Thread: Israeli Propaganda

Originally Posted by zraver

Because International Law is not binding on islamic governments. we are seeing that now with Iran.

Sure ?

The Relation between International Law, Islamic Law and Constitutional Law of the IRI.pdf

How does the NPT contravene shariah ?

Goal of the NPT is the reduction and ultimate ellimination of nuclear weapons worldwide. As such this is seen as a goal beneficial to all let alone muslims.

When treaties are seen at variance with shariah, the states concerned file reservations along with their instruments of ratification/accession. No such reservation AFAICT has been filed by any arab country wrt to the NPT. That these countries ratified/aceeded to the NPT implies they found the NPT consistent with their own domestic law and agreed to honour their obligations. Otherwise they would not ratify/accede to such a treaty.

If Iran quits the NPT it won't be because of islamic law but rather that the NPT itself allows members to do so, see NoK.

Originally Posted by zraver

Islam is officially at war with everyone else and treaties are only binding so long as it favors Moslems.

Islamic law allows suspension of war. Permanent war was infeasible even in the times of the prophet.

Originally Posted by zraver

As soon as the treaty is a disadvantage Moslem rulers are allowed by the religion to discard it.

Iran has pleaded its case in the past using international law and refrained from using islamic law as a basis.

Originally Posted by zraver

People go on and on about Iran violating the NPT but from a society that is officially an Islamic state the supreme law is the religion and they are doing exactly what the religion tells them to do.

Read the conclusion of the above linked pdf. It deals specifically with Iran.

Although Islamic law is still at odds with international law, Islamic states have largely accepted the binding character of the latter in spite of its discrepancy to Islamic law.

Otherwise what you are saying implies no islamic state is capable of honouring an international treaty.

Originally Posted by astralis

col yu,

Sorry, Eric, delayed reply. Was not feeling too well.

Originally Posted by astralis

either way, they need to limit their involvement lest they invite a war with israel.

The Chinese example was not to invite war but the perception of inviting war. What the Chinese have done in Vietnam was to present a completely false picture that raises a cost to the Americans that the US was not willing to pay. Absent from this picture was that the Chinese could not afford such a commitment and had no intentions of inviting such a war.

Originally Posted by astralis

china demonstrated through the korean war that they could impose fairly significant costs on the US through conventional warfare.

And you are forgetting (but not Mao) was that the Chinese economy collapsed or rather stayed collapsed because of the Korean War. The Chinese could have no more afford to wage such another war than Iran could at this moment.

Originally Posted by astralis

so iran must know that the extent to which they can actually fight israel is through nukes, which means they NEED to make the choice, qoms/tehran for lebanon.

But the need is not there. All Iran has to do is to present the picture, not the threat. An Iranian division in Lebanon would force the Israelis to contemplate the need to attack Iran proper as well as Lebanon. However, that does not mean that come dawn of war that Iran would not signal that it has no intentions of engaging the Israelis. However, like the Vietnam example, the mere presence of an Iranian division would raise the stakes of an Israeli intervention.

Originally Posted by astralis

moreover, the threshold for israel to hit back with everything they got is lower than an third-world adventure in a cold war environment for the US. this is pretty obvious.

Do the Israelis have enough assets to do both? Support their ground operations in Lebanon as well as go nuke hunting in Iran?

Originally Posted by Double Edge

The borders seperating Hamas/Hezbollah are well defined and controlled by Israel. Gaza is also effectively blockaded by Israel from any items they consider coud be used to wage war. So cannot see a Tet happening here.

It happened twice already - the Intifadas. And I'm speaking of Tet as in an uprising, not as a military confrontation.

Originally Posted by S2

"...i remember col yu saying that the soviets later (unbeknownst to us at the time) took up defensive positions once the conventional gap was closed..."

Our doctrine would have been as challenging to the Soviets as our force modernization. The only way we could achieve depth on the battlefield given the caveats imposed by the W. German government was to extend the manuever space into the Warsaw Pact countries.

This was promised by Air-Land doctrine. We would manuever offensively into their depth where possible and advantageous to our overall defense.

Could not happen. We didn't have the bridging necessary. And I really, really, really detest the idea of attacking their prepared minefields ... and their hasty ones.

