[analogika]

Originally Posted by Zeeb

And once again I maintain that what Israel is doing, albeit morally questionable at times, is no different that what other nations including the United States, Russia, China etc have done in an overt fashion. Depending upon the situation, assassinations are sometimes actually supported publicly. Just type the word into Wikipedia for more details or Google it.

That an action is popular is by no means an indicator that it is in any way permissible.

I'm sure that there are places in our countries where lynchings might fall upon wide support.
There are other places where stonings are popular. And others that enjoy the death penalty, state-performed assassinations of its own citizens. And then there might be neighborhoods that actually applauded the collapse of the Twin Towers.

Remember, Jew-hunting and nigger-baiting used to be quite widely supported publicly, as well.

Your argument doesn't work.

[Zeeb]

Originally Posted by analogika

That an action is popular is by no means an indicator that it is in any way permissible.

I'm sure that there are places in our countries where lynchings might fall upon wide support.
There are other places where stonings are popular. And others that enjoy the death penalty, state-performed assassinations of its own citizens. And then there might be neighborhoods that actually applauded the collapse of the Twin Towers.

Remember, Jew-hunting and nigger-baiting used to be quite widely supported publicly, as well.

Your argument doesn't work.

Did you ever watch Sesame Street? There was a song on that show that went something like, "These two things are not the same, which of them is different". Lynchings, n*****r baiting etc are not similar to what we have discussed so far. Assassinations are not noble, I'll give you that.

I would love it if all countries followed the idealogy set forth in the The Republic but the truth is that most countries are in situations closer to those depicted in The Prince. I don't like it when people are killed without due process--or at all really. That being said, most of the people marked for assassination by Israel have earned that distinction. It means that person already has blood on their hands and will happily continue to produce bloodshed. Assassination is a dubious act -- its awful but sometimes the intention of it can be to save a greater number of people's lives. If Israel were assassinating people who simply spoke out against them I would think differently.

Let's just speculate for a moment that Hezbollah and some of these other extremist groups succeed and Israel is destroyed. What type of state do you think they would form? Do you think it would be a republic with progressive rights for women and other minorities? Do you think that we would be having this discussion right now in that country?

[CRASH HARDDRIVE]

I'd be willing to bet that some Israeli commander snapped after being undermined by UN “observers” really acting as “forward observers” for Hezbollah and decided to return the favor.

No, I can't prove it. Yes, it's pure speculation, but it's nothing I wouldn't put past the Useless Nitwits.

[voodoo]

Originally Posted by CRASH HARDDRIVE

I'd be willing to bet that some Israeli commander snapped after being undermined by UN “observers” really acting as “forward observers” for Hezbollah and decided to return the favor.

No, I can't prove it. Yes, it's pure speculation, but it's nothing I wouldn't put past the Useless Nitwits.

Totally agree, the Israeli Army is made up by a bunch of useless nitwits.

V

[black bear theory]

Originally Posted by CRASH HARDDRIVE

I'd be willing to bet that some Israeli commander snapped after being undermined by UN “observers” really acting as “forward observers” for Hezbollah and decided to return the favor.

now, why would hezbollah have forward observers in lebanon, it's own country?

[CRASH HARDDRIVE]

Originally Posted by voodoo

Totally agree, the Israeli Army is made up by a bunch of useless nitwits.

And yet they've pretty much kicked the asses of all the TIDs (Totally Incompetent Dumbf**ks) who've ever messed with them.

[Busemann]

Originally Posted by CRASH HARDDRIVE

I'd be willing to bet that some Israeli commander snapped after being undermined by UN “observers” really acting as “forward observers” for Hezbollah and decided to return the favor.

No, I can't prove it. Yes, it's pure speculation, but it's nothing I wouldn't put past the Useless Nitwits.

Gee, I wonder if you'd change your tune if Hezbollah did this

[CRASH HARDDRIVE]

Originally Posted by Busemann

Gee, I wonder if you'd change your tune if Hezbollah did this

As opposed to firing hundreds of rockets at innocent Israeli citizens?

