[Politics] Who was the IDF aiming at ?

[Linton]

There has been an item on the news today that the IDF hit a well established UN position with artillery and a precision bomb despite numerous calls from the UN force!So who do you think they were aiming at?
Post your answers here

[Fish]

I don't know wasn't there.
But what benefit do you think they have from such a thing as bombing a UN post deliberately? :hmm:

[Linton]

Bombing and striking a UN post will get them reported all over the world except probably the USA as the latter is anti-UN anyway!Who is dictating policy in Israel as the militairy seem to be in the prosecuting with extreme prejudice mould with no political handbrake to stop them!!I always thought that the IDF were one of the more professional armies in the world which begs me to ask the questions,who is in control and what do they hope to achieve in this current conflict?

[scandium]

This has been mentioned in other threads as well; basically the UN outpost, which Israel was aware of, had been shelled 14 times, then bombed, and then the rescue team in turn was shelled; anyway here is an update with more info that wasn't posted in the other threads:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/middle_east/5217176.stm

UN peacekeepers in south Lebanon contacted Israeli troops 10 times before an Israeli bomb killed four of them, an initial UN report says.

The post was hit by a precision-guided missile after six hours of shelling, diplomats familiar with the probe say.

..

The four unarmed UN observers from Austria, Canada, China and Finland, died after their UN post in the town of Khiam was hit by an Israeli air strike on Tuesday.

The UN report says each time the UN contacted Israeli forces, they were assured the firing would stop.

A senior Irish soldier working for the UN forces had warned the Israelis six times that their bombardment was endangering the lives of UN staff, Ireland's foreign ministry said.

Had Israel responded to the requests, "rather than deliberately ignoring them", the observers would still be alive, a diplomat familiar with the report said.

None of the actions undertaken at this point convince me to give them the benefit of the doubt on this; in fact, it is because of their actions throughout what was little more than a border skirmish before they immediately escalated it into a full scale war, that's displaced 800,000 Lebanese civillians so far and killed 400 more, that I do not give them the benefit of the doubt.

Two of their soldiers are kidnapped, and for that 8 Canadians - 7 of them civilians, none of them armed or part of Hezbollah - have been killed by the IDF.

[waste gate]

Accidents do occur. BTW the U.S. is slow walking the resolution to the conflict. But so is every other country, even the Mid East countries. What does that tell ya?

[scandium]

Accidents do occur.

There is way too much evidence that this was no mere accident. If it wasn't criminal, then at the least it was callous, reckless, and indifferent. And if this is how unarmed U.N. Observers, in a clearly marked U.N. Outpost, are treated then I'm just a little skeptical about just how careful the IDF is to minimize civilian casualties.

Especially when they have also bombed clearly marked ambulances. Especially when they have dropped leaflets telling people to leave the area, then bombed those fleeing the area as they were ordered to do so by the IDF. Especially when they have levelled buildings to the ground in Beirut.

Yeah nothing to see here, nothing at all. :dead:

[Linton]

Accident,my a****e!That post has been there for years.Ok some idiot got his grid wrong,but the weather is good and it stands alone in the countryside.The defenders call your boss telling you to stop,so you call in an airstrike! Did I hear the words War Crimes TribunaL!!:damn: :damn: :damn: :damn:

[Kazuaki Shimazaki II]

I always thought that the IDF were one of the more professional armies in the world which begs me to ask the questions,who is in control and what do they hope to achieve in this current conflict?

The IDF is tactically professional, and has always been. That allowed them to win against numerically superior Arab forces. That they are professional in the other aspects is less clear (see also, USS Liberty, 1967, which is either a case of such incompetence stacking up the Israeli licence to own an armed force should be revoked, or a deliberate act).

[scandium]

People keep dismissing this as a mere "accident", as if its no big deal, not so much in this thread, but in the others on it as well. Contrast this "accident" and the events surrounding it with this one:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Afghanistan_friendly_fire_incident

Major William Umbach and his wingman Major Harry Schmidt were returning from a 10-hour patrol, at 23,000 feet, when they spotted what they believed to be surface-to-air fire. The fire was actually from a Canadian anti-tank and machine-gun exercise.

Schmidt's testimony at his Article 32 hearing was that he believed his flight lead Major Umbach was under attack. Schmidt requested permission from flight control (AWACS) to fire his 20mm cannons at what he believed to be an anti-aircraft or Multiple Launch Rocket System below. He received the response: "hold fire." Four seconds later, Schmidt said he was "rolling in, in self defense." He dropped a laser-guided bomb 35 seconds later. Schmidt then said "I hope I did the right thing" as the AWACS controller said: "Friendlies, Khandahar."

Factors that played in the decision to act in self-defence included a well-known incident of a US serviceman who fell out of a helicopter and was captured by enemy forces and tortured, before being killed; US aircrew were subsequently very wary of exposing themselves to risk. Major Schmidt's stated, in his official apology to the family and friends of the dead and injured Canadians: "My perception was that we had been ambushed, as we had been briefed that Taliban were expected to use ambush tactics in an around Kandahar...I believed that the projectiles posed a real and present danger to our flight and specifically to my flight lead...I believed at the time that my flight lead's transmission to 'check master arm, check laser arm,' indicated he concurred with my decision that the situation required self-defence."
Aftermath:

http://www.cbc.ca/news/background/friendlyfire/

In May 2005, the four soldiers were honoured with a granite memorial in Fort Campbell, Ky., home of the 187th Infantry Regiment, the American unit the PPCLI fought beside in Afghanistan. The soldiers' names were also engraved on a memorial wall in Fort Campbell, the first time the names of non-U.S. soldiers were included on the wall.

U.S. air force Maj. Harry Schmidt, one of the pilots involved in the "friendly fire" incident that killed four Canadians in Afghanistan, was found guilty of dereliction of duty on July 6, 2004, in what the U.S. military calls a "non-judicial hearing" before a senior officer. The maximum penalty he had faced was 30 days of house arrest.

He was reprimanded and forfeited more than $5,000 US in pay. The air force agreed to allow Schmidt to remain in the Illinois Air National Guard, but not as a pilot. Schmidt later appealed the verdict, but the appeal was rejected. He also filed a lawsuit against the air force, saying it released his letter of reprimand to the media, in violation of his privacy.

Schmidt had made a deal in June 2004 so he could avoid a full court martial.
http://www.cbc.ca/story/world/national/2004/07/06/schmidt040706.html

n the reprimand, Lt.-Gen. Bruce Carlson, who handed down the verdict, wrote that Schmidt "acted shamefully...exhibiting arrogance and a lack of flight discipline."

"The victims of your callous misbehaviour were from one of our staunch allies in Operation Enduring Freedom and were your comrades-in-arms," he wrote.
That was an accident. A tragic accident. The pilot was not aware of the training exercise, nor was he informed by the AWACS command center. He believed he was under fire and had to make a quick decision. He made the wrong decision, and it cost him career and nearly a court martial as well. The Judge said that his shameful, undisciplined, and arrogant actions had taken the lives of comrades-in-arms and a staunch ally, while the US Military took the unprecented step of honouring our Canadian soldiers lost that day on one of their Memorial walls.

That whole incident was a mistake, a tragedy, that happened in less than 60 seconds but it was not simply dismissed, it was taken seriously and justice was done and its since been set aside, one of the unfortunate things that sometimes happens in the fog of war.

However as regards the U.N. outpost that contained 4 unarmed observers ... it was shelled 14 times over a 6 hour period even as, at 10 different times while this was happening, the IDF was notified that this clearly marked U.N. Outpost was being repeatedly shelled, endangering the lives of those within, and were told each time that the firing would be stopped. Then it is bombed. Then the resue team is in turn shelled. And this is all just a mistake?

No, this is a war crime as Linton has said, and I suspect it is not the only one the IDF is perpetrating in Lebanon either.

[August]

So forum military experts, If it was a deliberate attack on the UN,then why?

Given all the bad press, and yeah Linton we do get the news here in the states too, where do the Israelis benefit? Heck you guys are talking war crimes tribunals already but you haven't even established a motive.

Maybe this is one. Note the flags:
http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v60/flyfish/UN/un_hizz_flag.jpg

Is this a UN post or a Hezbollah one?

[joea]

You any more of an expert August? :roll: I know you have some experience, but so do some of the critics. At the very least, 10 times warning then shelling the rescue teams is worthy of investigation.

To be fair, if Hizbolah are using ambulances etc. as cover and such...well that could also be investigated as a war crime correct?

[micky1up]

Is This The Same Tactical Professionalism That The Us Forces Show In The Gulf And In Vietnam Blue On Blue Galore

[Skybird]

Those who have decided that Israel is wrong, will continue to see this event being intentionally done with the worst of intentions. Those who know about chaos of war, could imagine what multitude of mistakes or combination of unlucky factors could lead to an incident like this. But I am sure that everyone of you at least once in his life has typed in the wrong number into a pocket calculator, or the telephone... If it was a bad accident, then it was an accident. If it was intentional, then i assume they had good reasons to shell it. Maybe Hezbollah fighters opened fire while being close to the post, using it for cover or camouflage? If in Iraq insurgents use Mosques as attack platforms and weapon storage, knowing the the rerspect for religiuon will hinder foreign soldiers oin most occasions to enter or to fire at a mosque, why not hijacking a UN post, then. The same could be the reason for intentionally shooting ambulances.

[Smaragdadler]

My conspiracy theory:

There was these diplomatic talks in Rome. Israel wanted to 'kindly inform' the UN about the risks of a peace-keeping mission in the area, it don't wants (at least at this stage). But it can not say so openly on the diplomatic level, because it has to fear world opinion. If the UN steps in with troops (from EU armys), it would make things more difficult for long therm judeo-ami necon strategy in Middle East. :hmm:

[Fish]

I was talking today to a friend of my, he is a retired major from the Dutch army and was stationed in Libanon. He knows the particular UN post and there is no doubt in his mind they did it on purpose. You can't mis that post.
And he gives me a plausible reason:
In that post you can see the movements of the Israëlies, but not the Hezbolla, they are hidden the Israëlies are on the move.
They give their observations to their headquarters using the UP radio.
Both side, Israël and Hezbolla can hear there broadcast.
He was in a quit even position ones and the Israëlies warned not to use the radio....
They understood the danger. The Israëlies set up artilerie quit near the post and shoot at the mountains further up. After almost half a hour a amunution bunker in the mountains exploded and then they leave the area.
So in his opinion they continued giving observations using their radio and the Israëlies eliminate the bunker.
I don't know what to think of that?

[Skybird]

I was talking today to a friend of my, he is a retired major from the Dutch army and was stationed in Libanon. He knows the particular UN post and there is no doubt in his mind they did it on purpose. You can't mis that post.
And he gives me a plausible reason:
In that post you can see the movements of the Israëlies, but not the Hezbolla, they are hidden the Israëlies are on the move.
They give their observations to their headquarters using the UP radio.
Both side, Israël and Hezbolla can hear there broadcast.
He was in a quit even position ones and the Israëlies warned not to use the radio....
They understood the danger. The Israëlies set up artilerie quit near the post and shoot at the mountains further up. After almost half a hour a amunution bunker in the mountains exploded and then they leave the area.
So in his opinion they continued giving observations using their radio and the Israëlies eliminate the bunker.
I don't know what to think of that?

In the thread A Picture Is Worth A Thousand Words, me too thought about that possebility:
Have they given information to Lebanon, were their radio comms with traffic reports about Israeli operations maybe listened to by hezbollah?

[Skybird]

It'S not only the Israelis, it seems. This is from the UN itself:

http://www.un.org/Depts/dpko/missions/unifil/pr010.pdf

Meanwhile, German magazine Der Spiegel interviewed the Lebanese president who declares that "Hezbollah has freed Lebanon":

http://service.spiegel.de/cache/international/0,1518,428391,00.html

[August]

You any more of an expert August? :roll: I know you have some experience, but so do some of the critics. At the very least, 10 times warning then shelling the rescue teams is worthy of investigation.

To be fair, if Hizbolah are using ambulances etc. as cover and such...well that could also be investigated as a war crime correct?

I'm not the one making accusations Joe. People here are saying this was a deliberate attack on the UN. They're talking war crimes tribunals. All i'm asking is what the motive could possibly be?

[scandium]

So forum military experts, If it was a deliberate attack on the UN,then why?

Given all the bad press, and yeah Linton we do get the news here in the states too, where do the Israelis benefit? Heck you guys are talking war crimes tribunals already but you haven't even established a motive.

Maybe this is one. Note the flags:
http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v60/flyfish/UN/un_hizz_flag.jpg

Is this a UN post or a Hezbollah one?
I have no theory, only questions that need answering and I don't trust the IDF to investigate themselves on this one. So here are my questions?

1. Omert gave personal assurances to Annan that UN sites would be respected and not be fired on - what measures, if any did he undertake to back up his assurances?

