NationStates Jolt Archive

So Lebanese troops have been sieging a refuge camp to kill a bunch of Fatah members.

TRIPOLI, Lebanon - Lebanese troops tightened a siege of a Palestinian refugee camp Monday where a shadowy group suspected of ties to al-Qaida was holed up, pounding it with artillery a day after the worst eruption of violence since the end of the 1975-90 civil war.

The death toll from Sunday's violence climbed to near 50, but it was not known how many civilians have been killed inside the Nahr el-Bared camp on the outskirts of the northern port city of Tripoli, the scene of the heaviest fighting. No new deaths on Monday have been reported.

Lebanese officials said one of the men killed Sunday was a suspect in a failed German train bombing — another indication the camp had become a refuge for
Fatah Islam militants planning attacks outside of Lebanon. In the past, others affiliated with the group in the camp have said they were aiming to send trained fighters into
Iraq and the group's leader has been linked to al-Qaida in Iraq.

Hundreds of Lebanese army troops, backed by tanks and armored carriers, surrounded the refugee camp early Monday. M-48 battle tanks unleashed their cannon fire on the camp, sending orange flames followed by white plumes of smoke. The militants fired mortars toward the troops at daybreak.

An army officer at the front line said troops directed concentrated fire at buildings known to house militants in the camp. He said troops also had orders to strike hard at any target that directed fire back at them.

"Everything we know that they were present in has been targeted," he told The Associated Press, speaking on condition of anonymity because he was not authorized to talk to the media.

A spokesman for Fatah Islam, Abu Salim, warned that if the army bombardment did not stop, the militants would step up attacks by rockets and artillery "and would take the battle outside Tripoli."

He did not elaborate on the threat, holding authorities responsible for the consequences.

"It is a life-or-death battle. Their aim is to wipe out Fatah Islam. We will respond and we know how to respond," he told the AP.
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20070521/ap_on_re_mi_ea/lebanon_violence

So Fatah is associated with Al-Qaida now? What do you guys think? Personally, I think this is just some propaganda war to try to get the west to stop supporting Fatah over Hamas.

Probably a splinter group. Hopefully they'll be removed without extensive civillian casualties.

Probably a splinter group. Hopefully they'll be removed without extensive civillian casualties.

Umm. How does shelling a refugee camp with low tech artillery work?

If Israel was blindly shelling Palestinian refugees there'd be international outcry (quite rightly), why does nobody care when the Lebanese do it?

EDIT: it seems that the army aren't allowed to enter the refugee camps for legal reasons which is why they're using artillery. It still sounds like a bloody stupid way of doing it to me, I just hope there aren't too many civilian deaths.

Fatah al-Islam is a proxy group used by Syria to stir instability in an effort to prevent UNIFIL from setting up a international court to try suspects in the 2005 killing of former Prime Minister Rafik al-Hariri.

Apparently there have been 8 confirmed civilian deaths.

If Israel was blindly shelling Palestinian refugees there'd be international outcry (quite rightly), why does nobody care when the Lebanese do it?

To be frank, I didn't quite expect this. Now that it has though, that makes it another ME country to add to the list of potential shitty states.

They get confirmed if they make a habit of this.

So Lebanese troops have been sieging a refuge camp to kill a bunch of Fatah members.


http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20070521/ap_on_re_mi_ea/lebanon_violence

So Fatah is associated with Al-Qaida now? What do you guys think? Personally, I think this is just some propaganda war to try to get the west to stop supporting Fatah over Hamas.

I do not think that Fatah is fully associated with Al Qaida. As the next poster said, it is probably a splinter group.

I would like to know what the reaction from the rest of NS is going to be when they read that Lebanon shelled the camp. They better condemn it otherwise, it will be hypocracy.

As to me, the fact that they shelled the camp upsets me. They should not have shelled the camp at all. They should have gone in on foot without the artillery and took out the person or persons that they want.

If Israel was blindly shelling Palestinian refugees there'd be international outcry (quite rightly), why does nobody care when the Lebanese do it?

Because no one cares if it is muslim on muslim killing. Sad but true :(

EDIT: it seems that the army aren't allowed to enter the refugee camps for legal reasons which is why they're using artillery. It still sounds like a bloody stupid way of doing it to me, I just hope there aren't too many civilian deaths.

Probably more than we think :( I wonder who stopped them from entering the camp.

To be frank, I didn't quite expect this. Now that it has though, that makes it another ME country to add to the list of potential shitty states.

They get confirmed if they make a habit of this.

Consider that the Palestinian group in question has the goal of overthrowing the current Lebanese government by force (along with others), and you can understand why the Lebanese government has such a dim view of them.

To be frank, I didn't quite expect this. Now that it has though, that makes it another ME country to add to the list of potential shitty states.

They get confirmed if they make a habit of this.

Agreed, although Lebanon is generally better than many Middle Eastern countries in terms of human rights and the like.

A spokesman for Fatah Islam, Abu Salim, warned that if the army bombardment did not stop, the militants would step up attacks by rockets and artillery "and would take the battle outside Tripoli."

Anyone else concerned about that?

Probably more than we think :( I wonder who stopped them from entering the camp.

According to the Guardian (http://www.guardian.co.uk/syria/story/0,,2084671,00.html):

The Lebanese army is not allowed to enter the country's 12 Palestinian refugee camps under a 1969 Arab accord.

I do not think that Fatah is fully associated with Al Qaida. As the next poster said, it is probably a splinter group.

I would like to know what the reaction from the rest of NS is going to be when they read that Lebanon shelled the camp. They better condemn it otherwise, it will be hypocracy.

As to me, the fact that they shelled the camp upsets me. They should not have shelled the camp at all. They should have gone in on foot without the artillery and took out the person or persons that they want.

Unfortunately, the militants would have disguised themselves amongst the refugees and would have executed either a surprise attack when the Lebanese entered the camp, or just kept their heads low and allow the Lebanese to arrest innocent men.

The decision to shell with Artillery is barbaric, I admit.

It's disgraceful on the part of the Lebanese army and these militants.

According to the Guardian (http://www.guardian.co.uk/syria/story/0,,2084671,00.html):

Well you know what? If those camps are going to be a hazard to Lebanonese security, then Lebanon has full right to enter those camps despite these accords.

