NationStates Jolt Archive

You may have had a point with some random shelling.
That point is tenuous at best after 14 seperate cases of shelling.
That point is destroyed by the fact they were hit by a precision guided missile.

Accidents don't happen with precision guided missiles. Its deliberate.

I get the feeling that even if this was an accident (and judging by evidence it is looking that way) that you would blame Israel regardless of evidence to contrary. What if you are wrong and it was indeed an accident?

And I guess you failed to realize dear sir/ma'am that accidents do happen with Precision guided munitions as they are not always perfect. Do you understand that?

lol, you still never provided me with evidence that the weapon was precision guided.It wasnt?

Precision guided munitions are not 'accidently' aimed. That is why they are called precision. Long story short, the IDF wanted the UN post gone. Their motives can be debated, but that is the goal they set for themselves.

To accidently hit a UN outpost with a precision weapon is like accidently punching the wrong man in a different building.

It certainly doesn't excuse Hezbollah for doing what it does, but at the same time, Hezbollah's actions should not be an excuse for Israeli actions.

Or are you firmly convinced that the attack on the US ship in the 1960s (I believe it was the USS Liberty), which also involved attempting to kill everybody on board was an 'accident'?

So I guess the thought that the missile might have malfuctioned never crossed into your mind? Malfuctions do happen people. To claim that it does not is really stupid.

No, you do not understand how laser guidence works on a smart bomb.
I'm afraid I do. I don't think the observation post was the target of the bomb, presumed Hezbollah positions in the vicinity most likely were. More than one bomb was not needed to do what the IDF wanted to do.

Even though there is some possibility that a bomb misses the intended target and hits something else - it would be one of the biggest coincidences ever.

The fact that this was one bomb and not official policy proves that it was a mistake.
And the artillery? A mistake is not done repeatedly like this, attacking a target that is so obvious as this observation post, and despite protest calls. The local officers just couldn't give a shit who else got hurt.

To me the most likely scenario was that Hezbollah units did move into the vicinity of the post multiple times. They do the same with civilians in the region afterall.

And in typical IDF fashion, they fired upon the militiamen, first with artillery, then with a bomb. They ignored the UN protests (UNIFIL isn't popular with the IDF anyways, there's been unfortunate incidents in the past) and proceeded with their primary goal.

If it was an accident, it was an accident caused by extreme cynicism or gross negligence, and doesn't absolve the IDF of the guilt.

df

I'm afraid I do. I don't think the observation post was the target of the bomb, presumed Hezbollah positions in the vicinity most likely were. More than one bomb was not needed to do what the IDF wanted to do.

Even though there is some possibility that a bomb misses the intended target and hits something else - it would be one of the biggest coincidences ever.


And the artillery? A mistake is not done repeatedly like this, attacking a target that is so obvious as this observation post, and despite protest calls. The local officers just couldn't give a shit who else got hurt.

To me the most likely scenario was that Hezbollah units did move into the vicinity of the post multiple times. They do the same with civilians in the region afterall.

And in typical IDF fashion, they fired upon the militiamen, first with artillery, then with a bomb. They ignored the UN protests (UNIFIL isn't popular with the IDF anyways, there's been unfortunate incidents in the past) and proceeded with their primary goal.

If it was an accident, it was an accident caused by extreme cynicism or gross negligence, and doesn't absolve the IDF of the guilt.


So if you're right and Hizballah did move into the area, Israel is supposed to ignore them and let them fire on Israeli targets because the UN is sitting there watching. It's a damn warzone for crying out loud. They are watching the war from between the two warring parties. Annan should pull those guys out of there.

As for the shelling, again, it's a warzone, so I find it totally SHOCKING that the UN outpost there would report shelling in their vicinity.

Even though there is some possibility that a bomb misses the intended target and hits something else - it would be one of the biggest coincidences ever.

Pardon me, but this just sounds funny. If a bomb doesn't hit the intended something, will it not hit anything, then? Of course it will hit something else.

And that's why we always make sure not to make our passes perpendicular to a line of troops. Too big of a chance for short hits.

So I guess the thought that the missile might have malfuctioned never crossed into your mind? Malfuctions do happen people.we malfuctioned when we shutted down an Iranian airliner.. didnt we?

So if you're right and Hizballah did move into the area, Israel is supposed to ignore them and let them fire on Israeli targets because the UN is sitting there watching.
Well, if you look at the photos of the outpost, it doesn't look like there'd be room to put a Katyusha truck or something. It was a pretty steep hill with trees and rocks and stuff.

More likely would be that the IDF observers simply spotted Hezbollah fighters on that hill, maybe taking a break or something, and decided to attack them. AFAIK they didn't receive any fire.

And if that is so, it may have been better to wait a few hours for the militiamen to leave the area, shadow them as much as possible and strike then.

Pardon me, but this just sounds funny.
Ooops. It does. :D

Of course, I meant that it would be something of a coincidence for the bomb to hit a UN outpost if the Israelis weren't firing into its direct vicinity.

As for the shelling, again, it's a warzone, so I find it totally SHOCKING that the UN outpost there would report shelling in their vicinity.I would not be surprised if you would find it totally SHOCKING if the UN observers were bleeding.. I mean.. How dare they bleed ??

we malfuctioned when we shutted down an Iranian airliner.. didnt we?

From what I have been able to gather, we did apologize for that incident and didn't claim a malfunction. I could be wrong though.

From what I have been able to gather, we did apologize for that incident and didn't claim a malfunction. I could be wrong though.No, we never apologized..

In fact..we actually awarded Medals for "heroic achievement"... ... to the hands/fingers that launched the Missiles.
Just press the red button..and you will get hero medal..

I am not kidding.

I would not be surprised if you would find it totally SHOCKING if the UN observers were bleeding.. I mean.. How dare they bleed ??

I fail to see the connection or point you are trying to make.

I fail to see the connection or point you are trying to make.thats ok..
Must be my poor grammatics.

The U.S. said they had no ships within 100 miles of the coast, and the Israel high command got word they were being fired on from the sea. it was the middle of a war.

War does not excuse gross incompetency. Eight recon flights and not one confirmation of who it belonged to? At the very least, prosecution should have followed of the people responsible. Supposedly, even Saddam had the pilot who fired the anti-shipping missile on a US ship punished. The IDF didn't do squat.


13 inquiries in 24 hours? RIGHT. there were 13 total inquiries and they took place in longer time than 24 hours.

Are you telling me the then president of the time did not order that the inquiries be done in 24 hours?


link? where is the link that says the bomb was indisputably precision guided?


Nuh uh. It doesn't work that way. The current information states it to be a precision guided bomb. It's your job to find a link where it says it isn't. Don't be a lazy ass.


precision guided weapons are all they are cracked up to be, but they are not infallible

Are you saying it's a malfunction? That's not what the IDF is saying. Quit making excuses.

Precision weapons require a target. They are supposed to have an accuracy measured in what, feet? centimeters? And somehow it missed and hit the wrong building? That doesn't fly at all.

No, we never apologized..

In fact..we actually awarded Medals for "heroic achievement"... to the "malfuncioning" hands that launched the Missiles.

I am not kidding.

Two things. 1) The Vincennes shouldn't have been in Iranian waters and 2) the Airplane showed an attack profile of a F-14 Tomcat and it did not acknowledge hails.

The US did pay compensation to Iran who died in the shooting in 1996.

Well, if you look at the photos of the outpost, it doesn't look like there'd be room to put a Katyusha truck or something. It was a pretty steep hill with trees and rocks and stuff.

More likely would be that the IDF observers simply spotted Hezbollah fighters on that hill, maybe taking a break or something, and decided to attack them. AFAIK they didn't receive any fire.

ok seriously...lol. maybe they were out there taking a break? lol maybe they were out there FIRING ON ISRAELI positions with small arms fire or other weapons. After all, this is a BATTLE. makes a lot of sense for Hizballah operatives to "take a break" on a hill visible by Israeli positions and or planes. I have an interesting photo of a UN oupost in Lebanon:

http://blogs.news.com.au/heraldsun/andrewbolt/index.php/heraldsun/comments/why_the_un_post_was_bombed/

Two things. 1) The Vincennes shouldn't have been in Iranian waters and 2) the Airplane showed an attack profile of a F-14 Tomcat and it did not acknowledge hails.

The US did pay compensation to Iran who died in the shooting in 1996.If Airbuses have Figther profiles.. then I guess anyone can shutdown any Israel/US Airliner and it should be also treated as an accident.. rigth?

thats ok..
Must be my poor grammatics.


The UN outpost is in the middle of a battlefield, reporting shelling doesn't shock me.

The UN outpost was also accidentally hit by Israel, leading to accidental casualties, so no...I would not be surprised if the UN workers were bleeding.

War does not excuse gross incompetency. Eight recon flights and not one confirmation of who it belonged to? At the very least, prosecution should have followed of the people responsible. Supposedly, even Saddam had the pilot who fired the anti-shipping missile on a US ship punished. The IDF didn't do squat.

See my previous posts

Are you telling me the then president of the time did not order that the inquiries be done in 24 hours?

All 13 inquiries in 24 hours? I imagine it would have taken longer than 24 hours.

