CBC

EDIT- confirmed four peacekeepers killed.

[ 25 July 2006: Message edited by: robbie_dee ]

quote:

---

Originally posted by robbie_dee:
Kofi Annan has condemned Israel's "apparently deliberate targeting" of the United Nations.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by robbie_dee:
To teach them a lesson for passing all those resolutions that Israel violates?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by josh:
It could have been for tactical reasons. Just as they bombed the USS Liberty during the six-day war.

---

quote:

---

the post had been there for a long time and was marked clearly, and was hit despite assurances from Israeli Prime Minister Ehud Olmert that UN positions would not be attacked.

---

Link

The Star also reported that a Canadian peacekeeper was among the dead.

[ 25 July 2006: Message edited by: robbie_dee ]

This is likely the UN outpost that was attacked.

Shit. Terrorism.

edit:: I think that the saying "trying to wash out blood with blood" is the most apt descriptor of this situation.

[ 25 July 2006: Message edited by: Papal Bull ]

quote:

---

The UN in Lebanon says the Israeli air force destroyed the observer post, in which four military observers were sheltering.

It said the four, from Austria, Canada, China and Finland, had taken shelter in a bunker under the post after it was earlier shelled 14 times by Israeli artillery.

A rescue team was also shelled as it tried to clear the rubble

---

quote:

---

Israel's UN ambassador, Dan Gillerman, expressed his "deep regret" for the deaths and denied Israel hit the post intentionally.

"I am shocked and deeply distressed by the hasty statement of the secretary general, insinuating that Israel has deliberately targeted the UN post," he said, calling the assertions "premature and erroneous."

. . . .

Annan said in his statement the post had been there for a long time and was marked clearly, and was hit despite assurances from Israeli Prime Minister Ehud Olmert that UN positions would not be attacked.

---

quote:

---

"I am shocked and deeply distressed by the apparently deliberate targeting by Israeli Defence Forces of a UN Observer post in southern Lebanon that has killed two UN military observers, with two more feared dead," said U.N. Secretary-General Kofi Annan, after rushing out of a meeting with U.S. Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice and Lebanese Prime Minister Fuad Saniora.

"This coordinated artillery and aerial attack on a long established and clearly marked UN post at Khiyam occurred despite personal assurances given to me by Prime Minister Ehud Olmert that UN positions would be spared Israeli fire."

---

There may be SOME truth to that (not that it excuses anything). Israel has to be concerned about world opinion and therefore incidents like this are very counterproductive to their own cause. Hezbollah probably know that they are regarded as savages by the western world so it it really doesn't matter how many civilans they gratuitously kill - nobody expects anything better from them. I don't actually believe that they PURPOSELY target civilians in Israel - they simply have a very unsophisticated missiles and all they can do is just fire them blindly and hope that they don't land on a sand dune in the middle of nowhere.

But, I think that enough is enough. Israel has made its point and its time to count to ten and get a ceasefire going.

BTW: Why does the UN even bother having a post in South Lebanon? What purpose do they actually serve there? I assume that the UN was supposed to prevent Hezbollah from moving weapons and soldiers into the region, but have they ever lifted a finger to do that?

quote:

---

Originally posted by Stockholm:

The whole history of the UN in the Middle East has been a sad charade. One of the worst examples was in 1967 when Nasser was preparing to invade Israel. He simply phoned the Secretary -General of the UN and said "I want the UN troops on the Egypt/Israel border gone immediately, so that nothing stands between me and Israel when I invade" and U Thant the then SC of the UN responded by saying "Yessir Mr. Nasser, whatever you say, the UN forces will be out by morning. Sorry if we retarded your invasion plans"

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by ebunny:
As Stockholm said, the UN was there for 30 years and accomplished nothing. Heck I know lots of people who were in the Golan Heights and said that it was pointless. They would witness and report violation after violation from both sides of the border and no action could be taken because the UN has no authority or mandate.

---

That's because ever decision has to be a consensus (which generally means no decision at all). If the U.N. existed in 1939, I doubt there would have even been a consensus about attacking Germany after the Germans crossed into Poland. Nervous hand-wringing would have been all the U.N. would have "accomplished".

What are the chances this USA proposal will gain any U.N. support?

quote:

---

U.S. Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice is proposing an ambitious plan with up to two international military forces that would help the Lebanese government stabilize the situation in southern Lebanon, Lebanese political sources said.

The plan initially would involve putting an international force of up to 10,000 Turkish and Egyptian troops under a NATO or U.N. commander into southern Lebanon following a cease-fire.

That force ultimately would be replaced by another international force of up to 30,000 troops that would help the Lebanese government regain control over the southern part of the country, where the Shiite militia Hezbollah now dominates.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Stockholm:
Maybe they need to do some sort of India/Pakistan style partition of Lebanon.

---

After WW2 tons of Germans had to vacate the Sudentenland and Silesia and East Prussia when those areas were reintergrated with Czechoslovakia and Poland. Its too bad that the whole world can't be one big country - but some people just can't seem to live side by side.

BTW: I am very pro-UN and I'm not trying to ridicule the UN as an organization, but it seems clear that in the Middle East their role has been one of total failure.

[ 25 July 2006: Message edited by: Stockholm ]

quote:

---

Originally posted by unionist:
U.N. officials are killed by Israel -- which boasts of its "precision" bombardment and hasn't yet explained what happened here -- and some posters take the opportunity to attack or ridicule the U.N. Very good.

---

quote:

---

Its too bad that the whole world can't be one big country - but some people just can't seem to live side by side.

---

Israel attacks Lebanon, and your solution is:

quote:

---

Maybe they need to do some sort of India/Pakistan style partition of Lebanon. Why not take Hezbolla and all the Shi-ites who back them and give them the NORTHERN 1/3 of Lebanon so that they are too far from the Isreali border to do any harm (I suppose if they want they can amuse themselves by having array of missiles aimed at northern Syria). Then move all the Christians in Lebanon to the southern tier of the country so that all the parts of Lebanon that are within missile firing range of Israel is populated entirely by Lebanese Christians who historically have had no quarrel with Israel.

---

That's right, ethnically cleanse Lebanon so Israel can continue its colonial expansions. Fucking brilliant. Maybe they can all pack them into cattle cars for the journey.

I got another solution, in a similar vein, so you'll probably agree. Pack up and move all the colonists from the West Bank and Jerusalem and ship them back to Manhattan. Since you're keen on forced relocation in order to provide security for Israel, you have no problem with this.

quote:

---

The whole history of the UN in the Middle East has been a sad charade. One of the worst examples was in 1967 when Nasser was preparing to invade Israel. He simply phoned the Secretary -General of the UN and said "I want the UN troops on the Egypt/Israel border gone immediately, so that nothing stands between me and Israel when I invade" and U Thant the then SC of the UN responded by saying "Yessir Mr. Nasser, whatever you say, the UN forces will be out by morning. Sorry if we retarded your invasion plans"

---

I think these alleged quotes should either be substantiated or retracted. They are a smear on the reputation of one of the UN's most able past Secretary-General's.

It's not the UN's job to have its peacekeepers try to stop an invading army. Despite taking reasonable precautions several hundred have paid the ultimate price in conflict zones.

They must want the UN out - maybe their plans are more bloody than they want anyone to see.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Sven:

Well, what has the U.N. accomplished in Lebanon after being there for many, many years?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by unionist:
Elicited barbaric questions like that one. That's good enough for me.

---

It's "barbaric" to ask what the U.N. has accomplished in Lebanon?

quote:

---

Originally posted by unionist:
Sven's comment reminds me of the dinosaurs that attacked the Christian Peacekeepers for deliberately placing themselves in danger and causing cost and inconvenience to their "rescuers" (whom they never asked to rescue them). This is such a frigid and non-human attitude. Any bloodshed and suffering is easily justified.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Sven:

I'll take that to mean you think: "I have no idea what the U.N. has accomplished in Lebanon."

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Sven:

I'll take that to mean you think: "I have no idea what the U.N. has accomplished in Lebanon."

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Sven:

I'll take that to mean you think: "I have no idea what the U.N. has accomplished in Lebanon."

---

And I'll take that to mean 'Therefore they deserved to be targetted by Israel.'

Is it possible that the UN presence kept a lid on some of the more egregious desires of leaders on either side? I don't know, because it's impossible to prove a negative.

Perhaps they shoud be withdrawn - the Israelis have expressed their wishes in the starkest terms possible. Easier to kill a few, claim it was an accident (when it clearly wasn't, at least according to the reports), and watch them pull out than to be embarrassed by actually asking them to leave.

Again, I'd like to know whether Prime Minister Harper feels the slaughter of Canadian peacekeeping troops is consistent with a 'measured' response.

Exactly what would it take for Harper to retract the 'measured' assessment? Nukes? Genocide? Something more than the current actions, but less than that (I hope).

[ 25 July 2006: Message edited by: arborman ]

quote:

---

Originally posted by arborman:
And I'll take that to mean 'Therefore they deserved to be targetted by Israel.'

---

Not even close to being the same thing. Poor analogy.

unionist couldn't name a single thing that the U.N. accompllished in Lebanon. Therefore, I said that I took his non-answer to mean he didn't know of anything.

How you stretch that to: And I'll take that to mean 'Therefore they deserved to be targetted by Israel.'

That makes as much logical sense as if you said: And I'll take that to mean 'It's sunny in Hawaii, therefore the Pope is Catholic.'

quote:

---

Originally posted by unionist:
I could have sworn I already explained that the U.N. presence in Lebanon exposed you as a barbarian. If you missed that post, accept my apologies. Why, you don't think that single accomplishment justified the expense?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by John K:

I think these alleged quotes should either be substantiated or retracted. They are a smear on the reputation of one of the UN's most able past Secretary-General's.

---

Ummm... Stockholm hits the nail on the head with what he states Six day war (UNEF)

quote:

---

It's not the UN's job to have its peacekeepers try to stop an invading army.

---

The big thing that would make any international effort difficult is that both sides are capable of firing rockets at great distance from the border... where the international force would most likely be.

quote:

---

Originally posted by ebunny:
And like it or not the US has to take a big role in either case.

---

[ 25 July 2006: Message edited by: Cueball ]

quote:

---

Originally posted by Cueball:
Why not simply cut Israeli aid for a few weeks?
[ 25 July 2006: Message edited by: Cueball ]

---

Your lack of dismay at this death seems very much at odds with your feeling about the deaths of other members of PPCLI when in Afgthanistan. How exactly did you come to the conclusion that Major Kruedner's life's work was useless, and those serving in Afghanistan not so?

quote:

---

Originally posted by Cueball:
So, Mr. Sven, I would like to know why you are so callow as to make light of the life Major Paeta Hess-von Kruedener of Princess Patricia's Canadian Light Infantry, who was serving under orders for this country.

---

Can Pakistan and India be far behind?

Opps, almost forget good old China waiting in the wings to swoop down and clean up on the whole bunch of em. Ahhhhh, what a glorious alliamce this has been.

[ 26 July 2006: Message edited by: otter ]

The same U.S. dominated U.N. that has passed SIXTY NINE resolutions AGAINST ISRAEL, NONE of which have been implimented?

The same U.S. dominated U.N. who invaded Iraq (supposedly the U.S. invaded Iraq to enforce a U.N. resolution)?

The same U.S., who has vetoed MANY U.N. resolutions geared to getting Israel OUT of the occupied territories?

The same U.S. dominated U.N. who couldn't make a clear decision with respect to Israel with a MAP AND A SET OF INSTRUCTIONS?

quote:

---

Originally posted by unionist:
I could have sworn I already explained that the U.N. presence in Lebanon exposed you as a barbarian. If you missed that post, accept my apologies. Why, you don't think that single accomplishment justified the expense?

---

The UN personnel were not there as peacekeepers. They were there as observers. Read Webgear's link to get an idea of their mission. And of why they were targets.

I will quote and bold for the lazy:

quote:

---

BTW: Why does the UN even bother having a post in South Lebanon? What purpose do they actually serve there? I assume that the UN was supposed to prevent Hezbollah from moving weapons and soldiers into the region, but have they ever lifted a finger to do that?

---

quote:

---

(2) I have been here for nine months of a one-year tour of duty. Since I have arrived here in Lebanon, this current incident is the fourth I have seen and by far the most spectacular and intensive.

The first was 21 Nov 05, when the Hezbollah tried to capture IDF soldiers from an IDF observation position overlooking the Wazzani river near the town of Ghajjar on the Blue Line. This action was unsuccessful and resulted in the deaths of the Hezbollah raiding force.

On 01 Feb 06, a young shepherd boy was Killed by an IDF patrol near an abandon goat farm called Bastarra. Hassan Nasrallah (note: Hezbollah's leader) vowed that there would be consequences to this action. Team Sierra was tasked on 2 Feb 06, to assist in the investigation of the incident, and we sent one team to do so while the other team conducted its normal mobile patrolling activities.

On 03 Feb 06, a limited engagement took place initiated by the Hezbollah on several of the IDF defensive positions located in occupied Lebanon.

Then on 28 May, the Islamic Jihad (PLO) fired rockets from South Lebanon, into Israel, which elicited an immediate aerial bombardment of positions near our patrol base and in the Bekka valley.
(3) Our Team's normal operational activities are to plan, and execute daily vehicle and foot patrols of the Blue Line area within our area of responsibility. Unfortunately, with the current artillery and aerial bombing campaign being carried out by the IDF/IAF, it is not safe or prudent for us to conduct normal patrol activities. Currently, we are observing and reporting on all activities in our area of responsibility, with specific attention to activities along the Blue Line, which is clearly visible from our hilltop position.

---

quote:

---

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.

---

quote:

---

The observers were part of the Untso mission - the first peacekeeping operation ever established by the UN, which has been operating in the Middle East since 1948, and currently has about 150 observers.

The observers had taken shelter in a bunker under their base because there had already been 14 Israeli artillery attacks on their position.

The BBC's Paul Adams says that they called the Israeli military 10 times over a period of six hours to tell them to stop shelling before they were killed with a precision guided missile.

---

quote:

---

The BBC's Paul Adams says that they called the Israeli military 10 times over a period of six hours to tell them to stop shelling before they were killed with a precision guided missile.

---

quote:

---

UN Observers: You're getting awfully close to our position. Back off.
IDF: Where are you exactly?
UN Observers: On the hilltop.
IDF: What are your exact co-ordinates?
UN Observers: 33n53, 35e30
IDF: Shalom

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Jingles:
Canada's death toll from Israel is approaching that of Israeli civilians from the rockets. Does this mean Canada has the right to defend herself from Israeli terrorist attacks, and can bomb Tel Aviv without any moral qualms about casualties? After all, the people of Israel allow the IDF to operate, so they are now legitimate targets, right?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Jingles:
Canada's death toll from Israel is approaching that of Israeli civilians from the rockets. Does this mean Canada has the right to defend herself from Israeli terrorist attacks, and can bomb Tel Aviv without any moral qualms about casualties? After all, the people of Israel allow the IDF to operate, so they are now legitimate targets, right?

---

In any case, those "Canadians" are really "Lebanese-Canadians" - in other words - they're Arabs. So it's not exactly the same as if they were real Canadians or Israeli-Canadians. Their deaths are a tiny part of Israel's "measured response" to having had 3 soldiers kidnapped.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Polunatic2:
Didn't the Romans at the height of their empire ensure the safety of their legionairres and others by imposing stiff death penalties on anyone who messed with them?

---

First, can't rule out the possibility that is wasn't intentional... but the only case I'd think that was true is if there was a messup on the ground level (troops fired at something they shouldn't and it was the troops that made the mistake). The Israeli survailence is pretty thorough, so mistaking a target is not possible.

More realistic, the UN are observers... And it's well known the amount of media war currently taken place during this conflict. It's quite possible that the Israeli's didn't want the UN observers observing anything they shouldn't, leaving the only observations coming from the region as from the IDF or Hizbollah (and they've taken steps to remove Hizbollah media capabilities). It's a strong battlefield advantage when you're the only one reporting no?

The second, lil further out there, possibility would be a cover up for something larger in scope (and perhaps contreversy). Pretty much the shelling of this outpost was a distraction for something larger. Won't get into speculation on what something larger may include.

added:

quote:

---

Sounds like a position the IDF would want, for the view alone. Expect them to set up camp there (or very, very close) within days.

---

[ 26 July 2006: Message edited by: Noise ]

quote:

---

Canadian deaths in Lebanon and Afghanistan are a small price to pay for our new strategic alliance with the US and Israel in the war against terror.

