SA, although I would leave you to it, I cannot help but giving one final note. Re: "destroying the Lebanese infrastructure" Yes, I think you may have that correct. What do you expect: A leader of a foreign country says that you have to be wiped off the map. And their minions (directly or indirectly, may be hard to prove but sure as anything they have the same ambitions and philosophy) are stepping up to the task by lobbing more bombs into Israel. The Muslims are all the time trying to interfere in other countries internal affairs - in Spain, in the US, in France, in Holland, in Israel, in the Philippines, in Malaysia, in Indonesia, in the UK, in Germany, in Denmark, in Russia, in southern Thailand to name a few countries where Muslim initiated violence has occured. (And it has been going on for a long time, remember Munich with the Olympics?) And I do not see the Jews initiating this violence in other countries. All the aggresion comes clearly from the Muslims - it is not only directed against the Jews , otherwise we would not see this violence in the other countries. Then the Muslim agitators crossed a line in the sand: first they kidnapped in the south a soldier and then they did the same in the north. The answer is: "OK, you want to wipe us out, lets see how you like it having your infrastructure disrupted" Looking at it on a microlevel does not give you the right picture. Lebanon is just a pawn in the middle. We are seeing a clear message now being send to the rest of the middle east (Syria, Iran etc): "We will flatten you if you mess with us." psycho analitics By the way: Nostradamus predicted this and called the Muslim faith "evil"
. psycho-analitix: SA, although I would leave you to it, I cannot help but giving one final note. Re: "destroying the Lebanese infrastructure" Yes, I think you may have that correct. What do you expect: A leader of a foreign country says that you have to be wiped off the map. And their minions (directly or indirectly, may be hard to prove but sure as anything they have the same ambitions and philosophy) are stepping up to the task by lobbing more bombs into Israel. The Muslims are all the time trying to interfere in other countries internal affairs - in Spain, in the US, in France, in Holland, in Israel, in the Philippines, in Malaysia, in Indonesia, in the UK, in Germany, in Denmark, in Russia, in southern Thailand to name a few countries where Muslim initiated violence has occured. (And it has been going on for a long time, remember Munich with the Olympics?) And I do not see the Jews initiating this violence in other countries. All the aggresion comes clearly from the Muslims - it is not only directed against the Jews , otherwise we would not see this violence in the other countries. Then the Muslim agitators crossed a line in the sand: first they kidnapped in the south a soldier and then they did the same in the north. The answer is: "OK, you want to wipe us out, lets see how you like it having your infrastructure disrupted" Looking at it on a microlevel does not give you the right picture. Lebanon is just a pawn in the middle. We are seeing a clear message now being send to the rest of the middle east (Syria, Iran etc): "We will flatten you if you mess with us." psycho analitics *********************** July 23, 2006 SouthAmerica: Reply to psycho-analitix: You said: âWhat do you expect: A leader of a foreign country says that you have to be wiped off the map.â Yes, the leader of âIranâ not the leader of âLebanon.â But I understand, it is easier to beat someone weaker (as the US have been doing in Iraq) than pick a fight with someone who would fight back and also has the resources to do it.) You also said: The answer is: "OK, you want to wipe us out, lets see how you like it having your infrastructure disrupted" Again, the treat was from Iran and Israel is destroying the infrastructure of another country. I canât follow your logic. Thatâs is US government type of logic. The US is attacked by 15 Saudi Arabians on 9/11 â then the US attacks first, Afghanistan and after that Iraq. They had no Iraqis or Afghan nationals taking part of 9/11 attacks on US soil. You said: We are seeing a clear message now being send to the rest of the middle east (Syria, Iran etc): "We will flatten you if you mess with us." That is nothing new â since the 1967 war and the other short war in the early 1970âs all the countries in the area knows that Israel can kick their ass. Israel is adding nothing to the Middle East dialogue by destroying a very weak country in the area â in this case Lebanon. The United States can beat Grenada â in the 1980âs or Panama in the 1990âs. Big deal!!!!!!!!! ************************ psycho-analitix: By the way: Nostradamus predicted this and called the Muslim faith "evil" **************** SouthAmerica: Nostradamus also predicted that World War III would start in the Middle East around the turn of the new millennium. Take your pick â starting with Iraq and Afghanistan, the war spilled over to Israel/Lebanon â then Syria and Iran canât be far behind. And after that just God knows what is coming next. .