Nuh uh. It doesn't work that way. The current information states it to be a precision guided bomb. It's your job to find a link where it says it isn't. Don't be a lazy ass.

Where does it say that it was? Where is the confirmation?

If Airbuses have Figther profiles.. then I guess anyone can shutdown any US Airliner and it should be also treated as an acciden.. rigth?

You do not have to come off as a combative jerk.

I'll give you a list of possibilities if ya like:

The ship's crew did not efficiently consult commercial airliner schedules because they were not sure to which time zone they referred.
An Iranian P-3 was in the area a while before the attack, providing an unlikely potential explanation for the lack of target acquisition radar interrogation[5]
It was first claimed that Flight 655 deviated from the centre of its air corridor, an unusual occurrence with commercial flights - namely that it was 3.35 NM off the 10 NM-wide corridor at the time of shoot-down. It is further claimed that this deviation had it bearing straight at the Vincennes. It is unclear how much of this deviation was true, and how much was claimed to obscure the Vincennes' position within Iranian territorial waters.
It is claimed that a Mode II IFF squawk of 21100 was mistakenly attributed to the Airbus track, identifying it as an Iranian military aircraft (commercial aircraft respond with Mode III squawks). However this was not the case: according to the official military report the flight was in fact using the correct squawk mode. The Vincennes simply either heard it wrong or believed it was a military plane using Mode III 36760 to deceive them. It has since been assumed that the tracking device used to identify IFF squawks was left in the original postition of Flight 655 when first sighted, which had subsequently moved, confusing the Flight 655 squawk with that of an Iranian F-14 fighter within the area. The Bandar Abbas airport was shared between commercial and military aircraft at that time.
The crew of the Vincennes' Combat Information Center (CIC) confusingly reported the plane as ascending and descending at the same time (there were two "camps"). This seems to have happened because the Airbus' original CIC track, number 4474, had been replaced by the Sides' track, number 4131, when the computer recognised them as one and the same. Shortly thereafter, track 4474 was re-assigned by the system to an American A-6, several hundred miles away, which was following a descending course at the time. Apparently not all the crew in the CIC realized the track number had been switched on them.
This incident took place just over a year after the USS Stark was attacked in the Persian Gulf by an Iraqi Mirage F-1, costing 37 lives.
The psychology and mindset after engaging in a battle with Iranian gunboats[6] might have contributed to the mistakes made. The actual reasons for the Vincennes' engagement with gunboats is not so clear to this date.
Software development expert Steve McConnell claimed:
Iran Air Flight 655 was shot down by the USS Vincennes' Aegis system in 1988, killing 290 people. The error was initially attributed to operator error, but later some experts attributed the incident to the poor design of the Aegis user interface.[7]

This is a list that was on wikipedia. The fighter profile was just one.

The UN outpost was also accidentally hit by Israel.the head of the UN thinks not.. and I agree with him..

the head of the UN thinks not.. and I agree with him..


I'm assuming you always blindly follow what others say without proof or evidence?

I get the feeling that even if this was an accident (and judging by evidence it is looking that way) that you would blame Israel regardless of evidence to contrary. What if you are wrong and it was indeed an accident?
I would await an independent inquiry- fully open and transparent if I believed one would be forthcoming from the IDF.

I would be hesitant to assign blame to the IDF had it not been for the fact the now deceased Observers were still in contact with the outside during this incident informing their superiors (and everyone else by extension) of the situation, that the IDF has a history of such incidents, that the facts emerging do indeed seem to confirm my worst suspicions.


And I guess you failed to realize dear sir/ma'am that accidents do happen with Precision guided munitions as they are not always perfect. Do you understand that?
Of course. Yet the IDF has not said otherwise yet. And one precison guided missile going astray is believable, but not combined with the rest of the facts of this incident.

May I ask why you are laughing? I mean, I know from your posts you find this dispicable but if it is right, it does stand to reason alittle bit about what happened.

Also, precision guided weapons, though accurate, do tend to miss from time to time.

The reason I am laughing dear fellow, is that people defending this action as an 'accident' look at it from two seperate points:
1)Precision guided missiles can fail/malfuntion.
2)Shelling can be misguided.

My point is simple:
1)Combine a min. of 14 seperate cases of shelling in a few hours with a precision guided missile onto the same target- despite repeated warning calls and calls for a ceasefire from the base and repeated assurances from the IDF that they would cease immediately - does not make this incident of sustained heavy fire in any way shape or form appear to be a mere accident.

I would await an independent inquiry- fully open and transparent if I believed one would be forthcoming from the IDF.

I would be hesitant to assign blame to the IDF had it not been for the fact the now deceased Observers were still in contact with the outside during this incident informing their superiors (and everyone else by extension) of the situation, that the IDF has a history of such incidents, that the facts emerging do indeed seem to confirm my worst suspicions.

Of course. Yet the IDF has not said otherwise yet. And one precison guided missile going astray is believable, but not combined with the rest of the facts of this incident.

The reason I am laughing dear fellow, is that people defending this action as an 'accident' look at it from two seperate points:
1)Precision guided missiles can fail/malfuntion.
2)Shelling can be misguided.

My point is simple:
1)Combine a min. of 14 seperate cases of shelling in a few hours with a precision guided missile onto the same target- despite repeated warning calls and calls for a ceasefire from the base and repeated assurances from the IDF that they would cease immediately - does not make this incident of sustained heavy fire in any way shape or form appear to be a mere accident.

Were they actually shelling the compound or near the compound? Judging by what I am seeing, it was near the compound. If they were shelling near the compound, does it stand to reason that they weren't actually aiming at the compound but something other than the United Nations?

Were they actually shelling the compound or near the compound?
Both.

Edit:Here (http://news.independent.co.uk/world/middle_east/article1199359.ece)
But an internal report on the incident says there were more than 20 aerial and artillery attacks on the post on Tuesday, including four artillery rounds that directly hit the UN position an hour before the fatal guided bomb attack that killed the unarmed personnel taking refuge in a bomb shelter.....

The internal reporting is understood to say there were 17 aerial bombing attacks on Tuesday within 1,000m of the UN position and another 12 artillery shells within 150m of which four were direct hits on the position.

Both.


They were shelling Hizballah targets in the area. The UN outpost is in the middle of a warzone. Accidents happen. The UN forces should have pulled out. They are useless there and are sitting ducks for incoming fire from either side.

Both.

Edit:Here (http://news.independent.co.uk/world/middle_east/article1199359.ece)

So do you think that shells could've gone wide? Fallen short? Went long?

So do you think that shells could've gone wide? Fallen short? Went long?

1)On their own? Possibly yes.

2)Could the precison guided missile have malfuntioned somehow? Slightly less possible, but still in the realms of reality, yes. On its own.

3)Could the aerial bombings have gone off the mark too? Again, yes that is a possibility- on its own.

Combining 1, 2 and 3 together into the same incident: An 'accident' is highly, highly, highly unlikely.

At best you could say the IAF and the IDF should not be allowed hold anything more advanced than a pointy stick.

So do you think that shells could've gone wide? Fallen short? Went long?


absolutely not! weapons can never be fallible!

1)On their own? Possibly yes.

2)Could the precison guided missile have malfuntioned somehow? Slightly less possible, but still in the realms of reality, yes.

3)Could the aerial bombings have gone off the mark too? Again, yes that is a possibility.

Adding 1, 2 and 3 together: An 'accident' is highly, highly, highly unlikely.

At best you could say the IAF and the IDF should not be allowed hold anything more advanced than a pointy stick.

You keep forgetting it's a war zone and there are a bunch of blue helmets sitting smack in the middle of it "observing," or as my previous post linked to JPost put it...sitting in their bunkers getting their information from TV.

It shouldn't surprise anyone that an outpost in the middle of a battle might accidentally be hit.

1)On their own? Possibly yes.

So where they using guided shells? If not then odds are it is a possibility that shells could've gone long, short or wide.

2)Could the precison guided missile have malfuntioned somehow? Slightly less possible, but still in the realms of reality, yes. On its own.

Or that someone programed the missile incorrectly or it was an intentional attack. Those are the 3 possibilities in regards to the missile.

3)Could the aerial bombings have gone off the mark too? Again, yes that is a possibility- on its own.

It is a possibility. bombs are not infalliable as you very well know. However, you also have to look at the modus operindi of Hezbollah.

Combining 1, 2 and 3 together into the same incident: An 'accident' is highly, highly, highly unlikely.

You still cannot rule out the possibility. Not saying it was an accident but nothing is definite.

At best you could say the IAF and the IDF should not be allowed hold anything more advanced than a pointy stick.

I hope this is sarcastic.

You keep forgetting it's a war zone and there are a bunch of blue helmets sitting smack in the middle of it "observing,"
I haven't forgotten it.

Does that give the IDF or anyone carte blanche to attack a neutral third party? No.

That installation was clearly marked. (I'm assuming you took the time to look at the picture?) It has been marked on maps used by both the UN and IDF for decades. It is also on high, rocky ground.

or as my previous post linked to JPost put it...sitting in their bunkers getting their information from TV.
Or dying.


It shouldn't surprise anyone that an outpost in the middle of a battle might accidentally be hit.

Or like in 1996 at Qana I suppose.

"Whoopsy again"

There you go you using that 'accident' word again.

