Two Israeli soldiers captured seven killed in Hezbollah attack

[Owais]

Hezbollah claims to have beaten back Israeli forces BEIRUT: Israeli forces launched new ground attacks into southern Lebanon early on Tuesday but were beaten back by Hezbollah guerrillas, the militia said in a statement.

"The Israeli forces started from Monday night until the early hours of the morning (Tuesday) to try to take control of the triangle of Aita al-Chaab/al-Qaozah/Ramie villages but Hezbollah fighters confronted them, forcing them to retreat," it said.

Hezbollah said fierce battles with Israeli forces backed by helicopters, fighter-bombers and heavy artillery took place during the night northeast of the village.

It said Israeli troops were trying to take control of a hill overlooking all three villages.

The Israeli cabinet earlier Tuesday approved the expansion of the army's ground operation in southern Lebanon, from where Hezbollah has been launching rockets into Israel.

Israel launched air strikes against Lebanese border villages on Tuesday, the second day of what it said would be a 48-hour halt to aerial bombardment
against the south, Lebanese security sources and witnesses said.

They said Israeli aircraft hit Bayyada and Mansoureh in southern Lebanon while Israeli artillery struck other areas.

Meanwhile, Hezbollah has claimed to destroy an Israeli warship.

Syrian President Bashar al-Assad ordered the armed forces "to step up their state of
readiness" in the face of Israel's continuing offensive against his country's western neighbour, the official news agency said.

The president ordered troops to "intensify their training efforts, be prepared and increase their state of readiness in the light of the international situation and the challenges in the region," it said

 

[parihaka]

Syrian President Bashar al-Assad ordered the armed forces "to step up their state of
readiness" in the face of Israel's continuing offensive against his country's western neighbour, the official news agency said.

The president ordered troops to "intensify their training efforts, be prepared and increase their state of readiness in the light of the international situation and the challenges in the region," it said

This is turning to hell in a handbasket. If President Bashar al-Assad thinks this sort of rhetoric is going to help the situation he's a fool, if it's more than rhetoric then it's the surest way to turn large parts of the Middle East into glass parking lots that I can think of.:wall:

 

[sigatoka]

This is turning to hell in a handbasket. If [/size]President Bashar al-Assad thinks this sort of rhetoric is going to help the situation he's a fool, if it's more than rhetoric then it's the surest way to turn large parts of the Middle East into glass parking lots that I can think of.:wall:

How is it rhetoric to ask the armed forces to be increase training and readyness to face the increasing probability that Israel might turn on it next?

What else should he say? Armed forces to take all their sick leaves now?

 

[parihaka]

How is it rhetoric to ask the armed forces to be increase training and readyness to face the increasing probability that Israel might turn on it next?

What else should he say? Armed forces to take all their sick leaves now?

Because he announced it publicly, for international consumption. You can put your forces on any state of readiness you like without announcing it to the world, so by announcing it he's deliberately upping the anti at the exact time that every player in this scenario needs to grow up.

 

[sigatoka]

Because he announced it publicly, for international consumption. You can put your forces on any state of readiness you like without announcing it to the world, so by announcing it he's deliberately upping the anti at the exact time that every player in this scenario needs to grow up.

Is revealing your intentions good or bad?? This is the question really and the answer is it depends on what the situation is.

If your planning a suprise attack (eg Yom Kippur) then you wouldnt announce publicly that your mobiling your forces and placing it on high alert. (for obvious reasons)

When your trying to deter the opponent from attacking you, you want to convince the opposition that you are fully prepared, that training and readiness is there. Why would you do this? To convince the opponent that an attack will result in the maximum possible casualities.

Signalling (what the Syrians are doing) forms an important component of many strategies (whether we are trying to signal false deceptive ones or truthful ones.)

And your analysis that this is upping the ante is wrong, if anything this reduces (however slightly) the chance of war.

 

[parihaka]

Is revealing your intentions good or bad?? This is the question really and the answer is it depends on what the situation is.

If your planning a suprise attack (eg Yom Kippur) then you wouldnt announce publicly that your mobiling your forces and placing it on high alert. (for obvious reasons)

When your trying to deter the opponent from attacking you, you want to convince the opposition that you are fully prepared, that training and readiness is there. Why would you do this? To convince the opponent that an attack will result in the maximum possible casualities.