Southamerica, I suggest you disregard the ZIONISTS and BUSHITS on this board. These are psychotics who will always be on the offensive against anyone who dares whisper against their goal of global domination and endless wars. There is a Huge difference between Jews and Zionists. The Zionists have mis appropriated the religion of Judaism to propagate their satanic game plan. REAL Jews are beginning to awake to the dangers of the Zionist cult of Satan. http://www.jewsnotzionists.org/nyt/nyt050576.html JUDAISM VS. ZIONISM The Jewish nation is basically different from all other nations <loshen kodesh> as it does not depend for its existence on geographical boundaries, on secular sovereignty or on an army or air force. The Jewish people are ordained to live in peace with the nations of the world and it therefore has no part in the political and military quarrels of the Zionist state with its neighbors. Zionism a complete falsification of Judaism and the Zionist state cannot represent the Jewish people. The Jewish nation exists only because of the eternal bond between G'd and the Jewish people, confirmed at Mount Sinai for all future generations. The laws of the Torah are not subject to any party or parliamentary vote but the <loshen kodesh> (commandments) of the written and oral Torah laws are obligatory for every Jew and for the entire Jewish community. It is important for every Jew and non-Jew to know this fundamental difference between Zionism and Judaism, between the Zionist state and the true Jewish nation. Since its inception, Zionism has been condemned by the foremost Torah authorities as a gross aberration, as misleading and as a danger to Judaism and the Jewish people. Rabbi Amram Blau zt"l, the great and well-known Jewish leader and spokesman in Jerusalem, proclaimed shortly before his death that the recognition and acceptance by the United Nations of the Zionist State as representing the Jewish people was a grave injustice and mistake that this action should be rectified. In due course the Zionist mirage will disappear, as did so many false Messianic movements before, but the Jewish people will live -- patiently waiting the arrival of the true Moshiach -- an enduring testimony to Divine rule, upholding the banner of high moral and ethical standards, a symbol of peace and brotherhood.
. July 23, 2006 SouthAmerica: It is interesting how the mainstream media never mentions in the news that Lebanon has had a Christian majority in power in Lebanon that reflect the religious mix of its population. By listening the news or watching it on television â the broadcasters give the viewer the idea that Lebanon is mostly a Moslem country when in reality the majority of the population are Christians. The Shiites and Sunnis combined represent less than 50 percent of the population. And the Shiites and Sunnis are split 50 percent each of the total Moslem population. Each group individually the Shiites or the Sunnis represent only less than 25 percent of the total population in Lebanon. In another words, Israel is destroying a âChristian countryâ since the Christians are the majority. ************ Lebanon: Lebanon is a republic in which the three highest offices are reserved for members of specific religious groups: · the President must be a Maronite Catholic Christian. · the Prime Minister must be a Sunni Muslim, and · the Speaker of the Parliament must be a Shi'a Muslim. This arrangement is part of the "National Pact", an unwritten agreement which was established in 1943 during meetings between Lebanon's first president (a Maronite) and its first prime minister (a Sunni), although it was not formalized in the Lebanese Constitution until 1990, following the Taif Agreement. The pact included a promise by the Christians not to seek French protection and to accept Lebanon's "Arab face", and a Muslim promise to recognize independence and legitimacy of the Lebanese state in its 1920 boundaries and to renounce aspirations for union with Syria. This pact was thought at the time to be an interim compromise, necessary until Lebanon formed its own sense of a national identity. Its continued existence and the fallout from subsequent civil wars continue to dominate politics in Lebanon. The pact also stipulated that seats in the Parliament would be allocated by religion and region, in a ratio of 6 Christians to 5 Muslims, a ratio based on the 1932 census, which was taken at a time when Christians still had a slight majority. The