Nasrallah the Pussy

Doesn't this say it all about the purported Hizb'allah victory? Olmert's line is perfect.

The Jerusalem Post Internet Edition

Nasrallah won't emerge for his birthday
JPost.com Staff, THE JERUSALEM POST

Aug. 31, 2006

Hizbullah leader Hassan Nasrallah refused to emerge from his bunker on Thursday to celebrate his 46th birthday.

A Hizbullah source told the Egyptian Al-Ahara'am newspaper that Nasrallah turned down a request from youngsters in his movement and in other organizations to celebrate his birthday in a modest manner in the Da'ahiyeh neighborhood of south Beirut.

Nasrallah said that he preferred to celebrate with his "warriors" when security conditions made it possible to do so.

On Tuesday Prime Minister Ehud Olmert mocked Nasrallah saying, "I walk around freely, and he's still hiding in a bunker."

Olmert said that he was not concerned by the last interview given by the Hizbullah leader and he was not bothered by Nasrallah's "victory speech."

Wilkommen, Nazischwein

I see that some bedwetting wannabe skinheads have linked to my blog.

Wilkommen, kleine madchen!

You know, the only thing I hate more than a left wing libtard is a cocksucking, 12 IQ moron who thinks that worshipping a guy with a bad haircut and fucked up mustache who couldn't win a war is even cooler than playing a video game.

Enjoy your visit and come back often. By the way, while you 'tards are banging away on your keyboards, reliving some never-found glory, check out what the brothers be banging on...your aryan wimmen! (click the pic if you really want to see that niggercock violating Eva!)

As the world turns

A few interesting news articles today, both from the Jerusalem Post. The first is a story about Nasrallah essentially admitting that Hizb'allah screwed up and that the Israeli response did indeed have a very powerful effect. Like I said in other posts, while the recent conflict in Lebanon was not Israel's finest hour, it was not the Hizb'allah victory or Israeli defeat that many pundits claim. Hizb'allah will come out of this far weaker than before and the Nasrallah speech makes that pretty clear. The second story is about Gaza and how Hamas is now admitting that it's Palestinians, not Israelis, who are the problem. Imagine that...on the same day you have Hizb'allah admitting that they shouldn't have provoked Israel into a fight and Hamas admitting that life sucks in Gaza whether it's Israel in charge or Palestinians (i.e., all problems in the Arab world aren't Israel's fault).

Amazing events.

First article:

Nasrallah: Second round looming
Herb Keinon, THE JERUSALEM POST
Aug. 27, 2006

Hizbullah leader Hassan Nasrallah said in a TV interview aired Sunday that he would not have ordered the capture of two Israeli soldiers had he known it would lead to such a response, an admission Israeli officials said shows that despite all his bluster and bravado, Nasrallah realizes he did not win the recent war.

Regarding the killing of three soldiers and the capture of Ehud Goldwasser and Eldad Regev on July 12, which sparked the 34-day war, Nasrallah said, "We did not think, even one percent, that the capture would lead to a war at this time and of this magnitude. You ask me, if I had known on July 11... that the operation would lead to such a war, would I do it? I say no,
absolutely not."

For a Jerusalem Online video of events click here

Nasrallah, during the interview with the Lebanese news station NTV, also said he did not believe there would be a second bout of fighting with Israel. "The current Israeli situation, and the available givens tell us that we are not heading to another round," he said.

His comments, according to one senior diplomatic official in Jerusalem, showed that Israel had regained its deterrence. "If he said that had he known what the consequences would have been, he wouldn't have kidnapped the soldiers, this indicates Israel has dissuaded him from doing it again," he said.

He attributed Nasrallah's comments, which at times sounded apologetic, to the internal debate taking place inside Lebanon and the harsh criticism of his actions by the non-Shi'ite population.
"He needs to explain why he did what he did," the official said. "And his message is that
he did not intend these consequences, and that had he known what the consequences would be, he would not have done what he did."

Nasrallah's words, the official said, were a marked contrast to Hizbullah's claims that the
war was a "divine victory." That Nasrallah felt compelled to make these comments, he said, indicated the depth of his problems in Lebanon.

Hizbullah, he said, did not only want to be the arm to export Iran's revolution, but also wanted to be seen as a positive force in the Lebanese political landscape, and this was badly damaged by the war.

The Prime Minister's Office, however, had no response to Nasrallah's comments, with one
senior official saying that it was necessary to read the entire transcript of the interview and put his words into context.