2. Despite his assurances, the U.N Outpost - which contained only unarmed observers was shelled 14 times over 6 hours. Who gave the order to shell this outpost, why did they give it, what Rules of Engagement were they acting on, and why did they shell it - and continue to shell it for 6 hours - when the unarmed observers could not have been firing on them?

3. The IDF was notified 10 times over this 6 hour period that this shelling was endangering the lives of U.N. personnel and was assured each time the firing would stop. Who was it the U.N. was in contact with that gave this assurance, and why after giving this assurance did the firing continue anyway for 6 hours? What steps, if any, did the IDF person(s) contacted by the U.N. take to immediately cease this shelling and if orders to that effect were given, why did it take 6 hours to follow them?

4. Why after the above did an IDF aircraft then bomb this outpost? Was the pilot targetting what he saw as a target of opportunity, and if so, how could he not know that it was a U.N. outpost he was bombing? Or was he acting on an unlawful order, given all of the above, and if so who gave the order and why did he follow it?

5. Why, after the above, did the IDF then shell the rescue team? Again, who gave the order and why?

[Kazuaki Shimazaki II]

They give their observations to their headquarters using the UP radio.

In other words, they were presumably doing their job - reporting on what they can observe in Lebanon.

Both side, Israël and Hezbolla can hear there broadcast.
He was in a quit even position ones and the Israëlies warned not to use the radio....

The UN force was correct to refuse then. This is pure Israeli coercion to deny them the ability to perform their duty correctly. If Hezbolla had made this threat, I bet Israel would make headlines out of it and would have blasted the UN force for capitulating to the terrorists if they complied with any such demand.

Consider what we would have said about this if the situation was reversed: Hezbollah murders the UN guys. Why? Because the UN guys happen to see the Hezbollahs and made a neutral report that could be intercepted by Israelis. They give warnings, it is ignored, and the Hezbollah guys attack. Israel will have a field day with this, citing it as evidence that the world really needs to unite against Hezhollah, and no one would ever find out that under the same circumstances, Israel would have done the same.

[Skybird]

the moment that Un post continued to radio Israeli movements and that way giving an advantage to Hezbollah, it lost it's neutrality, engaged actively against the interest of one and for the interests of the other faction - and by that violated it's neutrality status, thus becoming a valid target. It'S as if they would have set up a telephone line to Hezbollah, telling them what the Israelis are up to. It wouldn't have hurt if they observed what the Israelis did - and waited to transmit that until the fighting in that area was over. As that friend of Fish indicated, it had worked that way in the past, and noone got hurt.

Hezbollah itself abuses UN posts for cover, see the UN-pdf I linked to.

If you put personnell in the line of fire, expect some of them getting burned. Sad, but that's war.

[The Avon Lady]

Let's reveal a little truth here:

Why the UN post was bombed (http://blogs.news.com.au/heraldsun/andrewbolt/index.php/heraldsun/comments/why_the_un_post_was_bombed/). Basically just let your fingers do the walking through UNIFIL's own daily press releases.

Canadian General: UN Observer Post Used By Hizballah (http://littlegreenfootballs.com/weblog/?entry=21786_Canadian_General-_UN_Observer_Post_Used_By_Hizballah&only).

The UN is about as trustworthy as Kofi Annan. Why the US still harbors such a den of thieves and despots on its shore is a wonderment. The only bad thing about closing down the UN today would be that Ambassador Bolton would be unemployed but I'm sure that would be temporary.

[bradclark1]

If it was a case of Hezbolla monitoring the U.N. radio net and if Israel warned them and were ignored I would have attacked too. Common sense says eliminate that source of intelligence for Hezbolla and save some of your own sides lives. To say "We are the U.N. and we will do what we want even if it eliminates your operational security" is pretty dumb. But thats a lot of if's and no real sense speculating until an investigation has been completed.
Wouldn't the U.N. radio net be encrypted though?

[August]

There are plenty of radio encryption devices that would have made such communications unintelligable. Broadcasting in the clear would not have been necessary, or smart, and i can't imagine the UN would be so stupid as to do this.

Imagine:

"Isreali tanks are advancing into the valley"

"They have reached the crossroads."

"They are deploying in echelon left formation facing hilltop 22"

Only a complete idiot would broadcast such information in the clear so that it could be picked up by the other side. Was that what the UN outpost was doing?

[SUBMAN1]

WHy all the flak already? We need the facts first. All everyone is doing here is basing an opinion on their own speculation. Until an investigation happens, eveyone in this thread is just blowing around hot air.

-S

PS. The way the UN works along side Hezbollah, I think the end results of any investigation will be interesting.

[August]

Canadian killed from UN force complained his position shielding Hizbullah

Dr. Aaron Lerner Date: 26 July 2006

"...the tragic loss of a soldier yesterday who I happen to know and I think probably is from my Regiment. We've received e-mails from him a few days ago and he described the fact that he was taking within - in one case - three meters of his position "for tactical necessity - not being targeted". Now that's veiled speech in the military and what he was telling us was Hizbullah fighters were all over his position and the IDF were targeting them and that's a favorite trick by people who don't have representation in the UN. They use the UN as shields knowing that they can't be punished for it."

Retired Canadian Major General Lewis MacKenzie interviewed on CBC Toronto
radio 26 July 2006
For recording see this REALAUDIO file:
http://cbc.ca/metromorning/media/20060726LMCJUL26.ram

[Fish]

Canadian General: UN Observer Post Used By Hizballah (http://littlegreenfootballs.com/weblog/?entry=21786_Canadian_General-_UN_Observer_Post_Used_By_Hizballah&only)

I hope you don't say, that alone, is a licence to bomb unarmed soldiers?

For 10 years something the same happens.


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Qana_shelling


http://www.veteranen.info/~cedarsouthlebanon/resolution/report.htm

[Fish]

There are plenty of radio encryption devices that would have made such communications unintelligable. Broadcasting in the clear would not have been necessary, or smart, and i can't imagine the UN would be so stupid as to do this.

Imagine:

"Isreali tanks are advancing into the valley"

"They have reached the crossroads."

"They are deploying in echelon left formation facing hilltop 22"

Only a complete idiot would broadcast such information in the clear so that it could be picked up by the other side. Was that what the UN outpost was doing?

So, maybe they didn't? Only the hezbolla hid ed near the UN post?

[SUBMAN1]

Canadian General: UN Observer Post Used By Hizballah (http://littlegreenfootballs.com/weblog/?entry=21786_Canadian_General-_UN_Observer_Post_Used_By_Hizballah&only)
I hope you don't say, that alone, is a licence to bomb unarmed soldiers?

For 10 years something the same happens.


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Qana_shelling


http://www.veteranen.info/~cedarsouthlebanon/resolution/report.htm (http://www.veteranen.info/%7Ecedarsouthlebanon/resolution/report.htm)

I consider it a license to protect ones self, and if Hezbolah is doing that, then those 'armed' UN observers need to get the heck out of dodge or risk becoming a casualty. This is plain common sense. If one is being attacked, then yes, one has the right to return fire.

Just went through a court case out here with the same circumstances. A lady was killed by gunfire from a man who was just protecting himself from armed thugs. The man was cleared of all charges for the accidental shooting because the man was defending himself and the court called the lady just an unfortunate victim in the mess. What August reports here is of a very similar nature.

-S

[Kazuaki Shimazaki II]

the moment that Un post continued to radio Israeli movements and that way giving an advantage to Hezbollah, it lost it's neutrality, engaged actively against the interest of one and for the interests of the other faction - and by that violated it's neutrality status, thus becoming a valid target. It'S as if they would have set up a telephone line to Hezbollah, telling them what the Israelis are up to. It wouldn't have hurt if they observed what the Israelis did - and waited to transmit that until the fighting in that area was over. As that friend of Fish indicated, it had worked that way in the past, and noone got hurt.

Skybird, would you have said the same had the UN just happened to be observing and radioing Hezbollah movements, and then the Hezbollahs attacked them? If so, at least you are internally consistent. If not...

[Kazuaki Shimazaki II]

I consider it a license to protect ones self, and if Hezbolah is doing that, then those 'armed' UN observers need to get the heck out of dodge or risk becoming a casualty. This is plain common sense. If one is being attacked, then yes, one has the right to return fire.

Just went through a court case out here with the same circumstances. A lady was killed by gunfire from a man who was just protecting himself from armed thugs. The man was cleared of all charges for the accidental shooting because the man was defending himself and the court called the lady just an unfortunate victim in the mess. What August reports here is of a very similar nature. -S

Try this instead of your court case: That man (and his friends) are living in the house next to the armed thugs'. For years, they've been sniping away at each other through the windows. One day, the man suddenly decides he's sick of sniping and charges into the house of the thugs. While he is in the thugs' house, he gets shot at by the thugs, and so he returns fire. He not only manages to hit a neutral woman with his gun, but hit her about 10 times ostensibly trying to hit the thugs. Would a court really count that as "self-defense", and should they?

[waste gate]

During the late unpleasantness in Yougoslavia this occured. Are we saying that NATO purposely targeted and attacked the embassy of another nation? Or was it an accident?

http://chineseculture.about.com/library/weekly/aa050999.htm

[Skybird]

unarmed soldiers?

Hm, that's really a joke in itself, isn't it?

But if Hezbollah fighters are hijacking an UN post, why should the Israelis not fire at them? It's a damn war they have over there. In war you shoot at enemies. Maybe the UN should take measure that it could not be abused that easily - evade the area, or arm it's posts so that they can defend against being used as cover by one of the fighting factions. that neutrality thing obviously has a negative feedback when dealing with terror organizations that do not follow the regular rules of the military.

[Skybird]

the moment that Un post continued to radio Israeli movements and that way giving an advantage to Hezbollah, it lost it's neutrality, engaged actively against the interest of one and for the interests of the other faction - and by that violated it's neutrality status, thus becoming a valid target. It'S as if they would have set up a telephone line to Hezbollah, telling them what the Israelis are up to. It wouldn't have hurt if they observed what the Israelis did - and waited to transmit that until the fighting in that area was over. As that friend of Fish indicated, it had worked that way in the past, and noone got hurt.

Skybird, would you have said the same had the UN just happened to be observing and radioing Hezbollah movements, and then the Hezbollahs attacked them? If so, at least you are internally consistent. If not...
I say this: if I were one of the factions, and I see that post giving away my movements into the air so that my enemy can snap it up and use it against my men, killing them, and countering my plans, i wpould not need 14 strikes in the vicin ity to sielnce that post, but would flatten it immediately. Life of my men and efficiency of my force and worst possible damage to the enemy goes first, before anything else. If the UN would not be ruled by such braindead idiots, those 2000 "unarmed soldiers" (really, great idea...) wouldn'T have been there sinc emany years anyway. All those lifes at risk - for nothing then political nonsens. I hate leaders leading men that unaware and non-caring.

[Skybird]

During the late unpleasantness in Yougoslavia this occured. Are we saying that NATO purposely targeted and attacked the embassy of another nation? Or was it an accident?

http://chineseculture.about.com/library/weekly/aa050999.htm

It was a message, from one political leader to the other.

[waste gate]

During the late unpleasantness in Yougoslavia this occured. Are we saying that NATO purposely targeted and attacked the embassy of another nation? Or was it an accident?

http://chineseculture.about.com/library/weekly/aa050999.htm

It was a message, from one political leader to the other.

Well then, I'd say that this was a message to the UN.

[SUBMAN1]

I consider it a license to protect ones self, and if Hezbolah is doing that, then those 'armed' UN observers need to get the heck out of dodge or risk becoming a casualty. This is plain common sense. If one is being attacked, then yes, one has the right to return fire.

Just went through a court case out here with the same circumstances. A lady was killed by gunfire from a man who was just protecting himself from armed thugs. The man was cleared of all charges for the accidental shooting because the man was defending himself and the court called the lady just an unfortunate victim in the mess. What August reports here is of a very similar nature. -S
Try this instead of your court case: That man (and his friends) are living in the house next to the armed thugs'. For years, they've been sniping away at each other through the windows. One day, the man suddenly decides he's sick of sniping and charges into the house of the thugs. While he is in the thugs' house, he gets shot at by the thugs, and so he returns fire. He not only manages to hit a neutral woman with his gun, but hit her about 10 times ostensibly trying to hit the thugs. Would a court really count that as "self-defense", and should they?
It didn't happen that way. Think of it like this - Armed man is minding own business, Armed thugs moved in next door to his neigbors house and the neighbor let it happen because he felt sympathy for them. Armed thugs decide they hate armed man because armed man is sitting on land armed thugs like and kidnap son of Armed man to try and get armed man to leave. Armed thugs in neighbors house, shoot rockets at armed man, killing a daughter. Armed man fires back desperately when he can see armed thugs. Armed thugs kidnap another armed mans son for the second time. Armed man gets ticked off at kidnapping and starts coming over to kill armed thugs who are hurting his family. Armed man accidently kills neighbors daughter while killing armed thugs who are neighbors friends.

Seems to me - Oh well. Neighbor brought it on himself and is even in a worse position than the court case above. Court would find that neighbor was at fault 10 times over.