Originally Posted by S2

Describe "...Total war, with massive mobilization..." and the objectives for such.

Enough mobilization to do a Germany,1945.Forced secularization and continuous western presence with the ultimate objective of controlling that oil,thus influencing in Western favor the development of other possible competitors of the West.

Originally Posted by S2

"...That being said,US seems in the mood of packing and leaving the area..."

Hardly. The U.S. 5th Fleet is firmly escounced in the gulf. It's presence and purpose are supported by the emirates. Nor have our regional objectives altered.

I do not recall policy statements suggesting either Iraq or Afghanistan to become permanent fixtures in the American orbit. Our departure from both was inevitable, and promised as such.



"...and anyway is perceived as a power decline in the ME and to a sense it is."

Reports of America's demise have been constant in my life since about 1973. To date they've proven greatly exaggerated fabrications and/or wishful thinking. We're certainly besieged by challenges and challengers although I cannot recall a time in which we were not.

Then again, the microscope of scrutiny rarely seems focused upon the capacity of our challengers. We'll just have to see what the future holds. I do note that most hand-wringing seems to come from those following in our wake. This is a natural condition for fair-weather fence-sitters constantly checking which way the wind blows.

As a nation, we've appeared possessing too little time and too much work for such ruminations.

Don't know about fence sitting and a few have the luxury of having 2 oceans between them and the winds.Those not enjoying such comforts have to resort to ruminations,scheming and other such little things.The others can of course mind their important work whithout paying too much attention.
I'd like you Sir to be right and me to be wrong.We'll see indeed what the future holds.One observation.The 5th Fleet is,well, a fleet.It's presence there in peacetime depends on the whim of some potentates.And there is a wind of change in that area.Potentates come and go.

Afghans and the Arabs don't understand policies and other fancy concepts.They understand a simple thing and that is the strongest tribe takes all and makes it clear for all to see its greatness and power.Absent such behaviour,they see weakness and weakness invites depredation.Whether they are right or wrong in this perception is yet to be seen,but you failed to send the proper message in due time.As a rock band older than me used to say:"What we've got here is failure to communicate
Some men you just can't reach...
So, you get what we had here last week
Which is the way he wants it!
Well, he gets it!
N' I don't like it any more than you men"

My bet is on a very uncivil war following this.But I'm born under a zodiacal sign that thrives on strife and destruction

Originally Posted by Double Edge

Otherwise what you are saying implies no islamic state is capable of honouring an international treaty.

BINGO!!!

Islam's doctrines of deception

by Raymond Ibrahim
Jane's Islamic Affairs Analyst
October 2008
Print Send RSS
Share Share


To better understand Islam, one must appreciate the thoroughly legalistic nature of the religion. According to sharia (Islamic law) every conceivable human act is categorised as being either forbidden, discouraged, permissible, recommended, or obligatory.

"Common sense" or "universal opinion" has little to do with Islam's notions of right and wrong. Only what Allah (through the Quran) and his prophet Muhammad (through the Hadith) have to say about any given issue matters; and how Islam's greatest theologians and jurists – collectively known as the ulema, literally, "they who know" – have articulated it.

According to sharia, in certain situations, deception – also known as 'taqiyya', based on Quranic terminology, – is not only permitted but sometimes obligatory. For instance, contrary to early Christian history, Muslims who must choose between either recanting Islam or being put to death are not only permitted to lie by pretending to have apostatised, but many jurists have decreed that, according to Quran 4:29, Muslims are obligated to lie in such instances.
Origins of taqiyya

As a doctrine, taqiyya was first codified by Shia Muslims, primarily as a result of their historical experience. Long insisting that the caliphate rightly belonged to the prophet Muhammad's cousin and son-in-law, Ali (and subsequently his descendents), the Shia were a vocal and powerful branch of Islam that emerged following Muhammad's death. After the internal Islamic Fitna wars from the years 656 AD to 661 AD, however, the Shia became a minority branch, persecuted by mainstream Muslims or Sunnis – so-called because they follow the example or 'sunna' of Muhammad and his companions. Taqiyya became pivotal to Shia survival.

