Iran denies supplying rocket that hit ship

[IndianaGreen]

Iran denies supplying rocket that hit ship

Saturday 15 July 2006, 20:09 Makka Time, 17:09 GMT

Israel claims that the guided missile that hit one of their naval warships, killing at least one sailor, was Iranian-made.

<snip>

An Israeli military source separately said that a C802 radar-guided missile with a range of 100 kilometres had been fired at the ship as it sat off the coast, enforcing a blockade on Lebanon's ports after two Israeli soldiers were abducted on Wednesday.

"This is sophisticated weaponry," the Israeli military source said. "This is advanced weaponry that is being supplied by one terrorist state (Iran) to another."

<snip>

Iran has denied involvement and their embassy in Beirut has released a statement saying: "These accusations by Israeli officials are baseless and constitute an attempt to escape reality and cover up the impotence of this regime in the face of resistance and the Lebanese people."

<snip>

An Israeli military official said the ship is one of the most technologically advanced in the Israeli fleet, boasting an array of Harpoon and Gabriel missiles, along with a system for electronically jamming attacking missiles and other threats.

The official, who spoke on condition of anonymity, said the missile detection and deflection system was not operating apparently because the sailors did not anticipate such an attack by Hezbollah.

http://english.aljazeera.net/NR/exeres/FCBD9700-D204-44AA-9719-6B2AB11C26C4.htm

[jean]

1. Would you be surprised if it was one of ours? No.

[Lost-in-FL]

3. Aren't Israeli planes and bombs US made?

I am just asking.

**putting on flame retardant clothing**

[jean]

6. I don't know, but have read that we do supply weaponry to them.

[heliarc]

59. At least 46 billion in military aid since 1950

http://www.fas.org/asmp/profiles/israel.htm

[MGD]

10. Some are and some aren't.

Israel has a highly advanced military industrial complex that is all its own. check it out:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Israeli_military#Israeli_military_technology

[w4rma]

71. I think it was a Chinese Silkworm rocket. (nt)

[The Magistrate]

2. Of Course They Do, Ma'am: It Would Be Disappointing If They Did Not

There are rules to these things, after all, and high among them is that you lie when asked about supplying weapons to someone attacking a state using the weapons you supplied them to attack that state with. For a goverenment to do otherwise would be as startling as it would be to find a doctor nowadays telling you cigarettes are good for your nerves and will help you lose weight....

[Endangered Specie]

17. hahaha, I couldn't have said it better myself!

[Zynx]

56. Exactly.

Would they really say, "Yep! We did it!"?

[iverglas]

76. "Would they really say, 'Yep! We did it!'?"

In a better world they would. They'd stand up, they'd take a bow, and we'd all applaud.

But then in a better world, the state committing the current atrocities would not be committing the current atrocities.

[sendero]

91. It would be equally..

.... startling for the Israelis to tell any kind of truth they might actually know about the weapon used, if any.

In war, the first casualty is the truth.

[bemildred]

4. Who me?

:rofl:

[leveymg]

5. I read elsewhere it was a drone aircraft (made in Iran).

Also, that it was a simple rocket (made in Iran) that got lucky.

According to Israeli sources, everything bad is made in Iran.

:nuke:

[IndianaGreen]

8. There are no Israeli ships visible on TV images from Beirut today

as they were in days past. There must be something to the 100-mile range missile story.

Keep in mind that arms trafficking is the number one industry in the world. A missile made in China would go through several dealers before it finds itself in the hands of its user. We can't blame China (or Iran) for something we do ourselves!

[leveymg]

11. Anti-shipping missiles are great equalizers.

Surface vessels are extremely vulnerable to missile attacks, particularly at a visible range. They're large, slow targets that have no terrain for cover. Even a TOW anti-tank missile can do significant damage to a patrol-boat. If the Israelis were close in to shore, that may be what hit them.

What an irony if it was one of the TOWs we gave Iran along with a chocolate cake. Nah.

[IndianaGreen]

14. Our Fifth Fleet will see plenty of those coming at them in the Persian

Gulf if the US joins Israel in an apocalyptic attack on Iran.

[leveymg]

18. That's one of the main reasons the Joint Chiefs won't let that happen.

The Iranians really do have a very lethal anti-ship inventory:

Exocet (EU)


Sunburn (Russia)


C-802 (China)

[northernsoul]

27. Didn't the Argentinians get lucky against the Royal Navy with those?

[leveymg]

31. An Exocet sank the UK frigate HMS Sheffield

[MGD]

37. That missile failed to explode actually as have most of the Exocets used

in the various theaters where it has seen use thankfully. ASMs are still a real PIA to any navy w/o a doubt though.

