Hezbollah night-vision gear manufactured in Britain

[xoxoxoBruce]

Not only had the IDF this weapon, it also used it, especially in the last 72 hours

Maybe they were trying to create a no-mans-land?

[Ibby]

Originally Posted by tw

That might be true. Having missed their targets, Israel managed to strike ten cities in Lebanon's most northern province of Akkar. Clearly that was not indiscriminate.

Trying to take out rockets that could not be seen and that could be anywhere within a five mile attack area - that too is not indiscriminate. Clearly they were targeting a rocket launcher somewhere within five miles. A field of cluster bombs spread out within that area was definitely targeting the launcher. A launcher that pilots could not see but must have been targeting all the way to Akkar.

Mentioning Akkar over and over makes it no less wrong and no less of a red herring. Hezbollah operate all across the country.

I never said that Israel's tactics were right or well-executed. However, they try to hit their targets, which are Hezbollah weapons or bases, people fighting against them, trying to kill them. You can't say the same for Hezbollah, whose targets are simply any Israeli anywhere. Hezbollah didn't fire the rockets at Israeli bases or convoys or troops, they fired them at cities.

Of course, Israel struck cities too, right?
The difference: Hezbollah HIDES in the cities, surrounding themselves with civillians so that people like YOU go "look! Israel are bad guys, not hezbollah! theyre killing civillians!" Israel DOES kill civillians. They do NOT target civillians.

Lets say I shoot at you and your friends, killing a couple and wounding a couple more, then I grab an innocent bystander and hold him in front of me as a meatshield. How much could YOU be faulted for hitting him, and how much would be MY fault?

[tw]

Originally Posted by Ibram

Mentioning Akkar over and over makes it no less wrong and no less of a red herring. Hezbollah operate all across the country.

Your first mistake was to pretend Akkar did not happen. Why? Are you that extremist as to hate people, or did you just not know basic realities? Akkar is but another example of a fact. We all but know what Israel’s reason was to attack all Lebanese. It is a matter of “consciousness”. Some immorally believe that each dead Phoenician would cause Lebanese to drive out Hezbollah. This Israeli government was that embarrassingly stupid as to even believe their air force general's theory of "consciousness".

Well maybe we could find some Hezbollah checks in an Akkar financial institution. That justifies attacks on Druze and Marinates in Akkar? Give me a break. Akkar is mentioned when reasoning is that bankrupt. Why need I repeat the obvious? Why are you that much in denial? Akkar says Israel attacked all Lebanese - intentionally.

Pilots at 10,000 and 20,000 feet could see and attack Hezbollah? Only when myths justify an extremist agenda. Pilots even at lower altitudes could not find these tiny rockets. Hell. US military with a massive effort, using satellite and heat seeking sensors, could not find even one Scud missile – a target tens of time larger and in open desert. Are you so foolish or so brainwashed by extremists to worship nonsense - that Israeli pilots could see their targets? Ibram. I will assume you have no idea what pilots could do and were telling reporters. Unlike MaggieL, I will assume you just have no grasp of what pilots can see. You have no idea why a ground spotter is essential for ground attack. I will assume your post was due to simple ignorance that left you easily recruited to extremist rhetoric.

Israeli pilots were attacking anything in Lebanon so that Lebanese would rise up and drive out Hezbollah. Israeli leadership is that immoral - and appears to have inherited George Jr intelligence. Israelis even attacked Red Cross and Red Crescent ambulances. Even attack a convoy of hundreds of innocents, well north of the Latani River and traveling north. Mistake? Of course not. That was the strategy of 'consciousness'. It was both intentional and part of Israel's strategic object as advocated by Isreal's Dan Halutz. You call these people moral?

Akkar. Will that word mean Ibram is lying again? Or will it mean Ibram did not know what Israel’s objectives really were? Akkar means Israel was attacking indiscriminately. Akkar means you have posted as an extremist hater of humanity, or you are that ignorant of basic news.

