Bush says Israel defeated Hezbollah
Read Complete Story here

Also look at thie video conversation between SKY newscaster and George Galloway here

Not to support Bush or anything but the big-ass craters in Lebanon would lead me to believe he's right.

This video is hilarious, but as usual George brings up some very good points, well worth watching.

Sky News Link: http://news.sky.com/skynews/video/videopla..._060806,00.html

And the Washington Post says that Hizbokkah is The Best Guerrilla Force in the World

Its one or the other. either Hezbollah won or lost. He claims that they've suffered 30 times more deaths than Israel. But general rules of war, that would be a win. But now he says Israel is the loser.

Yea..this guy has some interesting points, but the same bias he accuses the news host, and all of Rupert Murdoch's companies of having, he has.

At Madrose:



Further proof you don't know a damn thing about what you use in your arguments.

It is enough that this widely read newspaper has published this argument you fool. This actually support this argument wiether you like it or not.

More proofs if that is not enough for you:
http://news.independent.co.uk/world/middle...icle1219280.ece
http://www.independent.co.uk//eceRedirect?...05&pubId=55
http://www.independent.co.uk//eceRedirect?...27&pubId=55
http://www.kibush.co.il/show_file.asp?num=15719

Just because they're the best guerella force doesnt mean they won.

How do you determine a win? You have to look at the numbers in the end.

Emotional wins and physical wins are very different. Hamas won the numbers game in the election, but emotionally, they lost as the whole world turned against them.

Bush won the physical election (albiet, thanks to a judge), but his approval rating is in the toilet.

Hezbollah may have won an emotional victory via the muslims in the area, but there is no debating the physical winner.

Just a few days ago, you where screaming about the innocent deaths, now you are fighting about who the winner is. The people that died because of this conflict could care less at this point who won or lost.

Just for you guys maybe we should come up with some sort of win loss tally card, bullets fired, hit and miss ratio etc etc...

Call it what it is a "Cease Fire" and lets all hope it lasts.

If Israel was as radical as some of these militant groups, they would have just nuked the Hezbollah.

Nobody won or lost. There is a clear cease fire. As virtualraider put it, let's just hope it lasts. Any moment it can start again and military superiority does not win this kind of war.

My god, you're an incompetent moron. Would you mind at least clarifying your posts to make it clear what you're trying to put across? To me, you were not saying that Israel had won in your post. You said Hezbollah had the best guerilla force in the world.

I said you don't know a damn thing about what you use in your arguments because it was a Lebanese official himself who made the statement. You did not say that Israel lost, which seems to be your argument all of a sudden.

It is not about being the best guerrilla, today Israel along with the US and half of the western world wanted Hizbollah not only lose, but actually to be wiped out, Simple because groups like this put all of their plans at risk. Middle East IS AN AREA OF BIG INTEREST for them.

Hizbollah today proved that he is a military group that is causing Israel & US to have nightmares, Israeli forces could not hold any area from what they were announcing that they have reached, they were always forced to retreat , especially in the last couple of days before the ceasefire, according to Israeli records they have lost 45 soldier in the last 2 days only. It is as Nassrallah have said “a strategic victory”.

Yes, it is true I was screaming about the civilian casualties and the massacres that Israel did, that is the exact reason that we shouldn't let the lives that were taken for nothing. There is no justification for what Israel have done to the civilians (more than 30% are kids and infants), they should stand trial for their war crimes.

Put their plans at risk?!

Hey moron. Israel didn't attack until Hezbollah kidnapped their soldiers and killed a few others.

They AT ANY POINT IN TIME, could have given up the soldiers, and Israel would have backed off.

But I suppose that somehow in your warped little world, it wasn't really Hezbollah that kidnapped the soldiers. It was secret Israeli team, dressed up as Hezbollah. They kidnappaned their own soldier, and killed their own military.

