IDF working on creating new war plans
This is a very worrisome article as I am sure that Hizbullah is also energetically preparing for the next war. The fact that Israel is expecting Hizbullah to respond to attacks against Iran or Syria and that neo-cons are pushing Bush to bomb Iran makes the situation in this part of the world very volatile. We just came out of a devestating war, and yet they are already talking about the next one even before the multi-national force is set in place. Is this cease-fire a mirage and the quietness the silence before the storm?
Jerusalem Post
By YAAKOV KATZ
Amid growing discontent with UNIFIL and its commander, Gen. Alain Pellegrini, the defense establishment has been working on creating new operational plans for war with Hizbullah that take into consideration the existence of new players in southern Lebanon - the Lebanese army and the UN multinational force.
"Next time it will be much more complicated," a high-ranking officer in the Northern Command said Sunday.
The IDF would not be able to simply invade southern Lebanese villages like it did during the past war and would have to take into consideration that conflicts and clashes could evolve with the Lebanese army and troops from the multinational force, the officer said.
A source of IDF concern was the decision by the UN that Pellegrini would remain in his post and become the commander not only of the 2,000-strong UNIFIL force but of the new multinational force in Lebanon. Officers expressed skepticism regarding Pellegrini's ability to aggressively enforce the cease-fire and prevent Hizbullah from rearming itself and launching attacks against Israel.
"In the past, UNIFIL proved that it did not deal well with Hizbullah," one officer said. "If Pellegrini takes the same approach again it could endanger the cease-fire and create a conflict sooner than expected." Military Intelligence recently completed drafting its assessments for 2007 and predicted that Hizbullah, which it believed was currently interested in quiet so it could rebuild itself, would be ready within a year to again wage war against Israel. War with Hizbullah could break out earlier, officers said, if Iran or Syria were attacked by Israel or the United States.
"If that happens, Hizbullah will definitely need to respond," one officer said.
Hizbullah, MI further assumed, was also working on changing its military tactics and plans to abide by the UN resolution that forbids its fighters from carrying weapons openly along the border with Israel. "They will operate in the villages and their bunkers discreetly," the officer said.
Meanwhile on Sunday, the Northern Command received new orders from the General Staff Operations Directorate regarding the final withdrawal date of the remaining IDF troops still operating in Lebanon.
The soldiers, a Northern Command officer said, were currently deployed within two kilometers of the border with Israel and were mostly conducting patrols as well as laying ambushes to prevent the infiltration of terrorists into Israel.
The Northern Command said it was prepared to withdraw troops from Lebanon within two days of receiving such orders from the General Staff. Last week, officers said, it appeared that the troops would be brought back to Israel by Rosh Hashana, which falls this weekend. But officers said Sunday, new orders were received over the weekend indicating that the diplomatic echelon was interested in delaying the withdrawal.
UNIFIL has already taken up 80 percent of the territory the IDF was in control of on August 14, the day the UN-brokered cease-fire went into effect, senior officers said. As of last week, some 5,000 multinational troops had arrived in Lebanon. UN Resolution 1701 discusses the deployment of up to 15,000 multinational troops alongside the Lebanese army, which has already fully deployed in southern Lebanon.
"We are waiting to see how the multinational force deploys itself in southern Lebanon," the Northern Command officer said. "It is possible that the IDF will need to remain in Lebanon until after Rosh Hashana and beyond."
Jerusalem Post
By YAAKOV KATZ
Amid growing discontent with UNIFIL and its commander, Gen. Alain Pellegrini, the defense establishment has been working on creating new operational plans for war with Hizbullah that take into consideration the existence of new players in southern Lebanon - the Lebanese army and the UN multinational force.
"Next time it will be much more complicated," a high-ranking officer in the Northern Command said Sunday.
The IDF would not be able to simply invade southern Lebanese villages like it did during the past war and would have to take into consideration that conflicts and clashes could evolve with the Lebanese army and troops from the multinational force, the officer said.
A source of IDF concern was the decision by the UN that Pellegrini would remain in his post and become the commander not only of the 2,000-strong UNIFIL force but of the new multinational force in Lebanon. Officers expressed skepticism regarding Pellegrini's ability to aggressively enforce the cease-fire and prevent Hizbullah from rearming itself and launching attacks against Israel.