Signalling (what the Syrians are doing) forms an important component of many strategies (whether we are trying to signal false deceptive ones or truthful ones.)

Your opponent knows full well what your capabilities are without a public announcement, else they wouldn't be much of an opponent.
My contention is that his announcement was for public consumption, not for any practical defensive posture, and is simply increasing the tension in an already volatile situation, and placing himself and Syria in a position of weakness by limiting his/its options.
At what point Does Syria decide that Israel has attacked it? When the Isreali attacks occur right on the border with Lebanon? When a Syrian national is killed? After this utterance it will be hard for him to refuse when the public clamor for revenge.

 

[sigatoka]

1. Your opponent knows full well what your capabilities are without a public announcement, else they wouldn't be much of an opponent.


2. My contention is that his announcement was for public consumption, not for any practical defensive posture, and is simply increasing the tension in an already volatile situation, and placing himself and Syria in a position of weakness by limiting his/its options.

3. At what point Does Syria decide that Israel has attacked it? When the Isreali attacks occur right on the border with Lebanon? When a Syrian national is killed? After this utterance it will be hard for him to refuse when the public clamor for revenge.

1. You are flat wrong, we live in a world with imperfect information. If you were right, Yom Kippur wouldnt happen.

2. Is committment (limiting options) better than flexiblity (keeping open options)? It depends on the situation (game). There are some games where it is better to have flexibility, and others where limiting choices/commiting is better.

In this game, for Syria committment is a better strategy at the moment than flexibility. He places Syria in a better position by being forced to fight (becoz of public annoncement) than if he said nothing.


3. Im not really sure (im not in charge of Syria's military) but my best guess would be when Israel conducts airstrikes or artillery strikes within Syrian territory killing civilians and/or military people.


At this point i would explain why committment is better but Im tired from uni so if you disagree or dont understand a specific point pliz reply.

 

[Owais]

Hizbullah claims over 20 Israeli soldiers killed BEIRUT: Hizbullah claimed Tuesday that over 20 Israeli soldiers were killed and one tank and a bulldozer were destroyed in heavy exchanges of fire with Israeli troops in southern Lebanon.

The clash took place near the village of Ayta a-Shaab. Another Israeli soldier was lightly hurt in Maroun A-Ras, also in southern Lebanon.

The Israeli army said that at least 20 Hizbullah fighters have been killed in the clashes.

According to Haaretz, Israeli units were operating in a number of areas within Lebanon on Tuesday morning, deep in the central and western fronts. A total of five units - thousands of soldiers - are currently deployed in Lebanon.

Hizbullah said that its fighters continued to "confront" Israeli ground troops in Kfar Kila, Adaisse, and Taibeh, near the Lebanese town of Marjayoun.

Although Israel suspended most airstrikes on the south for 48 hours, its warplanes struck deep inside the country Tuesday hitting roads linking Lebanon with Syria in the Hermel region.

 

[Owais]

Israel ready for Hizbullah prisoner swap: paper


JERUSALEM (updated on: August 01, 2006, 12:46 PST): Israel is ready to swap two Lebanese prisoners in exchange for two soldiers whose capture by Hizbullah guerrillas triggered a three-week-old war, Israel's Haaretz newspaper said on Tuesday.

The daily quoted government and defence officials as saying that such a deal could be part of a cease-fire agreement. Israel had said it would not negotiate a prisoner exchange after Hizbullah seized the two in a July 12 border raid.

Israeli officials were not immediately available for comment on the Haaretz report.

The paper said Israel would be ready to free Abu Amra Mamad, a Lebanese convicted of possessing weapons, and one illegal alien in exchange for the soldiers Eldad Regev and Ehud Goldwasser.

But it said Israel would not agree to free the longest-held Lebanese detainee, Samir Qantar, who was captured during a 1979 attack in Israel in which guerrillas killed a policeman, another man and his four-year-old daughter.

In 2004, Hizbullah and Israel exchanged the bodies of three Israeli soldiers kidnapped in 2000 and an abducted Israeli businessman for the release of 400 Palestinian and 23 Lebanese and Arab prisoners in a German-negotiated deal.