Israel's words dont excuse its murder. The IDF has proven itself worse than either hitzbollah or hamas.
Ha Ha Ha Ha.... wow! :rolleyes:

So where they using guided shells? If not then odds are it is a possibility that shells could've gone long, short or wide.
Which...is what I said...



Or that someone programed the missile incorrectly or it was an intentional attack. Those are the 3 possibilities in regards to the missile.On its own, yes thats a possibility.



It is a possibility. bombs are not infalliable as you very well know. However, you also have to look at the modus operindi of Hezbollah.
Again.... I said that already....
And we're not talking about the MO of Hezb'allah.



You still cannot rule out the possibility. Not saying it was an accident but nothing is definite.
I'm not ruling out the possibility completely. However, I'm also not ruling out the possibility of the existence of the Flying Spaghetti Monster either.


I hope this is sarcastic.
You even said youself above, these could all have been massive mistakes.

If the IAF/IDF makes this many major fuck ups in such a small time period when dealing with only one incident, then they clearly are incompetent on a criminal level. As such they should be taught how to use a pointy stick to see if they make similar mistakes on that basic a level.

ok seriously...lol. maybe they were out there taking a break? lol maybe they were out there FIRING ON ISRAELI positions with small arms fire or other weapons.
Maybe, yes. Either way, nothing that needs to worry the IDF sufficiently to start bombing the vicinity of a UN observation post.
Nonetheless, you should know that Hezbollah doesn't fight that way. They don't engage in open battles, they do the same the Vietcong did, the Mudjahedin in Afghanistan did and some of the resistance are doing in Iran. Hit & Run tactics, always staying on the move, and primarily working with ambushes. It is perfectly possible that they take occasional breaks in positions they think are secure - like the vicinity of a UN post.
http://service.spiegel.de/cache/international/0,1518,428711,00.html

I have an interesting photo of a UN oupost in Lebanon:
http://blogs.news.com.au/heraldsun/andrewbolt/index.php/heraldsun/comments/why_the_un_post_was_bombed/
Still trying to track down the original source of that...just leads me from one angry right-wing blog to the next.
So I don't know from when this picture is, where exactly it is, who put the flag there and why...all the things you'd need to be able to tell me if this picture was to have any relevance at all.

And we're not talking about the MO of Hezb'allah.

But we have too since this is what is at stake in all of this. If Hezbollah was firing rockets near the Observation Post, then it stands to reason why Israel attacked the area. If they were not then I would be among the first to condemn this attack.

I'm not ruling out the possibility completely. However, I'm also not ruling out the possibility of the existence of the Flying Spaghetti Monster either.

The what? :confused:

You even said youself above, these could all have been massive mistakes.

And they do happen in war believe it or not.

If the IAF/IDF makes this many major fuck ups in such a small time period when dealing with only one incident, then they clearly are incompetent on a criminal level. As such they should be taught how to use a pointy stick to see if they make similar mistakes on that basic a level.

Name me a nation at war that did not make mistakes in a short period of time.

After giving six warnings you expect not be murdered and back-stabbed.

The despicable israeli military is guilty of yet another crime in their indiscriminate and vile war on lebanon and its civilian population.
...................!


Yay for all the islamophilia here!

But we have too since this is what is at stake in all of this. If Hezbollah was firing rockets near the Observation Post, then it stands to reason why Israel attacked the area. If they were not then I would be among the first to condemn this attack.

No it doesn't. It doesn't stand to reason that the IDF promised to ceasefire after every phonecall from the observation post. It doesn't stand to reason that the IDF ignored the warnings of UNIFIL HQ.

On top of which there were no reports of Hezb'allah firing from the vicinity of Khiyam towards the IDF.


The what? :confused:
Google it and you'll see my belief in the slim chance of it possibly being an accident.



Name me a nation at war that did not make mistakes in a short period of time.
Name you a nation that didn't make three critical errors in three seperate branches of the military all coordinating on the same target in a matter of a few short hours? Combined with past history of targeting UN personnel and a notorious mistrust of said organisation?

No it doesn't. It doesn't stand to reason that the IDF promised to ceasefire after every phonecall from the observation post. It doesn't stand to reason that the IDF ignored the warnings of UNIFIL HQ.

On top of which there were no reports of Hezb'allah firing from the vicinity of Khiyam towards the IDF.

They were obviously shooting at something and I do not think it was the UN. So if they weren't shooting at the UN, what were they shooting at? I do not believe (though I could be wrong) that they were intentionally targeting the UN.

Google it and you'll see my belief in the slim chance of it possibly being an accident.

And I should "google" it why?

Name you a nation that didn't make three critical errors in three seperate branches of the military all coordinating on the same target in a matter of a few short hours? Combined with past history of targeting UN personnel and a notorious mistrust of said organisation?

Name me a nation that does not make mistakes in a war! I know of several nations, including the United States, that have made massive errors very early in wars.

They were obviously shooting at something and I do not think it was the UN.
Why? Why the insistant belief that they were doing no wrong? Why the automatic position that they were right? I do not understand that. In the face of ovewhelming supporting evidence, I do not understand.

So if they weren't shooting at the UN, what were they shooting at? I do not believe (though I could be wrong) that they were intentionally targeting the UN.
Fine. That is your belief. I respect that. If you want to wait for the official IDF report on this then fine. You may be waiting a while for an independent enquiry.


And I should "google" it why?
Pfft. Fine don't. I don't care either way. Its almost 4am where I am and I'm tired.


Name me a nation that does not make mistakes in a war! I know of several nations, including the United States, that have made massive errors very early in wars.
Oh I can name a lot of nations that make mistakes in war.... just not to the extraordinary amount or degree that this 'accident' was supposedly done to.

Either deliberate.
Or accident.

If accident- then its gross incompetence and borders on criminal negligence.

Adieu.
ZZZZZzzzzzzzzzz........

Why? Why the insistant belief that they were doing no wrong? Why the automatic position that they were right? I do not understand that. In the face of ovewhelming supporting evidence, I do not understand.


Fine. That is your belief. I respect that. If you want to wait for the official IDF report on this then fine. You may be waiting a while for an independent enquiry.


Pfft. Fine don't. I don't care either way. Its almost 4am where I am and I'm tired.


Oh I can name a lot of nations that make mistakes in war.... just not to the extraordinary amount or degree that this 'accident' was supposedly done to.

Either deliberate.
Or accident.

If accident- then its gross incompetence and borders on criminal negligence.

Adieu.
ZZZZZzzzzzzzzzz........


What is with the hostility? All I was doing was playing devil's advocate in presenting the otherside of the debate. I am not trying to take sides in this debate.

What is with the hostility? All I was doing was playing devil's advocate in presenting the otherside of the debate. I am not trying to take sides in this debate.
If I appear to be hostile then I profusely apologise. It was not my intention.

Its nearly 4 am as I said, and I'm a wee bit tired. :D

Adieu, and sleep well whenever it is when you sleep.:)

If I appear to be hostile then I profusely apologise. It was not my intention.

Its nearly 4 am as I said, and I'm a wee bit tired. :D

Adieu, and sleep well whenever it is when you sleep.:)

Its ok :) I just thought I should tell ya how it sounded over here.

Good idea to get some sleep :) Its only 1033 PM here and I'll be going to bed as soon as I hang up with my gf.

Its ok :) I just thought I should tell ya how it sounded over here.
Ah. Its a bit clearer now. ;) Don't take it personally. My only beef is with the IDF on the Israeli side, no one else.



Good idea to get some sleep :) Its only 1033 PM here and I'll be going to bed as soon as I hang up with my gf.
Bastard :D

Bastard :D

Now now that is not very nice. I guess I am going to have to meet you on the field of honor one of these days :p

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

Here's more details:


The words of a Canadian United Nations observer written just days before he was killed in an Israeli bombing of a UN post in Lebanon are evidence Hezbollah was using the post as a "shield" to fire rockets into Israel, says a former UN commander in Bosnia.

Those words, written in an e-mail dated just nine days ago, offer a possible explanation as to why the post -- which according to UN officials was clearly marked and known to Israeli forces -- was hit by Israel on Tuesday night, said retired Maj.-Gen. Lewis MacKenzie yesterday.

The strike hit the UN observation post in the southern Lebanese village of El Khiam, killing Canadian Maj. Paeta Hess-von Kruedener and three others serving as unarmed UN military observers in the area.

Just last week, Maj. Hess-von Kruedener wrote an e-mail about his experiences after nine months in the area, words Maj.-Gen. MacKenzie said are an obvious allusion to Hezbollah tactics.

"What I can tell you is this," he wrote in an e-mail to CTV dated July 18. "We have on a daily basis had numerous occasions where our position has come under direct or indirect fire from both (Israeli) artillery and aerial bombing.

"The closest artillery has landed within 2 meters (sic) of our position and the closest 1000 lb aerial bomb has landed 100 meters (sic) from our patrol base. This has not been deliberate targeting, but rather due to tactical necessity."

Those words, particularly the last sentence, are not-so-veiled language indicating Israeli strikes were aimed at Hezbollah targets near the post, said Maj.-Gen. MacKenzie.

"What that means is, in plain English, 'We've got Hezbollah fighters running around in our positions, taking our positions here and then using us for shields and then engaging the (Israeli Defence Forces)," he said.

