The Shotgun Blog
Monday, July 31, 2006
Chinese observers in south Lebanon
Here's my Sun column from today about the UN observers staying on after the war broke out. Maybe I buried the lead; it's just a question, but a question I haven't seen asked:
It's not unthinkable one of the "observers" in that bunker -- a Chinese soldier was among the four dead -- was indeed observing the battle closely.
China is Hezbollah's major arms supplier, through Iran. Most of the Hezbollah rockets are Chinese made.
Is that why the UN post was still "observing" the war even after it started?
Is that unimaginable? Here's what else I wrote:
In 2000, Hezbollah terrorists also kidnapped Israeli soldiers. UN video cameras caught the whole thing on tape, but UN Secretary-General Kofi Annan refused to turn the tapes over to the Israelis. A UN soldier stationed there later claimed the reason the UN didn't turn over the tape is because four other UN troops actually assisted in the kidnapping -- Indian troops, bribed by Hezbollah.
Okay, let me do what the Star and the Post don't do: Invite comments and reader feedback, without editorial restrictions!
Posted by Ezra Levant on July 31, 2006 | Permalink
TrackBack URL for this entry:
Listed below are links to weblogs that reference Chinese observers in south Lebanon:
Ezra, these are terrible things you describe; but there are also terrible things you never describe, atrocities commited by our "liberal democratic" side.
Posted by: More to the Story | 2006-07-31 4:45:18 PM
It looks like The US, Israel, Australia, England and Canada are at ware with the entire rest of the planet.
Maybe it's time to consider taking off the gloves.
We had better do something big and screw what the rest of the world thinks.or we WILL LOSE THIS!
When it comes to my survival and the survival of my culture, nukes are in the equasion.
Posted by: Duke | 2006-07-31 4:45:56 PM
Sounds possible; I would like proof. Say, a signed statement or video interview from the UN soldier. And a more concrete connection between the Chinese soldier and the Chinese arms sales than the fact they're both Chinese.
Your statements are worrying, it's true, but I would like evidence before I state to my friends that China is in bed with Hezbollah is in bed with Kofi.
Posted by: Tozetre | 2006-07-31 5:00:44 PM
More to the Story:
The UN was supposed to be the "liberal democratic" side. I take it you are admitting that the UN is now on the "other" side.
Posted by: TimR | 2006-07-31 5:09:12 PM
"Proof" is nice to have but, often, you must build a solid wall of circumstantial evidence, one brick at a time. It takes brains to put it together and see the wall grow, but it will convince you. It's done in the courtroom all the time, a skilfully built wall of circumstantial evidence will eliminate reasonable doubt. The prejudiced will retain unreasonable doubt.
Posted by: anon | 2006-07-31 5:14:56 PM
Ezra Levant wrote: China is Hezbollah's major arms supplier, through Iran. Most of the Hezbollah rockets are Chinese made.
Chinese made? Most are Chinese or Russian variants but not Chinese made.
The Iranians supply Hezbollah with the a wide variety of missles. Haseb, an Iranian 12 tube 107 mm MRL that is a variant of a Chinese 107 mm rocket, as well as variants of Chinese and Russian 122 mm rockets such as the Noor and Hadid 40 tube 122 mm MRL systems and the Arash version of the 122mm Katyusha MRL
The most sophisticated weapon Hezbollah has is an antiship cruise missile, the C-802, an Iranian-made variant of the Chinese Silkworm which damaged an Israeli gunboat..
IDF analysts are certain that a 220-millimeter rocket used in a deadly attack on a railway site in Haifa - was built in Syria.
Posted by: No Spin Zone | 2006-07-31 5:22:55 PM
Your Sun article is a heck of good critique of the UN, Ezra. Here's another one, from Rex Murphy in the G&M on 2003-12-20: "The UN is a capricious body, immune to irony, and tone-deaf, when it chooses to be, to the most extravagant contradictions. [...] On the days when the UN is not a cauldron of impotence, it is a factory of tactlessness."
Posted by: Vitruvius | 2006-07-31 5:28:48 PM
The irony here is that the Liebral/NDP party and the people of Ontario, criticize PM Harper for daring to question the UN in any way, shape or form.
This really shouldn't be surprising as those groups have regularly tolerated even the most despicable groups, like child molesters, Holocaust Deniers, criminals, and terrorists.