Shelling the camps is (a) stupid (b) unlikely to succeed (c) the wrong fucking thing to do.

Shelling the camps is (a) stupid (b) unlikely to succeed (c) the wrong fucking thing to do.

Probably works better than doing nothing.

A spokesman for Fatah Islam, Abu Salim, warned that if the army bombardment did not stop, the militants would step up attacks by rockets and artillery "and would take the battle outside Tripoli."

Anyone else concerned about that?


As I doubt they have access to either, or numbers of any great amount, no.

Shelling the camps is (a) stupid (b) unlikely to succeed (c) the wrong fucking thing to do.

It sounds like a PR move more than anything: the army want to be seen to be acting and enormous explosions are a good way to convery action.

A spokesman for Fatah Islam, Abu Salim, warned that if the army bombardment did not stop, the militants would step up attacks by rockets and artillery "and would take the battle outside Tripoli."

Anyone else concerned about that?

Not unless Hezbollah join in.

Not unless Hezbollah join in.

Good point.

Probably works better than doing nothing.

No, it probably doesn't. Considering the fact that large portions of Lebanese society are alienated from the Government as it stands, lashing a few shells into a camp will not help matters. 'Softly softly catchee monkee" or some such shite expression.

It sounds like a PR move more than anything: the army want to be seen to be acting and enormous explosions are a good way to convery action.

The Summer 'Blockbuster' approach, complete with generic plot.

Fatah al-Islam (http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/6676369.stm) is not the same as Fatah.

That said: As usual, it's the civilians who end up losing in all of this...

Fatah al-Islam (http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/6676369.stm) is not the same as Fatah.

That said: As usual, it's the civilians who end up losing in all of this...

Well, if you consider the popular tactic used by insurgents:

"Hey! Let's hide with the women and children, and fuck the Fourth Geneva Convention!"

"Hey! Let's hide with the women and children, and fuck the Fourth Geneva Convention!"

Yeeesss... because standing in the open and letting the enemy kill the fuck out of you is such a good military strategy! Further, they're neither signatories to it or covered by it - thus why should they obey it?

EDIT: The Household Cavalry Regiment's barracks in Windsor is slap-bang in the middle of a housing estate. OMFG THEY AM HIDES IN TEH WIMMIN!!!!! Or... not, perhaps.

Anyway:

Lebanese Army can't enter the camps and shouldn't enter the camps. As a result, they should simply cordon them off and ambush any militants exiting or entering them.

Shelling the camps is a counter-productive strategy but it is the sort of thing that a government that doesn't give a shit about the people it's shelling would authorise; re. Black September and Israeli Defence Force policy. The Palestinians in the camps are second class citizens at best, used by Arab nations as a bargaining chip.

Frankly, I just wish they'd all stop killing each other. :(

Yeeesss... because standing in the open and letting the enemy kill the fuck out of you is such a good military strategy! Further, they're neither signatories to it or covered by it - thus why should they obey it?

Actually, many people on this forum argue that they are covered by the Fourth Geneva.

So, they should obey it as well. Because if they're covered by it in any manner that protects them, they should also be prosecuted for any violations.

How the hell are guerillas covered by it? :confused: If they're not uniformed members of a nation-state's army, then they're either spies or armed civilians; in either case they're either covered by civilian justice or shot out of hand.

Outfits like FARC or the LTTE have a better case, but Fatah al-Islam don't. The Taliban before 2001 had a case, too, as they were the legit government's army.

Well, if you consider the popular tactic used by insurgents:

"Hey! Let's hide with the women and children, and fuck the Fourth Geneva Convention!"

Yes and no...

I sometimes wonder where we expect them to be? Is it hiding when they're at home? (http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/6674927.stm) These aren't textbook examples of breaches of the fourth Geneva Convention.

Mostly, they're just tragedies...

Well you know what? If those camps are going to be a hazard to Lebanonese security, then Lebanon has full right to enter those camps despite these accords.
Of course then the millitants can say Lebanon is just as evil as Israel and cause a 2nd civil war.

I sometimes wonder where we expect them to be?

In their command post just like the Soviets would be. Damn cowards. Not having the gumption to face 1st Armoured Division's tanks!

Not unless Hezbollah join in.
Considering these guys are Sunni and Hezbollah is Shitte, Hezbollah might decide it'll be good PR to join in attacking these Fatah al-Islam guys.
Better than trying to start something with Israel again.

Hezbollah didn't really try to start anything - I really don't think they thought that the response to a raid would be a full-scale invasion.

Has Israel actually got Cpl Shalit et al back yet, out of interest?

Hezbollah didn't really try to start anything - I really don't think they thought that the response to a raid would be a full-scale invasion.

Has Israel actually got Cpl Shalit et al back yet, out of interest?

Nope. Nor the other two. "putting the squeeze" on Gaza hasn't worked either.

Nope. Nor the other two. "putting the squeeze" on Gaza hasn't worked either.

Fnar.

Oh well. By now, they're either dead or still kicking their heels and going "Fuck."

Perhaps its time to Do Deals With Terror?

If nobody did deals with terror there never would have been an Israeli state. Now and again they should remember where they came from and get off the imaginary high horse.

The "Fatah" in this refugee camp is not the same Fatah that takes part in the Palestinian government.

"The faction emerged in November when it split from Fatah al-Intifada (Fatah Uprising), a Syrian-backed Palestinian group. Fatah al-Islam had some 200 fighters at the time, based in Nahr al-Bared camp."

http://www.alertnet.org/thenews/newsdesk/L20400320.htm

It is a shame that the Lebanese can't just send ordinary troops into the camp, but taking some action is preferable to giving the Israelis an apparent excuse to repeat their heinous and despicable actions of last summer.

Death toll: Between 56 and 79.

:( Poor sods.

Of course then the millitants can say Lebanon is just as evil as Israel and cause a 2nd civil war.

They are a threat to Lebanon Security just like Hamas is a threat to Israeli Security.

Death toll: Between 56 and 79.

Are these the civilians, militants or both?

Are these the civilians, militants or both?

I think it's civilians, military, and militants. Possibly.

Hezbollah didn't really try to start anything - I really don't think they thought that the response to a raid would be a full-scale invasion.
And I bet these guys didn't expect robbing a bank would lead to shelling their hideouts.