[daleo]

53. Apparently, the rocket fuel left in the missile set it ablaze

Plus, they have a lot of kinetic energy even if they don't explode.

[Lance_Boyle]

90. Exocet?

Isn't that a *gasp* French missile?

[daleo]

32. More than once, and one hit the U.S.S. Stark as well

History

impact of an Exocet missile
In 1982, during the Falklands War, Exocets became famous worldwide when Argentinian Navy Super Etendard warplanes used them to sink Royal Navy 's HMS Sheffield on 4 May and the support ship Atlantic Conveyor on 25 May. As well, an Argentine-converted land-based truck fired an MM38 Exocet (previously dismounted from the Argentine corvette ARA Guerrico) that damaged the HMS Glamorgan on June 12.
...
On May 17, 1987, the pilot of an Iraqi Mirage F-1 mistook the US Navy Perry class frigate USS Stark for an Iranian tanker and fired two Exocets at the warship. Both hit, but only one exploded. The Stark was heavily damaged but saved by the crew and sent back for repairs.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Exocet

[eablair3]

39. I'd be surprised if the US takes any action against Iran (or N Korea)

that's right. With those missiles and other weapons, the US is not likely to attack, unless they can come up with some relatively good reason (or lie).

The US only seems to take action against essentially defenseless countries: the many small Central American countries in the past (Guatemala, Panama, Nicaragua etc), or island states like Granada or Haiti. The only significant country they attacked was Iraq, and they knew that their military was weakened by 10 years of world embargoes and the UN Inspectors destroying the WMDs. Iraq was defenseless.

Iran and N Korea are not defenseless.

The message to all the coutries of the world is to arm yourself. Get Nuclear. Then, you'll be safe from attack.

[MGD]

19. Wire guided missiles don't work very well when flying over water

messes w/ the fiber optic wire. Still, it had to have some kind of guidance to hit a boat so it might have been. it may very well ahve been a Ying Ji-82 too as Iran is reported to have bought 60 of these from China following the Gulf war. One down in that case.

[leveymg]

22. Who told you that a TOW doesn't work over water?

Why would water interfere with either a conventional wire-guided BGM-71 type TOW missile (or similar) or a MGM-157 EFOGM fiber-optic anti-tank/anti-helo (of which there are few in the US inventory, I haven't looked up the Russians, EU and Chinese even have them) type missile?

Could have been a lucky Katyusha rocket, also.

[leveymg]

29. The Taiwanese have demonstrated TOWs against shipping

Also, newer TOWs have ranges of up to 5 kms.

http://www.taipeitimes.com/News/taiwan/archives/2004/03/09/2003101757

Army wants to share its creative missile expertise

By Brian Hsu
STAFF REPORTER
Tuesday, Mar 09, 2004,Page 4

The (Taiwan) army plans to share its experience in the use of the US-made TOW anti-tank missile against sea-based surface targets with other countries, since it was the first armed force in the world to make such an attempt, defense sources said yesterday.
The army pioneered the new application of the TOW missile during last year's Hankuang No. 19 exercise, successfully hitting several sea-based surface targets with TOWs fired from a beach in northeastern Ilan County. This caught the attention of military experts worldwide, as the missile had never before been used in this way.

The TOW missile is one of the most popular anti-tank weapons in the world, and is used by more than 40 countries. The army has been using TOWs since 1977, and has recently acquired quantities of the two newest models, including the TOW-2A and TOW-2B. It remains the army's main anti-tank weapon, though orders have been placed for Javelin missiles, a similar weapon that is also made by the US.

An army official, who spoke on condition of anonymity, said the army has provided relevant data to the original US manufacturer of the missile on the use of the TOW missile for anti-surface purposes.

"We plan to share our information with other users. The US manufacturer intends to introduce this information at an occasion where all countries that use the missile will be invited to witness a live-fire test against a sea-based surface target," the official said.

[daleo]

30. How does water mess with the fiber optic cable?

High wave action is the only thing I can think of. But that would only be a problem if it was actually fired from a small vessel. From a reasonably high point on land, waves couldn't come into play. Plus, a ship is a pretty high target. It would have to be pretty stormy for waves to interfere with the missile of the cable.