Taif Agreement adjusted the ratio to grant equal representation to followers of the two religions. The parliament composition is based more on ethnic and religious identities rather than ideological features. The distribution of parliament seats has been modified recently. Parliament of Lebanon Seat Allocation Before Taif After Taif Maronite (Roman Catholic Church) 30 - 34 Greek Orthodox 11 - 14 Greek Catholic 6 - 8 Armenian Orthodox 4 - 5 Armenian Catholic 1 - 1 Protestant 1 - 1 Other Christians 1 - 1 Total Christians 54 - 64 Sunni 20 - 27 Shi'a 19 - 27 Druze 6 - 8 Alawite 0 - 2 Total Muslims 45 - 64 Total 99 - 128 ********** âThe Taif Agreementâ - October 22, 1989 âThe Taif Agreementâ was negotiated in Taif, Saudi Arabia by the surviving members of Lebanon's 1972 parliament; presided and fathered by Parliament Speaker President Hussein El-Husseini. The agreement covered political reform, the ending of the war in Lebanon, the establishment of special relations between Lebanon and Syria, and a framework for the beginning of complete Syrian withdrawal from Lebanon. It was signed on October 22, 1989. The agreement restructured the political system in Lebanon by transferring some of the power away from the Maronite Christian community, which had been given a privileged status in Lebanon under French colonial rule. Prior to Taif, the Sunni Prime Minister was appointed by and responsible to the Maronite President. After Taif the Prime Minister was responsible to the legislature, as in a traditional parliamentary system. The accords established a cabinet divided equally between Christians and Muslims. Although the Taif Agreement identified the abolition of political sectarianism as a national priority, it provided no timeframe for doing so. On March 8, 2005, Hezbollah, which maintains an armed force of 20,000 men and has had backing from Syria and Iran, staged a massive rally in Beirut drawing hundreds of thousands of people. Organizers attacked UN Resolution 1559, which mandated withdrawal of foreign troops from Lebanon and the disbanding of domestic militias. Hezbollah leader Sheik Hassan Nasrallah, insisted "The troop withdrawal must happen according to the mechanism of the Taif Accords." [Beirut Daily Star, as quoted in March 21, 2005, "6,000 Syrian troops retreat to Lebanon-Syria border," themilitant.com, March 21, 2005.] ******************** âThe Syria Accountability and Lebanese Sovereignty Restoration Actâ â December 12, 2003. âThe Syria Accountability and Lebanese Sovereignty Restoration Actâ is a bill of the United States Congress passed into law on December 12, 2003. The bill's stated purpose is to end what the United States sees as Syrian support for terrorism, to end Syria's occupation of Lebanon, which has been in effect since the end of the Lebanese Civil War in 1990, to stop Syria's alleged development of WMDs, to cease Syria's illegal importation of Iraqi oil and to end illegal shipments of military items to anti-US forces in Iraq. The bill was sponsored by Representative Eliot L. Engel(D) from New York and was introduced April 12, 2003. ******************** âUnited Nations Security Council Resolution 1559â - September 2, 2004 âUnited Nations Security Council Resolution 1559â was a resolution adopted by the United Nations Security Council on September 2, 2004. It called upon Syria to end its military presence in Lebanon by withdrawing its forces and to cease intervening in internal Lebanese politics. The resolution also called on all Lebanese militias (including Hezbollah) to disband. Nine countries voted in favor: Angola, Benin, Chile, France, Germany, Romania, Spain, the United Kingdom, and the United States. Six countries abstained: Algeria, Brazil, the People's Republic of China, Pakistan, the Philippines and Russia. The resolution was sponsored by France and the United States. The cooperation between these two nations on an issue concerning Lebanon was due to the fact that Lebanon was governed by France as a League of Nations mandate 1919-1943, France has long taken a special interest in Lebanon. *************** Syria made few moves to comply with the resolution 1559 until the assassination of Rafik Hariri, the former Prime Minister of Lebanon, on February 14, 2005. International pressure to withdraw intensified and public perception in Lebanon turned strongly against Syria, evidenced by mass demonstrations that were labeled the Cedar Revolution. President Bashar al-Assad of Syria