"In the past, UNIFIL proved that it did not deal well with Hizbullah," one officer said. "If Pellegrini takes the same approach again it could endanger the cease-fire and create a conflict sooner than expected." Military Intelligence recently completed drafting its assessments for 2007 and predicted that Hizbullah, which it believed was currently interested in quiet so it could rebuild itself, would be ready within a year to again wage war against Israel. War with Hizbullah could break out earlier, officers said, if Iran or Syria were attacked by Israel or the United States.
"If that happens, Hizbullah will definitely need to respond," one officer said.
Hizbullah, MI further assumed, was also working on changing its military tactics and plans to abide by the UN resolution that forbids its fighters from carrying weapons openly along the border with Israel. "They will operate in the villages and their bunkers discreetly," the officer said.
Meanwhile on Sunday, the Northern Command received new orders from the General Staff Operations Directorate regarding the final withdrawal date of the remaining IDF troops still operating in Lebanon.
The soldiers, a Northern Command officer said, were currently deployed within two kilometers of the border with Israel and were mostly conducting patrols as well as laying ambushes to prevent the infiltration of terrorists into Israel.
The Northern Command said it was prepared to withdraw troops from Lebanon within two days of receiving such orders from the General Staff. Last week, officers said, it appeared that the troops would be brought back to Israel by Rosh Hashana, which falls this weekend. But officers said Sunday, new orders were received over the weekend indicating that the diplomatic echelon was interested in delaying the withdrawal.
UNIFIL has already taken up 80 percent of the territory the IDF was in control of on August 14, the day the UN-brokered cease-fire went into effect, senior officers said. As of last week, some 5,000 multinational troops had arrived in Lebanon. UN Resolution 1701 discusses the deployment of up to 15,000 multinational troops alongside the Lebanese army, which has already fully deployed in southern Lebanon.
"We are waiting to see how the multinational force deploys itself in southern Lebanon," the Northern Command officer said. "It is possible that the IDF will need to remain in Lebanon until after Rosh Hashana and beyond."
posted by beirutlive at 4:42 PM
23 Comments:
"Military Intelligence recently completed drafting its assessments for 2007 and predicted that Hizbullah, which it believed was currently interested in quiet so it could rebuild itself, would be ready within a year to again wage war against Israel. War with Hizbullah could break out earlier, officers said, if Iran or Syria were attacked by Israel or the United States."
It should be no surprise to anyone that Hezbollah would rebuild itself. That's what it was doing for the past six years or so.
What IS surprising is an assessment that "war could break out earlier" if Israel or the US attacks Iran or Syria. The assessment by itself is, of course, logical. But that was the assessment last year as well. My understanding from a variety of articles was that Hezbollah would open another front if Israel attacked Syria or Iran and it would raise the stakes by attacking Israel if the US attacks Iran.
That's the way treaties work - if one ally is attacked, it's an attack on all.
The real question for the planners is will Hezbollah attack Israel in the absence of an Israeli and/or US attack on Iran and/or Syria? Or, is it a foregone conclusion Iran will have to be invaded?
The subordinate question lies in the way the assessment is worded - "war could break out earlier ...." Given the events of the past summer, I read that to mean "war" is intended but might come earlier than intended.
AP
LUGOFF, S.C. | A man suspected of kidnapping a 14-year-old girl and keeping her in an underground bunker was charged Sunday with raping the teen.
Kershaw County Sheriff Steve McCaskill said Vinson Filyaw had eluded police with an elaborate system of hideouts and bunkers since November 2005, when he was charged with criminal sexual conduct with a 12-year-old girl.
He surrendered Sunday morning to police as he walked along Interstate 20 near Columbia, about five miles from where investigators found the teenager.
Police said Filyaw, 36, abducted the girl as she walked home from a school bus stop on Sept. 6.
The man is a raving maniac. Not unlike John Brown. Remember - he's playing to the tv cameras and the more attention he gets, the more he'll rant and rave. Best is simply to dismiss him as the crazy person he is and ignore him. If we yell back, it gives him credibility. So - "yes, my son. I hear you. God loves you. Even if no one else does. Calm down."
Trouble, Doc. The pope is infallible by divine definition. Wouldn't an apology affect the image of infallibility? And, of course, we have a rock and hard place problem. One infallible institution (the New York Times) calling for an apology on another infallible institution (the papacy)
It seems it might be wise for the NY Times and the Pope to get together and say something along the lines of the old chestnut:
"I know you think you understood what you thought I said, but I'm not sure you realize that what you heard wasn't what I meant."