[MGD]

33. I didn't say it can't be done. I said it doesn't work very well.

I should have said performance degrades by a factor related to the flight time over water and the angle of attack.

edit: upon further consideration, I have to admit, the wire-guided theory is strong.

[leveymg]

34. Wouldn't accuracy also be degraded over land the same way? eom

[MGD]

36. Sure but for different reasons

incidentaly, I thought about it a little bit more and the wire guided theory does make sense.

[Phrogman]

70. Some torpedos are wire guided

So I don't think wire guidence would be an issue.

[MGD]

94. What do I now?

I just used to shoot TOW missiles for a living.

[MADem]

7. Iranian? Please, it was probably CHINESE....!!!!!!

Now, the Iranians may have brokered the deal, but I'm bettting that thing was made in Beijing!

The official, who spoke on condition of anonymity, said the missile detection and deflection system was not operating apparently because the sailors did not anticipate such an attack by Hezbollah.

Well, that was DUMB, wasn't it? Bet they won't be doing that shit again....!

[MrPrax]

13. Looks like it...

a startling series of Israeli intel and miltary failures starting with the poorly protected Gaza checkpoint and following all the way to not protecting their ships or allowing new long range rockets from hitting Haifa.

Apparantly we are not suppose to notice all this 'spin re-spin' stuff and suppose to believe whatever an Israeli spokesman says...yesterday they were wrong, today they are right, tomorrow it will be another story, but the central 'meme' of Iran (a country the US is planning to attack anyway) will be the main threat....upgraded from Hamas to Hezbullah to Iran...each time the collaboration gets closer to the real target of all this and of course making it even less likely, now that the 'enemies of Israel' have grown, to ever bring up a peace process or even a pull-out.

I'll assume that Israel wants Iran attacked and the US is dragging it's feet and this is a way to escalate the situation, so that Israel and the US can get want it whats, without dragging the Security Council into all of this...

[IndianaGreen]

16. Of course, Israel doesn't care what happens to US troops in Iraq

if we allow Israel to attack Iran. It is American blood that is being spilled, not theirs.

[MrPrax]

23. Of course...

The defense of Israel is paramount to even US interests in the region.

Yup...Israel's defense means that oil supplies might be disrupted and Americans will pay through the nose this summer...might mean that Sadr will step up attacks against Americans in Iraq...might mean Iran will step up it's operations in Iraq and kill more Americans...yup...but defending Israel is paramount, just like it's paramount to defend Saudi Arabia and Pakistan and any other US client state in the ME that have been unpopular dictatorships that have gone out of their way to jail, torture and kill moderates for the last half century.

It does boggle the mind, why, in a region with nearly a billion potential US customers that have money, youth and a future, there is a single country with a few million old retirees, no growth, with no money other than US aid (and what drugs, industrial espionage, illegal arm sales and human trafficking can provide), is seen as the 'deal' by the world's bestest capitalist nation...?

US support for Israel really doesn't make a lot of sense other than ideological and quasi-religious/racist...while many want to ignore the 'collective punishment' aspects of Israel's attack on Lebanon, they will be sure to tell all about how innocent Americans were killed on 9/11 by an act of mindless 'collective punishment'...seems pretty hard to continue the fiction that we are 'civilized' to a region of people who really , in spite of the propaganda, the bombs and the killing, don't see it the same way as editorialists at the Washington Post see things.

[Marie26]

61. Fox News confirmed

that the missile was a Chinese Silkworm. But they're still blaming Iran. Israel is claiming that Iranian Rev. Forces were actually involved in firing this missile. Is that possible? How much training would someone need to sucessfully fire a missile like this?

[fujiyama]

72. That was my first guess as well

and the irony is that a few years ago, Israel tried to sell the Chinese the AWAC radar system, over US objections. I may be wrong, but I think Israel continues to sell the Chinese other types of military equipment.

The international arms market is a huge racket.

[MGD]

9. Well OK then. That settles that I guess.

[stepnw1f]

45. post #43

[VegasWolf]

12. The Anti-Christ made the missle!!!!!

:nuke::nuke::nuke::nuke::nuke::nuke::nuke::nuke::nuke::nuke::nuke::nuke::nuke::nuke::nuke::nuke::nuke::nuke::nuke::nuke::nuke::nuke::nuke::nuke::nuke::nuke::nuke::nuke::nuke::nuke::nuke::nuke::nuke::nuke::nuke::nuke::nuke::nuke::nuke::nuke::nuke::nuke::nuke::nuke::nuke::nuke::nuke::nuke::nuke::nuke::nuke::nuke::nuke::nuke::nuke::nuke::nuke::nuke::nuke::nuke::nuke::nuke::nuke::nuke::nuke::nuke::nuke:

[daleo]

15. I wonder how vulnerable U.S. ships are in the gulf?

Regardless of how they got the missile, it says something about ships and missiles in the middle east.

