Mailwatch(ed) Forum

Philip Oz Katerji is in fact Lebanese and knows a lot more about Heazboallah than you or Heidi does. Not to mention he was 100% right to call out Matthews. Also he is in fact reporting from a war zone and has reported from war zones in the past.

Also

Two things here:

1) When suggesting that the person you’re arguing with doesn’t, by implication, object to a ‘fascist theocratic death squad militia’ (‘You lurve Hezbollah. They’re your boyfriend) it’s probably best to properly ascertain this is their position rather than assuming it because they have the impertinence to disagree with you.



2) In terms of the attacks themselves, a number of people have raised the highlighted point to Katerji and his overwhelming response has been to start screaming abuse at them. Even if you disagree - and some people obviously will because some people always do - there’s grounds enough for a discussion which does not proceed upon the assumption that everyone who takes the counter-Oz position is a fucking sociopathic scum-sucking piece of shit who deserves to be spoken to like this (he actually said that to Mathews at one point ) because they love murderers and fascism so fuck them fuck them fuck them etc.

I see that Israel has accused Hezbollah of “using people as human shields”. It strikes me, however, that a policy of using people as human shields is pretty ineffectual, or even redundant, since the Israelis will clearly bomb the crap out of you whether you have “human shields” or not. Surely they’re really not bothering with the human shields crap any more ? Israel keeps on using it as an excuse, though.

Because Heazboallah don't care how many Lebanese die. The more dead Lebanese the better as far as they're concerned.

Well, yes we know that. My point was about the usefulness of the “human shields” tactic in the face of Israel’s apparent complete disregard of it, and whether Hezbollah/Hamas are actually still using the tactic, or if they ever in fact were.

Abernathy wrote: ↑Mon Sep 23, 2024 11:13 pm Well, yes we know that. My point was about the usefulness of the “human shields” tactic in the face of Israel’s apparent complete disregard of it, and whether Hezbollah/Hamas are actually still using the tactic, or if they ever in fact were.

Aye, it gets into really, really grim territory.

'Look at these barbarians, they're using human shields!'
'That's awful. Where are they?'
*points to the smoking crater*
'And the civilians?'
'What?'

I think they're using the term as a distraction from their indiscriminate bombing of civilians, in much the same way as the Yanks coined the term "collateral damage" to describe unwarranted civilian casualties.

I remember the human shields business being used during previous incursions into Lebanon and even for operations in Gaza, where it makes even less sense given the population density.

Adam Shatz on the pager attacks and the situation in Lebanon generally.

https://www.lrb.co.uk/blog/2024/septemb ... ger-attack

Nasrallah is in a bind. Hizbullah’s communications system has been badly damaged and there may be leaks within the organisation. Building back that system and rooting out spies will be his priorities. But he cannot respond with the patience of the Iranians, whose style is to promise retaliation and then wait years to deliver, because Hizbullah is in the front lines of the battle with Israel. If Nasrallah fails to respond, his restraint will look like cowardice –hardly the message he wants to send to his supporters. But if he miscalculates, or responds in a way that offers the Israelis a pretext for invasion, he could have a war on his hands that far eclipses the catastrophe of 2006, imperilling Hizbullah’s position in Lebanon.

I first heard the term during Gulf War 1, where the idea was that hostages (mainly civilians caught up in the invasion of Kuwait) were being held at target locations to deter bombardment. The Iraqis moved them to those places, where they would not otherwise be, and placed them in harm's way.

Compare to your average citizen of Beirut, who lives there, works there, and has every right to expect a reasonably peaceful life there. It's not their fault that their neighbours are Hezbollah members or supporters. Nor have Hezbollah moved them there deliberately.

The upshot is the same, but it's the difference between holding someone in front of you to take the bullets, and hiding in a crowd.

Netanyahu; a troll par excellence.

Cat meet pigeons.

Well, that Adam Shatz piece aged terribly.

The Americans did, however, have one red line, and that was an Israeli war against Lebanon, for which the Netanyahu government reportedly sought approval within days of 7 October. Netanyahu wanted to open a second front in the hope of destroying the Lebanese Shia organisation Hizbullah, an ally of Hamas, but the Americans were opposed, so the Israelis shelved their plans.

Philip he wasn't a very nice man.

We should listen to what Nasrallah's victims have to say about his death

"These people who were displaced by Hezbollah and whose children were killed have the right to be happy, even if just a little, after 14 years of oppression."

The joy of the people of Idlib after the news of the killing of Al-Sayyid Hassan.

Well of course he wasn’t nice. Who survives the politics of that part of the world for as long as he did by being nice, whichever did they’re on? It’d just be nice have some idea of what the…collateral damage…count may be before getting the dancing shoes out. Proportionality can be a tricky thing of course; I’d just like some rough idea of how much surplus meat needs to sit on the other end of the scales before people start getting queasy.

I'm not getting the dancing shoes out just pointing out that he was no innocent victim here. He killed thousands in Syria, thousands and I don't recall pieces in the LRB on that.

It's all-out war.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/live/cg4qx62kkxxt

NevTheSweeper wrote: ↑Mon Sep 30, 2024 7:44 pm It's all-out war.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/live/cg4qx62kkxxt

I don't know if there is a source supporting your comment, but it isn't the thread linked which specifically says "the scale and scope of any operation is not clear. It may be incremental and limited to certain areas, rather than a full scale invasion across the entire frontier."

Events have…evented…since, but from what I was reading earlier ‘limited incursion’ is the exculpatory euphemism of choice. I’m sure the present US administration is reacting with a suitably inconsequential bout of mild tutting.