Idiot child, read what you wrote and then try to figure out what you said. For a REAL challenge, explain what you meant to say. YOU, idiot child, are the "dumb very person" - you see nothing but the surface, you have no understanding at all of innuendo and you satisfy yourself by spouting bigoted inanities concerning things for which you have absolutely no understanding. Your always included attempt at insult reveals a bigoted, uneducated fool who likes to hear himself shout in the wind. It is your kind of moron the real terrorists in this world count on. You provide the excuse as well as the fodder.
As always - and as you accuse the "towels" you "got bent as always over nothing" and spit your non-sequiturs while you remain completely oblivious to what really is going on.
With a few more years and a lot more school, you'll learn the most important lesson of your life: Stay quiet and appear a fool rather than open your mouth and remove any doubt.
And if you don't like the way I address you, try cleaning up your own act.
Let's see - all the attempted insults and vile, foul language. A lot of it I understand from things you've said in the past. But - what is "stains?"
Idiot child - if you were a fish I'm not sure what it would be but I know as a certainty it would not be a brook trout or a rainbow. You rise far too easily to any kind of bait.
Now - idiot child - for your next session, you are assigned to read what you just wrote twenty times. And then write what it is you were trying to say. And do it in complete sentences without grammatical errors.
This is a quiz, idiot child. And you will be graded.
"entire" - not "intire"
minus 3 points for spelling
And I also agree, Kevin - but it's not all the people who are reading it wrong, I don't think. It's the firebrands who want to stir up trouble - they take words out of context and without attaching the intended meaning. But I think it's a mistake to apologize - as opposed to explain. His apology is already being touted as "we gagged the pope." He ought to take the opportunity to restate what he said and explain his meaning - not apologize as if what he said is wrong.
For instance - he could also bring up the inquisition and the crusades as terrors created in the christian faith. We had witch burnings and still have rattlesnake handlers. I think his point is that we have to get beyond that kind of thinking that leads to the kinds of terrors we're experiencing today. But - as Doc says, that will not play in the papers.
And - although I'm not catholic - my understanding always was the Pope is considered infallible in church doctrine. I'm wrong there?
Idiot child has missed two doses of his medication - bear with him as he stomps and spits. Does the idiot child need more time to explain what he's talking about? And what "stains" means?
Do you see, Doc and Kevin, how easy it is to incite an uneducated, unthinking, desperate person to violence? Here's an idiot child who says he started a company that he personally caused to realize profits of more than 300,000 dollars, for which he hired and trained more than 300 people and who says he is a gentleman with impeccable manners. And all I have to do is correct him in some way and he becomes a vile, screaming, crazed maniac spitting filth and stomping around tearing his clothes.
Now - imagine a people who are already impoverished, who have little hope for a better life, who have been taught they are being prepared for heaven. Imagine telling those people the leader of the western religion thinks their messiah is a murderer and terrorist. If I can get such a reaction from an idiot, spoiled, uneducated child, think what it must be like if the grievances are real.
Another change, idiot child. A week ago you were bragging about how you "won" by chasing so many people away. They haven't gone away - you simply haven't been invited. Enjoy yourself in your drooling gibberish. You've made my point.
Kevin - a point I'd read this morning that seemed to support what I was saying is quoted below. But - it's like a lot of dogma - it can be interpreted different ways. In any event, it's at http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/07790a.htm#IIIB
EXPLANATION OF PAPAL INFALLIBILITY
The Vatican Council has defined as "a divinely revealed dogma" that "the Roman Pontiff, when he speaks ex cathedra -- that is, when in the exercise of his office as pastor and teacher of all Christians he defines, by virtue of his supreme Apostolic authority, a doctrine of faith or morals to be held by the whole Church -- is, by reason of the Divine assistance promised to him in blessed Peter, possessed of that infallibility with which the Divine Redeemer wished His Church to be endowed in defining doctrines of faith and morals; and consequently that such definitions of the Roman Pontiff are irreformable of their own nature (ex sese) and not by reason of the Church's consent"
The quote is only the beginning of a long article.
That's your problem, idiot child: if anybody says anything you don't like, you rise like a barracuda to the bait and start snapping and snarling and generally acting stupidly. You don't have the maturity to recognize others may not agree with you. Rather, you demand agreement or spew vile insult. And it never occurs to you to step back to see what you've said and to see just how idiotic it makes you appear.
345 pages of posts who agree with you, huh, idiot child? And that makes you the majority?
Do you see what I mean? You don't think before you speak. Then you don't read what you write before you send. Then you don't step back and look at what you've written.