Then they could go in and lay waste to the people who have been firing rockets at them, claim they wanted peace, and just return the soldier. Meanwhile that secret Israeli Hezbollah team and the kidnapped soldier sat around, drinking vodka, and playing Texas Hold`em, while laughing and cheering at all the death and destruction.


No justification? You are really blind. HELLO! KIDNAPPED AND MURDERED SOLDIERS! ROCKETS FIRED DAILY INTO CITIES!

Oh wait. That doesn't count. Because they didn't always hit a target. So, we should always ignore stuff if it doesnt cause casualities.

Maybe we should let all the terrorists go who tried to blow up the flight in England. Lets let the shoe bomber go. These guys only TRIED to hurt people, they didn't succeed. So no harm, no foul, no crime.

Put their plans at risk?!

Hey moron. Israel didn't attack until Hezbollah kidnapped their soldiers and killed a few others.

They AT ANY POINT IN TIME, could have given up the soldiers, and Israel would have backed off.

But I suppose that somehow in your warped little world, it wasn't really Hezbollah that kidnapped the soldiers. It was secret Israeli team, dressed up as Hezbollah. They kidnappaned their own soldier, and killed their own military.

Then they could go in and lay waste to the people who have been firing rockets at them, claim they wanted peace, and just return the soldier. Meanwhile that secret Israeli Hezbollah team and the kidnapped soldier sat around, drinking vodka, and playing Texas Hold`em, while laughing and cheering at all the death and destruction.


No justification? You are really blind. HELLO! KIDNAPPED AND MURDERED SOLDIERS! ROCKETS FIRED DAILY INTO CITIES!

Oh wait. That doesn't count. Because they didn't always hit a target. So, we should always ignore stuff if it doesnt cause casualities.

Maybe we should let all the terrorists go who tried to blow up the flight in England. Lets let the shoe bomber go. These guys only TRIED to hurt people, they didn't succeed. So no harm, no foul, no crime.

Hmm, I don't agree with that statement. Only if 1 party can bring the enemy to surrender (like the Allied nations with Germany, Japan) you can speak of a winner. And take Russia: they have lost most lives in WWII (+30 million) but were considered as the winners.

When you have a cease-fire you can only speak in terms of moral victories or not... In that respect, it was almost impossible for Israel to win this war. Why? Because they had the image of being totally invincible and a massive powerhouse. And now, for the first time ever, Arabs feel that somebody can "stop" Israel. I'm NOT saying this is a correct analysis, I'm saying that this is the general idea. One that is very useful in propaganda terms!

I'm afraid, dk, this hurts in Israel, and I think you will see that a very critical debate will follow in Israel (which proves that Israel is a democratic nation, so that is a big plus ). Most people expected Israel to dismantle hezbollah in a few days. And the 2 soldiers are not returned(!), so they will be traded for hezbollah/lebanese prisoners, exactly what would have happened if this war would not have taken place.

But again, like always in the Middle-East, the only winners are the extremists: in Lebanon people can start with the rebuilding again, all the progress towards democracy made in the last years in down the toilet as the sharp lines between shi'ites, sunni's and christians became even bigger. In Palestinia, hamas, which was in deep trouble because of the prisoners document is safe again (because I don't think Abbas is eager for a referendum concering the recognition of Israel right now )

And in Israel I'm afraid the plan of Olmert for the withdrawal of the West Bank is also pushed back for a longtime.

Well, you may be right on many counts.

Israel has begun a pullback, and I hope they contiue.

I don't know about Abbas...I think he may still want to push for peace, since that is what Israel wants...

I'm not even going to bother with you anymore. Learn English so you can understand what I'm saying, because it's quite clear that you can't.

Maybe we should all learn hebrew since its all part of the jewish conspiracy!

All Hail...not jesus?

Arabians lost the war when they betrayed OTTOMAN Empire in the first World War. and Indeed, Every betrayal has a criminal...