[leveymg]

21. On a clear day, you can see across the Straits of Hormuz

The shipping channel itself is only a mile or two wide, and shallow. Sink a large vessel in there, and it will be impassible.

[IndianaGreen]

24. And gasoline will be $10 a gallon, if you can find it

The American worker cannot afford the price of a war against Iran. Let someone else do the dying for a change!

[daleo]

25. Those are nice pictures

Each worth more than one thousand words.

[leveymg]

74. Here's a map with the shipping channels and range of a Silkworm missile

Straits of Hormuz and lower Gulf

Silkworm/"Sawhorse"/HY-2 (China)

57 miles - Older version
95 miles - improved version

C-201 / HY-2 / SY-1
CSS-N-2 / CSS-C-3 / SEERSUCKER
cache of http://www.fas.org/man/dod-101/sys/missile/row/c-201.htm

The C-201 is a mid-range ground-, air-, and ship-launched cruise missile developed on the basis of the HY-1, with the primary difference being a longer fuselage accomodating a correspondingly greater propellant capacity. Apart fromt the longer fuselage, the overall configuration of the C-201 missile is similar to the HY-1, with two delta wings and triform rudder and tail. C-201 anti-ship cruise missile variants include the SY-1A for ship launch and the land based HY-2.

The HY-2 coast-to-ship defensive tactical missile weapon system -- with the Western designation "Seersucker" -- is employed at coastal fortifications, bases or islands to attack enemy surface ships. The system features long range coverage and a large firing sector (+/-85o, enabling one missile battalion to cover a blockaded ocean area of 14,000 square kilometers. After the missile is fired, ground guidance and control are not necessary, and the firing position can remain concealed.

SNIP

In early 1988 Iran claimed the capacity to manufacture HY-2s and other antiship cruise missiles indigenously. It is currently estimated that Iran has about 100 HY-2 missiles on eight to ten mobile missile launchers deployed on the north side of the Straits of Hormuz.

[Strelnikov_]

26. Oh, Don't You Know, We Have The Block 1 Section B Whizbang Super-Duper

ship protector system.

And if they do sink some of our ships, it will be because of incompetence, and not the countermeasure systems being flawed or not up to the task.

Airplanes were to battleships in WW II what microprocessor controlled smart weapons are to surface ships today.


Question, if the Israeli's say that the missile was successful because the countermeasure system on the ship was not enabled, why have they now moved all their ships, instead of simply turning their super whizbang countermeasure system on?

[daleo]

28. That's a very good question.

And why would they not bother to turn on their system, while in the middle of a military operation? Were they trying to save electricity? It makes no sense. More likely it is a cover story for the failure of the countermeasures.

[Strelnikov_]

35. These Weapons Sure Seem To Be 'Lucky'

Sheffield, Atlantic Conveyor, Stark, this Israeli boat.

And the reason is always 'errors were made'. Well, maybe errors were made, but the result is the same in the end.

History is riddled with weapons systems that looked good until the bullets fly, then the limitations become apparent. That is my worry.

What about battleship development prior to W.W. I. The battle cruiser was thought to be a great development, until shells pierced their lightly armored decks at Jutland.

What about the unarmored decks of our aircraft carriers during W.W. II. We got lucky on that one (in that the Japanese carriers were also unarmored).

The Sherman tank. Our troops were told it was the best in the world, until it ran up against the German equipment.

And what about the Patriot missile, the ‘Scud Buster’.

And tactics. Are the countermeasure systems robust enough to deal with a swarm of incoming missiles, versus one at a time?

And validation. Were the tests and exercises rigged? Never heard of a defense contractor doing that, have we.

Some militaries adjust, as we did in WW II. Others are destroyed when the system they relied on is so massively flawed, such as the French in 1940.

I am afraid that with the advances in modern missiles, surface ships are going to prove even greater deathtraps than they were in WW II when the ascendance of the airplane dealt mortal blows to ships previously thought unassailable. My concern with the modern missile is that they are relatively simple compared to the countermeasure systems needed to protect against them.