 

[Owais]

Israel policy in Lebanon unacceptable: EU president


BRUSSELS (updated on: August 01, 2006, 15:16 PST): Israel's decision to step up military action in Lebanon is unacceptable and will only stoke extremism in the Middle East, European Union president Finland said on Tuesday.

Finnish Foreign Minister Erkki Tuomioja, who will chair an emergency meeting of EU foreign ministers on the crisis later on Tuesday, told reporters the 25-nation bloc must take a united stance at the risk of making clear its difference with the United States, which backs Israel.

"It is unacceptable for Israel to continue with its current policy," he said before briefing European Parliament leaders.

"The words of Mr (Prime Minister Ehud) Olmert and his plans for further military attacks is concerning and we have this message to him: it is unlikely to bring military success, it will only fuel the support for Hizbullah and other extremists in the region."

 

[parihaka]

1. You are flat wrong, we live in a world with imperfect information. If you were right, Yom Kippur wouldnt happen.

Israel is already effectively on a war footing and will be well aware of Syrias troop dispositions

2. Is committment (limiting options) better than flexiblity (keeping open options)? It depends on the situation (game). There are some games where it is better to have flexibility, and others where limiting choices/commiting is better.

I believe keeping flexibility is the key to this.

In this game, for Syria committment is a better strategy at the moment than flexibility. He places Syria in a better position by being forced to fight (becoz of public annoncement) than if he said nothing.

I don't see how advertising your intentions and commiting yourself to a conventional (as opposed to guerilla) war is benficial to Syria. At the moment the conflict is limited to Lebanon. Any battle between conventional forces is an escalation. Either Israel destroys the Syrian Air Force and can then systematically destroy Syrias ground forces or is defeated and placed under immanent threat of invasion. Under the first scenario Syria is defeated and Iran is likely to step in to protect its flank. This is the ideal scenario for Bush who I think we all agree is hanging out for the chance to attack Iran.
Under the second scenario Israel can and will use nuclear weapons to defend itself. Either way, civilian casualties make what is currently happening look like a picnic. Cool heads need to prevailand the excuses for a full middle east war need to be avoided. The quicker this can be brought to an end the better for ALL concerned.

 

[sigatoka]

2. Is committment (limiting options) better than flexiblity (keeping open options)? It depends on the situation (game). There are some games where it is better to have flexibility, and others where limiting choices/commiting is better.

In this game, for Syria committment is a better strategy at the moment than flexibility. He places Syria in a better position by being forced to fight (becoz of public annoncement) than if he said nothing.


At this point i would explain why committment is better but Im tired from uni so if you disagree or dont understand a specific point pliz reply.

Refreshed from a shower so here goes.

2. Lets assume Parika is assad's sole adviser. She advices the president with one word "flexiblity".

The Israel's bombs and blast their way ten kms into Syria. Assad's turns to Parika and says "wat shoudl we do?". She says, well.....if we fight our entire military wil be destroyed and our economy shattered, so between fighting and not fighting I say we dont fight so at least we are not completely destroyed.

The Israelis gleefuly kill tens of thousands of troops and push up to Damascus. Assad scared turns to Parika who says dont worry, we can evacuate and move out of Damascus, because fighting will result in our military destroyed and economy destroyed. Damascus is not worth shatterning the nation for. So they withdraw again.

This continues because at each point Assad turns to Parika, she rationally tells him........to fight is worse than not to fight.

After a few weeks, the entire syrian military is destroyed without fighting except 200 who are holed up in the north north eastern town of crapula with Assad and Parika. (the rest of the country is known as the Syrian District of Greater Israel).

Israel demands that Crapula be surrended, so Assad turns to Parika and is suprised to hear, "lets fight". Why asks Assad do u wish to fight now with 200 soldiers? Parika answers rationally that the payoffs from not fighting and fighting is the same. Either way we lose the last town and 200 soldiers.

That dear friend is the cost of flexibility or in your words keeping options open.

However lets rewind to the start with me as the presidents advisor just b4 the attack by Israel.

I tell the president to publicly committ to fighting if Israels crosses the border and strikes with planes and artillery. The president is suprised and says, but then we will be forced to fight because public backdown will be humiliating. I say that is the very point.