As I said, it's pure speculation on my part. I could be wrong, and it could be an accident, or a purposeful attack for whatever reason.

No, I don't actually condone Israelis attacking the UN, no matter how corrupt and useless they are. But I could understand the frustration of Israeli commanders in the field if indeed UN 'observers' were in anyway aiding Hezbollah, and then hiding behind pretend neutrality. As I said, I wouldn't put it past them.

[Kevin]

Originally Posted by Troll

The people that Israel murdered at this bunker were Austrian, Chinese, Finnish and Canadian. If they were soldiers, they were soldiers of their respective countries. They were UNARMED!

You "sir" don't know what the word murder means.

But you making such a dishonest statement is of no surprise to me.

Originally Posted by Troll

The UN has done a pretty good job so far.

If doing hardly anything to stop terrorism is doing a good job so far then ok.

The UN is about as useful as a butter knife to a metal pipe.

[Kevin]

Originally Posted by vmarks

the UNIFIL report says differently.

http://www.un.org/Depts/dpko/missions/unifil/pr010.pdf

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. All UNIFIL positions remain occupied and maintained by the troops.

So what's happening is quite simple: The UN placed themselves in harm's way, HizbAllah chose to move in alongside them and fire from positions close to the UN, and the UN got hit by HizbAllah's fire as well as Israel firing on HizbAllah. So the answer is to the UN, do not intentionally place yourselves in harm's way and expect to be as safe as sunning in Odessa.

I expect Troll to apologize for calling them murderers.

But I wont hold my breath. He still hasn't apologized for attacking those that claimed the UN was involved with the Oil for Food.

[Pendergast]

Originally Posted by vmarks

So what's happening is quite simple: The UN placed themselves in harm's way, HizbAllah chose to move in alongside them and fire from positions close to the UN, and the UN got hit by HizbAllah's fire as well as Israel firing on HizbAllah. So the answer is to the UN, do not intentionally place yourselves in harm's way and expect to be as safe as sunning in Odessa.

You mean, "UN, don't get involved".

[vmarks]

Originally Posted by Pendergast

You mean, "UN, don't get involved".

Not at all.

I meant exactly what I wrote:

UN, do not intentionally place yourselves in harm's way and expect to be as safe as sunbathing in Odessa.

[shmerek]

Originally Posted by bstone

Post and run. Violation of the rules. tsk tsk.

Been I will since I posted didn't realize there was a rule...

[PacHead]

Kofi Annan is an incompetant fool and a liar. He had the authority to order the UN to leave, but he decided to take the same course of action that the UN always takes, nothing . If you hang around in a war zone, then don't whine when you get killed. Hezbollah is using the UN posts to fire from and take cover. The UN is useless and under their watch, thousands of missiles have been smuggled into the Hezbollah terrorists these past years. The UN has done nothing to stop Hezbollah, quite the contrary. Besides assisting the terrorists, what exactly is the UN doing in Lebanon ?

Wherever Hezbollah terrorists are to be found is a legitimate target, including UN outposts, IMO. Kofi Annan should personally visit a few of these hotspots in Lebanon, that would be nice.

[Pendergast]

Originally Posted by vmarks

Not at all.

I meant exactly what I wrote:

UN, do not intentionally place yourselves in harm's way and expect to be as safe as sunbathing in Odessa.

I love the Odessa picture. Still, it seems to me the UN is getting in harms way to hopefully, stop the aggressive behavior of the belligerants.

Or can you prove they are simply incompetent?

[PacHead]

Originally Posted by Pendergast

Or can you prove they are simply incompetent?

The proof is that they've been there for years and they have not done jack sh*t, there's your proof. They have also aided Hezbollah in the past.

[Spliffdaddy]

Originally Posted by Zeeb

Did you ever watch Sesame Street? There was a song on that show that went something like, "These two things are not the same, which of them is different". Lynchings, n*****r baiting etc are not similar to what we have discussed so far. Assassinations are not noble, I'll give you that.

