War in The Middle East

[Armenian]

Re: War in The Middle East

The names of these honorable men are:

YAIR AURON, the author of the following books “The Banality of Denial: Israel and the Armenian Genocide”, and “The Banality of Indifference (Zionism and the Armenian Genocide)”.

YOSSI SARID, the former Minister of Education of Israel
http://www.armenian-genocide.org/sarid.html

I agree.

Obviously, not all J-e-w-s are anti-Armenian, not all J-e-w-s are blood thirsty war criminals, not all J-e-w-s support Israel, not all xxxs believe that gentiles are subhuman. However, in a collective setting, as a nation, J-e-w-s are pro-Turkish and anti-Armenian.

[simonig]

Re: War in The Middle East

Ais qo togh@ kardaluts heto mianqamitz erq@ ekav mitq@s:

Shun talaat@ pakhav Berlin,
Tehlirian@ hasav ertin
Zargets chaktin, pretz getnin
Gini litz, akhper jan, gini litz
Khmoghats anush, khmoghats anush!

Just to let you know that "ARMENIAN" is not Tashnak and would probably not care for Tasnak song lyrics. Although "Kini litz" is one of my favorite songs.

[Davo88]

Re: War in The Middle East

The Shiites are also finding refuge in other parts of Christian Beirut and in the North of the country.

At one point in the near or distant future, Israel will beg for a ceasefire. If it occupies southern Lebanon, it will be ousted again, as it happened in 2000.

[Armenian]

Re: War in The Middle East

Just to let you know that "ARMENIAN" is not Tashnak and would probably not care for Tasnak song lyrics. Although "Kini litz" is one of my favorite songs.

Very cute, Simonig. Just to let you know, I have been an AYF-er and an ARF-er. I am an ANC supporter and I remain an ARF "hamagir." When I was singing those "kusaqtsakan" songs, you were most probably still pooping your pants.

Gini Lits: http://www.homenetmen.se/downloads/S..._TEHLERIAN.mp3

Here are two websites containing Armenian Patriotic songs:

http://www.homenetmen.se/Download.html

http://forum.hayastan.com/index.php?showtopic=21741

[Armenian]

Re: War in The Middle East

The Shiites are also finding refuge in other parts of Christian Beirut and in the North of the country.

At one point in the near or distant future, Israel will beg for a ceasefire. If it occupies southern Lebanon, it will be ousted again, as it happened in 2000.

They are already realizing that they will not be able to defeat Hizbollah on the ground. The following is an interesting article from Aljazeera. No wonder Tel Aviv is now talking about peace keepers in southern Lebanon, just a few days ago they had ruled that out as an option acceptable for them.

Israeli troops praise Hezbollah tactics

Israeli soldiers returning from the front in Lebanon say that Hezbollah has given them more of a fight than they expected. They said they were battling an intelligent, well-prepared and ruthless guerrilla army whose fighters didn't seem to fear death. "It's hard to beat them," one soldier said. "They're not afraid of anything."

The soldiers described exchanges of gunfire in between houses and on village streets with Hezbollah fighters sometimes popping out of bushes to fire Kalashnikovs, rocket propelled grenades (RPG) and anti-tank missiles. The troops' comments underscored the enormous challenges faced by Israel as it seeks to neutralise Hezbollah, which captured two Israeli soldiers in a cross-border raid on July 12, prompting massive air and ground reprisals.

Grief for Israel

Despite Israel's enormous firepower that has already killed at least 380 Lebanese, some military analysts say the war is not going particularly well for Israel. The xxxish state, they say, has been unable to significantly push back the guerrillas or stop hundreds of their rockets from slamming into northern Israel and causing casualties. "They're not normal soldiers, you know.

They're guerrillas.They're very smart" Michael Sidorenko, an Israeli soldier fighting in south Lebanon For the past few days, Israel has been fighting for control of the tiny southern Lebanese village of Maroun al-Ras, located on a hilltop less than 500 metres across the border. The army said it had taken the village, but gunfire and the blasts of artillery shells could still be heard on Sunday as tanks and helicopters pounded positions inside.