announced on March 5, 2005 that he planned to "bring his forces home." The withdrawal, involving about 14,000 troops, took about seven weeks to complete. On April 26, 2005, after 29 years of military action in Lebanon, the last Syrian troops left Lebanon. Syrian military and intelligence facilities, after the destruction of sensitive documents or the transportation of logistical material, were turned over to Lebanese counterparts. This action left the Lebanese government as the main violator of the resolution due to its refusal to dismantle the pro-Syrian Palestinian and Hezbollah militias. The question of compliance with Resolution 1559 is a prominent matter in Lebanese politics. Prime Minister Fouad Siniora has stated that the government considers Hezbollah arms to be a domestic affair and that stated policy should reassure Hezbollah that the government will protect its military wing. Hezbollah was trying to convince the government to clearly state that the Shiite group's military wing was a resistance group, not a militia, and therefore did not have to comply with the resolution. Saniora has more stated on July 20, 2006 that "the continued presence of Israeli occupation of Lebanese lands in the Shebaa Farms region is what contributes to the presence of Hezbollah weapons. The international community must help us in (getting) an Israeli withdrawal from Chebaa Farms so we can solve the problem of Hezbollah's arms." *********** Post-Lebanese election After the 2005 elections, Hezbollah held 23 seats (up from eight previously) in the 128-member Lebanese Parliament. It also participated for the first time in the Lebanese government that was formed in July 2005. Hezbollah has two ministers in the government, and a third is Hezbollah-endorsed. It is primarily active in the Bekaa Valley, the southern suburbs of Beirut, and southern Lebanon. The group is headed by Sayyed Hassan Nasrallah and is financed largely by Iran and Syria, though it also raises funds itself through charities and commercial activities. .
Another lie, they've repeatedly talked about it on every channel describing the religious composition of Lebanon and pointing out that the President is always Christian and the Prime minister is always Muslim. What you on the other side failed to mention is that Israel is bombing primarily shia areas which are Hezbollah strongholds, that christian areas of Lebanon are reasonably safe and that a lot of christians are blaming Hezbollah for the current crisis. Saniora has more stated on July 20, 2006 that "the continued presence of Israeli occupation of Lebanese lands in the Shebaa Farms region is what contributes to the presence of Hezbollah weapons. That's too bad, the UN recognized that Israel withdrew to internationally recognized borders.
. psycho-analitix: SA is really loosing it with a false argument. If my memory serves me right then there is some UN resolution on Israel withdrawing from sourthern Lebanon, the Hezbollah being disarmed and withdrawing from southern Lebanon and the Lebonese government being responsible for implementing this disarming. Somewhere in the midst Hezbollah was allowed to become part of the Lebanese government. Now, the Lebanese have brought this upon themselves by not disarming Hezbollah and creating a "neutral zone" and ensuring that the terrorists do not launch attacks. In other words: the Lebanese government has not abided by a UN resolution knowing damn well that the UN is impotent. ********** SouthAmerica: How can you disarm an army that is stronger than you are or have lethal Weapons on its arsenal â For example: I donât see the United States trying to disarm North Korea by force â even tough the US has been making a big deal about North Koreans nuclear weapons for many years. ************** psycho-analitix: We see what happend in France with the riots of the Algerians there, demanding their own "administered area with their own laws". This is what happens when you have immigrants like those. Now what has France done to upset the Muslims? They did not support any of the US actions. Was it not Roosevelt who made a remark that an immigrant has to adapt to the laws and customs of his / her new country and otherwise they had no rights to be an immigrant? On the other hand I see Jews integrating quietly into a host country and trying to adapt and making a living there. ************ SouthAmerica: If that is the case and following your logic then why the Jews did not adapt