-S

[SUBMAN1]

the moment that Un post continued to radio Israeli movements and that way giving an advantage to Hezbollah, it lost it's neutrality, engaged actively against the interest of one and for the interests of the other faction - and by that violated it's neutrality status, thus becoming a valid target. It'S as if they would have set up a telephone line to Hezbollah, telling them what the Israelis are up to. It wouldn't have hurt if they observed what the Israelis did - and waited to transmit that until the fighting in that area was over. As that friend of Fish indicated, it had worked that way in the past, and noone got hurt.
Skybird, would you have said the same had the UN just happened to be observing and radioing Hezbollah movements, and then the Hezbollahs attacked them? If so, at least you are internally consistent. If not...
Are you Hezbollah? They kill women and children for fun and political statement. Isreal has also accidently killed women and children in an act of defense. Who's side are you on? Your statements are troubling.

-S

[zombiewolf]

:hmm::hmm:Let's reveal a little truth here:


Canadian General: UN Observer Post Used By Hizballah (http://littlegreenfootballs.com/weblog/?entry=21786_Canadian_General-_UN_Observer_Post_Used_By_Hizballah&only).

The UN is about as trustworthy as Kofi Annan. Why the US still harbors such a den of thieves and despots on its shore is a wonderment. The only bad thing about closing down the UN today would be that Ambassador Bolton would be unemployed but I'm sure that would be temporary.
Didn't the UN make Israel in 1948?:hmm:

The Hezballoh were hiding there they ran out of babies,they are cowards and the world should quit calling them by the name they want but the name they are COWARDS.A coward would not hide,if if he thought his cause was just.

[scandium]

Canadian killed from UN force complained his position shielding Hizbullah

Dr. Aaron Lerner Date: 26 July 2006

"...the tragic loss of a soldier yesterday who I happen to know and I think probably is from my Regiment. We've received e-mails from him a few days ago and he described the fact that he was taking within - in one case - three meters of his position "for tactical necessity - not being targeted". Now that's veiled speech in the military and what he was telling us was Hizbullah fighters were all over his position and the IDF were targeting them and that's a favorite trick by people who don't have representation in the UN. They use the UN as shields knowing that they can't be punished for it."

Retired Canadian Major General Lewis MacKenzie interviewed on CBC Toronto
radio 26 July 2006
For recording see this REALAUDIO file:
http://cbc.ca/metromorning/media/20060726LMCJUL26.ram

Amazing how many people here believe that this retired General's interpretation of a text message received by him "a few days" before the incident answers all questions and exonerates the IDF completely, ignoring the facts implicit in all of this that:

1. As a retired General he had no involvement in the U.N. mission there and was about as close to the action there as I am.

2. That what he asserts is only his interpretation of this cryptic, ambiguous text message.

3. That the text message is "a few days old" and neither he, nor we, know what variables changed in the interim even if we accept his interpretation of the text message.

Therefore the same questions I posted further upthread remain, and this answers none of them, let alone comes close to exonerating the IDF.

[waste gate]

During the late unpleasantness in Yougoslavia this occured. Are we saying that NATO purposely targeted and attacked the embassy of another nation? Or was it an accident?

http://chineseculture.about.com/library/weekly/aa050999.htm

It was a message, from one political leader to the other.

Amazing how many folks can't acknowledge the past, and see the present.

[SUBMAN1]

Canadian killed from UN force complained his position shielding Hizbullah

Dr. Aaron Lerner Date: 26 July 2006

"...the tragic loss of a soldier yesterday who I happen to know and I think probably is from my Regiment. We've received e-mails from him a few days ago and he described the fact that he was taking within - in one case - three meters of his position "for tactical necessity - not being targeted". Now that's veiled speech in the military and what he was telling us was Hizbullah fighters were all over his position and the IDF were targeting them and that's a favorite trick by people who don't have representation in the UN. They use the UN as shields knowing that they can't be punished for it."

Retired Canadian Major General Lewis MacKenzie interviewed on CBC Toronto
radio 26 July 2006
For recording see this REALAUDIO file:
http://cbc.ca/metromorning/media/20060726LMCJUL26.ram
Amazing how many people here believe that this retired General's interpretation of a text message received by him "a few days" before the incident answers all questions and exonerates the IDF completely, ignoring the facts implicit in all of this that:

1. As a retired General he had no involvement in the U.N. mission there and was about as close to the action there as I am.

2. That what he asserts is only his interpretation of this cryptic, ambiguous text message.

3. That the text message is "a few days old" and neither he, nor we, know what variables changed in the interim even if we accept his interpretation of the text message.

Therefore the same questions I posted further upthread remain, and this answers none of them, let alone comes close to exonerating the IDF.

I do believe your retired general will have an intimit working knowledge of UN procedures, so I tend to disagree with your assesment until proven otherwise. Not saying that he is 100% right, but saying he has more weight and credability at this point than the alternative, even if the data is a day old.

-S

[waste gate]

Quote:
Originally Posted by Skybird
Quote:
Originally Posted by waste gate
During the late unpleasantness in Yougoslavia this occured. Are we saying that NATO purposely targeted and attacked the embassy of another nation? Or was it an accident?

http://chineseculture.about.com/libr...y/aa050999.htm (http://chineseculture.about.com/library/weekly/aa050999.htm)


It was a message, from one political leader to the other.


Amazing how many folks can't acknowledge the past, and see the present.
http://www.subsim.com/radioroom/smartdark/user_online.gif

[Smaragdadler]

"...We've received e-mails from him a few days ago and ..."

So there is no real chance to check if retired Canadian Major General Lewis MacKenzie says the truth or not. :hmm:

[Kazuaki Shimazaki II]

Are you Hezbollah? They kill women and children for fun and political statement. Isreal has also accidently killed women and children in an act of defense. Who's side are you on? Your statements are troubling.-S

If an action is wrong under the scenario, then it is wrong no matter who the executor of the action was. If attacking a UN post for the ostensible purpose of protecting Operational Security of your side is an acceptable action for Israel, it should also be so for Hezbollah, and vice versa. One can have this objectivity while finding actions such as the purposeful killing of woman and children reprehensible.

Furthermore, one has to wonder what "defense" is involved when Israel bombed a civvie power plant and an airport.

The Hezballoh were hiding there they ran out of babies,they are cowards and the world should quit calling them by the name they want but the name they are COWARDS.A coward would not hide,if if he thought his cause was just.

I'm a big evil criminal who has taken your whole family hostage, and I'm armed with a gun. You can ambush me. Instead, because you think your cause of killing me is just, you come up to me and my vast weapons superiority. Is this just or stupid?

When the Soviets were in Afghanistan, would they be justified in calling the Mujahadeen cowards and that they should stand up and face Soviet artillery because they think their cause is just?

[August]

"...We've received e-mails from him a few days ago and ..."

So there is no real chance to check if retired Canadian Major General Lewis MacKenzie says the truth or not. :hmm:

Hey, maybe he lied. Maybe the Jews deliberately targeted a harmless UN base because they wanted to kill UN soldiers and infuriate the UN, the Europeans and the Chinese in one fell swoop. Maybe this Canadian General is in reality an agent for the Bush administration and/or the IDF. I don't know, i'm just reporting what i've read about it.

[August]

Furthermore, one has to wonder what "defense" is involved when Israel bombed a civvie power plant and an airport.

The airport was being used to bring in arms shipments from Iran.
The power plant was destroyed to deny Hez the use of electricity. We did the same thing in Desert Storm.

[Kazuaki Shimazaki II]

It didn't happen that way. Think of it like this - Armed man is minding own business, Armed thugs moved in next door to his neigbors house and the neighbor let it happen because he felt sympathy for them.

Try, the armed thugs weren't thugs until armed man invaded their house in the name of his security. At that point, a few of those guys decided to become thugs to drive the armed man out. It was hard to drive the man out because they only had pistols and the man had both an AK-47 and had body armor complete with thermal imaging, laser rangefinding...etc. The armed man eventually withdrew, after a very, very long time.

Armed thugs decide they hate armed man because armed man is sitting on land armed thugs like and kidnap son of Armed man to try and get armed man to leave.

When scaled down to a house, that "son" (low-ranking Israeli soldiers) is about the size of a pet rat. OK, they kidnapped the pet rat.

Armed thugs in neighbors house, shoot rockets at armed man, killing a daughter.

Oh no, they killed the pet goldfish which I placed in plain view of the window!!!

Armed man fires back desperately when he can see armed thugs.

Actually, it is more like he's just firing off RPGs in the general direction of the thug's house, in apathy of the fact there are only 2 thugs in that house that houses 100.

Armed thugs kidnap another armed mans son for the second time.

Considering armed are already shooting back, what's so wrong with that. And again, when scaled against the nation, a soldier or two is about the size of a pet rat.

Let's not forget, somewhere about this time, the armed man was indeed kidnapping the thugs' sons (the Hamas leadership, which is clearly more valuable than a couple of privates) as a counter. Desperate is not how I would describe the armed man's overall position.

Armed man gets ticked off at kidnapping and starts coming over to kill armed thugs who are hurting his family.

Yet his first shots were made with a rocket launcher, against the garage (airport) and electrical generator (power plant). How this is going to hurt the armed thugs more than the neutrals in the house is unknown.

Armed man accidently kills neighbors daughter while killing armed thugs who are neighbors friends.

Actually, the armed man just killed the plainscloth cop that was there (say what you might want about the UN, but UN peacekeepers the closest to an impartial cop of the world: the US military despite its capabilities is not a cop, but a private security company in the employ of the US and ultimately serving US interests.)

[August]

When scaled down to a house, that "son" (low-ranking Israeli soldiers) is about the size of a pet rat. OK, they kidnapped the pet rat.

Geez man, I know it's only a silly comparison game but did you just call that poor young man "a pet rat"?

Armed thugs in neighbors house, shoot rockets at armed man, killing a daughter.
Oh no, they killed the pet goldfish which I placed in plain view of the window!!!

Obviously she asked for it eh?

[scandium]

Geez man, I know it's only a silly comparison game but did you just call that poor young man "a pet rat"?
About sums up how Israel seems to regard them. Hezbollah offered a prisoner exchange. Its been what, 2 weeks now? If Israel gave a rat's @ss about them then they could have spent the last 2 weeks negotiating with the Lebanese PM on a joint Israeli-Lebanese search and rescue mission in conjunction with international cooperation/assistance. They could have at least tried this route, and they have done prisoner exchanges before so this would not set a precedent.

Instead, they decided to destroy the country, weaken and destabalize the democratic Lebanese government, destroy the Lebanese army which is the country's only hope of providing the internal security Israel demands, and killing UN Observers and thereby further poising the International community against them and making any kind of international peace keeping force or cooperation less likely (given that nobody is going to commit their troops to becoming target practice for th IDF).

And where are these captured soldiers now? That issue has disappeared off the front page. Beyond servering as pawns and a convenient pretext for destroying Lebanon, I doubt the Israeli government cared less to begin with - not to judge by their actions anyway.

I mean, if someone kidnapped someone I cared about, I wouldn't react by blowing up their house and killing their family - not if I wanted this person I cared back alive, anyway.

[Skybird]

Yes, it all is about two kidnappings only. :lol:

And no, enemy fighters crawling over and beside a UN post, abusing it for cover and hpoping to be untouchable, gathering intel ony my troops movement and maybe even firing at my men and killing them, are no reason to take them under fire. :lol:

I would love to live int he world some of you guys have on your minds. Must be an extremely reasonable, well-ordered, peaceful and enjoyable place. but it is not the world that I happen to live in, unfortunately. So it goes. but I find it deeply disturbing how willingly some people accept to expect Israelis letting themselves killed at every moment in their own homes and country on and on - and never, ever going after those who attack them. I find it queer and almost perverse that Hezbollah is not allowed to be fought against, because the West and Lebanon and the UN has allowed it to sink that deep into civilian infrastructures - intentionally - that now it cannot be fought against without causing massive civilian damage. I find it disgusting that Israel is blamed, where it is Hezbollah to be blamed for putting civilian lifes at risk intentionaly, in large quantities, just to score a media bonus each time the Israelis fire at Hezbollah. One must be blind, cynical and braindead not to see the qualititave differences in both parties mindsets here.

[Skybird]

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/5222064.stm

The air attacks have copied the tactics of the US air force in both Gulf Wars but have not been followed up with the other half of the so-called "Powell doctrine" - the massive use of forces on the ground. (...) Indeed, an example of the limitations of air power came in an incident filmed by the BBC in Beirut the other day. The Israeli air force destroyed two trucks carrying water-drilling rigs, presumably thinking they were rocket launchers.

Indeed, I am waiting for the start of a large ground operation since days now, and wonder why they hesitate so long. Please no one tell me that they seriously believe that airpower alone could do the trick.

[Kazuaki Shimazaki II]

Geez man, I know it's only a silly comparison game but did you just call that poor young man "a pet rat"?

While not meaning to denigrate the sacrifice of those guys, if you scale down entire nations (even small nations like Israel and Lebanon) to the size of houses and families, even a very large household with a hundred people in it, you simply cannot analogize the relative importance of even a platoon of run-of-the-mill civvies or soldiers to something like a "son" or "daughter". A President, minister or General might be a different matter, for those are relatively vital cogs in a nation, but even several run of the mill corporal or white-collar worker simply ain't it. A big hole is not going to happen in Israel society because they died, certainly nothing comparable to the loss of a son within a family. Call me cold but there it is. In terms of influence to society - men are mostly decisively not equal within a nation.

By the way, as scandium suggested, if Israel really rates those civvies and IDF troops equal to "sons" and "daughters" (and we are supposed to think Israel is human and sane) ... well, most families do not put their sons and daughters within range of some thugs' rockets - they may or may not try to deal with the rockets but before that they move their kids and loved ones out of danger. When they get kidnapped, they are more likely to grovel and negotiate than start launching rockets in the general direction of where they think their sons are, which is another reason why the "son" and "daughter" analogy is invalid in this situation.

BTW, ethically speaking, while the rocket attacks might be something else, snatching a few border guards simply is not very reprehensible considering their was a border conflict on.

[Skybird]

There is no border conflict. There is a conflict over the existence of whole Israel itself.

[August]

There is no border conflict. There is a conflict over the existence of whole Israel itself.

Exactly. A fact which some people here are doing their best to dismiss.

[micky1up]

look the whole thing has been engineered by iran and syria and the reporting has been so bias by the bbc and others that you dont really get news of the some 2000 rockets fired into isreal also the leboneese goverment where told by the UN when israel left the lebanon to stop the terroists provoking israel and they have totally failed to do so the terroist themselve hide amongst the civilians on purpose to create the deaths of civilians this and the bias reporting works in their favour and mugs like the people critising israel fall for the propogander the terroist count on this happening and it done by design in vietnam the US won every major battle but lost the PR war the terroist know that public opinion matters and can be a usefull ally in conflicts such as this use your brains see through the bias reporting and propogander , you cant help civilian casualties they happen in every battle and every war dont discount the economic side either the terroist know that conflicts here raise oil prices the terroist are smart smarter than the ANTi war lobby who fall hook line and sinker to the propogander and bias reporting

[Skybird]

Or the return button after each sentence. Mickey, I remember vaguely that some years ago you have indicated why you do not use punctuation marks. I knew a man who had the same habit. He used the return button after each finished sentence instead, like if he was taking a breath after each spoken sentence in conversation.

[SUBMAN1]

It didn't happen that way. Think of it like this - Armed man is minding own business, Armed thugs moved in next door to his neigbors house and the neighbor let it happen because he felt sympathy for them.
Try, the armed thugs weren't thugs until armed man invaded their house in the name of his security. At that point, a few of those guys decided to become thugs to drive the armed man out. It was hard to drive the man out because they only had pistols and the man had both an AK-47 and had body armor complete with thermal imaging, laser rangefinding...etc. The armed man eventually withdrew, after a very, very long time.

Armed thugs decide they hate armed man because armed man is sitting on land armed thugs like and kidnap son of Armed man to try and get armed man to leave.
When scaled down to a house, that "son" (low-ranking Israeli soldiers) is about the size of a pet rat. OK, they kidnapped the pet rat.

Armed thugs in neighbors house, shoot rockets at armed man, killing a daughter.
Oh no, they killed the pet goldfish which I placed in plain view of the window!!!

Armed man fires back desperately when he can see armed thugs.
Actually, it is more like he's just firing off RPGs in the general direction of the thug's house, in apathy of the fact there are only 2 thugs in that house that houses 100.

Armed thugs kidnap another armed mans son for the second time.
Considering armed are already shooting back, what's so wrong with that. And again, when scaled against the nation, a soldier or two is about the size of a pet rat.

Let's not forget, somewhere about this time, the armed man was indeed kidnapping the thugs' sons (the Hamas leadership, which is clearly more valuable than a couple of privates) as a counter. Desperate is not how I would describe the armed man's overall position.

Armed man gets ticked off at kidnapping and starts coming over to kill armed thugs who are hurting his family.
Yet his first shots were made with a rocket launcher, against the garage (airport) and electrical generator (power plant). How this is going to hurt the armed thugs more than the neutrals in the house is unknown.

Armed man accidently kills neighbors daughter while killing armed thugs who are neighbors friends.
Actually, the armed man just killed the plainscloth cop that was there (say what you might want about the UN, but UN peacekeepers the closest to an impartial cop of the world: the US military despite its capabilities is not a cop, but a private security company in the employ of the US and ultimately serving US interests.)

Ahh, is this Kazuaki Shimazaki II dreamworld? Isreal is the one who has always been on the defensive.

[SUBMAN1]

Are you Hezbollah? They kill women and children for fun and political statement. Isreal has also accidently killed women and children in an act of defense. Who's side are you on? Your statements are troubling.-S
If an action is wrong under the scenario, then it is wrong no matter who the executor of the action was. If attacking a UN post for the ostensible purpose of protecting Operational Security of your side is an acceptable action for Israel, it should also be so for Hezbollah, and vice versa. One can have this objectivity while finding actions such as the purposeful killing of woman and children reprehensible.

Furthermore, one has to wonder what "defense" is involved when Israel bombed a civvie power plant and an airport.

The Hezballoh were hiding there they ran out of babies,they are cowards and the world should quit calling them by the name they want but the name they are COWARDS.A coward would not hide,if if he thought his cause was just.
I'm a big evil criminal who has taken your whole family hostage, and I'm armed with a gun. You can ambush me. Instead, because you think your cause of killing me is just, you come up to me and my vast weapons superiority. Is this just or stupid?

When the Soviets were in Afghanistan, would they be justified in calling the Mujahadeen cowards and that they should stand up and face Soviet artillery because they think their cause is just?
Ding ding ding! Wrong answer again! Civilians are always a casualty of war. The real blame here goes to Lebanon for not taking care of its population as a good government is supposed to do. They left those people there in an effort to make a human shield.

It is Isreals right to defend itself from barbarian terrorists regardless the circumstances, so even though you may not like it, it is not a wrong. It is their duty. It is just an unfortunate side effect that can't be avoided.

-S

[Skybird]

In this article in today's New York times, people of Lebanon criticise the Israeli strikes. However, they not only express their despair, but also their anger and rage for Hezbollah intentionally moving into civilian areas to launch it's missiles, intentionally moving into Christian areas - and even killing local residents that try to flee from the launching sites, which I rate as a clear signal that Hezbollah WANTS civilian casualties so that it can point fingers at the Israelis. Remember, in the understanding of Islam, the death of Muhammedans in that way is martyrdom, and the death of infidels is a just cause. Don't measure Hezbollah by Western standards. Measure it by what a dog sometimes leaves behind.

http://www.nytimes.com/2006/07/28/world/middleeast/28refugees.html?e=&_r=2&hp=&oref=slogin&pagewanted=print

[micky1up]

point noted sky will do in the future

of course the terrorist want civilian casualties they can get that into the news all over the world and the peace and anti war/ and israel flag wavers can be suckered into protesting

public opinion matters it can effect a nations stance on any event for instnce the bombings in spain changed a goverment

[Kazuaki Shimazaki II]

There is no border conflict. There is a conflict over the existence of whole Israel itself.

And it is at the border conflict level presently (until Israel decided to break it). The closest things ever came to being "over the existence of whole Israel" is like 1973.

Ahh, is this Kazuaki Shimazaki II dreamworld? Isreal is the one who has always been on the defensive.

Actually, the situation is far more complex. Israel is a state literally installed where it wasn't exactly welcome. Despite being only 1/3rd of the population and owning only 8% (versus nearly half of the land by Arabs) of the land, somehow they were awarded 55% of the territory. One can see how this nation is going to be so popular. They swallowed entire areas of Arab majority (not surprising since there were more Arabs) into the notionally Jewish part. In a way, they were on the offense from the get go.

Naturally, war started almost as soon as the UN imposed this resolution. Israel somehow managed to win and annexed more territory.

In 1967, we finally learn that "defense" meant Pearl Harbor style air attacks and a massive attack and annexation. We also realize that the US will not punish Israel when it bombs one of her ships.

For reasons of "defense", they actually bombed an Iraqi nuke reactor in 1981.

If this is "defense", Israel "offense" must mandate the first use of its nuclear arsenal...

[Skybird]

Again, set that border wherever you want, it will be attacked, ever, always. It is a conflict about the existence of Israel. Agreed, 1948 was stupid, and if we would have 1950 or so, I would vote for reversing it. but two generations have been born and partially died in Israel meanwhile. Deleting Israel now is only possible at the price of repeating exactly the same kind of error that was done 1948. Not to mention that Islam will see it as another encouragement to push even harder than before into weak Europe. - - - On another thing, the medias start to report that their is disagreement in Israel'S secret services on the ammount of damage done to Hizbollah, and that there is disagreement on wether to go for a huge scale ground operation, or not. I never have dream that this could be true: that they have nothing learned from Rumsfeld's failed doctrine of minimal ground forces. I took it for granted from the frist day on that the air war would lead into a massive, unlimited ground invasion of the southern Lebanon, becasue that is the only way to hunt down Hezbollah there. Air strikes will disrupt their supply lines and make life miserable for them, but they cannot acchieve a strategical win that would justify the destruction being doen so far. Don't tell me that this is true, that they do not want to go in in massive force. If it will be so, I will immediately shut down all support for the war, declare them as freakin idiots who should have known better, predict their defeat and Hezbollah's victory and never will support a military action by Israel again, becasue then they obviously are too dumb to know what they need to do. If they leave it to an air campaign only, it will result in a major strategical defeat, and the political fallout will cost them dearly. They need to go into the South in an unlimited great scale ground invasion with massive troop levels that leave Hezbollah, using guerilla as well as terror tactics, no free space to take a breath of air. I was shocked when they reported about the split in the Israeli leadership about that decision, just minutes ago in German TV news. I would have expected the Israelis at first to know it better.

[August]

Again, set that border wherever you want, it will be attacked, ever, always. It is a conflict about the existence of Israel. Agreed, 1948 was stupid, and if we would have 1950 or so, I would vote for reversing it. but two generations have been born and partially died in Israel meanwhile. Deleting Israel now is only possible at the price of repeating exactly the same kind of error that was done 1948. Not to mention that Islam will see it as another encouragement to push even harder than before into weak Europe. - - - On another thing, the medias start to report that their is disagreement in Israel'S secret services on the ammount of damage done to Hizbollah, and that there is disagreement on wether to go for a huge scale ground operation, or not. I never have dream that this could be true: that they have nothing learned from Rumsfeld's failed doctrine of minimal ground forces. I took it for granted from the frist day on that the air war would lead into a massive, unlimited ground invasion of the southern Lebanon, becasue that is the only way to hunt down Hezbollah there. Air strikes will disrupt their supply lines and make life miserable for them, but they cannot acchieve a strategical win that would justify the destruction being doen so far. Don't tell me that this is true, that they do not want to go in in massive force. If it will be so, I will immediately shut down all support for the war, declare them as freakin idiots who should have known better, predict their defeat and Hezbollah's victory and never will support a military action by Israel again, becasue then they obviously are too dumb to know what they need to do. If they leave it to an air campaign only, it will result in a major strategical defeat, and the political fallout will cost them dearly. They need to go into the South in an unlimited great scale ground invasion with massive troop levels that leave Hezbollah, using guerilla as well as terror tactics, no free space to take a breath of air. I was shocked when they reported about the split in the Israeli leadership about that decision, just minutes ago in German TV news. I would have expected the Israelis at first to know it better.

It's not like Israel has a huge standing army. They're mostly made up of reservists so an operation on the scale you're talking about would be an enormous problem for them to sustain. Besides, it's not like they can afford to pull their troops off their borders with PLO/Hamas either.

[Kazuaki Shimazaki II]

I actually agree on the Occupation part. As you know I'm not warm about what Israel is doing right now. But since they've already done it, the only way a net positive can be made out of this situation now is if Israel invades full scale and then does the right thing, not botch it like they had with all their occupations so far.

Occupations are not necessarily a bad thing, nor do they necessarily create hatred, if you know how to run them. Japan and Germany are good examples, as has been mentioned in a previous discussion. Even a massive firebombing (Japan and Germany) can be made up for if you know how.

So, after they occupied the nation with swift and decisive force to create that nice shock and awe effect, they actually start to do some real good. The Hezbollahs are not all that popular, so the Lebanese won't mind if you are chasing them down as long as you aren't blowing up their houses and power plants in the attempt (or are they really attempting? Either way, time to stop).

More importantly, though, is that they do good. Such as obviously helping to rebuild. Such as not overreacting when a diehard terrorist shoots one of your soldiers - you are occupying; such things happen. You don't have to hand it to the UN, not yet, though observers would be nice. Make it unambigiously clear you are there to help them.

Do all that and Israel can regain all the points it had lost so far, and gain a much more secure border.

