Israel Warns Civilians:Next War To Be Harder Than Ever

[pbel]

One thing we can all be certain of. Any attack on Israel will result in a retaliation with the death toll in Israel's favor.

MJ, don't you think they all know this? That's why the Arabs roughly half a billion people know, and gladly sacrifice their lives. In a war of attrition, the vast numerical superior numbers will prevail...

 

[Bloodrock44]

One thing we can all be certain of. Any attack on Israel will result in a retaliation with the death toll in Israel's favor.

MJ, don't you think they all know this? That's why the Arabs roughly half a billion people know, and gladly sacrifice their lives. In a war of attrition, the vast numerical superior numbers will prevail...

You all keep bringing up the 1.6 billion Muslims, and all they have do is win once and wait until they get the bomb and yada yada yada. Israel will use their bomb before they allow the arabs to get one. Then can you imagine the smell all over the world when 1.6 billion Muslims crap their pants all at once?

 

[pbel]

You keep thinking that Israel's nukes are going to protect her...I think if Israel ever uses her nukes, Pakistan will nuke her and thousands of WMD will land in her cities...

Israel will not end with external destruction...in a war of attrition which may last centuries, the cost of denfense makes the nation collapse from within.

I honestly don't expect you to understand because you think with your emotions rather than using logic.

Although I never looked up the term, I did for you and hope that you understand that Israel's only hope of long term survival is peace and spreading prosperity to the region.

Only prosperity stops wars...WWll was won in this manner by the USA and then made all its former enemies into friends with trade.

This article is about the military strategy. For the Israeli-Egyptian conflict, see War of Attrition. For the game theoretical model, see War of attrition (game).


Outline of war




http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Attrition_warfare
Strategic considerations[edit source]

Military theorists and strategists like Sun Tzu have viewed attrition warfare as something to be avoided. In the sense that attrition warfare represents an attempt to grind down an opponent through superior numbers, it represents the opposite of the usual principles of war, where one attempts to achieve decisive victories by using minimal necessary resources and in minimal amount of time, through maneuver, concentration of force, surprise, and the like.[2]

On the other hand, a side which perceives itself to be at a marked disadvantage in maneuver warfare or unit tactics may deliberately seek out attrition warfare to neutralize its opponent's advantages. If the sides are nearly evenly matched, the outcome of a war of attrition is likely to be a Pyrrhic victory.

The difference between war of attrition and other forms of war is somewhat artificial, since war always contains an element of attrition. However, one can be said to pursue a strategy of attrition when one makes it the main goal to cause gradual attrition to the opponent eventually amounting to unacceptable or unsustainable levels for the opponent while limiting one's own gradual losses to acceptable and sustainable levels. This should be seen as opposed to other main goals such as the conquest of some resource or territory or an attempt to cause the enemy great losses in a single stroke (e.g. by encirclement and capture).

Historically, attritional methods are tried when other methods have failed or are obviously not feasible. Typically, when attritional methods have worn down the enemy sufficiently to make other methods feasible, attritional methods are abandoned in favor of other strategies. In World War I, improvements in firepower but not communications and mobility forced military commanders to rely on attrition, with terrible loss of life.

Attritional methods are in themselves usually sufficient to cause a nation to give up a non-vital ambition, but other methods are generally necessary to achieve unconditional surrender.

History[edit source]





French troopers using periscope, 1915
It is often argued that the best-known example of attrition warfare was during World War I on the Western Front.[3] Both military forces found themselves in static defensive positions in trenches running from Switzerland to the English Channel. For years, without any opportunity for maneuvers, the only way the commanders thought they could defeat the enemy was to repeatedly attack head on, to grind the other down.[4]

Attritional warfare in World War I has been shown by historians such as Hew Strachan to have been used as a post hoc excuse for failed offensives. Erich von Falkenhayn later claimed that his tactics at Verdun were designed not to take the city, but rather to destroy the French Army in its defense. In practice the German Offensive was intended to go as far as possible and had no obvious design to minimize German casualties and maximize French casualties. Attrition was therefore used later in the battle to shift the focus away from Falkenhayn's tactical failure, rather than a goal of the battle itself.

Attrition to the enemy was easy to assert and difficult to refute, and thus may have been a convenient face-saving exercise in the wake of many indecisive battles. It is in many cases hard to see the logic of warfare by attrition because of the obvious uncertainty of the level of damage to the enemy, and of the damage that the attacking force may sustain to its own limited and expensive resources, while trying to achieve that damage.

That is not to say that a general will not be prepared to sustain high casualties while trying to reach an objective. An example in which one side used attrition warfare to neutralize the other side's advantage in maneuverability and unit tactics occurred during the latter part of the American Civil War, when Ulysses S. Grant pushed the Confederate Army continually, in spite of losses, confident that the Union's supplies and manpower would overwhelm the Confederacy even if the casualty ratio was unfavorable; this indeed proved to be the case.[5]

Other examples[edit source]

 

[Book of Jeremiah]

I don't agree with or support suicide bombings so, yes.
All I wish for is, they blow themselves up but hurt no one when they do it.

As for invading troops getting killed or injured, don't invade and it won't happen.
All Israeli troops are legitimate military targets as they're part of an invading force but this was a Darwin job.
Cross a border, enter a mine field and get blown up.
They should have died but one hopes their bollocks were blasted off so they're unable to breed.

But your hero suicide bombers rarely target troops and often target the most innocent of civilians.

One more reason why I don't support suicide bombers and one reason I don't support the IDF.
They target civilians as well.

Frankly, I wish both lots would go away and kill each other so the rest of the world can live in peace.[/QUOTE



That is a bold faced lie, Indofred. The IDF DOES NOT TARGET CIVILIANS. Your side does. They have openly admitted to targeting Israeli civilians on youtube videos and claim that according to their religion it is acceptable to kill Jews by any means they can.

The IDF in fact, goes out of their way NOT to have any civilian casualties. Terrorists who launch rockets into Israel's civilian population are not considered citizens but Terrorists - by their own actions - they lose their rights to claim any type of private citizenry rights.

Same goes for those Muslims who choose to aid and abett them in such criminal behavior. They are not considered civilians by any stretch of the imagination.

What other govt drops leaflets before hand warning people to get out of harms way as they hit the target that is attacking Israel? No one other than the Israelis. IAF drops the leaflets in order to save lives. Your side has never done such a thing but rather targets Israeli daycares, sr citizen homes, neighborhoods, buses, pizzerias - anywhere they can kill innocent Jews.

That is why you and others who think like you are under the curse of G-d, in my opinion.

- Jeremiah

 

[Bloodrock44]

You keep thinking that Israel's nukes are going to protect her...I think if Israel ever uses her nukes, Pakistan will nuke her and thousands of WMD will land in her cities...

Israel will not end with external destruction...in a war of attrition which may last centuries, the cost of denfense makes the nation collapse from within.

I honestly don't expect you to understand because you think with your emotions rather than using logic.

Emotions my arse. Pakistan nuke Israel? And wipe out the Palestinians with them? Of course we know the rest of the arabs don't give a whit about the Palestinians. But aren't we Israel's ally? If Pakistan nuked Israel we would turn them into a sea of glass and they know it. Use that noggin buddy.

 

[Book of Jeremiah]

Israels Samson Option has and will continue to protect her and she won't use that Option unless she gets pushed to that point. So leave her alone and you won't have any problems, Pbel.
-J.

 

[pbel]

Israels Samson Option has and will continue to protect her and she won't use that Option unless she gets pushed to that point. So leave her alone and you won't have any problems, Pbel.
-J.

Very naive thinking Jerry...Even the mighty USA could not Stop N. Korea from building nukes...and remember, Sampson died when he used his option.

Learn from that.

 

[Bloodrock44]

Israels Samson Option has and will continue to protect her and she won't use that Option unless she gets pushed to that point. So leave her alone and you won't have any problems, Pbel.
-J.

Very naive thinking Jerry...Even the mighty USA could not Stop N. Korea from building nukes...and remember, Sampson died when he used his option.

Learn from that.

Your handlers are becoming upset. You are departing from the mantra. Please remember to mention the 1.6 billion Muslims, wait 'til we get the bomb, all we have do is win once and we'll win in the war of attrition. Thanks.

 

[pbel]

Israels Samson Option has and will continue to protect her and she won't use that Option unless she gets pushed to that point. So leave her alone and you won't have any problems, Pbel.
-J.

Very naive thinking Jerry...Even the mighty USA could not Stop N. Korea from building nukes...and remember, Sampson died when he used his option.

Learn from that.

Your handlers are becoming upset. You are departing from the mantra. Please remember to mention the 1.6 billion Muslims, wait 'til we get the bomb, all we have do is win once and we'll win in the war of attrition. Thanks.

Pbel has no handlers...I do my own analysis in International relations...You can't get blood out of a Rock with rock-headed logic.

Israel is a Western Crusader Nation imposed by the Western Powers for a safe-haven for Holocaust Jews. I support that. Israel needs to sign the Arab League offer of peace and recognition or it will suffer the fate of ALL previous invaders to the region.

 

[Roudy]

I don't agree with or support suicide bombings so, yes.
All I wish for is, they blow themselves up but hurt no one when they do it.

As for invading troops getting killed or injured, don't invade and it won't happen.
All Israeli troops are legitimate military targets as they're part of an invading force but this was a Darwin job.
Cross a border, enter a mine field and get blown up.
They should have died but one hopes their bollocks were blasted off so they're unable to breed.

But your hero suicide bombers rarely target troops and often target the most innocent of civilians.

One more reason why I don't support suicide bombers and one reason I don't support the IDF.
They target civilians as well.

Frankly, I wish both lots would go away and kill each other so the rest of the world can live in peace.

Nah, be honest, that's not what you wish. You've said it many times over and over. You want your fellow Muslims to obliterate the state of Israel.

It's not the Israelis that lust for Arab or Palestinian blood. The Israelis are merely taking defensive measures to protect their citizens.

 

[P F Tinmore]

Saw an article yesterday where 4 IDF soldiers were wounded in an explosion along the border with Lebanon. Lebanese alleged they had crossed the border and the explosion was possibly a land mine. Now an interesting article in the LA Times saying that Israel has warned civilians that the next war will be the hardest ever as Hezbollah has 60,000-100,000 rockets with better accuracy, longer distance and increased payload. With the recent incident, does anyone think that Hezbollah is planning something or are they too tied down in Syria? How strong a response from Israel if the rockets started falling?

Israel fears next war with Hezbollah will hit civilians harder - latimes.com

Israel doing what Israel does best.

Bombing the crap out of civilians.

 

[Hossfly]

Saw an article yesterday where 4 IDF soldiers were wounded in an explosion along the border with Lebanon. Lebanese alleged they had crossed the border and the explosion was possibly a land mine. Now an interesting article in the LA Times saying that Israel has warned civilians that the next war will be the hardest ever as Hezbollah has 60,000-100,000 rockets with better accuracy, longer distance and increased payload. With the recent incident, does anyone think that Hezbollah is planning something or are they too tied down in Syria? How strong a response from Israel if the rockets started falling?

Israel fears next war with Hezbollah will hit civilians harder - latimes.com

Israel doing what Israel does best.

Bombing the crap out of civilians.

Do you think you can tell your bosses in Hamas on your magic computer which really isn't there that if the rockets into Israeli would stop, there would be no retaliation? Yessiree, all those wounded Syrian civilians crossing the border into Israel for treatment in Israeli hospitals were wounded because of Israeli bombings and not Tinnie's friends. So tell us, Tinnie, as a matter of curiosity, just whom do you want to win in Syria and which side do you think is killing the most civilians?

 

[P F Tinmore]

Saw an article yesterday where 4 IDF soldiers were wounded in an explosion along the border with Lebanon. Lebanese alleged they had crossed the border and the explosion was possibly a land mine. Now an interesting article in the LA Times saying that Israel has warned civilians that the next war will be the hardest ever as Hezbollah has 60,000-100,000 rockets with better accuracy, longer distance and increased payload. With the recent incident, does anyone think that Hezbollah is planning something or are they too tied down in Syria? How strong a response from Israel if the rockets started falling?

Israel fears next war with Hezbollah will hit civilians harder - latimes.com

Israel doing what Israel does best.

Bombing the crap out of civilians.

Do you think you can tell your bosses in Hamas on your magic computer which really isn't there that if the rockets into Israeli would stop, there would be no retaliation? Yessiree, all those wounded Syrian civilians crossing the border into Israel for treatment in Israeli hospitals were wounded because of Israeli bombings and not Tinnie's friends. So tell us, Tinnie, as a matter of curiosity, just whom do you want to win in Syria and which side do you think is killing the most civilians?

External forces are responsible for most (I would say almost all) of the deaths in Syria.

 

[Hossfly]

I wonder if you feel the same when a Hamas animal prematurely detonates himself?

I don't agree with or support suicide bombings so, yes.
All I wish for is, they blow themselves up but hurt no one when they do it.

As for invading troops getting killed or injured, don't invade and it won't happen.
All Israeli troops are legitimate military targets as they're part of an invading force but this was a Darwin job.
Cross a border, enter a mine field and get blown up.
They should have died but one hopes their bollocks were blasted off so they're unable to breed.

But your hero suicide bombers rarely target troops and often target the most innocent of civilians.

Now they even have Donald Duck on their side.


The Egyptian man whose claim to fame is voicing Donald Duck for Disney Middle East has openly called for the destruction of Jewish state, while vehemently denying that he hates the Jews.

On Sunday, Wael Mansour, who identifies himself as the "official voice of Donald Duck" in the region, posted the following on his Twitter account:

"I truly wish #Israel is demolished, I hate Zionism, I have so much hate inside me with every single child they murder or land they seize!"


Donald Duck calls for Israel's destruction - Israel Today | Israel News

 

[Indofred]

Mr. Duck's quote is understandable.

He's complaining of brutality, not ranting on about Jews.
That's the elephant that is totally ignored when talking about Israel.
Their government and forces are nasty and care little who they hurt as long as the Zionist ideal stays in place.
That'll be what causes the next war and how their policies will kill so many of their own people.

 

[Hossfly]

Mr. Duck's quote is understandable.

He's complaining of brutality, not ranting on about Jews.
That's the elephant that is totally ignored when talking about Israel.
Their government and forces are nasty and care little who they hurt as long as the Zionist ideal stays in place.
That'll be what causes the next war and how their policies will kill so many of their own people.

Freedie, you are funny!!!. We all know by now about the brutality in Muslim countries against others, so your post is quite ludicrous. Why doesn't Mr. Donald get together with Miss Daisy and talk about the brutality against the Christian Copts in Egypt or would that be too much to ask? Perhaps Mr. Duck like a lot of Muslims feels it is OK to brutalize Christians as well as other non Muslims. After all, they do not accept Islam (or the Sunni version of Islam).

http://www.caircoalition.org/2013/0...brotherhood-in-egypt-seeks-safety-in-the-u-s/

 

[Indofred]

Mr. Duck's quote is understandable.

He's complaining of brutality, not ranting on about Jews.
That's the elephant that is totally ignored when talking about Israel.
Their government and forces are nasty and care little who they hurt as long as the Zionist ideal stays in place.
That'll be what causes the next war and how their policies will kill so many of their own people.

Freedie, you are funny!!!. We all know by now about the brutality in Muslim countries against others, so your post is quite ludicrous. Why doesn't Mr. Donald get together with Miss Daisy and talk about the brutality against the Christian Copts in Egypt or would that be too much to ask? Perhaps Mr. Duck like a lot of Muslims feels it is OK to brutalize Christians as well as other non Muslims. After all, they do not accept Islam (or the Sunni version of Islam).

http://www.caircoalition.org/2013/0...brotherhood-in-egypt-seeks-safety-in-the-u-s/

XXXXXXXXXXXXXX
I fully condemn acts of violence against Christians in Egypt.
That same condemnation applies to all who target any group without a real reason.
Yes, that includes the idiot end of Islam who think they'll go to sit with the Almighty Allah if they bomb a mosque or sling acid in British Jewish girls' faces because they happen to be Jewish.
No excuses, no applause, just condemnation and a note to say I'd be happy to inform the police and get them banged up if I had the slightest idea where they were.

However, trying to deflect attention away from the same sort of crimes, but committed by the Israeli government, doesn't form much of a debating style.

Two wrongs don't make a right.