Posted on 08/05/2006 3:28:44 AM PDT by robert jones
JERUSALEM – Hezbollah's sophisticated anti-tank missiles are perhaps the guerrilla group's deadliest weapon in Lebanon fighting, with their ability to pierce Israel's most advanced tanks.
Experts say this is further evidence that Israel is facing a well-equipped army in this war, not a ragtag militia.
Hezbollah has fired Russian-made Metis-M anti-tank missiles and owns European-made Milan missiles, the army confirmed on Friday.
In the last two days alone, these missiles have killed seven soldiers and damaged three Israeli-made Merkava tanks – mountains of steel that are vaunted as symbols of Israel's military might, the army said. Israeli media say most of the 44 soldiers killed in four weeks of fighting were hit by anti-tank missiles.
(Excerpt) Read more at signonsandiego.com ...
definition
listening
Beirut and Lebanon war - Beirut on July 31, 2006 after heavy pummeling by Israel
Beirut and Lebanon war - With labels, same area of Beirut, July 31
Don't brag. A bunch of monkeys with IED's have knocked out quite a few.
"I have no agenda for anything except the truth"
Oh, so you're just "biased" in favor of the truth. Now I get it.
And gee. Such a boring world listening to people with biases against terrorist scum like Hezbollah.
Sounds like you got lead in your blood somewhere back when. A ton of it.
Sure there is: liberally biased. This from a UCLA Media study in 2005:
Media Bias Is Real, Finds UCLA Political Scientist
Date: December 14, 2005
Contact: Meg Sullivan ( msullivan@support.ucla.edu )
Phone: 310-825-1046
"While the editorial page of The Wall Street Journal is conservative, the newspaper's news pages are liberal, even more liberal than The New York Times. The Drudge Report may have a right-wing reputation, but it leans left. Coverage by public television and radio is conservative compared to the rest of the mainstream media. Meanwhile, almost all major media outlets tilt to the left.
These are just a few of the surprising findings from a UCLA-led study, which is believed to be the first successful attempt at objectively quantifying bias in a range of media outlets and ranking them accordingly.
"I suspected that many media outlets would tilt to the left because surveys have shown that reporters tend to vote more Democrat than Republican," said Tim Groseclose, a UCLA political scientist and the study's lead author. "But I was surprised at just how pronounced the distinctions are."
"Overall, the major media outlets are quite moderate compared to members of Congress, but even so, there is a quantifiable and significant bias in that nearly all of them lean to the left," said co‑author Jeffrey Milyo, University of Missouri economist and public policy scholar.
The results appear in the latest issue of the Quarterly Journal of Economics, which will become available in mid-December."
I guess we're so biased and dumb we just swallow any old exhaustive study that quantifies and shows what our "biases" tell us about the MSM.
No, we should all listen to LeadPenny's wise words. After all, he's only invested in the truth (ha,ha)...
It's not biased to support Israel in it's fight against Hezbollah. So your statement "everyone has a bias" doesn't apply to those expressing support for Israel's fight on this thread.
Without taking a position on the matter, that statement adds new meaning to the definition of bias.
As for your 89, you're calling that a definition of the MSM? Your definition of a definition differs from mine.
Oh, and in 90, if you refer to someone in a post be sure to include them in the "TO:" line.
Exactly so, particularly in an urban enviroment. Send in the grunts to clean them out house by house, supported by armor.
This should be very disturbing.
We used to say that the Abrams, the Challenger and the Merkava were the only tanks (vehicles that is) which were close to impervious to any weapons the terrorists were carrying.
A well-aimed artillery shell or a really large IED could take them out but the tanks could more-or-less drive down any street in Iraq or Afghanistan or Gaza or Syria or Lebanon and not have to worry much.
But now the terrorists can take out Merks. Maybe this weapon can take out the Abrams and the Challenger too.
Maybe it won't be long before the terrorists and Iran and Syria have lots of Abrams busting anti-tank missiles.
Maybe a huge advantage we had is now gone. Maybe we need to send a rather large message to Russia that they made a very big mistake.
Looks like the graphics come from - http://www.habeeb.com You can use rt clk / 'view source' (in IE, anyway) to see where the pics are coming from.
Or, as Bill Mauldin also said, "Don't you boys carry some dirt to dig holes in?"
I've never seen anything like that in any other army.
Let me know if you find out what this headgear signifies. I am curious also.
If they are using their anti-tank missiles like big grenade launchers, they are sure wasting a heck of a lot of money. What the heck are they going to do when they run out of these overpriced bullets?
It is a sign of a rabble army, one that cannot fight with rifles.
95 degrees in a cooped up tin can? What did our guys go through in older style tanks? What do commie tanks feel like?
I've driven unairconditioned trucks and worked in the Texas heat for a decade. No more for me, unless i really need to.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.