And Israel's goal in ...deliberate targeting" of a UN observation post in Lebanon...
would be what?

The real problem was that Corporal Klinger couldn't find the new codebook so they could correctly identify themselves.

If you harbor terrorists, don't be surprised.

Kevin is complaining about the UN "peacekeepers" being killed but he ignores all of the innocent Israelis who have been killed by the terrorists Hezbollah. Thanks for sharing with us the Hezbollah view Kevin.

I'd guess their goal was similar to their goal when they attacked the U.S.S. Liberty in 1967: doing whatever they want and making lame excuses, knowing the U.S. will never make them pay for their transgressions.

"And Israel's goal in ...deliberate targeting" of a UN observation post in Lebanon...would be what?"

When you have in mind war crimes, it is better not to have neutral observers in the region.

Who knew?

I think the question to be asked is "Who cared?"

It sounds like the Israelis were treating the UN observers as the same kind of impediments that we view reporters as. Hence the bombing/targeting of Al Jazeera. Hence the killing of UN observers.

Hell. Handbasket. Get on board, folks.

"he ignores all of the innocent Israelis who have been killed by the terrorists Hezbollah"

Ah, the 18 Israeli civilians killed compared with the 400 plus innocent Lebanese civilians killed by the Israelis.

The UN puts a bunch of unarmed observers with no support in the middle of a war zone. That's a bit like putting an egg in the middle of a NASCAR track, then crying when it gets crushed.

There's actual work to be done, rather than just posturing. The UN should run along to somewhere safer, where they won't be asked to actually do anything.

Yuda beat me to it

From today's news

Hizbullah stored ammunition and weapons in mosques, knowing that the IDF does not attack religious sites. Civilians were not allowed to leave so that Hizbullah could use them as cover. IDF officers said they ordered pilots not to strafe Bint Jbeil in order to spare civilian casualties.

A United Nations peace keeping officer from Canada told the Canadian Broadcasting Corp. that Hizbullah used the same tactic to draw fire on the UNIFIL post which resulted in the death of four U.N. observers. "This is their favorite trick," he said. "They use the U.N. as shields."

http://www.israelnationalnews.com/news.php3?id=108477

And Israel's goal in ...deliberate targeting" of a UN observation post in Lebanon....would be what?

Laser-guided missiles go exactly where you want them to go.
.

This also highlights a potential problem for a multinational force. How many countries sending troops will actually be neutral--not to mention proactive--when they see the situation on the ground? As the Israelis do, most countries take a very dim view of their soldiers being killed in situations when they are supposed to safe from attack.

"An open question"! Kevin,things like this are why you send a lot of reader's blood pressure soaring! The post was there for 30 years,they called 10 times,U.N. people in Israel were yelling about it,there were 21 attacks,Israel shelled rescue workers,on and on! "an open question"!Turn on that AC,your brain has overheated!

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

I'd say Israel did respond to the requests.

They just didn't comply with them.

If there's a Democratic plan to win back power by supporting the United Nations against Israel, that is about the stupidest plan I have ever heard.

"There's actual work to be done, rather than just posturing. The UN should run along to somewhere safer, where they won't be asked to actually do anything."

Crikey...here we go again. AH, the UN has no authority to do anything other than what, e.g., the Security Council tells it to do. Guess who sits on the Security Council and wields major influence?

Maybe Kofi should explain why the UN is allowing the Hezbollah to launch attacks from UN positions?

And Israel's goal in ...deliberate targeting" of a UN observation post in Lebanon...
would be what?

Communicating the clear message that Israel doesn't give the slightest damn about "collateral damage".

Civilians, women, children, UN observers, it's all the same to the Israelis. Kill the fuckers if it seems it might get a few genuine enemies in the process.

Hey, they're not Israelis, right?

So let's just recap: if the U.S. does not completely condemn the Israeli attack on U.N. peacekeepers then what we have is a permanent member of the Security Council tacitly approving a military strike against the U.N.

How....Boltonesque?

These UN guys should have brought some viable stem cells with them. Then the US would have made a fuss.

If there's a Democratic plan to win back power by supporting the United Nations against Israel

The liberals here that disagree with Israel don't "support the United Nations against Israel", they largely support an effective solution to the problem between Israel and Hezbollah that secures the legitimate interests of the people of Israel and Lebanon in peace and security.

And the Democratic Party in Congress supports the present policy of the Israeli government more solidly than the Republicans in government.

So, really, I have no idea what you are talking about.

Kevin, ask the question: why would Israel attack UN military observers?

Carl, scroll back to 12:18.

Perhaps they got sick of the nagging phone calls?

Kevin, ask the question: why would Israel attack UN military observers?

As I said above, the point is to communicate the strong message that Israel is not going to pay the smallest attention to "collateral damage".

Look, from an Israeli perspective, the civilians and UN observers it kills are just grist for their mill.

If you try to explain Israeli behavior generally by the assumption that they consider all non-Israelis to be subhuman, then you will find that virtually everything they do falls right into place.

And UN observers are, of course, non-Israelis.

Carl, scroll back to 12:18.

Crikey...here we go again. AH, the UN has no authority to do anything other than what, e.g., the Security Council tells it to do. Guess who sits on the Security Council and wields major influence?

Sure they do. Where's the UN resolution authorizing Hezbollah to launch attack from the 'observer' position?

It's really rather sickening to see the glee with which the "conservative" voices on this site contemplate the apparently deliberate killing of the U.N. observers

Reminds me of the 1967 Israeli attack on the USS Liberty, in which 34 Americans died... And nothing was done because, hey, Israel is our ally.

Two possible answers:
1 - it was an accident/they were tricked into it/they were callous
or
2 - they did it 'accidentally' in much the same way the US 'accidentally' bombed the Chinese embassy. They were believed to be feeding info to the enemy.

And as far as the whole 'Israel is committing genocide' thing. Get over yourselves!!!
There are two sides to this conflict. One is deliberately targeting civilians. DELIBERATELY launching rockets into residential neighborhoods to kill not soldiers, but civilians.

The other side is trying to kill those people but it is very hard because they are hiding amongst civilians and using women and children as shields.

If anyone is responsible for the deaths of those civilians it is the hostage-taker (metaphorically and literally), not the people trying to kill the hostage taker.

Read this story from Canadian Television. It has an email from one if the victims a week before they were killed.
Pertinent quote: Hezbollah static positions in and around our patrol Base.

The role or unarmed observers is difficult, but when combatants set up shop in and around your base, you become a legitimate target.

'Who knew?' kind of rings hollow."

Cue Condi Rice: "No one could possibly have anticipated...."

And Israel's goal in ...deliberate targeting" of a UN observation post in Lebanon...
would be what?

A shot across the bows to any third parties tempted to contribute troops to a peacekeeping mission in southern Lebanon. If they can delay the entry of any large UN peacekeeping force, they can buy themselves time to deal with Hezbollah.

DHOUGMAS: If you harbor terrorists, don't be surprised.

According to rightwingers, Israel can defend itself any way it chooses. Resist and you're, ipso facto, a terrorist. Collateral damage is the necessary byproduct of mindless allegiance to a cause.

AH: There's actual work to be done, rather than just posturing. The UN should run along to somewhere safer, where they won't be asked to actually do anything.

Sounds like an invitation to American Hawk's house, where Mom is baking cookies today. Chocolate chip!

"It becomes slightly more difficult to claim innocent mistake.

It also becomes slightly more difficult to claim that Israel is exercising effective humanitarian precision in targeting Hezbollah. Leaving aside the civilian infrastructure and Lebanese Army barracks Israel has destroyed, the ambulances and fleeing civilians that have been attacked leave the distinct impression that Israel is shooting at anything that might be a legitimate target.

All of which, of course, begs the question: Where the hell is Mossad in all of this? Could a lack of human intelligence be stymieing the Israeli war effors just as it did Bush's excellent adventure in Iraq?

机票|北京机票|北京飞机票|北京打折机票|北京特价机票|北京航班查询|北京学生机票|北京国际机票|航空公司

酒店
北京五星级酒店
北京四星级酒店
北京三星级酒店
北京酒店
如家快捷酒店
200元以下酒店
可上网酒店

Someone asked: Why would Israel attack the UN Observers?" Why not? Now Israel can more effectivel control the spin with no consequences. A bargain for the price.

The person most responsible for killing those 4 UN observers (other than Hezbollah) may be Kofi Annan. He should have ordered the UN observers out of the war zone.

The UN observers were origihnally put in Lebanon to prevent the buildup of Hezbollah strength. Instead they did nothing. Once Hezbollah started the fighting, the ostensible mission of the UN observers evaporated. In addition, they were being used by Hezbollah to create a zone of safety from which to attck Israel. The UN observers should have been told to withdraw immediately.

I certainly don't think Kofi wanted them killed. I do think that he and the UN were negligent. I wonder if his silly accusation blaming Israel was motivated by guilt at his own negligence.

Israel has now formally told civilians to get out of the war area (although that should have been obvious all along).

Mr Ramon said Israel no longer regarded Bent Jbail as a civilian zone and foreshadowed that the Israeli assault on the area would intensify. "Everyone who is still in south Lebanon is linked to Hezbollah; we have called on all who are there to leave," he said. "Bent Jbail is not a civilian location; we have to treat it like a military zone."

http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au/story/0,20867,19936463-2703,00.html

When you're committing war crimes you don't want impartial witnesses around. Ask the sailors on the USS liberty about that.

Stan beat me to it by a mile

EX-LIBERAL: Israel has now formally told civilians to get out of the war area

Sure they do. Where's the UN resolution authorizing Hezbollah to launch attack from the 'observer' position?

Are you intentionally dense or does it just come naturally to you?

The role or unarmed observers is difficult, but when combatants set up shop in and around your base, you become a legitimate target.

No you don't. If combatants go into a pre-school, you don't bomb it to smithereens. If they go into a hospital, you don't bomb it to smithereens. If combatants are on top of your own troops, you don't bomb your own troops to smithereens. Furthermore, no combatants were "in" the U.N. post.

Could a lack of human intelligence be stymieing the Israeli war effors just as it did Bush's excellent adventure in Iraq?

There are two very different definitions of "human intelligence" for which the answer to that is "yes, it should could be."

The person most responsible for killing those 4 UN observers (other than Hezbollah) may be Kofi Annan.

No, you dishonest ass, the person most responsible for killing those UN observers is the one who dropped the bomb on them.

Seriously, the sheer chutzpah, if you please, of accusing Kofi Annan of negligence n defense of the Israelis bombing the post despite a series of calls by the observers themselves is simply astounding.

Israel has now formally told civilians to get out of the war area

After doing everything possible to destroy their ability to do so.

There are two very different definitions of "human intelligence" for which the answer to that is "yes, it should could be.

Good point, cmdicely.

After doing everything possible to destroy their ability to do so.

And attacking cars of those civilians who do try, I might add.

Yeah, but how many times have I formally told you to get out of this area?

jayarbee, the difference is that I'm not in a position that shields terrorists who are firing thousands of missiles at you and your family.

Trex: Are you intentionally dense or does it just come naturally to you?

Let me say it slowly, so liberals can understand:

1) The claim is that the UN troops only does what the security council authorizes them to do.
2) The UN troops allowed Hezbollah to launch rockets on civilians from their position.
3) Therefore, either the security council authorized the troops to do so, or the claim in one is false.
4) There is no such authorization; therefore, liberals claims that "the troops are helpless because they're not authorized by the security council" is false.
5) The UN troops aren't neutral; they're just on the other side.

Clear? Or do I need to draw you a chart?

The UN puts a bunch of unarmed observers with no support in the middle of a war zone.

1) They were "put there" years ago, when it was not an active war zone.

2) If they were armed, they wouldn't be called "observers".

3) If it were not a potential war zone, there wouldn't be anything to observe in the first place.

"It becomes slightly more difficult to claim innocent mistake. 'Who knew?' kind of rings hollow."

You mean like who knew Kofi would allow UN troops to serve as Hezbollah human shields?

"No you don't. If combatants go into a pre-school, you don't bomb it to smithereens. If they go into a hospital, you don't bomb it to smithereens. If combatants are on top of your own troops, you don't bomb your own troops to smithereens. Furthermore, no combatants were "in" the U.N. post."

We are not talking about preschools and hospitals. We are talking about a war zone where even an army's own troops are occasionally shot by friendly fire.

What do you want Israel to do while rockets rain down on civilians every hour????

Answer that question before you get all black-and-white.

It amazes me how people can view the world as grey when looking at Hezbollah, but blackandwhite when looking at Israel. These are not choices that are easy to make. But the sides in this conflict are very different and to defend Hezbollah is insane!

Ex-liberal:

Why don't you try a less biased source:

http://www.latimes.com/news/printedition/asection/la-fg-un27jul27,1,6321632.story?coll=la-news-a_section

According to the LA Times, a UN official (not an unknown and uninvolved Canadian peace-keeping officer) says there was no Hezbollah activity within 3 miles of the post. Other reports indicate that the post was hit by a precision-guided weapon from the air, the type of which is supposed to be able to hit targets in tight spaces without causing much collateral damage. So even if Hezbollah militants were within, say 100 meters of the post, there still seems to be no justifiable reason why the IDF would drop a bomb right on top of it.

Matthew Saroff:

I refer you to the same article. Though, even by your reasoning, I'm still wondering how dropping a bomb right on the post is really justified, unless Hezbollah militants were shooting from the roof. And is it justified even then? Are you permitted to kill peacekeepers to save yourself casualties in a military campaign you've initiated?

As far as whether this is deliberate or not...Israel's repeated shelling of the post, along with their bombing campaign in general, has been so reckless towards non-combatants that the bombing of them might as well have been deliberate.

EX-LIBERAL: the difference is that I'm not in a position that shields terrorists who are firing thousands of missiles at you and your family.

These UN guys should have brought some viable stem cells with them. Then the US would have made a fuss.

Hah! Fucking brilliant. If I weren't crying so hard I'd be laughing....

if you want to know what the UN observers are doing, here are their daily reports, but in pdf format, so I can't do the cut and pastes that I want.

http://www.un.org/Depts/dpko/missions/unifil/pr011.pdf

you'll find that the UN observers are doing humanitarian work, sheltering civilians, rebuilding roads (maybe that's why the Israelis are pissed off at them), but that Hezbollah has been firing rockets near the UN positions. Knowing however, that there are up to 200 civilians in some of these posts, the IAF continues to bomb them.

Ex-Liberal:

Israel has now formally told civilians to get out of the war area (although that should have been obvious all along).

And has bombed them trying to flee as well. I suppose the UN peacekeepers should have taken their chances, hopped in their jeeps and hit the road?

"but that Hezbollah has been firing rockets near the UN positions. Knowing however, that there are up to 200 civilians in some of these posts, the IAF continues to bomb them."

So you are admitting that Hezbollah is using civilians and the UN as human shields? Wouldn't that mean the responsibility of those deaths would fall squarely on Hezbollah's shoulders?

What do you want Israel to do while rockets rain down on civilians every hour????

Uh, figure out a way to fight so that they're NOT worse monsters than their enemies?

1) The claim is that the UN troops only does what the security council authorizes them to do. 2) The UN troops allowed Hezbollah to launch rockets on civilians from their position. 3) Therefore, either the security council authorized the troops to do so, or the claim in one is false.

False; first it is apparently incorrect in its factual premise:

Mr. Annan said yesterday he accepted Israeli Prime Minister Ehud Olmert's "deep regret" over the incident, but a UN preliminary report said Hezbollah was not active near the base and that the Israelis had been repeatedly warned their air strikes were landing near the post.

"To our knowledge, unlike in the vicinity of some of our other patrol bases, Hezbollah firing was not taking place within the immediate vicinity of the patrol base," Jane Holl Lute, assistant secretary-general for peacekeeping, told the UN Security Council.

and, second, it is incorrect in its logic, as "allow" here is not an action for which there could be authorization, but merely the failure to take action to prevent, which action itself would have required authority to act which the troops did not have.

Israel has now formally told civilians to get out of the war area

And the Arabs have formally told the Israelis to get out of Israel. Since we don't expect the Israelis to listen to that message, why should the Israeli message above have any legal weight? Israel has no legitimate legal authority to tell the citizens of another sovereign nation whether they may or may not stay in their homes.

So you are admitting that Hezbollah is using civilians and the UN as human shields? Wouldn't that mean the responsibility of those deaths would fall squarely on Hezbollah's shoulders?

It might, if the base hit was a place where that was occurring, and if it was credible that Hezbollah was being targetted.

