza? Have you been affected by violence in the region? Send us your experiences using the form below. If you are happy to speak to us further please include contact details." - BBC
awww, tell us your hardships from those war-mongering Israeli bad asses!
""You mentioned European allies. The US has thus far been alone in its refusal to either rebuke or condemn Israel for its excessive force, as Kofi Annan called it last night. And in addition it has refused to call for any cessation of hostilities. At what point does the administration say to its close ally Israel, 'enough'?" - Elizabeth Vargas, ABC News
awww, enough Israel, enough! Stop fighting back! Don't you know you're supposed to just allow ppl to kill your citizens and suck it up! Peace, love, and all that!
It's definitely a concern when I seem to be on the same side as Bob...
Every single news outlet covered the IDF deaths and the kidnappings which triggered this war. They repeat those facts in every summary of the situation. Where you get the idea that nobody is covering this is from your own mind or talk radio (largely confused for each other on the American right these days) or plucked from betwixt your hairy buttocks (a region also commonly mistaken for a mind by some).
The facts are things like this go on all the time. The Israel does seem to have gone overboard with a response that Hizbullah only makes worse by lobbing rockets into Israel. And now we have this situation.
If I sound angry it is because I am. The neocons and this administration have gotten us into a terrible fix before because of their obsession with Israel's security. Hell, you had Ken Mehlman, the head of the GOP, speaking before a Christian right group claiming "We're all Israelis now." Why do you think he'd say something like that? Is that the U.S. position? Or because the Republicans endorse the whole "end times" cosomology of the Religious Right?
Even if this shit is just pandering it's fucking around with very serious business. I'm very concerned what the implications will be when this crisis worsens and the right tries spinning us into this conflict. They want WWIII so bad they can taste it whether, as secularist neocons wrapped up in the Israeli flag, or Christian end-timers thinking this is the big one.
I want folks to sit down and shut up a bit. Think things through. Take a deep breath. If we need a reality check look at world opinion. They were right about Iraq. Maybe they're right about a ceasefire too?
Except the one I quoted, I guess.
You don't think that was because this was the report of a press conference that only quoted the person talking to the press and not summarizing any events of the overall war. This wasn't an analysis work it was straight reporting from the Associated Press.
You said, "They repeat those facts in every summary of the situation." (my. emp.) They summarized the situation in the article I quoted. They didn't repeat those facts.
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20060726/...ting_hezbollah
This looks like the same AP story. There's only the Hizbullah spokesman talking at his press conference. No summary of events.
Um, Brian, no offense, but I'm beginning to think I'm not that lucky (good thing I didn't run off to Vegas) and that maybe you're just wrong that those facts are in every summary of the situation. I googled "Hezbollah kidnapped two soldiers -eight" Let's see what I found.
Looks like Ireland Online missed "those facts" : "Mr Ahern said he regretted that recent talks between Hamas and Israel were on the brink of some agreement when Hezbollah kidnapped two Israeli soldiers and provoked Israel."
Ok, that was a cheap shot, those online outlets are notoriously spotty. Except that the Washington Post missed them too : "Heavy fighting between Hezbollah and Israel began almost two weeks ago after the Islamist militant group kidnapped two Israeli soldiers in a cross-border raid."
Wait a minute, this is getting to be a trend, the San Fransico Chronicle left them out too : "When Hezbollah militants kidnapped two Israeli soldiers last week, the Israeli military was ready to react almost instantly."
And here's the San Jose Mercury News : "The war began after Hezbollah kidnapped two Israeli soldiers July 12 and began firing rockets into northern Israel."
Geeze, even Forbes is getting lax : "Israel has also been fighting Hezbollah on a second front in Lebanon after the Shiite group's militants crossed into Israel and kidnapped two soldiers."
Granted, this is an editorial, but the Philadelphia Inqurier seems to have also left those facts out : "Ever since Hezbollah kidnapped two Israeli soldiers and rained rockets on northern Israel, there has been much rhetoric in Jerusalem and Washington about wiping out the organization and its armory."
Now, this one is classic, even if it too is an opinion piece, Khalid Adad writes in the Portland State Vanguard about how media outlets leave out certain information. Care to guess what he leaves out? : "Every single major U.S. newspaper says that Palestinian militants prompted the current crisis in the Middle East by capturing a 19-year-old Israeli soldier, Cpl. Gilad Shalit, on June 25. The New York Times, for instance, tells us that Shalit’s “capture by Palestinian militants on June 25 touched off the crisis in Gaza.” In nearly identical language, The Washington Post tells us that Shalit’s capture, and then the capture of two other Israeli soldiers by Hezbollah, “touched off the wide new war raging in the Middle East.”"
Even my hometown paper, the Quad City Times is getting into the act : "With Israeli defense forces attacking Hezbollah in southern Lebanon and Hamas in Gaza in retribution for the kidnapping of three soldiers earlier this month, Quad-Citians on both sides of the issue have been closely watching developments."
Honestly, I had no idea that Hezbollah had killed eight soldiers until I saw it mentioned in this thread, and I've been listening to a lot of news. I assumed that some soldiers had probably died, but I had never heard it specifically mentioned, and definitely not a number.
Last edited by Glenn; 07-26-2006 at 09:03 AM. Reason: spell spell
Search: "eight Israeli Soldiers" "New York Times"
Search: "eight Israeli Soldiers" "Washington Post"
Search: "eight Israeli soldiers" "AP"
Search: "eight Israeli soldiers" "ABC"
And that's just the first four I hit. It's out there. Every single time.
Okay, fair enough. But most of those articles are from the 14th or 15th. Oce Israel started blowing shit up, most news outlets immediately reverted to summarizing the initial incident as "two Israelis kidnapped."
Right. But four searches that back your claim doesn't matter much against one search that returns "about 3,500" hits that directly disprove your assertion.
Okay, I've scanned some of today's stories and I think the reason there is, admittedly, a stress on the kidnapped soldiers is because they're an issue in resolving this crisis. They're ostensibly the reason Israel began its operations in an attempt to get them back. The dead soldiers don't seem to factor into the ongoing political situation.
But it really is unfair to make it sound like the press somehow suppressed the fact 8 soldiers were killed. That's been covered and it's part of the story. It's not, however, part of current events in the same way the two kidnapped soldiers still are.
SK, knock off the bullshit. Seriously.
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote