*Pete*

The hezbollah seemed to be uniformed during the last war with Israel. Hamas and Fatah are also wearing militant clothing (most of them).. so if the uniform decides who is a terrorist, it is easy to create a soldier out of any potential terrorist. in my opinion..the artillery/airstrikes made by Israel is no better than the rockets launched by hezbollah, both forces were uniformed, both controlled by officers and political leaders, neither of them hijacked airplanes or used suicidebombers. ...id say, either both sides were terrorists, or neither of them were terrorists. as for both hezbollah and hamas/fatah, they ARE fighting for territory occupied by israel,...which does make the fight (but not always the means) perfectly legal...as far as i know. UN has recogniced the right to exist for israel, borders have also been defined. so, the only solution as i can see to this problem, is to simply go back to the UN defined borders, hurt as it may, occupied land is stolen land, and will always be a cause for problems. some say, that the "terrorists" wont give up before israel seizes to exist, but i think that if the "terrorists" are busy building up there own country, jobs for all and fair living conditions for the people...it will be hard to find people willing to support ideas that might destroy there own nation by war with israel, or people willing to kill themselfs, when they have the ability to support there familiy by honest work.

those 2 wars?? Hah..we had 42 wars against Russia over the near thousand years it has existed..lost 41, tied 1, won 0. we "tied" the winterwar by getting russia into negotiations where we "gave" them large landareas....we lost territory and soldiers, russia lost only soldiers (more than we, but they had much more to take from...).

"iranian anti-tank weapons smugled to iraq..." sounds very much like "US Stinger anti-air weapons smugled to afganistan" with large eough quantities of those at weapons...it will be a hard time for US troops in iraq.

I know what makes a bullet fly straight, and why it doesnt tumble, i also know that the bullet from a simple ak47 wont tumble...even if you fire it on full auto. the "mechanism" that makes the bullet fly "straight" is very very simple, do you know what it is? and if you do know...please explain to the rest of us why it wouldnt work on the "bullet-throwing" Â miniguns, chainguns and such... oh...and tanks also use the same "mechanism" for their rounds. so does artillery cannons. if you dont know what makes a bullet fly straight, just ask me and ill educate you. edit:..i cant resist, but to give you a hint. "this is my gun, and this is my *****"

....we are at war??...against who? simply becouse someone yells "Jihad against [nation]" on a street, or sends in a tape with the proclamation to a newsagency...doesnt mean there is, or will be a war. besides.....your list is wrong. the question you were answering was "name a war started by religion" that they happen to call a war "jihad" doesnt make it more religious than the fact that all sides in ww2 had "god with there side" was ww2 a religious war??..the germans had belts with the words "god midt uns" (or something) written on them. There was a Jihad declared against Sovjet after the invaded afganistan.... religious war?? id call it a defensive war, war against occupation, rebellion...would you call it religious? doest matter than many mujahedeens came from other countries to fight sovjet, look at ww2...Poland got attacked by the Germans and then it became a world war. becouse of religion?..no, becouse of military alliances based on the "all for one, one for all" defence....much like "jihad" 9/11..the twin towers, THAT is a war you could call religious...it was started by a small band of highly religious people who didnt have a common nation, no territorial intrests, no personal gain...other than a place in the paradise. this is what i call a war started by religion. but Iraq, and even the ongoing "war" against Israel are NOT what i would call started by religion. you could try to occupy land and territory of atheists, and still would get the same kind of resistance as you get in Iraq and Palestine.

fine.... in this case, tell me why the tank itself is armed with a megasized cannon able to fire very heavy rounds against other tanks...and even with those super megasized guns its far from normal to fire right through a tank (modern tank) so, mr military expert...explain to me why there is a lack of anti-tank-tanks armed with 50 cal rifles...or even 50 cal miniguns so that they could be able to take out dozens of tanks in a matter of seconds...... and why at all they would bother to have these supersized heavy weapons on the tank at all.......to look scarier? dont worry about sources, ill take your word for it.....

i dont have a source, but there is a mortar-round that becomes a selfguiding antitank weapon once fired. it folds out wings after fired and can stay airborne much longer than normal mortal rounds, it has a camera and a computer and scans the battlefield for tanks...once it finds a target it dives down on the top of the tank (weakest armour). there is no protection against this weapon and as opposed of normal antitank weapons the attacker doesnt have to be in range of the tank, the attacker can be far behind a hill and fire blindly on to suspected locations and still score deadly hits on tanks they dont even see. why so few tanks do get taken out in wars is becouse the wars recently have been very assymetrical technologically. in a real war between 2 nations with equal technology, the tank will be, as all other weapons, become a piece in a chess game, they all serve a purpose and all can be taken out by something else.