'Very smart'

Officers at the scene confirmed there was still fighting to do. "They're not fighting like we thought they would," one soldier said. "They're fighting harder. They're good on their own ground." One soldier said the guerrillas wore olive green army uniforms "to confuse us" because Israelis wear the same. Others said Hezbollah hid underground in reinforced bunkers until they thought it safe to come out and attack. The Israeli troops prefer to stay away from those bunkers, the soldiers said, instead calling in coordinates so forces massed behind the border can hit them with guided missiles.

"It will take the summer to beat them," said Michael Sidorenko, 21, resting in the shade of a road sign with other combat troops. On the hills behind him, loud gunfire and the constant thud of explosions could be heard. Sidorenko said he saw Hezbollah fighters firing from behind Lebanese civilians. "That's why our soldiers are getting killed," he said. Of the 19 soldiers killed so far since fighting began, five have died trying to gain control of Maroun al-Ras. To avoid more deaths among its troops, Israel has decided to limit its ground incursions to pinpoint operations near the border.

Tactical shortcomings

But military analysts say this tactic may well be insufficient to achieve Israel's goal of pushing Hezbollah back and destroying its ability to attack Israel. Not every soldier described Hezbollah as fierce. One said that when Israeli troops show up in vehicles, the guerrillas "run like chickens." Others wondered why Hezbollah had not yet attacked the nearly two-dozen army vehicles and hundreds of troops camped out in easy striking range below the hill on which Maroun al-Ras sits.

Most believed the guerrillas would rather keep aiming their rockets at major Israeli population centres such as Haifa. Eighteen civilians have died in such attacks on northern Israel. The soldiers said Hezbollah had refrained from attacking them as they approached Maroun al-Ras in tanks and armoured personnel carriers, preferring instead to let troops reach the village and attack them there.

The fighting, they said, showed the guerrillas had used the six years since Israel withdrew from Lebanon to build bunkers, stockpile weapons and study tactics. "They have good knowledge about where we are, what we're doing, what kinds of weapons we have," Sidorenko said. "But it's better to fight them now than later, when they'd be even stronger."

Aljazeera - http://english.aljazeera.net/NR/exer...AFA282D82A.htm

[simonig]

Re: War in The Middle East

Very cute, Simonig. Just to let you know, I have been an AYF-er and an ARF-er. I am an ANC supporter and I remain an ARF "hamagir." When I was singing those "kusaqtsakan" songs, you were most probably still pooping your pants.

Gini Lits: http://www.homenetmen.se/downloads/S..._TEHLERIAN.mp3

Here are two websites containing Armenian Patriotic songs:

http://www.homenetmen.se/Download.html

http://forum.hayastan.com/index.php?showtopic=21741

I'm impressed, I've also been involved with AYF and ARF for over 25 years.

Thanks for the download of that song. I can't help but have a drink when I listen to it.

Cheers

[Davo88]

Re: War in The Middle East

It was a good read, Armenian. Hezbollah has been talking about how it's the perfect resisance against Israel. So in many ways, he had to be prepared for this showdown.

[Anonymouse]

Re: War in The Middle East

Why is that that no other nationalisty is treated the same way? I have read vulgar and violent comments here about Russians, Kurds, Turks, ect. Why is it that we cant discuss J-e-w-s even when they are a fundamental part of the topic at hand. This is utterly absurd. We are talking about the Mideast and we cant talk about J-e-w-s? If thats the case then the administrator here should delete this thread altogether.

The comment by Ariel Sharon that I posted earlier has 'everything' to do with what is happening in the world today. It has 'everything' to do with what is occuring in Lebanon today. These people control Washington DC and they are making us fight their wars. These people had a BIG HAND IN THE ARMENIAN GENOCIDE. And they, as a nation, continue being the biggest obstacle for the recognition of the Armenian Genocide.

Why can we talk about Turks, English, Russians, Arabs, Christians, Muslims in general terms, but when we talk about J-e-w-s we have to stop and specifiy exactly the who, what, where, when and why?

Do we say a "certain small segment of Ottoman society" conducted the Armenian Genoicde or do we say "the Ottomans" conducted the Armenian Genocide? Do we say the "a small segment of British, Russian and French politicians" betrayed Armenians or do we say the English, the Russians and the French betrayed Armenians? Do we say "only a handful of Germen officers" conducted war crimes during WW-II or do we say 'Germans' conducted war crimes during WW-II?

