NationStates Jolt Archive

Capture of Soldiers, called "a fortunate timing"

Sun Aug 13, 2:37 PM ET
NEW YORK (AFP) - The US government was closely involved in planning
Israel's military operations against Lebanon's Hezbollah militia even before the July 12 kidnapping of two Israeli soldiers, a US magazine reported.

Pulitzer Prize-winning journalist Seymour Hersh writes in The New Yorker magazine that
President George W. Bush and Vice President
Dick Cheney were convinced that a successful Israeli bombing campaign against Hezbollah could ease Israel's security concerns and also serve as a prototype for a potential US preemptive attack to destroy
Iran's nuclear installations.

Citing an unnamed Middle East expert with knowledge of the current thinking of the Israeli and US governments, Hersh said Israel had devised a plan for attacking Hezbollah -- and shared it with Bush administration officials -- well before the July 12 kidnappings.

"When they grabbed the soldiers in early July, that was then a pretext" for Israel's assault on Hezbollah, Hersh said Sunday on CNN television.

"We (the US) worked closely with them (Israel) months before, not necessarily ... knowing when it was going to happen, but when there was an incident they will take advantage of the incident, what I call a fortunate timing'," Hersh said.

sources Yahoo/AFP/NewYorker/OcceanNEWS©2006
http://news.yahoo.com/s/afp/20060813/wl_mideast_afp/mideastconflictus_060813183058

My2cents: the white house has Denied its Role in Attacking Lebanon...
of course.

Never at a loss for a good conspiracy, are you?


Citing an unnamed Middle East expert with knowledge of the current thinking of the Israeli and US governments, Hersh said Israel had devised a plan for attacking Hezbollah -- and shared it with Bush administration officials -- well before the July 12 kidnappings.


Based on the way some 'expert' claims the Bush Administration thinks, Hersch can print this crap? That's the New Yorker for you.

As much as I dislike the US Government, and Israel, this is basically utter crap.

Based on the way some 'expert' claims the Bush Administration thinks, Hersch can print this crap? That's the New Yorker for you.

But when some unnamed expert says "omg people were going to blow up planes" everyone believes.

But when some unnamed expert says "omg people were going to blow up planes" everyone believes.
Actually, I don't believe that at all either.

It was pure propaganda.

Actually, I don't believe that at all either.

It was pure propaganda.

It doesnt matter, Im just saying, where is the line?

Seymour also believed there were WMD in Iraq. You going to trust him when he talks to "experts"?

I think that Seymour washes all of his stories in his rectum before publishing.

Sorry for generalizing, I know there are exceptions, but...

Typical USA journalism, and to think that he was awarded with a Pulitzer...

Based on the way some 'expert' claims the Bush Administration thinks, Hersch can print this crap? That's the New Yorker for you.

He always writes stuff based on his "anonymous sources." The guy's full of shit.

It doesnt matter, Im just saying, where is the line?
Hmm I don't really know.

Actually being told the truth by the various governments of the world would be great, though.

Sorry for generalizing, I know there are exceptions, but...

Typical USA journalism, and to think that he was awarded with a Pulitzer...
Nowadays, to win a Pulitzer, you have to be the journalist who fools the largest number of people with the most bullshit story with no real sources.

You know, the Eason Jordan and Judith Miller school of journalism.

you know i just realized, they all are setting you (us)up,making you believe in a corporatism power....
Most are stuk in the nation states,or class wars,being greedy is not difficult you have money you own monney,you do.
This is why nationstates are obsolet,as religion is...
It really comes to what you want to believe in.

And i believe some don't give a fuck other others..
Humanity can be so painfull

And i believe some don't give a fuck other others..
Humanity can be so painfull

You say that like it's something new. Welcome to reality.

Nowadays, to win a Pulitzer, you have to be the journalist who fools the largest number of people with the most bullshit story with no real sources.

You know, the Eason Jordan and Judith Miller school of journalism.

That's why I only praise the photograph part of the prize.

That's why I only praise the photograph part of the prize.
We have to be careful that the photograph wasn't Photoshopped.

Sorry for generalizing, I know there are exceptions, but...

Typical USA journalism, and to think that he was awarded with a Pulitzer...

Lump him in with Peter Arnett as bullshit "journalists" that give the rest of us a bad name.

I'd love to believe that story...

Nowadays, to win a Pulitzer, you have to be the journalist who fools the largest number of people with the most bullshit story with no real sources.

You know, the Eason Jordan and Judith Miller school of journalism.Sounds EXACTLY like something Pullitzer himself would do...:p

Sorry for generalizing, I know there are exceptions, but...

Typical USA journalism, and to think that he was awarded with a Pulitzer...
Typical of Swedish politics, Yassar Arafat was awarded a Nobel Prize. The abuses of prizes never end.

Lump him in with Peter Arnett as bullshit "journalists" that give the rest of us a bad name.
Isn't it amazing that the journalists today who made it big are the ones with the most bullshit?

Jayson Blair
Eason Jordan
Judith Miller
Seymour Hersh
Peter Arnett
(I won't put Geraldo on here, because he's not a journalist IMHO)

the list is amazing

And I love it when people say, "oh, the mainstream media is always more reliable than any blog".

Sorry. A few blogs out there seem to be far more credible than the New York Times.

Love that Nic Robertson at CNN - he lets Hezbollah essentially choreograph his entire story so they won't shoot him - we can complain about journalistic independence for imbedded reporters only if they are imbedded with US troops - if they are with Hezbollah, "it must be true".

Typical of Swedish politics, Yassar Arafat was awarded a Nobel Prize. The abuses of prizes never end.

Indeed.

For example, I wasn't awrded the prize in the NationStates General pageant

Indeed.

For example, I wasn't awrded the prize in the NationStates General pageant

Pity, that.

Indeed.

For example, I wasn't awrded the prize in the NationStates General pageant

A complete travesty in my opinion. *swoon*

Typical of Swedish politics, Yassar Arafat was awarded a Nobel Prize. The abuses of prizes never end.
i wonder,why, Einstein never had the nobel prize ? "roll eyes"

Love that Nic Robertson at CNN - he lets Hezbollah essentially choreograph his entire story so they won't shoot him - we can complain about journalistic independence for imbedded reporters only if they are imbedded with US troops - if they are with Hezbollah, "it must be true".


He repeatedly said that reporters were led around by the nose. He did his job properly.

He repeatedly said that reporters were led around by the nose. He did his job properly.
He didn't admit it until called on the carpet about it.

He didn't admit it until called on the carpet about it.

Uh...no. I saw the original report. He kept saying that they were being led around by public-affairs officials from Hezbollah, noting that they were being shown only what those guys wanted reporters to see.

i wonder,why, Einstein never had the nobel prize ? "roll eyes"Is that sarcastic or did you miss that he got one? :confused:

http://news.yahoo.com/s/afp/20060813/wl_mideast_afp/mideastconflictus_060813183058

My2cents: the white house has Denied its Role in Attacking Lebanon...
of course.


well lets look at the facts:

1) It was the world's most liberal newspaper that wrote the story
2) There is only 1 source. 1 interview. and there is no proof that mr. hersh did any actual resarch into the topic
3) any dimwitted idiot can write a story about the US invading lebanon. Hell i can do it now. The question is, is it true?

this is how conspiracy theories start people, fake news stories, lies and false information lead to half the problems we have in the world today. Next time you start a thread, try to make it something worth our while.

Is that sarcastic or did you miss that he got one? :confused:
no,it was highly dynamite

i wonder,why, Einstein never had the nobel prize ? "roll eyes"
He helped create the atomic bomb. If he can get one, Yasser Arafat can get one for sure.

Indeed.

For example, I wasn't awrded the prize in the NationStates General pageant

A woman scorned is a dangerous thing.

Seymour also believed there were WMD in Iraq. You going to trust him when he talks to "experts"?

I think that Seymour washes all of his stories in his rectum before publishing.
I follow Hersh's writing fairly closely, and I don't think he ever claimed such a thing. I could be wrong--he does a prodigious amount of work--but a quick google search turns up nothing of the sort, so I'd like you to back this up instead of sliming the guy who uncovered the My Lai massacre and did the best early work on Abu Ghraib. Hersh is no Judy Miller--he's a solid reporter, and one of the best of the last fifty years, which is why I imagine you're so desperate to link him to the other toadies you mentioned.

I follow Hersh's writing fairly closely, and I don't think he ever claimed such a thing. I could be wrong--he does a prodigious amount of work--but a quick google search turns up nothing of the sort, so I'd like you to back this up instead of sliming the guy who uncovered the My Lai massacre and did the best early work on Abu Ghraib. Hersh is no Judy Miller--he's a solid reporter, and one of the best of the last fifty years, which is why I imagine you're so desperate to link him to the other toadies you mentioned.

Show me his sources on this one. Oh, and I remember him saying not too long ago that we had troops inside Iran, and were about to attack - over six months ago. More bullshit.

If he has sources, they're playing him like a violin.

Capture of Soldiers, called "a fortunate timing"

Sun Aug 13, 2:37 PM ET
NEW YORK (AFP) - The US government was closely involved in planning
Israel's military operations against Lebanon's Hezbollah militia even before the July 12 kidnapping of two Israeli soldiers, a US magazine reported.

Pulitzer Prize-winning journalist Seymour Hersh writes in The New Yorker magazine that
President George W. Bush and Vice President
Dick Cheney were convinced that a successful Israeli bombing campaign against Hezbollah could ease Israel's security concerns and also serve as a prototype for a potential US preemptive attack to destroy
Iran's nuclear installations.

Citing an unnamed Middle East expert with knowledge of the current thinking of the Israeli and US governments, Hersh said Israel had devised a plan for attacking Hezbollah -- and shared it with Bush administration officials -- well before the July 12 kidnappings.

"When they grabbed the soldiers in early July, that was then a pretext" for Israel's assault on Hezbollah, Hersh said Sunday on CNN television.

"We (the US) worked closely with them (Israel) months before, not necessarily ... knowing when it was going to happen, but when there was an incident they will take advantage of the incident, what I call a fortunate timing'," Hersh said.

sources Yahoo/AFP/NewYorker/OcceanNEWS©2006
http://news.yahoo.com/s/afp/20060813/wl_mideast_afp/mideastconflictus_060813183058

My2cents: the white house has Denied its Role in Attacking Lebanon...
of course.

Your conspiracy theory would be better if the story broke before the invasion rather than after.

A woman scorned is a dangerous thing.

Should never have been scorned in the first place. :p

Your conspiracy theory would be better if the story broke before the invasion rather than after.

Yes, it's rather like a psychic saying, "I knew this would happen" after the event already happened.

As usual, OD wont reply to a single post in his forum.

He helped create the atomic bomb. If he can get one, Yasser Arafat can get one for sure.

Einstein was awarded the nobel prize in 1921, nearly 20 YEARS before work on the atomic bomb began.

Moreover he really didn't help create it. His formula helped yes, and he did write a letter to roosevelt urging the development of the project in response to german research.

But germany lost and the bomb was used, instead, on Japan. Einstein never supported the use of the bomb on Japan, nor did he do any actual work on the project.

This article made me laugh so much. Thanks for showing this to me.

Einstein was awarded the nobel prize in 1921, nearly 20 YEARS before work on the atomic bomb began.

Moreover he really didn't help create it. His formula helped yes, and he did write a letter to roosevelt urging the development of the project in response to german research.

But germany lost and the bomb was used, instead, on Japan. Einstein never supported the use of the bomb on Japan, nor did he do any actual work on the project.
you right and since dynamite was first use to gain ore,thus making the world better(economics),the world is getting better.

you right and since dynamite was first use to gain ore,thus making the world better(economics),the world is getting better.

....huh? What in the world does that have to do with anything?

....huh? What in the world does that have to do with anything?\

Nobel?

there you go

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

It wouldn't surprise me in the least if Israel had an ops plan for the attack on Hezbollah in Lebanon well before it was implemented, nor that they would share such with the Pentagon and State. In fact, it would surprise me if they didn't.

It's called provisional planning, people. You identify the ten or so greatest likelihoods of war, and make plans for dealing with the situation. That way, you're not caught with your pants down if the foreseen situation blows up in your face.

Everyone does this. You'd have to be stupid not to, and the IDF is not stupid.

\

Nobel?

You either don't speak english, or are functionally illiterate. Slow down, and explain yourself. Why in the world are you talking about dynamite?

OK yes Nobel inveted dynamite, once again what's that have to do with anything?

As usual, OD wont reply to a single post in his forum.Me-have-no-time.
Me-have-to-work.

It is possible this is true?. Yes.
It is possible this is NOT at all true? Yes, of course.

Does this story deserves to by re-published.. By Yahoo, AFP, CNN, and yours-trully ???

It made the desition it deserves to be published.. I shall live with the consequenses.

You either don't speak english, or are functionally illiterate. Slow down, and explain yourself. Why in the world are you talking about dynamite?

Alfred Nobel, for whom the prize was named, invented TNT.

You either don't speak english, or are functionally illiterate. Slow down, and explain yourself. Why in the world are you talking about dynamite?

Alfred Nobel invented dynamite. The story is that he was so wracked with guilt that he created the Nobel Prizes to expiate his shame. I don't believe a word of it; the man was not that much of an egomaniac. I figure he just created the prizes as a legacy.

It was not TNT. That was later.

You either don't speak english, or are functionally illiterate. Slow down, and explain yourself. Why in the world are you talking about dynamite?

OK yes Nobel inveted dynamite, once again what's that have to do with anything?

Nobel

"Several explosions were reported at their family-owned factory in Heleneborg, and a disastrous one in 1864 killed Alfred's younger brother Emil and several other workers."

"Nobel found that when nitroglycerin was incorporated in an absorbent inert substance like kieselguhr (diatomaceous earth) it became safer and more convenient to manipulate, and this mixture he patented in 1867 as dynamite. Nobel demonstrated his explosive for the first time that year, at a quarry in Redhill, Surrey, England."

Peace factor,you know

Alfred Nobel, for whom the prize was named, invented TNT.

Yes, I know. However he didn't win a nobel prize for it...

The whole contention seemed to be "well if Einstein, who helped invent the atomic bomb, which is a horrible thing, can win a nobel prize, then Arafat should be eligible to win one too".

I pointed out that

a) Einstein wasn't really as involved in the creation of an atomic bomb as most think, and was not part of the Manhattan project at ALL
b) he won his nobel in 1921, 20 years before work on the atomic bomb ever began, and he won it for an unrelated thing.

Then we can talk about dynamite...yes Alfred Nobel created dynamite, he didn't win the Nobel prize for it however. Which makes that point irrelevant.

Nobel

"Several explosions were reported at their family-owned factory in Heleneborg, and a disastrous one in 1864 killed Alfred's younger brother Emil and several other workers."

"Nobel found that when nitroglycerin was incorporated in an absorbent inert substance like kieselguhr (diatomaceous earth) it became safer and more convenient to manipulate, and this mixture he patented in 1867 as dynamite. Nobel demonstrated his explosive for the first time that year, at a quarry in Redhill, Surrey, England."

Peace factor,you know

Did Alfred Nobel win a Nobel prize for his creation of dynamite?

No?

Then what's that have to do with anything? Your claim was if Einstein, who worked on the A bomb, can win a nobel prize, then Arafat can too.

But einstein won his nobel prize YEARS before the atomic bomb was conceived of, and he didn't really work on the A bomb project at all.

Then you try to support your argument with the fact that Alfred Nobel invented dynamite, which is all well and good, but supports your argument ONLY if he actually won a nobel prize for it.

Which he didn't, and is therefore irrelevant.

Yes, I know. However he didn't win a nobel prize for it...

The whole contention seemed to be "well if Einstein, who helped invent the atomic bomb, which is a horrible thing, can win a nobel prize, then Arafat should be eligible to win one too".

I pointed out that

a) Einstein wasn't really as involved in the creation of an atomic bomb as most think, and was not part of the Manhattan project at ALL
b) he won his nobel in 1921, 20 years before work on the atomic bomb ever began, and he won it for an unrelated thing.

Then we can talk about dynamite...yes Alfred Nobel created dynamite, he didn't win the Nobel prize for it however. Which makes that point irrelevant.

no it doesn't that is why the noble prize exist

and the atom battle didn't begint in 1941

no it doesn't that is why the noble prize exist

Once again youve slid into the realm of obscurity.

What alfred nobel did in his life does not increase, nor diminish, the validity of the nobel prize.

What Einstein did after he won his, does not diminish his actions that won it.

What nobel did before creating the prize, in no way diminishes the value of the prize, or the goals it stands for.

The ONLY way your argument could POSSIBLY work, is if Alfred Nobel won a Nobel prize for his invention of dynamite.

He didn't. Thus your argument is an illogical fallacy.

Once again youve slid into the realm of obscurity.

What alfred nobel did in his life does not increase, nor diminish, the validity of the nobel prize.

What Einstein did after he won his, does not diminish his actions that won it.

What nobel did before creating the prize, in no way diminishes the value of the prize, or the goals it stands for.

The ONLY way your argument could POSSIBLY work, is if Alfred Nobel won a Nobel prize for his invention of dynamite.

He didn't. Thus your argument is an illogical fallacy.
it also may be how sarcasm works?

remember this tread goes over Libanon

it also may be how sarcasm works?

Only when wielded by someone who does not know how to use it effectivly it would seem. Either your claim was meant to be serious "if einstein won it and he worked on the bomb then arafat should be elligable" or it was a sarcastic attempt to liken einstein to arafat.

Either way it falls apart because...that's not why einstein won it, and in fact won it nearly 2 decades before his involvement in the development of the atomic bomb.

Even if it were sarcasm, it was a poor use of it.

Only when wielded by someone who does not know how to use it effectivly it would seem. Either your claim was meant to be serious "if einstein won it and he worked on the bomb then arafat should be elligable" or it was a sarcastic attempt to liken einstein to arafat.

Either way it falls apart because...that's not why einstein won it, and in fact won it nearly 2 decades before his involvement in the development of the atomic bomb.

Even if it were sarcasm, it was a poor use of it.
either you jump into it
eitheir i was fishing

Show me his sources on this one. Oh, and I remember him saying not too long ago that we had troops inside Iran, and were about to attack - over six months ago. More bullshit.