I would love it if all countries followed the idealogy set forth in the The Republic but the truth is that most countries are in situations closer to those depicted in The Prince. I don't like it when people are killed without due process--or at all really. That being said, most of the people marked for assassination by Israel have earned that distinction. It means that person already has blood on their hands and will happily continue to produce bloodshed. Assassination is a dubious act -- its awful but sometimes the intention of it can be to save a greater number of people's lives. If Israel were assassinating people who simply spoke out against them I would think differently.

Let's just speculate for a moment that Hezbollah and some of these other extremist groups succeed and Israel is destroyed. What type of state do you think they would form? Do you think it would be a republic with progressive rights for women and other minorities? Do you think that we would be having this discussion right now in that country?

It's been a lot of years since I've been more impressed with a post.

If this isn't a *SMACKDOWN*, then they simply do not exist.

[Troll]

Originally Posted by vmarks

UN, do not intentionally place yourselves in harm's way and expect to be as safe as sunbathing in Odessa.

If Israel didn't think it could pursue its war without harming the unarmed UN Observers, then why didn't the Israeli Army simply say, in one of the 10 phonecalls the observers made to them, "We cannot guarantee your safety. Let's get you out of there?" Instead they carried on attacking the position for 6 hours and finally took it out with a precision guided missile! The observers were in a n ex-Israeli position so Israel knew exactly where it was and what it looked like and that it had a concrete bunker underneath it. Everything points to Israel murdering innocent, unarmed people.

Besides, the UN didn't "put them in harm's way"; Israel did! Israel is the aggressor here. Israel invaded.

[Troll]

Originally Posted by Zeeb

And once again I maintain that what Israel is doing, albeit morally questionable at times, is no different that what other nations including the United States, Russia, China etc have done in an overt fashion.

You've heard of Executive Order 12333 right? You know, the one that makes it a crime for the US Government to order an assassination. If the US has overtly assassinated people, maybe you should tell us which President needs to go to jail.

Assassination is illegal in most civilised countries on the planet. Executive Order 12333 was watered down by Bush but that's precisely the point I was making. Bush got his war on terror idea from Israel. Israel's general response is to react with excessive lethal force to the slightest provocation. Proudly assassinating anyone involved with an organisation that Israel considers to be illegitimate (and any civilians that happen to be nearby) is another step on Israel's slippery slope. Killing unarmed observers who have been put in harm's way for the sake of peace is another. And unfortunately, because the neocon right in America is Israel's number one fan, these policies are becoming more and more mainstream.

[Taliesin]

Originally Posted by Troll

Personally, my theory for why they did this would be that the Israelis want the UN observers withdrawn (for their own safety) so that the Israelis don't have to behave themselves while they're being watched.

Exactly that is the number-one reason why Israel did it, to practice busting bunkers is just a nice bonus.

Australia already has just declared to withdraw its part of the UN-observer-mission in Lebanon.

I guess others will soon follow suit: Mission accomplished, Israel!

Taliesin

[Kevin]

Originally Posted by Troll

If Israel didn't think it could pursue its war without harming the unarmed UN Observers, then why didn't the Israeli Army simply say, in one of the 10 phonecalls the observers made to them, "We cannot guarantee your safety. Let's get you out of there?" Instead they carried on attacking the position for 6 hours and finally took it out with a precision guided missile! The observers were in a n ex-Israeli position so Israel knew exactly where it was and what it looked like and that it had a concrete bunker underneath it. Everything points to Israel murdering innocent, unarmed people.

Besides, the UN didn't "put them in harm's way"; Israel did! Israel is the aggressor here. Israel invaded.

You are SO off base Troll. We know you are a UN fanboy. Back when the oil for food scandal hit you denied it all. Attacked those that claimed they were involved.

When it came out not only were they involved but they were DEEPLY involved, you suddenly dropped the whole argument act put people on ignore that were right.

You don't CARE about the truth. You just care about what can make "Your Side" look good.

For example, calling this whole thing a Murder. Do you honestly expect anyone to take you seriously when you post such hyperbole?