---

quote:

---

UN peacekeepers in south Lebanon contacted Israeli troops 10 times before an Israeli bomb killed four of them, an initial UN report says.
The post was hit by a precision-guided missile after six hours of shelling, diplomats familiar with the probe say.

---

From BBC

quote:

---

Originally posted by N.Beltov:

The late Major's commentary (Webgear link)noted that:

I have no way of knowing if this text was on the site before the Israeli bombardment that killed the four UN soldiers or not. No matter. But without the observation post, questions about who is breaking the ceasefire and the details around such incidents will be lost. And that could be very useful to a country planning on a large-scale invasion and looking for new pretexts to justify further bombing campaigns.

---

The major's email to CTV was written about a week ago, I had read the article around the 19th of July.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Noise:

Well, that pretty much eliminates the potential of it being accidental no? Probably used one of the bombs the US express shipped too

---

I'd say. Shelled 14 times, then murdered with a precision guided missile.

Israel has gone too far. They do, like all nations, have a right to defend themselves, but their current actions seem to have little to do with self-defense.

quote:

---

UN peacekeepers in south Lebanon contacted Israeli troops 10 times

---

However, an investigation will help sort the speculation from the facts. So put off declaring "apparently" to mean this was murder.

There are longstanding complaints that Hezbollah has built its own posts and fortifications too close to UN posts. This particular post has a tactical advantage for viewing the operations area. Both sides would try to make use of it; or to deny the other side use of it.

As for the precision bombing, if that is what was used, "friendly fire" still occurs in war. Another Canadian, a pilot in the Israeli Air Force, also died in the fighting due to such a mistake. The Hezbollah have dug-in and are fighting with very mobile units and have also caught UN observers and peacekeepers in crossfire situations, as per UNIFIL field reports.

quote:

---

Under fire...the roof of an ambulance seen in a Red Cross video, smashed and pockmarked after the Israeli air strike.
Photo: AP

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Noise:
At very least it should be investiagted much more thoroughly.

One would assume theres 10 trascripts or logs of said phone calls as well. Assuming that wasn't destroyed in the bombings (I would expect UN logs would be redundant and stored off battlefield/bunkerfield site), I'd be very curious to se what these 10 contacts with Israeli forces was saying.

---

I am doubtful that any records or reports survived the attack on the outpost. If any records or reports are held, they will found at the next higher headquarters, and that depends on how busy the headquarters were at the time of the attack.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Chairm:

This is war.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Chairm:
It is very doubtful that this was anything but an accident.

---

Continuing to shell and then bombing after receiving numerous phone calls makes the IDF look responsible or at least grossly negligent.

Good shot on the ambulance above, by the way, right in the middle of the cross!

[ 26 July 2006: Message edited by: Doug ]

quote:

---

an internal report on the incident says there were more than 20 aerial and artillery attacks on the post on Tuesday, including four artillery rounds that directly hit the UN position an hour before the fatal guided bomb attack that killed the unarmed personnel taking refuge in a bomb shelter. The report says that, each time, the Israeli officer promised that the attacks would stop.

---

The motivation for deliberating targeting the UN position is implicit in the following question:

quote:

---

Asked whether the attack on the UN post might deter countries considering contributing to the multinational force that Israel wants to maintain a buffer zone on the Lebanese side of the border, Ms Livni said she did not think so because the governments would realise that the bombing was not deliberate. "

---

quote:

---

As opposed to a 'measured response', which is definitely not war.

---

That's incorrect.

quote:

---

Continuing to shell and then bombing after receiving numerous phone calls makes the IDF look responsible or at least grossly negligent.

---

It was HIGHLY probably that it was an accident. Mr. Kofi Annan said "apparently," which is inconclusive, and has since accepted the explanation of the PM of Israel.

According to UNIFIL field reports of this past two weeks, the Israelis have been able to create safe corridors for UNIFIL to pass through. The communications has been excellent. The avoidance of noncombattants has been the pattern for the IDF. They have evacuated injured people, as well.

The Hezbollah have used UN outposts as shields, according to the same UNIFIL field reports. If the Hezbollah had used this outpost on that day, as they had on other days, that would fit a pattern. These are the tactics of Hezbollah at war. They hide behind noncombattants and expect the IDF to stand down or risk injuring noncombattants.

Depending on the military target, the risk may be deemed tactically necessary. The noncombattants are NOT the primary target but due to the Hezbollah's means of warfare the noncombattants are placed too near or in front of the primary target. Or, more accurately, the mobile combattants place themselves too near or behind noncombattants.

That sort of action -- using noncombattants as shields -- is criminal, according to the principles in the Geneva Conventions.

However, Hezbollah is not a signatory. Neither is it a member of the UN. And yet it has militarized the Lebanon border, with fortifications, minefields, and bunkers. All against the very UN resolution that, if implemented, would have prevented the attack on Israel.

And Israel's response to that attack has been measured i.e. proportional.

[ 26 July 2006: Message edited by: Chairm ]

[ 26 July 2006: Message edited by: Chairm ]

quote:

---

Meanwhile, while Nancy was singing and Brazil was scoring, Halutz and Olmert were putting the final touches on their long-planned bombing campaign. They would go up and hit Tripoli's port, a Sunni area. They would hit the port at Jounieh, the trendy Christian city near Beirut. They would hit Beirut's port and its new shiny airport. They would hit the milk factory, the telecom towers, the roads, the bridges, and some clinics and hospitals for good measure. They would hit the fuel depots. It would be a total war on the Lebanese civilian population, setting 800,000 out of 3.8 million out from their homes or the rubble of their former homes, forcing them to other cities as homeless refugees, or abroad to Syria or Cyprus. They would reduce al-Dahiyah al-Janubiyah, the teeming Shiite slum to the south, to rubble and stray bloody fingers, feet and noses. They would say that these were all military targets, but they lied. Hizbullah is a political party with 14 MPs in parliament. It has political party offices, soup kitchens, clinics, in those Shiite slums. A lot of times it seems to be these that the Israelis hit. They lied and said that missiles were launched from Beirut, when they never were.