If he has sources, they're playing him like a violin.
Not what I asked you to show me. I asked you where you got off making the accusations that he'd said there were WMD in Iraq, since you used that to question his credibility. Now either show it or retract the statement. Until you do, your limited credibility is in question.

Seymour Hersch is a hack.

Doch wunderbar!

Furthermore, the current incursion has far more as it's basis than the kidnapping of the Israeli soldiers. The situation on the Israel-Lebanon border had been one of tremendous hostility for quite some time. Hiz'bo'allah has been shooting Katyusha rockets into Israel for ages, and launching attacks on Israeli troops and infrastructure. The kidnapping of the soldiers just brought it to a boiling point.

Seymour Hersch is a hack.

Doch wunderbar!

Furthermore, the current incursion has far more as it's basis than the kidnapping of the Israeli soldiers. The situation on the Israel-Lebanon border had been one of tremendous hostility for quite some time. Hiz'bo'allah has been shooting Katyusha rockets into Israel for ages, and launching attacks on Israeli troops and infrastructure. The kidnapping of the soldiers just brought it to a boiling point.
it is like israel never went into libanon

it is like israel never went into libanon
Which was initially prompted by the PLO's cross border attacks. When analyzing the cycle of violence between Israel and Lebanon, the hostilities commenced when Lebanese forces invaded in Israel in 1948, and were beaten back. Then further hostilities were brought on when the Lebanese government lent it's support to Arab Liberation Army. The Israeli's thumped the ALA and withdrew. Arafat's PLO came to prominence in southern Lebanon, and used the region as a launching point for attacks against northern Israel. The IDF moved to eliminate this threat with the invasion and occupation of Southern Lebanon. The attacks carried out by the PLO from southern Lebanon were in direct violation of UN Security Council Resolution 425 and 426.

Some British newspapers today, eg the Independent, have similar stories. It doesn't sound like one man's fabrication. :)

Which was initially prompted by the PLO's cross border attacks. When analyzing the cycle of violence between Israel and Lebanon, the hostilities commenced when Lebanese forces invaded in Israel in 1948, and were beaten back. Then further hostilities were brought on when the Lebanese government lent it's support to Arab Liberation Army. The Israeli's thumped the ALA and withdrew. Arafat's PLO came to prominence in southern Lebanon, and used the region as a launching point for attacks against northern Israel. The IDF moved to eliminate this threat with the invasion and occupation of Southern Lebanon. The attacks carried out by the PLO from southern Lebanon were in direct violation of UN Security Council Resolution 425 and 426.
The UN?
And all vetos,right?

The UN?
And all vetos,right?
425 and 426 were passed without being vetoed. One called for the Israelis to withdraw from southern Lebanon, the other called for the various militias in southern Lebanon, espescially the PLO, to disarm and cease attacking the Israelis. The Israelis withdrew, but the PLO continued attacking, as such, according to the UNSC resolutions, the Israelis were justified in re-invading and re-occupying southern Lebanon.

Y'know, all I see in this conflict is that it is a precursor to World War III, which will probably be known by the Middle Eastern Arabs as The Great Jihad.

It's coming. I just know it.

Riiight... :rolleyes:

Y'know, all I see in this conflict is that it is a precursor to World War III, which will probably be known by the Middle Eastern Arabs as The Great Jihad.

It's coming. I just know it.
just see it as a repeating machin gun.
we just can not learn

just see it as a repeating machin gun.
we just can not learn

Y'know, two of the main reasons we have wars is over religion and over lack of resources.

If everyone just dropped their beliefs (or converted to one world-wide religion) and learned to share, I guarantee you, 90% of the world's conflicts would just disappear.

Seymour Hersch is a hack.

And you base that opinion on what, exactly? His work on the Abu Ghraib story? His work on My Lai? His nearly 40 year career as one of the greats of US journalism?

Or on what some right-wing blogger who doesn't like his stories says about him?

Attack the story all you want--assuming you can--but trying to smear Hersh without any evidence is pathetic. I see a hack here--the person whose post I'm quoting.

Exhibit 1 - Seymour Wrong
http://www.slate.com/?id=2058474

Love that Nic Robertson at CNN - he lets Hezbollah essentially choreograph his entire story so they won't shoot him - we can complain about journalistic independence for imbedded reporters only if they are imbedded with US troops - if they are with Hezbollah, "it must be true".
No different from embedded journalists then.

Edit: (I'm showing my dislike of any embedded journalists, no matter what side they report from)

There was a debate about this a couple of days after the start of the war.

It was generally agreed that 'yes, this was an off the shelf plan'.

Anyone who believes otherwise has no idea how the military works.