That would mean Hezbollah was purposely setting up near the UN post, he added. It's a tactic Maj.-Gen. MacKenzie, who was the first UN commander in Sarajevo during the Bosnia civil war, said he's seen in past international missions: Aside from UN posts, fighters would set up near hospitals, mosques and orphanages.

Haha!

I'm assuming you always blindly follow what others say without proof or evidence?you can assume whatever you want..

I still agree with him.

Israel didn't think that a bit more finesse could be used around the UN station? You know, bring in a small number of troops to take out the hezbollah around the UN post, or even helicopters, as they can see and aim pretty well, situationally?

Maybe not using lots of HE ordinance around a UN base?

Nah. IDF looks to me like it just didn't care whether or not it hit the UN in its bombings.

Israel didn't think that a bit more finesse could be used around the UN station? You know, bring in a small number of troops to take out the hezbollah around the UN post, or even helicopters, as they can see and aim pretty well, situationally?

Maybe not using lots of HE ordinance around a UN base?

Nah. IDF looks to me like it just didn't care whether or not it hit the UN in its bombings.

Go ahead and try marching past hundreds of hostile Hezz militants...just to keep a few UN observers safe. Bah. Obviously they weren't observing very well.

Wherever Hezz go, where they are becomes a valid target.

Israel didn't think that a bit more finesse could be used around the UN station? You know, bring in a small number of troops to take out the hezbollah around the UN post, or even helicopters, as they can see and aim pretty well, situationally?

Maybe not using lots of HE ordinance around a UN base?

Nah. IDF looks to me like it just didn't care whether or not it hit the UN in its bombings.

According to the UN observer who died, his email states that the IDF was doing what it did out of tactical necessity, and that Hezbollah was in the wrong.

Of course, he knew as well as I do that the IDF was acting in complete accordance with the Fourth Geneva Convention - something that you choose to overlook.

According to the email, Hezbollah were running around INSIDE the UN position.

Why the fuck would they intentionally aim for UN staff.

shock value

According to the email, Hezbollah were running around INSIDE the UN position.

If this is indeed true, then the attack was justifiable.

If this is indeed true, then the attack was justifiable.
http://www.canada.com/ottawacitizen/...9-7f94d5fc6d50

Here's more details:


The words of a Canadian United Nations observer written just days before he was killed in an Israeli bombing of a UN post in Lebanon are evidence Hezbollah was using the post as a "shield" to fire rockets into Israel, says a former UN commander in Bosnia.

Those words, written in an e-mail dated just nine days ago, offer a possible explanation as to why the post -- which according to UN officials was clearly marked and known to Israeli forces -- was hit by Israel on Tuesday night, said retired Maj.-Gen. Lewis MacKenzie yesterday.

The strike hit the UN observation post in the southern Lebanese village of El Khiam, killing Canadian Maj. Paeta Hess-von Kruedener and three others serving as unarmed UN military observers in the area.

Just last week, Maj. Hess-von Kruedener wrote an e-mail about his experiences after nine months in the area, words Maj.-Gen. MacKenzie said are an obvious allusion to Hezbollah tactics.

"What I can tell you is this," he wrote in an e-mail to CTV dated July 18. "We have on a daily basis had numerous occasions where our position has come under direct or indirect fire from both (Israeli) artillery and aerial bombing.

"The closest artillery has landed within 2 meters (sic) of our position and the closest 1000 lb aerial bomb has landed 100 meters (sic) from our patrol base. This has not been deliberate targeting, but rather due to tactical necessity."[b]

Those words, particularly the last sentence, are not-so-veiled language indicating Israeli strikes were aimed at Hezbollah targets near the post, said Maj.-Gen. MacKenzie.

[b]"What that means is, in plain English, 'We've got Hezbollah fighters running around in our positions, taking our positions here and then using us for shields and then engaging the (Israeli Defence Forces)," he said.

That would mean Hezbollah was purposely setting up near the UN post, he added. It's a tactic Maj.-Gen. MacKenzie, who was the first UN commander in Sarajevo during the Bosnia civil war, said he's seen in past international missions: Aside from UN posts, fighters would set up near hospitals, mosques and orphanages.

That is pretty convincing stuff Deep Kimchi. Thank you.

http://www.canada.com/ottawacitizen/...9-7f94d5fc6d50

Here's more details:


The E-mail sent by the most recent UN victim said almost the same thing.
Aside from that dont you think Israel has been intercepting all the UN comms ?



But WHY use a precision munition to target the UN post ?


Answer..you remove it as a sheild...no more pesky hezbollah firing from those positions .

A very calculated tactical move .

The only rule in war is to win . Seems to be the thought process going on here.

I think its way past time to get those UN guys the fuck out..its not like they are doing anything but getting killed and acting as human shields ....with big holes in them .

But WHY use a precision munition to target the UN post ?


It's pretty clear that Hezbollah was inside the UN position.

The position was a three story concrete building.

Hezbollah was inside, and firing from, a three story concrete building.

By the Fourth Geneva Convention, the presence of "protected persons", i.e., the UN observers, does not mean that the building is immune from attack - in fact, it means the opposite - Hezbollah cannot assume that the building is safe from attack.

The email seems to acknowledge this "tactical necessity".

Looks like they tried artillery within 2 meters first, and I bet that the missile was used because it would work better on a building.

...

I think its way past time to get those UN guys the fuck out..its not like they are doing anything but getting killed and acting as human shields ....with big holes in them .

The UN apparently agrees with you:

http://news.sky.com/skynews/article/0,,30000-1229163,00.html

The United Nations will withdraw unarmed observers from posts in southern Lebanon...

At any rate FOX is reporting that the UN has decided ( :rolleyes: ) to remove its unarmed observers and personel out ...because its too dangerouse...horse is out of the barn ?


WTF ???

WHY after getting reports from the observer force did they not MOVE THEM ?

Would anyone here EVER work for the UN ?

The UN apparently agrees with you:

http://news.sky.com/skynews/article/0,,30000-1229163,00.html

For their own safety and to prevent them from being used as human shields, I agree with the UN pulling their people out of the area.

http://www.canada.com/ottawacitizen/...9-7f94d5fc6d50

Here's more details:

Those words, particularly the last sentence, are not-so-veiled language indicating Israeli strikes were aimed at Hezbollah targets near the post, said Maj.-Gen. MacKenzie.

"What that means is, in plain English, 'We've got Hezbollah fighters running around in our positions, taking our positions here and then using us for shields and then engaging the (Israeli Defence Forces)," he said.

That is indeed an interesting analysis of the Candian Maj-Gen. take on things.

Sadly, that is his interpretation of the words from the Canadian Observer. Note that it was not the Observer who said "We've got Hezbollah fighters running around in our positions" but the Maj.-Gen. interpreting the Observers words.

If the Observer was to say "We've got Hezbollah fighters running around in our positions" particularly in an email/letter home- he would have bluntly said it. I know- I have my fathers letters to prove how blunt they are with their language- a spade is a spade.

Sadly, everyone who could have verified his account- is now dead.

Hezbollah was inside, and firing from, a three story concrete building.

At the time of the IDF attack, or even leading up to it, there were no reports of Hezb'allah activity from the Observers in the base. Other areas, yes. The Khiyam base? No. Therefore the odds of them attacking from inside the base are zero.


WHY after getting reports from the observer force did they not MOVE THEM ?

Because, like the Sky News reporter Mark Bowden who was travelling with an aid convoy near Tyre, any movememnt would have been targeted and destroyed by the IDF.

The Sky News reporter was travelling in the aid convoy and has been hit by an IDF shell/or aerial bomb.

Moving in South Lebanon? Shoot it.

Aid convoy? Shoot it.
UN vehicle? Shoot it.

Aid convoy? Shoot it.
UN vehicle? Shoot it.

Oh brother.You know? I love conspiracy theories but 1) Israel is allowing aid to flow into the country so I doubt highly that they will shoot at an aid convoy and 2) I do not believe that they will target the United Nations directly.

So please temper your responses a tad.

Oh brother.You know? I love conspiracy theories but 1) Israel is allowing aid to flow into the country so I doubt highly that they will shoot at an aid convoy

O RLY?

http://news.sky.com/skynews/article/0,,30000-1229114,00.html

Aid Convoy Attacked
Updated: 14:50, Friday July 28, 2006

An aid convoy has been hit by an Israeli air strike in southern Lebanon.

Sky News reporter David Bowden said the convoy was returning from the village of Rmeish to the port city of Tyre.

Organised by Lebanese civil defence workers it had evacuated dozens of civilians caught up in the 17-day-old war between Israel and the Hizbollah guerrillas.

One vehicle was damaged and three civilians were wounded.

"We were travelling back from southern Lebanon towards Tyre where we've been based for the past week or so," Bowden said.

"One of the vehicles was struck from the air - we don't know what kind of strike it was.

"One member of a German camera crew and their driver were slightly injured and that's it.

"This has caused everyone to slam on the anchors and we are now at a UN base just down the coast from Tyre."


and 2) I do not believe that they will target the United Nations directly.

Normally I would give benefit of the doubt. My father seved in UNIFIL during the 1980's and witnessed first hand the Second Israeli Invasion. He also witnessed attacks from both sides on his UN base. Lets just say, the IDF knew they were there.... but didn't care.