The reason i explain is that if the Israel recognise that we will be forced to fight, their payoffs will change. This means that for their 10km strip of land they will expend more dollars and casualities. The cost to Israel rises when they recognise that Syria will fight. (and this new fact created by Syria's Committment reduces the chances that fighting will happen and is therefore beneficial to Syria)

 

[sigatoka]

1. I believe keeping flexibility is the key to this. I don't see how advertising your intentions and commiting yourself to a conventional (as opposed to guerilla) war is benficial to Syria.

2. Either Israel destroys the Syrian Air Force and can then systematically destroy Syrias ground forces or is defeated and placed under immanent threat of invasion.

3. Cool heads need to prevailand the excuses for a full middle east war need to be avoided. The quicker this can be brought to an end the better for ALL concerned.

1. I just posted, (u posted while i was still typin it up)

2. Committing to fighting (and being destroyed) can lower the chance of fighting starting (and thus paradoxically reduce the chance of being destroyed)

3. What if cool heads tell us that more can be gained from fighting? (Conflict by defintion reduces the sum of welfare of all involved, but theres nothing thats said about shifts in welfare between combatants.) My point is, fighting will not cease if any of the participants believe that they can gain more than they lose.

 

[parihaka]

Refreshed from a shower so here goes.

2. Lets assume Parika is assad's sole adviser. She advices the president with one word "flexiblity".

The Israel's bombs and blast their way ten kms into Syria. Assad's turns to Parika and says "wat shoudl we do?". She says, well.....if we fight our entire military wil be destroyed and our economy shattered, so between fighting and not fighting I say we dont fight so at least we are not completely destroyed.

The Israelis gleefuly kill tens of thousands of troops and push up to Damascus. Assad scared turns to Parika who says dont worry, we can evacuate and move out of Damascus, because fighting will result in our military destroyed and economy destroyed. Damascus is not worth shatterning the nation for. So they withdraw again.

This continues because at each point Assad turns to Parika, she rationally tells him........to fight is worse than not to fight.

After a few weeks, the entire syrian military is destroyed without fighting except 200 who are holed up in the north north eastern town of crapula with Assad and Parika. (the rest of the country is known as the Syrian District of Greater Israel).

Israel demands that Crapula be surrended, so Assad turns to Parika and is suprised to hear, "lets fight". Why asks Assad do u wish to fight now with 200 soldiers? Parika answers rationally that the payoffs from not fighting and fighting is the same. Either way we lose the last town and 200 soldiers.

That dear friend is the cost of flexibility or in your words keeping options open.

However lets rewind to the start with me as the presidents advisor just b4 the attack by Israel.

I tell the president to publicly committ to fighting if Israels crosses the border and strikes with planes and artillery. The president is suprised and says, but then we will be forced to fight because public backdown will be humiliating. I say that is the very point.

The reason i explain is that if the Israel recognise that we will be forced to fight, their payoffs will change. This means that for their 10km strip of land they will expend more dollars and casualities. The cost to Israel rises when they recognise that Syria will fight. (and this new fact created by Syria's Committment reduces the chances that fighting will happen and is therefore beneficial to Syria)

Okay dokey. Firstly it's he, not she, and parihaka, not parika. (parihaka by the way is Maori for 'the art of passive resistance') and no offence taken as I know you didn't mean any.
Secondly, I'm not advocating constant withdrawl or in any way not resisting Israeli agression, but simply not letting your enemy know your intention beforehand and not providing an excuse for escalation and involvement when that helps no one.
What I WOULD say to Assad is if you need to make public utterances of this nature to give yourself backbone, you need a new job.
Now back to the real world.
Under whatever scenario of escalation to a convential war, Syria looses, irrespective of whether Israel looses or not. Any leader under these circumstances should be trying to cool the situation down, not heat it up with meaningless public rhetoric.

 

[parihaka]

What if cool heads tell us that more can be gained from fighting? (Conflict by defintion reduces the sum of welfare of all involved, but theres nothing thats said about shifts in welfare between combatants.) My point is, fighting will not cease if any of the participants believe that they can gain more than they lose.

This is a scenario where the big sharks are circling, looking for the chance to become involved. Given no option Syria must fight to defend herself, but braggadocio benefits no-one.