Posted by: Zebulon Pike | 2006-07-31 5:36:24 PM
No Spin Zone, remember that ideas and technologies can be just as dangerous, or more, than the weapons themselves. China may not have made these rockets directly, but without them giving or selling the plans to Iran and Syria, they would not exist. Of course the same can be said of many western technologies given to what are now are enemies (remember the panic in the media in November 2001 when they were convinced that the Taliban would use US made stinger missiles against us? good thing rocket fuel has a relatively short shelf life...). Anyways, the point still stands, China is aiding these terrorist in the same way the US aided groups around the world against COMINTERN.
Posted by: Big Makk | 2006-07-31 5:39:05 PM
chinese munitions, are nothing new in trouble spots in the world, when i was stationed in the middle east it was common to see modern chinese munitions of all sorts being carried about by the assorted nutbars there
Posted by: john A | 2006-07-31 5:43:01 PM
The American arms industry exports more than China does, but could we please ignore that? We're allowed to do it.
Posted by: Please Ignore This | 2006-07-31 6:22:33 PM
The question, P.I.T, is not the quantity, it is the purposes to which the exports are being put.
Posted by: Vitruvius | 2006-07-31 6:36:10 PM
Vitruvius postulates: " .... it is the purposes to which the exports are being put."
USA-made bombs killed how many children yesterday morning?? Hey, but if that's OK with you .... it's a free world, everyone's entitled to their viewpoint.
Ezra did invite comments so here goes: I defer to your journalistic integrity (so I assume all of the facts of the story are correct). But the timing might not be the best to leave out the obvious dame being done (albeit unintentionally) by USA-made bombs. (I'm not Yankee-bashing here, just referring to the aspect of "arms importing")
Posted by: John Leningrad | 2006-07-31 6:47:34 PM
Big Makk wrote: China may not have made these rockets directly,
Unfortunately that wasn’t what was stated. What was stated was ” China is Hezbollah's major arms supplier,” and China is not Hezbollah’s main arms supplier.
Did you know that Israel is China's second largest supplier of arms. Or that the newest addition to the Chinese air force, the F-10 multi-role fighter, is an almost identical version of the Lavi (Lion). The Lavi was a joint Israeli-American design based upon the F-16 for manufacture in Israel, but financed mostly with American aid. They also supply the Chinese Air Force with Python 3 AAM. So would you say that Israel is also indirectly aiding terrorists as it supplies China with weapons?
Big Makk also wrote:Anyways, the point still stands, China is aiding these terrorist in the same way the US aided groups around the world against COMINTERN.
The COMINTERN was dissolved in 1943. Maybe you meant the COMINFORM, that was dissolved in 1956
Posted by: No Spin Zone | 2006-07-31 6:57:57 PM
It is not clear to me that US made bombs killed those children yesterday morning, John L. Or even Israeli bombs. There are reports to the effect that the building collapsed eight hours after the strikes against the missle-launching sites, which if true makes the entire conjecture irrelevant, regardless of the broader issues relating to Israel's right (under international law) and duty (under the moral terms of the notion of the state, as judged by the history of civilization) to defend itself against foreign invaders of its soverign territory.
Posted by: Vitruvius | 2006-07-31 7:00:43 PM
Actually I think I defer to No Spin Zone :-).
Posted by: John Leningrad | 2006-07-31 7:05:08 PM
china has a long reputation for selling arms to the highest bidder, no questions asked. although it has done so for both economic and political reasons, like its ongoing sales to iran in exchange for oil. we used to play a game when chinese arms were being transported by us, to pick out the chinese military/sales types mingled in with the religious nutbars. it passed the time,
and the u.n. types from other countries with me made a few dollars off it. we didnt find it that amusing but we were canadians, so we were infidels to start with
Posted by: john A | 2006-07-31 7:17:40 PM
Don't give us this "no editorial restrictions" thing. I seem to remember you editorially restricting a post on this blog by Rondi last January...
So Western Standard Shotgun rules:
- Arguing for banning a religion from Canada -- Allowed;
- Talking about a straight married couple having sex - verbotim!
Posted by: JKelly | 2006-07-31 7:33:31 PM
What does it take for intelligent people to grasp that the U.N. is not, never has been and never will be part of the solution. Au contraire, it is a big part of the problem.
Posted by: Alain | 2006-07-31 7:36:40 PM
As I am not familiar with that, I remain agnostic.
However, I am curious to know which way you want WS to go. More restrictions or less?
Posted by: h2o273kk9 | 2006-07-31 7:37:48 PM
It is not necessarily the case that having sex has a valid place in the social space provided by the Shotgun, ergo, it is not necessarily the case that such restrictions were editorial. Indeed, JG and PM have been explicitly dewelcomed here, but it was not due to editorial restrictions on the content of their comments, it was for egregious violations of social norms in regard to the manner in which they presented said comments.
Posted by: Vitruvius | 2006-07-31 7:38:38 PM
h2o273etc. Here are the relevant posts:
Posted by: JKelly | 2006-07-31 8:28:39 PM
Thank you for the links. I will review them.
I still would like to know how you would have proceeded. I have no dog in this fight so this is not an attempt to sandbag.
Posted by: h2o273kk9 | 2006-07-31 8:34:27 PM
No Spin Zone:
Mistake when I wrote COMINTERN.. been reading too much Mitrokhin Archives lately :) You know what I meant though. And you mean the J-10 not the "F-10", and I may have some similarities to the Lavi (which was cancelled), but remember the Russkies used to rip off Western designs all the time (SU-27/F-15, or even the infamous "Concordski"). Needless to say they were not given the plans intentionally, and I highly doubt that Israel would give designs to Communist China (but it is true that Israel, China, and South Africa all belonged to a kind of arms trading club for outcast states, however, this relationship does not exist anymore).
Also, to clarify, when I said "China may not have made these rockets directly", I meant it as in may or may not have... I don't know if they did, but it certainly is possible. The main point still stands; China, Iran, North Korea, Syria, and Lebanon all belong to the same club now. Heck, when the NK's launched those crappy missiles last month, Iranian military reps observed from North Korea. I also heard that China had reps in Lebanon a month before the Hezbollah incursion... not confirmed though.
Posted by: Big Makk | 2006-07-31 11:39:06 PM
Big Makk, the SU-27 is a completely different aircraft from the F-15 and bears no significant resemblence.
The SU-27 family is vastly superior to the F-15 and was designed with an amazing upgrade capacity.
Posted by: Speller | 2006-08-01 8:29:30 AM
Weapons, weapons, weapons.
Doesn't anybody talk about sex any more?
Posted by: Set you free | 2006-08-01 8:45:50 AM
PLA observers would be there to assess the effects of their weaponry and the efficacy of tactics of the IDF.
They would also be advisors to Hizb'allah, maybe even going so far as to direct some operations.
Posted by: Speller | 2006-08-01 8:51:40 AM
Ezra is right.
And the thing is, there is simply no such thing as standing around, being neutral. The UN has never ever been neutral! Well, except on the point where it was founded, and even then, it was founded to uphold the law, and what is right. Since that time, there have been points, in partcular, in relation to israel, and the terrorists, where the UN has directly pandered to the needs of the terrorists, where Jewish blood has been spilt!
We have received and heard the message.
Neutral, according to Liberals and the UN means they turn a blind eye to attacks against Jews and the State of Israel. This si why it is so dispicable. To do what they have done, they have undermined everything the UN has stood for in the first place. And what is more, sacrificed Jewish blood, to appease the evil inclinations of men in their death cult!
Posted by: Lady | 2006-08-01 10:12:18 AM
Actually Speller, the SU-27 was directly modelled after the F-15, as it was the first russian fighter with the dual-rudder, dual-engine, dual-intake configuration. "The Sukhoi design, which was altered progressively to reflect Soviet awareness of the F-15's specifications, emerged as the T-10 (Sukhoi's 10th delta wing design), which first flew on 20 May 1977. The aircraft had a large delta wing, clipped, with two separate podded engines and a twin tail." -Wikipedia. The Sukhoi design team was actually ordered to copy the design of the F-15; of course they put their own twists on the design, one of them which allowed the famous "Cobra" manuever. Also, the SU-27 is not superior to the F-15, being slower, with less advanced avionics, and a HUGE radar cross-section. Its only advantage lies in the superior close-in dogfighting role (which the F-15 would aviod anyways), and a supposedly better long range missile system (which has never been battle-tested, and experiences with American long-range missile systems like the Phoenix, Sparrow, and Patriot show such systems are unreliable at best, and useless at worst).