[Skybird]

Including their reservsists, males up top 45, and women up to 45, both groups can show up with troop levels of around 1.2 million. Learned that at an IDF information site yesterday. You need huge ammounts of infantry, for me that was clear from the very beginning. Not necessarily highly trained specialists, but just infntry to keep control of places once they got cleaned, while the froint moves further north. If your enemy is using guerilly tactics and is a small militia, you can only control him if "flooding" his living environment with troops. Else the hidden space is his, and he will move at will and always evade you, and strike at his choice of time and place. Anti-guerilla warfare is difficult enough and most of the time resulted in failure in the past, but trying to do it with air power alone is madness, irrational and irresponsible. If they leave it to that, I will immediately join Scandium's protest to stop the action, becasue then it is doomed to fail from the very beginning, and all the destruction in Lebanon is for nonsens only. It will achieve nothing that way, nothing. A grand scale invasion is a must, a definite precondition to secure a significant defeat over Hezbollah in that region. Small expeditions like they do now will not do much of a change, only cosmetical corrections in the statistics. Flatten every village were a single shot is coming from, by artillery and airpower, then flood the area with troops. That is the only way, and I thought they were prepared for that. Everything else is just playing games. My God they want to send UN or NASTO troops into that region - when it even is not substantially cleared???

[tycho102]

Well, there's no consequences to bombing the UN outposts, other than the UN pulling out of Lebanon. Just like when the Baghdad office was bombed. Except that Hizballah isn't receiving intelligence from the UN transmissions.

I say fight just as dirty as the enemy. I say fight dirtier than the enemy. You can re-write history however you want if you win, and knowing now what value democratic societies place on the victims, you can portray yourself as the victim. That's like Tarif Ziyad (http://www.cwo.com/~lucumi/moors2.html) (oh, yes, I do know the article spells his name as "Tarik"). He was just a peaceful farmer who fought back against the oppressive and violent Spainish Imperialists. He just imposed a tariff on all Mediterranean traffic to pay for the war against the evil Zionist oppressors who were controlling Spain at that time.


Win by whatever means you can, then re-write history so you were the victims....because your enemy would do the same thing to you if they win.

[Skybird]

First, countries in the Islamic sphere in no way can be compared to Japan and Germany. Bush and Co made the same erratic assumption when they went into Iraq. Second, Hezvbollah HAS a great support amongst Muslims in Lebanon, because it has been allowed to sink that deep into the civil structures that it now is seen as a guarnatee of stability by many, though not by all. Israel was not loved during the first occupation, and it will not be loved when doping that now. I only talk about occupation for as long as the battle for wiping out Hezbollah's aresenals in southern Lebanon and all the infrastructure that it could use will last. after that, they are well-advised to either occupy the whole country, or hand control over to an extremely robust international force that is not hesitent to use even massive firepower to hinder hezbollah to return into these territories - because that it will try to do that, people can take for granted. An international force that is not determined to put up a fight if Hezbollah returns, better should not be send. That's why the UN must not be allowed to have a word in this, because history shows, that the UN does not have that spine and determination. I do not like the idea of NATO being onvolved there, but maybe we have no realistzic alternative. What shoudl also be avoided is to giove the Turks a leadinf rfole, they will understand it as an ecouragement to push even harder for becoming the regional leading power, and will demand even greater support for their drive into the EU, as a payment, so to speak. whatever helps Turkey to push stronger for EU membership, should be avoided.

[SUBMAN1]

All this is, this entire thread, is opinion based on the legitimacy of Israel as a state. They are back where they belong after being conquered by the Assyrians in 701 BC. Most Arabs beleive that the land that the Isralies currently own is not legitimate land because it is holy land, but they forget who had the first state there. This is like going into Iran, taking over, staying for a while, building a church, and then the Iranians are replanted and we say that that is our land. Ah, no - historically it is not our land, it is the Sunnis land.

What I don't get, the Palestinians got exactly what Israel got - their own state, yet they still attack Israel after Israel gave them the land? Why should Israel not be allowed to have their state on the very ground they had there empire once before? Isn't this along the same lines? Why does Hezbollah continue to attack Israel?

Israel already proved what happens when you give the attacking Palestinians what they ask - they take and then continue to attack Israel for no reason. History repeats itself once more. Again, Israel will do what it needs to do, and they better go full on and finish the job this time. We don't need an armed terrorists force hanging around the area and financed by rogue states. It is this very thing that can be a potential flashpoint and it needs to be dealt with. No one likes war, but sometimes you must do what you must do.

-S

PS. If some terrorist group kidnapped me or someone from my family, and our country knew who it was, I'd hope that my country would do a similar response and crush them, regardless my fate. This is so it doesn't happen again to someone else. The world cannot afford to permit armed groups like this to exist since it boils over into the very thing you are seeing right now.

[Fish]

unarmed soldiers?

Hm, that's really a joke in itself, isn't it?

But if Hezbollah fighters are hijacking an UN post, why should the Israelis not fire at them? It's a damn war they have over there. In war you shoot at enemies. Maybe the UN should take measure that it could not be abused that easily - evade the area, or arm it's posts so that they can defend against being used as cover by one of the fighting factions. that neutrality thing obviously has a negative feedback when dealing with terror organizations that do not follow the regular rules of the military.

I thought he say their are two kinds of UN soldiers armed and unarmed (can't ask him he is on holiday now)the officers observing are unarmed, perhaps a sidearm?

[Fish]

Canadian killed from UN force complained his position shielding Hizbullah

Dr. Aaron Lerner Date: 26 July 2006

"...the tragic loss of a soldier yesterday who I happen to know and I think probably is from my Regiment. We've received e-mails from him a few days ago and he described the fact that he was taking within - in one case - three meters of his position "for tactical necessity - not being targeted". Now that's veiled speech in the military and what he was telling us was Hizbullah fighters were all over his position and the IDF were targeting them and that's a favorite trick by people who don't have representation in the UN. They use the UN as shields knowing that they can't be punished for it."

Retired Canadian Major General Lewis MacKenzie interviewed on CBC Toronto
radio 26 July 2006
For recording see this REALAUDIO file:
http://cbc.ca/metromorning/media/20060726LMCJUL26.ram
Amazing how many people here believe that this retired General's interpretation of a text message received by him "a few days" before the incident answers all questions and exonerates the IDF completely, ignoring the facts implicit in all of this that:

1. As a retired General he had no involvement in the U.N. mission there and was about as close to the action there as I am.

2. That what he asserts is only his interpretation of this cryptic, ambiguous text message.

3. That the text message is "a few days old" and neither he, nor we, know what variables changed in the interim even if we accept his interpretation of the text message.

Therefore the same questions I posted further upthread remain, and this answers none of them, let alone comes close to exonerating the IDF.

I do believe your retired general will have an intimit working knowledge of UN procedures, so I tend to disagree with your assesment until proven otherwise. Not saying that he is 100% right, but saying he has more weight and credability at this point than the alternative, even if the data is a day old.

-S

From a interview by France Unifil-commandant General-major Alain Pellegrini.
The Libanese governement never try to move there regular army south, so hezbolla grows out of controll. They (Hezbolla) place their katoesja's between houses and close to UN post hoping Israël won't bomb them.
But Israës doesn't go backwards.

[Skybird]

You must not ask him, I did not mean it that way. I question the concept of unarmed soldiers with blue helmets in principle, the concept of non-robust mandates. Either you send a troop with a punch - though it may have order to remain neutral and not to intervene - or you don't send them at all. That'S the absolute minimum you owe to every man and women you command into a situation wehre he must risk his life: that you give him the means of self-defense, and this means of course that the potential fighting capabiltiy may not be just symboli, but must be essential. Sending unarmed troops means supplying the conflict zone with potential human shields that are at everybody's mercy - irresponsible.If you enter a rumble pit, clean your teeth and sharpen your claws, even if you intend not put up a fight yourself. For you do not know if the others answer your self-restraint on equal terms.

[Fish]

For a few days, I saw a Israëly plain destroying a missile launcher in a wood. You could see two or three missiles coming up from the wood before the bom hit.
Today I saw a katoesja launcher at work, four missiles in a simple launcher, and no one near the launcher.
My idea is they only bomb a hole in the ground with those expencive guided bombs. The missiles ar emost or all lauched before the bomb hit the target and no hezbollas are near the launcher ( a few iron pipes).

[malkuth74]

http://www.canada.com/ottawacitizen/news/story.html?id=37278180-a261-421d-84a9-7f94d5fc6d50

[Skybird]

For a few days, I saw a Israëly plain destroying a missile launcher in a wood. You could see two or three missiles coming up from the wood before the bom hit.
Today I saw a katoesja launcher at work, four missiles in a simple launcher, and no one near the launcher.
My idea is they only bomb a hole in the ground with those expencive guided bombs. The missiles ar emost or all lauched before the bomb hit the target and no hezbollas are near the launcher ( a few iron pipes).

You are down there, currently? Take care!

Your observations just illustrate why this airshow is only of limited use as long as it is not complemented by a massive ground operation, that I so far took for granted. After Kosovo, it took the British less than 24 hours to come up with an estimation that roughly 90% of the fired dedicated tank-killer ammunition, missiles for the most, hit dummy tanks only. The Serbian forces were able to retreat with almost all their equipment, in cohesive unit formations, and in order and calm. Their losses in heavy equipment and weapons and tanks were minimal. Have the Israelis really not learned from that? I cannot believe it.

[Kazuaki Shimazaki II]

All this is, this entire thread, is opinion based on the legitimacy of Israel as a state. They are back where they belong after being conquered by the Assyrians in 701 BC. Most Arabs beleive that the land that the Isralies currently own is not legitimate land because it is holy land, but they forget who had the first state there. This is like going into Iran, taking over, staying for a while, building a church, and then the Iranians are replanted and we say that that is our land. Ah, no - historically it is not our land, it is the Sunnis land.

Counting in 1200 year old history is hardly a great method for installing a modern state. By similar standards, the US should vacate all the areas used to be held by the Native Americans. The Muslims had the present claim, by actually being there in greater quantities.

What I don't get, the Palestinians got exactly what Israel got - their own state, yet they still attack Israel after Israel gave them the land? Why should Israel not be allowed to have their state on the very ground they had there empire once before? Isn't this along the same lines? Why does Hezbollah continue to attack Israel?

Snort. Even the original Partition Part was a horribly one-sided deal. That the Palestinians aren't satisfied with the crumbs that Israel occasionally dribbles to look good is human. Real lesson: Not everyone is fooled when you give them crumbs and say it is bread.

PS. If some terrorist group kidnapped me or someone from my family, and our country knew who it was, I'd hope that my country would do a similar response and crush them, regardless my fate. This is so it doesn't happen again to someone else. The world cannot afford to permit armed groups like this to exist since it boils over into the very thing you are seeing right now.

And if, in the process of "crushing them", they kill off several other families and force thousands more to deport?

[Yahoshua]

being blind to the facts on the ground doesn't help your argument any better. Nor does using history as a "one sided" viewpoint help either.

You're skewing the facts here in favor of the moslems in a wholly unfair way. But I might as well play your game.

Let me help you get the fact straight here:

http://www.cs.biu.ac.il/~davoudo/israel.html

http://www.levitt.com/misc/israel_history.html

http://www.conceptwizard.com/trial/trial.html

http://www.conceptwizard.com/imagine/imagine_n.html

And just a little bit about our neighbors:

http://www.conceptwizard.com/terror/a1.html

http://www.conceptwizard.com/n-israel.html

http://www.conceptwizard.com/pipeline_of_hatred.html



News update from the Ottowa Citizen:

http://www.canada.com/ottawacitizen/news/story.html?id=37278180-a261-421d-84a9-7f94d5fc6d50


And an editorial on the subject of Israel:

SEEING THROUGH THE FOG OF WAR
Orwell Meets Alice - Through The Mid-East Looking Glass
by Bernard J. Shapiro


Israel is at war and you need to know how to separate fantasy from reality. Understanding the meaning of words in such a situation is very difficult for even the best linguist or psychologist. We must go back and remember the classic book by George Orwell, 1984, in which a totalitarian government manipulates the meaning of words to confuse its citizens about reality. He called this new language "newspeak". While Orwell’s book was an attempt to satirize the Soviet communist regime, its meaning extends much more broadly.

A QUICK DECODER

1. Remember that Arabs lie and the figures given for civilian casualties are greatly exaggerated. Since most Hizbollah and Hamas terrorists wear civilian clothes and mix with the local population, it is very easy to distort the true toll on civilians.


2. Damage to Lebanese infrastructure is also greatly exaggerated. Photographers and reporters in Lebanon MUST repeat the Arab terrorist propaganda line or be tortured or executed. No such threat hangs over reporters in Israel. When the media reports from both sides, you can get a very distorted picture. We tend to think that the veracity of the two sides is equal.

3. It is a hoax that there is NO MILITARY solution to Hezbollah, Hamas, Iran and genocidal terrorism. Those that come to kill Jews must be destroyed. There is no other choice. No "Mr. Nice Guy". The most moral position for Israel is to protect its own citizens and soldiers.