On a more positive note for the board. The thread also accurately predicted most of the key events up until the ceasefire, although I think that the UN bombing was only covered under 'high media profile civilian casualties' which I feel was not a correct catergorisation.

Rather sad that we could see where it was going and that, apparently, the US, UK and Israeli governments couldn't.

Y'know, two of the main reasons we have wars is over religion politics economics and over lack of resources.

If everyone just dropped their beliefs (or converted to one world-wide religion) and learned to share, I guarantee you, 90% of the world's conflicts would just disappear.
know

The allegations are probably accurate. But considering somewhat up to date plans for invading Canada and Mexico probably exist, and likely Canadian scenerios for invading America, completely unsurprising. That professional militaries of states plan and game extensively for scenerios where they must practice the art of war when they're not involved in performing it is no great revelation. In fact this has been ancient chinese wisdom for 2000 years.

The allegations are probably accurate. But considering somewhat up to date plans for invading Canada and Mexico probably exist, and likely Canadian scenerios for invading America, completely unsurprising. That professional militaries of states plan and game extensively for scenerios where they must practice the art of war when they're not involved in performing it is no great revelation. In fact this has been ancient chinese wisdom for 2000 years.
well sun tzu was older and nobody from the military academy,knows him

Exhibit 1 - Seymour Wrong
http://www.slate.com/?id=2058474
Lot of supposition in that piece. For instance: In the absence of official comment, there is, of course, no way to know conclusively whether the raiders succeeded in inserting an undercover team. But if Hersh is suggesting that the United States has, in general, been incapable of such covert insertions, he's almost surely wrong. You'd think a piece making such strong claims about Hersh's work would be more definitive than that.

And you base that opinion on what, exactly? His work on the Abu Ghraib story? His work on My Lai? His nearly 40 year career as one of the greats of US journalism?

Or on what some right-wing blogger who doesn't like his stories says about him?

Attack the story all you want--assuming you can--but trying to smear Hersh without any evidence is pathetic. I see a hack here--the person whose post I'm quoting.
I base my opinion on some of his more recent work, espescially that regarding Iran and the rest of the middle east. Mr. Hersh has had a distinguished career in the past, espescially regarding the My Lai massacre, but he's allowed his ideology to increasingly influence his reporting, and value information that would otherwise be unacceptable.

First: His claims regarding US Spec Ops forces in Iran. Claims that remain unsubstantiated. He seemed to have been a crowd on the left which was dead certain that Bush was planning another war in that country, and was willing to accept any source, credible or not, on the issue.

Second: His claims regarding US Spec Ops forces in Afghanistan. This is covered by DK's article.

Thirdly: His claims regarding US Plans for use of nuclear weapons in the event of a war with Iran. He conveniently forgets that these sorts of plans exist for every country capable of producing a nuclear weapon in the near-term.

Fourth: This one will turn out to be another charge against Mr. Hersh. I fail to see the benefit that the US would receive from planning an assault against Lebanon, and using the Israelis at its proxy in the region for this assault.


If you shoot at a target enough, you'll eventually get some bullseyes. I increasingly fear that this is what Mr. Hersh is doing, espescially in light of some of his good work in the past. I was a bit rash with my use of the word hack, but, forumland doesn't always become conducive to the best sorts of judgement on my part.

Fourth: This one will turn out to be another charge against Mr. Hersh. I fail to see the benefit that the US would receive from planning an assault against Lebanon, and using the Israelis at its proxy in the region for this assault.


I fail to see what Israel gains from planning and executing an assault against Lebanon. Doesn't make the actions of the last month any less of a fact though. The obvious deficiencies in the outcomes propagated by such an invasion are clearly contrary to US best interest, unless the US is playing a deeper game. It would certainly explain the otherwise non-sensical actions of the US in relation to the conflict if their closest allies were acting, at least partially, according to a US script.

+1000 Sy Hersch, i've never been dissapointed with my New Yorker subscription and never will be.


No reasonable person anywhere believed that this was a spontaneous response to the capture of a few soldiers.

I fail to see what Israel gains from planning and executing an assault against Lebanon. Doesn't make the actions of the last month any less of a fact though. The obvious deficiencies in the outcomes propagated by such an invasion are clearly contrary to US best interest, unless the US is playing a deeper game. It would certainly explain the otherwise non-sensical actions of the US in relation to the conflict if their closest allies were acting, at least partially, according to a US script.
What Israel gains is that they've been able to push Hiz'bo'allah farther north, beyond the rang of the 117mm and 170mm Katyusha rockets. Hiz'bo'allah has been firing rockets at Israel for years, and the kidnapping of the soldiers was just the catalyst to set the reaction into full speed. Not only that, but driving Hiz'bo'allah back from the border also succeeds in limiting their ability to launch guerrilla raids into Israel proper.

