The Hezbollah have rockets that can go up to 12 miles...

[kentuck]

So they have to get fairly close to the border so they can reach Haifa, the closest populated city. They have no nuclear arsenal. They have no Air Force or Navy that we know of. They are totally over-matched by the Israeli military. So why would they be so stupid to attack such a superior force? Israelis have the most up-to-date American hardware in their arsenal. They can drop bombs at will. They can wreak as much damage as they wish and Hezbollah cannot do a damn thing about it. Hezbollah is not a threat to Israel - they are more of a nuisance, militarily speaking. Shouldn't Hezbolah surrender?

[akushuki]

1. They have rockets that can go 200km supplied by Iran N/T

[Howardx]

2. says who?

the idf?

[akushuki]

3. BBC NEWS

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/5184974.stm#rocket

[Viva_La_Revolution]

10. well, not exactly

from the article...

"Most of these are relatively short-range systems, generically known as Katyushas, capable of striking targets out to about 25km (16 miles).

But the Hezbollah missile strikes on Israel's northern port city of Haifa demonstrate that it also has an unknown quantity of longer-range systems in its arsenal.

Most of these are Iranian-manufactured systems like the Fajr-3, with a 45-km range; the Fajr-5, with a range of some 75km; and the more potent Zelzal-2 with a range of up to 200km."


so far there is only evidence that they have Fajr-3's (or equivalents). The rest appears to be speculation, as it is not backed up by any facts.

[akushuki]

11. Ok, Agreed.

I do side with the correspondent in thinking they have them though. I believe that soon we will see Tel-Aviv getting hit.

[kentuck]

12. Possibly...

They could be under the control of Syrian or Iranian command? And they could be holding off? But I doubt it. I think they would have used them already if they had them.

[akushuki]

14. The missiles could be coming in now from Iran or another part of Lebanon

which could be significantly hindered because of the airport going !kaboom! and roads and bridges also exploding from Israeli bombs.

[Viva_La_Revolution]

17. why do you agree with him?

I can find no other references to them having such missiles.

Sheik Hassan Nasrallah, Hezbollah's leader, asserted in a May 2005 speech that Hezbollah had more than 12,000 rockets, all of which were believed to be various forms of Katyushas provided by Iran. That coincides with estimates by Israeli and Western officials.

Until now, Hezbollah limited itself to using rockets with a range of 12 miles, but for the past several years Israeli officials have warned that Iran had provided more serious systems, including the 240-millimeter Fajr-3 missile, with a range of about 25 miles, and the 333-millimeter Fajr-5 missile, with a range of about 45 miles. The Fajr-5 could reach the northern Israeli city of Haifa and areas even farther south. On Thursday, Hezbollah-backed Al Manar TV broadcast images of the new long-range missiles. It is unclear how many Hezbollah might have.
http://www.iht.com/articles/2006/07/16/africa/web.0717hezbollah.php

PETA DONALD: With its sophisticated ability to launch attacks from air, land and sea, Israel has easily been able to strike against Lebanon, but concentrating on targets in the capital, Beirut - key infrastructure, such as bridges and the airport, as well as Hezbollah headquarters and surrounding southern Beirut heartland. In reply, Hezbollah's rocket launches from Lebanon's southern border have not penetrated further than 30 kilometres into Israeli territory, until the weekend. Then, Hezbollah's biggest and deadliest missile hit the major Israeli port city of Haifa, killing eight people.

DR ANDREW VINCENT: I think they've surprised a lot of people. Everyone knew that Hezbollah had rather primitive Katyusha rockets and also light arms. But rockets that can penetrate as far as Haifa - that's 40 miles - 40 kilometres or more - are far more sophisticated. So I think this has come as a real shock to the Israelis and, indeed, to other observers as well.

PETA DONALD: Dr Andrew Vincent is the director of the Centre for Middle East Studies at Macquarie University.

DR ANDREW VINCENT: The big question is how many of these weapons does Hezbollah have, and are the Israelis able to take out the weapons' stores, the stocks, to prevent more of them being used? That's the unknown.

PETA DONALD: Hezbollah's signature rocket has long been the World War II Russian-designed Katyusha. Some reports say Hezbollah has as many as 12,000 Katyushas with a range of up to 24 kilometres. It's hardly state-of-the-art or particularly smart, but modifications can give the Katyusha extra firepower. Some analysts believe Hezbollah has even a small number of much longer-range Iranian missiles, which could reach as far as Tel Aviv. Andrew Vincent thinks that's unlikely.

DR ANDREW VINCENT: No, I really don't. I think Hezbollah has probably used most of the kind of weapons that it's got. If it's got some ace up its sleeve, I think it would have used it.
http://www.abc.net.au/7.30/content/2006/s1688858.htm

[akushuki]

20. The Israel intelligence seems to think they do...

http://www.defensetech.org/archives/002582.html

http://english.people.com.cn/200607/15/eng20060715_283217.html

And since Israel has such a great intelligence service my guess is that Hezbollah does have the,.