Well, we disagree. disagree?...about what? the good cause, is depending on the point of view...maybe the cause for arming hebollah is to give then the strenght to scare Israel of attacking lebanon (or iran/syria)...as passive, threatening defence, it "could" be good, and as such..a good cause, unless you are an israeli citizen. however..even if the cause could be "good" as seen by the eyes of hezbollah, the result has so far been only bad, tensions between the nations (or nation-militia), war and many deaths on both sides. the fact that hezbollah did not fire all of the rockets indicates that they wish to preserve them as a sort of "deterrent" from future actions against them by israel...this is similiar to what happened during the cold war and the nuclear weapons balance. why i consider it to be a good result that the Sovjet got nuclear weapons, is the fact that it created a terror-balance, or mutual assured destruction as most would call it. neither side dared to risk as a war that is impossible to win, unless the aim of the war is to destroy both nations. without nuclear weapons, there would have been a war, possible larger than ww2 was. ..notice the fact, that nuclear weapons have never been used after such balance was created... now as the cold war is over, and sojvet no longer exists and russia is a friend and a ally, Bush wishes to create mini-nukes for battlefield usage. shows that when you are much stronger than your enemy, you want to break/make the rules yourself... however...i wish to make it absolutely clear, just in case of misunderstandings, what i do not wish a militia to get there hands on nuclear weapons.

good answer. but it is not always that when the cause is good, that it provides good results, or opposite. the famous american scientist who helped to develop the nuclear weapon also helped sovjet to develop theirs...seen as a traitor of the worst kind, he most likely saved us from WW3. cause good, result good. USA wanted to "save" vietnam from communism, it was meant to be a good cause. not to steal oil or resources (that vietnam didnt have), but to help the south vietnamese goverment...result was 70000 american dead, 2-3 million vietnamese dead...and vietnam communistic today. cause good, result bad. as for the kurds and Hezbollah being armed by Israel and syria/Iran respectively, the cause CAN be good in both cases, but in both cases i expect bad results... i would be very carefull to support the armament of ANY country/militia that is not already in a DEFENSIVE war against a agressor with a bad cause (such as finland vs sovjet in ww2, or poland/france/russia etc etc...vs germany)

i understand that there has been talk about integrating Hizbollah into the lebanese military, the idea is to get full use of its weaponry, tactics and military experience and the same time to have it under goverment controll as a part of the national army. i dont know how it is to be practically achieved, but it sounds good.

LOL this is funny... "Ok I forgot the number but it is over 50% of the people of USA want a regime change. Â The current President Bush was losing the race to some other canidate...TWICE!!"

I would support them too if I lived in a 4th world house and they provide a hospital, construction, schools, and give me money (counterfeit USA dollars). yes, exactly. the main strenght of Hezbollah (and hamas) is to take care of the poor and the weak and to have a organisation that is not corrupted. also seeing how well they "defended" lebanon in the latest war will give them even more support, atleast among those who will get the houses repaired by the Hezbollah. what i meant by me not being very willing to support them, is that i am an european, a part of the "western people", and therefore a possible future enemy of that group if they become more radical/fanatical. id feel much better if it was the lebanese army that got such weapons and support as hezbollah gets, it would help solving many problems, instead of creating new ones....in the political arena Lebanon would be stronger against Israel in negotiations about occupied areas and the prisoners. also it would be strong enough to not need/to remove Hezbollah from within the nation. ...a nation just feels safer and more responsible, than a militia.

everybody but me...all i wanted to do was to point out that it is nothing unusual to support a militia/querilla organisation in a foreign country. i didnt want to drag Ariel Sharon into the discussion as the main theme. what i wanted to say was pretty much like this. Iran/Syria supports/supported Hezbollah. China supported the Vietcong and the NVA. The allies during WW2 supported the partisans in France, Italy, Balkans... Israel supported the Phalangists. USA supported the Mujahedeen (afganistan) and the even more infamous Contras (Nicaraqua), and most recently, the Shia uprising in Iraq after GW1. the list is long... it is, for me, difficult to justify support for many of those above mentioned. and some of those that are easy to justify, as the french resistance, are on the same terms as for example the support for Hezbollah...resistance against an occupation. even if i personally feel uncomfortable about supporting a group as Hezbollah, i do understand why they do get such support. historically, very very few have gotten what is rightly theirs, without a fight and/or making the enemy pay (with blood) for the taken territories.

doesnt matter, and it was not my point though....i wanted to say that Israel WAS supplying a militia group in a foreign country with military assistance, in the form of weapons, inteligence and "indirect" control. it is funny, but there is nothing unusual about this...big countries make there own rules, just the same as big people (with political, economical or muscular strenght) make there own rules.

if i am not incorrect, Israel was supplying a lebanese faction with weapons and military assistance during the lebanese civil war.... the one that is famous for the massacre at Shabra/Shattila, wasnt Ariel Sharon directly part of that operation as well? i quess that the point you are trying to set is that, who ever supplies weapons to the enemies of israel, or potential enemies of israel, is helping the terrorists. and israel doing the same is.."well, shit happens and we are not responsible of what the barbarians fo with our weapons...."