Every dead Phoenician meant the Lebanese were one step closer to driving out Hezbollah - if one loves people like Milosevic. Israeli leaders intentionally attacked Alawites, Catholics, Copts, Druze, Shi'ites, Orthodox, and Assyrians in an objective called 'consciousness'. An illusion rationalized in a braindead believe that Hezbollah is somehow Iranian or Syrian. Israel attacked indiscriminately because pilots could not see any targets. Akkar repeated as long as one posts such myths. Stop posting likes and Akkar is no longer mentioned.

Posted is that pilots could only attack indiscriminately. Posted are reasons why Israelis intentionally attacked and killed Lebanese of all ethnicities. Posted is but another example of Israeli 'niger hate' of Arabs. Akkar repeated with each direct contradiction to reality. Extremist who control Israel - even intentionally murdered a Prime Minister of peace - are little different from other lovers of genocide such as Milosevic. 5000 massacred Palestinian woman and children was no accident that night. Israel has no problem being lead by mass murders. You like such people? Israel intentionally attacked all Lebanese. It was their strategic objective. Akkar attacks otherwise would not exist. Indiscriminate murder was Israel's objective - as if that would eliminate Hezbollah.

[MaggieL]

Originally Posted by tw

A launcher that pilots could not see but must have been targeting ...

If targeting something the weapon operator can't see is indiscriminate, then any use of artillery and rocketry (with range beyond that of an RPG) is indiscriminate.

What a crock of BS. The lengths to which some folks will go to try to create an erzatz moral equivalance betwen IDF and Hezbollah is tragicomic.

[tw]

Originally Posted by MaggieL

If targeting something the weapon operator can't see is indiscriminate, then any use of artillery and rocketry (with range beyond that of an RPG) is indiscriminate.

Artillery uses ground spotters so that shells are not wasted on empty land or kill friendly forces. MaggieL should know this instead of using her extremism for rationalization. Air power requires ground spotters so that munitions are not scattered everywhere uselessly. Even Tora Bora happened only because CIA agents - without orders - went into Tora Bora to find bin Laden and to be ground spotters.

Crock of BS is again what MaggieL posts. If she really was an honest American, then she posts as any military man knows. Those planes indiscriminately attacked anything in a five mile area because Hezbollah rockets could not be identified. For same reasons, even Akkar province was bombed. Attack the innocents and they will drive out Hezbollah? More right wing extremist rationalization that killed innocent Lebanese.

MaggieL, this crock of BS is directly attributed to an extremist and therefore irrational mindset. You are smarter than that. Why do you mock the intelligence of the Cellar with proclamations that only the mental midget president could believe? You, MaggieL, know quite well that air power could not and could never target Hezbollah rockets and rocket launchers without ground spotters. You know that and your extremism will not let you be honest. Why do you outrightly lie to all in the Cellar? You are smarter than that.

How were Scud missiles finally located and destroyed? British SAS were dispatched to successfully find Scuds in the Scud box. Why? Air power alone could not find even one large Scud missiles in a desert. MaggieL thinks everyone in the Cellar is so dumb as to believe air planes without ground spotters could find tiny Hezbollah rockets in rough terrain when air power could not even find one tens of times larger Scud in open desert.

Crock of BS from MaggieL is so similar to what the radical American extremists kept saying to sacrifice so many of my generation in Vietnam. Reasons provided by a political agenda - whether it be from Curtis LeMay or MaggieL - is that irrational and dangerous. Notice how she even lies about indiscriminate air attacks by the IDF. Notice how she denies ground spotters - by pretending such functions do not even exist. Wacko extremists also run the White House. Notice how we are winning the war against a world wide terrorist network in Iraq and Afghanistan. Vietnam Deja Vue complete with MaggieL playing the part of a 1970 right wing extremist.

[Ibby]

What I find funny is that tw somehow managed to call me an extremist...