[Viva_La_Revolution]

22. just like our government would never lie about Saddam's WMDs

You might want to take that info with a very LARGE grain of salt.

Both links, wording is almost exactly the same, they sound like they were written from a press release.

[akushuki]

26. There is a difference though,

Hezbollah did attack Israel. Iraq never attacked us.

I think it unlikely that Iran gave Hezbollah only fajr-3 missiles.

Then again I guess we will find out soon enough if Hezbollah has them or not, won't we?

[Viva_La_Revolution]

31. or attacked back, depending on who's telling the story

time will tell.

[winter999]

32. Hezbollah has everything that Iran has.

Including nukes in a year or less.

[Zynx]

43. Um, no.

[AnOhioan]

44. Buying into the propaganda, I see. n/t

[kentuck]

4. If they have them, why haven't they fired them?

I guess they have WMDs also?

[akushuki]

7. At the very least they have Fajr-3 to hit Haifa with, an Iranian missle

[kentuck]

21. Assuming they were fired from where??

Are you thinking the border?

[akushuki]

23. Sure I guess the Israelis could be attacking their own cities if that is

what you think.

[LifeDuringWartime]

24. how'd you come to that conclusion?

n/t

[akushuki]

28. I've heard other DUers suggest that.

Also the comment clearly speculates that the poster thinks they were fired from inside Israeli territory. That couldn't happen without cooperation of the Israeli government. I guess they could have been speculating that the missiles were fired from farther North then the border. Then again from previous posts I assumed that the poster did that think this possible.

[kentuck]

27. No.

But they have infiltrated the border before, have they not?

[akushuki]

29. You are talking about the difference between armed light infantry

and entire missile systems.

[kentuck]

30. Are these stationary or mobile ?

Also, it does say in the interview with the doctor that missiles can be fixed up to go farther distances. That would be my guess at what has happened.

[akushuki]

34. Who in Hezbollah has the knowledge and expertise to engineer

katyushas's to go nearly TWICE as far as normal.

Not only that but to do it on a large scale?

Unlikely, Iran gave them missiles, plain and simple.

[Name removed]

5. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[akushuki]

6. Source:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/5184974.stm#rocket

[wakeme2008]

8. Where in there does it say they have these

long range missles....

[akushuki]

9. Near the beginning... Read the entire article anyway though, its pretty

good. I've always said that if any news is fair and balance then it is BBC.

[lectrobyte]

13. It's not always that simple. Hezbollah's goal may be to provoke to

Israel into an overwhelming repsonse (bombing etc.) to mobilize more people and countries around the Hezbollah cause.

[Cessna Invesco Palin]

16. At this point I'm pretty certain...

...that Hezbollah's goal is to undermine the new government of Lebanon.

[Mass]

15. Two good articles on the subject.

That is if you can keep an open mind (and read what the head of Hezbollah said in the juancole blog, as you seem to think Hezbollah is no problem.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/israel/comment/0,,1821605,00.html

www.juancole.com

[LittleClarkie]

18. I reckon it's a "martyred for the cause" thing

The point isn't to win.

I was taught that terrorism is the tactic of the military weak and poor. It's all they have to fight back with when they don't have money or resources for an army. I guess I always thought then that it was a long term tactic designed to wear down the opponent than to gain some short term goal.

[jobycom]

19. Of course they should. That's why I think this whole battle is overblown

Hezbollah can stop it any time they want. So far they are mostly sustaining damage, and they are probably getting so much sympathy for it from other sources that the damage may even be profitable. Right now it's just a game, with big popping noises. Neither side cares about human life, so the casualties aren't unnacceptable yet. Hezbollah can't really hurt Israel, except Haifa, so Israel isn't going to use nukes.

The danger is someone else getting drawn in and making it more of a threat to Israel, so that Israel steps it up. Hezbollah is hoping others will back them, playing the defiant rebels, hoping that Israel will face international pressure to make concessions and accept Hezbollah more. Israel wants to flex its muscles to dissuade Hezbollah from attacks.

It's the same game they always play, it's just a lot louder and more bloody right now. Talks of WW III are way premature. Or the Apocolypse, or anything else. Israel doesn't believe in the Apocolypse, so they've got nothing to gain by destroying the world. Hezbollah's got nothing to gain by dying. A few Fundies here are getting moist, but Fundies get moist over minor things all the time, since they aren't supposed to get excited in the usual way.