Interspersed among the much more numerous Sunnis, who currently make up approximately 90 per cent of the Islamic world, the Shia often performed taqiyya by pretending to be Sunnis externally, while maintaining Shia beliefs internally, as permitted by Quranic verse 16:106. Even today, especially in those Muslim states where there is little religious freedom, the Shia still practice taqiyya. In Saudi Arabia, for instance, Shias are deemed by many of the Sunni majority to be heretics, traitors and infidels and like other non-Sunni Muslims they are often persecuted.

Several of Saudi Arabia's highest clerics have even issued fatwas sanctioning the killing of Shias. As a result, figures on the Arabian kingdom's Shia population vary wildly from as low as 1 per cent to nearly 20 per cent. Many Shias living there obviously choose to conceal their religious identity. As a result of some 1,400 years of Shia taqiyya, the Sunnis often accuse the Shias of being habitual liars, insisting that taqiyya is ingrained in Shia culture.

Conversely, the Sunnis have historically had little reason to dissemble or conceal any aspect of their faith, which would have been deemed dishonorable, especially when dealing with their historic competitors and enemies, the Christians. From the start, Islam burst out of Arabia subjugating much of the known world, and, throughout the Middle Ages, threatened to engulf all of Christendom. In a world where might made right, the Sunnis had nothing to apologise for, much less to hide from the 'infidel'.

Paradoxically, however, today many Sunnis are finding themselves in the Shias' place: living as minorities in Western countries surrounded and governed by their traditional foes. The primary difference is that, extremist Sunnis and Shia tend to reject each other outright, as evidenced by the ongoing Sunni-Shia struggle in Iraq, whereas, in the West, where freedom of religion is guaranteed, Sunnis need only dissemble over a few aspects of their faith.
Articulation of taqiyya

According to the authoritative Arabic text, Al-Taqiyya Fi Al-Islam: "Taqiyya [deception] is of fundamental importance in Islam. Practically every Islamic sect agrees to it and practices it. We can go so far as to say that the practice of taqiyya is mainstream in Islam, and that those few sects not practicing it diverge from the mainstream...Taqiyya is very prevalent in Islamic politics, especially in the modern era."

The primary Quranic verse sanctioning deception with respect to non-Muslims states: "Let believers not take for friends and allies infidels instead of believers. Whoever does this shall have no relationship left with Allah – unless you but guard yourselves against them, taking precautions." (Quran 3:28; see also 2:173; 2:185; 4:29; 22:78; 40:28.)

Al-Tabari's (838-923 AD) Tafsir, or Quranic exegeses, is essentially a standard reference in the entire Muslim world. Regarding 3:28, he wrote: "If you [Muslims] are under their [infidels'] authority, fearing for yourselves, behave loyally to them, with your tongue, while harbouring inner animosity for them... Allah has forbidden believers from being friendly or on intimate terms with the infidels in place of believers – except when infidels are above them [in authority]. In such a scenario, let them act friendly towards them."

Regarding 3:28, the Islamic scholar Ibn Kathir (1301-1373) wrote: "Whoever at any time or place fears their [infidels'] evil, may protect himself through outward show."

As proof of this, he quotes Muhammad's companions. Abu Darda said: "Let us smile to the face of some people while our hearts curse them." Al-Hassan said: "Doing taqiyya is acceptable till the day of judgment [in perpetuity]."

Other prominent ulema, such as al- Qurtubi , al-Razi, and al-Arabi have extended taqiyya to cover deeds. Muslims can behave like infidels – from bowing down and worshipping idols and crosses to even exposing fellow Muslims' "weak spots" to the infidel enemy – anything short of actually killing a fellow Muslim.
War is deceit

None of this should be surprising considering that Muhammad himself, whose example as the "most perfect human" is to be tenaciously followed, took an expedient view on the issue of deception. For instance, Muhammad permitted deceit in three situations: to reconcile two or more quarreling parties; husband to wife and vice-versa; and in war (See Sahih Muslim B32N6303, deemed an "authentic" hadith).

During the Battle of the Trench (627 AD), which pitted Muhammad and his followers against several non-Muslim tribes collectively known as "the Confederates", a Confederate called Naim bin Masud went to the Muslim camp and converted to Islam. When Muhammad discovered the Confederates were unaware of Masud's conversion, he counseled him to return and try somehow to get his tribesmen to abandon the siege. "For war is deceit," Muhammad assured him.