Set you Free, want to talk sex? Just look at the guns on an A-10.... oh yeah. :P
Posted by: Big Makk | 2006-08-01 2:39:18 PM
"Actually Speller, the SU-27 was directly modelled after the F-15, as it was the first russian fighter with the dual-rudder, dual-engine, dual-intake configuration." Big Makk
Actually, Big Makk the first russian fighter with the dual-rudder, dual-engine, dual-intake configuration was the MIG-25 Foxbat first flown in 1964, introduced into service in 1970.
The F-15 was partly designed to counter the MIG-25
Big Makk quotes>
"The Sukhoi design, which was altered progressively to reflect Soviet awareness of the F-15's specifications, emerged as the T-10 (Sukhoi's 10th delta wing design), which first flew on 20 May 1977. The aircraft had a large delta wing, clipped, with two separate podded engines and a twin tail." -Wikipedia. The Sukhoi design team was actually ordered to copy the design of the F-15; of course they put their own twists on the design, one of them which allowed the famous "Cobra" manuever. Also, the SU-27 is not superior to the F-15, being slower, with less advanced avionics, and a HUGE radar cross-section. Its only advantage lies in the superior close-in dogfighting role (which the F-15 would aviod anyways), and a supposedly better long range missile system (which has never been battle-tested, and experiences with American long-range missile systems like the Phoenix, Sparrow, and Patriot show such systems are unreliable at best, and useless at worst).
The wiki article you posted is obsolete and incorrect.
The SU-27 entered production in 1982.
Rather than being a 'RIP OFF' as you put it of the F-15, the SU-27 was created as a counter to or anti-F-15.
All SU-27s are upgradeable to the SU-30.
The SU-27 "P-42" was converted from the T10S-3 by stripping it of all unnecessary equipment, and was used to successfully challenge records held by the similarly stripped-down F-15 "Streak Eagle". The flights were performed by Sukhoi test pilots Sadovnikov and Viktor Pugachev. One of the flights set a record climb to 15,000 meters (49,200 feet) in 70.33 seconds, breaking the Streak Eagle's record by seven seconds.
While the aircraft's s standard BVR missile, the "R-27" or "AA-10 Alamo" as it is known by NATO, is regarded as inferior to the US AIM-120 AMRAAM, the standard dogfighting missile, the "Vympel R-73 / AA-11 Archer", is regarded as a pioneer in its class.
Although the reliability of the aircraft's electronics may be uncertain, Russian partisans like to mock Western aircraft for their delicate mechanical nature and inability to operate off of rough airstrips. The rugged Su-27S was designed for such an environment and has no difficulty with it.
EAGLE vs FLANKER
pic of 2 SU-27s with SU-30 upgrades on US F-15 during Cope India exercise where the IAF defeated the USAF 9 to 1.
SU-27 Flanker History
The best part about the SU-27 is that they sell for about $8 million a pop!
Posted by: Speller | 2006-08-01 4:08:02 PM
The SU-30MK which is the new upgrade of the SU-27 the PLAAF are flying beats the F-15 every time.
The maneuver described in the simulator is the Cobra maneuver
which was once described as 'useless' in aerial combat.
No Western fighters can perform the Cobra.
Posted by: Speller | 2006-08-01 6:00:35 PM
Big Makk and Speller,
It is so sexy when you talk shop like that!
//Sarcasm has BEEEEEEN turned off!
Posted by: Lady | 2006-08-02 9:53:40 AM
Speller, its all academic once the Raptor goes operational :)
Posted by: Big Makk | 2006-08-03 3:14:41 AM
Big Makk, there is no such thing as stealth.
The Raptor is being produced in single digit numbers annually because of it's tremendous cost/aircraft. Because of the stealth idea the Raptor carries it's very limited weapons stores internally. Once it fires a weapon it announces it's presence and location to aircraft using radar targeting. And make no mistake, the Russians and their clients have airborne radar.
I have flown simulations against the Raptor with the new Eurofighter 2000 and the Raptor is quite visible using the FLIR(forward looking infra red) targeting system.
The SU-27 family are very cheap per copy. If you read Soviet doctrine, which is still used by Russia and China, and the Cope India exercise you will find that not only are these Russian made aircraft better but are used in overwhelming numbers.
American doctrine depends on first strikes destroying enemy airforces on the ground.
That isn't going to happen against Russia, China, India, etc.
Now that the U.S. Navy has retired the F-14 Tomcat they have nothing to go up against SU-27, SU-30, SU-35 etc. Only the F-15 is in it's class and it is flown only by the USAF from prepared landing strips. That means aerial refueling and easy tracking of any large airgroups.