The answers to the above are obvious. So why are we expected to say something like "most xxxs are wonderful people its just that there are some amongst them that are not very nice" every time we open our mouths about them?

I suggest this discussion board concern itself with Armenians and Armenians only.

It's not that we can't discuss about them. It's because when there have been attempts in the past it has always been ill-fated and has always resorted to outright hateful remarks. Any discussions whether towards Armenians or Turks or otherwise that are filled with virulent hatred and advocacies of destruction, as these boards have seen in the past, are not tolerated, regardless of whether it is Joos or not. We can openly criticize, and that is an intellectual endeavor, and I will be the first to say that we should be able to openly talk about race, racial differences and criticism of Zionists and Israel or the Holocaust, but the tone is what sets the stage. There is a difference when people state that "Joos control America", and when people state "Zionists control America". The initial indicts all Joos as part of some single cabal when that is not the case, yet they are all indicted in guilt by association. Even then, the focus here is the coherence of the thread. While many topics may tie and be somehow eventually related, then by that logic, any thread can go on into millions of different directions, especially in the intellectual lounge where we try to keep the coherence of the threads and the weighty topics.

[D3ADSY]

Re: War in The Middle East

The reason I stated that is because you underestimate the insurgecy. Whereas earlier you blame the media for some blunder, now you blame politics. It seems to me at least every mishap, miscalculation and misfortune that occurs is a result of some external condition and not in any way a result of American military incompetence against the insurgency, or the insurgency's fortitude.

First you claim you never said it, and now you make claims about me saying things which I have not! I never blamed the media for anything related to Fallujah.
I always said it was policy and political pressures and decisions. When the Blackwater agents were killed, decisions were made that things in Fallujah had been allowed to go on for far too long and that something had to be done. The USMC planned to carry out small incursions to specifically target the people responsible based on intelligence they had been gathering. Washington decided that this was not the best way to deal with the problem, that the whole event with the private contractors was far too similar to what happened in Somalia and that the American response had to be strong and decisive, a show of force. A PR move, of sorts. The USMC's plan was too "soft" to fulfill these needs, it was claimed.
The siege was started and then the subsequent "First battle of Fallujah" began. This was then called off because of pressure from the Iraqi interim government and calls to try a different approach, for example using Iraqi troops (the "Fallujah Brigade"). I believe the fact that the level of destruction inflicted on the city nullified and overshadowed the aim and goal of the operation that Washington wanted to achieve.
The cease-fire and pull out of Fallujah as well as the use of the Fallujah Brigade proved to be yet another poor decision and ultimately a failure. Then came Operation Phantom Fury which as I have stated countless times put an end to the insurgency's reign over Fallujah.

That is precisely the case and I will state it again. Because we were not there, we cannot possibly know for sure, thus all 'knowledge' about Fallujah or the current incursions by Israel is taken on faith. There is no reason to believe what the U.S. claims about what happened because they have, like all governments, engaged in subterfuge. I notice you are not disputing this point, but continuing with the false analogy.

You are not only misconstruing what I stated, but you are advancing an incorrect argument about history.

If what we believe to be a fact concerning something that is happening right now is simply based on faith, how then can anything throughout history not be the same also?
History is written by the victor, after all.

Really? How do they "speak for themselves". What are these 'facts' that 'speak'? If these facts were not first reported by the government, to the media, how would we know anything about these 'facts'? Clearly they are not 'speaking for themselves', but instead are relying on people to transmit them the way they see fit.

If the reported end result, that Fallujah was indeed successfully cleansed of it's insurgent population, was untrue the city would still be an insurgent stronghold.
Who reported the facts concerning almost every other battle ever faught? A committee set up between the victor and the defeated so as to come to a fair conclusion about the event?

The claims made by Al Jazeera is a general reference. Through America's engagement in Iraq, as well as Fallujah, they claimed many things American media did not claim, such as heavy American casualties, and America encircling Fallujah but not being able to penetrate the city and many of the Iraq army fleeing.

But America did suffer heavy casualties while trying to penetrate the city of Fallujah, during both operations. The Iraqi army did mutiny, desert and flee.