4. It is a hoax that the UN can do anything good for Israel. That also goes for Europe, Egypt and Saudi Arabia. The usefulness of international forces separating Arab terrorists from Israeli defenders is nil, nada, zero. In fact, it is a negative, inhibiting Israel’s defensive measures.

All diplomacy is also a hoax. Only the power of the IDF allows Israel to survive. Right and justice are nice, but in the final analysis, a nation’s ability to survive depends on raw military power. Treaties, cease fires and negotiations are useless.

5. It is a hoax that public opinion is of great significance to Israel’s survival. A strong aggressive public relations campaign is quite important, but is NO substitute for unflinching resolve to protect Israel’s security and guarantee its survival.

Golda Meir once said: "I would rather have a thousand angry editorials directed at Israel, than one beautiful eulogy."

I would have to use the words of Harry Truman to express my contempt for the world that has murdered, raped, pillaged, expelled, forcibly converted and finally exterminated us. As Truman once said: "They ain’t worth a bucket of warm spit."

6. Another hoax is that Israel depends on American aid and must be willing to sacrifice its security to the interest of its ally. The reality is that Israel and America have a very useful symbiotic relationship. The many ways in which the U.S. benefits from the relationship hardly need enumeration ­ intelligence, technology, counterterrorism techniques and much more. America gets its money’s worth and more. BUT THIS IS NEVER MENTIONED IN POLITE CIRCLES.

For that matter, much or most of the monetary foreign aid to Israel is spent in the U.S. and goes into the American economy. It is Israeli leaders, for their own political purposes, who fail to utilize Israeli power to alter its asymmetric relationship to America.

7. Another hoax of the Left and the Islamists, for the past 13 years, is that when Israel defends itself it hurts its cause. That is, it should try to "win the hearts and minds" of the enemy, and "harming civilians" is counterproductive. Of course, we know that Hamas and Hezbollah barbarically and illegally operate freely within civilian neighborhoods in S. Lebanon and the PA.

A very wise Rabbi Schiff gives the analogy:

"If you and I were neighbors, and I allowed a family to move into my house in my living room and shoot rockets at your house from my yard, and to store their rockets in my basement, and the police do nothing about it for years, and have ‘Peace Now’ on my lawn telling you not to harm me standing in my kitchen - what would you do?"

Orwell Meets Alice - Through The Mid-East Looking Glass

We have been treated to the modern equivalent of Orwellian newspeak, not to mention a harrowing trip through Alice's looking glass. One could not help but notice the extent to which the Arabs were being portrayed as pure and innocent. A casual observer would certainly think that all violence in the Middle East was a product of bloodthirsty Jewish settlers roaming the Judean-Samarian hills looking for Arab prey.

The PLO/PA leadership, its hands dripping with Jewish and Arab blood, demanded protection from the vicious Jewish residents of Judea, Samaria and Gaza (YESHA). It refused to return to negotiations until its demands were met. The gullible international media took this whole charade seriously. The United Nations began debating a resolution to give protection to the poor vulnerable Palestinians. The PLO demanded that all Jewish communities of YESHA be ethnically cleansed of those rotten murderous Jews. At the very least they needed to be disarmed, to make them easier targets for Arab terrorists.

The high and the mighty beseeched Arafat to return to the talks with Israel. The late Israeli Prime Minister Yitzhak Rabin, obviously anxious to please his PLO friends, began a crackdown on Kach and Kahane Chai and other so-called Israeli extremists. Consider this "logic": Rabin determined that Baruch Goldstein acted alone in his reprisal act. He then decided to outlaw the organizations associated with him. Guilt by association is what made McCarthy big in the 50's. It was wrong then and it is wrong now.

Reality Check: Now Kach and Kahane Chai have been labeled as terrorist organizations, although they never have committed a single act of terror as a body. The PLO, which is guilty of thousands of murders of Arabs and Jews, continuing still, is labeled a "partner for peace" and will be given arms to kill some more (as "policemen").

Reality Check: Are Arabs in danger from armed Israelis in YESHA? Some research reveals the following figures since the famous handshake on September 13, 1993:

Israelis killed by Arabs = over 1600, plus 10,000 injured and maimed for life
Arabs killed by Arabs = over 500
Arab attacks onfiltered= 25,000+
Private Israeli attacks onfiltered= 1 (Goldstein killed 29)
(Of course MANY terrorists were killed in their FAILED attempts to murder Jews. This point is NOT relevant to this discussion).

It is clear that except for the attack by Goldstein, the Arabs have not been threatened by Jews and certainly need no special protection. If you travel to YESHA you will notice that every Jewish village needs a security fence, while every Arab village is open. Doesn't this tell you who is threatened and who isn't? All the talk about disarming the Jews is a cover for the Arab desire to murder them. And if you desire murder, wouldn't it be nice to disarm your victim first?

The media has begun to adopt another tactic which we should protest. In the New York Times, The Los Angeles Times, The Washington Post, The Houston Chronicle, CNN and most of the other media, opponents of the suicidal Oslo, Roadmap and Jewish Expulsion Plan are being referred to as rightwing extreme, Arab-hating and anti-peace groups. Do you ever remember the PLO, PA, Hezbollah or Hamas ever being referred to as Jew-hating groups, although their covenants and speeches are filled with hatred of Jews? Arafat and then Abbas often referred to Jews as "filthy, sons of monkeys and pigs", but are still rarely referred to in the media as Jew-haters.

Reality Check: To the best of my knowledge there is a distinct difference between Jewish feelings about Arabs and Arab feelings about Jews. Arabs are taught from the earliest grades to despise Jews, and their clerics preach hatred (Itbach El Yahoud - slaughter the Jews) in many of their services. Jews, on the other hand do not preach hatred, but those who are not brain dead recognize, after 120 years of being attacked, that Arabs mean them harm. The media is totally obfuscating the truth about the conflict by the use of such clichéd phrases as "Arab-hating Jews" or "cycle of violence."

Another problem with media coverage of the Israel-PLO/PA so-called "peace negotiations", is the way their opponents are described. Arabs opposed to the deal because they want to kill or expel all Jews from "Palestine" immediately, are equated with Jews and Israelis who want Israel to survive in secure borders. Opponents of national suicide are called "anti-peace", as opposed to supporters of such suicide being "pro-peace".

Reality Check: Most opponents of the deal with Arafat/Abbas oppose it because it is suicidal for many strategic, historical and objective reasons. None of us are anti-peace. We just recognize that the path chosen by the Rabin/ Peres/Barak/Olmert governments will lead not to the hoped for and advertised peace, but to Israel's destruction.

In another bizarre twist of logic the Los Angeles Times reports that Israel's leading peace group, Shalom Achshav (Peace Now), had urged Sharon to remove 500,000 Jewish inhabitants of YESHA (including Jerusalem) to avert widespread bloodshed under Palestinian self-government, and to forcibly evict all Jews within five years. They said that their continued presence, "fostering violence and bloodshed, endangers peace prospects."

Reality Check: The facts demonstrate that it is the Palestinians and not the Jews that are the cause of 99.9% of the violence. Why not remove the Palestinians? What Peace Now is really admitting is that there is NO PEACE nor any prospect of PEACE.

The liberal Jewish establishment and most of the media were appalled when Rabbi Meir Kahane first began talking about transferring the Arabs from Eretz Yisrael. Most are still appalled at this idea. A new idea has come into fashion, though, among these same righteous Jews: transferring the Jews from YESHA (heartland of Eretz Yisrael). Former Secretary of State James Baker once said it would be a good idea to use the $10 Billion in US loan guarantees to buy out and transfer the Jews from YESHA. US President Bill Clinton seemed to like the idea and so did Rabin's coalition partner Meretz.

Reality Check: There is no moral difference between transferring either Jews or Arabs from YESHA. What Kahane said years ago about the inability of Jews and Arabs to live together is being validated today by the same people who condemned him.

The 120-year war of extermination launched by the Arabs against the Jews of Israel has had many twists and turns. Sadly, it seems headed for Alice's looking glass and the world of 1984, where black is white, war is peace and good is evil.

Bernard J. Shapiro is the Executive Director of the Freeman Center For Strategic Studies. He is also the editor of its publications including THE MACCABEAN ONLINE URL:http://www.freeman.org/online.htm (http://mail.yahoo.com/config/login?/url:http:%2F%2Fwww.freeman.org%2Fonline.htm) and its daily subscriber list of news and commentary, The Freemanlist and the Freeman Center blog.

And just now, a shooting ocurred at a Jewish center in Seattle WA. Not much information at this time, and no motives have been established.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20060729/ap_on_re_us/seattle_shooting

[scandium]

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/servlet/story/LAC.20060728.MIDEUN28/TPStory/TPInternational/Africa/

'They just don't care' about UN force

BEIRUT, JERUSALEM -- The Israeli shelling that killed four United Nations peacekeepers, one of them Canadian, in south Lebanon was likely the result of recklessness rather than deliberate action, a former top member of the UNIFIL mission said yesterday.

Timur Goksel, a veteran peacekeeper who spent years acting as a liaison between the UNIFIL observer mission in south Lebanon and the Israeli army, said he was angered but unsurprised by the incident on Tuesday. He said it fit a long pattern of irresponsible behaviour by the Israelis that frequently put UN peacekeepers in the line of fire.

"The Israelis just don't care. I don't call it deliberate, that's just too harsh," he said. "This was totally unnecessary. There's no reason to drop this bomb on a UN base that's been there for 50 years."

The UN says the Israeli army was repeatedly warned over the course of a six-hour bombardment that they were shelling close to a UNIFIL observation post before the fatal shell struck. UN Secretary-General Kofi Annan said the attack was "apparently deliberate," but later accepted an apology from Israeli Prime Minister Ehud Olmert.

..

Mr. Goksel, who spent 24 years working with UNIFIL, first as a press spokesman and later as a senior adviser and trainer, also dismissed the possibility that it was Lebanon's Hezbollah militia that had placed the UN position in danger by using the area around the Khiyam observation post to fire rockets into Israel.


He said that since UNIFIL's mandate is to immediately report any cross-border military activity, firing from near Khiyam would result in Israel immediately knowing where Hezbollah was firing from.

..

Clearly upset, Mr. Goksel went on to list a series of incidents in which Israeli troops had fired at or near the UNIFIL mission. Most infamously, in 1996, during another Israeli operation to uproot the Hezbollah militia that controls the area, several Israeli shells fell on a UN base in the southern Lebanese town of Qana. About 800 people had taken shelter in the basement, and 102 were killed.

..

Another UNIFIL veteran, former U.S. army officer Augustus Richard Norton, said the Israeli army has long regarded peacekeepers with hostility and contempt.

"There is a pattern here of Israelis attempting to suppress UN observation posts and the activity of UN peacekeepers," Mr. Norton said. "Often they distrust the observers."

[SUBMAN1]

Counting in 1200 year old history is hardly a great method for installing a modern state. By similar standards, the US should vacate all the areas used to be held by the Native Americans. The Muslims had the present claim, by actually being there in greater quantities.
<Edit> Indians had no city or state. They simply lived off the land. You must go south and visit the Aztecs or Mayans to use that logic. Besides, Indians did get some very valuable land and they make a bankroll off of it as we speak.

Snort. Even the original Partition Part was a horribly one-sided deal. That the Palestinians aren't satisfied with the crumbs that Israel occasionally dribbles to look good is human. Real lesson: Not everyone is fooled when you give them crumbs and say it is bread.
<Edit> The Palestinians never had a state before, so they should feel pretty good that they got something now - for free!


And if, in the process of "crushing them", they kill off several other families and force thousands more to deport?
That is what happens in war. If the Heznollah were so concerned about it, they would get those families out of there. Instead you have a group willing to use innocence as a shield while they fire at Israel. Hezbollah must be wiped out so they cannot do these atrocities to future generations.

<Edit>

-S

[Gizzmoe]

Subman, I´ve removed some of your comments. Please be a bit more polite next time.

[SUBMAN1]

<Edit: If you would like to question my decisions please do that via PM - Gizzmoe>

[SUBMAN1]

Ouch - censorship twice

[Onkel Neal]

Don't take it personally, Subman. I've asked Gizz to lend a hand in keeping the level of discussion here from erupting into battle. Thanks for your understanding.

Neal

[Skybird]

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/servlet/story/LAC.20060728.MIDEUN28/TPStory/TPInternational/Africa/

He said it fit a long pattern of irresponsible behaviour by the Israelis that frequently put UN peacekeepers in the line of fire.

No, that had been done by the UN.

"The Israelis just don't care. I don't call it deliberate, that's just too harsh," he said. "This was totally unnecessary. There's no reason to drop this bomb on a UN base that's been there for 50 years."

When Hezbollah was all over the place, as that retired Canadian major yesterday reported to have been told by a colleague in that post, then that IS a reason - and an explanation why it was shelled 14 times before.