Israel's present policy toward Lebanon, of striking at so many civilian targets as to hold the entire civilian population hostage, is unspeakable.

Juan Cole

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Chairm:

It was HIGHLY probably that it was an accident. Mr. Kofi Annan said "apparently," which is inconclusive, and has since accepted the explanation of the PM of Israel.

According to UNIFIL field reports of this past two weeks, the Israelis have been able to create safe corridors for UNIFIL to pass through. The communications has been excellent. The avoidance of noncombattants has been the pattern for the IDF. They have evacuated injured people, as well.

The Hezbollah have used UN outposts as shields, according to the same UNIFIL field reports. If the Hezbollah had used this outpost on that day, as they had on other days, that would fit a pattern. These are the tactics of Hezbollah at war. They hide behind noncombattants and expect the IDF to stand down or risk injuring noncombattants.

Depending on the military target, the risk may be deemed tactically necessary. The noncombattants are NOT the primary target but due to the Hezbollah's means of warfare the noncombattants are placed too near or in front of the primary target. Or, more accurately, the mobile combattants place themselves too near or behind noncombattants.

That sort of action -- using noncombattants as shields -- is criminal, according to the principles in the Geneva Conventions.

However, Hezbollah is not a signatory. Neither is it a member of the UN. And yet it has militarized the Lebanon border, with fortifications, minefields, and bunkers. All against the very UN resolution that, if implemented, would have prevented the attack on Israel.

And Israel's response to that attack has been measured i.e. proportional.

[ 26 July 2006: Message edited by: Chairm ]

[ 26 July 2006: Message edited by: Chairm ]

---

The best one though is that Israel will not give back Sheba Farms to Lebanon because Israel claims the area belongs to Syria

Anyway, back to the real world...

UN Says It Warned Israel Not to Fire on Post

quote:

---

Ms. Lute said the United Nations was so alarmed by the incidents that she enlisted Mark Malloch Brown, the deputy secretary general, to join her in placing the calls.

When the United Nations force in Lebanon, known as UNIFIL, reported losing contact with the outpost, it secured safe passage from Israel to send in Indian troops, who found the shelter collapsed and the remains of three of the four peacekeepers. The fourth is presumed dead, she said.

“Firing continued during the rescue operation despite repeated requests to the I.D.F. for an abatement,” she said, speaking of the Israeli Defense Forces.

She said that UNIFIL had reported 145 incidents of “close firings” with several positions taking direct hits and sustaining damage to buildings, equipment and vehicles.

Ms. Lute said that Secretary General Kofi Annan, who in a statement Tuesday night issued in Rome had called the attacks “apparently deliberate,” now accepted the Israeli government’s assurance that they were not. She said the United Nations welcomed Israel’s promise to conduct an immediate investigation.

---

[ 26 July 2006: Message edited by: Cueball ]

quote:

---

dubious to cite a security council resolution against hezbollah in an argument defending israel

---

Rather that try to divert from the topic at-hand...

UNIFIL outposts were placed there to assist the Government of Lebanon in ensuring the return of its effective authority in the area. That has not been accomplished. In fact, the location of Hezbollah fortifications in close proximity to the UN outposts is a glaring failure for the Lebanese government and for UNIFIL.

Are you defending the military buildup on the border that Hezbollah has pursued in plain sight of UNIFIL?

The real world:

quote:

---

One unarmed UN military observer, a member of the Observer Group Lebanon (OGL), was seriously wounded by small arms fire in the patrol base in the Marun Al Ras area yesterday afternoon. According to preliminary reports, the fire originated from the Hezbollah side during an exchange with the IDF. He was evacuated by the UN to the Israeli side, from where he was taken by an IDF ambulance helicopter to a hospital in Haifa.

---

-- UNIFIL Press Release

quote:

---

Another UN position of the Ghanaian battalion in the area of Marwahin in the western sector was also directly hit by one mortar round from the Hezbollah side last night. The round did not explode, and there were no casualties or material damage. Another 5 incidents of firing close to UN positions from the Israeli side were reported yesterday. It was also reported that Hezbollah fired from the vicinity of four UN positions at Alma ash Shab, Tibnin, Brashit, and At Tiri.

---

-- UNIFIL Press Release

Apparently the Hezbollah tactics continue to draw IDF fire near UN positions.

Furthermore, it is rich indeed that a defender of Israel is prattling on about the Geneva Conventions. Israel been a routine violater of these conventions (torture, illegal settlement, disproportionate means, etc.) And I think you're reading your copy upside down, because your suggestion that Hizbollah bears greater responsibility for the results of Israel's actions than Israel themselves is the opposite of the spirit of the conventions.

Yes, firing from near (and thus drawing fire to) civilian or protected areas may be a war crime, but the crime of indiscriminate force (even in response) and the crime of disproportionate force (especially where it effects civilians, as with Israel's deliberate targetting of civilian populations) are considered far more serious. In the end, the spirit of the Geneva Conventions is that the actor retains ultimate reponsibility for thier actions and the results of them, regardless of what have been done to prompt or illicit the actions. This is no different than in domestic law wherein certain actions on someone elses part might mitigate our judgement of certain actions, but without absolving the primary agent of their own responsibilities to act with care for human life.