So please temper your responses a tad.
My responses are quite tempered.

O RLY?

That's what? One aide convoy? Also I really would appreciate if you could spell words out. I do not like text messenging speech.

Normally I would give benefit of the doubt. My father seved in UNIFIL during the 1980's and witnessed first hand the Second Israeli Invasion. He also witnessed attacks from both sides on his UN base. Lets just say, the IDF knew they were there.... but didn't care.

They may know that they are there but if an enemy is indeed firing from near or within the compound, by International Law, Israel cannot be held responsible.

My responses are quite tempered.

If ya say so and good morning.

That's what? One aide convoy? Also I really would appreciate if you could spell words out. I do not like text messenging speech.

Sorry, its an internet thing. Meant for an exaggerated "Oh really?!". Nevermind, its not important.

Oh I'm sorry, is there an allowed quota of "We're allowed hit 1 aid convoy a day but no more"??
How about Red Cross Ambulances being targeted in Lebanon? Hmm?

http://www.guardian.co.uk/israel/Story/0,,1828142,00.html


They may know that they are there but if an enemy is indeed firing from near or within the compound, by International Law, Israel cannot be held responsible.
We have to take the IDF's word that there were Hez'ballah troops inside the compound. Strangely, they haven't said a word yet. They would have been all over it at this stage- what, 3 days later. Again, I hold IDF-alone inquiries with little weight.

Otherwise there were Hezb'allah troops near the outpost which is quite likely. However, that does not give the IDF the right or obligation to put the UN base under sustained bombardment for several hours, despite pleas for respite or a ceasefire. The phone were working. A simple phone call to the post saying "You've got to leave NOW. There will be a sustained attack by our forces in XXmins." would have solved the problem.


If ya say so and good morning.
Good afternoon ;)

It's pretty clear that Hezbollah was inside the UN position.

The position was a three story concrete building.

Hezbollah was inside, and firing from, a three story concrete building.

By the Fourth Geneva Convention, the presence of "protected persons", i.e., the UN observers, does not mean that the building is immune from attack - in fact, it means the opposite - Hezbollah cannot assume that the building is safe from attack.

The email seems to acknowledge this "tactical necessity".

Looks like they tried artillery within 2 meters first, and I bet that the missile was used because it would work better on a building.

No, it is not fucking clear they were inside the building. And kindly stop using the Geneva convention to defend an organisation that ordered it not applied to territories under its control. If Israel does something in accordance with Geneva, its coincidence.

Otherwise there were Hezb'allah troops near the outpost which is quite likely. However, that does not give the IDF the right or obligation to put the UN base under sustained bombardment for several hours, despite pleas for respite or a ceasefire. The phone were working. A simple phone call to the post saying "You've got to leave NOW. There will be a sustained attack by our forces in XXmins." would have solved the problem.

The UN observers had been under shelling for several days, including artillery landing within 2 meters of the building.

If they were stupid enough to stay put, they were pretty stupid. Especially watching the Hez use their position as a shield for several days.

The IDF is under no obligation not to fire at the UN position unless the Hez are nowhere to be seen. And if the Hez are there one minute and gone the next, and you've already called for an airstrike, well tough cookies - it's not a violation of any rule of war.

The email specifically stated that the Israelis were firing out of "tactical necessity". That's not an interpretation, that's the words of the observer. He knew it was dangerous. He knew that the Hez were using him as a shield.

And before anyone says "aw, the ambulances could have been mistaken" here is a photo to accompany the above article:
http://www.spitting-image.net/archives/images/ambulancia_libano25.jpg

Oh I'm sorry, is there an allowed quota of "We're allowed hit 1 aid convoy a day but no more"??
How about Red Cross Ambulances being targeted in Lebanon? Hmm?

http://www.guardian.co.uk/israel/Story/0,,1828142,00.html

There was no need for that added hmm. As to the article, it is very interesting and I thank you for the link.

We have to take the IDF's word that there were Hez'ballah troops inside the compound. Strangely, they haven't said a word yet. They would have been all over it at this stage- what, 3 days later. Again, I hold IDF-alone inquiries with little weight.

Right now, its the only thing we have. Annan is obviously going to say it was deliberate because he is a politician. I have come to learn that politicians should not be trusted at all. Right now, we do have email though from the Canadian observer that was killed and that is also evidence in the case and it must be looked at.

Otherwise there were Hezb'allah troops near the outpost which is quite likely. However, that does not give the IDF the right or obligation to put the UN base under sustained bombardment for several hours, despite pleas for respite or a ceasefire.

Shooting near the compound where Hezbollah was known to be at is perfectly legal. Is shooting near the compound putting the base under bombardment? No. Hitting the compound directly is though.

The phone were working. A simple phone call to the post saying "You've got to leave NOW. There will be a sustained attack by our forces in XXmins." would have solved the problem.

Here I will agree with you but then you have to look on the otherside of the coin. If Hezbollah was near the area and they see the UN getting out, they would leave as well. So in reality, Israel was, pardon my language, damned if they do and damned if they don't (I hate using contractions)

Good afternoon ;)

Judging that you are six hours ahead of me, it is almost good evening there. :)

The UN observers had been under shelling for several days, including artillery landing within 2 meters of the building.

If they were stupid enough to stay put, they were pretty stupid.
Sorry, how do you leave under continuous shelling?
Click your heels together 3 times and wish you were back in Jaipur?
Had the IDF abided by their promise to ceasefire, maybe they would have evacuated.

Guess now we'll never know.

The IDF is under no obligation not to fire at the UN position unless the Hez are nowhere to be seen. And if the Hez are there one minute and gone the next, and you've already called for an airstrike, well tough cookies - it's not a violation of any rule of war.
....all despite the fact the report says there was no Hezb'allah fire (i.e presence) from the Khaylim base area in the lead up and during the sustained bombardment.

The email specifically stated that the Israelis were firing out of "tactical necessity". That's not an interpretation, that's the words of the observer. He knew it was dangerous. He knew that the Hez were using him as a shield.

"Tactical necessity" is a lovely vague military term.
Much like "collateral damage".
Or "imminent threat/danger" a la Saddam.

Beautiful the way military terms can be twisted to suit your actions espeically in hindsight, eh?

There was no need for that added hmm. As to the article, it is very interesting and I thank you for the link.
My apologies.


Right now, its the only thing we have. Annan is obviously going to say it was deliberate because he is a politician. I have come to learn that politicians should not be trusted at all. Right now, we do have email though from the Canadian observer that was killed and that is also evidence in the case and it must be looked at.

Annan is no politican.
He's a civil servant, and not even a good one at that. And be careful... Annan said "apparently deliberate" not "deliberate".


Shooting near the compound where Hezbollah was known to be at is perfectly legal.
Of course.
Is shooting near the compound putting the base under bombardment? No. Hitting the compound directly is though.
Which is what happened- 4 times with shelling and 1 with an aerial missile.


Here I will agree with you but then you have to look on the otherside of the coin. If Hezbollah was near the area and they see the UN getting out, they would leave as well. So in reality, Israel was, pardon my language, damned if they do and damned if they don't (I hate using contractions)
One difference: In the long run, Hezb'allah ain't goin' anywhere! They want to fight. They started this whole shitstorm- they want to cause damage to the IDF

The IDF is more concerned with seizing those two villages. They are getting bogged down and losing men there. Seizing a relatively quiet UN hill top
...waaay down their priority list.

My apologies.

No problem.

Annan is no politican.
He's a civil servant, and not even a good one at that. And be careful... Annan said "apparently deliberate" not "deliberate".

A diplomat he is and thus a politician. And the word apparently is a diplomatic word.

Which is what happened- 4 times with shelling and 1 with an aerial missile.

Now here's the question that deserves to be asked. Were those shells deliberately targeting the UN Compound or did they miss aimed? As to the missile, was it misprogrammed, did it malfunction, or was it deliberately targeted there? These are the questions that need to be investigated before any charges can be leveled. Until we have answers to these questions, to say that it was deliberately targeted is a judgment without all the facts. "Do not judge or else you be judged in the same manner."

One difference: In the long run, Hezb'allah ain't goin' anywhere! They want to fight. They started this whole shitstorm- they want to cause damage to the IDF

Yes Hezbollah wants to fight but that does not mean that they will not cause casualties themselves. Getting the UN Compound hit was probably their objective and it was accomplished. In a war of this type, we have to look at all the possibilities. Not to mention you have to think like your enemies in order to defeat your enemies.

The IDF is more concerned with seizing those two villages. They are getting bogged down and losing men there. Seizing a relatively quiet UN hill top
...waaay down their priority list.

They have been going after those two villages because they have been used as launching pads for their rockets. Sensible when you think about.

A diplomat he is and thus a politician. And the word apparently is a diplomatic word.
Eh, no. There is in fact a big difference between a diplomat and a politician. Why do you think there was so much uproar of the appointment of Bolton as US Ambassador to the UN? He's not diplomatic material. Polticians make decisions, diplomats talk.