Masud returned to the Confederates without their knowledge that he had switched sides and began giving his former kin and allies bad advice. He also went to great lengths to instigate quarrels between the various tribes until, thoroughly distrusting each other, they disbanded and lifted the siege. According to this account, deceit saved Islam during its embryonic stage (see Al-Taqiyya Fi Al-Islam; also, Ibn Ishaq's Sira, the earliest biography of Muhammad).

More demonstrative of the legitimacy of deception with respect to non-Muslims is the following account. A poet, Kab bin al-Ashruf, had offended Muhammad by making derogatory verse about Muslim women. Muhammad exclaimed in front of his followers: "Who will kill this man who has hurt Allah and his prophet?"

A young Muslim named Muhammad bin Maslama volunteered, but with the caveat that, in order to get close enough to Kab to assassinate him, he be allowed to lie to the poet. Muhammad agreed.

Maslama traveled to Kab and began denigrating Islam and Muhammad, carrying on this way till his disaffection became convincing enough for Kab to take him into his confidences. Soon thereafter, Maslama appeared with another Muslim and, while Kab's guard was down, they assaulted and killed him. They ran to Muhammad with Kab's head, to which the latter cried: "Allahu akbar" or "God is great" (see the hadith accounts of Sahih Bukhari and Ibn Sad).

The entire sequence of Quranic revelations are a testimony to taqiyya and, since Allah is believed to be the revealer of these verses, he ultimately is seen as the perpetrator of deceit. This is not surprising since Allah himself is often described in the Quran as the "best deceiver" or "schemer." (see 3:54, 8:30, 10:21). This phenomenon revolves around the fact that the Quran contains both peaceful and tolerant verses, as well as violent and intolerant ones.

The ulema were uncertain which verses to codify into sharia's worldview. For instance, should they use the one that states there is no coercion in religion (2:256), or the ones that command believers to fight all non-Muslims until they either convert or at least submit to Islam (9:5, 9:29)? To solve this quandary, they developed the doctrine of abrogation – naskh, supported by Quran 2:105. This essentially states that verses "revealed" later in Muhammad's career take precedence over those revealed earlier whenever there is a discrepancy.

Why the contradiction in the first place? The standard answer has been that, because Muhammad and his community were far outnumbered by the infidels in the early years of Islam, a message of peace and co-existence was in order. However, after Muhammad migrated to Medina and grew in military strength and numbers, the militant or intolerant verses were revealed, urging Muslims to go on the offensive.

According to this standard view, circumstance dictates which verses are to be implemented. When Muslims are weak, they should preach and behave according to the Meccan verses; when strong, they should go on the offensive, according to the Medinan verses. Many Islamic books extensively deal with the doctrine of abrogation, or Al-Nasikh Wa Al-Mansukh.
War is eternal

The fact that Islam legitimises deceit during war cannot be all that surprising; strategist Sun Tzu (c. 722-221 BC), Italian political philosopher Machiavelli (1469-1527) and English philosopher Thomas Hobbes (1588-1679) all justified deceit in war.

However, according to all four recognised schools of Sunni jurisprudence, war against the infidel goes on in perpetuity, until "all chaos ceases, and all religion belongs to Allah" (Quran 8:39). According to the definitive Encyclopaedia of Islam (Brill Online edition): "The duty of the jihad exists as long as the universal domination of Islam has not been attained. Peace with non-Muslim nations is, therefore, a provisional state of affairs only; the chance of circumstances alone can justify it temporarily. Furthermore there can be no question of genuine peace treaties with these nations; only truces, whose duration ought not, in principle, to exceed ten years, are authorised. But even such truces are precarious, inasmuch as they can, before they expire, be repudiated unilaterally should it appear more profitable for Islam to resume the conflict."

The concept of obligatory jihad is best expressed by Islam's dichotomised worldview that pits Dar al Islam (House of Islam) against Dar al Harb (House of War or non-Muslims) until the former subsumes the latter. Muslim historian and philosopher, Ibn Khaldun (1332- 1406), articulated this division by saying: "In the Muslim community, holy war [jihad] is a religious duty, because of the universalism of the Muslim mission and the obligation to convert everybody to Islam either by persuasion or by force. The other religious groups did not have a universal mission, and the holy war was not a religious duty for them, save only for purposes of defence. But Islam is under obligation to gain power over other nations."