Those both seem like perfectly logical reasons for Israel to launch their attacks to me.

+1000 Sy Hersch, i've never been dissapointed with my New Yorker subscription and never will be.


No reasonable person anywhere believed that this was a spontaneous response to the capture of a few soldiers.
Of course it wasn't. The capture of the soldiers was a trigger event, that set off a powder keg that Hiz'bo'allah has been filling up for years, with each and every single rocket and cross border attack it launches into Israel.

unless the US is playing a deeper game. .
hear hear,they forgot they just were not alone.:p

hear hear,they forgot they just were not alone.:p
Fine. If the US is playing a deeper game, give me an outline as to what it might be. You're making the charge, the burden of proof is on you.

Fine. If the US is playing a deeper game, give me an outline as to what it might be. You're making the charge, the burden of proof is on you.
well see it like this,i have no proof but history,where/when do you want to begin?

well see it like this,i have no proof but history,where/when do you want to begin?
Wherever you want to.

Wherever you want to.
ok
Socii?
http://www.ancientlibrary.com/smith-dgra/1058.html

http://columbia.thefreedictionary.com/Crassus

What Israel gains is that they've been able to push Hiz'bo'allah farther north, beyond the rang of the 117mm and 170mm Katyusha rockets. Hiz'bo'allah has been firing rockets at Israel for years, and the kidnapping of the soldiers was just the catalyst to set the reaction into full speed. Not only that, but driving Hiz'bo'allah back from the border also succeeds in limiting their ability to launch guerrilla raids into Israel proper.


Really? My understanding is that, since Israel started the war they have been continously firing missiles into Israel and they were right up until I last checked a few hours ago. In fact, the desperate face saving land grab carried out by airborne forces in a pathetic attempt to save face will have done little to stop the attacks. I expect any slow in rocket fire will come from a strategic directive in relation to the UN ceasefire initiative.
My understanding is also that the IDF has not pushed Hizbollah back significantly and that Hizbollah still occupies much of the territory claimed by the IDF.
Part of the reason that Hizbollah launched its operation to capture a number of IDF members was to force an exchange for prisoners captured by the IDF following their own raids/artillery shelling/psychological aerial warfare that the IDF as been prosecuting for many years (just check out the UNIFIL reports chronicilling the violations of both sides). Hizbollah will also argue that it was seeking to defend the Palestinians following the IDFs actions post-Cpl Shalit's capture (which was in turn triggered by the seizure of two Palestinians). This will turn it into the champion of many who seek a change to the Israel/Palestine equation.

The invasion has also stopped the decline of Hizbollah's influence and home popularity. Following the Cedar Revolution Hizbollah's close ties to Syria saw it take a serious nosedive in power and influence. The many years of ultra-low intensity warfare also served to sap Hizbollah's support. Without a viable and direct interuption to people's live, the Lebanese began to question the need for Hizbollah in anything other than a local government role.
However, since the invasion Hizbollah is being seen not just as the only defender of a nation crippled for an action it did not support but also as the only large organisation to have inflicted a strategic defeat on the IDF since Israel's creation. As such it has now become a rallying point for people with an interest in combating the IDF.
Israel's actions have provided a popular reason for Hizbollah not to disarm.

It is also possible to argue that never has Nasrallah's standing been so high in the Middle East.

Seriously, what has the IDF's venture into Lebanon actually achieved for Israel? Other than the re-creation of a strong and competent military and political force?

ok
Socii?
http://www.ancientlibrary.com/smith-dgra/1058.html

http://columbia.thefreedictionary.com/Crassus
I'm not talking about how the US has used the Israelis as proxies or the possibility that the US has used the US as proxies (although they're more akin to the relationship North Vietnam had to the USSR, very, very independent). Instead I'm talking about what goal would the US achieve by doing this with the Israelis. I fail to see any goal that's particularly beneficial to the US that can be derived from this.

Y'know, all I see in this conflict is that it is a precursor to World War III, which will probably be known by the Middle Eastern Arabs as The Great Jihad.

It's coming. I just know it.
You are so very, very ignorant.

Sunni and Shi'ite will never work together, nor does the Middle East really have any force projection abilities.