Even before Nasrallah's interview, however, Prime Minister Ehud Olmert bucked the trend that has labeled the war a failure and told the cabinet that if anyone had predicted the recent
events a month and a half ago, they would have been accused of "fantasizing."

"If someone would have told us that in another month and a half an international force and the Lebanese army would move south, that UN Security Council Resolution 1559 would begin to be implemented, that UN Secretary-General Kofi Annan would say that the international force could dismantle Hizbullah, that there will be an embargo on arms to Lebanon, supervision on the border crossings, and all this while the IDF was in Lebanon and has not been drawn into
confrontations, and that there is a sea and air embargo on the country - we would say that person was fantasizing and that it was not necessary to set unrealistic goals but rather realistic ones," Olmert said.

He warned that things could change for the worse, "but it is possible to see the beginning of a
turning point."

Nasrallah, during his interview, said Hizbullah would "not be provoked," and that "there are attempts to enforce Israel's new conditions, such as the deployment of UNIFIL forces in Lebanon's airport, ports and along the northern border with Syria."

At the same time, he said that as long as IDF soldiers were in Lebanon, Hizbullah had the "right to resistance," claiming that Hizbullah had shown "restraint and tolerance" but would reserve the right to react "at any time." He also said that Hizbullah would not publicly display
weapons in southern Lebanon, except during funerals. "This is our policy -
to refrain from displaying weapons. If the Lebanese army notices any gunman, it
is its natural right to expropriate the weapons," he said.

Echoing Olmert's positive view of the situation, Foreign Minister Tzipi Livni, who left Sunday
for meetings in Germany and Denmark on the implementation of Security Council
Resolution 1701, told the cabinet that a few months ago the deployment of the
Lebanese army seemed something that would never be implemented.

She said that 1701 is "moving from the shelf to implementation on the ground," but that
one of the remaining problems was how to ensure that the arms embargo was implemented along the border with Syria, and that this was the focus of diplomatic activity.

This matter was brought up in a phone conversation Olmert had Sunday with Annan, who is scheduled to arrive here Tuesday night for a day of meetings. Olmert, according to a statement issued by his office, called for the international force - which Annan said would begin arriving in about a week - to deploy on the Syrian-Lebanese border.

The Security Council resolution calls for this only if the Lebanese government asks for it, something that has not yet occurred. Syria is adamantly opposed to such a move.

Defense Minister Amir Peretz, meanwhile, told the cabinet that Hizbullah was "winning points" in south Lebanon by its rehabilitation efforts, and was being assisted by the lack of activity from the international community.

According to various reports, Hizbullah was giving out some $12,000 - money believed to be
coming from Iran - to help people whose homes were damaged during the war.

Peretz reiterated Israel's position that the air and sea blockade of Lebanon would continue, and the IDF would remain in south Lebanon, until the Lebanese army and the enhanced UNIFIL force took up positions in south Lebanon and at border entry points.

This article can also be read at http://www.jpost.com/servlet/Satellite?cid=1154525950456&pagename=JPost%2FJPArticle%2FShowFull

Second article

'Gaza is caught in anarchy and thuggery'
Khaled Abu Toameh, THE JERUSALEM
POST

Aug. 28, 2006

"When you walk in the streets of Gaza City, you cannot but close your eyes because of what you see there: unimaginable chaos, careless policemen, young men carrying guns and strutting with pride and families receiving condolences for their dead in the middle of the street."

This is how Ghazi Hamad, spokesman for the Hamas-controlled Palestinian Authority government and a former newspaper editor, described the situation in the Gaza Strip in an article he published on Sunday on some Palestinian news Web sites.

The article, the first of its kind by a senior Hamas official, also
questioned the effectiveness of the Kassam rocket attacks and noted that since
Israel evacuated the Gaza Strip, the situation there has deteriorated on all
levels. It holds the armed groups responsible for the crisis and calls on them
to reconsider their tactics and to stop blaming Israel for their
mistakes.

"Gaza is suffering under the yoke of anarchy and the swords of thugs," Hamad
wrote. "I remember the day when Israel withdrew from the Gaza Strip and closed
the gates behind. Then, Palestinians across the political spectrum took to the
streets to celebrate what many of us regarded as the Israeli defeat or retreat.

We heard a lot about a promising future in the Gaza Strip and about
turning the area into a trade and industrial zone."