The UN says the Israeli army was repeatedly warned over the course of a six-hour bombardment that they were shelling close to a UNIFIL observation post before the fatal shell struck. UN Secretary-General Kofi Annan said the attack was "apparently deliberate," but later accepted an apology from Israeli Prime Minister Ehud Olmert. ...

Mr. Goksel, who spent 24 years working with UNIFIL, first as a press spokesman and later as a senior adviser and trainer, also dismissed the possibility that it was Lebanon's Hezbollah militia that had placed the UN position in danger by using the area around the Khiyam observation post to fire rockets into Israel.

Then I would like to see him negotiate that with that guy who said the opposite above. Also, a spokesman, senior adviser and trainer (for what?) is not a pro military. Politicians tend to judge a fighting situation as different than militaries.

[quote]He said that since UNIFIL's mandate is to immediately report any cross-border military activity, firing from near Khiyam would result in Israel immediately knowing where Hezbollah was firing from.

That peacekeeper that Fish has referred to, who was stationed in that post, said, that from that post you cannot see Hezbollah moving, since they do not move in the open, and probably also because vision to the north is more limited than to the south. Israel also has the abilityx all by itself to detect Katyuasho launchs, and retaliate on that position ion less than 2 minutes, they reported yesterday in a short docu on TV. The spokesman also tries to give the impression that it is okay for the UN to give advantage to one side, if it also gives an advanatge to the other side (which it does not need as descriobed above). But that is no neutrality. There has been border crossings since days. Noone in the UN is served to know within minutes when such a thing takes place - reason would have ordered that post not to report immediately, in that situaion and under those conditions, but to remain neutral. And anyway - the UN has a mandate to immediately report - who cares. World does not spin the other way around just because a UN mandate wishes to do so. And since they have withdrawn their posts now, it finally comes out that the UN and the world can live very well without UN observers in that region, currently. so far they have not acchieved anything, and enver prveenting any military violence, no matter in what direction. SO WHY HAVE THEY BEEN LEFT THERE AND PUT AT RISK IF THEIR PRESENCE WAS MEANINGLESS?

Clearly upset, Mr. Goksel went on to list a series of incidents in which Israeli troops had fired at or near the UNIFIL mission. Most infamously, in 1996, during another Israeli operation to uproot the Hezbollah militia that controls the area, several Israeli shells fell on a UN base in the southern Lebanese town of Qana. About 800 people had taken shelter in the basement, and 102 were killed.

If that was the same mandate, they shouldn' have get involved in the action by allowing their base sheltering people - of whom the UN without doubt is the last to know if there were active fighters amongst them or not. The UN has no mandate to actively engage. with all the ups and downs that come as a consequence of such a mandate.

Another UNIFIL veteran, former U.S. army officer Augustus Richard Norton, said the Israeli army has long regarded peacekeepers with hostility and contempt. "There is a pattern here of Israelis attempting to suppress UN observation posts and the activity of UN peacekeepers," Mr. Norton said. "Often they distrust the observers.

No wonder, if they stay around for thirty years without being of any use, being used maybe by enemy fighters for cover, and maybe carelessly transmit anything about Israel into the air so that their enemies maybe can take advanatge of it. WHO would trust them, under such conditions? with that 30 years-mission, once more the UN has made an idiot of itself. Well, now they are gone, and it wouldn't be a loss for anyone if they never return.

I wonder what motovates soldiers from foreign nations to volunteer for such missions. Obviously idealism and good intentions. But what makes them seeing it with rosy glasses only? Why can'T they see the poor planning, unrealistic intention and short reach of such missions? That's no bashing by me, but a seriously-meant question. When i had finished school 1985, I spend some serious thought on the option to go to the Bundeswehr myself and start a career there (which would have been completely voluntarily, since I was living in West-Berlin and even wouldn't have been drafted). But it were doubts and questions about politician's reliability, reason and trustworthiness that finally made me turn away from that option (although back then there was not the perspective of that germany would be completely independent again just four yeras later). since thehn, i never regretted my deciison against the army. Nevertheless I feel indirectly affected, and proven right, when I see Western politicians putting troops at risk for questionable motives, which seems to have become a common habit nowadays. My sympathy and interest in the army never completely faded out.

[Fish]

For a few days, I saw a Israëly plain destroying a missile launcher in a wood. You could see two or three missiles coming up from the wood before the bom hit.
Today I saw a katoesja launcher at work, four missiles in a simple launcher, and no one near the launcher.
My idea is they only bomb a hole in the ground with those expencive guided bombs. The missiles ar emost or all lauched before the bomb hit the target and no hezbollas are near the launcher ( a few iron pipes).

You are down there, currently? Take care!

Your observations just illustrate why this airshow is only of limited use as long as it is not complemented by a massive ground operation, that I so far took for granted. After Kosovo, it took the British less than 24 hours to come up with an estimation that roughly 90% of the fired dedicated tank-killer ammunition, missiles for the most, hit dummy tanks only. The Serbian forces were able to retreat with almost all their equipment, in cohesive unit formations, and in order and calm. Their losses in heavy equipment and weapons and tanks were minimal. Have the Israelis really not learned from that? I cannot believe it.

No, not down there, sorry I give that idea.:oops:
Just watching TV.

[Skybird]

No one must be sorry not to be down there. ;)

[micky1up]

public opinion dosent directly affect israel your correct but it dose affect its supporters like the US and UK nand that can have a huge difference in negotiations in the UN security council so indirectly it can affect israel

[Kazuaki Shimazaki II]

You're skewing the facts here in favor of the moslems in a wholly unfair way. But I might as well play your game.
I'm not making things in favor of the Arabs. I'm saying they do have a legitimate claim. H*ll, even your first chosen site says straight out that Israel got that first land by conquering it. They weren't settling a new empty area. Thus, by your own sources, Israel was on the offense even 2000 years ago.

Let me help you get the fact straight here:
I read to about Page 3 and I can already identify the heavy pro-Israeli propaganda in the content. While I doubt I'm fully knowledgable enough to handily dismantle any claim (Israel is an insignificant part of my life, and I'd admit I spend relatively little time studying it), what I could see makes me doubt I'm getting balanced gospel from these sites.

http://www.cs.biu.ac.il/~davoudo/israel.html (http://www.cs.biu.ac.il/%7Edavoudo/israel.html)
Take the slide marked November 1947. They conveniently forgot to mention, among others, like how they still got 55% of the land. I suppose I'm meant to read the map and figure that "poor Israel" is bisected into 3 by the original plan, but that's probably because they can't justify marking those two critical points as Jewish even with their rather generous (for Israel) calculation. What I see is that the bisection looks so narrow that the Israelis can probably interdict it and thus bisect the Arab state even with artillery fire, or just walk out and link up, establishing a physical block.

Yes, maybe he was right, in retrospect, in saying that if the Arabs had buckled under and accepted this plan, they might have had a state, which would have lasted until a little border conflict happens and the Israelis over-react. They tend to do that. For some reason, all their defensive wars will involve grabbing chunks.

Besides, agreeing to the plan meant effectively forfeiting the chunks that Arabs feel are theirs. It is at least understandable they don't agree. And worse, they will put themselves in a dire military situation if they agree, of being bisected. Yet the site pretends it is all their intrasignence.

http://www.canada.com/ottawacitizen/news/story.html?id=37278180-a261-421d-84a9-7f94d5fc6d50
That McKenzie guy again? Putting his own spin on words supposed E-mailed to him?

Besides, no one is saying the Hezbollahs were saints. Just that we should stop seeing Israel as particularly clean itself.

1. Remember that Arabs lie and the figures given for civilian casualties are greatly exaggerated. Since most Hizbollah and Hamas terrorists wear civilian clothes and mix with the local population, it is very easy to distort the true toll on civilians.
I'd just do a few here:
The onus is on Israel to prove that anyone they kill in an ostensibly anti-terrorist op is a terrorist. Any person they can't prove is a civvie and goes into your collateral damage count until otherwise known. This should encourage you to show appropriate restraint.

2. Damage to Lebanese infrastructure is also greatly exaggerated. Photographers and reporters in Lebanon MUST repeat the Arab terrorist propaganda line or be tortured or executed. No such threat hangs over reporters in Israel. When the media reports from both sides, you can get a very distorted picture. We tend to think that the veracity of the two sides is equal.
They can always get out of Lebanon and then report. While this would not be outside the realm of possibility, note that this guy doesn't even make a token attempt to prove it - he just asserts it and hopes that anyone but the choir will eat it.

3. It is a hoax that there is NO MILITARY solution to Hezbollah, Hamas, Iran and genocidal terrorism. Those that come to kill Jews must be destroyed. There is no other choice. No "Mr. Nice Guy". The most moral position for Israel is to protect its own citizens and soldiers.
Kill! Kill! Kill!

4. It is a hoax that the UN can do anything good for Israel. That also goes for Europe, Egypt and Saudi Arabia. The usefulness of international forces separating Arab terrorists from Israeli defenders is nil, nada, zero. In fact, it is a negative, inhibiting Israel’s defensive measures.
The UN is most definitely not about doing good for Israel. It is fairer to say it is about doing good to the world, which does not necessarily equate to doing good for Israel.

All diplomacy is also a hoax. Only the power of the IDF allows Israel to survive. Right and justice are nice, but in the final analysis, a nation’s ability to survive depends on raw military power. Treaties, cease fires and negotiations are useless.

Maybe. But if you use a ruleset that denies "right and justice", then Hezbollah becomes morally equivalent. Rights and justice creates differences in morality. If there is no right and no wrong, then anything Hezbollah does is equal to what the Israelis do.

By the way, if treaties, cease fires and negotiations are useless, while that might excuse Israeli aggression one can also easily forgive any Arab aggression over the years. Since treaties, cease fires and negotations are useless, there is no point in trying them. Which means war.

5. It is a hoax that public opinion is of great significance to Israel’s survival. A strong aggressive public relations campaign is quite important, but is NO substitute for unflinching resolve to protect Israel’s security and guarantee its survival.
This is actually currently true because the United States tends to help Israel almost no matter what. Which may have to do with the strategic benefits brought to America by Israel, but anyway.

But at some point, public opinion will become everything to Israel's survival. At some degree of atrocity or "collateral damage", even America will get fed up. The day it loses this last backer (if it had any other backers, they would almost certainly be fed up before the US), it will have to pay for all of what it has done.

6. Another hoax is that Israel depends on American aid and must be willing to sacrifice its security to the interest of its ally. The reality is that Israel and America have a very useful symbiotic relationship. The many ways in which the U.S. benefits from the relationship hardly need enumeration ­ intelligence, technology, counterterrorism techniques and much more. America gets its money’s worth and more. BUT THIS IS NEVER MENTIONED IN POLITE CIRCLES.
Counterterrorism and intelligence, maybe, because Israel does so much of it. Technology? Well, the Israelis come up with cool toys that are sometimes useful enough for the States to just purchase every now and then, but I doubt they produce any irreplaceable or even semi-irreplaceable products.

[U-104]

Try, the armed thugs weren't thugs until armed man invaded their house in the name of his security.:roll: So what you're saying is - Hezbollah firing rockets into Israel weren't terrorists until Israel shot back --

[Kazuaki Shimazaki II]

Try, the armed thugs weren't thugs until armed man invaded their house in the name of his security.:roll: So what you're saying is - Hezbollah firing rockets into Israel weren't terrorists until Israel shot back --

No, I'm remembering Israel invading and occupying Lebanon and thus creating the Hezbollah.

[August]

No, I'm remembering Israel invading and occupying Lebanon and thus creating the Hezbollah.

But why did Israel invade Lebanon in 1982?

It was for the very same reason they invade it today, and that was to stop attacks from being mounted out of southern Lebanon against northern Israel. Except that they didn't call it Hezbollah back then. It was the PLO who moved in and took over the southern half of Lebanon after their defeat in the Jordanian Civil war and who had played the major role in starting the Lebanese civil war.

Read about it here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1982_Lebanon_War

Some people here like to make out that the Israelis are the aggressors but history tells us differently.

[U-104]

No, I'm remembering Israel invading and occupying Lebanon and thus creating the Hezbollah.
But why did Israel invade Lebanon in 1982?

It was for the very same reason they invade it today, and that was to stop attacks from being mounted out of southern Lebanon against northern Israel. Except that they didn't call it Hezbollah back then. It was the PLO who moved in and took over the southern half of Lebanon after their defeat in the Jordanian Civil war and who had played the major role in starting the Lebanese civil war.

Read about it here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1982_Lebanon_War

Some people here like to make out that the Israelis are the aggressors but history tells us differently.:yep:

[Kazuaki Shimazaki II]

It was for the very same reason they invade it today, and that was to stop attacks from being mounted out of southern Lebanon against northern Israel. Except that they didn't call it Hezbollah back then. It was the PLO who moved in and took over the southern half of Lebanon after their defeat in the Jordanian Civil war and who had played the major role in starting the Lebanese civil war.