The smart thing that both groups should have done is to do neither.

Are these the civilians, militants or both?
Some are guessing around 50 of them are millitants.


It is a shame that the Lebanese can't just send ordinary troops into the camp, but taking some action is preferable to giving the Israelis an apparent excuse to repeat their heinous and despicable actions of last summer. Well Lebanon is basicly doing what everyone got pissed at Israel the most about, the Random bombings.

Well Israel has something to be happy about, Syria has shut down parts of it's border to Lebanon.
No more Hezbollah shipments.

And I bet these guys didn't expect robbing a bank would lead to shelling their hideouts.

The smart thing that both groups should have done is to do neither.

Actually, the smart thing is for them to learn from their mistakes and evolve better strategies and tactics for continuing the urban guerilla struggle. :p

Well Lebanon is basicly doing what everyone got pissed at Israel the most about, the Random bombings.

No, I don't think that was what people were pissed at Israel for last summer - at all.

What the Lebanese government is basically doing is trying to reassert its power amongst an increasingly fractured population; Hezb'allah are resurgent, not to mention the Druze were getting uppity recently. The last thing they need now is yet another militant group (and another Islamist one at that) stirring the pot.

Actually, the smart thing is for them to learn from their mistakes and evolve better strategies and tactics for continuing the urban guerilla struggle. :p

Actually the smart thing would be to give up. Because out of how many years of trying to destroy it, Israel still exists.
They need to quit wasting everyone's time and lives and stop trying to move the unmovable object.
Especially if they're going after Lebanon which has nothing to do with them. Hmmm... I'd have to agree with Lebanon, this reeks of Syria.


No, I don't think that was what people were pissed at Israel for last summer - at all. One example The whole thing about Israel hitting the UN camp with artillery, Lebanon's hitting a refugee camp with artillery... UN Camp that is supposed to be a non-combat zone, and a Refugee camp which is by a treaty a non-combat zone.

Quite similar...

Actually, the people in Tripoli are glad the Lebenese military is doing something. Lebenon's own population is looking at the incident which started this entire mess and saying "Those Palestinians are getting what they deserve". Yes they are refugees, yes they arent treated incredibly well but the treatment they recieve in Lebanon is nicer than other nations, and what happens? Militants rob a bank, ambush troops on multiple occassions on the same day...what is the military and government supposed to do? Cordone off the camp? Tell me how does one lay siege to a refugee camp and still allow food,water and medicine to get through? Kinda defeats the purpose doesnt it.

So Lebanon is supposed to sit on its ass while its soldiers are ambushed within its own borders? Yes I realize civilians will get hurt and killed. Its sad, but its a fact of life in this region as a moderate government attempts to deal with an internal extremist threat.

One example The whole thing about Israel hitting the UN camp with artillery, Lebanon's hitting a refugee camp with artillery... UN Camp that is supposed to be a non-combat zone, and a Refugee camp which is by a treaty a non-combat zone.


There were no "militants" in the UN camp. The UN asked them to stop shelling over a three hour period. They didn't and it was taken out in the end by a missile (guilded) as far as I can remember. Which is just another in a long line of incidents (and far from the worst) of Israel targeting the UN when they don't want them around.

The Lebanese at least have the excuse they have relatively low level weaponry, nor are they dropping shells on the place every other week.

Actually the smart thing would be to give up. Because out of how many years of trying to destroy it, Israel still exists.

Not at all. If you carry on the struggle long enough, history shows that you eventually gain some sort of victory. See Ireland for one example.

On the other hand, the Karen have been fighting the Burmese government since 1944, so I'm not too sure how long 'long enough' is. :p

They need to quit wasting everyone's time and lives and stop trying to move the unmovable object.

OR the Israelis could comply with all the UN Security Council resolutions that cover them and withdraw to the Green Line, knock down all the illegal settlements in Palestine, and stop kicking the shit out of the Palestinian government every time it tries to make a viable state.

Then the militants - or most of them - would stop being so... militant. The few loonies that are left wouldn't be a particularly big threat and (shock) would be dealt with by the Palestinans.

The whole thing about Israel hitting the UN camp with artillery, Lebanon's hitting a refugee camp with artillery... UN Camp that is supposed to be a non-combat zone, and a Refugee camp which is by a treaty a non-combat zone.

Actually, the things that pissed me off most about the Israelis in Lebanon last year were, in no particular order:

Destruction of the civilian infrastructure
Attacking the Red Cross
Attacking civilians deliberately
Attacking the Lebanese Army who didn't get involved at all
Invading Lebanon in the first place.

The thing that's pissing me off about this is that it's a massive over-reaction by the Lebanese which is an obvious result of their distaste for the Palestinians which has kept them as second or third class citizens in Lebanon. If you treat people like shit, they will eventually do stuff like, you know, fight back. All that's happening now is that the Lebanese are storing up more hate and anger for the future.

Actually, the people in Tripoli are glad the Lebenese military is doing something. Lebenon's own population is looking at the incident which started this entire mess and saying "Those Palestinians are getting what they deserve". Yes they are refugees, yes they arent treated incredibly well but the treatment they recieve in Lebanon is nicer than other nations, and what happens? Militants rob a bank, ambush troops on multiple occassions on the same day...what is the military and government supposed to do? Cordone off the camp? Tell me how does one lay siege to a refugee camp and still allow food,water and medicine to get through? Kinda defeats the purpose doesnt it.

So Lebanon is supposed to sit on its ass while its soldiers are ambushed within its own borders? Yes I realize civilians will get hurt and killed. Its sad, but its a fact of life in this region as a moderate government attempts to deal with an internal extremist threat.

This is well put. Much more elegently said than anything I could say.

There were no "militants" in the UN camp. The UN asked them to stop shelling over a three hour period. They didn't and it was taken out in the end by a missile (guilded) as far as I can remember. Which is just another in a long line of incidents (and far from the worst) of Israel targeting the UN when they don't want them around.

Even though the compound was being used by their enemies as a shield to attack Israel?

The Lebanese at least have the excuse they have relatively low level weaponry, nor are they dropping shells on the place every other week.

So Lebanon is allowed to shell the refugee camp because they have low level weaponry but Israel is not allowe to attack their enemies because they have high tech weaponry? Boy talk about hypocracy.