I'm not trying to trivialize what's happening--it's a horrible, bloody thing, and I'm as outraged as everyone else. I side with Hezbollah a tad over Israel on this battle, though Hezbollah has been trying to provoke it. I'm concerned about it escalating. But I don't really believe it will. Look at it from a distance--both these countries are small, and neither has any great economic impact on the world, aside from being on shipping routes for oil and having alliances with others in the oil region. It's not as scary as some see it. I think even atheists and agnistics have been a little influenced by Revelations into placing more importance on this region than it deserves. No one is going to destroy the world over this. Bush is too stupid to do it, and most other nations with the power to make this serious are too smart and would gain nothing by it. The groups who want to see an Apocolpse don't have the power to bring it on. Even the "radical Islamic" states like Iran don't really want to die over this. They won't hit Israel because they know they'd be destroyed. Even if they get nukes, they won't do it for fear of being destroyed.

Terrorism is still a bigger danger to us here. Bush might manipulate our fears about a nuke getting into terrorist hands, but it's still a real concern, and it scares me more than Israel or Iran destroying the world over a nation that can't fire a missile much further than it can lob a grenade.

Just my opinion. If I'm wrong, we'll all know it. But it's nothing I can do anything about. If you can, then you should do it, but I can't. I'd rather work for sane leadership in November with the assumption we'll still be here to need it than change my plans now and discover in November that I wasted all that time worrying about something that turned into less than we feared.

[cantstandbush]

25. Yeah, like the colonies should have caved in to the Brits.? nt

[Warren DeMontague]

35. What? The only way that analogy would make sense would be if

the revolutionary army had CONTINUED to attack Britain -In Britain- AFTER it pulled out of the United States.

Israel pulled out of Lebanon- "completely", according to the UN- and Hezbollah took that as a cue to attack Israel from south Lebanon. You can debate up and down whether Israel's reaction is appropriate or excessive and counter-productive (I'm leaning towards the latter) but just once, in one of these Israel-bashing fests, I would like to hear what the justification is for Hezbollah attacking Israel after the Israelis left Lebanon (or for Hamas attacking from Gaza after they pulled out of there)

They pull out and THEN they are attacked. How is that supposed to be some kind of incentive for them to do what everyone claims is the goal, i.e. withdraw from the occupied territories?

[akushuki]

37. Actually, the dispute as I understand is that

Hezbollah claims that Israel still occupies an area of Lebanon.

And as we know, Britain still controlled Canada after the war so I think the more fitting analogy would be that if the revolutionary army continued to attack the British in Canada after they pulled out of the colonies on the pretense that Canada belonged to the colonists too.

[Warren DeMontague]

39. According to the UN -hardly a bastion of Israel support- they pulled out.

Neither Hezbollah or Hamas accept that Israel- that's pre 1967 borders Israel- belongs to Israel. That's the crux of the matter, and one which gets glossed over continually in these discussions. Now, perhaps that's a legitimate viewpoint and perhaps people agree with it. But then they should stop with the pretense that this is about "this occupation" or "that occupation" and admit that it is Israel's very existence that is the problem.

[akushuki]

40. True dat

[cantstandbush]

41. Irael pulls out and then conducts cross-border assassinations and bombings

and kidnappings but continues to take credit for "pulling out." It's really a sham and a shame, the entire ME situation.

[Igel]

33. Hezbollah is not a threat to Israel, but can still kill soldiers

and threaten civilians. I'd object to living under those conditions and having third parties call it acceptable.

Hezbollah has been attacking Israel nearly monthly for years. The response from Israel has been to attack a Hezbollah installation or fly over Lebanese territory. Both generate complaints to the UN. Both rile up public opinion, and show Hezbollah as a studly, ballsy, strong Muslim organization that's able to dish out negative face to the descendents of pigs and monkeys and defend Arab/Muslim/Lebanese pride. They know their audience. It's worked.

Best guess: This time Hezbollah screwed up. At some point a response is non-linear: my personal example is that I was picked on for months and months, with little response, and then hauled off and tried to beat the bully into a pulp. That day, the twerp screwed up, and assumed that my past behavior was fully predictive of my future behavior.

One can make up scenarios that Iran wanted this to pin down Israel, or that the Israelis wanted this to clear the way to attack Iran. But neither are, strictly speaking, necessary. Local concerns can be seen as quite enough.

[Warren DeMontague]

36. For the good of Lebanon & The region, they should return the kidnapped

soldiers and surrender en masse.

[seabeyond]

38. where is down side for hezobolah? it is innocent lebonese that die

this is a group of men going from place to place throwing off rockets, and with little repercussion. it is the citizens of the country that are getting isreal retaliation

[AnOhioan]

42. The Viet Cong were no more than a nuisance to us....

militarily speaking. The Mujahideen were no more than a nuisance to the USSR, militarily speaking.

Did not stop those groups from fighting vastly superior forces..and winning btw.

I do not agree with Hezbollah tactics but asking "why don't they just surrender" is somewhat simplistic.