Basically, you're claiming "The Devil made 'em do it!" And that just doesn't jive with the entire set of values that the Geneva Conventions are based in.

[ 27 July 2006: Message edited by: B.L. Zeebub LLD ]

quote:

---

[Israeli Justice Minister Haim Ramon] said that in order to prevent casualties among Israeli soldiers battling Hezbollah militants in southern Lebanon, villages should be flattened by the Israeli air force before ground troops move in.

He added that Israel had given the civilians of southern Lebanon ample time to quit the area and therefore anyone still remaining there can be considered Hezbollah supporters.

"All those now in south Lebanon are terrorists who are related in some way to Hezbollah," Mr Ramon said.

---

China condemns attack on UN post

They are not going to forget this.

[ 27 July 2006: Message edited by: brookmere ]

quote:

---

Originally posted by brookmere:
Well at least the Chinese have balls:

---

quote:

---

namely that Arabs are evil and Harper is good

---

Not even close.

Instead of tossing rhetorical stink bombs and namecalling, maybe show some respect fellow readers and contributors here by sticking to the topic at-hand.

* * *

Harper is an elected leader of a sovereign state who supports the right of another sovereign state to defend itself against the Hezbollah which is not a sovereign state, is not a UN member, is not a signator to the Geneva Conventions, is not a legitimate entity on the international border.

Egypt, Saudi Arabi, Jordan are among the Arab states which have also denounced Hezbollah's attacks. Iran is Persian and has Syria in its pocket. Hezbollah is a non-state client that has established safe haven -- or they thought -- on the Lebanon side of Israel's northern border.

* * *

quote:

---

You're running a great smokescreen, but there's one big, fat elephant in the middle of the room: was Hizbollah firing from "near" the UN position that was bombed resulting in the death of 4 soldiers?

---

The patterns of each side -- of the Hezbollah and of the Israelis -- contradicts speculation that in this instance the Israelis had deliberately attacked noncombattants.

Whether Hezbollah were firing at the Israelis in this instance is one of the things that a ground investigation would address.

My question was if this tactic of Hezbollah was being defended here. So before proceeding further on speculations, is the use of noncombattants as shields defended by anyone here?

One of the risks in using such tactics is that in the fog of war errors will be made. It is almost inevitable so the much greater responsibility for innocent casualities must sit on the shoulders of those who would use such shields.

If this tactic can be justified, then, it must be justified not just in the particular instance but in the general pattern of mobile warfare undertaken in a border area where there are well-marked and strategically located UN outposts. Which, as we know, are unarmed and not capable of chasing away those who would use the outposts as shields.

* * *

quote:

---

Basically, you're claiming "The Devil made 'em do it!" And that just doesn't jive with the entire set of values that the Geneva Conventions are based in.

---

Nope.

If the Israeli unit in this instance deliberately attacked noncombattants, as the primary target, and did not attempt other measures to take out the primary target, then, this would make a case for an alleged war crime.

The multiple attempts to hit their target indicates to me that the Israeli unit was not aiming at the outpost but at another primary target.

* * *

quote:

---

Do you have specific evidence that Hizbollah fire was involved in this case?

---

Actual fire? I don't know and neither do you nor does Annan.

However, the pattern of using shields is something that the Hezbollah need to overcome to make this charge stick, because it can be tactically necessary to shoot at a primary target even if it is not firing at the moment of engagement. As I said, this is war.

However, as you may have read in the Globe & Mail, there is more context from the Canadian servicemember who was killed in this incident.

General Lewis MacKenzie:

quote:

---

On July 18, Major Hess-von Kruedener had sent a number of his colleagues, including regimental officers such as myself, an e-mail describing what the situation was like at his location since the Israeli attacks began against Hezbollah in Lebanon.

[...]

What he is saying translates roughly as: "We have Hezbollah fighters all over our position engaging the IDF and using us as shields. They will probably stay, hoping that the IDF won't target them for fear of hitting us."

---

Before leaping to conclusions, let the investigators sort speculation from facts.

I said that it is highly unlikely that the Israeli unit hit the outpost deliberately. I said it is very doubtful that their aim was to destroy noncombattants. We can speculate on either side of the questions, but there is more than enough reason to recognize that it would be against the interests of Israel, both militarily, diplomatically, and in terms of raw propaganda, to murder noncombattants. It is also against their military policy, training, and the public opinion of the Israeli population.

The same is not true of the Hezbollah, and their supporters, who score on all points when any civilian is killed or injured -- Lebanonese or Israeli.

This should weigh against leaping to anti-Israeli conclusions. But if there is demonstrated fault, then, so be it.

* * *

The political-diplomatic stakes are high enough for the Annan that I think his reaction to this incident has an explanation with multiple layers.

First, I do not discount Annan's anti-Israel animus. Whether or not you think that animus is justified in your opinion, it exists nonetheless.

Second, the UN has been ineffective in its mission to help Lebanon secure its border against Hezbollah attacks on Israel. That failure stands against a ceasefire in which the UN would expand its passive UNIFIL-type mandate for peacekeepers.

Third, Annan is ultimately responsible for the safety of the UN personnel on the border. He did not order them out of the area. He ordered them to remain, even though they were not armed and thus incapable of performing their border patrols. In effect, Annan left the UN observers to be used as shields by Hezbollah.