And our Navy, as evidenced in the Stark, Cole, and a recent incident where one of our carriers ran over an Iranian dhouh (small boat) in the gulf, has a track record of letting security slip.

[leveymg]

41. Their ECM are simply ineffective against missiles fired at close range.

In modern warfare, if you're close enough to see the target, it's dead. That's why the Israelis moved their ships out of range and why the Straits of Hormuz are a death trap for shipping, even very well defended ones.

[Strelnikov_]

42. This Is Supposedly The Class Of Ship Hit

Looks pretty state-of-the-art to me.

Saar 5:



Note this on the front of the ship:



Yes, that is a Phalanx.


Yep. Just another 'lucky' shot.

Write up here. Take it for what it's worth. Seems the speculation is a launch off of a UAV, like Hellfire's launched from our drones.

http://counterterrorismblog.org/2006/07/hezbollah_missile_strikes_uav_or_ground_based.php

[MGD]

44. The Phalanx has a poor track record

I'm not sure if it has ever shot down a missile in combat.

[Strelnikov_]

46. So, In Your Opinion, What Is The US Navy Planning To Counter

the Iranian ASM threat in the Persian Gulf if the Chimp-In-Chief decides to get his war on?

On edit: This is an honest question. The 'ASM's are no problem' camp always seem to be trotting out countermeasures that do not seem to work, or have never been tested under combat. Here, it appears they may have launched the missile from a drone, allowing it to get very close before going 'active'.

[leveymg]

49. The U.S. would have to clear the entire battlespace along the Iran coast

for 300 miles and inland at least 15 miles. Doesn't strike me as feasible, even with complete air supremacy.

The other alternative is to just run the Straits at night and risk taking a lot of hits. Strikes me as being an unnecessary and stupid risk.

Oh, yes, and then there are the mines!!!!!!

[Strelnikov_]

50. One Hell Of A Bet, Isn't It?

18% of the worlds oil supply off line for, what, a month?

And that's if the Iranians don't just play cat-and-mouse, make us use up most of our smart bombs playing whack-a-mole, and stage a mass attack about the time shipping resumes.

Rinse and repeat over the course of a few months, and you have petrocollapse.



I think it's time to start talking.

[MGD]

52. 3 words: Operation Praying Mantis

There are other conunermeasures that would be deployed prior to the Phalanx as it is the last line of defense against such threats. Incidentaly, the American and Iranian Naval forces have already fought recently (1988) and Iran launched anti-ship missiles at American vessels to no effect. Iran also got its ass kicked. Check it out, Operation Praying Mantis: http://www.answers.com/topic/operation-praying-mantis

[leveymg]

54. That's why Iran hasn't acquired new surface combatants

They're dead ducks. They can't hide, and they can't match U.S. naval arms in a slugging match. Instead, Iran has put its resources into acquiring mobile ASM launchers and figuring out ways to hide them at many locations within range of the coast. They can be placed anywhere - in caves, inside structures, disguised as normal delivery trucks (ASMs are smaller than Scuds, and aren't as easily spotted from the air).

To take all of them out, the U.S. would have to go looking for them with hundreds of attack aircraft, and put boots on the ground in the area near the choke point at the mouth of the Gulf.




In the meantime, Iran would find ways to make life unpleasant in other ways in other locations. In addition to its anti-shipping missiles, they also have a formidible inventory of ballistic missiles with chemical and biological warheards that would be targeted on US installations in Iraq and Qatar.

A war with Iran would present US military planners with a list of thousands of difficult targets. We don't have the resources to assure total dominance, and would suffer unacceptable losses.

[MGD]

55. We could always enter the strait prior to the development of hostilities

I don't think Iran would openly attack US naval vessels unless hostilities between US and them had already been formaly established.

[IndianaGreen]

63. Good idea! Let's bottle up the Fifth Fleet in the Gulf

Sinking those ships would be like shooting fish in a barrel.

[MGD]

67. I think it would be a little more difficult than shooting fish in a barrel

and; furthermore, American naval supremacy has yet to be contested by any nation since the end of WW2. It would be a hell of a fight to be sure though. What's more, the Fifth fleet is already positioned in the Gulf.

edit for spelling

[IndianaGreen]

69. American "supremacy" is a myth!

And the vaunted American military is in dire need of psychotherapy!