Stop talking about the silly excuse of the 2 soldiers, everybody with a 10% inelegancy knows it was only a cover for Israel to do what they have done, the majority of casualties are minors and more than 70% of the infrastructure of Lebanon has been levelled to the ground. And the worst thing for Israel “THE 2 SOLDIERS ARE STILL IN CAPTURE”.

Israel is forced to negotiate with Hizbollah, They will release prisoners against those 2 soldiers. If they would have done this from the start; they would have spared the life of t he civilians. But oh no… that cannot be, Israel has to be the only super power and they have to crush the resistant no matter how big or small they are.

Most of you here believe that Hizbollah is a terrorist group likewise Hamas, but the fact is that they are a resistant group fighting the occupation of Israel and to release thousand of their compatriots who are kidnapped hostages in the Israeli dungeons, and one man’s terrorist, is another man’s freedom’s fighter. and one thing is for sure, this whole crisis didn’t start with those 2 soldiers, it is almost a decade long.

this news item seems to confirm that indeed.

Yea..and find me a country that DOESN't have plans ready against their enemies. Being prepared is not wrong.

And had Hezbollah NOT captured the soldiers, they would not have attacked.

Any country wtih a defense budget has plans in case their enemy attacks. Whoopie.

I really don't see what the big mystery is there... The 2 soldiers are not a "cover", they are a trigger.

If Israel would have pushed those soldiers into hezbollah hands, or handed them over to them, then you could speak of a cover (heck, I'm typing this and I can imagine some people in the Middle East would believe such a conspiracy theory ).

Of course the plans were there already longtime: after Ehud Barak left office, and right wing Likud took over, they said they would take care of hezbollah. If tomorrow the USA attacks Iran because of the nukes, will you also say "it was planned a longtime ago" and act all surprized?

The capturing of the 2 soldiers was the step too far from hezbollah (Israel felt the USA would give them backing, which they did), and decided to start the war, as planned a longtime ago. Of course the destruction of bridges, buildings, roads and airports has nothing to do with the 2 soldiers, any idiot knows that. And of course Israel will maintain it has everything to do with them, because a lot of people are happy hearing those things, to keep their conscience clean. (like 33% of all Americans still believe Saddam was connected to 9/11).

The bad thing (propaganda wise) for Israel, is that they weren't able to get the soldiers back... Now their story seems a bit less convincing. And their own public opinion will be a bit shocked that the official plan didn't work out.

Propaganda is something you will always see, especially during wars. That is why looking at official statements from the parties (hezbollah and Israel alike) tells you nothing. Because let's try to be adult here: you can do as much Israel bashing as you like, in propaganda levels hezbollah has nothing to learn from them...

I've never heard that Saddam was connected to 9/11....not directly Where'd you see that stat?

Hey guys, sorry i havn't been posting lately, I am currently in Mecca for religious reasons. Will post pictures when I get back to Cairo.
------
This topic has seriously gotten out of hand. My point of view is that neither really "won" but Hezballah now has a solid future, the Lebanease army has no chance against them. All Israel did was kill 800+ civilians, and less than 10 Hezballah soldiers.Their reputation around the world went bitter due to the bombings. They didn't get their soldiers back. They also did not accomplish ANY of their military goals they published. Finally, Israel is going to be forced to pay (just saw this on BBC news) $200 million to clean the Mediterranean Sea due to their bombings of the Lebanease main power plant. The only thing that Hezballah "lost" was their civilians, but they gained tremendous moral support (all around the Arab world) and they fulfilled their "dream" of scaring the life out of Israelite citizens and bombing them on Israelite land. So it is pretty normal for them to claim they won, but it was not worth it.

All in all, its a shame...

regarding Saddam and 9-11...

Cheney was asked early on if Saddam was connected to 9-11, and he said "we don't know."

News media took that and spun it to where he expressed suspicion. Then, in the minds of the media babies, that became an endorsement.