Now here's the question that deserves to be asked. Were those shells deliberately targeting the UN Compound or did they miss aimed? As to the missile, was it misprogrammed, did it malfunction, or was it deliberately targeted there?
Combined with the rest of the circumstantial evidence and the initial UN report, one cannot single out the 4 shells and final aerial precision guided missile to be seperate from the events surrounding the destruction of the base and the deaths of 4 unarmed neutrals. The picture must be looked at as a whole. And as such, the picture looks very suspicious.

These are the questions that need to be investigated before any charges can be leveled. Until we have answers to these questions, to say that it was deliberately targeted is a judgment without all the facts. "Do not judge or else you be judged in the same manner."

Do you think we will get an independent inquiry? I don't.


Yes Hezbollah wants to fight but that does not mean that they will not cause casualties themselves. Getting the UN Compound hit was probably their objective and it was accomplished.
Thats an assumption, what evidence are you basing that on?


In a war of this type, we have to look at all the possibilities. Not to mention you have to think like your enemies in order to defeat your enemies.
That does not entail seemingly indiscriminate bombing- including ambulances, aid convoys, International Observers.

Step back and look at the wider picture. Something smells rotten.



They have been going after those two villages because they have been used as launching pads for their rockets. Sensible when you think about.
Yes, thats my point.

Eh, no. There is in fact a big difference between a diplomat and a politician. Why do you think there was so much uproar of the appointment of Bolton as US Ambassador to the UN? He's not diplomatic material. Polticians make decisions, diplomats talk.

I guess we are going to have to agree to disagree for I believe that diplomats are politicians as well.

Combined with the rest of the circumstantial evidence and the initial UN report, one cannot single out the 4 shells and final aerial precision guided missile to be seperate from the events surrounding the destruction of the base and the deaths of 4 unarmed neutrals. The picture must be looked at as a whole. And as such, the picture looks very suspicious.

It may look suspicious Psychotic Mongooses but as you yourself stated, the whole picture has to be looked at. We cannot immediately jump to conclusions based on what we are hearing in the press. Remember that we were not there and the Press (as far as I know) were not at the UN Compound. Was the compound hit? No doubt it was but the question has to be why? Why did Israel hit it? That is the question that has to be asked and I bet you the answers have to be taken with a grain of salt because of the biasness on both sides of this issue.

Do you think we will get an independent inquiry? I don't.

I don't either but as I said, the report we have for now is what is out there and it does have to be looked at and not just brushed aside. Just like the UN preliminary report (is there one?) also has to be looked at.

Thats an assumption, what evidence are you basing that on?

Think about the history of the region. Think about where terrorists always hide behind. They hide behind civilians right? Won't it behoove them to try to hide near a UN facility because they know that Israel will hit any area that has any Hezbollah fighters?

That does not entail seemingly indiscriminate bombing- including ambulances, aid convoys, International Observers.

I'm sure some of it is indiscriminate bombings but you also have to remember that Israel has warned the people what it plans to do. You also have to remember that alot of their offices are near or in civilian buildings.

Step back and look at the wider picture. Something smells rotten.

Its a possibility something is and I will agree that something does smell rotten. The whole picture does need to be looked at but we cannot jump to conclusions in regards to what we are hearing from the press.

Yes, thats my point.

Then doesn't that negate everything you are saying since you just basically agreed to everything I just said?

snip
Fair enough. If we continued we'd only go further into circles about "what we don't yet know". Agree to disagree- though we're not actually disagreeing majorly on many points I think.


Then doesn't that negate everything you are saying since you just basically agreed to everything I just said?
No, I meant I agreed with why they were aiming to take Bint Jbeil and Maroun-al-Nas. They say rockets are being launched from there- thats their priority.

The Khyam/Khiam area was quiet in comparison- little to no active fire from Hezb'allah to the IDF. Therefore that would been a low priority to attack Hezb'allah there. If you see on the map below its quite away from most of the action in the direct south.

http://newsimg.bbc.co.uk/media/images/41932000/gif/_41932684_leb_is_gaz_launch_4map203.gif

I think we've exhausted all further debate for now! ;)

See my previous posts

Which one?


All 13 inquiries in 24 hours? I imagine it would have taken longer than 24 hours.


Explain the 24 hours order. Explain why it was an executive order at that. An investigation can come up with suspects even before it closes, but this order specified that they were to be done in 24 hours. Regardless of the actual time it took, explain why the demand it be wrapped up so quickly hmmm?

And of course, Israel didn't even give a show trial for the crews responsible, much less a slap on the wrist.

If it was a mistake, why didn't they take the people responsible for the 'mistake' and punish them? Because maybe it wasn't a mistake?


Where does it say that it was? Where is the confirmation?

No IDF denial, existing eyewitnesses and reports indicating it to be one, etc, etc. Now, find one link, just one link from a credible source, that states that it wasn't a precision guided weapon.

And no, you can't link yourself. You're not credible enough.

Which one?



Explain the 24 hours order. Explain why it was an executive order at that. An investigation can come up with suspects even before it closes, but this order specified that they were to be done in 24 hours. Regardless of the actual time it took, explain why the demand it be wrapped up so quickly hmmm?

And of course, Israel didn't even give a show trial for the crews responsible, much less a slap on the wrist.

If it was a mistake, why didn't they take the people responsible for the 'mistake' and punish them? Because maybe it wasn't a mistake?



No IDF denial, existing eyewitnesses and reports indicating it to be one, etc, etc. Now, find one link, just one link from a credible source, that states that it wasn't a precision guided weapon.

And no, you can't link yourself. You're not credible enough.


Just give me one good reason what Israel would have to gain by bombing a US naval craft.

You brought up something I've already discussed in this thread. You wanna know about it, go find it.

On another note:

JPost: http://www.jpost.com/servlet/Satellite?cid=1153292021843&pagename=JPost%2FJPArticle%2FShowFull

The United Nations has decided to remove 50 unarmed observers from their posts along the Israeli-Lebanese border, moving them in with the peacekeeping force in the area, a spokesman said Friday.

The decision came after one of the posts of the observer force, known as UNTSO, was destroyed by an Israeli air strike earlier this week, killing four.

"These are unarmed people and this is for their protection," said Milos Struger, a spokesman for UNIFIL, the peacekeeping force whose 2,000 members have light weapons for self-defense.

UNTSO has about 50 observers in four posts along the border, two of which have already been abandoned - the one that was destroyed at Khiam and a second near the village of Maroun al-Ras, which was abandoned after one of the observers was seriously wounded by Hizbullah gunfire on July 23, said Milos Struger, spokesman for the UNIFIL peacekeepers.

Ignore Greater Valinor.
Whenever you prove him wrong he either tries to ignore you or leaps into the Chewbacca defence. As he is now. You will note that he has no evidence to back up his claims and that he cycles around a series of questions, each time one is answered he moves onto the next before coming back to the original a couple of pages later.

Alleghany County
All your questions and postulations have already been addressed.
Please do us the courtesy of actually reading a post before introducing arguements that have already been stated and addressed.
Either produce evidence to back your statements or stop pedalling opinion as current fact.

Ignore Greater Valinor.
Whenever you prove him wrong he either tries to ignore you or leaps into the Chewbacca defence. As he is now. You will note that he has no evidence to back up his claims and that he cycles around a series of questions, each time one is answered he moves onto the next before coming back to the original a couple of pages later.

I provided sufficient evidence of my claims in a previous post and was reiterating that if after reinitiating the topic with me AFTER NOT POSTING IN A LONG TIME, NAS should have looked back at the previous posts on the thread. I hate repeating myself over and over.

As for coming back a couple of pages later...forgive me for not sitting at my computer camping out in the NS General threads all day. I come on as often as I can, but like most people, I have other priorities. Sorry if I can't keep up all day and lag behind.

Alleghany County
All your questions and postulations have already been addressed.
Please do us the courtesy of actually reading a post before introducing arguements that have already been stated and addressed.
Either produce evidence to back your statements or stop pedalling opinion as current fact.

I was not "pedalling" anything as fact. All I am doing is stating that what we have here is a he said she said argument. We do not have all the facts of this case and to jump to the conclusions based on circumstantial evidence from the media is not conducive to proper debate.

I already stated that the UN Compound was hit and then I asked why it was hit and all I get in return is that Israel does not like the UN, that they want the UN gone so they can commit genocide.

I am with holding judgment and proceeding to state a case in opposite to the majority opinion here. I have looked at the evidence and they do speak for itself that we have a case for either side to be correct, minus the genocide part. If having an opposite opinion is not welcomed here, I will be more than glad to leave this thread for you all to bash Israel for simply attacking an area where Hezbollah has fired attacks from before (If the Canadian peacekeeper can be believed).

I provided sufficient evidence of my claims in a previous post
Could you please provide me a link to that post so that I can see your sources?
As for coming back a couple of pages later...forgive me for not sitting at my computer camping out in the NS General threads all day. I come on as often as I can, but like most people, I have other priorities. Sorry if I can't keep up all day and lag behind.
I think we all have other priorities but, once more, you seemed to be dodging actually providing evidence from a variety of sources to back your claims. In my experience, whenever someone blows your assertions out of the water you stop making them for a few pages and then start making them again. Unfortunately, it makes any debate with you an exercise in frustration.