[MGD]

93. I said "American naval supremacy", not "American supremacy." nt

[Zynx]

82. Navy has been going to RAM - point defense missiles

Phalanx is obsolete - it does not have the range or hitting power to stop current ASM's.

[joe_shmoe]

20. **PETITION AGAINST MILITARY ACTION AGAINST IRAN**

Attack on Iran = WWIII and the collapse of the US. This madness must stop.

It is with grave concern that we observe the growing threat of a new U.S. war--this time against the people of Iran.

For a collection of articles and resources on this subject you can visit this link: http://reseaudesign.com/research/iran/iran_summery.html

I'm starting up a petition which I will be sending out to as many members of Congress as possible. I'm asking for help to get this signed by as many people, possible in the next month. Send it to as many people you can.

http://www.petitiononline.com/n0war1rn /


thanks,
J-shmoe

[eablair3]

38. Israeli warship being towed into port

>>>>An Israeli military official said the ship is one of the most technologically advanced in the Israeli fleet, boasting an array of Harpoon and Gabriel missiles, along with a system for electronically jamming attacking missiles and other threats.<<<<<

I just saw the video on CNN of the Israeli battleship/warship having to be towed into port.

The CNN commentator said it was an embarrassing incident to the IDF.

[progressivebydesign]

40. So.. Lebanon is being hit with our military devices..

and Israel is using planes from us, bought but never paid for, AND we supply military advisors. So..what's the freakin' point? Oh.. Israel has better media coverage?

[stepnw1f]

43. "The official, who spoke on condition of anonymity" - Fox Tactic

just make up shit, then claim you have anonymity so no other news source can check on the validity of the story. How convenient..... fucking assholes!

[IndianaGreen]

47. C802 radar-guided missiles are made in China

Not even Israel is crazy enough to challenge the world's rising hyper power.

[stepnw1f]

48. So They Wrongfully Blame Iran

so they have an excuse to invade Iran. Sick...

[IndianaGreen]

51. Chinese missile technology is sold in the global arms market

in which weapons pass through many hands until they reached their ultimate destination. The missile was Chinese made, but who knows where it has been before it landed on an Israeli ship.

[Zynx]

58. Iran buys almost all of its military technology from China and Russia.

[Zynx]

57. How exactly does Israel invade Iran?

How does the US invade Iran? How does anyone invade Iran? No one has the troops.

[stepnw1f]

60. Airstrikes and Long Range Missiles?

:think:

They sure can attack, may as well invade. Same result....

[IndianaGreen]

62. Americans won't pay $10 at the pump to support Israeli machismo

Israel may well find losing a lot of support in America, particularly when people start blaming her for American casualties in Iraq and elsewhere.

[stepnw1f]

65. I Hope So...

This is all too crazy.

[MGD]

66. It will hurt China too. They are very depednent on Iranian oil & nat. gas

And they are looking to become Iran's number one fossil fuel customer.

[Zynx]

81. Israel can't sustain any attacks against Iran without direct US support

It simply is not viable for them to even operate that far away, let alone actually be able to keep operations going against hostile air and air defense at the extreme limits of their own range and beyond.

Not to mention they need approval to fly over Iraq.

[MGD]

64. Invading suggests occupying and everybody agrees that boots on the ground

in Iran isn't realistic at this time. however, if one looks at the successful use of airpower to topple the forces of Slobodan Milosevich in the Kosovo war, it is evident that a country can be brought to terms exclusively with airpower. Any campaign against Iran will primarily be fought at sea and in the air IMO.

[Zynx]

80. Yugoslavia didn't have the underlying historical baggage Iran does.

If Iran comes under sustained air attack by the United States, the odds are about zero that the US will knock out the Iranian government and have the Iranians replace it with something that likes the US and Israel. The Iranians have an extremely deep national loathing of United States intervention in their country. This loathing is pretty much justified from an objective POV.

There's nothing that's going to make them knuckle under and kiss US butt.

[MGD]

92. I don't see the logic in worrying about "knocking out their government"

when knocking out their military and any WMD production facilities would be more than sufficient.

[Miss Chybil]

68. This all seems like a set-up to me.

Supposedly, this plan to rid the world of Hizbollah has been in the works for five years. (I heard it on KO. I can't remember the guy's name. He called in his interview. Long face pointy face. English accent. Thick wavy hair. He's always on KO.) Five years. Isreal was waiting for an excuse. I don't disagree they have the right to defend themselves, but this response is way over the top. Now, we have dead Lebanese civilians, including children, and today five Canadians. For two kidnapped soldiers? Not that their lives aren't valuable, but I really don't get it. The inequity overwhelms me and the stupidity of Hizbollah for picking this fight dumbfounds me, but what a great way to "bring democracy to the region," eh? Blow up Lebanon then blame Iran for something and blow them up, too. Freedom is on the march.

