Bombardment of the UN Lebanon post

[jaaska 0]

Quote

Quote

according to your idea, if Hizbollah is firing from civilian/UN area, it should be immune.
well, it is not and the civilians' blood is on its hands

No, what I have said was that the IDF did not have to level down the Observation Post. The post it self was not under the control of H-bollah. They used very heavy weapons to totally level the place down. The post is a building, it hasn't got any other real "positions". Maybe the canadian ment their rutin turning points or something - I guess we will never no.

What is the reason the UN cannot "drive the h-bollah away from the vicinity of the posts. Well... They don't have any leverage to do a shit, because the US opposes and vetoes everything down.

Why is the UN so powerless - because US wants it to be...

• Quote

[jaaska 0]

Quote

Quote

With a (light) mortar you can pretty nicely clean the area from any soft (non-armoured) targets. (say, men). Anti-armour stuff is different

and with a sniper 500 meters from there you could nicely pick out the hizbollah fighter without even damaging the scenery...
but you do not know what was the tactic stance at the time and what was the availability of each type of ammunision there. you don't actually know when and where were hizbollah personnel in the area and what exactly they were doing there (beside the email stating they were usually there using the UN people as shields)

you keep blaming who hurt the shield and not who picked up an innocent shield while shooting others behind it...

So, you think the observers should have left and it's their own fault that they died? You don't think that IDF should have stopped firing after the UN contacted them? Or what...? Please tell me...

[falxori 0]

Quote

So, you think the observers should have left and it's their own fault that they died? You don't think that IDF should have stopped firing after the UN contacted them? Or what...? Please tell me...

if they can't keep Hizbollah fighters off their outpost? yes, they should leave.
Is its their own fault that they died? No, it is Hizbollah's fault, and maybe the UN's who didn't do anything when they've reported Hizbollah is using them as human shields.

if i take you hostage and use you as a shield to shoot at others, am i not responsible if you get hurt when the police tries to stop me?

"Carpe diem, quam minimum credula postero."

[Amazon 7]

Youy should have a look at some of the footage from the aerial drones the Israelis are showing on CNN and other news outlets now... you can clearly see... in the thermal video the launches of rockets at Israel....

Those positions are then fixed...... and airstrikes called in.. NOW.....knowing this.. Hezbollah( in the pictures you can see the apartment buldings CLEARLY) Puts the people there in harms way... the Isralis had dropped millions of leaflets in those areas that Hezbollah is using as a shield.. to get the people OUT of there and minimize the loss of life...

I CERTAINLY do nopt see Hezbollah doing the same.. in FACT they target civilians with glee and celebrate when they get some dead jews.

On the other side.. there is remorse in the IDF when innocents are killed...not colorful celebrations as the culture of death does in Gaza... Beirut.....Ramallah etc.

[miked10270 0]

PLEASE read the article carefully, and differentiate between what was ACTUALLY said in the eMail and what is comment on it.

"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."

Is part of the actual eMail.written by Maj. Hess-von Kruedener

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

Is comment by a third party. Major General MacKenzie... WHO WASN'T THERE!

MacKenzie's OPINION continues:

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

In short, a rather seamless mixing of reportage from someone who was there and OPINION from someone who wasn't there which when mixed up tries to claim that inside the the UN post (including the bomb shelter?) were 4 unarmed UN Observers (per their mandate) and an unspecified number of Hezb'Allah. Must have been crowded.

I mean... WHY use this precision guided bomb? Artillery fused for airburst worked perfectly well against the Lebanese sheltering in a UN Post when Israel attacked one in Qana 10 years ago.

One final point: I note that none of the major news organisations have picked up on this story yet. Nor has the UN changed it's stance. Could it be because it doesn't actually give any new info, only spins the existing?

Mike.

Taking the piss out of the FrenchAmericans since before it was fashionable.

Prenait la pisse hors du FrançaisCanadiens méridionaux puisqu'avant lui à la mode.

[DZJ 0]

Quote

if i take you hostage and use you as a shield to shoot at others, am i not responsible if you get hurt when the police tries to stop me?

Yes, but were I the hostage I would rather the police use a rifle and not a shotgun when they shoot you.

Hezbollah are undoubtedly responsible for the death of the UN's personnel, but the IDF nonetheless has an obligation and responsibility to use appropriate means when dealing with Hezbollah. As far as I can see, whatever the military justification (and I'm assuming there must have been some) the IDF have done far more political damage to their cause than any physical harm they inflicted on Hezbollah in that strike.

Further, if they didn't have any means to clear the vicinity of the compound of hostiles without killing the UN's personnel (which I would find incredible, given their equipment) then they should, quite simply, have held their fire.

[falxori 0]

Quote

Yes, but were I the hostage I would rather the police use a rifle and not a shotgun when they shoot you.

if I just hold you hostage they'll try talking first, if I shot at random people every now and then, they'll try to kill me without hurting you, but if i'm throwing granades that are killing lots of people they will very quickly shoot with what they have that will stop me, risking you being hurt too.

that's pretty much a good analogy to what's been happening with hizbollah.
when they didn't fire, Israel didnt fire, when they've fired a little, Israel targeted their fully militaristic outposts but when they fire rockets from within vilages thats a new story.

Quote

the IDF have done far more political damage to their cause than any physical harm they inflicted on Hezbollah in that strike

agreed, even more proof that the attack was not against the UN personnel, it serves none of Israel's goals.

Quote

Further, if they didn't have any means to clear the vicinity of the compound of hostiles without killing the UN's personnel (which I would find incredible, given their equipment) then they should, quite simply, have held their fire.

you'll be amazed how little effect big guns can sometimes have in gurilla war and when they shoot and 2 minutes later take cover in a civilian structure there is little you can do.
if Israel held its fire whenever a civilian structure was used as cover we would have nothing to shoot back at.