Why was the UN so close to Hezbollah? Or vice versa?

The UN has been there for how many years? How come they are so flaccid with their jobs?

Originally Posted by Taliesin

Exactly that is the number-one reason why Israel did it, to practice busting bunkers is just a nice bonus.

Australia already has just declared to withdraw its part of the UN-observer-mission in Lebanon.

I guess others will soon follow suit: Mission accomplished, Israel!

Taliesin

This is why people also don't take you seriously.

You have no proof of the like. Vmarks actually DEBUNKED this silliness in the last page.

Yet you two still are hyperboling.

Why? You WANT it to be true. Regardless of the facts.

You both seriously need to get a grip.

[Taliesin]

Originally Posted by Kevin

You are SO off base Troll. We know you are a UN fanboy. Back when the oil for food scandal hit you denied it all. Attacked those that claimed they were involved.

When it came out not only were they involved but they were DEEPLY involved, you suddenly dropped the whole argument act put people on ignore that were right.

You don't CARE about the truth. You just care about what can make "Your Side" look good.

For example, calling this whole thing a Murder. Do you honestly expect anyone to take you seriously when you post such hyperbole?

Why was the UN so close to Hezbollah? Or vice versa?

The UN has been there for how many years? How come they are so flaccid with their jobs?

This is why people also don't take you seriously.

You have no proof of the like. Vmarks actually DEBUNKED this silliness in the last page.

Yet you two still are hyperboling.

Why? You WANT it to be true. Regardless of the facts.

You both seriously need to get a grip.

The UN-oil-scandal was well known in the US and Britain long before it came to public's attention, the US was involved in it, too, and even called the europeans to let it happen, as it was instrumental in helping Jordan stay alive and well. About 4 billions of dollars of illegal deals were the fault and responsibility of the corrupt UN, but about 14 billions of dollar worth illegal trade circumventing the sanctions were the fault and responsibility of the US and Britain:

US and UK blamed for oil scandal

The US and Britain are partly to blame for the scandal enveloping the UN oil-for-food programme, Secretary General Kofi Annan has said.

Former Iraqi leader Saddam Hussein made billions of dollars smuggling oil in defiance of sanctions policed by the US and Britain, the UN chief said.

Mr Annan was recently criticised over his son's work with the programme.

A UK government minister told the BBC that an interim report had criticised the UN, not national governments.

The $60bn (£32bn) UN programme allowed Iraq to sell oil in order to buy civilian goods and ease the impact of UN sanctions.

US Senate investigators have alleged that the Iraqi regime received some $4bn (£2.13bn) in illegal payments from oil companies involved in the programme.

The BBC's Michael Voss in New York says this figure is dwarfed by the $14bn (£7.5bn) that allegedly came from "sanctions-busting" - illegally selling oil to neighbouring states such as Jordan and Turkey.

Overland route

"The bulk of the money that Saddam [Hussein] made came out of smuggling outside the oil-for-food programme, and it was on the American and British watch," Mr Annan said.

"Possibly they were the ones who knew exactly what was going on, and that the countries themselves decided to close their eyes to smuggling to Turkey and Jordan because they were allies."

Oil shipments were openly sent from Iraq to Jordan and Turkey during the 1990s and were not intercepted, despite the US maintaining forces in the Gulf area.

The overland route from Iraq to Turkey was a very busy oil route, very clearly officially sanctioned by Turkey, says the BBC's Jonny Dymond in Istanbul.

It is difficult to believe that the large US and UK embassies in Turkey would not have known that a large quantity of Iraqi oil was being smuggled across the border, our correspondent adds.

Mr Annan partly excused the smuggling to Jordan and Turkey, accepting that countries not under sanctions had a right to be compensated for any loss of trading income.

Source: http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/4447165.stm

As to the other accusation, that the UN-forces were not effective enough, well, you know as it well as I know that the UN is only as strong as its members want it to be and are committed to support it politically, financially and military.