Hamad said the "culture of life" that prevailed in the Strip has since
been replaced with a nightmare. "Life became a nightmare and an intolerable
burden," he said. "Today I ask myself a
daring and frightening question:
'Why did the occupation return to Gaza?' The normal reply: 'The occupation is
the reason.'" Dismissing Israel's responsibility for the growing state of
anarchy and lawlessness in the Gaza Strip, Hamad said it was time for the
Palestinians to embark on a soul-searching process to see where they erred.

"We're always afraid to talk about our mistakes," he added. "We're used
to blaming our mistakes on others. What is the relationship between the chaos,
anarchy, lawlessness, indiscriminate murders, theft of land, family rivalries,
transgression on public lands and unorganized
traffic and the occupation? We are still trapped by the mentality of conspiracy theories - one that
has limited our capability to think." [Note to Democrats: Hamas is
more evolved than you] Hamad admitted that the Palestinians have
failed in developing the Gaza Strip following the Israeli withdrawal and in
imposing law and order.

He said about 500 Palestinians have been killed and 3,000 wounded since the
Israeli pullout, in addition to the destruction of much of the infrastructure in
the area. [Yes, folks, more Palestinians die at the hands of
Palestinians than Israelis!]

By comparison, he said, only three or four Israelis have been killed by the
rockets fired from the
Gaza Strip over the same period.

"Some will argue that it's not a matter of profit or loss, but that this has
an accumulating effect" he said. "This may be true. But isn't there a
possibility of decreasing the number of casualties and increasing our gains by
using our brains and making the proper calculations away from demagogic
statements?"

The Hamas official said that while his government was unable to change
the situation, the opposition was sitting on the side and watching and PA
President Mahmoud Abbas was as weak as ever.

"We have all been attacked by the bacteria of stupidity," he remarked.
"We have lost
our sense of direction and we don't know where we're headed."

Addressing the various armed groups in the Gaza Strip, Hamad concluded:
"Please have mercy on Gaza. Have mercy on us from your demagogy, chaos, guns,
thugs, infighting. Let Gaza breathe a bit. Let it live."

This article can also be read at http://www.jpost.com/servlet/Satellite?cid=1154525954624&pagename=JPost%2FJPArticle%2FShowFull

And as a bonus for those who read this far, a third story. Read this and then ask the question: If Hizb'allah was allowed to build a fortified bunker a few feet from UN positions in South Lebanon, what makes anyone think that the UN will do anything in the future to stop the same type of activity?

IDF uncovers Hizbullah bunker
JPost.com Staff, THE JERUSALEM POST
Aug. 27, 2006

IDF forces from the Golani Brigade blasted open a Hizbullah bunker overnight Saturday some 400 meters from the security fence near Rosh Hanikra, it was reported on Sunday. The bunker was discovered a mere stone's throw from a UN post.

According to Lt.-Col. Jassem Elian, a senior officer in the Golani Brigade, "Hizbullah dug a 40-meter by two-kilometer pit, in which they built dozens of outposts."

Elian added that the bunker had "shooting positions of poured concrete," and that the combat posts inside were equipped with phone lines, showers, toilets, air ducts, and emergency exits, as well as logistical paraphernalia for Hizbullah.

A Golani officer told the Jerusalem Post that among the force's findings was a Katyusha rocket launcher, most likely used in rocket attacks against northern Israel during the war.

He also mentioned that Golani forces had initiated the move to uncover the bunker after the same battalion, in an earlier operation, had discovered maps specifying certain areas
where Hizbullah had planned such tunnels in south Lebanon.

The IDF blasts caused concern among nearby residents, who thought the loud explosions were
rocket fire.

The IDF has continued to operate in southern Lebanon since a cease-fire was called two weeks ago, stopping weapons shipments to Hizbullah and killing several armed Hizbullah operatives who posed an immediate threat to IDF forces.

This article can also be read at http://www.jpost.com/servlet/Satellite?cid=1154525953897&pagename=JPost%2FJPArticle%2FShowFull

When a picture is really worth a thousand words

More great cartoons here.

Further to the last post...

To those who think that Hizb'allah won, I'd like to understand how that can be. Hizb'allah opened up on Israel with its entire armed forces, firing thousands of rockets and missiles into Israel, targeting civilian areas, and they ended up killing 43 Israeli civilians over a period of almost a month. Of those 43, four died of heart attacks and several others were Arabs.

So, being generous to Hizb'allah, about 35 Jewish civlians were killed over a MONTH of rocket barrages into Israel.