The only thing the Americans "occupy" is the fortified green zone. Beyond that, it's a jungle and no one can claim occupation unless they have completely subdued the resistance. The war of attrition is exactly what American's cannot win. I will give you an example. Here is a piece by William Lind, the former Marine who has contributed to

Fourth Generation War:

I am speaking in material terms and manpower terms. I think things are clear when you look at it from this perspective as to who is winning the war of attrition and who is suffering. You can taunt the enemy and chip away psychologically at them through continued IED attacks but it still does not change the fact that you are still taking blow after blow.

"Insurgents/guerrillas/terrorists do not face conventional armies head on, but wear them down through time through limited engagements."

This is something you said previously. Every time they carry out one of these limited engagements they are defeated. The damage IEDs are doing cannot outweigh the damage the insurgency is suffering itself.
I would argue that civilian casualties are the result not of frustration but the way enemy constantly and continually disguises itself as and attacks from within the civilian population.
I do however agree with his article when he mentions the lack of responsibility falling on people higher up in the chain of command when crimes are committed, and many have.

Whether you would call that being bogged down or not is of course irrelevant. This isn't about you, or me. This is about the situation there, a situation that the

American forces and the Bush administration did not anticipate as this is one of the flaws of central planning. They expected to be greeted as liberators now the area is in civil

war, hiding under the euphemism of "sectarian strife". It's already a civil war that has not been officially called a civil war. There a difference between the reality that is, and the

reality is preceived, there is a different between what something is, and the words we choose to ascribe to those things.

While Saddam was in power things were hardly friendly between the various different groups in Iraq. I won't pretend to know I have the answers or a solution to the problems in Iraq, call it sectarian strife or civil war.

Actually, the two compare more than you would like to admit. You are once again trying to draw arbitrary distinctions for the purposes of advancing your argument. In reality, my mention of the Chechens, and their example in general, fits perfectly. This isn't about the results in between or who has inflicted more damage on whom. This is about the best example as it gets of fourth generation war, of a state army confronting and being bogged down and defeated by a non-state army. Tactics, responses, etc., do not matter for nothing is uniform and different situations will usher different methods. What remains true are the players and systems.

The two compare in that both armies occupy the country and a friendly government has been put in place by the occupier. Other than that there are many differences.
Tactics and responses do matter. Even your William S. Lind with his 4GW concept would agree. How can you speak about any generation of warfare and say tactics and responses do not matter when it is these tactics themselves that define much of the concept itself!

Skews peoples' views? Are you insinuating that people suffer from some sort of 'false consciousness'? You are forgetting that the psychological aspect of war, is just as much if not more so, part of war than anything else. In fact, it all emanates from the state of mind of the different armies confronting each other. The fact that a suicide bomber can blow himself up and destroy a few enemies is for them victory. There is no line delineating what is or is not okay in war. Fourth generation war has effectively destroyed the old code of war, of "civilized warfare" of general rules of engagement. In fact, the very reason that the enemy is willing to blow itself up and kill anyone and anything for its perceived goal is exactly why America is not and cannot win the war of attrition as you so boldly like to claim.

It is the state of mind of people like you, not the army. It's not the coalition forces in Iraq who think they are losing.

This argument is now getting beyond a waste of time. I have, since my first post, explained and tried to back up every point I have made whilst also accepting that in places I have been either mistaken or unable to rebut, while I have to endure absurd statements that basically tell me I cannot possibly know the truth because I was not present. I have also had to repeat things many times with no proper refuting on your half only to receive a reply to which I have to spell the same things out again. I am also still waiting for you to back up certain claims made pages ago.

[D3ADSY]

Re: War in The Middle East

American troops, in order to properly quell the insurgency need to be close to five times the number they are in Iraq now to properly occupy all places at the same time, as the British did a long time ago.

I'm interested as to how you have come to this conclusion. This is based on some research or you did you just make the figure of "five times the number" up? You can tell me off the top of your head the number of troops there are currently? You can tell me the number of troops Britain had "a long time ago"? That it wasn't actually the use of the RAF and tactics that basically including widespread bombing that the british employed to occupy Iraq?