This concept is highlighted by the fact that, based on the ten-year treaty of Hudaibiya , ratified between Muhammad and his Quraish opponents in Mecca (628), ten years is theoretically the maximum amount of time Muslims can be at peace with infidels (as indicated earlier by the Encyclopaedia of Islam). Based on Muhammad's example of breaking the treaty after two years, by citing a Quraish infraction, the sole function of the "peace-treaty" (hudna) is to buy weakened Muslims time to regroup for a renewed offensive. Muhammad is quoted in the Hadith saying: "If I take an oath and later find something else better, I do what is better and break my oath (see Sahih Bukhari V7B67N427)."

This might be what former PLO leader and Nobel Peace Prize winner Yasser Arafat meant when, after negotiating a peace treaty criticised by his opponents as conceding too much to Israel, he said in a mosque: "I see this agreement as being no more than the agreement signed between our Prophet Muhammad and the Quraish in Mecca."

On several occasions Hamas has made it clear that its ultimate aspiration is to see Israel destroyed. Under what context would it want to initiate a "temporary" peace with the Jewish state? When Osama bin Laden offered the US a truce, stressing that "we [Muslims] are a people that Allah has forbidden from double-crossing and lying," what was his ultimate intention?

Based on the above, these are instances of Muslim extremists feigning openness to the idea of peace simply in order to bide time.

If Islam must be in a constant state of war with the non-Muslim world – which need not be physical, as radicals among the ulema have classified several non-literal forms of jihad, such as "jihad-of-the-pen" (propaganda), and "money-jihad" (economic) – and if Muslims are permitted to lie and feign loyalty to the infidel to further their war efforts, offers of peace, tolerance or dialogue from extremist Muslim corners are called into question.
Religious obligation?

Following the terrorist attacks on the United States of 11 September 2001, a group of prominent Muslims wrote a letter to Americans saying that Islam is a tolerant religion that seeks to coexist with others.

Bin Laden castigated them, saying: "As to the relationship between Muslims and infidels, this is summarised by the Most High's Word: 'We renounce you. Enmity and hate shall forever reign between us – till you believe in Allah alone' [Quran 60:4]. So there is an enmity, evidenced by fierce hostility from the heart. And this fierce hostility – that is battle – ceases only if the infidel submits to the authority of Islam, or if his blood is forbidden from being shed [a dhimmi – a non-Muslim subject living as a "second-class" citizen in an Islamic state in accordance to Quran 9:29], or if Muslims are at that point in time weak and incapable [a circumstance under which taqiyya applies]. But if the hate at any time extinguishes from the heart, this is great apostasy! Such, then, is the basis and foundation of the relationship between the infidel and the Muslim. Battle, animosity and hatred, directed from the Muslim to the infidel, is the foundation of our religion. And we consider this a justice and kindness to them."

This hostile world view is traceable to Islam's schools of jurisprudence. When addressing Western audiences, however, Bin Laden's tone significantly changes. He lists any number of grievances as reasons for fighting the West – from Israeli policies towards Palestinians to the Western exploitation of women and US failure to sign the Kyoto protocol – never alluding to fighting the US simply because it is an infidel entity that must be subjugated. He often initiates his messages to the West by saying: "Reciprocal treatment is part of justice."

This is a clear instance of taqiyya, as Bin Laden is not only waging a physical jihad, but one of propaganda. Convincing the West that the current conflict is entirely its fault garners him and his cause more sympathy. Conversely, he also knows that if his Western audiences were to realise that, all real or imagined political grievances aside, according to the Islamic worldview delineated earlier, which bin Laden does accept, nothing short of their submission to Islam can ever bring peace, his propaganda campaign would be compromised. As a result there is constant lying, "for war is deceit".

If Bin Laden's words and actions represent an individual case of taqiyya, they raise questions about Saudi Arabia's recent initiatives for "dialogue". Saudi Arabia closely follows sharia. For instance, the Saudi government will not allow the construction of churches or synagogues on its land; Bibles are banned and burned. Christians engaged in any kind of missionary activity are arrested, tortured, and sometimes killed. Muslim converts to Christianity can be put to death in the kingdom.