This is about what two Palestinian homicide bombers could do in a single afternoon in Tel Aviv.

Not that I want to praise Palestinian terrorists in any way, but the popular line has been that Hizb'allah fought much tougher than the Palestinians, but Palestinians have never unleashed the kind of attack on Israeli civilians yet they have caused far more casualties.

So for the destruction of Lebanon, the use of thousands of rockets and missiles, a month of war, Hizb'allah really didn't even put a dent in Israel.

Instead, what they showed is that Israel can take a month's worth of attacks on civilian areas, consisting of thousands of rockets and missiles designed to inflict maximum casualties to civilians, and emerge with minimal casualties while destroying the host of the attack.

That's a victory for Hizb'allah?

War and Peace

The Zhid took a much needed vacation over the past week or so, thus explaining the lack of posting. My trip was a cruise to the western Caribbean (Grand Cayman, Belize and Mexico, to be exact), with the entire Zhid family (three generations worth). It was my first cruise and I was pleasantly surprised. I expected to hate it but I liked it and developed a great appreciation for snorkeling.

Anyway, enough vacation talk. While I was gone, Israel lost a war, if we are to believe many of the pundits from left to right.

Whether or not this is the case obviously depends on the definition of victory.

If one expected Israel to go in and repeat the Six Day War against Hizb'allah, then yes, Israel lost.

However, I not only missed out the news of the past week, I didn't have access to any of the battlefield intelligence so I am clearly not in a position to assess who won and who lost, however one defines that.

In fact, unless it's a war against two states where one state ceases to exist after the fighting ends, I'm not even sure that concepts of winning and losing apply to wars. And when you are speaking of fighting against terror groups, there are only battles to be won or lost, not wars.

One of the books I'm reading right now is The Battle For Jerusalem by Abraham Rabinovich. It's a fairly long book (470 pages) and it covers just three days of battle during the Six Day War on one small front (Jerusalem). The Six Day War is widely held to be the high point of Israeli military might, yet anyone who has read of the battles in that war, and especially those in Jerusalem against the Jordanians, knows that even in a war that is considered to be a lopsided and crushing victory, there were massive Israeli casualties, more blunders than can be counted and defeat was as close as victory.

It's also the case that the "victory" of the Six Day War led to the crushing defeats of the Yom Kippur War.

In other words, war is not discrete and it takes a very long time to determine whether there was victory or defeat.

It does appear that Israel's performance in Lebanon was not impressive and the fact that Hizb'allah and its leadership survived is taken by many as a sign of Israeli defeat.

I think that is a very premature assessment and one that may change in the coming months. First, Hizb'allah had six years to build a very complex and sophisticated fortification system in Lebanon and it was, moreso than at any other time in recent history, a proxy army against Israel (in this case, an Iranian/Syrian proxy). But because Hizb'allah is stateless, it is one of the most elusive foes around. It has the sophistication of a state's military but few of the hard targets of a state, so it is virtually impossible to have a traditional victory against them.

Second, I think that it will take months before the Lebanese people begin to assess whether they think the damage and destruction Hizb'allah brought to them was worthwhile. It will likely be the case that Hizb'allah's standing suffers from this war. After the joy of "victory" passes, and the people are left with a ruined country, I suspect that there will be much questioning of the value of the sacrifice that Hizb'allah triggered.

Third, and most important, fighting against stateless terror forces is still something that is in its early stages of evolution. It may have been a good thing for Israel to learn that its methods of planning for this fight were deficient and to come up with new strategies and tactics. Just as the failures in 1973 against anti-tank and anti-aircraft weapons led Israel to develop successful strategies, it is likely the case that the failures from this war will lead to Israel's next victory against the tactics of terror groups.

My bottom line is that it would be hard to have a traditional victory in this war and the opportunities to prepare for the next fight, and the lessons learned, could be more valuable than a "victory".

The Right To Keep and Arm Polaks

Ok, so the title isn't as clever as "the right to keep and arm bears". Sue me.

ANYWAY, as some of you may know, Affe has relocated from New York to California and as part of his welcoming package, I paid off a long overdue obligation and gave him this K31 Schmidt Rubin:

We went to the range today so Affe could break in his rifle and I brought along that old Enfield .303 I bought months ago


(that's actually a picture of the Enfield and the Schmidt Rubin I bought for myself).

I can only say that Affe appeared to be impressed with, and enjoy shooting, his K31. He'll have to provide his own report in a comment to this post.

The point of this post is to provide a range report for the .303.