Nuke Teh Aeraa!!!111

Even though the compound was being used by their enemies as a shield to attack Israel?

The compound wasn't. The area near or around the compund was were the militants would stay before moving on. That would justify the artillery shelling (albeit at a stretch) - the laser guided precision missile? No.
Look at the IDF's history when dealing with UN personnel, you see a pattern emerge.

Anyway, enough off topicness.



So Lebanon is allowed to shell the refugee camp because they have low level weaponry but Israel is not allowe to attack their enemies because they have high tech weaponry? Boy talk about hypocracy.
Wait, the elected government of Lebanon is allowed to assert its control inside its own internationally recognised borders?

Damn. What bastards.

Are these the civilians, militants or both?

As of yesterday, it was all of those, at a rate of about 1/3rd each. Uncofirmed, of course...

Today, the count is 75-100.

The compound wasn't. The area near or around the compund was were the militants would stay before moving on. That would justify the artillery shelling (albeit at a stretch) - the laser guided precision missile? No.
Look at the IDF's history when dealing with UN personnel, you see a pattern emerge.

Though this may seem construed as being supportive of the UN strike but did it concern that it might've been misaimed and not shot there intentionally?

Anyway, enough off topicness.

Anyways, I agree that it is off topic.

Wait, the elected government of Lebanon is allowed to assert its control inside its own internationally recognised borders?

Damn. What bastards.

If that were the case then they would have entered this camp on the first day. They still have not entered the camp yet.

I just saw a headline that said a UN relief convoy was hit. Anyone know anything about this?

I just saw a headline that said a UN relief convoy was hit. Anyone know anything about this?

Only what's in the news...
A UN aid convoy which entered the Nahr al-Bared camp in northern Lebanon has been forced to leave after shells exploded near its vehicles.

Fighting has resumed between Islamist militants besieged by the Lebanese army in the Palestinian refugee camp despite a ceasefire declared by the militants.

Six lorries went into the camp during a lull, carrying food, water, medical supplies and an electricity generator.

There are reports of injuries and it is not clear if the aid was delivered.

About 31,000 civilians are trapped in the camp in deteriorating conditions. Dozens have been killed since the violence erupted on Sunday.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/6678941.stm

A convoy of U.N. relief supplies was hit Tuesday when it tried to enter the camp to distribute supplies, the AP reported. A relief official told the wire service at least one person from the convoy was injured or killed, and the convoy turned back without delivering all of its supplies.

Got that from the Washington Post.

Actually, the people in Tripoli are glad the Lebenese military is doing something. Lebenon's own population is looking at the incident which started this entire mess and saying "Those Palestinians are getting what they deserve". Yes they are refugees, yes they arent treated incredibly well

For which, read, they're treated like shit. The Lebanese government have used them as a bargaining chip since about 1948 as have all the other Arab governments. The Lebanese gov't doesn't want the Palestinans anywhere near them, and the Palestinans understandably resent being treated like shit and not even in theory being allowed back to, oh yeh, their homes.

... the treatment they recieve in Lebanon is nicer than other nations, and what happens? Militants rob a bank, ambush troops on multiple occassions on the same day

Yeh. The treatment the Jewish police in the Warsaw ghetto got was nicer than the other Jews, and what happened? The ungrateful bastards attacked the Germans! Honestly! :rolleyes:

Tell me how does one lay siege to a refugee camp and still allow food,water and medicine to get through? Kinda defeats the purpose doesnt it.

If you've laid siege to the place, you control what goes in and out! Thus, when the UN convoy full of food and medicine gets to your lines (as I assume water is piped in from pumping stations), you say "Oh, yes, carry on."

It's not hard. :rolleyes: You prevent the movement of the militants - thus they become neutralised.

So Lebanon is supposed to sit on its ass while its soldiers are ambushed within its own borders?

No, it's supposed to respond in a responsible and reasoned manner. This does not include fucking shelling people randomly.

For No, it's supposed to respond in a responsible and reasoned manner. This does not include fucking shelling people randomly.

Which means entering the camp which they cannot do due to an Arab Accord stating that they are not allowed to enter any of the 12 Palestinian Refugee Camp. Now what do you do?

If that were the case then they would have entered this camp on the first day.

Says you. Maybe they know more about the situation and all possible actions and reprecussions from said actions?

Which means entering the camp which they cannot do due to an Arab Accord stating that they are not allowed to enter any of the 12 Palestinian Refugee Camp. Now what do you do?

Like I said - surround the place and don't let anyone in or out bar the UN. Utilise sympathisers within the camp and diplomatic pressure plus your secret services to enter the camp in order to convince Fatah al-Islam to at the very least stop attacking Lebanese positions.

Meanwhile, you set up a conference to discuss the accord, get permission to go in mob-handed, and do it with police.

There you go! :p

Says you. Maybe they know more about the situation and all possible actions and reprecussions from said actions?

Maybe but I think the accord had something to do with it more than that.

Under a 1969 accord, Lebanese forces agreed not to set foot in the country's 12 Palestinian refugee camps, and the army appeared to heed that restriction Sunday and Monday, sending munitions alone into Nahr al-Bared.

The Washington Post.

Like I said - surround the place and don't let anyone in or out bar the UN. Utilise sympathisers within the camp and diplomatic pressure plus your secret services to enter the camp in order to convince Fatah al-Islam to at the very least stop attacking Lebanese positions.

Meanwhile, you set up a conference to discuss the accord, get permission to go in mob-handed, and do it with police.

There you go! :p

Fuck that



NUKE TEH AREADFBLAHBHGHGHB!!1233121221!

Like I said - surround the place and don't let anyone in or out bar the UN. Utilise sympathisers within the camp and diplomatic pressure plus your secret services to enter the camp in order to convince Fatah al-Islam to at the very least stop attacking Lebanese positions.

Good luck with that. Has not worked in Israel so why should it work in Lebanon?

Meanwhile, you set up a conference to discuss the accord, get permission to go in mob-handed, and do it with police.

Or just tell the Arab league that we are going to violate it regardless of what they say. Sometimes you have to take the bull by the horns and do so to protect your people.

Good luck with that. Has not worked in Israel so why should it work in Lebanon?