Despite such limitations on religious freedom, the Saudis have been pushing for more dialogue between Muslims and non-Muslims. At the most recent inter-faith conference in Madrid in July 2008, King Abdullah asserted: "Islam is a religion of moderation and tolerance, a message that calls for constructive dialogue among followers of all religions."

Days later, it was revealed that Saudi children's textbooks still call Christians and Jews "infidels", "hated enemies" and "pigs and swine". A multiple-choice test in a book for fourth-graders asks: "Who is a 'true' Muslim?" The correct answer is not the man who prays and fasts, but rather: "A man who worships God alone, loves the believers and hates the infidels". These infidels are the same people the Saudis want dialogue with. This raises the question of whether, when Saudis call for dialogue, they are merely following Muhammad's companion Abu Darda's advice: "Let us smile to the face of some people while our hearts curse them"?

There is also a philosophical – more particularly, epistemological – problem with taqiyya. Anyone who truly believes that no less an authority than God justifies and, through his prophet's example, sometimes even encourages deception, will not experience any ethical qualms or dilemmas about lying. This is especially true if the human mind is indeed a tabula rasa shaped by environment and education. Deception becomes second nature.

Consider the case of former Al-Qaeda operative, Ali Mohammad. Despite being entrenched in the highest echelons of the terrorism network, Mohammed's confidence at dissembling enabled him to become a CIA agent and FBI informant for years. People who knew him regarded him "with fear and awe for his incredible self-confidence, his inability to be intimidated, absolute ruthless determination to destroy the enemies of Islam, and his zealous belief in the tenets of militant Islamic fundamentalism", according to Steven Emerson. Indeed, this sentiment sums it all up: for a zealous belief in Islam's tenets, which, as has been described above, legitimises deception, will certainly go a long way in creating incredible self-confidence when deceiving one's enemies.
Exposing a doctrine

All of the above is an exposition on doctrine and its various manifestations, not an assertion on the actual practices of the average Muslim. The deciding question is how literally any given Muslim follows sharia and its worldview.

So-called "moderate" Muslims – or, more specifically, secularised Muslims – do not closely adhere to sharia, and therefore have little to dissemble about. On the other hand, "radical" Muslims who closely observe sharia law, which splits the world into two perpetually warring halves, will always have a "divinely sanctioned" right to deceive, until "all chaos ceases, and all religion belongs to Allah" (Quran 8:39).

Originally Posted by zraver

BINGO!!!

Islam's doctrines of deception

Where does it say in your essay what you asserted earlier ?

Originally Posted by zraver

Because International Law is not binding on islamic governments. we are seeing that now with Iran. Islam is officially at war with everyone else and treaties are only binding so long as it favors Moslems. As soon as the treaty is a disadvantage Moslem rulers are allowed by the religion to discard it. People go on and on about Iran violating the NPT but from a society that is officially an Islamic state the supreme law is the religion and they are doing exactly what the religion tells them to do.

Show me instances in the modern era of islamic states reneging on treaties, contracts, deals and using their book to justify it. If they are so particular then why sign any treaty in the first place.

My source highlighted the difference between theory & practice specifically in that regard. Book says one thing, practice is another and is the norm rather than the exception.

Originally Posted by Officer of Engineers

It happened twice already - the Intifadas. And I'm speaking of Tet as in an uprising, not as a military confrontation.

An not sure i got your gist and why you suggested Tet here.

The intifadas, both uprisings, were mostly confined to the Palestinian territories, WB + Gaza. They had no play within Israel proper. The only exception i found was the October 2000 events. That is not to say there were no terrorist incidents within Israel but those would be much lower when compared to a full blown insurgency which is what Tet was.

As i understand it Tet was the Viet Cong's main claim to fame. Viet cong were South vietnamese insurgents who carried out their attacks within South Vietnam proper. As such i cannot see how its possible to do a Tet in Israel as there is no equivalent of Israeli insurgents to carry it out. Entry points from Gaza, WB & Lebanon into Israel are strictly controlled.