First, I had been hesitant to fire that old Enfield due to the fact that it wasn't in as good condition as other milsurp rifles I've purchased. There were some arsenal repair marks, the magazine was pretty banged up and the rifle looked like it had been used hard and put away wet.

So I finally got the guts up to see whether the old warhorse would blow up in my face and I'm happy to report that it didn't.

Here's the positives of the Enfield: It has a nice feel to it, good balance, and the 10 round magazine is ample. It also has a nice short throw to the action and you can really cycle rounds through it almost as fast as you can pull the trigger. This is definitely a rifle that was made to throw a lot of lead downrange in a short period.

The bad news is that the damn thing wasn't even hitting paper for the first 10 shots. Actually, for the first 15 shots. I finally got a sense of how off the sights were and only after 35 rounds did I have the thing in the black. Granted, I was popping off a lot of rounds without much attention, so I likely could have sighted in a lot more efficiently.

But at the end of the day, I realized that the sights were off by about 2 ft to the left at 100 yards and a good 1 ft low.

By comparison, my K31 was hitting black from the first round fired.

I do like the nice solid kick of the Enfield and that .303 round does kick up a lot of dirt when it hits the backstop. In fact, I'd say that of all the rifles I use, for some reason the .303 kicks up more of a dust cloud than any other. I can see why these things are still being used in parts of the world. It's an almost brutish weapon.

A more detailed report will be filed when I go out again and get serious about sighting in. I think this is a fine addition to anyone's collection, though, if for nothing else than to have a rifle that can spit out 10 rounds in so short a period of time without it being a semi auto.

In Defense Of Responding To Lebanon, Rather Than Iran

A significant number of commentators, and friends of mine in Israel, have complained that Israel's initial response to the Hizb'allah attacks of approximately three weeks ago should have been directed at Iran and/or Syria.

I disagree.

I agree that Iran and Syria are the eminence grises (is that plural) behind Hizb'allah. I further agree that without Iran, Hizb'allah is weak and inconsequential. I'll even agree that Hizb'allah is Iran's proxy front line against Israel.

I suspect that had Israel retaliated against Iran or Syria there would have been a much stronger international condemnation of Israel than we currently see. While most rational people know that Iran and Syria are behind Hizb'allah, I have yet to see enough proof that it could form the basis for respondeat superior culpability, to use a legal term out of its natural place. Furthermore, it's one thing to know someone is guilty, it's another thing to present the evidence, get a conviction and have a punishment approved.

Hizb'allah was the only party that was caught with sufficient evidence to warrant a retaliatory action. And since Hizb'allah exists in and as part of Lebanon, Lebanon was charged with the crimes of its alter ego.

Now I don't think for a second that this is a good way to protect Israel, as I would rather have seen a devastating attack on Lebanon, Syria and Iran, but given the way the world works and the incredible restrictions placed on Israel defending itself, I don't think that there was another choice from a political point of view.

Furthermore, had Israel attacked Syria and or Iran, there is no question that Hizb'allah would have immediately started the rocket barrage and would likely have attempted to cross the border into Israel. So not only would Israel have been fighting Iran and Syria, they still would have been fighting Hizb'allah and Lebanon too. There was just no way around fighting Hizb'allah directly.

I hope that Israel is able to deliver a fatal blow to Hizb'allah, as I think that will have far more impact than many people think it could have. Since Hizb'allah set up operations in southern Lebanon and took credit for Israel leaving Lebanon in 2000, they have been seen as the saviors of the anti-Israel Islamic world, the only military force that ever defeated Israel.

Of course, that's not true, but it is the popular myth and there's only one way to destroy their standing, and the power that is projected upon Iran as a result of Hizb'allah's standing, and that's to defeat Hizb'allah. No cease fire, no truce. An absolute and total victory over Hizb'allah.

Had Israel retaliated against Syria or Iran, it would not have been a complete military engagement. It would have been a raid of some sort, perhaps a bomb or ten dropped in Tehran, an airfield in Syria wiped out or something similar. That would have changed nothing. Israel would have never gone to war with Syria and Iran over what happened three weeks ago. Israel could only have engaged in a symbolic attack and it would, of course, have then been labeled the aggressor.


Instead, Israel went to war, a real war, with the only party that it could have gone to war with, the party that directly attacked Israel and exists right across its northern border.

A defeat of Hizb'allah will deliver a defeat to Iran, one that is far more important than the consequence of Israeli jets bombing Tehran.