Taliesin

[Kevin]

For those that seemed to have missed it the first time

Originally Posted by vmarks

the UNIFIL report says differently.

http://www.un.org/Depts/dpko/missions/unifil/pr010.pdf

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. All UNIFIL positions remain occupied and maintained by the troops.

So what's happening is quite simple: The UN placed themselves in harm's way, HizbAllah chose to move in alongside them and fire from positions close to the UN, and the UN got hit by HizbAllah's fire as well as Israel firing on HizbAllah. So the answer is to the UN, do not intentionally place yourselves in harm's way and expect to be as safe as sunning in Odessa.

[vmarks]

http://blogs.news.com.au/heraldsun/a...st_was_bombed/ is a good read.



When the UN and HizbAllah flag are flying side by side, why isn't it the UN's responsibility to pull out or blame HizbAllah for making them in the range of a legitimate target?

Once again this is the world blaming Israel, the defender, instead of HizbAllah, the aggressor.

[Troll]

I wish people wouldn't quote Kevin. It's the only time I ever seen his drivel. I did not, as he accuses, put everyone on ignore who disagreed with me on the OFFP. I put Kevin on ignore because most of his posts had nothing to do with the topics at hand. He is the only person I have ever put on ignore.

As for the OFFP, I simply noted at the time that a lot of people were making posts stating that the UN was corrupt to the core as evidenced by the corruption in the OFFP - and this BEFORE any investigation or findings had been made. I noted that when it came to issues like Abu Ghraib, certain people demanded that we not assume guilt until the investigations had finished but this did not apply to the OFFP. The conclusions continued to be drawn and I continued to point out that no findings had been made.

When the investigation into the OFFP concluded and the findings were published, the news was considerably less dire than Kevin and co had said it would be. 1% of the aid that was delivered through the programme was ferretted away to a handful of individuals. There was no proof that Iraq had gotten any political favours in return. The investigation found that the most significant source of Saddam's illegally obtained cash was not the OFFP but smuggling that the investigation noted the US had encouraged since Congress had said that the smuggling was in the US's national interests. I've condemned the corruption in the OFFP. I wish there weren't corruption in any government or NGO. The reality though is that it happens everywhere. The OFFP was the biggest humanitarian aid programme ever undertaken and of course there was leakage. The thing is that the American right had it in for the UN (because the UN hadn't been a rubber stamp for their Iraq plans) and so they made a mountain out of a molehill.

In any event, that has nothing to do with this incident. Even if those people had not been employed by the UN as observers, there was no reason to murder 4 unarmed people who Israel knew had nothing to do with terrorism and Hezbollah and who Israel knew after numerous calls had been made, were in danger. Israel promised to stop the attack and yet carried on for 6 hours. They finally ended the assault with a precision guided missile attack and the bunker they blew up was one they themselves had occupied years before. The Israeli army has 3D maps of every building in Southern Lebanon and you can bet that buildings they used to occupy are on that map. For them to make such a mistake would be beyond incredible.

These people were nothing but the Secretary General's eyes on the ground. They reported to the UN and all of the members of the UN had access to their reports. Blaming them for not stopping Hezbollah is ridiculous. They neither had the mandate nor the resources to do that.

[TETENAL]

Why would the UN allow Hezbollah to use their posts as cover? They should never. This is just a blog and not a reliable news source.

"The world" is supporting Israel in its right to defend itself. Just not when fighting dirty.

[Troll]

Originally Posted by vmarks

When the UN and HizbAllah flag are flying side by side, why isn't it the UN's responsibility to pull out or blame HizbAllah for making them in the range of a legitimate target?

Once again this is the world blaming Israel, the defender, instead of HizbAllah, the aggressor.

Two questions for you:

1) If Hezbollah was close to the UN bunker that was bombed, why didn't the Israeli soldiers say, when the UN called, "Hezbollah are nearby. We can't guarantee your safety. You need to get out of there." Why, instead, did they promise to stop the attack?

2) Israel knew exactly where that bunker was and who was in it. Are you telling us the direct hit by a bunker busting missile was actually supposed to hit some other bunker?