Actually, there's a better example. Operation CAST LEAD. (forgetting seems to be a pass time for me now) 2500+ rockets fired from the Gaza Strip. It is to the Israeli luck that Hamas is riddled with incompetence throughout their ranks.

My use of Tet is the idea of a surprised but prepared uprising against Israeli interests. Hamas did not take Hezbollah's lessons to heart - that artillery (ie rockets) should sit behind protection (ie forts). Imagine an uprising timed with a rocket barrage from the Hezbollah whose rockets are sitting behind an Iranian division ... much like Hanoi was behind Chinese SAM and AAA crews against American planes.

Originally Posted by Officer of Engineers

My use of Tet is the idea of a surprised but prepared uprising against Israeli interests.

Right, surprise was the main effect Tet achieved. I still think the potential for a Tet was higher in Iraq or Afghanistan than Israel. A lot more insurgents, but the organisation & unity were not quite there.

Originally Posted by Officer of Engineers

Hamas did not take Hezbollah's lessons to heart - that artillery (ie rockets) should sit behind protection (ie forts). Imagine an uprising timed with a rocket barrage from the Hezbollah whose rockets are sitting behind an Iranian division ... much like Hanoi was behind Chinese SAM and AAA crews against American planes.

The bolded bit is interesting. A step up from proxies.

Haven't the Israelis in the past faced worse from more countries and still come out on top. For Iran to face the same would mean a loss of face. That means prestige and as such is a risk. That too an Iran with nukes.

Vietnamese were battle hardened over a couple of decades, the Iranians last faced a war in the 80s. Whereas it seems the Israelis have been at war for much longer and would dominate conventionally.

Originally Posted by Officer of Engineers

Actually, there's a better example. Operation CAST LEAD. (forgetting seems to be a pass time for me now) 2500+ rockets fired from the Gaza Strip. It is to the Israeli luck that Hamas is riddled with incompetence throughout their ranks.

What sticks out for me here is the casualty numbers

Palestinian Ministry of Health (MoH) figures as of 19 January are 1,314 Palestinians dead, of whom 412 are children and 110 are women. The number of injuries stands at 5,300, of whom 1,855 are children and 795 are women.

According to the Magen David Adom national society, four Israelis have been killed and 182 injured since 27 December by rocket and mortar fire by Palestinian militants from the Gaza Strip. Nine Israeli soldiers were killed and 336 wounded during the course of the military operation, according to the Ministry of Foreign Affairs.

Another source from B'Tselem

What good did those 2500+ rockets achieve ?

What will those same rockets achieve with more competence. If they want to do more damage they are going to need better rockets and lots more of them.

Originally Posted by Double Edge

Right, surprise was the main effect Tet achieved. I still think the potential for a Tet was higher in Iraq or Afghanistan than Israel. A lot more insurgents, but the organisation & unity were not quite there.

The point is that both Hamas and Hezbollah can present a threat that Israel cannot ignore.

Originally Posted by Double Edge

Haven't the Israelis in the past faced worse from more countries and still come out on top. For Iran to face the same would mean a loss of face. That means prestige and as such is a risk. That too an Iran with nukes.

The Israelis also lost wars, specifically South Lebanon and the Israeli-Hezbollah War. Victory is by no means assured. We can tilt the odds in Israel's favour but by no means would an Iranian force be helpless in face of an Israeli onslaught.

Originally Posted by Double Edge

Vietnamese were battle hardened over a couple of decades, the Iranians last faced a war in the 80s. Whereas it seems the Israelis have been at war for much longer and would dominate conventionally.

Israel never fought a meatgrinder. Iran has.

Originally Posted by Double Edge

What good did those 2500+ rockets achieve ?

Awareness that they could not be ignored.

Originally Posted by Double Edge

What will those same rockets achieve with more competence. If they want to do more damage they are going to need better rockets and lots more of them.

Well, that's the point, isn't it? Can the Israelis keep counting on her enemies being stupid?

To get this thread back to it's original focus:



The correct name is Awni Abd al-Hadi

So the argument of the Pals,that you stolen their land(true or not is not important for now) is not usable because they're not Pals but Arabs?What's the difference besides cosmetics?Just because you were not called Hebrews,but Jews,Khazars,Israelites etc... means you're not the same nation today?