First of all, a near majority of Americans voted for Bush. But I don't use that fact to say it proves a majority of Americans are stupid - it proves only they believed the lies and were seriously misled by the Bush gang. But - if it makes you feel better, I'll admit you are one of the 53 million fools who supposedly voted for Bush. And you are one of the millions of fools who think spending billions of dollars and thousands of lives in Iraq is a good idea. And you are one of the millions of fools who think the way to world peace is to subjugate an entire region of the world and attempt the modification (if not elimination) of its religion. That's the kind of idiocy that led Israel to think it could "win" a "war" with Lebanon and the rest of the world. And that's the kind of idiocy that will keep on costing thousands of American lives and billions of American dollars to accomplish absolutely nothing over the next unknown number of years until we get some thoughtful people in office.
And that, you idiot child, is what this blog was intended for - to encourage discussion among people in different areas of the world who have widely different understandings and views. And along you come with your complete ignorance and vile approach to everything you hear. You are a complete loss, idiot child. What you think is insulting is, in fact, boring. But you provide the foil for making the point.
Thanks, Kevin - I admit I don't understand the concept because I don't understand infallibility. And I have difficulty in the dualism of what you were taught. It seems to me he has the same kind of problem in that regard as the president - when I hear him, I always think of him as the pope who is speakng as the church. Not just "for" the church - AS the church.
In any event, even if he's not infallible, his words were taken out of context unfairly and given a spin he clearly didn't intend. I'd have preferred to have him explain that or to have had it explained for him rather than him seemingly admit to being wrong for having said them. And I don't mean that for the sake of pride - I mean it because he was sincere and he meant to make a point which was missed and is now lost forever. I believe in the value of compromise but I don't think it's good to simply back down so abruptly just because Muslims started screaming again.
The trouble now is that if some religious figure comes to the front and proposes a faith based "solution" and sincerely tries to get all the people together, he (or she) will be made into the anti-christ by the media and, possibly, some of the religious zealots on all sides. There was a time that Henry Kissinger was thought to be the anti-christ.
Fortunately, I don't think George Bush will ever be accused in that regard.
I'm gathering that is intended for me, idiot child. Aside from being boring, it's meaningless unless you at least explain what "stains" means - as I've asked three times before.
You are just like the energizer bunny, idiot child - you keep on pounding and pounding and pounding .... with never a rational thought. But - you always say the same thing. Predictability is part of what makes you so completely boring. No education is another part. And shrieking the same foul language rounds it out.
You are starting to sound like a hashish crazed mullah speaking in tongue
It's just not that interesting to me, idiot child. Take your medicine and go to bed. You've made a fool of yourself today and you should try to be better tomorrow
Before going too far about the pope, Doc, read some of Isaiah and think about it. Here's a little to whet you appetite:
Isaiah 45 beginning at verse 5:
5 I am the LORD, and there is none else, there is no God beside me: I girded thee, though thou hast not known me:
6 That they may know from the rising of the sun, and from the west, that there is none beside me. I am the LORD, and there is none else.
7 I form the light, and create darkness: I make peace, and create evil: I the LORD do all these things.
God says He did it and does it all and no other person or "god" or prophet even helped. And, as you read the following verses, you will see that God says, and don't you dare question me - does the pot question the potter who made the pot?
Of course, christians don't make the huge noise about this that muslims are making - there's a problem there if we do: our God is the ONLY god. Our god made all good and evil. And our god said, "shut up" when people question His intentions or purpose.
The Pope, if I understand it correctly, IS the word of God - or, I suppose, more accurately, channels the word of God. That being so, the Pope cannot admit or even accept the idea of Muhammad being much of anything except an interloper or pretender. But don't Muslims believe much the same way?
So - is there not an irreconcilable conflict between Islam and everything else? Unless, of course, we can get general agreement that we're all talking about the same "God" and the only problem is in deciding who the true prophet is - Jesus Christ or Muhammad or Buddha or Benedict or Olmert.
But - lots of luck. Christians can't decide on who's right about Jesus. Is he the "son of God" or is he "God incarnate?" Add to that our allys - Jews - who believe in the historical Jesus but don't believe he's God. Ignoring the wars fought over the distinctions without real differences, a lot of people give a lot of money to a lot of preachers to spread their own ideas of who God and the messian and true prophets are. And now the pope is checking in.