[OreoCookie]

Originally Posted by vmarks

http://blogs.news.com.au/heraldsun/a...st_was_bombed/ is a good read.



When the UN and HizbAllah flag are flying side by side, why isn't it the UN's responsibility to pull out or blame HizbAllah for making them in the range of a legitimate target?

Once again this is the world blaming Israel, the defender, instead of HizbAllah, the aggressor.

The UN soldiers contacted the Israeli liaison officer 9 times that day and the Israeli soldier promised them to stop firing in their vicinity. He could have told them to leave as well, but he didn't.

In this case, the IDF is clearly to blame, it has nothing to do with Hezbollah.

[vmarks]

Originally Posted by Troll

Two questions for you:

1) If Hezbollah was close to the UN bunker that was bombed, why didn't the Israeli soldiers say, when the UN called, "Hezbollah are nearby. We can't guarantee your safety. You need to get out of there." Why, instead, did they promise to stop the attack?

The UN placed themselves in the middle of a war. Are they children that they need to be told their safety is not guaranteed?

2) Israel knew exactly where that bunker was and who was in it. Are you telling us the direct hit by a bunker busting missile was actually supposed to hit some other bunker?

Yes. You are suggesting that Israel intentionally hit the UN, and I'm telling you again in no uncertain terms so you cannot make an error: You're wrong.

Both Israel and HizbAllah are firing on each other. The UN posts happen to be located so closely together with HizbAllah that the HizbAllah flag and the UN flag are flying side by side.

It should be no surprise that the UN post is hit by both HizbAllah and Israeli fire.

What is surprising is the disproportionate response displayed by the UN in their condemnation of only the Israelis.

But then, what else is new?

The U.N. promise was that Hezbollah would be defanged and that U.N. peacekeepers would help the Lebanese government reestablish control over Hezbollah-infested terrain inside Lebanon.

Over the past six years, Israel honored its commitment to peace. The U.N. — disproportionately — required in practice no such compliance on the Lebanese side of the border.

[Jawbone54]

Originally Posted by vmarks

The UN placed themselves in the middle of a war. Are they children that they need to be told their safety is not guaranteed?



Yes. You are suggesting that Israel intentionally hit the UN, and I'm telling you again in no uncertain terms so you cannot make an error: You're wrong.

Both Israel and HizbAllah are firing on each other. The UN posts happen to be located so closely together with HizbAllah that the HizbAllah flag and the UN flag are flying side by side.

It should be no surprise that the UN post is hit by both HizbAllah and Israeli fire.

What is surprising is the disproportionate response displayed by the UN in their condemnation of only the Israelis.

But then, what else is new?

The U.N. promise was that Hezbollah would be defanged and that U.N. peacekeepers would help the Lebanese government reestablish control over Hezbollah-infested terrain inside Lebanon.

Over the past six years, Israel honored its commitment to peace. The U.N. — disproportionately — required in practice no such compliance on the Lebanese side of the border.

Brilliant post.

It's not a matter of anyone being truly disturbed and aggravated at Israel for having hit U.N. observers. Leftists DESPERATELY want Israel to have done it intentionally so that they have yet another reason to blame Israel for all of the chaos that constantly erupts in the Middle East.

If Israel didn't have the U.S. as its ally, the rest of the world would've gladly destroyed her years ago.

Why? Because Israel doesn't fit the apologetic, never respond when attacked, emasculated mold that the rest of the international community seems to have adopted (except for Islamic nations, of course). Israel has to live next door to people that hate them and wish for their destruction. Maybe if Kofi Annan had grown up in Israel...

[Troll]

Originally Posted by vmarks

The UN placed themselves in the middle of a war. Are they children that they need to be told their safety is not guaranteed?

No they did not place themselves in the middle of a war. They were there before Israel attacked. Besides which Israel has been at pains to say that it is not at war with Lebanon.

But you didn't answer the question, you sidestepped it. Why did the Israelis promise to stop the attack? Presumably the UN observers made their decision to stay on the basis of the promises made. What else were they to do, walk out of a concrete bunker unarmed into a war zone? Of course they had to stay in the bunker. The only way they could have left is if the Israelis had arranged for their evacuation. Any other way they were dead.