...The UN troops aren't neutral; they're just on the other side.

I'm guessing from this travesty of claims posing as logic "intentionally dense," but it's still hard to be sure.

"Uh, figure out a way to fight so that they're NOT worse monsters than their enemies?"

Come now, everyone knows the safest place to be in a war zone is to stand next to that Jihadi firing the rocket launcher.

and there's this, which someone asked me about yesterday:

http://www.allheadlinenews.com/articles/7004343191

"...to defend Hezbollah is insane!"

It's absurd to accuse liberals on this thread of "defending Hezbollah." No one here, as far as I can tell, is doing that.

What we are saying is that Israel is wildly overplaying its hand: shelling the entire bloody country instead of focusing on Hizbullah positions in southern Lebanon.

The result of which is severely undermining our (the US) ability to have any actual leverage in the region, and therefore deeply undermining our national security.

How librul of us, eh?

I figure the targeting of the UN was a local decision/screw-up. It would only take a couple of commanders and lax leadership to do it intentionally or just neglect to pass on information about UN calls. Now they're in CYA mode. Someone will evenutally get their hand slapped.

I also figure that a lot of palestinian and hezbollah attacks are local decisions that shouldn't necessarily reflect upon Damascus, Tehran, Abbas, Hamas politicians, etc. -- except perhaps their lack of control.

Kevin, ask the question: why would Israel attack UN military observers?

Because the Hizbollah were using the UN post for cover.

One thing that is conveniently (and consistently) overlooked by the blame-Kofi crowd is that fact that Israel stated that the firing would stop after each request (apparently all 10 of them). What would necessitate the removal of the observers if they were assured that the firing would stop?

Hizbollah was the target.

cm dicely quotes a UN representative:
"To our knowledge, unlike in the vicinity of some of our other patrol bases, Hezbollah firing was not taking place within the immediate vicinity of the patrol base," Jane Holl Lute, assistant secretary-general for peacekeeping, told the UN Security Council.

Note the qualifier "to our knowledgem" which provides an excuse when she turns out to be wrong. In fact, one of the soldiers who was killed had already complained that Hezbollah was using his position as cover:

Ryan R. Jones - All Headline News Correspondent
Beirut, Lebanon (AHN) - A Canadian UN peacekeeper killed in an Israeli air strike Tuesday complained just days before that tragic incident that his position was being used as cover by Hezbollah terrorists attacking Israel.

In an interview on CBC Radio in Toronto, Major General Lewis MacKenzie (ret.) said he had been privy to e-mails received from the soldier over the past week.

MacKenzie, who happened to know the deceased personally, said in one such correspondence the soldier "described the fact that he was taking within...three meters of his position 'for tactical necessity - not being targeted.'"

The general explained that is veiled military speech "telling us [that] Hezbollah fighters were all over his position and the IDF were targeting them."

He said using UN personnel as human shields is "a favorite trick by people who don't have representation in the UN," knowing they will suffer no direct consequences for the violation.

http://www.allheadlinenews.com/articles/7004343191

It can't have been "intentional" for one simple reason:

Israel has nothing to gain and plenty to lose.

Stefan, your "shot across the bow" theory makes no sense because it would take a minimum of 2-3 months for any significantly sized peace-keeping force to arrive (and good luck finding anyone willing to actually put up the troops). There's also no way they would come in without Israeli acquiescence.

"One thing that is conveniently (and consistently) overlooked by the blame-Kofi crowd is that fact that Israel stated that the firing would stop after each request (apparently all 10 of them). What would necessitate the removal of the observers if they were assured that the firing would stop?"

No, the thing that is overlooked is why Kofi had allowed Hezbollah to use UN positions to launch attacks against civilians?

It's absurd to accuse liberals on this thread of "defending Hezbollah." No one here, as far as I can tell, is doing that.

No one? Well, let's think about that. Iraqi Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki, on his recent visit to Washington, refused to condemn Hezbollah, despite Reid and Pelosi's demanding that he do so. Using Republican Logic! (TM) we can conclude that his failure to condemn Hezbollah, and his calling Israeli actions criminal, means he actually supports Hezbollah. And since Maliki supports Hezbollah, and Bush supports Maliki, we can therefore conclude that it's Bush who supports Hezbollah....

One needs to make the distinction between the 2,000 peacekeeping troops of UNIFIL, which right now are doing what they can to help evacuees and civilians in South Lebanon and whose daily press release is linked above, and the 50 military observers from UNTSO's Observer Group-Lebanon, four of whom were just killed. Their job was to observe the hostilities and report back on what was going on to New York. They could hardly give the UN their independent eyes on the ground if they weren't actually close enough to observe the situation. That's what military observers do.

Not Intentional: the artillery and missiles were fired by individuals and not Israel.

Therefore, a motive doesn't necessarily have to be for the whole state of Israel. It could be a commander was just being cavalier about targeting Hezbollah or a commander who is pissed at the UN for just watching Hezbollah bring in missiles.

From a purely "It's possible" standpoint, Israel (or elements of the military) could want to limit the options of the international community. Bombing the site certainly makes it less likely to find countries willing to send in peacekeepers.

Countries who invade other countries dislike witnesses.

"A shot across the bows to any third parties tempted to contribute troops to a peacekeeping mission in southern Lebanon"

That's what I immediately thought. Negotiations were calling for a UN peacekeeping force to patrol a buffer zone, maybe Israel wanted to decrease the willingness of anyone to contribute troops, or at least delay such an action.

But I'd still guess that it's about 60% likely that it was more of a "mistake" (maybe I'm naive). About 95% of the dead from this campaign *are* civilians, so it seems like they have decided that a certain "error" rate is acceptable, as a strategic policy. Whether that would still be considered an "accident", is a philosophical question.

I don't put anything out of the realm of possibility though. Israel could very well have manufactured the provocation that started this entire conflict. The US does that on occasion.

Anyone blaming the UN for this is wilfully blind to realities. There were numerous phone calls to Israeli officials throughout an entire day of shelling of this UN post, and there were repeated assurances by Israeli officials that the shelling would stop. Then Israel drops a bomb on the post. Of course the onus for an explanation is on Israel. Those who wish to blame the UN only encourage Israel to continue reckless--and criminal--targeting. Ultimately this serves nobody's security interests, least of all those of Israel.

Because the Hizbollah were using the UN post for cover.

And this fact obligated Israel to attack, despite the UN's warning's, exactly how?

Even if true, this flaccid excuse just further reveals the astonishing incompetence of the Israeli government and military when it comes to performing cost-benefit analysis.

No wonder Bush feels such affinity for them. It's disconcerting, though, to have anyone's national security in the hands of such chuckleheads. Regardless of whether one regards either entity as the "good guys," the picture that emerges from the trigger-happy military policy of both the US and Israel is incompetence, and that's a perception both nations can ill afford.

Of course, we know all we need to about republicrat's ability to assess the security situation.

It can't have been "intentional" for one simple reason:

Israel has nothing to gain and plenty to lose.

Israel on the whole might, but then Israel on the whole has nothing to gain and plenty to lose by the whole military operation it is conducting in Lebanon, but I hardly think the whole campaign is, therefore, an accident.

OTOH, there are certainly interest of people in the Israeli government that are served by the action; for instance, if it makes nations less willing to engage in a peacekeeping mission in Lebanon, it validates the position of those who would defend the current action as necessary because there is no viable alternative.

"Everyone who is still in south Lebanon is linked to Hezbollah; we have called on all who are there to leave," he said."
--quoted inside a post by ex-liberal

...

Yes, of course. If we ask people to leave then everyone will just up and go, leaving all their belongings and most of their lives behind. Those who can't or won't leave are clearly in cahoots with Hezbollah.

If you lived in Phoenix and Mexico somehow invaded the US and told all residents to leave the city or else be targetted for bombings, would you leave? What if you had nothing more than one hundred dollars, no way of getting more money (no credit cards, etc.), and three days worth of food? What if all the roads out of the city had already been destroyed or if you had no car in the first place? What if the Mexican army had been randomly targetting vehicles that were fleeing the city? And you were pretty sure that your home would not be standing or would be ransacked and robbed IF you were EVER allowed to return.

So, ready to hit the road? Or would you rather stay and take your chances, knowing that you only have to lose everything you own and potentially your life and the lives of everyone you know and love if you leave. What's that? You want to stay and safeguard your property and family? Then open wide... the Mexican army is going to shove some bombs down your throat because you are clearly participating in the resistance. You terrorist.

...

Oh, and I thought this was a pretty good (fictional) parallel to draw with Israel's statements re: people staying in South Lebanon.

September '05--
"Everyone who is still in New Orleans is linked to the looters and murderers; we have called on all who are there to leave," he said. "Any who remain are staying there to assist the thieves and killers."

Israel has no legitimate legal authority to tell the citizens of another sovereign nation whether they may or may not stay in their homes.

If memory serves me right, when Slobodon Milosevich was acting that way, we called it "ethnic cleansing," fought a military campaign against it, and put the sonofabitch on trial at the Hague.

Note the qualifier "to our knowledgem" which provides an excuse when she turns out to be wrong.

Since, they had information from the people at the position, whose entire purpose was to monitor Hezbollah positions, there really isn't any conceivable cover for being wrong on that.

In fact, one of the soldiers who was killed had already complained that Hezbollah was using his position as cover:

Yes, two days previously. That's not the issue.

The issue is whether Hezbollah was using it for that purpose during the extended shelling, repeated protests, and final bombardment, for which there is no indication that they were, and plenty that they were not.

CMDicely writes:

False; first it is apparently incorrect in its factual premise:

Mr. Annan said yesterday he accepted Israeli Prime Minister Ehud Olmert's "deep regret" over the incident, but a UN preliminary report said Hezbollah was not active near the base and that the Israelis had been repeatedly warned their air strikes were landing near the post.
"To our knowledge, unlike in the vicinity of some of our other patrol bases, Hezbollah firing was not taking place within the immediate vicinity of the patrol base," Jane Holl Lute, assistant secretary-general for peacekeeping, told the UN Security Council.

Interestingly, Cmdicely fails to quote direct, first-hand evidence contradicting Mr. Lute (from the Canadian observer on the ground, who was later killed), which was the point of the article to which he linked!

It turns out that the direct, first-hand evidence proves Mr. Lute to be either ignorant or a liar.

The evidence proves that Hezbollah was on the ground in exactly the area that Israel targetted. If the UN wants its observers not to become collateral damage, they have to move their observers away from the combatants.

But I'd still guess that it's about 60% likely that it was more of a "mistake" (maybe I'm naive). About 95% of the dead from this campaign *are* civilians, so it seems like they have decided that a certain "error" rate is acceptable, as a strategic policy. Whether that would still be considered an "accident", is a philosophical question.

The fact that they received and acknowledged ten messages begging them to stop does rather argue against the "mistake" theory....

My father, a retired NSA employee of 35 years, still gets irate if the Israeli attack on the Liberty is brought up.

imho they fired on the UN to discourage any country who might otherwise be thinking of contributing to a multinational force in S. Lebanon.

or cause UN=al qaeda or cause jews=nazis. but most likely the first one.

"It could be a commander was just being cavalier about targeting Hezbollah"

This, I think, is the most likely explanation. Negligent, yes. Intentional, no.

As for a peacekeeping force -- Israel has made it clear that it would welcome a robust, well-armed peacekeeping force. It has no reason to avert that. They would much rather have someone else do the bloody work of disarming Hezbollah.

"Israel on the whole might, but then Israel on the whole has nothing to gain and plenty to lose by the whole military operation it is conducting in Lebanon,"

Really? Possibly. But there are plenty of intelligent people who would disagree. I don't know of any intelligent (or unintelligent) Israeli who thinks that killing UN observers gains anything for Israel.

I also have not seen a statement from any Israeli official stating that during the repeated conversations the UN observers were advised the Israel was taking rocket fire from their position and that the blue hats should leave the post.

Hell, Israel at least did that much for the Lebanese citizenry and seemingly would do the same for the UN. It didn't.

Seems to undercut the "legitimate target" argument but I doubt this will sway the proponents of that tripe.

Israel has now formally told civilians to get out of the war area.

So If All Queda had formally told the US to evacuate Manhattan on Sept. 10, 2001.....

It's absurd to accuse liberals on this thread of "defending Hezbollah." No one here, as far as I can tell, is doing that.

Of course not, but why should we expect certain dishonest posters here to stop using straw man arguments all of a sudden?

What is absurd, of course, is the constant pointing to Hezbollah's bad actions when Israel's are brought up -- which begs the question, how does Hezbollah targeting civilians justify Israel doing the same thing?

What we are saying is that Israel is wildly overplaying its hand: shelling the entire bloody country instead of focusing on Hizbullah positions in southern Lebanon.

The result of which is severely undermining our (the US) ability to have any actual leverage in the region, and therefore deeply undermining our national security.

Exactly. Israel's overreaction, and the fact that it's alienating pretty much the whole world outside of the current US government and the Little Green Footballs crowd, seems a pretty clear detriment to its own security position, but it's sure as hell detrimental to US national security -- it's impossible to imagine the Administration's actions improving our leverage on the ground in Iraq, no matter what her powerless prime minister thinks.

First and foremost, my concern is US national security, and Bush and his minions are, once again, pissing it away. Which explains why Americans won't take Republicans seriously on national security for a generation, and why Bush's water carriers are loath to address any actual argument being made by his critics.

This, I think, is the most likely explanation. Negligent, yes. Intentional, no.

Negligent, or reckless, perhaps up to the first contact from the UN.

The 6 hourse of shelling with multiple contacts from the UN followed by the aerial bombing is not just someone being "cavalier" about targeting Hezbollah. It is willful.

"The fact that they received and acknowledged ten messages begging them to stop does rather argue against the "mistake" theory...."

Most likely, those messages and the proper coordinates never reached the unit(s) that were actually doing the firing on the position. Communications breakdowns are the bane of every regular military. And trust me on this, no military comes close to the U.S. military in terms of speed from target acquisition to the kill and we still screw up plenty.

Here's the deal: the aircraft that was tasked with firing the missile on the position would have been tasked 8-12 hours prior (no one besides the U.S. is really equipped to hit targets of opportunity). Obviously a countermand order didn't get through. In fact, most likely, whoever the UN reached at IDF headquarters was attempting to stop the shelling and never even looked at the aviation tasking (if he/she had access to it).

It might, if the base hit was a place where that was occurring, and if it was credible that Hezbollah was being targetted.

Cmdicely,

You are incredibly inconsistent and woefully transparent. You profess you and the libs are more supportive of Israel than conservatives yet in the same breath accuse Israel of War Crimes.

You and Kofi are amazingly quick to believe the worse about them every time.

Here's your problem: The conservative media is killing Kofi so badly even ABC can't run to his defense. Your world is changing so quickly you cannot adjust.

Check out Hugh Hewlett for a chart of the LA Times subscribership since 1970. Here's the numbers since 1992, the last time a Democrat as elected:

1992 1.243M (wk) / 1.576M population 9.1M

2006 .852M / 1.213M population 10.2M

This is a liberal disaster. That's a 32% drop in weekly readership after a 12% increase in population.

You've got FoxNews, which didn't exist in 1992, pounding the crap out of Kofi and the blame Israel 1st crowd all day long joined in by talk radio and the blogs.

This is just like the story a month ago accusing Israel of bombing a Palestinains family on the beach in Gaza. Everyone in the middle east still beleives that fraud as do American consumers of the MSM. I however am much better informed than you. Get used to the fact Israel isn't going away. They've made peace with all of their neightbors except Syria but with American help we will both crush Hezbollah and Hamas.

The great Ariel Sharon proved terrorism can be defeated by cutting off the head. We will cut off the head.

Interestingly, Cmdicely fails to quote direct, first-hand evidence contradicting Mr. Lute (from the Canadian observer on the ground, who was later killed)

Interestingly, that "direct, first-hand evidence" doesn't contract Lute at all: the time two days prior when the event it recalls happened is not the time of the 6 hours of shelling followed by an aerial bombing that killed the UN observers.

The issue isn't "had Hezbollah forces ever been near the base?", but "was Israel attacking Hezbollah forces which were, at the time of the attack, near the base?"

"The 6 hourse of shelling with multiple contacts from the UN followed by the aerial bombing is not just someone being "cavalier" about targeting Hezbollah. It is willful."

Not at all. 6 hours is a very short time span to determine the unit firing and send a countermand. Assuming that got through there's almost no way it would have reached aviation assets as well.