[saigon68]

73. Yes indeed--- FREEDOM IS ON THE MARCH

</SARCASM>

[iverglas]

77. 7. Seven Canadians

I've been at the keyboard all night and hadn't heard.

http://www.cbc.ca/story/canada/national/2006/07/16/lebanon-canadians.html

Seven Canadians -- including four children -- were killed in an Israeli air raid that hit a Lebanese town on the border with Israel on Sunday. Three Canadians were seriously injured.

... Israel has acknowledged carrying out the attack and has apologized to Ottawa, CBC's Nahlah Ayed reported from Beirut.

Hey, Israel; allow me to speak for Ottawa:

GO FUCK YOURSELF.

And I think I speak for quite a few Lebanese, too.



(Just a mild suggestion, Miss Chybil: "two kidnapped soldiers" - not. Kidnapping is a criminal offence. Capturing members of an enemy's military in wartime is not a criminal offence. Just because the enemy says it don't mean we oughta.)

[Peeves]

78. Civilian casualties are an inevitability when dealing with

terrorists that use them as shields. This is all the more reason to rid Lebanon of Hizbollah (& any other terrorists)

[iverglas]

79. imagine that

Ordinary members of the public in their own houses in the city where they've lived all their lives -- I'll bet nobody told them they'd just been practising to be shields all that time.

Silly them. They should have asked. Then maybe they could have found a way out and a place to go if they'd just planned ahead. Kinda like those silly people in New Orleans, eh?

[Peeves]

83. Gee, how do you respond to that?

Let's see ... it's uh, the TERRORISTS that are using them as shields against their will? That's kind-o-the-way lawless TERRORISTS operate. They care nothing about others except for how they can use them to strike TERROR into ordinary peoples' hearts.

Now, as to how that ties in to the Katrina victims that saw the storm coming a week in advance, yet the government (local-state-federal) failed to get into place an adiquate contingency plan, ????? :shrug:

[iverglas]

84. gee, I guess neither of us knows

Let's see ... it's uh, the TERRORISTS that are using them as shields against their will?

Sez you?

Funny how it isn't THE TERRORISTS causing their homes to collapse and crush their children to death, or destroying the infrastructure of their society so that their children have no future now anyway ...

The 7 (8?) Canadians, four of whom were very young children, who were killed this weekend in just that way ... it wasn't THE TERRORISTS who killed 'em.

Oh wait.



Now, as to how that ties in to the Katrina victims that saw the storm coming a week in advance, yet the government (local-state-federal) failed to get into place an adiquate contingency plan, ?????

Gee, I guess I'll spell it out for you. Shall I use BIG FONT?

Maybe you noticed quite a few people not giving a shit what happened to the victims of Katrina, and kinda conveying the impression that what happened to Katrina victims was their own damned fault for not getting out when they should, or living there in the first place ... or being poor and black ...

[Peeves]

85. You make it sound as if ...

The Israelis are specifically targeting civilians. On the contrary, they are trying the best to avoid civilian casualties while they hunt down and destroy the militants that are lobbing rockets at their country.

When will you recognize TERRORISTS for what they are? They are using the civilians to hide behind, and if any of them get killed, ... well that serves their purpose doubly. And what's more, the public outcry even plays into their hand.

As for the Katrina victims, much to the contrary of your observation, I see people bending over backwards to help them. I see the people of Texas welcoming them. I see shipment after shipment of temporary housing traveling down I-65 to meet their needs. I see churches in the Chicago area supporting them until they can get back on their feet. Who is it that doesn't care about them????

[Miss Chybil]

87. A terrorist is, as a terrorist does.

Government sanctions do not deny the truth of carnage.

[Tight_rope]

88. DING! DING! DING! YOU HAVE A BINGO!

[Tight_rope]

89. Don't forget the Lebanese doctor & brother kidnapped by Israel

which started this whole damn mess. I believe it was June 29, 2006. I'll have to look for the article.

[Andromeda]

75. No kidding?

Well, it must be true then. :freak:

[RCinBrooklyn]

86. Can you say, "Gulf of Tonkin? n/t