The Israelis could just as easily have said that they would not stop the attack and made arrangements to get the observers out of there. They didn't. It doesn't make sense vmarks. A 6 hour long attack that they promised 10 time to stop and eventually ended with a precision guided missile attack right into a bunker that the Israeli Army itself had once occupied. That is an error of an order of magnitude without precedent if it was an error.

Originally Posted by vmarks

The UN posts happen to be located so closely together with HizbAllah that the HizbAllah flag and the UN flag are flying side by side.

There's no proof at all that Hezbollah were near that bunker. Why should we believe that photo? It's posted on some dumb-a$$'s blog. Uncredited. Who knows what it's a photo of or even if it's a real photo. The point is that if Israel had to drop artillery shells and "precision" guided missiles in that area because Hezbollah was close then they should have told the UN observers that instead of promising to stop the attack.

[Zeeb]

Originally Posted by Troll

There's no proof at all that Hezbollah were near that bunker. Why should we believe that photo? It's posted on some dumb-a$$'s blog. Uncredited. Who knows what it's a photo of or even if it's a real photo. The point is that if Israel had to drop artillery shells and "precision" guided missiles in that area because Hezbollah was close then they should have told the UN observers that instead of promising to stop the attack.

I think its reasonable to doubt the validity of various accounts and photos -- the sources of which cannot yet be verified. However, you then go ahead and pronounce judgement that Israel deliberately attacked the UN with equally dubious and unfounded accounts. The only truth right now is that this event has just happened and there has not been a sufficient investigation.

I think you are coming into this whole debate with a prejudice and it does not allow you to be objective--but I suppose we all do. Israel may have done this deliberately and it may not have--we'll have to wait won't we?

[vmarks]

Originally Posted by Troll

No they did not place themselves in the middle of a war. They were there before Israel attacked. Besides which Israel has been at pains to say that it is not at war with Lebanon.

Kofi Annan could have ordered them to leave. He did not, so they stayed.
Annan shares responsibility.

But you didn't answer the question, you sidestepped it. Why did the Israelis promise to stop the attack?

I'm not sure they did promise any such thing. This seems to be the first time you've mentioned it and I haven't seen it in other reports.

Presumably the UN observers made their decision to stay on the basis of the promises made. What else were they to do, walk out of a concrete bunker unarmed into a war zone? Of course they had to stay in the bunker. The only way they could have left is if the Israelis had arranged for their evacuation. Any other way they were dead.

Here at least you admit you're presuming without basis in fact.

The Israelis could just as easily have said that they would not stop the attack and made arrangements to get the observers out of there. They didn't. It doesn't make sense vmarks. A 6 hour long attack that they promised 10 time to stop and eventually ended with a precision guided missile attack right into a bunker that the Israeli Army itself had once occupied. That is an error of an order of magnitude without precedent if it was an error.

Was it 6 times they were in contact, 9 times they were in contact, or 10 times they promised? I can't be sure. You keep shifting numbers.

Secondly, HizbAllah was near the bunker.

There's no proof at all that Hezbollah were near that bunker.

Wrong. UNIFIL's OWN REPORT says so.

http://www.un.org/Depts/dpko/missions/unifil/pr010.pdf

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. All UNIFIL positions remain occupied and maintained by the troops.

Why should we believe that photo? It's posted on some dumb-a$$'s blog. Uncredited. Who knows what it's a photo of or even if it's a real photo. The point is that if Israel had to drop artillery shells and "precision" guided missiles in that area because Hezbollah was close then they should have told the UN observers that instead of promising to stop the attack.

Once again you're privy to 'promises' no one else seems to be reporting. And as always, you believe what fits your world view, in this case, an accusation of murder, that the IDF directly targeted the UN post with the intent to cause UN deaths. That you do not see the offensive and inappropriate nature of that statement against a member state, and do not see the absurdity of it on its face just goes to show you don't like admitting when you're in error.