See the U.S. communications performance in Grenada as an example. Close air-ground coordination is an American exclusive.

You profess you and the libs are more supportive of Israel than conservatives

Er, no, I don't. I said the Democratic Party in Congress was more supportive of Israel than the Republican Party.

Here's your problem: The conservative media is killing Kofi so badly even ABC can't run to his defense.

I guess its nice that you can take pride in your tribe's propaganda machine, but I don't see what relevance that has to the facts.

I should be more clear: Grenada is an example of the way our targeting acquisition and coordination used to (not) work. We can now put ordnance on target within 5 minutes of acquisition. Several hours to days is standard for any other military, including Israel. And they haven't conducted a significant military operation since 1982. So they're not far off from the Grenada stage.

Can I just say this, as a midwestern, American jew who has had her nose fixed: Israelli Jews are Fucking Crazy.

Let me say it slowly, so liberals can understand:

1) The claim is that the UN troops only does what the security council authorizes them to do.
2) The UN troops allowed Hezbollah to launch rockets on civilians from their position.
3) Therefore, either the security council authorized the troops to do so, or the claim in one is false.

Let's take a look at this, shall we?

#1 is obviously not false. It is an accurate description of the lines of authority on which United Nations observer and peacekeeping forces act. To "Allowing" something is not an action. By that logic, George Bush is allied with Bin Laden for allowing 9/11. Or someone who buys a house in a bad neighborhood has declared their alliegance to carjackers that perpetrate a heist at the local 7/11.

You've shown signs of being capable of intelligent debate, Hawk, so try and do better than this. This is a self-serving, asinine argument, and you probably knew it when you wrote it.

Or, I could argue that since the United Nations is a tool of US hegemony in nine out of ten circumstances, it's obvious that Israel's actions are a declaration of war on America.

See how much fun asinine logic is?

I agree with cmdicely that any "cavalier explanation" has to be combined with a "willful ignoring of UN calls." If this was the case the Israeli military really didn't believe or give a damn about UN calls for help. One hopes they have a better policy for dealing with friendly fire.

(no one besides the U.S. is really equipped to hit targets of opportunity)

I call bullshit. Or is "Not Intentional" suggesting that the ambulance bullseyed right through the red cross on it roof was indeed targeted deliberately, and not struck as a target of opportunity by a trigger-happy pilot?

Obviously a countermand order didn't get through.

Apologizing for this incident as incompetence is hardly an impressive argument. For starters, again, it undermines the apologists' contention that Israel is targeting Hezbollah with surgical precision, and Lebanese civilians just keep getting in the way, by accident or design. Suggesting that Israel's indiscriminate slaughter of Lebanese is due to willful negligence is not likely to win many friends.

And, again, the IDF has maintained its primacy not least due to its reputation -- a reputation it can ill afford to lose by creating perceptions of bumbling and incompetence in the face of a guerilla army. A situation, of course, analogous to the US prior to Bush's debacle in Iraq.

No, no -- incompetence is no excuse.

cmdicely, rdw should be considered on the same level as watcher. Don't talk to him. Innocent lives dying all around, and he wants to quote declining subscriptions at the LA Times. Putting up with triumphalist, delusional right-wing rants that are actually on topic are bad enough. rdw is offensive and beyond the pale of discussion.

RDW: The great Ariel Sharon proved terrorism can be defeated by cutting off the head. We will cut off the head.

First and foremost, my concern is US national security, and Bush and his minions are, once again, pissing it away. Which explains why Americans won't take Republicans seriously on national security for a generation, and why Bush's water carriers are loath to address any actual argument being made by his critics.

Gregory, libs have been saying this for years. GWB was re-elected with a stunning increase in support for his policies. The entire Congress fully supports his decisions regarding Israel aside from the usual whackjob crowd. Polls are shownig 80% of Americans support Israel.

This is a front line in the GWOT. This is why GWB has total support and liberals have no support. It doesn't hurt you have a moron at the DNC. Howard Dean accused Maliki of being anti-sementic for not condemning Hezbollah. As Fox pointed out, every 20 minutes, Howard's accusation is even more valid when directed toward the House Democrats who refused to support Israel against Hezbollah.

You've got to see how this works. The 850K who read the LA Times won't know Dean even opened his mouth. They know he's a loose cannon. But the 1.2M who watch Brit Hume saw Dean's clip at least 3 times and heard a short roundtable discussion. Obviously he came off as a moron along with the party fringe. Then you've got O'rielly, Hannity, etc., playing the same clip giving Dean and the Dems the same treatment.

And you think the libs are being taken seriously? You've read cmdicely and the rest. They automatically believe every negative report on Israel. This does not play well in the jewish community. Now John bolton is someone who plays well.

Get a clue Gregory. Get away from the MSM and get a clue.

B: They've had several friendly fire casualties. As I explained above, you and cmdicely don't understand how long it takes for the retasking of ordnance to take place. Somehow, I don't think that UN post had the exact radio frequency for the artillery unit doing the firing...and they obviously didn't know about the aircraft since it only launched a PGM once.

Kevin, if you had bothered to look around the internet before writing your absurd post, you'd have found links to This article in the NY Sun, Annan's Claims On Casualties May Unravel

It seems that the Canadian U.N. observer, one of four killed at a UNIFIL position near the southern Lebanese town of Khiyam on Tuesday, sent an e-mail to his former commander, a Canadian retired major-general, Lewis MacKenzie, in which he wrote that Hezbollah fighters were "all over" the U.N. position, Mr. MacKenzie said. Hezbollah troops, not the United Nations, were Israel's target

Of course, Kevin, you only read the BBC.

And you wonder why I think you're a moron?

A few things to note for the non-crazy:

• None of the sources listed so far (or I have been able to find) claim Hizbollah was firing from the U.N. position, or nearby. The L.A. Times mentioned the possibly that there were weapons caches, but specifically indicated that there was no known activity within 3 miles. The All Headline News article indicates the possibility that fighters were over the position, but again does not mention firing from the position.
• If rockets were being fired at civilian positions or even military ones, I suspect the Israelis would have mentioned it by now.
• This was an extended shelling over a number of hours, with numerous communications between the U.N. and Israel.
• Even assuming Hizbollah fighers were firing at Israeli positions from nearby the U.N. base, that does not excuse the targeting of the U.N. position. (If there were rockets being fired at civilian positions, or there was firing from within the U.N. post, things would be different.)
• No one has defended Hizbollah. Hizbollah are, in my view, scum. They do use human shields and religious sites to protect themselves and their weapons from their foes, which is reprehensible.

Israel is taking heat on this because they are targeting civilians and civilian institutions. Airports, bridges, apartment buildings, power stations, anything that supports the civilian population (or contains them) is fair game for complete destruction. This policy hurts civilians far more than it does Hizbollah, and may even help Hizbollah more than it hurts them.

I wonder how many folks like American Hawk can honestly say that they would leave their homes immediately after any foreign power said they should, even if that foreign power had reason to go after their neighbors. I wonder if those folks, who might not have hated that foreign power before, would hate them after their home was destroyed, their friends killed, their communities laid in ruins.

Israel acted irresponsibly, at the very least. I don't think they were twisting their mustaches in glee at the thought of killing innocent people, but there might have been someone on the chain who got the message that if U.N. folks or civilians were in the way of a target, it wasn't a serious issue. Given Israeli targeting as of late, it wouldn't be hard to get that message.

And even if no one pointed to the map and said "Destroy the U.N. post there" it means the Israelis hold some responsibility at the highest levels.

And, in my view, it hurts them (and the U.S.) more than it helps.

"Clear? Or do I need to draw you a chart?"

I think American Hawks wants his crayons now.

We can now put ordnance on target within 5 minutes of acquisition. Several hours to days is standard for any other military, including Israel. And they haven't conducted a significant military operation since 1982. So they're not far off from the Grenada stage.

Again, I call bullshit. The media has been full of reports of Israeli warplanes striking rocket launch sites minutes after they firing. (The mobile platforms may, or may not, have scooted in the interim, of course.)

If what you're saying is true, Not Intentional, there is simply no fucking way the Israelis could possibly hope to combat a highly mobile guerilla force like Hezbollah with air power -- the targets would simply move on between acquisition and delivery of the ordnance.

Which means, of course, that the civilians killed by Israeli air and artillery strikes are not happening due to their supposed proximity to guerillas, as some of the other apologists have been insisting, but due to Israel's wanton and indiscriminate attackign of civilian targets.

Your credibility is looking pretty poor there, NI. You need to pony up more citations and fewer assertions -- the latter are looking pretty threadbare.

Cmdicely writes:

Interestingly, that "direct, first-hand evidence" doesn't contract Lute at all: the time two days prior when the event it recalls happened is not the time of the 6 hours of shelling followed by an aerial bombing that killed the UN observers.

Cmdicely is wrong, I think. The e-mail from the Canadian observer said that Hezbollah had "static positions" in the area of the UN observer post. What does Cmdicely think "static positions" means? I think it refers to positions that it would be reasonable for Israel to think would still exist two days later.

But let me try to understand Cmdicely's position better: At point-in-time X, Hezbollah has a "static position" at a specified location. Under Cmdicely's rules, how long does Israel have after X to hit the location of that "static position" with artillery fire? X+1 hour? X+5 minutes? X+2 days?

NORMAN ROGERS: And you wonder why I think you're a moron?

"I call bullshit. Or is "Not Intentional" suggesting that the ambulance bullseyed right through the red cross on it roof was indeed targeted deliberately, and not struck as a target of opportunity by a trigger-happy pilot?"

I don't think it was tasked by a ground observer, no.

"And, again, the IDF has maintained its primacy not least due to its reputation -- a reputation it can ill afford to lose by creating perceptions of bumbling and incompetence in the face of a guerilla army."

It already is. Their pilots are the best in the world. Their training, for a conscripted force, is the best in the world. But do they have our communications and targeting capabilities (which nevertheless breakdown all the time)? Absolutely not. And that's not an issue of incompetence. That's simply the limitations of technology combined with the limitations of training. No amount of exercises prepare one for actual communications in an actual chaotic battlefield. Don't forget what was happening to the IDF on the ground that day. I guarantee you their radionets were overloaded.

Once again, you don't understand how short 6 hours is in battlefield terms. (I also don't believe that position was "shelled for 6 hours"...more likely, the vicinity of that position was shelled for 6 hours, much of it probably counterbattery).

there is simply no fucking way the Israelis could possibly hope to combat a highly mobile guerilla force like Hezbollah with air power

Gregory is wrong also, I think.

Again, this was a Hezbollah "static position".

Cmdicely is wrong, I think.

Interestingly, both assertions in this sentence are incorrect. ;)

Not Intentional:

The UN position was known for multiple years prior. Targeting should have elicited a warning and an administrative review.

No one utilizes a 8-12 hour "no countermand order" policy for air strikes along front lines.

"If memory serves me right, when Slobodon Milosevich was acting that way, we called it "ethnic cleansing," fought a military campaign against it, and put the sonofabitch on trial at the Hague. "
Gregory, you are missing the point (the point being REALITY). Slobodan rounded up men and shot them dead because they were Bosnians. He then had his soldier rape the women. This is Genocide. He intentionally targeted civilians based on their religious/ethnic background and killed them because of it.

Stay with me here: Killing someone because they are launching a rocket at you is not genocide. Accidentally shooting someone who is standing next to someone launching a rocket is not genocide. Bombing the headquarters of the people who are launching rockets at you is not genocide. Accidentally killing someone when you bomb the headquarters of someone shooting rockets at you is not Genocide.

Now, there are right people intentionally targeting civilians because of their ethicity and their religious background. Those people are called Hezbollah.

Gregory, I am confused why you wouldnt call that genocide as it is the only thing going on right now that fits the definition. Why is that Gregory? Did that ethnicity/religion already use its one genocide card and now it no longer counts?

As far as Israel targeting civilians, let me spell it out for you: THEY.AREN'T. Its that simple. Unfortunately civilians are getting killed. That is horrible, but it is very different than intentionally targeting civilians.

As a beheader, you do sound ever so much sweeter and likeable than terrorists. But if your guillotine can't keep up with them, causing them to prosper to the point where they are able to build tall towers filled with thousands of people, would you have any qualms about blowing those up? The people inside would just be terrorist supporters, right?

We will do whatever it takes to win the GWOT. This battle is part of that war. I have no idea if the people inside are terror supporters but we know hte people of southern lebanon ARE terrorist supporters. They are allowing Hezbollah to store their rockets and fire them at will. They are assisting in the ambushes of Israeli soldiers. I have no idea what the rules of engagements but if a household of lebanese is participating in the support of Hezbollah the Israeli army or airforce has the responsibility to take that house out.

There was a great cartoon in the Washington Post last week showing an Israeli soldier on one knee aiming at a terrorist, also on one knee. The Israeli soldier is in front of a baby carriage protecting the baby. The terrorist is behind the baby carriage place it in extreme danger to protect his own ass. This is the image Americans have of Terrorists and their supporters. It's awful a helpless baby should ever die. But the responsibiltiy is on the terrorist and the baby's family, obviously terror supporters. Society has a responsibilitiy to eliminate terrorism everywhere it exists.

AL: how long does Israel have after X to hit the location of that "static position" with artillery fire?

Gregory:

Israel has aircraft loitering over potential missile launch areas yes. That's not targeting that is being coordinated by the ground. Actual tasking of ordnance from the ground is being done before those planes go up in most instances.

Counterbattery fire is a different issue. Counterbattery radars (which are organic to an artillery unit) identify the general coordinates from which enemy fire (missle or artillery) originates and then those coordinates are fired on by that artillery unit. If missiles were launched from the vicinity of that UN position (whether this would have been visible to hunkered down UN observers?) counterbattery fire may have been used without ever communicating it to headquarters (where the UN would have been calling). If an airstrike would have been called in (which appears to be the case), that would have taken several hours.

Gregory is wrong also, I think.

Golly, I should have waited a few minutes. ;) What I said before, again.

And, no, "Al," you're wrong, because if you had any reading comprehension at all, you'd have noted that I was criticizing "Not Intentional"'s unlikely assertion that the IDF requires hours between the acquisition of targets and placing ordnance on them. Yes, under those circumstances the IDF might be able to take out so-called "static positions," but they couldn't possibly hope to take out mobile rocket launchers, for example, which, of course, is what Israel's destroying South Lebanon is supposed to be about.

Of course, I called bullshit on "Not Intentional"'s assertion, so you have even less point that you and your fellow "Al"s usually do.

Could we drop the "Israel is committing genocide" thing? Approx. 400-500 people have died in Lebanon over the course of a couple weeks. That's terrible, but if you call this genocide the term loses all meaning. Does anyone remember the fact that approx. 400,000 people have died as a result of the conflict in Darfur over the last 2-3 years?

Did any of the friendly fire episodes involve the time and number of calls of the UN incident? The answer is NO.

Radio calls concerning friendly fire are taken seriously and patched through to relevant units quickly. If need be, entire artillery barrages are called off.

To be more specific, insofar as the IDF is targeting mobile missile launchers, that can only be done by loitering aircraft or by counterbattery fire. In both scenarios there is no possibility of checking those coordinates with headquarters.

RDW: There was a great cartoon in the Washington Post last week showing an Israeli soldier on one knee aiming at a terrorist, also on one knee. The Israeli soldier is in front of a baby carriage protecting the baby. The terrorist is behind the baby carriage place it in extreme danger to protect his own ass.

"The UN position was known for multiple years prior. Targeting should have elicited a warning and an administrative review."

This is where negligence comes in. If such targeting was tasked from the ground through headquarters, then clearly someone was negligent. If it was simply a loitering aircraft or counterbattery fire, then probably not.

"No one utilizes a 8-12 hour "no countermand order" policy for air strikes along front lines."

Who said they did?

"Did any of the friendly fire episodes involve the time and number of calls of the UN incident? The answer is NO."

And you know this how? You might want to review some of the notable such incidents in the Gulf War.

Here's a question for the Isreal bashers:

If Hezbollah had stopped firing missiles at Israeli civilians, Israel would have had no need to shoot back. So, why didn't the UN ask Hezbollah to stop shooting?

My answer is that even the UN takes it for granted that Hezbopllah would have declined such a request. In fact, IMHO we take it for granted that Hezbollah fights like barbaric savages, but it's not politically correct to mentionn that.

I thought we were talking about Lebanon? Are you talking about Gulf War I or II? links?

Although I'm more in sympathy with the position of cmdicely and others in this debate -- I have to admit that Not Intentional doesn't sound like a frother at all, but rather someone with military experience.