Alleghany County
Here are the links to posts where I have tried to establish the shelling, the communications, the likely structural integrity of the 'bunker' and talked about the type of bomb most likely to have been used, the discussion of the terms used in reports and interviews and the potential likelyhood of it being a mistake.
http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=11447799&postcount=113
http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=11448524&postcount=149
http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=11448694&postcount=164
http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=11449733&postcount=215
[http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=11450317&postcount=223
http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=11450364&postcount=224
http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=11450458&postcount=227
http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=11450494&postcount=228
These are just mine. There are others put up by other people if you want to explore another series of sources.
I am more than happy to discuss things and even to take on another view point if the opposing argument proves convincing. However, until I see evidence of a similar strength to that posted by people such as myself so far I shall continue to hold to my initial judgement.

My apologies if I sounded harsh. :(

Inconvenient Truth, I think you have a problem with your links for I am getting the exact samething on all of them.

As to evidence, we are not even sure if this was a deliberate attack on the Observation Post or not. Seems like they were firing near it, which I will not dispute because that seems to be fact.

What about the Canadian observer's email? Seems to be getting ignore by a few of the people here.

I am not quick to make judgments on anyone or on any nation unless there is concrete proof. Right now, everything is circumstantial and there is some room for doubt. Even juries have to come back with a not guilty verdict if there is any doubt as to the evidence.

http://www.canada.com/ottawacitizen/...9-7f94d5fc6d50

Here's more details:the Ottawa Citizen and National Post belong the CanWest Global Communications Corp.

Their reports are so pro-Jewish.. it would not surprise me if they are Jewish owned..

http://www.fair.org/index.php?page=1106

Canada’s Media Monopoly
One perspective is enough, says CanWest

A dispute between Canada’s largest media company and its journalists has put media concentration on the political agenda as seldom before. In January, organizations representing journalists across Canada called for a parliamentary inquiry into media concentration, especially at CanWest Global Communications. The Canadian Association of Journalists (CAJ) and the Quebec Federation of Professional Journalists (QFPJ) denounced actions of the media giant as "a disturbing pattern of censorship and repression of dissenting views."

*snip*

I must admit that there are some worrying gaps in some sections (specifically what primary evidence there was for it being a precision device).
But, until they are filled the prevailing wind seems to heavily suggest a deliberate strike.

I honestly hope that it is proved that it is a mistake. If a Western looking country is deliberately targeting the UN then it is a fatal blow against the chance of producing a genuine force for combating terrorism and atrocities across the globe.

I shall state clearly, that I believe that all (almost?) of the strikes against refugee and aid convoys are entirely accidental and due to the fog of war.

I'll see what I can do with those links. I'll just edit the previous post if that's okay?

the Ottawa Citizen and National Post belong the CanWest Global Communications Corp.

Their reports are so pro-Jewish.. it would not surprise me if they are Jewish owned..

http://www.fair.org/index.php?page=1106

Stop it. They also part own a T.V station where I am. Their only 'crime' is being tabloid shit, nothing to do with being 'pro-Jewish'.

I must admit that there are some worrying gaps in some sections (specifically what primary evidence there was for it being a precision device).
But, until they are filled the prevailing wind seems to heavily suggest a deliberate strike.

I honestly hope that it is proved that it is a mistake. If a Western looking country is deliberately targeting the UN then it is a fatal blow against the chance of producing a genuine force for combating terrorism and atrocities across the globe.

I shall state clearly, that I believe that all (almost?) of the strikes against refugee and aid convoys are entirely accidental and due to the fog of war.

I'll see what I can do with those links. I'll just edit the previous post if that's okay?

That is fine. All I was doing was opening up the holes that were there and seeing what the responses would be to those holes. Call it a cross-examination. :D

And yea, you can just edit your post to fix the links. That will be fine.

Stop it. They also part own a T.V station where I am. Their only 'crime' is being tabloid shit, nothing to do with being 'pro-Jewish'.Ok.. let me get this straigh..

You are saying "The owners of the Canadian Media Monopole are Jewish.. but even if they are Jewish.. they have no Bias"

My sister lives in Montreal.. and has a suscription to TheGazette.. I was reading it for 3 months.. the Bias is flagrant.

That is fine. All I was doing was opening up the holes that were there and seeing what the responses would be to those holes. Call it a cross-examination. :D
And yea, you can just edit your post to fix the links. That will be fine.

Links fixed...I hope.
I dislike using News reports as primary evidence but there isn't a great deal of choice sometimes. I don't think we will ever find out the truth. Even if the IDF carry out a full investigation any result other than 'Guilty' will be treated as suspicous due to the IDF's track record with such things. I hope they use the UN as a co-investigator but I think that has been turned down (as other nations have turned down offers of UN involvement). I suspect that a clearer picture, of any real veracity, will not appear until 2-3 years after this incident is resolved

My apologies again for snapping at you, it was totally unjustified. :(

Ok.. let me get this straigh..

You are saying "The owners of the Canadian Media Monopole are Jewish.. but even if they are Jewish.. they have no Bias"

My sister lives in Montreal.. and has a suscription to TheGazette.. I was reading for 3 months.. the Bias is flagrant.
Its irrelevant as it doesn't change the source document (i.e the email)

The issue is not which media outlet publishes the email, but the interpretation of the email.

Only the person who wrote could say whether or not he was inferring Hezb'allah were actually physically inside the compund or not. Everyone else is just giving opinions of their interpretation.

Since he's dead- we'll never know.

Links fixed...I hope.
I dislike using News reports as primary evidence but there isn't a great deal of choice sometimes. I don't think we will ever find out the truth. Even if the IDF carry out a full investigation any result other than 'Guilty' will be treated as suspicous due to the IDF's track record with such things. I hope they use the UN as a co-investigator but I think that has been turned down (as other nations have turned down offers of UN involvement). I suspect that a clearer picture, of any real veracity, will not appear until 2-3 years after this incident is resolved

My apologies again for snapping at you, it was totally unjustified. :(

Its not a problem. I will look at the links when I get back for I have errands to do. :)

The issue is not which media outlet...Not longer an issue in my case.. as I dismiss any Canwest "reports" on anything Jewish or... Arab related.

http://www.fair.org/index.php?page=1106

John Miller, director of Ryerson's newspaper journalism program, told the Washington Post that CanWest newsrooms have become demoralized. "It is not so much the national editorial, but the fact that everyone has been sent the message they have to watch what they write," Miller said. "If it goes against what is perceived as the Asper line, then some stories aren’t going to get written, or some stories will be written and then they will be killed."

Author and Southam columnist Lawrence Martin’s contract was not renewed in 2001, because of his criticism of Liberal Prime Minister Jean Chretien--a friend of Izzy Asper...

Israel makes a mistake and kills some civilians and it is taken as intentional and evil.
Hezbollah targets civilians on purpose all the time and it is taken as somthing they have to do

the anti-Israel bias on this site is astounding.

How many "mistakes" do they get to make before it becomes clear that at the very least they are criminaly negligent with their weapons?

Was that it?

Can I send this thread to UN/IDF to be investigated? All of you experts have had your say..?

Good.
Sealed and delivered.

Was that it?

Can I send this thread to UN/IDF to be investigated? All of you experts have had your say..?

Good.
Sealed and delivered.

I'm confused. Why do you come on here if you're not interested in the views of others about political events? :confused:

I'm confused. Why do you come on here if you're not interested in the views of others about political events? :confused:
What makes you think I'm not?

EDIT: OK, you got me. I come here for laughs, really. 96% (yes! I scientifically measured it!) of the *Israel-Lebanon-Hezbollah* threads here - - or the ones generally considering the Middle East - - tend to be utterly ridiculous... and sometimes even beyond.

And my stance...? Should anybody want to know...

UN mission means a loads of tea drinking. You drink tea with people from both sides. It's unfortunate if one side says; "you drank tea with the wrong people, have a bomb". Yes, Hez has for sure been in OP Khiam... but so have IDF personnel (EDIT: 20 or so years ago :)
) - That's part of the job... contacting the opposing troops, discussing with them.

Now, you might say these UN guys killed were unarmed observers, so they had no way of stopping anyone entering the UN area... so maybe Hez entered and IDF targetted the area... No info really suggests that. Hez knows better not to do that, and 'normally' wouldn't ... But of course you don't believe me.

That all aside, Half a k away from OP Khiam was a known fortified Hez compound (abandoned by that time, of course)... could that be what the Israeli pilot was targeting..? I don't know how hard/easy it is to deliver any kind of bomb from an aeroplane... But I really hope that was what he/she was targeting, because I refuse to believe the IDF would be as cynical as to hit UN OP.

It's a tragedy for all concerned, and the death of one of ours makes me especially sad, ... but shit DOES happen in a warzone. All killed were soldiers, and they deserve...well; not to be ridiculed, if not else. So if you wouldn't mind.




Hard to see any gains for Israel deliberately hitting a UN post though. They don't like the UN one bit, but they don't 'hate' the blue berets either.

When I was there 20 years ago, IDF always gave us a fair warning with firing a ridge 100 meters or so AWAY from our post, so to keep us from doing our duty (we were to go underground, and we did).


Should we maybe wait before jumping to con... nah! Murdering jewbastrads!

please forgive the rantish/rude sarcasm parts...

And my stance...? Should anybody want to know...