Finally, we know that a senior Iraqi official met with one of those implicated in the attacks, but we do not know if this was even on the table in their meeting. We also know Saddam met Osama, and their meeting did not go as well as hoped by many,.. but they at least managed to not become enemies, and the two made some cross-training plans to grow some common military ties. While this may have led to a common strategy, there is, as of yet, no specific evidence this was implemented before 9-11.

Thus, at most, in regards to 9-11, Saddam has indirect complicity. If any, it would most likely be through Salman Pak, which was used for "counter-terrorism" aboard a grounded airliner. There are supposed to be very significant similarities to the 9-11 hijackings.

This caused a certain congressman to "get behind the president" and say sure Saddam was connected.

Yet said congressman never realized the President has never made any implication, other than to say "an investigation is underway to see IF Saddam and Salman Pak training had any direct links to Al Qaeda, or the 9-11 attacks. Bush's offcial words as of now is "There is no evidence." and it has been so since before Iraq was invaded.

wrong. They would have attacked if the soldiers were not taken, because hezbollah was firing missiles into Israel, at an unprecendented rate. And that was NOT resistance fighting. it was a solid offense, even if it was prroly coordinated, until the media helped the Hezbollah members get better aim at Israel.

its amazing, people think it was just because of the two soldiers now, for some reason. or should we deny that Hezbollah opened fire on Israel, and launched thousands of missiles?

errr... yes, actually.

Some will say I'm taking a position (which I'm not trying to do, really), but the timeline went like this:

- hezbollah ambush: they capture 2 soldiers, and (I think) 4 IDF soldiers get killed trying to rescue them.
- Olmert said this was "an act of war versus Israel"
- next day IDF starts air-strikes, and hezbollah responds with missiles.

So yes, you can say the capturing of the 2 soldiers was the trigger, but there never were "thousands of missiles".

And if you really want to make the broader analysis, I don't think you can see the capturing of those 2 soldiers without looking at the offensive started earlier by Israel in Gaza.

...Which was a response to recover the soldier that got kidnapped by the militant wing of hamas.

..Which can be seen as a direct (succesful) attempt of the extremist wing inside hamas to prevent the political hamas leaders from signing the prisoners document (and recognizing Israel), which was suppsed to happen only a few hours(!) after the kidnapping.

But I guess a lot of people don't want to make the bigger analysis and are okay with the good guy/bad guy theory!

@raum: So Cheney never told there was a link? And the "left wing media" as they are often called made that link themselves?

"Vice President Dick Cheney said Thursday the evidence is "overwhelming" that al Qaeda had a relationship with Saddam Hussein's regime in Iraq, " Yeah, that sounds like your "we don't know" That is what 5 seconds of google can do to you

K2..your analysis leads back to the fact the extremists don't want peace, which both Abbas and Israel were working towards...

Hezbollah didn't want peace other. Its easier to make an mountain out of a molehill for an enemy when you make them attack you.

It's small man advantage. Its when a small guy, picks a fight with a bigger guy. The small man will win no matter what. If he kicks the big guys ass, he looks like tough shit. If the big guy kicks the small guys ass, the big guy looks like a horrible bully for beating up the small man, who attacked him first.

regarding Cheney, from your article: In his CNBC interview, Cheney went a bit further. Asked if Iraq was involved in 9/11, he said, "We don't know." HE NEVER SAID OTHERWISE REGARDING 9-11, he just said there was evidence of ties, and perhaps some logistic complicity betweent the Al-Qaeda and Iraq. That evidence showing meetings and plans between Saddam and Al-Qaeda is well documented; BUT DOES NOT INCLUDE EVIDENCE of the direct plot of 9-11.

As far as who fired the first missiles in the Israel-Lebanon conflict: The Israeli town of Shlomi was fired upon by Hezbollah, and in the chaos, the guards were abducted. That attack was the catalyst for the abduction, which was a further provocation.

Here in the USA..the entire Iraq issue has had no mention of 9/11 other than terrorism as a whole. There hasn't been much "Saddam is behind it all" talk. They're 2 separate issues really

all I can say is look to the sky and await your final answer.