I have no way to gauge the truth of his claims as they relate directly to the IDF -- but I'm not willing to dismiss them out-of-hand, either.

Why can't it be -- as NI says -- an act of negligence?

Bob

sean - Don't worry, you can count on the fingers of no hands the number of prominent Democratic politicians who are supporting Hezbollah or the UN against Israel in the current war. That's not true, obviously, in the fever swamps on the left, but politicians who have to face voters know that the American public overwhelmingly is backing Israel. So I don't think the Democratic Party is going to commit suicide over this.

Also, as far as civilian casualties go, Jan Egeland, the chief UN humanitarian official, blamed them on Hezbollah a few days ago. See http://www.nypost.com/news/worldnews/hezbollah_cowards_to_blame_for_civilian_slaughter__u_n__big_worldnews_uri_dan__with_post_wire_services.htm. He called Hezbollah "cowards" for hiding behind civilians and for boasting that more civilians than Hezbollah fighters had been killed in the current hostilities. That, of course, is Hezbollah's goal. What is remarkable, indeed, mind-boggling, is that a UN official criticized the Arabs for doing what they always do - hide behind the skirts of their women and draw fire onto civilian populations.

Gregory, you are missing the point (the point being REALITY). Slobodan blah blah blah

"Yep,", pointing out things that Slobodan did other than ethnic cleansing does nothing to address the analogy between to the ethnic cleansing (you're the one who brought up "genocide," you dishonest hack) he did and what Israel's doing -- i.e., forcibly clearing the civilian populace from South Lebanon under threat of terror. Hezbollah is a terrorist organization that very well might like to do the same to Israel, but the fact is that they don't have that ability. Israel does, and is using it.

An no, it isn't true that Israel is not targeting civilians, or even civilian targets. They are -- withness the carloads of families bombed wehn evacuating Tyre -- not to mention the civil and political infrasturcture Israel has destroyed.

And once again, pointing out the bad behavior of Hezbollah -- which no one is contesting -- does nothing whatever to excuse the bad behavior of Israel.

So, "Not Intentional," you're claiming that Israel lacks the capability to place ordnance on a target in a short amount of time, except when they don't. Whatever. Again, your assertions are unconvincing -- expecially as an excuse for the targeting of this UN post. Pony up some cites, or one couldn't be blamed for concluding you're talking theough your hat.

As for your fantasy that the UN post might have been targeted by counterbattery fire -- which you seem to have made up out of whole clote -- it, of course, is belied by the fact that the post was under bombardment for several hours, during which time, again, they tried several times to all off the fire, which calls were acknowledged and agreed upon. That dog just won't hunt.

And finally, folks, ignore rdw. He has one act: rattling off the same stale set of contrafactual assertions from PowerLine, and he loves the attention. Just write him off as the loony he is and have done with it.

If Hezbollah had stopped firing missiles at Israeli civilians, Israel would have had no need to shoot back. So, why didn't the UN ask Hezbollah to stop shooting?

Are you talking in general or about the specific instance? Because, in the specific instance, the UN says Hezbollah wasn't firing missiles from the site for Israel to fire "back" at, rendering the question moot.

On the broader question, Israel's air and ground assault on Lebanon after on July 12 preceded the Hezbollah rocket attacks, it was not a response to them.

guess its nice that you can take pride in your tribe's propaganda machine, but I don't see what relevance that has to the facts.

The relevence is to what information will be reported. There was a day the MSM reported what they thought we needed to know. For example the report Norman referred to above about the retired Canadian General supporting the view Hezbollah was the target.

I suspect it's the 1st time you heard of it. You did not see it on ABCNews or in the NY Times nor will you ever see it in the MSM. I saw it. I saw it in several places. Fox is doing a great job reporting ALL of the relevent facts.

At some point this will be confirmed by other forces but at this point it's looking like the classic over-reaction by the blame America and Israel 1st crowd and if that's the case Fox will show the tape of Kofi immediately assuming Israel is evil followed by evidence of Kofi being egregiosly wrong ands reckless again.

It's hard to imagine American public opinion of the UN and Kofi can go any lower but it just might be possible and this is the kind of story that even if it doesn't drive the number lower convinces more people of the extent of the rot at the UN.

This is why Fox is so relevent. This is why the fact the LA Times is so much less relevent is important.

Friendly fire is a good analogy for negligence.

I'd like to hear from NI and others if they can come up with examples as egregious as the recent UN incident.

B, see Gulf War I. You've made sweeping assertions as to how "friendly fire" is avoided. You might want to familiarize yourself with some notable occurrences in the recent past.

And Israel's goal in ...deliberate targeting" of a UN observation post in Lebanon...
would be what?

Probably along the lines of the rational for the accidental mistaking of the USS Liberty in 1967 for an Egyptian ship during the 6 day War. 34 American sailors were killed & 170 plus were wounded.

Clear? Or do I need to draw you a chart?

Hmm. The American Hawk says it was stupid for unarmed UN observers to set up shop in what would obviously become a war zone in several years' time. Then it gripes that these same unarmed observers "allowed" Hezbollah to launch rockets from nearby. (In other news, the UN also allowed the sun to rise at 6:30, and did absolutely nothing to stop it.)

OK, lemme see..."From a contradiction, anything follows." Well, that makes sense, then: it's obviously Kofi Annan's fault, the victims' fault, the liberals' fault...anyone's fault but the Israeli military who dropped precision guided bombs on a known UN post after hours of shelling, despite numerous desperate communiques asking them to stop, and despite Israeli promises to do just that.

Yessir, if unarmed UN observers and nascent American-backed democracies that represent the shining triumph of our neoconservative policies can't stop a renegade professional militia that's entrenched and armed to the teeth, why then Israel has no choice but to blow up the Lebanese countryside, half of Beirut, and anyone who happens to be in the way. Q.E.D.

Say, I wonder where Hezb. is holding those captured Israeli soldiers? I hope they aren't obstructing the divinely ordained path of any 5000-lb bombs, or allowing any Hezbollah rocket launches from their position.

Of course, the real tragedy won't happen until they send in the ground forces, whereupon Israeli planes and artillery will naturally be obliged to obliterate any IDF unit that allows Hezbollah to return fire or launch rockets from nearby. Mistakes like these are regrettable, but I guess they're the risks you take being in a war zone where the life of one soldier, ally, or neutral non-combatant is worth no more more than any other.

Huh. Perhaps you'd better give us that chart after all. In fact, I won't allow myself to not let you refrain from failing to post it. Kofi's orders.

My sweeping assertions include the fact the UN base was a stationary and permanent feature. In Gulf War I we had troops moving 30 to 40 mph into enemy territory.

What ever happened to patriot missiles? Remember during the last big round about all those breathless reports from the region of patriot missiles being rushed into service and all the warm tearful displays of thanks from the locals?

DBL: more civilians than Hezbollah fighters had been killed in the current hostilities. . . . the Arabs for doing what they always do - hide behind the skirts of their women and draw fire onto civilian populations.

The relevence is to what information will be reported. There was a day the MSM reported what they thought we needed to know. For example the report Norman referred to above about the retired Canadian General supporting the view Hezbollah was the target.

I suspect it's the 1st time you heard of it.

You suspect wrongly, as usual.

You did not see it on ABCNews or in the NY Times

Correct, I saw it in the National Post, a Canadian news source; I get most of my news over the web, from quiet a wide array of sources.

Perhaps. I saw it

On the broader question, Israel's air and ground assault on Lebanon after on July 12 preceded the Hezbollah rocket attacks, it was not a response to them.

cmdicely, I think you're correct. My mistake.

Come on NI, give us some links.

The Gulf War friendly fire examples I can come up with lasted 1/10th as long and only involved a single war plane expending it's ammunition on targets of opportunity.

We will do whatever it takes to win the GWOT.

Except, of course, enlist....

Could we drop the "Israel is committing genocide" thing?

RP, as far as I can tell, the only one to bring up genocide was "yep," as a straw man response to my suggestion that Israel is, in fact, commiting ethnic cleansing.

Here's a question for the Isreal bashers:

Oh, goody -- "ex-liberal," having no convincing response to the criticism of Israel, decides to try distracting with a dishonest question. Been reading Charlie's posts for inspiration, have we?

If Hezbollah had stopped firing missiles at Israeli civilians, Israel would have had no need to shoot back.

You propose a cause-and-effect relationship that is not at all in evidence here. Israel's destruction of Lebanon commenced after Hezbollah captured two Israeli soldiers -- not attacked civilians. Hezbollah's rocket attacks began after Israel began destroying Lebanon's cibvil and political infrastructure. Thus the premise of your question is false. big surprise.

So, why didn't the UN ask Hezbollah to stop shooting?

Um, because Condi Rice nixed the idea of an immediate cease fire. Duh.

My answer is blah blah blah

Yuo've demonstrated how little value your "answers" contain.

In fact, IMHO we take it for granted that Hezbollah fights like barbaric savages

As they are a guerilla army, it should be taken for granted that Hezbollah fights like a guerilla army. An again, pointing to Hezbollah's savagery does nothign at all to explain the savagery of Israel's attacks on civilians.

Look, guys, it's real simple: If you're so damn incensed about Hezbollahs's attacks on civilians, for Ford's sake stop apologizing for Israel's. Talk about your moral equivalence!

But I will agree that Israel seems to have made some incorrect expectations of how Hezbollah would fight, as they learned yesterday in Bint Jbeil -- a town they had asserted since Monday they controlled.

I have to admit that Not Intentional doesn't sound like a frother at all, but rather someone with military experience.

With all due respect, Bob, "Not Intentional" sounds to me like someone who's talking through his hat. He's long on assertions -- which don't even seem to add up -- and short on citation. I called bullshit, and his responses were, frankly, unconvincing.

Why can't it be -- as NI says -- an act of negligence?

I'm not asserting it can't, but N.I.'s excusese don't make it so, nor do they fit the facts we know at this time. Frankly, I'm not buying his/her/its "the UN begged Israel to stop the attack but they just couldn't communicate the countermand within six hours" line without some facts to back it up.

"So, "Not Intentional," you're claiming that Israel lacks the capability to place ordnance on a target in a short amount of time, except when they don't."

The timeframe from acquisition to shooter is measured in at least hours if such targeting is passed through headquarters by any military besides ours (and even often with us). Aircraft tasking in Gulf War I took 48 hours. Fact.

"Whatever. Again, your assertions are unconvincing -- expecially as an excuse for the targeting of this UN post. Pony up some cites, or one couldn't be blamed for concluding you're talking theough your hat."

Certainly. For a basic, but credible, layman's understanding, you could start by perusing Jane's. If you need a web-source on military technology and targeting protocols, begin with globalsecurity.org. but it's going to take you sometime.

"As for your fantasy that the UN post might have been targeted by counterbattery fire -- which you seem to have made up out of whole clote --"

It is speculation, but also the most likely explanation. Its no more made up out of whole cloth than the idea that they deliberately wanted to piss off the UN and increase calls for a ceasefire. Huh?

"it, of course, is belied by the fact that the post was under bombardment for several hours, during which time, again, they tried several times to all off the fire, which calls were acknowledged and agreed upon. That dog just won't hunt."

Like I said, I don't think the post itself was shelled for several hours. The vicinity I'm sure was. Once again, they weren't calling the unit doing the firing, were they?

Alright, look at it this way.

A staff officer at IDF headquarters gets a call from UNFIL (or whoever). He has no way of knowing which unit is doing the firing. So, some sort of general message is going to have to be sent to every artillery unit asking them to decist on firing at a certain set of coordinate, if they are doing so. That's going to take hours at least. Considering the Hezbollah counterattack, the casualties Israel was taking...do you think those radio nets were empty? Heck no.

And since it was artillery that had been complained about, that staff officer may never have checked aviation tasking. (and if the target was not tasked but rather fired upon by loitering aircraft..there's nothing headquarters could do.)

so, negligence, sure. Implausible? I'm afraid it's much too plausible to anyone with the slightest bit of familiarity or affiliation with military affairs.

UN backs off claim no Hezbollah activity near peacekeepers' base

Published: Thursday, July 27, 2006
UNITED NATIONS - The United Nations appeared to be caught in a contradiction Wednesday after the world body claimed there had been no Hezbollah activity in the vicinity of a peacekeeping base destroyed in an Israeli strike, killing four UN military observers, one of them Canadian....

But far from saying there was no Hezbollah activity in the area to justify Israeli interest, Hess-von Kruedener's e-mail, written July 19 and posted on the website of CTV, recounts numerous incidents....

Annan Wednesday appeared to back away from his earlier charge, saying he had accepted the explanation of Israeli Prime Minister Ehud Olmert.

"The prime minister ... definitely believes it was a mistake," Annan said in Rome where he was attending a high-level crisis meeting on Lebanon.

http://www.canada.com/nationalpost/news/story.html?id=5f691619-ef23-4a68-b565-a3780773ee1e

You might want to familiarize yourself with some notable occurrences in the recent past.

Now that you mention it, "Not Intentional," I have an idea: Why don't you provide an example of a friendly fire incident that is comparable with the attack on the UN position? Complete with six hours of begging to call off the attack, of course.

Not Intentional:

I have neither familiarity nor affiliation with military affairs -- but I will say that your scenario passes the intuitive smell test.

And as other posters here know -- I carry no brief for the IDF.

Bob

The National Post (linked above) is the paper that invented the Iranian "yelllow star" story. I'm just sayin

Huh. Perhaps you'd better give us that chart after all. In fact, I won't allow myself to not let you refrain from failing to post it. Kofi's orders.

Beautiful.

I failed to allow myself not to love your entire post...therefore I am responsible for its genius.

B, here you go.

http://nucnews.net/2000/du/91du/910814wp.htm

Bob, I am critical of much of what Israel is doing in this conflict. Somethings which make tactical sense should have been eschewed for strategic reasons. They're screwing up.

I don't understand why so many here are insistent that this sad incident must have been intentional. I do question their motives.

The history of warfare is replete with foul-ups. "FUBAR" was not coined in civilian life.

We will do whatever it takes to win the GWOT.

Except, of course, enlist....

Except, of course, vote for someone who can win it.

Except, of course, stop worshipping plutocrats.

Except, of course, anything at all other than blind allegiance to authoritarian masters.

Folks interested in what the Canadian observer Maj Hess-von Kruedener actually wrote should read an email he wrote on the situation.

It's worth noting that they were neutral observers, unarmed. If Hezbollah, the Israelis, or cub scouts with peashooters wanted to set up nearby, there was very little they could do besides report the situation as best they could without violating their charter (they don't report individual positions or tactical information on either side.)

A few key quotes:

• Team Sierra is currently observing both IDF/IAF and Hezbollah military clashes from our vantage point which has a commanding view of the IDF positions on the Golan mountains to our east and the IDF positions along the Blue Line to our south, as well as, most of the Hezbollah static positions in and around our patrol Base. It appears that the lion's share of fighting between the IDF and Hezbollah has taken place in our area. On the night of 16 July, at 2125 hrs, a large firefight broke out between the Hezbollah and the IDF near a village called Majidyye and lasted for one hour and 40 minutes.
  
• Based on the intensity and volatility of this current situation and the unpredictability of both sides (Hezbollah and Israel), and given the operational tempo of the Hezbollah and the IDF, we are not safe to venture out to conduct our normal patrol activities. We have now switched to Observation Post Duties and are observing any and all violations as they occur.
  

This does mention "Hezbollah static positions in and around our patrol Base.", but in context to me I don't think it means "within our building".

Hess-von Kruedener does indicate in the more recent email that the bombing, while close, was not deliberately targeted, according to Major General Lewis MacKenzieMacKenzie. I hope this email gets posted in full as well, as well as call transcripts where they are available.

To me, it doesn't look like deliberate targeting - but it doesn't look like much care was taken either.

I should say that I by no means think that a call from UN observers would have been treated with the same urgency by the IDF as a call by one of their own units. That's certainly true. It would also be true of most militaries, including us. You take care of your own first.

We will do whatever it takes to win the GWOT.

What's this 'we' crap, white boy?

Hey, did we ever win the war on drugs?

The timeframe from acquisition to shooter is measured in at least hours if such targeting is passed through headquarters by any military besides ours (and even often with us). Aircraft tasking in Gulf War I took 48 hours. Fact.

Fact, eh? Then I'm sure you'll have no trouble providing a citation. Your assertions are simply not good enough.