Fourth, Annan has pressed for an immediate cessation of hostilities on the grounds that he wants to make the area safe for humanitarian efforts. Israel has been cooperating with international groups, and the US has been taking the lead, in opening humanitarian corridors. In fact, the IDF has been doing this successfully, on the field of battle in an ad hoc basis, and has even evacuated injured people to hospitals in Israel. This means that Annan's urgent calls can be met in ways other than an immediate ceasefire.

Fifth, Annan has proposed an expansion of the UNIFIL-type mandate for a new force of UN-controlled peacekeepers which would return to the status quo ante. That would favor Hezbollah which has entrenched itself and created a militarized zone where the UNIFIL mandate had failed. Israel, to its credit, has agreed to step back if a multinational force would step forward to do what the Lebanon government, and UNIFIL, have failed to do: disarm Hezbollah and secure the border against attacks on Israel. The reaction of the countries capable of providing the means to take on this mission? Shuffling of feet and a general reluctance, openly expressed, to step forward.

Sixth, Annan knows that the UNIFIL mandate is up for renewal end of this month. It will not be renewed by the Security Council. He has no leverage except to attempt to equivalize the Israelis and the Hezbollah. Israel will not negotiate with a non-state entity that seeks the elimination of Israel. But it has agreed, with the United States, to deal with Lebanon and Syria in securing a longterm solution to the longterm problem created by UNIFIL's failures in the region.

[ 27 July 2006: Message edited by: Chairm ]

[ 27 July 2006: Message edited by: Chairm ]

quote:

---

"If there's one person that could survive this that would be my husband. He's had extensive training, and I'm very confident in him and so are his co-workers," Cynthia Hess-von Kruedener said.

She blamed Israel for the attack, which involved precision guided missiles, saying she believed it was intentional.

She called on the United Nations to expand its search perimeter beyond the bombed bunker site, saying that it's possible her husband had fled the area and needed help.

Hess-von Kruedener also criticized the media for reporting that her husband was dead.

"He is presumed [dead] — you can presume away all you want — but nothing has been confirmed," she said.

Hess-von Kruedener, known as Wolf to his friends and colleagues, was an eager soldier with many friends, said Capt. Bernard Dionne, a public affairs officer at Canadian Forces Base Kingston.

"He was actually an instructor here not too long ago, so we've known him well," Dionne said. "We're certainly close as well to his family through this difficult time."

Over his career, the Canadian soldier served as a UN observer in Cyprus, Congo and Bosnia.

In recent years, Hess-von Kruedener taught soldiers the skills needed to be a UN military observer at the Peace Support Training Centre in Kingston.

Last October, he joined the UN truce and supervision organization. His latest mission was slated to end in August.

Hess-von Kruedener also has two grown children, a stepson and a daughter from his first marriage.

---

And there are apologists for this snivelling, spineless, Bush-toy?

quote:

---

Please, let's not allow either side in this dispsute to make of Cynthia Hess-von Kruedener another human shield.

Let her alone.

---

Oh, and I know the propaganda and lie machines are working 24 hours to apologize for murdering civilians, war crimes, and the murder of unarmed peace keepers. But let's remind ourselves what racist regime actually does use human shields and not Jewish human shields:

quote:

---

The human rights organization B'Tselem claims that IDF soldiers used six Palestinians, two of them underage, as human shields for twelve hours during IDF operations this week in Beit Hanoun in the northern Gaza strip.

A B'Tselem investigation published Thursday states that during the operation, IDF forces took over two buildings in Beit Hanoun. The residents served as human shields at that time, during which exchanges of fire took place between IDF forces and Palestinian operatives. The organization claims that the soldiers endangered the lives of the Palestinians in the buildings, who were forced to remain where they were, contrary to their wishes.

---

http://www.ynetnews.com/articles/0,7340,L-3279175,00.html

Oh and when was that? The article is dated just a week ago.

[ 27 July 2006: Message edited by: Frustrated Mess ]

Has anyone detected any sign of caring in the Butcher's face?

I think you can tell a lot from a person's look and voice. The Butcher is so jaded by his ideology that human life, even his own family, mean nothing to him.

Those who defend him should pause and reflect what they are doing. Pathological personalities like his are thankfully not common in our country. What a tragic turn of events that he should have weaseled his way into the leadership of government.

Pointing to other topics, as important as you may feel they are, diverts from this topic.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Frustrated Mess:
Boy, you apologists for Israeli terror sure find a lot not to want to talk about. The racist state murdered her husband. With precision weapons.

---

quote:

---

They tend to humanize the conflict.

---

quote:

---

Egypt, Saudi Arabi, Jordan are among the Arab states which have also denounced Hezbollah's attacks. Iran is Persian and has Syria in its pocket. Hezbollah is a non-state client that has established safe haven -- or they thought -- on the Lebanon side of Israel's northern border.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Chairm:
Please, let's not allow either side in this dispsute to make of Cynthia Hess-von Kruedener another human shield.

Let her alone.

---

Ah, Chairm. As with the thread on Laureen Harper's tears at the Vimy grave site, your chivalric code is working in high gear.

However, Ms. Hess-von Kruedener may not appreciate your heroics. After all, she did give an orchestrated news conference earlier today.

quote:

---

UN observer's wife calls attack 'intentional'
Updated Thu. Jul. 27 2006 11:30 PM ET

CTV.ca News Staff

The wife of Maj. Paeta Hess-von Kruedener, missing and presumed dead after an Israeli attack on his UN observer post, has charged the bombing was "intentional."

"The building was clearly marked, their vehicles were clearly marked, they were clearly marked as UN observers," Cynthia Hess-von Kruedener told reporters Thursday.

"So why were (the Israelis) firing on that base? ... In my opinion, those were precision-guided missiles, so the attack was intentional."