to the laws and customs of his / her new country (Palestine in 1940âs) and otherwise they had no rights to be an immigrant to that area of the world. Why they had to create a new country from an area that had been dominated by some other group for hundreds of years? **************** DDDooo: Countries that signed the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty have no right to develop and/or purchase nuclear weapons, the transaction would violate the treaty and would therefore be illegal, The US sales of precision guided bombs to Israel is absolutely 100% legal. Once again you are engaged in wishful thinking. ************ July 23, 2006 SouthAmerica: Pakistan and India never signed the non-proliferation treaty - (You talk about treaties as if they were sacred documents, but the reality is international treaties are broken all the time anyway â they are a useful tool that can be used only for a certain period of time then most of them become obsolete and worthless.) According to your logic the US should not whine about the sell of nuclear weapons technology by Pakistan to other countries. India also have the right to sell their nuclear weapons know-how to other countries since India also never signed the nuclear non-proliferation treaty. The sell of nuclear weapons from Pakistan to Saudi Arabia that happened 3 years ago it is a legitimate business transaction. I understand Pakistan sold 6 or 8 nuclear bombs to Saudi Arabia to be used for defense purposes. It is very easy for any country to unsign itself from any treaty â these treaties are not documents that you have to follow forever. *************** optionpro007: You didn't mention "Hezbollah" in your post. That is the only reason for needing the weapons, but you omitted the name. Hezbollah is cancer to the region just as Hamas is to future Palestine. *************** SouthAmerica: You think Hezbollah is a terrorist organization because you are watching television in the US or Israel. But to the Arab world Hezbollah means something else - Hezbollah and Hamas were created as a result of this Israel conflict that has been going on forever. Besides Hezbollah is a powerful party inside the democratically elected government of Lebanon. And Hamas also came to power as a result of a democratically elected government. That reminds me of the old saying: You should be careful about what you wish for â it might come thru. In this case â democracy. First, the US wants to implement government change in the Middle East â the US wants to implant democracy in that area â then when the results of democracy is not what the US wanted then with the rise to power of Hamas and Hezbollah â the US starts whining all over again â thatâs is not the type of democracy we wanted to implant in the Middle East â Blah, Blah, Blah, Blah, Blah, Blahâ¦â¦â¦â¦ The Arab world and the west have different perceptions regarding Hezbollah. *************** optionpro007: You have lied to us. You are anti-american, not because of Bush. I think it is because the American society is rich and successful and this fact burns you ass with envy. This seems evident in all your scribblings. Typical of short minded and short sighted socialist, communist or extremist thinking people. Instead of believing in competition you believe in boycotting the system because you know you are no match to it. You would do perfectly well in most other countries were lower beings think that the only way out of feeling like a complete failure is taking out the higher beings within that society or in this case the same you are seeing in the arab-israeli conflict or muslim extremism vs the west, socialism vs capitalism in southamerica, etc.... They need you there buddy, here you stick out like a fly in milk. It is funny how one can derive so much from when a person puts his or her thoughts in writing. Some people who feel they are a failure simply can't keep it to themselves. ********** SouthAmerica: You response says it all. I did really hit a nerve here. If the Arabs started suing all those weapons companies and their investors â That would cause a lot of trouble to all these people. Suing is the American way of settling things up. There is nothing more American than suing someone else for anythingâ¦â¦ .
And your non-response to me says it all. I really must have hit a nerve here. Everyone got a reply but me! And another member added that he had similar concerns about your claims. Selective, very selective of you.