And, no matter the difference between ex cathedra and just talking, the pope is the pope. If he even hints at being fallible, his "fallibility" will be the news of the millenium in the muslim world. And Nasrallah and his ilk will be saying, "do you see? The Jews are evil and the Christians have a false prophet." It doesn't matter if you can win the argument. The people listening to him are not the people with whom you would be having the argument. They are listening to the sound bites where the pope is saying his mea culpa.
That's what I always understood, Doc - I was raised Episcopalean. But an awful lot of blood has been shed over who's "right." We have people who believe they must use rattlesnakes in practicing christianity and others who believe $500 in "seed" money will be "planted" with God to return 20 times that in time - just give it to the preacher. The catholic church is the largest, richest corporation in the world and has more than a billion followers. But those followers can't all agree on whether God said birth control (much less, abortion) is ok. Some catholics I know condemn the death penalty as usurping power that should only be exercised by God and other catholics say, no - an eye for eye is what God intended. Some protestants insist Jesus is God in one form of the holy trinity and others insist "no - there are three distinct parts to the holy trinity - Jesus was God's son - not God himself."
Native Americans will say, "one thing we don't do is argue about who God is or what he means." But, of course, they see God in everything - trees, animals, streams ... everything.
What is truly amazing to me is that the arguments centering on God and religion can be so explosive - even deadly. Other than the fringe types - like the satanists - most religions teach peace and love and tolerance and respect for each other. Those religions are based in "God's" pronouncements. And so now we have a pope who says Islam taught (or teaches or thinks about) violence. And Muslims are ready to kill anybody who thinks they aren't peaceful and loving and tolerant. And they have a very special place in their hell for anyone who says anything bad about THEIR prophet being anything other than loving.
But, of course, blasphemy used to be punished by auto de fer - burning at the stake or drowning in the dunking chair or being buried to the neck and then stoned to death.
Religion - whether catholic, jewish, muslim, coptic or anything else - is created by people to control other people. It's not created by "God." In fact, the Christian God would say, "you people are nuts - I put you there to have fun and you want to make up all these rules to get into heaven when you die. You are nuts!" But, how better to enforce a law than to say it's "God's law" and if you disobey you go to hell.
Which, of course, gets into the hands of the evil people and the believers get screwed.
The answer, of course, is to go sit under a beautiful sky like we have here today. Thank God for letting you feel so good about being alive. And then go say something nice to somebody before going back to work. And don't listen to the guy Sunday who tells you what you have to know in order to know God. Say something nice to him for taking half an hour to preach to you and then go out and enjoy the nice day God gave you unconditionally. God said, in Isaiah, don't be questioning me about who you are or who I am or what I mean or any of that stuff. And, he said, I did EVERYthing - so shut up and enjoy it. But - we've got all these people who know better and they are, by God, gonna make me believe it or kill me or themselves trying.
Here's an article on it:
http://www.rickross.com/reference/snake/snake8.html
"They're members of the Holiness Pentecostal faith, and they are religious fundamentalists who believe the Bible is the inspired word of God that should be taken literally."
One such tenet, from the book of Mark, quotes Jesus speaking to his disciples before he ascends to heaven: "And these signs shall follow them that believe; In my name shall they cast out devils; they shall speak with new tongues; they shall take up serpents; and if they drink any deadly thing, it shall not hurt them; they shall lay hands on the sick, and they shall recover."
By handling poisonous snakes during their often-frenzied religious services, "they believe they're verifying the word of God for the rest of us," Leonard said. "They're saying that if it's not possible to take up serpents, then maybe it's not possible that Jesus rose from the dead."
Note that the article deals with a guy who got bit and died. Which raises the question, of course, "Did Jesus rise from the dead?" (this guy didn't) It also raises the question of "God made rattlesnakes poisonous for a reason. He also did NOT make people immune to the poison for a reason. Is there a hidden meaning there somewhere?"
There's a lot of crazies making up the rules.
If you want to impress your friends, read Daniel and Ezekiel. While you're reading Ezekiel, think "helicopter."
I for one am sick and tired of Islamic arrogance. The world should wake up and call it for what it is. A religion of intolerance despite their hypocritical cries to the contrary. Their murderous actions match their inflammatory rhetoric. It pains me considerably to lump all muslims into a category. However, it is difficult to overlook the teachings of their holy book. From my reading of the Koran, it seems that dialogue and compromise with Christians and Jews are incompatible with Islam. Simply put, we are Dhimmis and as such are not entitled to equitable dealings. Islam must universally reign supreme or the tenants of the religion invalid. Hence, Islam has painted itself into a corner and conflict is a self-fulfilling prophecy.
Post a Comment
<< Home