Since when have the Israelis done that? The Israelis go in mob-handed and blow shit up, all the time. They rarely just surround places, and if they do they damn well don't let the UN in or out - see Church of the Nativity Siege.

Where will they get food? Where will the new refugees go?

United. Nations. Convoys.

New refugees can go to the other refugee camps in Lebanon. Although what I want to know is, what new refugees?

You're not going to have any if you surround the place.

Yeh. 'cause shelling is really conducive to making people sympathise. :rolleyes:

Fatah doesn't operate at that level. There is no way to pressure them diplomatically.

It gets support from somewhere - and the constant "LOL IT AM SYRIA" which we're hearing is either true, in which case Syria can be pressured, or is a Big Fat Lie, in which case simply talking to the leaders of Fatah al-Islam may lead to results. At the least it may lead to a temporary cease-fire.

Maybe you don't know what a fanatic is.

Surprisingly, I do. I'm just not convinced that killing them is the best way to, you know, resolve the situation with as few deaths as possible.

You think police are going to be able to round up an entire terrorist group like that? They would simply stop firing until the police left and then start again.

Actually... yes, yes I do. The Italians managed it with the Red Brigades.

EDIT:

Woah! The post got deleted!? Double-you tee eff!

Yeah, uh I thought that this thread was about the lebanon situation. My bad.
United. Nations. Convoys.

New refugees can go to the other refugee camps in Lebanon. Although what I want to know is, what new refugees?
Yeah this part has no pertinence to Palestinian-Israeli conflict.
Yeh. 'cause shelling is really conducive to making people sympathise. :rolleyes:
Do you really think that it is possible to make them sympathetic to the Israeli position? There are some people that you can't negotiate with and therefore killing is required.
It gets support from somewhere - and the constant "LOL IT AM SYRIA" which we're hearing is either true, in which case Syria can be pressured, or is a Big Fat Lie, in which case simply talking to the leaders of Fatah al-Islam may lead to results. At the least it may lead to a temporary cease-fire.
Again, I thought that you were talking about the other Fatah w/ the Lebanese situation.
Surprisingly, I do. I'm just not convinced that killing them is the best way to, you know, resolve the situation with as few deaths as possible.
Yet the deaths of the fanatics is the only solution.
Actually... yes, yes I do. The Italians managed it with the Red Brigades.
They were not a police force. They were rebel terrorists.

Since when have the Israelis done that? The Israelis go in mob-handed and blow shit up, all the time. They rarely just surround places, and if they do they damn well don't let the UN in or out - see Church of the Nativity Siege.

Except for the fact that negotiations DID take place during the Seige.

From wikipedia:

Negotiations over how to end the siege were arduous and broke down several times. Besides the Palestinian and Israeli negotiation teams, those involved included Greek Orthodox clerics from the Church of the Nativity and officials from the USA, the European Union and the Vatican. Finally, an agreement was reached to end the siege. Under this Agreement, 26 Palestinians from the Church of the Nativity were to be exiled in the Gaza Strip. Thirteen others were to be deported abroad.

United. Nations. Convoys.

New refugees can go to the other refugee camps in Lebanon. Although what I want to know is, what new refugees?

I guess you did not hear that a UN Convoy was hit that was carrying relief supplies? Those were never delivered :(

Yeah, uh I thought that this thread was about the lebanon situation. My bad. It's about both I think.


Yeah this part has no pertinence to Palestinian-Israeli conflict.
Because it's about the Lebanon conflict.

Again, I thought that you were talking about the other Fatah w/ the Lebanese situation. Umm they are.

They were not a police force. They were rebel terrorists.
I think you mis-read the post. I think he meant that the Police rounded up the entire Red Brigade.

Even though the compound was being used by their enemies as a shield to attack Israel?



So Lebanon is allowed to shell the refugee camp because they have low level weaponry but Israel is not allowe to attack their enemies because they have high tech weaponry? Boy talk about hypocracy.
It's the same reason why it's okay for Hamas to launch Rockets yet Israel gets the smack down when they shoot. Because Israel has the better weapons, more people get hurt.

But I bet if you gave Hamas a bunch of F-15s he'd be bombing the heck out of Israel.

It's the same reason why it's okay for Hamas to launch Rockets yet Israel gets the smack down when they shoot. Because Israel has the better weapons, more people get hurt.

And what do you want them to do? Go in on the ground? More civilians would die.

But I bet if you gave Hamas a bunch of F-15s he'd be bombing the heck out of Israel.

Um yes considering what their charter states.

Not at all. If you carry on the struggle long enough, history shows that you eventually gain some sort of victory. See Ireland for one example. Trust me when I say, if Israel gets kicked out... They'll make sure NO one gets to use the land.

On the other hand, the Karen have been fighting the Burmese government since 1944, so I'm not too sure how long 'long enough' is. :p What a waste then.



OR the Israelis could comply with all the UN Security Council resolutions that cover them and withdraw to the Green Line, knock down all the illegal settlements in Palestine, and stop kicking the shit out of the Palestinian government every time it tries to make a viable state. That's not going to happen as long as the millitants keep shooting, it's self defeating, you notice peace plans tend to form when *Gasp* they aren't shooting at the Israelis?


Then the militants - or most of them - would stop being so... militant. The few loonies that are left wouldn't be a particularly big threat and (shock) would be dealt with by the Palestinans.
Considering how many support the group that calls for the complete destruction of Israel... I doubt it.


Actually, the things that pissed me off most about the Israelis in Lebanon last year were, in no particular order
Destruction of the civilian infrastructure
That's what you do in war.

attacking the Red Cross Uh I thought that was proved to be a little inaccurate.

Attacking civilians deliberately How could they not? The enemies were mixed in quite well with them.
Attacking the Lebanese Army who didn't get involved at all
I'll give you that.
Invading Lebanon in the first place. Hezbollah started it.


The thing that's pissing me off about this is that it's a massive over-reaction by the Lebanese which is an obvious result of their distaste for the Palestinians which has kept them as second or third class citizens in Lebanon. If you treat people like shit, they will eventually do stuff like, you know, fight back. All that's happening now is that the Lebanese are storing up more hate and anger for the future. Which will eventually result in Lebanon getting fed up and deporting them to Syria by force...