I'm at least as far left as him, most of the time, but on this issue I think both sides are wrong so I can argue both sides.

[tw]

Originally Posted by Ibram

What I find funny is that tw somehow managed to call me an extremist...

I did no such thing. I defined two options. Either you are an extremist, or you are misinformed as to what air power can do - how it works. Why do you take option one when two options were provided?

MaggieL quite well knows that air power without ground spotters cannot target. Others may have only heard extremist propaganda and assumed air power without ground spotters can accurately target concealed military equipment and troops. But MaggieL knows better. Therefore her conclusion only comes from option one - extremist.

Meanwhile, Ibram, provided were previous examples of useless and indiscriminate artillery and air power without ground spotters. Did you know those examples before agreeing with the extremist MaggieL? You have a choice. Either join the ranks of those who know using a political agenda, or acknowledge what the IDF did without ground spotters. IDF airplanes indiscriminately attacked anything that moved south of the Latani River AND intentionally attacked innocent Lebanese. IDF objective was to change / create "consciousness". IDF indiscriminately attacked all Lebanese in direct contradiction to lies from MaggieL. And she did lie knowing full well she was lying.

Which option do you choose? One - extremist. Two - you did not know that ground spotters are so essential for accurate targeting.

[MaggieL]

Originally Posted by tw

MaggieL quite well knows that air power without ground spotters cannot target.

Sir, the day you become me will be the day when you can make wild claims about what I know.

Especially when what you claim I know is false. There are any number of remote sensor systems that can be used to target modern weapons, many of which do not involve ground spotters. (We know some of them were in use by IDF. We don't know everything they used because they're smart enough not to tell us.)

If you're going to be that wrong, kindly attribute your claims to yourself, not to me. I'm sorry if that makes it harder for you to call me a liar, but times are tough all over. Suck it up.

[tw]

Originally Posted by MaggieL

There are any number of remote sensor systems that can be used to target modern weapons, many of which do not involve ground spotters.

So Rush Limbaugh logic has returned. 'Saddam has WMDs only because he must' is logically acceptable again?

If these “any number of” targeting systems exist, then what are they? Where are they? What technology are they based on? Why does Rush Limbaugh logic routinely avoid such facts? Do these targeting systems exist in a fiction novel right next to Saddam’s WMDs?

How effective are these mythical targeting systems? Even bin Laden could not be found until six CIA agents, without orders, went into Tora Bora to find bin Laden and hundreds of armed supporters. Where was this “any number of” advanced targeting hardware? It required boots on the ground - ground spotters. Welcome back to reality.

Instead, MaggieL has now invented a targeting system that can find Hezbollah rockets. Then how did Hezbollah transport, setup, and fire so many rockets from so many locations? Apparently IDF waited for Hezbollah to fire those rockets – to first prove mal intent - before IDF attacked? Right. Even Rush is not so stupid as to make that claim.

This targeting system that MaggieL says exists: fiction. It could not find thousands of Hezbollah unused and transported rockets. Clearly Israelis were too moral to attack unused munitions.

What are these "any number of remote sensor systems"? Obviously they don't work until after a rocket is fired and after its launchers are long gone. Welcome back to reality that MaggieL knew and conveniently forgot to mention. Rush Limbaugh logic that also proved Saddam had WMDs does not prove “any number of remote sensor systems” either. MaggieL hopes we fail to expose her intentional fabrication. IDF planes were attacking indiscriminately – defined by an objective of their air force general – “consciousness”. Attack even innocent Lebanese and those victims will drive out Hezbollah? More fiction. It was indiscriminate attacks as MaggieL refuses to admit. So she invents these “any number of” targeting systems – too secret for Cellar Dweller to learn of. Also called Rush Limbaugh propaganda.

[xoxoxoBruce]

Spotters don't have to be on the ground for air attacks or artillery. They can be airborne, usually in propeller driven small planes, or helicopters.

The use of spy drones(UAVs) has been used extensively in Iraq. Spotting the target and filming the attack and the result, after the attacking planes have left.

