Hezbollah night-vision gear manufactured in Britain

[Undertoad]

Sort of like cluster arguments - just throw enough crap out there and figure enough of it will stick.

[JayMcGee]

que?
are you reading this thread, or is it just another 'write only' ?

[Ibby]

Cluster bombs DO NOT EQUAL mines. They aren't used as such. They are meant to hit, explode multiple times, then thats the end of it. However, it's an unfortunate fact that they don't always do so. However, they are no more mines than any other bomb. But when you have multiple thingies that go BANG and a less-than-average chance of actually going BANG, you end up with duds. Simple statistics.

[MaggieL]

Originally Posted by Ibram

Cluster bombs DO NOT EQUAL mines. They aren't used as such.

Actually, some cluster munitions *can* be used that way. But I've not seen any evidence that they have been used that way in this case. Or much evidence at all from the "IDF are terrorists (too)" side of this discussion that holds much water at all, frankly.

Cluster munitions, either artillery or gravity bombs, are pretty much standard for any modern military these days...which makes them a standard propaganda target in asymmetric warfare. Since the terrorist side doesn't have them, wave a bloody shirt about how inherently immoral they must be; since most liberals--oh...excuse me..."progressives"--don't actually know dick about weapons (after all, posessing such knowlege is clear evidence that you're evil) it's an easy sell. It's vastly easier to distract such people with horror porn about weapons when it's how they are used that's actually important.

UT makes that point, the tactic is: throw around a bunch of wild accusations, posted as widely as possible, supported by "evidence" that examined closely would convince only the choir you're preaching to, and hope something sticks long enough to achieve your propaganda objective. Accuse anybody who questions it of being a "zionist", a "zionist dupe" or a "racist".

[Hippikos]

UT makes that point, the tactic is: throw around a bunch of wild accusations, posted as widely as possible, supported by "evidence" that examined closely would convince only the choir you're preaching to, and hope something sticks long enough to achieve your propaganda objective. Accuse anybody who questions it of being a "zionist", a "zionist dupe" or a "racist".

MaggieL constantly tries to minimize the effect of the cluster bombs as if they're candy thrown to the children. The only tactic throwing here were the cluster bombs in the last 3 days of the 33 days war. Cluster bombs are the last resort if nothing else helps without boots on the ground. Compare it with you're tired of chasing the mosquito and fill the whole room with anti mosquito spray. Very bad for whatever else lives there, but it might kill the mosquito.

Accuse anybody who questions it of being a "zionist", a "zionist dupe" or a "racist".

And here we go again, the Zionist card is drawn again, if nothing else helps. I am waiting for the ultimate "anti-semitic" ace to be thrown on the table. That always seems to work for MaggieL.

If it was according MaggieL, all these pinkocommielibs should s.t.f.u. about these cute little bomblets and let the IDF do their work. Let's complain about are these nasty ka-ty-usha's. These are the real killers.

A trained military doesn't waste valuable munitions "out of frustration". Soldiers are trained to shoot but also trained to always know how many rounds are left. Whatever they did was a tactic.

You keep living in your ideal world, UT, where only trained military don't waste their ammunition. In the real world the frustration ran high in the IDF because Olmert and Peretz refused to extend the ground invasion and, according to brigade commanders, the lack of movement put the forces on the defensive and gave the upper hand to Hizbullah fighters. Read any Israelian online paper and you'll read the frustration of the military.

[MaggieL]

Originally Posted by Hippikos

MaggieL constantly tries to minimize the effect of the cluster bombs as if they're candy thrown to the children.

Not at all. Deadly weapons are in fact deadly; that is inherent in their design.

But use of cluster munitions isn't prima facie evidence of an "indiscriminate" assault, and an argument for moral equivalance, which is how you and others have been trying to spin it.

[Ibby]

Originally Posted by Hippikos

If it was according MaggieL, all these pinkocommielibs should s.t.f.u. about these cute little bomblets and let the IDF do their work. Let's complain about are these nasty ka-ty-usha's. These are the real killers.

While I don't agree as such, that is a completely valid point that I can easily see the sense of. Hezbollah IS indiscriminately firing the rockets; Israel is trying to hit the rockets. Failing to hit the target and firing indiscriminately are two completely different things.

[tw]

Originally Posted by Ibram

Hezbollah IS indiscriminately firing the rockets; Israel is trying to hit the rockets. Failing to hit the target and firing indiscriminately are two completely different things.

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.

[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.

[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.

[Undertoad]

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