The compound wasn't. The area near or around the compund was were the militants would stay before moving on. That would justify the artillery shelling (albeit at a stretch) - the laser guided precision missile? And they are just supposed to let them keep at it? When every time they fired back they'd just run and hide in the UN camp? Then come back out? A deadly version of whack a mole?

Wait, the elected government of Lebanon is allowed to assert its control inside its own internationally recognised borders?

Damn. What bastards.
No different then when Israel shells Gaza.

What a waste then..

Well as the Burmese are trying to wipe them out (as well as a number of other peoples), it isn't really, no.


That's not going to happen as long as the millitants keep shooting, it's self defeating, you notice peace plans tend to form when *Gasp* they aren't shooting at the Israelis? ..

And oddly its also when the settlement building seems to vastly increase....


No different then when Israel shells Gaza.

Gaza is not a part of Israel.

Gaza is not a part of Israel.

Legally, it is not part of any recognized territory. As of now, It is not under anyone's occupation but belonging to the PA. However, because of attacks by Hamas and others in Gaza, it has precipitated such responses.

Except for the fact that negotiations DID take place during the Seige.

Yes. Negotiations sure are exactly the same as allowing aid convoys through! :rolleyes:

Do you really think that it is possible to make them sympathetic to the Israeli position? There are some people that you can't negotiate with and therefore killing is required.

No, I'm talking about utilising pro-Lebanese and moderate Palestinians within the camp in order to convince and/or locate and/or fight the Fatah al-Islam. The al-Islam lot can be negotiated with - they have demands, and people with demands can be reasoned with. Yes, even religious nutjobs.

Yet the deaths of the fanatics is the only solution.

Um... only when all other avenues have been exhausted. They haven't even been tried here.

They were not a police force. They were rebel terrorists

Yes, I know, and the Italian police dealt with them. Which is what I said, in my post. You misreading misreader you. :p

I guess you did not hear that a UN Convoy was hit that was carrying relief supplies? Those were never delivered

Yes, I know. I'm proposing a hypothetical alternative course of action that I think the Lebanese should have taken instead of shelling the camp. I am not surprised that the UN convoy was hit, dumb shells are inaccurate.

Trust me when I say, if Israel gets kicked out... They'll make sure NO one gets to use the land.

Er. Kicked out? I was hoping they'd just give the land back, like they should. And yes, I know the Israeli Defence Force has a section that's fucking nuke-happy, what's their last-ditch plan called? Operation: Gotterdammerung or some such ironic shit like that.

That's not going to happen as long as the millitants keep shooting, it's self defeating, you notice peace plans tend to form when *Gasp* they aren't shooting at the Israelis?

See, if the Israelis stop, and pull back to the borders, then the fighting will in large part stop. Then, the Palestinians can crack down on their own militants. They can't at the moment because every time they try the Israelis attack the police force, or they bomb somewhere, or rocket someone, and stir up more hatred for themselves.

Considering how many support the group that calls for the complete destruction of Israel... I doubt it.

'Cause that's not 'cause the Israelis have occupied and oppressed the Palestians since 1948, no, not at all, no. Fuckwit. If the Palestinans are allowed to have their own functioning state, uninterrupted by the IDF or by settlers, guess what - people would very quickly calm the fuck down.

That's what you do in war.

No, actually, you try NOT to destroy the civilian infrastructure because that's illegal. Oh yes, and the Lebanese Incident wasn't a war, it was an unwarranted cross-border incursion by Hezbollah followed by a much LARGER retaliatory invasion by the Israeli Defence Force. At no point was the Lebanese state officially involved in any declarations of war.

Uh I thought that was proved to be a little inaccurate.

No, no it wasn't. You thought wrong. The Red Cross got deliberately hit by the IDF at the very least once. That's undeniable.

How could they not? The enemies were mixed in quite well with them.

These would be the civilians attacked before they had a chance to leave, the civilians nowhere near the Hizbollah lines, the civilians killed in places that had no military significance... the civilians killed by Israeli action on the grounds that they might be Hizbollah. Yeh. Really mixed in well. Bollocks. The IDF has the tech and the ability to make clear decisions about who's the enemy and who isn't, they just don't. It's the same with the US and UK to be honest.

Hezbollah started it.

Yes. But following a sodding commando raid with a full-blown fucking invasion of another country in breach of all international law is NOT THE RIGHT RESPONSE.

No different then when Israel shells Gaza.

Gaza is Palestinian. Not Israeli. It's like the British Army shelling Dublin.

Yes. Negotiations sure are exactly the same as allowing aid convoys through! :rolleyes:

Since I saw nothing here about aide convoys, then why did you bring up the Seige at the Church of the Nativity, which I clearly proved to you that negotiations did indeed take place in regards to said seige?

Yes, I know. I'm proposing a hypothetical alternative course of action that I think the Lebanese should have taken instead of shelling the camp. I am not surprised that the UN convoy was hit, dumb shells are inaccurate.

Even accurate ammunition misses its target and why should they do so when they were attacked by militants? They are doing nearly the samething as Israel has been doing for years.

Er. Kicked out? I was hoping they'd just give the land back, like they should. And yes, I know the Israeli Defence Force has a section that's fucking nuke-happy, what's their last-ditch plan called? Operation: Gotterdammerung or some such ironic shit like that.

And how much land should they give back? I support to the green line. As to the Operation, it is called Operation Samson I believe.

See, if the Israelis stop, and pull back to the borders, then the fighting will in large part stop.

How naive.

But I bet if you gave Hamas a bunch of F-15s he'd be bombing the heck out of Israel.

Are you talking about Hamas or Hezb'allah, because I think you've blurred the lines during that post.

And they are just supposed to let them keep at it? When every time they fired back they'd just run and hide in the UN camp? Then come back out? A deadly version of whack a mole?

Methinks you'd be singing a different tune if it were US soldiers under fire. (Anyway, we've dealt with that back in June - we never saw eye to eye on it - no point in dredging it up again)


No different then when Israel shells Gaza.
Try, Canada shelling Detroit.

Since I saw nothing here about aide convoys, then why did you bring up the Seige at the Church of the Nativity, which I clearly proved to you that negotiations did indeed take place in regards to said seige?

Are you blind? I brought the siege of the Church of Nativity up because the Israelis didn't allow anyone to bring in food, water, or aid - not because they didn't allow sodding negotiations. It was to emphasise my point that a siege can be had while allowing aid in thanks to UN convoys.