Besides, we aren't talking the commencement of fire after acquisition: We're talking about calling off an attack, which the Israeli unit promised, several times over a period of hours, would be done.

And this is too rich! I wrote: "Whatever. Again, your assertions are unconvincing -- expecially as an excuse for the targeting of this UN post. Pony up some cites, or one couldn't be blamed for concluding you're talking theough your hat."

And you come back with:

Certainly. For a basic, but credible, layman's understanding, you could start by perusing Jane's. If you need a web-source on military technology and targeting protocols, begin with globalsecurity.org. but it's going to take you sometime.

Uh, I'm familiar those, duh. When you're asked to back up your assertions, it does you no credit to point to a source and say "it's in there somewhere." I would assume if you weren't talking through your hat -- and not about "military technology and targeting protocols" in general, of course, but about the IDF in particular -- it wouldn't take you "some time" to provide a link to back up tyour assertion. I note with interest that you have not done so.

It is speculation

Thanks for the admission.

but also the most likely explanation.

You have thus far failed to support that assertion.

Like I said, I don't think the post itself was shelled for several hours. The vicinity I'm sure was.

Exactly -- and the post called, repeatedly, to call off the fire. Frankly, I'm not very interested in your "speculation" of what might have happened. You've as much as admitted that you have no particular facts to back up your various assertions, which is certainly not persuasive in light of what is known.

Now: When someone as dishonest as "ex-liberal" uses ellipses, you know you have to be careful. And lo and behold, at the very source he/she/it cited:

UNITED NATIONS - The United Nations appeared to be caught in a contradiction Wednesday after the world body claimed there had been no Hezbollah activity in the vicinity of a peacekeeping base destroyed in an Israeli strike, killing four UN military observers, one of them Canadian.

An e-mail written by Maj. Paeta Hess-von Kruedener, identified Wednesday by Prime Minister Stephen Harper as the dead Canadian, reveals Hezbollah was extremely active in the days and weeks before.

Days and weeks...not even hours. There is no information to indicatie that Israel was responding to a specific threat.

Not surprisingly, "ex-liberal" omits other information:

A senior UN official, asked about the information contained in Hess-von Kruedener's e-mail concerning Hezbollah presence in the vicinity of the Khiam base, denied the world body had been caught in a contradiction.

"At the time, there had been no Hezbollah activity reported in the area," he said. "So it was quite clear they were not going after other targets; that, for whatever reason, our position was being fired upon.

"Whether or not they thought they were going after something else, we don't know. The fact was, we told them where we were. They knew where we were. The position was clearly marked, and they pounded the hell out of us."

So, "ex-liberal", did you have a point?

An article of interest as well, for "Not Intentional": The article says the UN bunker was struck by a precision-guided missile, not a shell.

It's worth noting that they were neutral observers, unarmed. If Hezbollah, the Israelis, or cub scouts with peashooters wanted to set up nearby, there was very little they could do besides report the situation as best they could without violating their charter (they don't report individual positions or tactical information on either side.)

Fides, what they could have done is to leave. When they demanded that Israel limit its attack, they were unintentionally helping to protect Hezbollah.

Fides, thanks for the link.

the money quote is this: "What I can tell you is this: we have on a daily basis had numerous occasions where our position has come under direct or indirect fire from both artillery and aerial bombing. The closest artillery has landed within 2 meters of our position and the closest 1000 lb aerial bomb has landed 100 meters from our patrol base. This has not been deliberate targeting, but has rather been due to tactical necessity."

The last sentence is the key one. In other words, Hezbollah was using the UN position as cover on numerous occasions.
There is not a PGM in the world with a CEP of under 2 meters (or even close to that).

NOT INTENTIONAL: so, negligence, sure.

Fides and Not Intentional seem to have described situation as it likely took place.

B, here you go.

http://nucnews.net/2000/du/91du/910814wp.htm

A bit of advice, "Not Intentional": If you want to be convincing, you have to do better than just throw out the first link a quick google search barfs out when asked to support your assertion.

I do give you credit that the link did discuss friendly fire. I also noted with interest that a number of the incidents appeared to involve mistaken identity and/or poor visibility conditions -- neither of which, of course, was the case regarding the UN post. And if there was any mention of a target issuing repeated please to call off the fire, I must have missed it.

Now, would you care to help me understand how your link is relevant to the UN post attack?

The Canadian UNIFIL observer killed by an Israeli airstrike was Major Paeta Hess-von Kruedener of Kingston, Ontario. A week ago he sent an email dispatch to CTV, a Canadian network, that reads in retrospect somewhat differently than when I first encountered it (before the strike).

In another CTV report, UNIFIL spokesman Milos Struger said that "UNIFIL had dispatched a rescue team which was trying to clear the rubble when it came under more fire from Israeli forces." The rescue team were Indians.

{Comment re-posted from the Eric Martin post at American Footprints linked by Kevin in the main post).

"Fact, eh? Then I'm sure you'll have no trouble providing a citation. Your assertions are simply not good enough."

For the 48 hour tasking in the Gulf War? Read any history of the Gulf War. Heck, just read Horner's book. Are you one of those kids that thinks that if it's not on the internet (which I'm sure it is) it doesn't exist?

"Besides, we aren't talking the commencement of fire after acquisition: We're talking about calling off an attack, which the Israeli unit promised, several times over a period of hours, would be done."

Bullshit. No one has asserted the unit doing the firing was contacted (how could it?).

"I would assume if you weren't talking through your hat -- and not about "military technology and targeting protocols" in general, of course, but about the IDF in particular -- it wouldn't take you "some time" to provide a link to back up tyour assertion."

You can find plenty of information specific to the IDF in Jane's or at globalsecurity.org. Its not my problem if you haven't read it.

"An article of interest as well, for "Not Intentional": The article says the UN bunker was struck by a precision-guided missile, not a shell."

Funny, I said exactly that several times above.
Interesting that you noted this but couldn't comprehend the point that even if an order reached the artillery unit to stop shelling that doesn't mean aviation assets were aware.
I've made this point how many times?

Could we drop the "Israel is committing genocide" thing?
RP, as far as I can tell, the only one to bring up genocide was "yep," as a straw man response to my suggestion that Israel is, in fact, commiting ethnic cleansing.

You didn't look very hard:

And Israel's goal in ...deliberate targeting" of a UN observation post in Lebanon....would be what?
To kill all observers so that genocide can be carried out without "credible" witnesses. Same motivation for bombing Beirut airport and the roads out of Lebanon. Posted by: Peter on July 27, 2006 at 12:23 PM | PERMALINK

Israel has now formally told civilians to get out of the war area
...
cmdicely: After doing everything possible to destroy their ability to do so.

civilians were warned days ago to leave bint Jbeil, and 18,000 out of 20,000 fled safely before the Israelis attacked.

I should say that I by no means think that a call from UN observers would have been treated with the same urgency by the IDF as a call by one of their own units.

There's little evidence the calls -- not "a call, thank you very much! -- from the UN observers were treated with any urgency at all.

In other words, Hezbollah was using the UN position as cover on numerous occasions.

Perhaps, but it has not been established that Hezbollah was using the UN post as cover on this occasion.

And, moreover, even if they were, it hardly explains Israel continuing to attack in the vicinity of this post despite the post's repeated please to stop.

Fides, thanks for the link. Very informative.

What I hope that the black helicopter crowd draws from the link is that the UN observers weren't "helping" Hizbullah, or relaying tactical information to Hizbullah, as has been alleged in this and other threads.

Note the nationalities of the UN observer teams based at Hess-von Kreudener's base: Aussies, Canadians, Irish, among quite a few others. US allies, folks. Not likely to be supporting the Hizbies at the expense of Israel.

Now about that One World Government...will we be able to trade our greenbacks for the universal currency?

" do give you credit that the link did discuss friendly fire. I also noted with interest that a number of the incidents appeared to involve mistaken identity and/or poor visibility conditions -- neither of which, of course, was the case regarding the UN post. And if there was any mention of a target issuing repeated please to call off the fire, I must have missed it."

The link served to contradict B's apparent assertion that ground force upon ground force friendly fire didn't happen in the Gulf War. There were 16 such instances.

"Now, would you care to help me understand how your link is relevant to the UN post attack?"

As I explained above, friendly fire is not strictly analogous to this particular instance. They are, however, indicative of how often communications errors happen in a modern military.

I have explained why it is makes no sense for Isreal to have intentionally killed UN personnel (note that India is an Israeli ally). I have also explained how it is all too plausible for this to have happened accidentally or negligently.

You, on the other hand, seem only interested in arguing from a position of ignorance for the sake of argumentation. You also seem very young since you think that sources must be on the web.
I'm sure you will be delighted to have the last word and you may have it. I hope that my insights may have been of use to those with a modicum of objectivity.

In the Gulf War, the British had more killed in friendly fire incidents than by Iraqis.

Correct, I saw it in the National Post, a Canadian news source; I get most of my news over
the web, from quiet a wide array of sources.

Now I am really baffled. This struck me as a very reliable source. A Canadian general repeats a 'battle' report from one of the soldiers killed that Hezbollah was all over their position and you choose to ignore it. you choose to believe the worse about Israel.

Why did you ignore this report?

For the 48 hour tasking in the Gulf War? Read any history of the Gulf War. Heck, just read Horner's book. Are you one of those kids that thinks that if it's not on the internet (which I'm sure it is) it doesn't exist?

Ah...so your assertions about Israel's targetign acquisition protocols are based on American capability from ten years ago. Gotcha.

But all I assert doesnt' excist if your ability to provide evidence to back up your assertions.

Bullshit. No one has asserted the unit doing the firing was contacted (how could it?).

You miss the point. You talk about time from acquisition of target to delivering fire. In this case, the so-called target was already acquired, and the attack was not -- despite repeated assurances -- called off. So I call your assertions irrelevant.

You can find plenty of information specific to the IDF in Jane's or at globalsecurity.org. Its not my problem if you haven't read it.

Ah...so you respond to my noting that you failed to provide specific information to back up your assertions by...again, failing to provide specific information to back up your assertions, pointing to the general source, and asserting that it's "my problem" if I haven't read it.

Au contraire, my friend. The only one with a sourcing problem seems to be you. I wondered if you could back up your assertins. Your answer, obviously, is no. Duly noted.

Interesting that you noted this but couldn't comprehend the point that even if an order reached the artillery unit to stop shelling that doesn't mean aviation assets were aware.
I've made this point how many times?

Then why all the song and dance about counterbattery fire? The bottom line is, you don't know whether "an order reached the artillery unit to stop shelling" or if "aviation assets were aware." It's increasingly clear that you're just pulling your information out of your hat. And even now, you have produced nothing convincing to explain the circumstances under which the UN post was shelled, backing your self-admitted "speculation" with not a single relevant fact.

republicrat: Because the Hizbollah were using the UN post for cover.
...
Gregory: And this fact obligated Israel to attack, despite the UN's warning's, exactly how?

It's a part of the story omitted in Kevin's post. There are disputed claims about exactly how close to the UN post the Hizbollah were, and over what duration of time Hizbollah used the UN post as cover. The UN report on which Kofi Annan based his accusation that the attack was "deliberate" was, by its own admission, "preliminary".

Except, of course, enlist....

We should all do that which we do best. Take for example Dick Cheney. Would you rather have him in uniform or cracking the whip making sure GWBs policies are getting impliment?

I take it this is a rift on the braindead 'chickenhawk' theme. Did your mama ever wear combat boots? It is pure dumb. It's also useless. I am too old to enlist and I already did my 3 years. Even if I got 125 deferments I'd still be a hawk.

What's this 'we' crap, white boy?

The GOP.

Hey, did we ever win the war on drugs?

I did. I have 4 kids and 3 are adults. None were ever involved with drugs. I have two son-in-laws and 3 grand-children. No drug use. I won my war.

Not Intentional -

There is not a PGM in the world with a CEP of under 2 meters (or even close to that).

When a bomb hits within two meters of a position, I'm sure it doesn't mean within two meters of a point centroid but within two meters of their bunker/observation post, which likely has a radius of a good deal more than two meters.

From everything I've read, it seems clear to me that Hezbollah was likely, at some points at least, using proximity to the U.N. observation point to protect themselves, and had been at least off and on over an extended period.

I don't think anyone has been defending them on this behavior, it's wrong.

And I don't think anyone would blame the Isrealis for returning fire on a position, although they should still exercise reasonable judgement if they wish to keep the moral high ground.

Nothing has indicated that the Hezbollah fighters were attacking civilian positions from the area, although I suppose it is possible that some of the arms caches included missiles to be launched elsewhere. Clearly, there may well have been legitimate targets in the vicinity of the observation base.

But, in the end, a well established neutral observational bunker was destroyed by a precision guided munition from an airplane, after repeated calls to the Isreali military on earlier shelling had produced promises that the shelling would stop. It was a direct hit, and all four observers were killed. It was not a mis-targeted shell.

We don't know what the pilots orders were - was it to target apparent hard positions in the area or to hit that particular bunker? Had the pilot been informed of the Bunkers existance, location, and description, and that it was not to be targeted? "U.N." was painted on the building in large letters, but reading them at 700+ miles per hour from miles away and an arbitrary angle is not realistic.

I don't think we can say this was intentional - but I also don't think we can say it wasn't. It depends on a lot of facts we just don't know yet. It depends on what orders did or did not get conveyed, and at what levels.

But it is clear that if it wasn't intentional, it was a big, big, mistake. Yes, (to respond to another poster), Israel is likely to protect its own before others, but I'd be willing to bet this incident will demostrate the weakness in that philosophy - the reduction in world support may cost them more than a few soldiers before this thing is over.

Whether negligent or intentional, being in any way careless with the lives of neutrals and civilians makes enemies and drives away friends. A potential solution to this mess was bringing in a multinational force to enforce a buffer zone. Nations that would have considered doing this before no doubt were aware of Hezbollah's violent tendencies, but wouldn't have worried as much about the Israelis. Now, in addition to looking out for street level suicide bombers, they'll be watching the skies for much tougher to stop precion guided munitions.

I'd be willing to bet fewer nations will be willing to commit their sons and daughters to that.

And thus, the war will go on longer, and more civilians will die, and more bad feelings will be created.

And why do I care more about what Isreal does than Hezbollah?

Well, partly because I suppose I've written off Hezbollah as amoral )#*$. I've known a lot of Lebanese, however, that were fine people, and I hate seeing the crossfire that they're in.

I also care because it's quite possible I paid for that bomb. I pay a good deal of U.S. taxes, and those taxes do pay for, in part, precision guided munitions to Israel. I care whom my money kills.

Now I am really baffled. This struck me as a very reliable source. A Canadian general repeats a 'battle' report from one of the soldiers killed that Hezbollah was all over their position and you choose to ignore it.

No, I assumed it was true as far as it went: that as of two days prior, Hezbollah forces had been located there.

It doesn't change anything related to the immediate circumstances of the incident.

The link served to contradict B's apparent assertion that ground force upon ground force friendly fire didn't happen in the Gulf War. There were 16 such instances.

So we can say that ground force upon ground force friendly fire rarely happened in the Gulf War. Of course, the UN post was apparently not destroyed by ground forces, so the relevance of this fact is unclear.

As I explained above, friendly fire is not strictly analogous to this particular instance. They are, however, indicative of how often communications errors happen in a modern military.

I'd go further than that: It isn't remotely analogous to the current instance. There is no question of the Israelis being unaware of the UN post's position, no allegation that a communication error caused the attack -- and, I might add, ample evidence that the UN post did communicate with the Israelis -- no imdication that the identified UN based was identified as an enemy unit, no case of reduced visibility -- in short, no grounds whatsoever for claiming that they're analogous save for the fact that neutral parties, if not friendlies, were attacked.

I have also explained how it is all too plausible for this to have happened accidentally or negligently

No, you haven't -- at least not plausibly. Which doesn't mean that the incident wasn't negligent -- and, really, implying as you did that "accidentally" is a possibility is really stretching even your tattered credibility -- simply that you haven't mustered a convincing explanation.

You, on the other hand, seem only interested in arguing from a position of ignorance for the sake of argumentation.

I wouldn't characterize pointing out the inconsistencies in your, ah, speculation with the known facts, and insisting that you produce evidence to back up your assertions, as such -- unless I was dishonest, that is.

You also seem very young since you think that sources must be on the web.

I wouldn't make straw man argumnts about what someone "seems to think" -- unless I were dishonest.

I might also point out that even when you cited sources on the Web, you failed to indicate anything whatsoever to support your contentions.