. Quote from southamerica: âThe arms sells to Israel are not illegal â but at the same time it does not exempt the United States and the arms manufacturers from the liabilities related to what Israel does with these armament.â Tradernik: I am having a really really difficult time reconciling all of these statements with the quote above, which doesn't make any sense at all. For you to attempt to cite examples from trends in American civil litigation and then to map those onto international arms sales is... well, I'll be polite and say that this is tenuous at best. First, the lawsuits you mention in the US, which would hold arms manufacturers responsible for the crimes committed by those who use their products, represent the most demeaning, regressive, and shortsighted aspect of the PC culture of blame. It robs free thinking men of the imperative to take responsibility for their actions. It is despicable and wrong. But aside from this, to attempt to suggest that something as complex as international arms sales might be jammed into the same mould seems to me to be absurd on its face. ******************** July 23, 2006 SouthAmerica: Reply to Tradernik: You said: âFirst, the lawsuits you mention in the US, which would hold arms manufacturers responsible for the crimes committed by those who use their products, represent the most demeaning, regressive, and shortsighted aspect of the PC culture of blame. It robs free thinking men of the imperative to take responsibility for their actions. It is despicable and wrong.â It does not matter if I agree with this strategy or not. That is a new fact of life in the United States and the arms dealers have to find a new way to handle the situation accordingly and protect their businesses. I did not create the culture of blame. The reality is that today the United States has over 100 lawyers for each lawyer they have in Japan. (On a per capita basis) I was a controller of a major international trading company in the US that had to close its doors and laid off 50 people who used to work on our office because of an American lawsuit. Our company had nothing to do with the deal that had gone sour between a group of companies in Brazil (a syndicate of 12 independent companies, but the main shareholder of our company was the only person with deep pockets in that group) and another American company. But the American company sued our company here in the US, because the owner of our company was also a minor shareholder in one of the companies that were involved in that deal that went sour in Brazil. Our company was incorporated in the US, and had nothing to do with the company that was involved in the deal that had gone sour in Brazil. When the deal went sour in Brazil â all the other companies filled for bankruptcy one after another and the only one left of the 12 companies was this major Brazilian company because they were very large in Brazil â and the American company that had lost money in some kind of deal with that group of companies found out that the major shareholder of that Brazilian company also had a business here in the US â in this case our company â Then the American company decided to sue our company in US court to put pressure on the other Brazilian company owned by the same person. The owner of our company thought those Americans were crazy â but to play safe and protect his assets here in the United States he told the president of our company to layoff everybody here in the US immediately and close the US company. Because of a silly lawsuit we laid off 50 people here in New Jersey and went out of business. And our subsidiary had nothing to do with the business deal that had gone sour in Brazil â we did not even traded in the commodities mentioned on the lawsuit. The first time the president of our company learned anything about that deal that went sour in Brazil was when he received here in the US the legal papers saying that our company was being sued. We thought that this kind of lawsuit had to be illegal â but to make the story short the lawsuit dragged for at least another 3 years and finally was settled out of court without our company saying that they were guilt of anything â I have no idea what the final settlement was that it was finally reached. In todayâs dollars they were suing our company for $ 300 million dollars. It does not matter how you look at it â if our company was guilt or innocent of anything â It was a losing proposition. The following day our company found out about that lawsuit we received orders from Brazil from the major shareholder to close the business immediately - Even tough our company was doing a fair amount of business and doing OK â We went from 50 people to about 6 in a matter of 2 weeks. Then after another 3 months I was the only one left in that company because I had to clean up things and close the business. During the next 2 years I received legal fees related to that lawsuit to be paid on a monthly basis which I paid â during these 2 years I paid more than $ 4 million dollars in legal fees â not including the final settlement. I understand the other side decided to settle that lawsuit because they were also spending millions of dollars in legal fees related to that suit and nobody knew what was going to happen to it when the lawsuit finally reached the court judgement. I know from my own prior experience regarding that lawsuit: In a Nutshell: The lawsuit strategy works very well and inflicts a lot of damage and pain to the parties involved. Lawsuit is the American way of inflicting pain and