Read about it here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1982_Lebanon_War

Some people here like to make out that the Israelis are the aggressors but history tells us differently.
1) Nice try, but you now brought in the PLO, which means the Palestinians, which go back to 1947 and the partitioning plan.
2) They might have been trying to kill the PLO, but in the process they undeniably trampled on the Lebanese, which created the Hezbollah.

<Edit> Indians had no city or state. They simply lived off the land. You must go south and visit the Aztecs or Mayans to use that logic. Besides, Indians did get some very valuable land and they make a bankroll off of it as we speak.
1) Actually, at least some Native Americans (such as the Iroquois) had a form of government, and all of them would at least have a government within the vilage. Also it is very arbitrary to demand a particularllevel of advancement to decide they were worthy of keeping the land.
2) Even though the Natives were quite well compensated, one can argue even such a compensation is inadequate for loss of their nation and land. Second, and at least as important, this second point was entirely missing for the Palestinians.

<Edit> The Palestinians never had a state before, so they should feel pretty good that they got something now - for free!
And the Jews didn't have a state for N-thousand years. What they had was a product of conquest and was soon conquered. Their claim isn't really that much stronger, especially when compared the "present" (in 1947 or so) situation of the Palestinians actually outnumbering the Jews in the region.

That is what happens in war. If the Heznollah were so concerned about it, they would get those families out of there. Instead you have a group willing to use innocence as a shield while they fire at Israel. Hezbollah must be wiped out so they cannot do these atrocities to future generations.
While not eager to overly defend the Hezbollahs:
1) You are now expecting the enemy to be self-sacrificing - I'd call that a tall demand for any enemy.
2) Do not confuse who killed those people. It was Israel. Sure, maybe the Hezbollahs were pretty despicable, but it was still Israel who made a certain final prioritization, a prioritization which led to their deaths.

[Skybird]

It was for the very same reason they invade it today,

But so far they do not invade it - that is exactly the giant and still growing problem I have with this war. They send tens of thousands of reservists to the North, but they do not go in in force. More and more I get the impression that I massively overestimated the intelligence of the Israeli planners. I took it for granted that the aerial bombardment would be followed by massive cleaning by ground forces. And it seems this will not take place. Which in a reverse conclusions leads me to the thought that they started this operation with very, very bad preparation. the political fallout will eat them up alive - because I think they will not deliver the severe blow to Hezbollah for which a massive and enduring ground intervention would be the precondition. you cannot take out a guerilla-style fighting enemy from the air alone. you can disrupt his supply lines to some degree, but you need to cvonfront him on the ground, from all directions, leaving him no free space to move. What they are doing now is only a huge waste of ammunition, it they leave it to that.

[Yahoshua]

Granted, Israel conquered the land and settled there. The land was not called Palestine at that time, and the original inhabitants are gone. The land was partitioned in 1946 with the Arabs given the Trans-Jordan and the Jews given "Palestine." Jordan IS the modern Palestinian state.

I don't deny that the media presented is obviously pro-Israel, but if you sincerely doubt that the facts presented to you are the the truth, please find for me the Palestinian language, culture, society, kingdom, boundaries, and names of their leaders before the year 1967.

And I find it fair and balanced to say that Mohammedans have been on the offensive since the inception and formation of Islam.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_Islam

This site is about the "origin" of the word Palestine.

http://www.eretzyisroel.org/~peters/mythology.html

And a recent history:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=G379w5G1ydM&mode=related&search=

http://www.masada2000.org/historical.html

http://www.imninalu.net/myths-pals.htm

And just as a last minute addition, the absolute neutrality of the U.N.:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AqGjz7iJTns&mode=related&search=

Last minute addition Part two, Human Shields used by Hizbullah:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KM35dzT9dUI&mode=related&search=

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xZ8fSkSMhjw&mode=related&search=

And by Hamas:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ES54GL25xFs&NR

The black/white reporting from both sides:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=htrtzNsVAcQ&mode=related&search=

[August]

It was for the very same reason they invade it today,
But so far they do not invade it - that is exactly the giant and still growing problem I have with this war. They send tens of thousands of reservists to the North, but they do not go in in force. More and more I get the impression that I massively overestimated the intelligence of the Israeli planners. I took it for granted that the aerial bombardment would be followed by massive cleaning by ground forces. And it seems this will not take place. Which in a reverse conclusions leads me to the thought that they started this operation with very, very bad preparation. the political fallout will eat them up alive - because I think they will not deliver the severe blow to Hezbollah for which a massive and enduring ground intervention would be the precondition. you cannot take out a guerilla-style fighting enemy from the air alone. you can disrupt his supply lines to some degree, but you need to cvonfront him on the ground, from all directions, leaving him no free space to move. What they are doing now is only a huge waste of ammunition, it they leave it to that.

Skybird I think you're being unrealistic in the level of effort the Israelis can sustain. Maybe they can do more than they're doing in Lebanon but they still have to guard their other borders and they have to keep their economy going, so at some point their military committments become a trade off with keeping the rest of the country afloat.

[August]

1) Nice try, but you now brought in the PLO, which means the Palestinians, which go back to 1947 and the partitioning plan.
2) They might have been trying to kill the PLO, but in the process they undeniably trampled on the Lebanese, which created the Hezbollah.

Interesting tactic don't you think? Lebanon does nothing to stop PLO fighters from making border incursions to kill Israeli civilians. It does not stop the PLO from using Lebanese territory to make artillery attacks on northern Israeli towns and cities. When the Israelis respond, all civilian deaths caught in the crossfire become their fault.

While not eager to overly defend the Hezbollahs:
1) You are now expecting the enemy to be self-sacrificing - I'd call that a tall demand for any enemy.
2) Do not confuse who killed those people. It was Israel. Sure, maybe the Hezbollahs were pretty despicable, but it was still Israel who made a certain final prioritization, a prioritization which led to their deaths.

Maybe, but Hezbollah forced the present situation on Israel, unless of course you think there was another way to stop attacks against its people being mounted from southern Lebanon.

If there is i'd be glad to hear it, because as it stands i see no other option.

[Skybird]

Skybird I think you're being unrealistic in the level of effort the Israelis can sustain. Maybe they can do more than they're doing in Lebanon but they still have to guard their other borders and they have to keep their economy going, so at some point their military commitments become a trade off with keeping the rest of the country afloat.
Just in case you are right (and I think they could sustain a far bigger offensive than what they are just mobilising now) - then this would mean that the air war has been a both terrible and very stupid mistake. It means hundreds of thousands dislocated and moving, huge destruction done - and all that to gift Hezbollah a monumental propaganda victory - for zero, rien, nada compensation. It means a massive political fallout, and the waste of life and human suffering.

I only supported the air campaign while assuming that they also go in on the ground, and in massive force, the area we are talking about, if considering a buffer zone 20 km deep up to the Litani, is of the size like Baghdad plus it's outer suburbs (I checked that yesterday on maps, the comparison is rough, but all in all it fits.) I still think that the Israelis could afford a force size that could control such an area to that degree that any guerrilla in it hardly could find a place to squeeze into, not to mention to walk around. What it is about is not fighting on the ground, but have so many eyes on the ground that no target could escape to be detected for air and artillery strikes. And FAR BETTER target identification. Dropping a 1000 pounder onto a parked bike is not clever. Right now, I think they are more and more killing stones - but these with overkill capacity.

If they do not start on the ground, and pronto, then this will enter the history books as the biggest military folly of Israel ever, and I mention it alongside military mistakes like Iraq 2003. maybe born out of despair, but nevertheless a folly.

Look at that terrain in google earth - and then tell me you could cause a guerrilla even just headache there, without massive, overwhelming presence on the ground. It reminds me of the harsh terrain in Eastern Turkey, or the mountains in Algeria. Absolutely impossible to win there without ground presence en masse. if the option of a ground operation was no option from the beginning and will not be turned into reality, their leaders should step down for having started all this. Especially the Israelis I would have expected not to act so stupid, military-wise.

Fight or don't. but when you decide to do, put all heart that you have into it, at all costs, and then some more. True for martial arts. True for sword fighting. True for waging war. Do, or don't. 110%, or 0%. No in between.

[Yahoshua]

I second skybird and August on these points:

To a point it does become a trade-off in where the expense of military equipment vs the tourism trade meets unfavorable conditions for continuing aggression. In order to end the war as fast as possible, large amouints of ground troops will be required. Depending on how much the nation is willing to sacrifice to take care of the problem.

And in my opinion, half a illion landmines would make for a secure border but leaves open the remaining problem or rockets.

If there is no strong Lebanese army, then Hizbullah will develop better rockets and move farther and farther into lebanon while still launching the rockets while the situation becomes more and more difficult for Israel to respond effectively with ground troops whereas a war waged solely from the air would require huge amounts of expended fuel, equipment, time, and ammunition for little or no impact on the grand scale.

Just found this video on the Palestinians......lovely neighbors dont you think?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5AiYIhdZcOg&mode=related&search=

[Skybird]

From the Jerusalem Post:

Analysis: The later the better for an int'l force

David Horovitz, THE JERUSALEM POST Jul. 30, 2006

Even today, 23 years later, the attack remains the deadliest on Americans overseas since World War II.
On the morning of October 23, 1983, a suicide bomber - smiling, according to one survivor, and widely believed to have been dispatched by Hizbullah - smashed his yellow Mercedes truck through the barbed wire fence of the US Marines compound near Beirut International Airport and detonated some 5,400 kilograms of explosives in the lobby of the four-story headquarters building.
When the last body had finally been extricated from the rubble days later, the toll of the dead was 220 Marines, 18 US Navy personnel and three US soldiers.
Just seconds after the first blast, a similar bombing was carried out at the barracks of the Sixth French Paratroop Infantry Regiment. In this case, the bomber drove into the underground parking garage and blew up the building, killing 58 paratroopers.
The twin Beirut bombings essentially spelled the end of the last attempt to maintain a multinational force in Lebanon. Now, with US President George W. Bush and British Prime Minister Tony Blair endorsing the idea, US Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice is back in Jerusalem trying to begin the process of setting up another such force.
The likelihood is that, unlike last time, the US will not be playing a central role in staffing such a mission. Its military is fully stretched in Iraq and Afghanistan. "As far as boots on the ground, that doesn't seem to be in the cards," said John R. Bolton, the US ambassador to the United Nations, over the weekend.
Instead, the talk is of 10-20,000 troops led by France and/or Turkey, with possible contingents from Germany, Italy, India, Brazil and Pakistan. But with European troops bound to be targeted by Hizbullah and its allies, some commentators are suggesting that any European role should be backed up with forces from the Arab world - from Morocco, Algeria, Egypt and/or Jordan.
However composed, the concern for Israel is that the force simply will not survive in the vicious territory where it will deploy. And, ironically given the international pressure for its establishment, the strong sense in Israel is that the sooner it takes shape and the Israeli-Hizbullah fighting ends, the poorer the force's chances of having a constructive impact and a viable future.
Anxious to minimize Lebanese civilian casualties, concerned not to find itself reoccupying Lebanon, determined to limit its ground force fatalities, yet increasingly aware of the limitations of its air power, the IDF is, nonetheless, daily weakening the potent guerrilla infrastructure Hizbullah has painstakingly constructed over the past six years. Its commanders chorus, day after intense, taxing day rooting out a thoroughly entrenched guerrilla force, that it still has much more left to do. If a ceasefire comes sooner rather than later, purported "good news" for international diplomacy would likely turn out to be very bad news indeed for the international troops left to grapple with a defiant, even victorious Hizbullah.
The current international force in the area, UNIFIL, patently posed no obstacle whatsoever to Hizbullah's accruing of power. Even a genuinely robust international force, with a genuinely robust mandate, would be immensely vulnerable to anything but a Hizbullah overwhelmingly degraded by the ongoing attentions of the IDF.
For Israel, however, the concerns are still more acute. Whenever the fighting ends, it will be the task of the international force to assist the Lebanese army, a goodly part of it pro-Hizbullah, in bringing its sovereign force all the way down south, at the expense of Hizbullah. It will be the task of the international force to assist the Lebanese army in destroying what remains of Hizbullah's missile capacity. And it will be the task of the international force to deploy at key border positions and take the other necessary steps to prevent the rehabilitation of Hizbullah via military supplies from Iran and Syria.
This adds up to an extraordinarily complex mission. The precedents are grim indeed. And the sooner the international force is tasked with its mission and despatched, effectively taking over from the IDF, the more remote its prospects of success.

[Yahoshua]

Interesting post.

HOLY ****


WTH IS WWITH MY AVATAR!!???? GET RID OF IT, GET RID OF IT!!!!

[SUBMAN1]

Interesting post.

HOLY ****


WTH IS WWITH MY AVATAR!!???? GET RID OF IT, GET RID OF IT!!!!

Neal will let you get rid of it 2 ways - Either post a lot, or give him money. Your choice. Either way, makes his board better! :sunny:

-S

[Onkel Neal]

What do you mean, avatar? That's surveillance footage from the party you were at last night :ping:

[Yahoshua]

I told you there was something strange about that girl..........but nooooo. You had to encourage me to offer her a drink.....so I did.

(I still blame you for it).