I hope that my insights may have been of use to those with a modicum of objectivity.

Hope all you like, but you have failed to demonstrate why your so-called "insights" are of any uise whatsoever -- as you seem to acknowledge with your tacit, and dishonest, implication that anyone reaching the obvious conclusion for someone who fails to support his or assertion is not "objective."

The whole clan is just high on life.

The link served to contradict B's apparent assertion that ground force upon ground force friendly fire didn't happen in the Gulf War. There were 16 such instances.

That would have been a ridiculous thing to assert. That interpretation of my comments in sum (not just a single sentence) indicates you're either dishonest or an idiot.

The warthog incidents are simply as close to the UN incident as I could find. You apparently can't find anything closer.

Would you rather have him in uniform or cracking the whip making sure GWBs policies are getting impliment?

In uniform.

Preferably an orange jumpsuit with a serious of numbers across the chest.

It's a part of the story omitted in Kevin's post.

Irony alert: "republicrat" contending that key information was omitted to make a point.

There are disputed claims about exactly how close to the UN post the Hizbollah were, and over what duration of time Hizbollah used the UN post as cover.

Indeed -- not a one of which explains the circumstances of the Israeli attack. Nor, of course, is there any information on whether Hezbollah was present at the time of the attack, or if so, why Israel chose to continue the attack despite the pleas from the UN to stop the bombardment.

The UN report on which Kofi Annan based his accusation that the attack was "deliberate" was, by its own admission, "preliminary".

Indeed...and the preliminary report is still plenty damning -- on grounds of sheer incompetence if nothing else -- irrespective of the presence of Hezbollah in the vicinity in the past.

indicates you're either dishonest or an idiot

wait a minute. . . tbrosz? tbrosz!!! welcome back!!

Just like old times. Smugness, strawman arguments, changing goal posts . . . But where are the prolific links?

republicrat: Because the Hizbollah were using the UN post for cover.
...
Gregory: And this fact obligated Israel to attack, despite the UN's warning's, exactly how?

It's a part of the story omitted in Kevin's post. There are disputed claims about exactly how close to the UN post the Hizbollah were, and over what duration of time Hizbollah used the UN post as cover. The UN report on which Kofi Annan based his accusation that the attack was "deliberate" was, by its own admission, "preliminary".

OK, so republicrat, why don't you BEGIN your conversation on this site with the even-toned discussion about "disputed claims" and "preliminary" accusations, instead of launching into full-blown assertions of Hizbollah's positioning inside the UN refridgerator? Must the conservatives on this site get their teeth kicked in every time before making rational, fact-based claims?

Oh, my, yes! What a great cartoon! Of course, in the real world, it is Lebanese babies who are dying, not Israeli.

That's not true. Terrorist often seek the youngest and most innocent jews to kill. FoxNews played a clip not too long ago about a female terrorists who actually looked for a baby carriage with twins to blow up. That's what she did. She took a brother and the father. The mother had gone ot the bathroom. She now travels to remind us of their level of degradation.

This is what is so repulsive about the moral equivalence at the heart of liberal ideology and a reason why these types of discussions are so politically damaging to liberals.

1st off note the cartoon received much wider circulation than the Washington Post could ever hope to provide. It was so accurate it was picked up by the conservative blogs, fox and the rest.

This discussion higlights the fact while some liberals will say they support Israel because it is politically expedient to do so they really despise the Israeli's. Cmdicely is the perfect example but Kofi is even better. Both immediately believed the worst about Israel as they always do about America. Both knew the evidence wasn't in but got their exercvise leaping to grand conclusions.

For cmdicely to do so is harmless. Kofi is a different matter. Foxnews will run with this puppy for weeks or as long as it lasts because it proves the point the UN is reflexively anti-sementic. Kofi will always accept whatever scenario places the US or Israel in the worst possible light. The evidence doesn't matter. He could not get to the canmera's to blast Israel fast enough. It's almost as if he stationed those men there hoping this would happen.

There are two political problems here. While Chuck Schumer will try and stick a sock in any Democrats mouth who tries to use this to trash Israel Chuck doesn't have that many socks. Dean or some other clown will trash Israel and the GOP will trash the democrats for trashing Israel.

The 2nd is lessor but still a positive for conservatives. We've like to destroy the UN. GWb has been amazing. Just when you think public opinion for the UN can't sink any lower they do. In this area Kofi Annan has been a gift from God. The clip of Kofi's breath;ess accusations will serve as another permanent reminder of his incompetence and anti-sementism as well as that of the institution.

It's just something else to bang home.

In uniform.

Preferably an orange jumpsuit with a serious of numbers across the chest.

Now that's funny!!

I take it Fitzmas was a disappointment?

Smugness, strawman arguments, changing goal posts . . . But where are the prolific links?

Now, now, smugness, strawman arguments, and changing goal posts are hardly exclusive to ol' tbrosz. Given that it's impossible to defend the mendacity, incompetence and copprution of this Administraion with honest debate, they're essential tools for the Bush Cultists. ;)

Wow,rdw, you won the war on drugs?? By yourself?

You really think your little darlings would tell you if they were smoking weed? Suuuuure they would.

Newsflash to rdw: you can get ANY drug you want in ANY town USA at ANY time of the day.

Doesn't sound like much of a victory to me, but as long as you got yours, I guess screw everyone else.

Also I was unaware the GOP by themselves are fighting the war on terra. I guess that includes tough soliders like Cliff May at the National Retards who equates his pounding of the keys to being a soldier on the ground.

Please enlighten me on how you think this can ever be won. And don't say kill em all, that's not an optional rational people use

Newsflash to rdw: you can get ANY drug you want in ANY town USA at ANY time of the day.

If you read rdw's delusional posts, Dave, you'd surmise that he already knows that. ;)

No, I assumed it was true as far as it went: that as of two days prior, Hezbollah forces had been located there.

It doesn't change anything related to the immediate circumstances of the incident.

You just reinforced everything I believe about self-loathing liberals. I can't imagine why you are so quick to think the worst of Israeli and Americam soldiers. Kofi has accused israeli airmen of butchering 4 unarmed, innocent, harmless UN obsevers in cold-blood. Absent hard proof, and that's impossible at this point, that is an incredibly loathesome thing to do.

It's also incredibly stupid. There wasn't even the pretense of objectivity from the man or the institution but even if there was this incident would destroy it. Instead it just reinforces the man's gross incompetence.

If this report is accurate it in fact changes everything in supporting the fact Hezbollah was actively using the site and the Jews had every reason to be shoting in the area. In fact if this report is accurate it's ALL the jews need to justify their actions.

If this report is accurate it in fact changes everything in supporting the fact Hezbollah was actively using the site...

...2 days previously...

...and the Jews had every reason to be shoting in the area.

At the time Hezbollah was using the site. It doesn't contradict the statements that Hezbollah was not using the site at the time of the attack.

And, um, "Israelis", not "Jews". The two terms are not interchangeable.

If you read rdw's delusional posts, Dave, you'd surmise that he already knows that.

Duh, of course I know that. I also know our prisons are overleaded with drug cases and liberals are very, very upset about that.

If some poor innocent housewife has a pound of weed she should not be in jail for dealing. That is just so unfair! It's those rotten repubicans!

Yep! that's me! If the dumb b*tch wants to do the crime they can do the time. They can't possible smoke a pound so they're dealing. If they're dealing lockem up and throw away the key.

If we have too many in jail then by all means let's do something. Let's build more jails.

I didn't say or suggest my kids were not exposed to drugs. They're in every high school in the land. Just like they were in 68 - 71 when I was in HS. I understand the quality is much, much better.

I am proud my family, I have 3 siblings and my wife 7, has navigated these waters successfully. There are 26 grandchildren plus many spouses and none had drug issues.

I am actually fairly liberal in my views until it gets to the dealer level. They do serious time. If they get caught again they get life.

Regarding tasking timelines:

On day four of the conflict, I saw a report on CBS from a correspondent embedded in a Israeli mobile artillery unit. For brevity, I will capsulize.

Rockets were heard flying overhead heading toward Israel. About two minutes later, the unit commander received a cell phone call giving him coordinance of the target. About two minutes after that came a call confirming target info and giving clearance to fire, which happened a few moments later.

I do not know what side of this “discussion” is helped by this. This is just what was reported.

Not Intentional -- I agree that this was probably an unintentional screw-up. However, I think you underestimate Israel's ability to acquire and strike targets of opportunity, and their real-time intelligence and tasking capabilities--especially integration with UAV/RPV assets--as was amply demonstrated in the early 80's (see, e.g., here), which opened a few eyes in the US military. OTOH, more traditional (and not-so-real-time) means and methods appear to be SOP in Lebanon (see, e.g., here).

Regarding tasking timelines:

On day four of the conflict, I saw a report on CBS from a correspondent embedded in a Israeli mobile artillery unit. For brevity, I will capsulize.

Rockets were heard flying overhead heading toward Israel. About two minutes later, the unit commander received a cell phone call giving him coordinance of the target. About two minutes after that came a call confirming target info and giving clearance to fire, which happened a few moments later.

I do not know what side of this “discussion” is helped by this. This is just what was reported.

"...it proves the point the UN is reflexively anti-sementic. Kofi will always accept whatever scenario places the US or Israel in the worst possible light."

C'mon, rdw, you know that you want to call him "Kaffir," don't you?

rdw:

Kofi accused Israel of "apparently" butchering 4 unarmed, innocent, harmless UN observers in cold-blood. Hardly any better.

Not intentional says:

even if an order reached the artillery unit to stop shelling that doesn't mean aviation assets were aware.

So your assertions boil down to that the IDF is incompentent. If Israel doesn't have effective command and control of its forces, it has no business putting them into the field.

JEWS RUN WORLDS LARGEST CONCENTRATION CAMPS.

Both the Gaza concentration camp and the West Bank concentration camp come complete with guard-towers, machine gun emplacements, electrified fences, etc.

"Yes we have to lock the Jews up for the protection of Germany. These vicious Jew killers, especially the Communists, have repeatedly killed German soldiers and civilians and bombed everything from train tracks to Gestapo units. The Jews are like a disease, we lock them in concentration camps so that they can not infect the German population. The German people need protection from these scum." B. Hitler.

NOT INTENTIONAL: Kofi accused Israel of "apparently" butchering 4 unarmed, innocent, harmless UN observers in cold-blood.

The shitty little country has a history of bombing the United Nations.

Remember Qana, Lebanon, April 18, 1996?

They massacred some hundred or so people that time. Stupid Jews.

Pictures of the Israeli/Jew massacre of Lebanese at the United Nations compound at Qana, Lebanon.

Regarding tasking timelines:

On day four of the conflict, I saw a report on CBS from a correspondent embedded in a Israeli mobile artillery unit. For brevity, I will capsulize.

Rockets were heard flying overhead heading toward Israel. About two minutes later, the unit commander received a cell phone call giving him coordinance of the target. About two minutes after that came a call confirming target info and giving clearance to fire, which happened a few moments later.

I do not know what side of this “discussion” is helped by this. This is just what was reported.

mhr, you make a good case for why Israel would have intentionally attacked the UN post.

"The UN is on the same road traveled by the League of Nations, brought on by irrelevance."

Exactly. Couldn't have said it better myself. The nations of the world don't deserve to have a forum where they can negotiate, communicate, attempt to work together to solve issues that are of global relevance. Shut it down. 'Cause we said so.

We don't like the UN, man. And that Kofi guy...well, he's an elitist, multilingual...uh, African. Librul. (But he's pretty damn articulate, I'll give him that.) Wants to run the world under a single government. World police.

Who do you suppose supplies him with those black helicopters, hmmm?

It doesn't contradict the statements that Hezbollah was not using the site at the time of the attack.

But it contradicts assertions of the blame Israel 1st crowd that israel had no reason to be shooting. We don't know what was happening on the ground at that moment but any reasonable person could see the real possibility Hezbollah was there.

Your problem, and the political problem, is that you immediately assumed Israel was quilty of henious war crimes without bothering to hear all of the evidence.

This will not go away even if Israel made a mistake.

And, um, "Israelis", not "Jews". The two terms are not interchangeable.

As a matter of precision no but as a practical matter was there any doubt as to which side I was referring to?

But it contradicts assertions of the blame Israel 1st crowd that israel had no reason to be shooting.

Really? So Israel had a reason to bomb unarmed UN observers two days after Hez left the area? Do explain this further, please.

Dear Gregory (AKA non-member of the reality based community),
I dont think that you realize that ethnic clensing and genocide are the same thing. The only reason for the term is that when the US govt refers to something as Genocide, they are legally obliged to do something about it; when they refer to it as 'ethnic clensing' they dont have to act. What exactly do you think ethnic clensing is? something you do with pine sol?

Hezbollah is deliberately targeting civilians, a war crime, based on their ethnicity (call it what you will, ethnic clensing, genocide attempted ethnic clensing) whatever. It is exactly their intent to do what you accuse Israel of. But you choose to spend your time attacking Israel.

Clearly you have never been to war, served in uniform or ever watched a movie that portrays war, but it isnt pretty and it is not common for everything to go as planned. Quite the contrary.

The civil and political infrastructure that has been destroyed have been dual use. Yes, civilians use them, but so does Hezbollah. You need to prevent more missiles from entering the area, what would YOU do.

And I asked you that before, but all you can say is what Israel SHOULDNT do. Why dont you tell me what you would do if you headed Israel and rockets were raining down on civilians. How would you stop them? Would you go after them? Would you prevent them from getting reinforcements? Or would you cry and complain that Hezbollah is not playing fair and there is nothing you can do without risking civilian lives. If you say the latter, you are not in the reality community.

And yes, I am claiming that Israel lacks the capability to place an ordinance on a target in a short amount of time every time they try without missing. And I am also claiming that someone might have made a mistake and called in the wrong target. Are you claiming that no US soldier has ever been killed by a US soldier inadvertantly?

Again, you seem to be holding this nation of one specific religion/ethnicity to a different standard than the rest of the world. Why would that be?

I know it would be great for you to fantacize that Israel is all powerful and everyone is helpless around them, but it simply isnt true. Yes, Israel makes mistakes, but so does every nation. You can make up a motive that Israel wanted to kill UN observers for some crazy reason, but the most logical explanation is that it was a mistake.

Hezbollah is deliberately targeting civilians, a war crime, based on their ethnicity

What escapes the brains of wingnuts like yep is that these war crimes by Hez are in retaliation for the war crimes committed by Israel against Lebanese civs, which were in retaliation for a Hez military operation against Israel.

Let me state that again. Israel retaliated against a military operation by killing Lebanese civs.

Not only did Israel start targeting civs, they are way ahead some 400:18.

For bloodthirsty bigots such as yep to excuse the Israeli war crimes as "mistakes" would be funny if it wasn't so disgusting.

mhr: In the six years that Kofi's blue-helmeted observers have been in southern Lebanon, there have been no reports to him that Hezbollah was being supplied missiles. 13,000 of them

They are the blue-helmeted observers of every member of the UN, mhr. Because their presence is authorized by the Security Council, they are the blue-helmeted observers of every member of the security council, including the United States.

Please support your assertion that there have been no reports to the UN of Hezbollah being supplied missiles. If true, I wonder how you come to know the number of them...

Disputo, you are still acting like they are intentionally killing civilians. For the fun of it. WHAT PURPOSE DOES THAT SERVE???

You can call Israel's response harsh, but to say they are diliberately targeting civilians is nuts. Mistakes happen in war. It sucks. Every effort should be made to protect civilians and whether or not Israel is doing everything they can is not something I have taken a position on. But they are certainly intending to.

DID you just justify Hezbollah's crimes by saying tit-for-tat? Are you crazy?

And did you call me a bigot? For calling out a prick who was defending the targeting of civilians based on their ethnicity?

Up is down, black is white with you... I know a party where your logic will be very welcome. I hope you like elephants.

OK, so republicrat, why don't you BEGIN your conversation on this site with the even-toned discussion about "disputed claims" and "preliminary" accusations, instead of launching into full-blown assertions of Hizbollah's positioning inside the UN refridgerator? Must the conservatives on this site get their teeth kicked in every time before making rational, fact-based claims?

Captain, that's the way I began on this topic in a related thread yesterday.

Yep, I called you a bigot because you are a bigot.

You continue to prove it over and over again with your double standard that allows you to conclude that Hez is commiting war crimes while Israel is simply making "mistakes" for doing the exact same thing.

If you were a bigot in the other direction, you would be asserting that Hez is making mistakes in their attempts to hit military targets while Israel is the only one commiting war crimes.