The Americans have retired most of their deep strike aircraft, the F-111, A-6, A-7, B-1, in favour of cruise missiles.
The F-18 Hornet isn't even in the same class. It is too small with very limited range and cannot carry much weapons stores.
Read this link, Big Makk, it's very entertaining and it shows comparrisons between the SU-27 and it's American counterparts. It's written by a veteran U.S. pilot and he recommends buying the SU-27 for the U.S. inventory.
Posted by: Speller | 2006-08-03 7:30:51 AM
Good article Speller. Do you know when it was written? Also are you a pilot or just enthusiast? I'm sure we could debate this forever (i.e., SU-27 is visible from 300+ km with awacs, F-22 proponents suggest using it in attack role (air to surface), what about UAVs especially Daussalt's latest effort (since unbelievably the US cancelled it bigger UAV programs in favour of developing another manned strategic bomber), etc, etc). Also, I'm interested in your position on Canada aquiring the JSF. I personally don't think upgrading the CF-18 is a good idea (even though the airframes are practically mint). Maybe Canada should aquire the Flanker? Or maybe some Bowmark missiles :P
Posted by: Big Makk | 2006-08-03 5:09:46 PM
Glad you liked it, Big Makk. :-}
I believe it was written before the U.S. retired their F-14s a couple of years ago, and before the huge sales of advanced SU-30 MKIs to India and SU-30 MKs to China. Both aircraft are upgrades in the SU-27 family. Also these new planes come with a new AA-12 thrust vectoring sidewinder type missile.
That stinger looking radar array sticking out between the jets on the back allows the SU-27 family to target and fire backwards at pursuing enemies.
All SU-27 family Strike/Fighters are nuclear capable.
I am not a pilot, only an enthusiast who has flown many computer simulators and read a lot about all types of weapons and systems.
I got a very close look at a CF-18 within the last month and it was a brutally poor aircraft.
Posted by: Speller | 2006-08-03 5:30:05 PM
Speller, you must be Russian. You're right, in many respects, the Su-27 is superior to the F-15 Eagle, but not by much. Since you've only flown combat simulators and not the real thing, (I must say I'm also an avid military man and not a pilot) it may be interesting to you that statistically speaking, analyzed by a computer, the Su-37 "Terminator" with all its bells and whistles - 3 dimensional thrust vectoring, fly-by-wire, more powerful engines, and canards, only walks away from a fight with an F-15 Eagle with a ratio of 1.5:1. Meaning, that for every Su-37 shot down by an F-15, which would be considered the top-of-the-line of the Flanker family, 1 1/2 Eagle would be lost. I wouldn't call that "vastly superior" as you so put it, against the F-15. And again, through computer simulations, the F-22 Raptor would have a 10:1 ratio over the Su-37. The Eurofighter Typhoon would have a 4:1 ratio against the Su-37. Now that's what I call vastly superior. I wish I could find that site for you to see and believe. Remember also, the F-15s used in Cope India, DID NOT carry the latest radar, WERE NOT allowed to use their AMRAAM's, and DID NOT have the advantage of having an AWACS on their side, where the Indians had all the advantage, not to mention the superior numbers. And the US sent their everyday "line" pilots (no offense to our brave pilots) to the fight. Send our top guns and give them the upgraded radar, use of AMRAAM's, and an AWACs and let's see what would happen. So, although I do like the Su-27 and all its lineage and find them impressive, I still believe with all the necessary upgrades, the F-15 is still a match for any Su-27, pilots being equal. I wouldn't believe what Russian pilots would say about their aircraft against ours because I find them to be arrogant in the first place. I remember watching a documentary about an Su-25 pilot who called our planes "fragile and delicate" compared to theirs - he's never flown the mighty A-10 Warthog, a true ground pounder, and and F-15 Eagle, flown by an Israeli pilot (who, in my opinion, are the best pilots in the world), that he flew back with the ENTIRE right wing missing after colliding with an A-4 Skyhawk in an exercise. Now that's a tough aircraft and a skilled pilot. So I believe, as long as the US military bigwigs stop playing politics and putting money in their own pockets and do the right thing for our truly brave flyboys, keeping the F-15 Eagle on the very forefront of aviation technology and constantly upgrading and strengthening its airframe, will keep it on the par with any Russian aircraft. I'm with Big Makk on this one.
Posted by: Bird of Prey | 2006-08-21 12:14:21 PM
The comments to this entry are closed.