They are doing nearly the samething as Israel has been doing for years.

Yes, they are, and it's just as wrong as it has been for the past however many years when the IDF's been doing it.

And how much land should they give back? I support to the green line. As to the Operation, it is called Operation Samson I believe.

Agreement! :eek: To the 1967 Green Line, which is what the UN has demanded since, ooh, 1968? '67? I forget. Operation Samson, yes, that makes more sense. How very biblical. Or possibly Aesopian...

How naive.

Not at all. The majority of Palestinian guerillas are looking for a Palestinian state and the right to return, not the annihilation of Israel. Despite what people think, such groups have demands that they will give up and demands that they won't without arguing. If - IF - the Israelis pull back to the Green Line and allow the Palestinians to establish themselves without taking military action against them at random intervals, I think you'll find that the majority of the violence will end and what's left can be dealt with by joint Israeli-Palestinian activity.

Are you blind? I brought the siege of the Church of Nativity up because the Israelis didn't allow anyone to bring in food, water, or aid - not because they didn't allow sodding negotiations. It was to emphasise my point that a siege can be had while allowing aid in thanks to UN convoys.

Um yea...a seige of suspected militants hold up in a church. You know what? It is standard Operating Procedure. Even here in the US we cut water and electricity sometimes during a seige too. You know why? It ends it a whole lot faster. Guess what? They did negotiate to end the seige.

Maybe next time you bring up a seige, make sure it is something worthwhile next time.

Yes, they are, and it's just as wrong as it has been for the past however many years when the IDF's been doing it.

So basicly what you are saying is that a nation should not defend themselves against militants who want to cause them harm. I got you now.

Agreement! :eek: To the 1967 Green Line, which is what the UN has demanded since, ooh, 1968? '67? I forget. Operation Samson, yes, that makes more sense. How very biblical. Or possibly Aesopian...

No it is Samson. Look it up.

Better yet! Here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Samson_Option

Not at all. The majority of Palestinian guerillas are looking for a Palestinian state and the right to return, not the annihilation of Israel. Despite what people think, such groups have demands that they will give up and demands that they won't without arguing. If - IF - the Israelis pull back to the Green Line and allow the Palestinians to establish themselves without taking military action against them at random intervals, I think you'll find that the majority of the violence will end and what's left can be dealt with by joint Israeli-Palestinian activity.

Ok. I see you have not read the charter of Hamas which CALLS FOR the destruction of Israel and the elimination of Israel.

No, actually, you try NOT to destroy the civilian infrastructure because that's illegal. Oh yes, and the Lebanese Incident wasn't a war, it was an unwarranted cross-border incursion by Hezbollah followed by a much LARGER retaliatory invasion by the Israeli Defence Force. At no point was the Lebanese state officially involved in any declarations of war. Uh... Every war since WWII has been of destroying enemy infrastructure. Edit: Check that, EVERY war has the goal of destroying enemy infrastructure.


No, no it wasn't. You thought wrong. The Red Cross got deliberately hit by the IDF at the very least once. That's undeniable. Only deliberate one was the Ambulance that had been transferring Hezbollah guys to the hospital... Which if that's it that was such a cheap shot.


These would be the civilians attacked before they had a chance to leave, the civilians nowhere near the Hizbollah lines, the civilians killed in places that had no military significance... the civilians killed by Israeli action on the grounds that they might be Hizbollah. Yeh. Really mixed in well. Bollocks. The IDF has the tech and the ability to make clear decisions about who's the enemy and who isn't,There is no "Tech" that can tell the difference between soldiers in civilian clothes, and civilians.
Until they get some sort of mind reading thing that can identify sides it's not going to happen.

they just don't. It's the same with the US and UK to be honest. I doubt Israel get their kicks by killing random people. "Oooh a group of Lebanese, Lets kill them!" "Oooh a group of Iraqis, lets kil them!" Please... :rolleyes:



Yes. But following a sodding commando raid with a full-blown fucking invasion of another country in breach of all international law is NOT THE RIGHT RESPONSE. Yes it was OVERKILL.
But should they have done the raid? No


Gaza is Palestinian. Not Israeli. It's like the British Army shelling Dublin. Hearing what half of you say, I can't tell what you think they illegally occupy or not.

Are you talking about Hamas or Hezb'allah, because I think you've blurred the lines during that post.
Either one would have the same result.


Methinks you'd be singing a different tune if it were US soldiers under fire. (Anyway, we've dealt with that back in June - we never saw eye to eye on it - no point in dredging it up again) No, if I heard some US soldiers were using a UN base for human shields I'd be pissed as well.

No, if I heard some US soldiers were using a UN base for human shields I'd be pissed as well.

I think all of us would.

At least they're fighting each other now.

Either one would have the same result.
Hamas yes, Hezb'allah... not so much. They do have a tendancy to aim for and hit military targets if there is an opportunity (as could be seen most during last summer when they tried to hit the IDF more than anything else - it would fit into their whole "Look at us, we're the legitimate army of Lebanon" thing), as opposed to Hamas who just do the "JEW!!" *Blam* thing.

No, if I heard some US soldiers were using a UN base for human shields I'd be pissed as well.

No I meant if it were US troops being shelled (and not UN personnel) by the IDF causing their deaths in a similar manner. But, whatever.

Only deliberate one was the Ambulance that had been transferring Hezbollah guys to the hospital... ..

The only one in that particular event, perhaps.


There is no "Tech" that can tell the difference between soldiers in civilian clothes, and civilians. ..

'Common sense' would say that an aimed direct shot is rather more likely to hit its intended target than a lobbed high explosive shell.


I doubt Israel get their kicks by killing random people. "Oooh a group of Lebanese, Lets kill them!" "..

There were a number of incidents where one could legitamtly ask what precisely was the reason people were targeted.




No, if I heard some US soldiers were using a UN base for human shields I'd be pissed as well.

There were no fighters using the base as a shield. There was none when they did it in the 90's either. There wasn't any when they used the SLA to target the UN, and when they do it in the West Bank there doesnt seem to be any either.


And I might point out that the fact that its what 'Israel usually does' is reason enough to avoid doing it.