Really? My understanding is that, since Israel started the war they have been continously firing missiles into Israel and they were right up until I last checked a few hours ago. In fact, the desperate face saving land grab carried out by airborne forces in a pathetic attempt to save face will have done little to stop the attacks. I expect any slow in rocket fire will come from a strategic directive in relation to the UN ceasefire initiative.
My understanding is also that the IDF has not pushed Hizbollah back significantly and that Hizbollah still occupies much of the territory claimed by the IDF.
Part of the reason that Hizbollah launched its operation to capture a number of IDF members was to force an exchange for prisoners captured by the IDF following their own raids/artillery shelling/psychological aerial warfare that the IDF as been prosecuting for many years (just check out the UNIFIL reports chronicilling the violations of both sides). Hizbollah will also argue that it was seeking to defend the Palestinians following the IDFs actions post-Cpl Shalit's capture (which was in turn triggered by the seizure of two Palestinians). This will turn it into the champion of many who seek a change to the Israel/Palestine equation.

The invasion has also stopped the decline of Hizbollah's influence and home popularity. Following the Cedar Revolution Hizbollah's close ties to Syria saw it take a serious nosedive in power and influence. The many years of ultra-low intensity warfare also served to sap Hizbollah's support. Without a viable and direct interuption to people's live, the Lebanese began to question the need for Hizbollah in anything other than a local government role.
However, since the invasion Hizbollah is being seen not just as the only defender of a nation crippled for an action it did not support but also as the only large organisation to have inflicted a strategic defeat on the IDF since Israel's creation. As such it has now become a rallying point for people with an interest in combating the IDF.
Israel's actions have provided a popular reason for Hizbollah not to disarm.

It is also possible to argue that never has Nasrallah's standing been so high in the Middle East.

Seriously, what has the IDF's venture into Lebanon actually achieved for Israel? Other than the re-creation of a strong and competent military and political force?
Cycle of violence, as stated. It still doesn't change the fact that the intention of the Israelis has been to drive Hiz'bo'allah northwards. I was arguing solely as to the intention of the Israelis, not any other part of the matter, be it the efficacy of the Israeli actions or otherwise..

I'm not talking about how the US has used the Israelis as proxies or the possibility that the US has used the US as proxies (although they're more akin to the relationship North Vietnam had to the USSR, very, very independent). Instead I'm talking about what goal would the US achieve by doing this with the Israelis. I fail to see any goal that's particularly beneficial to the US that can be derived from this.

may be they know that it has nothig to do with nation states

You are so very, very ignorant.

Sunni and Shi'ite will never work together, nor does the Middle East really have any force projection abilities.
While I disagree with the conclusion that the current conflicts are the beginnings of a WWIII, I disagree that the Middle East has any means of force projection. While the classical military means it lacks, an unconventional option remains available to it: The ability to cut off much of the wests oil supply.

Cycle of violence, as stated. It still doesn't change the fact that the intention of the Israelis has been to drive Hiz'bo'allah northwards. I was arguing solely as to the intention of the Israelis, not any other part of the matter, be it the efficacy of the Israeli actions or otherwise..

But it was only ever going to achieve the opposite. It was really obvious that it was only ever going to achieve the opposite. Thus, unless you consider the leaders of the IDF to be incompetent/imbeciles then you can not seriously believe that that was there objective.

I see that the IDF have also done really well getting those two soldiers back. Maybe they were hoping that bombing and shelling the area they were 'believed' to be held in would somehow blow them back across the border.

Operation Just Reward's least two important aims were rescuing the two captured soldiers and damaging Hizbollah.

But it was only ever going to achieve the opposite. It was really obvious that it was only ever going to achieve the opposite. Thus, unless you consider the leaders of the IDF to be incompetent/imbeciles then you can not seriously believe that that was there objective.

I see that the IDF have also done really well getting those two soldiers back. Maybe they were hoping that bombing and shelling the area they were 'believed' to be held in would somehow blow them back across the border.

Operation Just Reward's least two important aims were rescuing the two captured soldiers and damaging Hizbollah.
That cannot be said for certain. It's clear that Hiz'bo'allah has ceased firing rockets into northern Israel, an improvement over the pre-war situation, and, if a substantial international force is able to seize control in souther Lebanon, and maintain that control to sufficiently limit the paramilitary operations of Hiz'bo'allah, the Israelis goals seem to have been accomplished.

Attack the story all you want--assuming you can--but trying to smear Hersh without any evidence is pathetic. I see a hack here--the person whose post I'm quoting.

Actually, even if his name is Mr. Smith, and we know nothing else, I would expect him to have evidence that is verifiable by an outside party.

Either another public source that says, "Yes, this is true." (and that source had better have first hand solid evidence such as an unforged document), or the story should leave us with the true, easy ability to verify it ourselves.

Otherwise, just alluding to "anonymous sources" like the ones that said we were running around in Iran ready to nuke them are just stories pulled out of his ass.

Especially when the story is completely after the fact. If he had put the story up a week before the soldiers were kidnapped, it would have been great.

I'm not the one who has to prove anything. Seymour is.

And I see no verifiable proof at all - so much for the vaunted standards of the mainstream media.