The tragedy is that both types of bigots are killing innocents instead of just each other.

Btw, what I love most about yep's insane logic is that the fact that Israel is killing civs 400:18 over Hez is taken as evidence that Israel is not targeting civs, but merely being "harsh".

That's a new one. Yep deserves to have that fallacy named after him.

But yep's illogic is trumped by the Israeli general who complained that Hez was winning the propaganda war because they do not release the number of their soldiers killed.

mhr: In the six years that Kofi's blue- helmeted observers have been in southern Lebanon, there have been no reports to him that Hezbollah was being supplied missiles

Don't read much, do you? While there hasn't been a "smoking gun" report from UNIFIL, UNTSO or UNDOF (see, e.g., here), you don't need to read between the lines to understand that Hezbollah was being supplied and stockpiling in Southern Lebanon (NB: report S/2004/50). BTW, those "blue-helmented observers" have been there a lot longer than "six years".

In any case, it's not UNIFIL's mandate to keep track of Hezbollah, but to try and maintain (with very limited means) and observe the cease-fire along the Blue Line and return Lebanese government sovereignty to the area. Just as it's not UNDOF's mandate to disarm Israel or Syria, but simply try and enforce/observe the cease-fire in the Golan Heights.

You want something more than that, take it up with Bolton et. al. and the folks who could provide funding and forces for a more substantive mission.

The following is a column by Meron Benevisti in Haaretz. He's talking about Israel but it sounds eerily like the U.S./Iraq:

The turnabout will come quickly

By Meron Benvenisti

http://www.haaretz.com/hasen/spages/742762.html

No one can predict when the reversal will come, when all the experts will begin competing for first place in revealing the failures of the war: mistaken strategy, political dilettantism and shooting from the hip; the weakness disguised as courageous determination; the illusions, arrogance and boasting; the addiction to an impulse of revenge; the cruelty and the lack of moral inhibitions.

But the manipulators and the self-declared heroes should not delude themselves, nor should the naive, or those who are drunk with patriotism or those who consider themselves experts: the moment will arrive more quickly than they imagine and within a short while everyone will be hiding behind the pose of "we told you so" when they know which way the wind is blowing.

That is when all the declarations, the assessments and the excuses - that could be uttered and written only in an atmosphere of lack of critical skepticism that prevails when a "state of war" is declared - will be revealed.

It is only in an atmosphere of this kind that serious people can justify the destruction of a country on the grounds that they "are helping its government in this way" to gain the upper hand over Hezbollah - a kind of variation on the theme of "the raped woman actually enjoyed herself." It is only in an atmosphere of this kind that a well-bred person can be glad that the lack of American pressure to stop the bombings makes it possible to continue the killing and destruction.

Only reliance on patriotic emotions, which cloud any rational thinking, makes it possible to state without shame - after many days of multi-casualty pounding and the inexplicable destruction of an airport, highway interchanges, power stations and entire neighborhoods - that actually this activity was in vain, since it was known in advance that the bombs could not achieve their objectives and that a massive ground invasion was unavoidable.

Only people who unabashedly exploit primitive urges allow themselves to personalize the war and focus it on the annihilation of their enemy, Hassan Nasrallah. Only those who are convinced the war will bring down a smoke screen over any cynical or hypocritical act can brag that they are assisting in an international humanitarian activity after they themselves brought about the catastrophe.

No one is able to predict the minute when the opposition to the war and the bloodshed turns from an act of betrayal into a legitimate and even correct stance; when a moral condemnation of the war's evil effects becomes acceptable from a patriotic point of view and when slogans like "uprooting terror," "a war for our homes," "an existential struggle" and their like, turn from resonant war-cries into empty rhetoric.

No one can predict this, but experience teaches us that the turnabout from patriotic criticism to rational behavior based on moral norms occurs sooner or later, sometimes within weeks or months and sometimes after a generation. It seems that in the current outbreak of violence, the change will come very quickly; its conduct, objectives and results do not encourage too much enthusiasm and it has not even been granted the title of "war" since those who waged it are not sure if they want to commemorate it among the state's official wars or if they believe it would perhaps be better to forget it.

They cannot allow themselves to think that all should know their assessments were incorrect, and therefore they will seek a "victory" that will justify all the loss of life and destruction, and the very need for such a victory will merely prolong the suffering and bereavement. The public that supports them will have difficulty demanding soul-searching of them since the tribal solidarity will protect the political and military leaders.

Very soon everything will return to what it was before - apart from those who sacrificed their lives and those who were killed in the shellings and bombings. And the major loser will be the people of Israel who, by an unmeasured reaction to a provocation, established their position as a foreign element in the region, as the neighborhood bully, the object of impotent hatred.

Yep --
actually Hizbullah is not targeting civilians by ethnicity. Their rockets are completely indiscriminate and have killed atleast 3 Arabs (2 of them children in Nazareth). Yet the children's mother still blamed the Israelis for their deaths.

To say that civilians are not being targeted by Israel when their deaths are the logical outcome of where they drop their bombs, which has included apartment blocks and cars on the road, is like saying the bombs are designed to destroy buildings and cars only; it's unfortunate that there were civilians in them at the time.

Hizbullah's killing is unspecific, indiscriminate murder. The Israeli's is specific and targeted. I don't think that makes it better, do you?

Yep --
actually Hizbullah is not targeting civilians by ethnicity. Their rockets are completely indiscriminate and have killed atleast 3 Arabs (2 of them children in Nazareth). Yet the children's mother still blamed the Israelis for their deaths.

To say that civilians are not being targeted by Israel when their deaths are the logical outcome of where they drop their bombs, which has included apartment blocks and cars on the road, is like saying the bombs are designed to destroy buildings and cars only; it's unfortunate that there were civilians in them at the time.

Hizbullah's killing is unspecific, indiscriminate murder. The Israeli's is specific and targeted. I don't think that makes it better, do you?

Sorry for the repeat. I got a "page not found" message.

Whether intentional or not, what's clear is that Israel didn't care at the time to make it a priority.

Negligence is no defense, since still criminal.

disputo:
Where are the rockets going: houses

DO YOU THINK THAT ISRAEL IS INTENTIONALLY TRYING TO KILL WOMEN AND CHILDREN?

Look in a mirror if you want to see a bigot

Notthere:
Hizbullah is trying to kill civilians. They are not aiming rockets at military targets. As a result they are hitting civilian targets

Israel is trying to kill Hizbullah. They are aiming at military targets. As a horrible side effect for war, civilians are getting killed.

Are you and greg and disputo saying the US is responsible for genocide in Iraq? Was the US responsible for genocide in WWII?

I did not see the report about the arab mother. It is very sad that she doesnt blame the person who shot the rocket. By your/her logic, however, doesnt that mean that Hizbullah is then responsible for all the deaths in Lebanon?

Targeted is not the same as an unintended result. Yes it sucks. Yes, it is horrible that civilians are dying. If there is anything that could be done to minimize/stop their deaths and still defend against rockets it should be done.

I dont think anyone's death is better. I do think that intent is very important, especially when people are throwing around the word genocide. DO YOU BELIEVE THAT ISRAEL IS INTENTIONALLY TARGETING TARGETING CIVILIANS??? Do you believe that they are going out of their way to shoot women and children? Or do you believe that those deaths are unintended consequences.

The way you answer that question says more about your own bigotry when you attribute to people sub-human motivations than anything else.

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

"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."

THis was written by Maj. Hess-von Kruedener, the Canadian who was killed in the bombing. Read over the last sentence: "This has not been deliberate targeting, but rather due to tactical necessity."

Israel has a reputation for destroying anybody who sees somthing they shouldn't. In 1967 they attached and nearly sank the USS Liberty at the beginning of the 6 day war, because the US ship documented them slaughtering surrendering egyptian citizens and troops. 34 US servicemen died and 174 were wonded.

All I can say is the Un Observers probably saw somthing the shouldent have. Phosphorous perhaps?

Israel has a reputation for destroying anybody who sees somthing they shouldn't. In 1967 they attached and nearly sank the USS Liberty at the beginning of the 6 day war, because the US ship documented them slaughtering surrendering egyptian citizens and troops. 34 US servicemen died and 174 were wonded.

All I can say is the Un Observers probably saw somthing the shouldent have. Phosphorous perhaps?

http://www.ussliberty.org

Israel has a reputation for destroying anybody who sees somthing they shouldn't. In 1967 they attached and nearly sank the USS Liberty at the beginning of the 6 day war, because the US ship documented them slaughtering surrendering egyptian citizens and troops. 34 US servicemen died and 174 were wonded.

All I can say is the Un Observers probably saw somthing the shouldent have. Phosphorous perhaps?

http://www.ussliberty.org

Israel has a reputation for destroying anybody who sees somthing they shouldn't. In 1967 they attached and nearly sank the USS Liberty at the beginning of the 6 day war, because the US ship documented them slaughtering surrendering egyptian citizens and troops. 34 US servicemen died and 174 were wonded.

All I can say is the Un Observers probably saw somthing the shouldent have. Phosphorous perhaps?

http://www.ussliberty.org

Israel has a reputation for destroying anybody who sees somthing they shouldn't. In 1967 they attached and nearly sank the USS Liberty at the beginning of the 6 day war, because the US ship documented them slaughtering surrendering egyptian citizens and troops. 34 US servicemen died and 174 were wonded.

All I can say is the Un Observers probably saw somthing the shouldent have. Phosphorous perhaps?

http://www.ussliberty.org

Israel has a reputation for destroying anybody who sees somthing they shouldn't. In 1967 they attached and nearly sank the USS Liberty at the beginning of the 6 day war, because the US ship documented them slaughtering surrendering egyptian citizens and troops. 34 US servicemen died and 174 were wonded.

All I can say is the Un Observers probably saw somthing the shouldent have. Phosphorous perhaps?

http://www.ussliberty.org

Israel has a reputation for destroying anybody who sees somthing they shouldn't. In 1967 they attached and nearly sank the USS Liberty at the beginning of the 6 day war, because the US ship documented them slaughtering surrendering egyptian citizens and troops. 34 US servicemen died and 174 were wonded.

All I can say is the Un Observers probably saw somthing the shouldent have. Phosphorous perhaps?

http://www.ussliberty.org

Israel has a reputation for destroying anybody who sees somthing they shouldn't. In 1967 they attached and nearly sank the USS Liberty at the beginning of the 6 day war, because the US ship documented them slaughtering surrendering egyptian citizens and troops. 34 US servicemen died and 174 were wonded.

All I can say is the Un Observers probably saw somthing the shouldent have. Phosphorous perhaps?

http://www.ussliberty.org

yep--
I don't know WHO the fuck Israel is targeting, but they sure as hell are mostly hitting civilians. And yet, knowing this fact, they continue to operate in the exact same manner.

So, uh, yes, I'd say that counts as 'deliberately" killing civilians. To put a finer point on it, though, I guess you could say that they don't care all that much about whether they hit civilians or UN observers. They don't care, because they know the UN or USA won't do anything about either situation. So maybe that doesn't mean pure "intention", but really what's the difference?

And of course, you could say the same thing for Hizbollah. I'm sure they'd love to have more accurate rockets that they could use to actually pinpoint their attacks better. But guess what? They don't. So they use what they have, follow their normal procedures. Just like the Israelis. In both cases, its not so much that killing civilians (as opposed to military men) is the "goal" (the "goal" is to achieve their political objectives), but rather that neither side really cares if such civilians are killed.

@Yep:

A week later, Maj. Hess-von Kruedener and the other members of the UNTSO oberver unit at the Khiam post were calling their Israeli liaison repeatedly during the afternoon and evening of the day they were killed, letting them know that the shelling was too close and not due to tactical necessity.

The Khiam observation post had been there for years and years; it was a permanent fixture whose coordinates should have been off-limits to any loitering plane with the authorization to take out Hezbollah units.

Maj. H-vK's email makes clear he knew the difference between shelling that had a tactical purpose and shelling that threatened his post for no good reason. It is up to the IDF and IAF to explain what led to the attacks that threatened and ultimately cost the lives of four UN observers.

"I don't for a minute believe that Israel deliberately targeted the UN"

Why NOT. The nutcases have done it before.

The shitty little country has a history of bombing the United Nations.

Remember Qana, Lebanon, April 18, 1996?

They massacred some hundred or so people that time. Stupid Jews.

Pictures of the Israeli/Jew massacre of Lebanese at the United Nations compound at Qana, Lebanon.

Yep,

Let’s just for the hell of it pretend that your purported factual statements are essentially correct.

Nonetheless, despite Israel’s justness and military efficiency this action is aborting much of the goodwill that workaday Lebanese had felt toward Israel. The destruction wrought by the IDF is radicalizing the general Lebanese population. The seeds planted here will bare a bitter fruit.

After the Battle of the Alamo, Santa Anna was congratulated on his victory. His reply was that another such victory would surely cost him the war.

yep--

How about the Irish officer's numerous calls to Israel to stop targeting so close to the observation post? Are you just going to "disappear" this fact? You obviously prefer to lead with a quote about some operation in the past which may or may not have been similar to the one that killed those UN observers.

Unforunately, there is nothing "sub-human" about the motivations that drive people during war. They are human, all too human. It is you that seem to be wanting to place Israelis on some kind of super-human moral standing, when their conduct in this suggests anything but that.

I don't know WHO the fuck Israel is targeting, but they sure as hell are mostly hitting civilians. And yet, knowing this fact, they continue to operate in the exact same manner.

Exactly. And that is what makes Israel's actions black letter war crimes, no matter how deeply yep sticks his fingers into his ears puncturing his brain in the process.

You can't attack Red Cross ambulances that are fleeing the bombing with wounded on the off chance that some Hez soldiers may be riding along. You can't attack every truck carrying veggies on the off chance that one may be carrying guns. And you cannot attack UN observers because some Hez soldiers were spotted nearby two days before.

These are war crimes on Lebanese civilians. (And this isn't even getting into the issue of proportionality on legitimate military targets.)

Only bigots like yep cannot understand this, because to him, Israel can do no wrong. No matter how many civs Israel kills, bigots like yep will excuse them, because to yep, Christian and Muslim Lebanese are not as worthy of life as Israelis.

Sorry for the multiple posts earlier. A newbie mistake!

Glad to see that the news of the Israeli war crime finally reached the US shores. Go Internet! Beat the propaganda!

Disputo--

Of course, yep writes the way he does because he simply wants Israel to win and cheers them on like a good sports fan.

I don't see, on the other hand, how an Israeli "victory" would be any better than a "defeat" (meaning a humiliating retreat back to Israel after a hard slog). It certainly wouldn't be better for Lebanese people. Hard to see how it would be better for America, which is my own nationality. And it is even hard to see how it would be good for Israel, although I suppose you could at least reasonably argue the latter.

There will always be cheerleaders in war. When my own nation is not being attacked, I tend to cheer for the side whose victory will mean less wars and killing in the future. I don't happen to see Israel as that side.

YOU KNOW IF GOD WOULD SPREAD AROUND SOME GALL BALDDER PROBLEMS TO SOME OF YOU MEN, AND SOME APPENICITIS.... YOU MEN MAY KNOW WHAT HAVING A BABY IS LIKE... TRY THAT FOR 36 HOURS STRAIGHT WITHOUT SURGERY...... IF YOU WANT PAIN I AM SURE GOD CAN GIVE ALL OF YOU A BAD STOMACH ACHE.. WELL HAVING A BABY IS MUCH WORSE THAN ALL OF THIS...... SO THE NEXT TIME YOU THINK OF YOURSLVES AS EXPERTS... REMEMBER... AN X IS A HAS BEEN AND A SPERT IS A LITTLE DROP OF WATER UNDER PRESSURE... EXPERT MEN....A LEAKY DRIP.... SO UNTILL GOD MAKES YOU A MOTHER, THE PAIN INCLUDED... I SUGGEST YOU LEAVE THE BABY MAKING UP TO THE MOTHERS... WHAT YOU ADD IS A LITTLE DRIP OF SPERM... THAT MOTHERS TAKES THE PAIN, THE SUFFERING AND THE KNOWLEDGE TO BE A MOTHER... YOU ARE JUST THE LEAKY PART...A LITTLE DRIP..... SO DONT TH

The Israelis tried the same obfuscation yep is producing after they killed 8 Palestinians seeking respite at a beach picnic in Gaza.