Um yea...a seige of suspected militants hold up in a church.

So you'll just ignore all the civilians, the churchmen, and the wounded then.

So basicly what you are saying is that a nation should not defend themselves against militants who want to cause them harm. I got you now.

No, what I'm saying is that they shouldn't use artillery. We didn't - ever - use artillery against the IRA or the PIRA or the UVF or UDA or... you see? Instead, we used words, and infantry. It took us over 30 years but now we've got peace. If we'd used tanks and artillery and jets and bombs... we'd still be fighting.

No it is Samson. Look it up.

I know it's Samson. My reference was to Aesop's Fables, which includes the tale of the dog in the manger - "if I can't have it, no-one can". You're classically educated, I see. :p

Ok. I see you have not read the charter of Hamas which CALLS FOR the destruction of Israel and the elimination of Israel.

Yeh, I know about that. I don't think that Hamas is mad, and I am fairly certain that they will eventually give that up - particularly if they get a viable state without Israeli interference and the theoretical right to return.

So you'll just ignore all the civilians, the churchmen, and the wounded then.

I am going back to the standard MO of most nations to cut power, water, and supplies. We do it during prolonged hostage situations. Not all that different to this. So tell me what is the difference between doing it in Israel and doing it in other countries? If you condemn one, you have to condemn the other.

No, what I'm saying is that they shouldn't use artillery. We didn't - ever - use artillery against the IRA or the PIRA or the UVF or UDA or... you see? Instead, we used words, and infantry. It took us over 30 years but now we've got peace. If we'd used tanks and artillery and jets and bombs... we'd still be fighting.

You do have a problem however! The 1969 accord forbids their entering Palestinian camps. The British did not have that handicap. They could go in and out of Northern Ireland at their leisure. Of course they stood a good chance of being shot at by the IRA which launched several uprising, one of which nearly succeeded in the early 20th century that eventually lead to the independent state of Ireland.

I know it's Samson. My reference was to Aesop's Fables, which includes the tale of the dog in the manger - "if I can't have it, no-one can". You're classically educated, I see. :p

Yep. Even read Aesop's Fables.

Yeh, I know about that. I don't think that Hamas is mad, and I am fairly certain that they will eventually give that up - particularly if they get a viable state without Israeli interference and the theoretical right to return.

I see you do not understand. Not at all.

If you condemn one, you have to condemn the other.

I am universally condemning it... :rolleyes:

You do have a problem however! The 1969 accord forbids their entering Palestinian camps.

Are you reading what I'm posting? It doesn't look like it.

Where have I said that I think they should send in infantry straight away? I haven't. I've said that the Lebanese should use pro-Lebanese Palestinians, their secret services, and international diplomats to enter the camps. At the same time, they should be seeking permission from the Arab League to enter the camps with police and infantry.

The British did not have that handicap. They could go in and out of Northern Ireland at their leisure. Of course they stood a good chance of being shot at by the IRA which launched several uprising, one of which nearly succeeded in the early 20th century that eventually lead to the independent state of Ireland.

Wow, thank you for telling me a garbled version of my own history. :p The 1916 Easter Rising came after the failure to implement the Fourth Home Rule Act (1914). The Rising then led to the formation of Southern Ireland (the Irish Free State) in 1920 and the 1922-23 Irish Civil War which in turn created the situation we have today .

The Troubles of 1968-97 (although there were a few attacks in 1998 so you could argue that they lasted until then, or even until the recent Power-Sharing agreement between Sinn Fein and the Ulster Unionists) were dealt with despite the existence of no-go areas by the use of infantry. Various tactics were tried, but in essence we discovered that:

Brutality doesn't work, infantry and police do.
Violence achieves less than talking.
Hearts and minds wins COIN (rediscovery from the Malayan Emergency).

Currently, the Lebanese are acting like bulls in a china shop. Nothing productive will come from this. Applying the lessons of successful COIN operations in Malaya, Ireland, Italy, Germany and elsewhere in Europe should lead to improved results for peace in the Middle East. Not going in mob-handed.

Yep. Even read Aesop's Fables.

Good man!

I see you do not understand. Not at all.

No, I understand what you're driving at perfectly. I just don't agree. :p

I am
Wow, thank you for telling me a garbled version of my own history. :p The 1916 Easter Rising came after the failure to implement the Fourth Home Rule Act (1914). The Rising then led to the formation of Southern Ireland (the Irish Free State) in 1920 and the 1922-23 Irish Civil War which in turn created the situation we have today .


Almost but missing important dates/events..

The execution of the Rising leaders led to a huge win for Sinn Fein in the 1918 General election and the end of the Home rule party. Sinn Fein then refused to take their seats, set up a parallel administration and began military activity via the IRA against occupation forces/RIC in the War of Independence. 1919-21. Free state was agreed in 1922 and the civil war began in that year ending in 1923. The republic was eventually declared in 1948.

Almost but missing important dates/events..

The execution of the Rising leaders led to a huge win for Sinn Fein in the 1918 General election and the end of the Home rule party. Sinn Fein then refused to take their seats, set up a parallel administration and began military activity via the IRA against occupation forces/RIC in the War of Independence. 1919-21. Free state was agreed in 1922 and the civil war began in that year ending in 1923. The republic was eventually declared in 1948.
Funnily enough, while we're sharp to criticise Japan's apparent glossing over of their history, in all my years of British history education, our actions in Ireland haven't been mentioned once. Odd, that.

Having never read an english history textbook, I can't comment. However I wouldnt imagine India (just for example) was dealt with in that way either.

Almost but missing important dates/events...

Them too. :p Hey, it was a precis off the top of my head - my books on the Irish question are 100 miles away. ;)

Regarding textbooks, I've seen ones which mention our actions in Ireland and the Amritsar Massacre for instance... but none that mention the deliberate famines we instituted in India. Thankfully, I've always had history teachers who knew and would mention these things.

Almost but missing important dates/events..

The execution of the Rising leaders led to a huge win for Sinn Fein in the 1918 General election and the end of the Home rule party. Sinn Fein then refused to take their seats, set up a parallel administration and began military activity via the IRA against occupation forces/RIC in the War of Independence. 1919-21. Free state was agreed in 1922 and the civil war began in that year ending in 1923. The republic was eventually declared in 1948.

Well said.