She also said that Israel had attacked the area several times before, "for weeks upon weeks," according to her husband.

The Canadian government identified Hess-von Kruedener of Kingston, Ont., as missing and presumed dead following the Israeli bombardment on Tuesday.

---

Ms. Hess-von Kruedener may not be quite the shrinking violet you imagine needs your manly protection.

So, retiredGeneral Lewis MacKenzie (but current political pundit) received a letter from Major Hess-von Kruedener? Would it be the same letter the major sent to CTV?

quote:

---

Originally posted by siren:
As with the thread on Laureen Harper's tears at the Vimy grave site, your chivalric code is working in high gear.

---

How true. Of course it's not chivalry. He doesn't want to protect her - he wants to shut her up. She should be weeping on cue like the Butcher's wife, not pointing her finger in condemnation of those who bombed a clearly marked UN installation which had been in the same spot for 30 years.

So I guess Canadians have a couple of choices among female figures in the news lately. I've cast my vote: How about you?

Mr. and Mrs. Stephen Harper:

Cynthia Hess-von Kruedener:

[ 27 July 2006: Message edited by: unionist ]

quote:

---

Originally posted by unionist:
How true. Of course it's not chivalry. He doesn't want to protect her - he wants to shut her up........

---

Shut her up, boink her -- I forget all the ins and outs, er, complexities of the chivalric code.

quote:

---

So I guess Canadians have a couple of choices among female figures in the news lately. I've cast my vote: How about you?

---

Well that first picture is of a 2 headed monster so that's out! I actually looked for a pic of Adrienne Arsenault in a flak jacket reporting from the ME, but no dice.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Doug:
If that's the story, then why were there not instructions given to the UN outpost to vacate their position in advance of the bombing? That seems reasonable, no?

---

quote:

---

Would it be the same letter the major sent to CTV?

---

Apparently, yes. In fact, the following paragraph was quoted in both the CTV bit you linked and in retired General Lewis MacKenzie's bit to which I linked.

quote:

---

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.

---

Follow my link and read the excerpt in which the General explains further.

quote:

---

Do you know the difference of opinions between Sunni and Shi'a Muslims? If you did, you would realize why this is a silly statement.

---

Is a Sunni Arab not an Arab? Is Shi'a Arab not an Arab?

Please explain how your remark has anything at all to do with the comment to which my statement was in response (see above). There was some accusation of being anti-Arab and so forth which is unfounded and just another example of namecalling.

However, in your recent comment you are being too mysterious. Spell it out. Explain what others here should realize that is so obvious to you.

quote:

---

As with the thread on Laureen Harper's tears at the Vimy grave site, your chivalric code is working in high gear.

---

Chivalric code has a high gear? Heh. I don't know if yours is a case of cross-thread stalking, but try not to take things so personally. Chill.

Treating a human being with respect does not depend on gender. To claim otherwise is rather sexist at the getgo.

No need to mischaracterize with words like "shrinking violet". No need for such lowball hostility to get your disagreement across. It is more productive, and a less wasteful of pixels, to just make your argument, as best one can, and let the chips fall where they may fall.

[ 28 July 2006: Message edited by: Chairm ]

[ 28 July 2006: Message edited by: Chairm ]

quote:

---

Originally posted by Chairm:

UNIFIL outposts were placed there to assist the Government of Lebanon in ensuring the return of its effective authority in the area. That has not been accomplished. In fact, the location of Hezbollah fortifications in close proximity to the UN outposts is a glaring failure for the Lebanese government and for UNIFIL.

---

Of course, in 1972 the security council predicted the rise of Hezbolah, and so 10 years before the orgnization came into existance astutely place observer posts specifically to combat their future presence there. Prey tell, are there UN specialist working on psychic and predictive phenomena at some kind of little known "UN Nostradamus Institute?" Were they able to come up with an exact copy of resolution 1559, or only a rough outline, 33 years before it was actually voted on?

Please fill me in, I am all eyes.

It is too bad that despite testimony that fellow soldiers have given in regard to Major Hess-von Kruedener, "as a soldier who loves what he does and he's really good at it," it seems he was completey confused as to his mission.

I mean, one really has to wonder why he would note in his letter that his post was positioned in a place that had "been the main axis for invasion in to Lebanon and Palestinian Territories," strange to be making this point about his post as his focus was meant to be helping assert Lebanese government authority, and securing "its (Lebanon's) borders against Hezbollah attacks on Israel," as you have sagaciously revealed.

It is almost as if he reads the situation in reverse. I am glad that you are here to correct "Kruedener's" misaprehensions. Thanks so much.

He goes on at length, to the point where "support" of 1559, is little more that a footnote, and even that is modified by the caveat: "within our mission mandate."

quote:

---

The mission of Team Sierra and OGL within the greater context of UNTSO is to maintain the integrity of the Withdrawal Line (Blue Line), and report on any and all violations or activities that threaten the cease-fire and international peace and security here along the Lebanese/Israeli border, and Israeli Occupied Lebanon, and to support the UNSC resolution 1559, within our mission mandate.

---

It seems that Kruedener, despite what we must see (in the light of your superior knowledge of the UN mandate in Leabnon and the role of his observer post) as overly sentimental expressions of fondness for a dead comrade, was basicly unaware that his primary mission was supporting 1559, as he seems completely obsessed with watching the border for cease fire violations, and musing about topographical peculiarities that would make his position central to invasions of Lebanon, presumably by Israel.

Make stuff up that you think sounds good often, or is there a site I can link to for the original fabulation?

Judeascope, perhaps?

[ 28 July 2006: Message edited by: Cueball ]