"Carpe diem, quam minimum credula postero."

[DZJ 0]

Quote

Quote

if I just hold you hostage they'll try talking first, if I shot at random people every now and then, they'll try to kill me without hurting you, but if i'm throwing granades that are killing lots of people they will very quickly shoot with what they have that will stop me, risking you being hurt too.

that's pretty much a good analogy to what's been happening with hizbollah.
when they didn't fire, Israel didnt fire, when they've fired a little, Israel targeted their fully militaristic outposts but when they fire rockets from within vilages thats a new story.

Unfortunately, that conjures an image of a hostage shouting to the police, in evermore shriller and urgent tones "I say Mr Policeman, those last 10 shots you fired came a little close, would you mind aiming a little more carefully?" shortly before taking a bullet clean between the eyes.

Personally, and this isn't meant as a dig at you, I'm not sure that clear-cut day-to-day analogies apply well to complex and ambiguous international situations.

Quote

agreed, even more proof that the attack was not against the UN personnel, it serves none of Israel's goals.

...and precisely why the IDF should have been more careful.


***you'll be amazed how little effect big guns can sometimes have in gurilla war and when they shoot and 2 minutes later take cover in a civilian structure there is little you can do.
if Israel held its fire whenever a civilian structure was used as cover we would have nothing to shoot back at.

I realise that a degree of collateral damage is inevitable in military operations, especially in irregular and guerilla situations. However, this to me isn't a question of 'normal' collateral damage - a UN outpost is an area of extreme political sensitivity and so should have been treated differently. Iin the same way as you would hope that force would be used more carefully in the vicinity of religious centres or national monuments - imagine the outrage if Coalition Forces in Iraq went around obliterating mosques, deliberately or not.

Perhaps the point is that there are some situations where 'big guns' simply aren't appropriate?

-Ian

PS - When you say 'we' are you writing as an Israeli, as a member of the IDF, or something else? Just for clarity, nothing else.

[Erroll 80]

Quote

.....you want bombs that will ask a person if he's a member of Hezbollah before it explodes?

As long as it does not only ask in English.
Talk about smart bombs!

[miked10270 0]

Condie comes through!!
http://www.bbc.co.uk/mediaselector/check/nolavconsole/ukfs_news/hi?redirect=st.stm&news=1&bbram=1&bbwm=1&nbram=1&nbwm=1&nol_storyid=5230214

Ceasefire & suspension of airstrikes.

Assistance for Lebanese internal security.

Arms embargo against IDF & non-official organisations in the region. Arms to be only supplied to UN Forces & Lebanese Army.

All good (although I'm doubtful about Lebanese Army deploying into Southern Lebanon - I'd prefer that to be UN Force only). Hopefully the UN Peacekeeping force will be A FORCE... With the ability to ensure that any shooting done in the area is overwhelmingly done by them.

Not the unarmed observers there now. Or the "Witness & talk" force in the early days of Yugoslavia.

Mike.

PS: Hopefully the Israeli people will look at the actions of Olmert & Peretz and act appropriately.

Taking the piss out of the FrenchAmericans since before it was fashionable.

Prenait la pisse hors du FrançaisCanadiens méridionaux puisqu'avant lui à la mode.

[billvon 3,085]

Heard an interview this morning with an IDF general. They had agreed to suspend airstrikes for 48 hours, but would continue to attack suspected Hezbollah positions.

The interviewer paused for a second, then asked him "but General - then what's changed? You have stated from the outset you are retaliating against Hezbollah attacks by targeting their positions. So what sort of attacks are you suspending?"

"Well, as I said, we are now only targeting military targets that we believe are being used by Hezbollah."

Couldn't get any more out of him. But at least they've stopped targeting civilians (for now.)

[shropshire 0]

(.)Y(.)
Chivalry is not dead; it only sleeps for want of work to do. - Jerome K Jerome

[miked10270 0]

Quote

Heard an interview this morning with an IDF general. They had agreed to suspend airstrikes for 48 hours, but would continue to attack suspected Hezbollah positions.

The interviewer paused for a second, then asked him "but General - then what's changed? You have stated from the outset you are retaliating against Hezbollah attacks by targeting their positions. So what sort of attacks are you suspending?"

"Well, as I said, we are now only targeting military targets that we believe are being used by Hezbollah."

Couldn't get any more out of him. But at least they've stopped targeting civilians (for now.)

Bet that's his last interview for a while!

Mike.

Taking the piss out of the FrenchAmericans since before it was fashionable.

Prenait la pisse hors du FrançaisCanadiens méridionaux puisqu'avant lui à la mode.

[Channman 2]

> Further, if they didn't have any means to clear the vicinity of the compound of hostiles without killing the UN's personnel (which I would find incredible, given their equipment) then they should, quite simply, have held their fire.


War is HELL.

Back in 1967 Israel was engaged in military conflict as it is currently. A USN USS Liberty SEGNET ship in international waters was conducting close surveillance on the IDF's as well as other forces engaged against Israel.

Long story short, IDF's attacked the USS Liberty with aircraft and torpedo boats, killing 34 American Serviceman and wounding around 170 Plus.

Isreal expressed their remorse for tragic and regretable mistargeting of a US War Ship. They had mistaken it for an Egytain ship.

There were many accounts as to what happened, the primary one being the attach was a deliberate and coordinated effort involving air, sea, headquarters and commando forces attacking over a long period of time. According to a senior Israeli pilot, name not known to me recognized the Liberty as American immediately, so informed his headquarters, and was told to ignore the American flag and continue the attack. After refusing the orders the pilot returned to base and was arrested.

Another prominent account for the targeting, but much less known was the USS Liberty was transmitting in the open IDF movements, and thus became a target.