The meeting revealed that the IDF’s conclusion that it was not responsible for the deaths on the beach was based exclusively on information gathered by the IDF and excluded all evidence gathered by other sources. Its investigation centered on mathematical models said to show a “statistical impossibility” that a shell fired by IDF artillery was responsible for killing the civilians. The reliability of such a conclusion should be evaluated by independent experts with access to the underlying data......
“An investigation that refuses to look at contradictory evidence can hardly be considered credible,” said Marc Garlasco, senior military analyst at Human Rights Watch. “The IDF’s partisan approach highlights the need for an independent, international investigation.”

Kalifi told Human Rights Watch that Palestinians “have no problem lying,” and that the IDF discounted information gathered from any Palestinian information sources in its investigation. The day after the incident, the IDF asked the official Palestinian security liaison office to provide evidence for testing, but later dismissed the evidence provided, which consisted of 155mm shrapnel, both new and old, and dirt from the beach and crater. When offered evidence collected first-hand by Human Rights Watch researchers in Gaza, the general either called it into question or declined to accept it.

The IDF also dismissed as “unimportant” evidence gathered by Human Rights Watch indicating that the IDF’s suggested timeline surrounding the fatal incident is flawed. Yet, the IDF originally claimed that the timing of the incident was the most important factor absolving it of responsibility. According to the IDF, the eight civilians were killed after the IDF shelling ceased at 4:50 p.m. on June 9, 2006.

However, evidence collected by Human Rights Watch researchers and many independent journalists on the ground in Gaza indicates that the civilians were killed within the time period of the shelling. That evidence includes computerized hospital records that show children injured at the beach were treated by 5:12 p.m., and hand-written hospital records that show they were admitted at 5:05 p.m. In light of the 20-minute round trip drive between the hospital and the beach, this evidence suggests that the blast that caused the family’s death occurred during the time of the IDF shelling.

During yesterday’s meeting, Kalifi confirmed that the IDF had removed and tested one piece of shrapnel from one of three injured Palestinians moved to Israel and that the test results revealed that it was weapons-grade alloy, but not from a 155mm shell. He stated that the IDF was not removing shrapnel from the other injured Palestinians. However, last night an Israeli news report contradicted this information, stating that the IDF had removed two additional pieces of shrapnel from one of the other injured and found them likely to have come from a 155mm shell. The IDF spokesperson today acknowledged the removal and testing of one additional piece of shrapnel, but claimed that there were no test results yet.

Kalifi also dismissed artillery fuse shrapnel removed by Palestinian doctors from a 19-year-old man injured in the blast, and examined by Human Rights Watch. He questioned the chain of custody, stating that anyone could take shrapnel and dip it into the blood of the injured. He also questioned the decision of Palestinian doctors to remove shrapnel from the injured that were later sent to Israel, saying he assumed it was to “cover evidence” that might help the IDF.

“If the Israeli allegations of tampered evidence are to be believed, many Palestinians would have to have engaged in a massive and immediate conspiracy to falsify the data,” said Garlasco. “The conspirators – witnesses, victims, medical personnel and bomb disposal staff – would have had to falsify their testimony, amend digital and hand-written records, and dip shrapnel into a victim’s blood. It beggars belief that such a huge conspiracy could be orchestrated so quickly.”

During the two-and-a-half hour meeting with Kalifi, the IDF agreed with Human Rights Watch that it is possible that unexploded ordnance from a 155mm artillery shell fired earlier in the day could have caused the fatal injuries. The IDF fired more than 80 155mm shells in the area of the beach on the morning of the incident. Sand would increase the possibility of a fuse malfunction leading to a dud shell that may have sat in the sand waiting to be set off. The shelling between 4:31 p.m. and 4:50 p.m. could have triggered a dud shell, as could the human traffic on the beach that afternoon.

The IDF has fired more than 7,700 shells at northern Gaza since the Israeli withdrawal in September 2005, creating a problem of unexploded ordnance in heavily populated areas.

http://hrw.org/english/docs/2006/06/20/israb13595_txt.htm

It should also be added that from the time Israel "withdrew" from Gaza until the capture of the Israeli soldier, the Israelis had killed over 140 Gazans, 25 of them children, with their shelling, as well as having kidnapped numerous Gazans, including two the day before the Israeli soldier was kidnapped.

And the Gazans have killed with their glorified bottle rockets how many Israelis during that time? I'll let that be a homework exercise for the reader....

kokblok,

I cannot see that Israel has any other objective than to turn back the clock 20 years and turn Lebanon once again into a failed state. What other purpose could be served by continuing to destroy targets that have nothing to do with Hez military capability? Forget civs for a sec; why else would the Israelis continue to pound on the Lebanese military and infrastruture?

"Israeli military aircraft bombed a Lebanese army base in the Amsheet area north of Beirut and destroyed a radio relay station in the area, local media reported, citing Lebanese military sources."

dd - umm? what the fuck? ease of on the rage and hate and make a point

Why Israel would deliberately target UN observers.

Hostilities between Israel and X.
War in the Middle East.

In other news: sun rises in the East.

BTW, how much coverage did the war in the Congo get?

I don't know why those UN one-worlders didn't jump in their black helicopters and scoot right outta there. I mean, we see 'em all the time around the U.S. and shucks, we can't ever seem to catch 'em...

An American Redneck

"...DO YOU BELIEVE THAT ISRAEL IS INTENTIONALLY TARGETING TARGETING CIVILIANS??? ..."

Wrong question. You either miss the point or try to deflect the discussion.

The question is..."Does Israel give a shit that women and children are present?"

Answer..."Based on their actions, they don't even bother to consider it."

Israel is consumed with destroying their foe. In their world, their are no innocents in Lebanon...just targets. They are totally unaware (and unconcerned )of the existance of anyone else.

And Israel's goal in ...deliberate targeting" of a UN observation post in Lebanon... would be what? - pencarrow

They owe us Pen. It may not be the top 10 floors of the U.N. Building, but hey, it's a start right? Along with our two allies, the U.K and Israel, we know that the U.N. needs to be destabilized and dismantled before we roll out the wehrmacht proper.

How else you gonna get Jesus to return unless you kick off armageddon? Dang.

notthere: Hizbullah's killing is unspecific, indiscriminate murder. The Israeli's is specific and targeted. I don't think that makes it better, do you?

this isn't a great comfort, but the Geneva conventions do require the warring parties to try to separate their civilians from their military targets; that is, to intentionally avoid using the civilians as human shields. Hizbollah, like Hamas and Fatah, intentionally mix their military weaponry among the civilians. byt the Geneva agreements, Hiabollah bears the responsibility for their own civilians' deaths.

If killing any civilians is a crime, then there is no non-criminal way for Israel to defend itself against Hizbollah. the choice is between hundreds of Lebanese civilian casualties now, and thousands of Israeli civilian casualties later. I don't think that framing the problem this way makes it easier. Sometimes the lesser of two evils is still an evil, even if it's the lesser of the two evils. In this case, the Israeli disarming of Hizbollah is the lesser of the evils.

Back to the bombing of the UN post. If it was deliberate, why didn't Israel do it earlier, when it was (apparently) much clearer that Hizbollah was using it as cover? Why wait until after 10 promises not to harm it? That doesn't make any sense, does it? It's as if (no one I have read has made this claim) Israel had been promised that the post would be vacated.

More tomorrow, I suppose.

This US/Western attitude that Hizbullah hides among the citizens: it is the citizens! Or at least a small poportion with widespread support. This idea of making them seem like another al-Qaeda doesn't work. It's another blind spot in this administration's dealing with the real world. They really don't know what reality is.

It's the Israeli disproportionate response, widening out to knock Lebanon "back 20 years" (per one general at the outset), and the lack of restraint or attempt to limit civilian casualties or hardship. That's the condemnation.

Well, it seems like they were trying to take the UN post out by shellfire but could not get the direct hit needed so finally said "hell" and dropped guided ordnance. I presume it's to "discourage the others", to slow down any UN/other nations response and commitment. If I was leading any other nation I wouldn't put my troops in the middle.

And "we're not going to widen the war" but they're calling up 30,000 reservists. We'll see. Without US help I can't see how the international community can react with any alactrity. World condemnation and horror is not enough to stop Israel in its pursuit of an impossible goal.

I dont think that you realize that ethnic clensing and genocide are the same thing....

Posted by: yep on July 27, 2006 at 5:50 PM | PERMALINK

Finally had a chance to catch up on this thread.

YEP: NOPE!

I don't think you realize that ethnic cleansing and genocide are NOT the same.

In 1948, Israel forced many Arabs from their land and out of the confines of then Israel: ethnic cleansing. They killed some innocents too, but we can leave that alone. East Jerusalem, using "legal" means to force Arabs out of their property (and restricting their voting rights also), another form of ethnic cleansing without killing.

Genocide: what Hitler tried to achieve of the European Jews; killing based on race.

I tell ya. It's the inaccurate use of language, the sheer ignorance of nuance that is undermining this world.

And GWB is the prime example. No wonder it's all effed up!

If killing any civilians is a crime, then there is no non-criminal way for Israel to defend itself against Hizbollah.

Strawman. No one as said that killing any civs is a crime. What we are saying is that the indiscriminate killing of civs that Israel has engaged in is a war crime. Nice try.

the choice is between hundreds of Lebanese civilian casualties now, and thousands of Israeli civilian casualties later.

LOL. Love how you just stick this false choice in there without even bothering to support it.

First of all, Hez formed in order to defend SLeb against the *Israeli* invasion of 1982. Other than a few forays, Hez has never invaded Israel. It is the other way around. Israel is the agressor that started this whole mess. And the reason why Hez and Israel are still in a state of war is not because Hez is waiting to kill thousands of Israelis, as you assert, but because Israel has not yet withdrawn from all of Lebanese land (I'm speaking of prior to the recent invasion). Hez does not have any claim on Israeli territory. This isn't Palestine. Peace is very easy for Israel to achieve on its northern border, it simply doesn't want peace. The fact that Israel has been planning to execute this invasion for the last year demonstrates that.

***

You rightwingers are forming Minutemen Militias because you are worried about Mexicans "invading" the US from the South, but you cannot comprehend the Lebanese forming militias to protect their southern border and fight to reclaim occupied land? What else but bigotry explains this lack of understanding?

ex-liberal wrote . . . a lot of stuff in boldface . . . which I almost didn't read, because there is an idiot here who has been posting a lot of vile stuff in boldface, so I just skip over it.

Of course the bombing of the UN post was intentional - the pilot hit his target. The real question is why bomb a long established and well know UN observation post? Possibilities
a) the pilot had the autonomy to bomb any target of his choosing
b) the pilot was given the wrong coordinates
c) the UN post was an approved target

Those are the three basic scenarios I can think of to explain why the post was bombed.

a) would be pilot error (or reckless pilot) but the blame would fall on the individual
b)is tragic mistake and the failure is at the operational level
c) is what the fuck and the failure is on a command level

one would hope it is b and pray that it is not c

damn frightwingers sure love death, don't they? but they are too cowardly to enlist and inflict it themselves. stinking cowards all of them

Really? So Israel had a reason to bomb unarmed UN observers two days after Hez left the area? Do explain this further, please.

Who proved they left? Who even said they left? The email in question said they were all over the site as of two days before, which was when the email was sent. There wasn't any subsuquent information suggesting they ever left.

I am not arguing they were or were not there. I am pointing out the left has just as large a Blame Israel 1st crowd as they so a Blame America 1st crowd. I am also pointing out this is toxic politically.

We already knew all about Kofi. As the most corrupt and incompetent UN head ever he's managed to drive US support for the UN even further into the toilet. This is merely another piece of the undeniable anti-semetic sentiment institutionalized in the UN on public display regularly with Kofi.

It isn't like conservatives need more evidence to pound the UN into the ground but we accept all gifts. This is the kind of stuff the generations under 40 have seen their entire lives from the UN. As the delusional lefties of old holding the dream of the goals of the UN die off they are replaced by a generation schooled in the reality of constant corruption and failure.

Kofi accusing Israel of grotesque war crimes before seeing any evidence will always serve as a prime example of embedded corruption and anti-semitism of his institution.

Consider the quandry of Harry Reid and Nancy Pelosi. You just know their instincts are to join with cmdicely and trash 'the aggressors'. But then there's that jewish vote. You just know they see the same polls showing UN support in the toilet and want to reverse the slide but just can't. You just know they are furious with the democrative house memebers who refused to criticize Hezbollah in a vote last week but they only hope it's ignored. Unfortunately they know Fox like you know Fox.

rdw--

What more "evidence" did Kofi Annan need to demand an investigation? It is a war crime to target UN observation posts. Israel hit an observation post, and Annan says that IF (that's right, he demanded an INVESTIGATION) it was intentional, then it was a war crime. What the hell is wrong with saying that? I believe that any leader who actually cared about his organization would say the same thing when some of its staff was attacked. How is this a sign of "corruption"? It's a sign that he's a human being. Oh, and nice try with that "corrupt Kofi" theme, but I still fail to see how the UN is any more corrupt than 90% of its member states, including the US and several of its states (As far as corruption goes, I'd much rather be governed by the UN General Assembly than by the State of Louisiana).

And as a matter of fact, in this case I do blame Israel first, because this wider conflict is first and foremost Israel's fault. Say what you like, but there had been twenty years of minor cross-border raids such as the one recently conducted by Hizbollah, and in none of those other cases did Israel overreact in such a ridiculous and utterly pointless way. Naturally Israeli patriots rally around their flag in a time of war. Since I am not an Israeli, I see no reason why I should "root" for them in a pointless battle motivated solely by revenge.

Israel can't control the terrorist organizations in the area it ALREADY occupies. If you've noticed, most of the terrorist attacks in the last 20 years have not originated in Lebanon, but in areas controlled by the IDF. Gazans have rockets that are only slightly less accurate than Hizbollah's. So what the fuck is going to be accomplished by occupying more territory and screeching at Syria? Unless their goal really is to depopulate the border area, in which case, fuck them, I hope they lose miserably.

To call someone "anti_semitic" because they oppose Israeli policies is of course absurd. I might as well say you're "anti-Arab" for (rightfully) condemning Hizbollah's attacks. There's no difference.

As far as the Democrats go, I imagine that there were many motivations for their stances. I'm not sure why they're so scared to criticize Israel--if its the "Jewish vote" thing than that's pretty pathetic. Of course, I'll still vote for them over Republicans. Election-year politics and rhetoric are one thing, but at least when the Democrats are actually in power they have done a much better job of reigning in Israel's aggresive tendencies.

If the UN base was crawling with Hezbollah forces and was therefore a legitimate target in the eyes of the Israelis, why didn't they just tell the UN people that and advise them to leave? They talked to them 10 times that day, after all.

Who proved they left? Who even said they left? The email in question said they were all over the site as of two days before, which was when the email was sent. There wasn't any subsuquent information suggesting they ever left.

Only your prejudices prevent you from comprehending this. The same UN observer who two days earlier was writing emails about Hez being in position is the same one who on the day of his death was explainign that they were no where around. Why do you believe him on one day and not the other, other than your own bigotry and unwillingness to believe anything that doesn't look good for Israel?

I dont think anyone's death is better. I do think that intent is very important, especially when people are throwing around the word genocide. DO YOU BELIEVE THAT ISRAEL IS INTENTIONALLY TARGETING TARGETING CIVILIANS??? Do you believe that they are going out of their way to shoot women and children? Or do you believe that those deaths are unintended consequences.

The way you answer that question says more about your own bigotry when you attribute to people sub-human motivations than anything else.I dont think anyone's death is better. I do think that intent is very important, especially when people a

Notthere:
Your head isnt there.

We went into bosnia because of 'ethnic clensing' not genocide. our legal commitments would have been greater had we declared it genocide.

There were people killed in this 'ethnic clensing' action by milosevic; that is why we called it ethnic clensing.

It is grotesque to call murder ethnic clensing (sounds like lisol) but that is what is done. It is a legal maneuver to get out of what is legally required when the US declares a Genocide.

I appreciate your ability to make up definitions for words. good for you. the problem is that if we all made up any definition for any word we chose we would never have any meaningful dialogue.

Yes, by your definition you are right. The problem is that your definition is wrong. and from that false premise goes the rest of your argument.

Please dont waste anyones time.

Whack a NeoCon for Christ:

Duh

Of course Israel is consumed with defeating their foe. Their foe is averaging 60 rockets a day into Israel.

What would you have them do?
Nothing?
Sit there?
Are you unaware that Hesbollah intentionally hides among civilians? That is the war crime we should be talking about. That is the cause of the civilian deaths.
period
end of story