Reply #13: Reply [View All]

[tinnypriv]

So, where did this PLO SA-7 come from?

Note: "most" artillery was WWI, WWII vintage. You didn't mention surface to surface missiles.

Regardless, the SA-7 is assumed to have come from Syria via the Soviets. In any case, the Skyhawk shooting down was a one-off, and as most concede, was due to sheer bad luck - failure of countermeasures etc.

Note that Achiaz was the only Israeli casualty of June 6, and the villages who tried to lynch him had been under air attack for 3 straight days, without so much as a speck of paint being scratched on any IAF aircraft.

The IAF even had the luxury of being able to drop leaflets to Lebanese villagers at low-level warning them not to "harbor terrorists" (PLO) prior to the official invasion, so to pretend there was more than a minuscule threat to Israeli aircraft from the PLO is, to repeat, "pushing the matter to absurdity".

Note that even after Achiaz was shot down, the IAF continued to sonic-boom Beirut at low-level, for intimidation (when not attacking), as witnesses all allege.

A better breakdown of the PLO order of battle is given by this US military report. Here is the section on PLO preparations.

I see no reason to address this nonsense, since it includes the shameful and outrageous lie that there were still "2,000 (PLO)" fighters in West Beirut, who were a "threat to IDF forces".

How the author can even dare to write that disgusting trash is beyond my comprehension.

Though I won't waste time refuting it, here is a little thought experiment: if the "2,000 fighters" were a "threat" to the IDF, why did the IDF send in 150 Phalangists to attack them, Phalangists noted for their strict avoidance of combat?

And why did these "2,000 fighters" (who had a 13-1 ratio in their favor) only manage to inflict two casualties on the Phalangists?

As I said: disgusting trash. You should be dismissing this report with contempt, not citing it.

Actually, yes...

Maybe I wasn't clear - does that justify the Israeli claim? Is that claim legitimate?

This is by definition what a spark is, an event which ignites an already sitting tinderpile

Yet in this case, the tinderpile is being piled higher and higher by Israel (no-one else), and if no spark occurs, it will simply set the thing on fire itself, arguing in justification that "the PLO" knocked the lighter out of its hand, on purpose (because it wanted to be obliterated, naturally).

A convincing argument, to be sure.