Further evidence that the Israel lobby is delaminating. Larry Johnson, an ex-CIA security pro and former counter-terrorism guy at State who looks on Hamas as a terror organization (sorry, there's no accounting for taste), says that Israel's strategy is "bulls–t".
Sorry, but the Israeli military is acting like a bunch of pathetic
thugs rather than conduct themselves with professionalism and skill.
You do not just kill Palestinians because you can. You kill the assholes shooting the rockets/missiles. Israel has the
means to do that but clearly prefers killing large numbers of
Palestinians.
Johnson says the technology is there to avoid the slaughter Israel is performing. Says my informant: "Johnson is surely right at least with regard to the US having the technology to immediately respond automatically to the source of fire without needing to resort to indiscriminate killing. I wonder why Israel doesn't use this technology as it seems proportional, effective and well, less likely to make all of Gaza hate Israelis. It also encourages other Gazans to discourage people from firing rockets near population centers because the response is so direct and automatic.
"Larry Johnson is over the top in some of his accusations, but it seems clear that the IDF did this because it wanted to hurt Hamas as an organization and kill a lot of people, it was not an effective
attempt to stop rocket fire."
Larry Johnson is the same guy who wrote a fascinating op-ed in the times in august 2001 saying that there was nothing to worry about in regards to Islamic terrorism. Nothing to worry about at all. But then again. Phil thinks that it is "charming" to shoot Jews. So consider the source and the mouth piece.
Phil,
Larry Johnson is the guy who alleged he had a video of Michelle Obama saying "Whitey", which subsequently proved to be a giant hoax. As a leading PUMA (the pro-Hillary group of voters who refused to support Obama), Johnson's website was source of some of the most vile anti-Obama rumors. In particular, NoQuarter was obsessive about Obama's relationship with Rashid Khalidi, which it portrayed in sinister overtones:
http://www.noquarterusa.net/blog/category/rashid-khalidi/
I know a lot of people don't like Obama, and I certainly don't commend his stance on the Israel-Palestine issue. Nonetheless, even Obama critics must find it hypocritical that a guy who used Obama's friendship with a respected Palestinian-American academic as evidence of Obama's hidden terrorist sympathies suddenly discovers solidarity with Palestinians in Gaza.
i was beginning to wonder when americas intelligence agents would tire of feeling muzzled in their own contry and by their own intelligence apparatuses….
maybe the spirit of the american revolution still lives somewhere deep in their dna still.
and to think of those poor souls of the us liberty and how our nation had to suck it up and keep silent for so long.
i hope there will be accountability someday.
Maybe the reason they don't immediately respond to the rocket launchers is that some of them're on the Mossad's payroll?
Oops!
Larry, Larry, Larry.
The same guy that earlier in the year was in Commentary's sites (long standing anti-neocon) then jumped on the HRC bandwagon big time. All because HRC asked some ionsightful questions during a briefing he gave. Sure. Then he became the "go to" guy for the right wing's snowstorm of innuendo and anti-Obama rumors. Now that a National Security position with HRC is off the table he's back on the anti-neocon crusade.
Reminds me a bit of Hitchens.
You kill the assholes shooting the rockets/missiles. Israel has the means to do that…
Yes, they do have the means to neutralize those hopelessly ineffectual "attacks" from Gaza.
It's called counter-battery radar.
It is possible using artillery locating radar and other surveillance systems, to determine rapidly and with high precision the location of an artillery gun that has opened fire. There is thus a good opportunity for an enemy to open effective counter-battery fire. The artillery has therefore more or less been forced to depart from its previously fairly stationary tactics, in favour of significantly more mobile tactics involving rapid engagements in the form of short intensive fires, followed by immediate redeployment to a pre-determined deployment site at a sufficiently safe distance from the previous one. These new tactics have resulted in an increased need for every gun to be self-propelled and capable of carrying at least a primary requirement of ammunition.
link to globalsecurity.org