UN mission means a loads of tea drinking. You drink tea with people from both sides. It's unfortunate if one side says; "you drank tea with the wrong people, have a bomb". Yes, Hez has for sure been in OP Khiam... but so have IDF personnel (EDIT: 20 or so years ago :)
) - That's part of the job... contacting the opposing troops, discussing with them.

Now, you might say these UN guys killed were unarmed observers, so they had no way of stopping anyone entering the UN area... so maybe Hez entered and IDF targetted the area... No info really suggests that. Hez knows better not to do that, and 'normally' wouldn't ... But of course you don't believe me.

That all aside, Half a k away from OP Khiam was a known fortified Hez compound (abandoned by that time, of course)... could that be what the Israeli pilot was targeting..? I don't know how hard/easy it is to deliver any kind of bomb from an aeroplane... But I really hope that was what he/she was targeting, because I refuse to believe the IDF would be as cynical as to hit UN OP.

It's a tragedy for all concerned, and the death of one of ours makes me especially sad, ... but shit DOES happen in a warzone. All killed were soldiers, and they deserve...well; not to be ridiculed, if not else. So if you wouldn't mind.




Hard to see any gains for Israel deliberately hitting a UN post though. They don't like the UN one bit, but they don't 'hate' the blue berets either.

When I was there 20 years ago, IDF always gave us a fair warning with firing a ridge 100 meters or so AWAY from our post, so to keep us from doing our duty (we were to go underground, and we did).


Should we maybe wait before jumping to con... nah! Murdering jewbastrads!

please forgive the rantish/rude sarcasm parts...

No, I believe you. :)

My father was there at roughly the same time you were- he told me similar stories about the interactions with both sides.

The fair warning is what makes this case so.... odd. According to his experiences too, they also would be in communication with the Observers informing them of their targets etc if strikes were being commited. Allowed people to get into cover in case ordinance strayed.
This time, communication was open but it was seemingly only one way.

*shrug*
I dunno. I'm tired of going over the same points. Whatever.

Go ahead and try marching past hundreds of hostile Hezz militants...just to keep a few UN observers safe. Bah. Obviously they weren't observing very well.

Wherever Hezz go, where they are becomes a valid target.

When people use your logic, they might as well accept nuking lebanon. "Hez are there! Gotta kill them all, damn the consequences!"

Israel is one of the worlds most capable militaries, probably the most capable man for man. It can't deal with Hezz ground forces?

Besides, I've believed the whole time, the IDF should have actually invaded, boots on the ground. Bombing is too indiscriminate, it should only be used in COIN/CT situations to support ground troops, etc.

If the IDF was actually mainly using ground forces, we would see many more dead Hezz, many more captured, many less dead innocents, much less economic obliteration.

When people use your logic, they might as well accept nuking lebanon. "Hez are there! Gotta kill them all, damn the consequences!"

Israel is one of the worlds most capable militaries, probably the most capable man for man. It can't deal with Hezz ground forces?

Besides, I've believed the whole time, the IDF should have actually invaded, boots on the ground. Bombing is too indiscriminate, it should only be used in COIN/CT situations to support ground troops, etc.

If the IDF was actually mainly using ground forces, we would see many more dead Hezz, many more captured, many less dead innocents, much less economic obliteration.

Well, you are talking to the same DM who cheerfully calls for defiling Muslims with pork products before killing them, so you could infer he doesn't care if Hezbollah's really been dealt with or not as long as a lot of brownskins die.

Well, you are talking to the same DM who cheerfully calls for defiling Muslims with pork products before killing them, so you could infer he doesn't care if Hezbollah's really been dealt with or not as long as a lot of brownskins die.


So being a muslim is a matter of race, wot?

You're a muslim if you have a brown skin, wot?

Of course, he knew as well as I do that the IDF was acting in complete accordance with the Fourth Geneva Convention - something that you choose to overlook.


How far can that convention be stretched anyway? Missile strikes? Poison gas? Carpet bombing? Strategic nukes? Where's the line?

Haven't really been following this thread, ands I'm not going to wade through close to 400 posts to check, so I'm not sure if this has been brought up yet.

The UN observers were appearantly reporting IDF movements in a way that could be picked up by Hezbollah.

The UN Takes Sides in Lebanon
July 28, 2006: The UNIFIL Observer outpost that was "accidentally" targeted by Israeli firepower on July 25th, leaving four UN troops dead, was probably a victim of its own chatter. The unarmed observers, with a clear view of the fighting between Hizbollah and the Israelis, were apparently reporting whatever they saw, with other UNIFIL locations, over unencrypted ("in the clear") radio frequencies. This chatter could be picked up by Hizbollah. Since the Israelis have control of the air, and use aircraft and UAVs to gain an information advantage over Hizbollah, this UNIFIL chatter was giving the Hizbollah fighters information they would not otherwise have. That was endangering Israeli soldiers. Then again, the UNIFIL post was right in the middle of a battlefield. There was a furious firefight going on around the UNIFIL position, and the Hizbollah gunmen were using the UNIFIL position for cover from Israeli fire (an old Hizbollah tactic.) The Israeli damage to the UN bunker may well have been accidental.
http://www.strategypage.com/htmw/htintel/articles/20060728.aspx

Haven't really been following this thread, ands I'm not going to wade through close to 400 posts to check, so I'm not sure if this has been brought up yet.

The UN observers were appearantly reporting IDF movements in a way that could be picked up by Hezbollah.


http://www.strategypage.com/htmw/htintel/articles/20060728.aspx

Looks like it might have been an accident after all.

Haven't really been following this thread, ands I'm not going to wade through close to 400 posts to check, so I'm not sure if this has been brought up yet.

The UN observers were appearantly reporting IDF movements in a way that could be picked up by Hezbollah.

http://www.strategypage.com/htmw/htintel/articles/20060728.aspx
Using a pro conservative site for this info, is not very convincing for me.

However, IF this were the truth, then considering the constant back and forth communications with the Israeli forces and UN troops, then all communications would have been discouraged by IDF? Also, you would think that the IDF would have suggested that the UN observers abandon their post before they flattened it?

Using a pro conservative site for this info, is not very convincing for me.

Why does it being a pro-conservative (you forgot the hyphon) site have anything to do with it? The information appears to be accurate as there is nothing to the contrary to dispute it.

However, IF this were the truth, then considering the constant back and forth communications with the Israeli forces and UN troops, then all communications would have been discouraged by IDF? Also, you would think that the IDF would have suggested that the UN observers abandon their post before they flattened it?

That does bring up an interesting question and one that I think deserves answering from Israel.

Why does it being a pro-conservative (you forgot the hyphon) site have anything to do with it? The information appears to be accurate as there is nothing to the contrary to dispute it.
I could dispute it, but nobody would like the source. That is why mainstream media, for the most part, should be considered reliable.

Here is an example of what I mean:

Israeli Strike ON UN Post Intentional/Israeli Spy Reveals 'Crisis' Pre-Planned (http://maritimes.indymedia.org/news/2006/07/13106.php)

There is no doubt that BS exists on both sides of any "discussion" when the "facts" are obtained from dubious media centres?

I could dispute it, but nobody would like the source. That is why mainstream media, for the most part, should be considered reliable.

Here is an example of what I mean:

Israeli Strike ON UN Post Intentional/Israeli Spy Reveals 'Crisis' Pre-Planned (http://maritimes.indymedia.org/news/2006/07/13106.php)

There is no doubt that BS exists on both sides of any "discussion" when the "facts" are obtained from dubious media centres?

Oh I am not disputing that there is "BS" on both sides. That is a relatively known fact and anyone who does not know that should study journalism. I guess I should have asked you what makes strategypage a pro-conservative website?

http://putfile.com/pic.php?pic=main/7/20923155467.jpg&s=f10

Tell me it ain't true.

Oh I am not disputing that there is "BS" on both sides. That is a relatively known fact and anyone who does not know that should study journalism. I guess I should have asked you what makes strategypage a pro-conservative website?
First clue is that the article is actually an opinion, which by the way has no apparent author.

The second clue is the ads selling T-shirts claiming that Hilary is a Communist. Nice touch. :rolleyes:

Using a pro conservative site for this info, is not very convincing for me.

No. It is not a pro-conservative site. Don't confuse the advertising there with the content. It is a sitye reporting on military affairs, mostly written by distinguished analyst James Dunningan.
http://strategypage.com/aboutus/default.asp
http://www.strategypage.com/dls/articles/20054122324.asp

No. It is not a pro-conservative site. Don't confuse the advertising there with the content. It is a sitye reporting on military affairs, mostly written by distinguished analyst James Dunningan.
http://strategypage.com/aboutus/default.asp
http://www.strategypage.com/dls/articles/20054122324.asp

Strategy page isn't pro-conservative?

You obviously don't read enough of the articles. I used to read a lot of them, less now, as there is a very obvious bias against the left and liberals, etc.

http://putfile.com/pic.php?pic=main/7/20923155467.jpg&s=f10

Tell me it ain't true.

It aint true.

Might as well show israeli planes dropping planes on both the terrorist and the baby. Would be more accurate, if not entirely.

It aint true.

Might as well show israeli planes dropping planes on both the terrorist and the baby. Would be more accurate, if not entirely.
This is exactly what I was thinking, although I think you meant dropping bombs on everyone?