putting people out of business. And worksâ¦â¦â¦â¦â¦â¦. **************** SouthAmerica: Why countries that lost wars then have to pay reparations to the countries that won the war? WW I come to mind. Iran is trying to collect reparations from Iraq in court from their long war in the 1980âs. The rest of the world signed to the International court at The Hague â If you really believe in flowing the law and not being a lose canon. But After the Clinton administration signing that document â the Bush administration unsigned it â because we think today that the US is above the law. I can see manufacturers of weapons being protected when they manufacture weapons for defense purposes of the country. But when weapons it is just a commodity to be traded as any other around the world for the sake of making billions of US dollars in the death business â then why any reasonable person would expect that these international sells of killing products should be exempted from any liabilities involved in the usage of these products? Why these products should get a free ride? **************** Tradernik: And furthermore, you seem to be assuming that the Israeli actions are illegal. ************ SouthAmerica: A lot of things that happens all the time are not illegal until you get caught. I can make a long list of illegal activities going on all over the world, but who is going to stop all these illegal activities? I can go on, and on â Somalia, Sudan, Iraq, Afghanistan, Pakistan, Kashmir, Lebanon, Ethiopia, in Asia in various spots, and so onâ¦â¦ What is assumed legal today for example: the CIA overthrow of Allende in 1972 in Chile and installation of a very nasty dictator General Augusto Pinochet. Today Pinochet have all kinds of legal problems related to that time. The blessing and support of the US government to the junta of generals who ruled Argentina for a few years and killed thousands of innocent people. All those Argentinians generals also or they are in jail or they ahve all kinds of legal problems as well related to their abuse of power. The CIA overthrow of the legitimate democratically elected government of Iran in 1953 to install on its place another nasty dictator Mohammad Reza Pahlavi â the Shah of Iran. In the 1970s, Ayatollah Ruhollah Khomeini gained much popularity among Iranians. Islamists, and he staged the Iranian Revolution of 1979 â resulting in the current system that we have in Iran today. I can see Bush/Cheney in jail a few years from now in relation to all their abuse of power when they were in charge of the US government and the mess that they are responsible in Iraq and so on.... .
. July 23, 2006 SouthAmerica: Israel has picked a fight of equals with Lebanon. As Israel uses the latest in weapons technology to destroy Lebanon, in the other hand Lebanon uses a sling shot against Israel. When Hezbollah uses one of their Katyusha rockets â they are lucky if the rocket landed in the same Continent. They have no idea where the rocket is going to go â and they should be careful in Syria and Iraq because some of the rockets might land over there. ****************** Hezbollahâs Weapons - Katyusha rockets â 1940âs technology. Katyusha multiple rocket launchers are a type of rocket artillery built and fielded by the Soviet Union in the Second World War. They are multiple rocket launchers, although with poor accuracy, and then taking a relatively long period of time to reload. It can also refer to Katyusha artillery rockets used individually, a mode of attack sometimes used in guerrilla warfare, military harassing fire, or attacks against population, for example by the National Front for the Liberation of Vietnam, Hezbollah, the Iraqi insurgency, and the Taliban. When CNN News reporters were showing the damage done in some train station in Israel after the train station had been hit by a Katyusha rocket last week â it seems to me that there were more damage to the station done by the weight of the rocket when the rocket hit the roof and came crashing on the station than anything else â sure there were debris scattered around where the rocket landed â but I was thinking to myself that Katyusha rocket must be old and must cause very little damage when compared with a single guided missile that Israel is using against Lebanon. It reminds me once again of the pictures that I have seen so often on television of Palestinians throwing rocks and Molotov cocktails at the Israelis and the Israelis attacking them with the latest in weapons technology. ************** Israelâs Weapons: Advanced Fighter Jets, fighting Helicopters â both armed with state-of-the-art in warfare technology. Israel has been using against Lebanon - United States precision-guided bombs From NYT article: But Israelâs request for expedited delivery of the satellite and laser-guided bombs. The media has been reporting that when Israel attacked some building in Lebanon â that turned out to be some kind of church under construction â Israel dropped a 23 ton guided bomb on that building. When the CNN News reporters went to the location you could see the tremendous amount of destruction in the entire area caused by just one specific Israeli attack. .
. Tradernik: Quote from southamerica: You response says it all. I did really hit a nerve here. And your non-response to me says it all. I really must have hit a nerve here. Everyone got a reply but me! And another member added that he had similar concerns about your claims. Selective, very selective of you. ************** July 24, 2006 SouthAmerica: Sorry to disappoint you.