In the thread A Picture Is Worth A Thousand Words, me too thought about that possebility:

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/inte...428391,00.html

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?

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?

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

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.

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.

Let's reveal a little truth here:

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.

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.

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?

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?

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.

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

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/~cedarsout...ion/report.htm

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

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

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...