I don't know what the IDF was using, just saying it is done.

[Undertoad]

You forgot about one rule of logic: if tw doesn't know about it, it doesn't exist.

[xoxoxoBruce]

Silly me.
Actually the first UAVs were developed here but then the military said , that's nice, go away. So they were never developed to potential. Israel, however, took those designs and developed them, just in case. The UAVs are what allowed them to beat Egypt. They flew them ahead and drew fire from anti-aircraft sites so they could be targeted by the air force. Very effective ploy.

[MaggieL]

Originally Posted by tw

Welcome back to reality that MaggieL knew and conveniently forgot to mention.

Ah, tw is lecturing us on "reality" again. Joy.

Current "reality" includes GPS, RPVs, and digital combat information systems. Moden CIS relay targeting information in realtime. Read up on things like J-STARS, for example, before you overstrain your military expertese, which has aparently not been updated since Vietnam. Perhaps you could divert some of the brain cells you currently use for name-calling and trolling for the purpose.

[tw]

Originally Posted by xoxoxoBruce

Spotters don't have to be on the ground for air attacks or artillery. They can be airborne, usually in propeller driven small planes, or helicopters.

Airborne spotters were used - even in Vietnam. How effective? Spotters must be low, have limited spotting range when low, can only spot when targets are moving exposed, and must wait for air power to arrive. Target has sufficient time to hide, or to launch a rocket and disappear.

UAVs (drone) are another technology, expensive, few, and again effective when target is moving and exposed. Unlike low and slow airplanes, UAV are silent. But again must wait for those airplanes.

Why are ground spotters so necessary? Concealed, rockets can only be located by ground spotters. When being launched, airborne surveillance usually provides insufficient time to attack and remains 'too few'. History and reality that MaggieL quite well knew when she lied: airborne surveillance can rarely find and destroy a rocket.

Others did what MaggieL did not. They posted honestly with examples of how spotting could occur. But those solutions remained ineffective as in Vietnam, Tora Bora, and Iraq. In each case, airborne solutions could not obsolete a ground spotter. A long list of examples proves that point.

Airborne surveillance rarely provides sufficient time to locate and destroy a Hezbollah rocket launch. If the technology is so good, then why did six CIA agents do what all that airborne technology could not? Airborne surveillance does not find concealed munitions - as MaggieL well knew. The response after a rocket launch is also too late - as MaggieL also well knew. Slow response time was a problem in Vietnam making long range patrols necessary. It remains a problem in Iraq and Afghanistan as Anbar province and half of Afghanistan falls to adversaries. Why are Taliban even ten miles outside Kabul and yet not spotted by airborne surveillance? It was the problem with Scuds even when satellites and A-10s were concentrated only to find Scuds – and found none. Again, airborne solutions proved useless; requiring SAS - boots on the ground. The world's best airborne technology - America's - could not find bin Laden until six CIA agents arrived. World’s best airborne surveillance, when concentrated for war, still could not even find Saddam – ie Shock and Awe. Why? There is no replacement for ground spotters even for a nation with the best airborne solutions. MaggieL knew that.

Surveillance rarely found Hezbollah rockets until after launching. No problem. The objective was “consciousness”. Attack anyone in the area. Indiscriminate attacks were the objective. Make residents rise up and drive Hezbollah out. Where is the morality in Israel’s objective? MaggieL, who somehow knows Israel is always moral, instead denies Israel’s objective and must deny even bombing in Akkar. She was lying and she knew she was lying.

No sense lecturing MaggieL. She uses a political agenda to rationalize. This is a warning to others about what an extermist will do when their political bias is challenged.

(JSTARs find a Hezbollah rocket before launching? Guess again. That rocket looks just like a household appliance. But then you, MaggieL, knew that when posting to deceive.)

[Ibby]

Now that was low, tw. What happened to 'emotion is a weakness' or whatever it is you usually say?