[Troll]

Originally Posted by vmarks

Kofi Annan could have ordered them to leave.

With artillery shells falling all around the bunker, you think Annan should have ordered unarmed men to just walk out of there! J'hallucine! They would have been dead within 10 steps!

Originally Posted by vmarks

I'm not sure they did promise any such thing. This seems to be the first time you've mentioned it and I haven't seen it in other reports.

You didn't read the first page?

Annan said, "General Alain Pelligrini, the U.N. force commander in south Lebanon, had been in repeated contact with Israeli officers throughout the day on Tuesday, stressing the need to protect that particular U.N. position from attack.

There was an Austrian, a Finnish, a Chinese and a Canadian on the post. They called their designated contact in the Israeli Army 10 times telling him that the bombs were landing closer and closer to the post. The Israelis promised to stop the attack but never did."

Originally Posted by vmarks

Secondly, HizbAllah was near the bunker.

There were five attacks on UN observation posts. Count them - one, two, three, four five. The 4 people were killed at Khiyam. Does your quote say ANYTHING about Hezbollah guerillas at Khiyam? No it doesn't.

Originally Posted by vmarks

And as always, you believe what fits your world view, in this case, an accusation of murder, that the IDF directly targeted the UN post with the intent to cause UN deaths. That you do not see the offensive and inappropriate nature of that statement against a member state, and do not see the absurdity of it on its face just goes to show you don't like admitting when you're in error.

Evidently the Secretary General doesn't see the absurdity of that statement either. Looking at the evidence, the best case scenario for the Israelis is culpable homicide. The absolute best case case scenario for them is that it was GROSS negligence of the highest order that lead to a "precision" missile killing those 4 unarmed observers. They certainly deserve to be accused of murder in the circumstances. The onus is very clearly on them to prove otherwise given the circumstances.

What's interesting though is how everyone is focussing on the UN soldiers. If this is the level of professionalism you can expect from the Israeli Army - if they can take out a well-marked UN post in the circumstances this one was taken out in, then one can only imagine how slack they are when it comes to protecting civilians. I would imagine that they pay particular attention to not hitting the UN given the political fallout that must inevitably entail and yet they can do this, How much worse off must civilians be.

[vmarks]

Prime Minister
Israel's prime minister, Ehud Olmert, issued a statement. "It's inconceivable for the UN to define an error as an 'apparently deliberate' action." He expressed his "deep sorrow" earlier on Wednesday over the deaths.

Foreign Ministry spokesman
"Israel sincerely regrets the tragic deaths of the UN personnel in south Lebanon," said Foreign Ministry spokesman Mark Regev.

Israeli Ambassadors
Dan Ayalon, the Israeli Ambassador to the US, demanded that Annan apologize for the remarks, which he called "baseless." The Israeli Ambassador to the UN, Dan Gillerman, expressed his "deep regret" for the deaths, and denied that the incident was intentional. He said that he was "shocked and deeply distressed by the hasty statement of the secretary-general, insinuating that Israel has deliberately targeted the UN post," calling the comments "premature and erroneous."

So, Annan and yourself have leapt to conclusions with no evidence, yet Israel has expressed regret that it happened, and promised an investigation.

Someday perhaps, you and Annan can demand HizbAllah behave the same way. Until then, your response is disproportionate and reveals the first instinct you both have in common- accuse Israel.

[lpkmckenna]

Canadian General: UN Observer Post Used By Hizballah. Interview audio included.

Originally Posted by General MacKenzie

We received emails from him a few days ago, and he was describing the fact that he was taking fire within, in one case, three meters of his position for tactical necessity, not being targeted. Now that’s veiled speech in the military. What he was telling us was Hezbollah soldiers were all over his position and the IDF were targeting them. And that’s a favorite trick by people who don’t have representation in the UN. They use the UN as shields knowing that they can’t be punished for it.

[Troll]

Originally Posted by vmarks

your response is disproportionate and reveals the first instinct you both have in common- accuse Israel.

Uh, who else should we accuse when Israel admits to having shelled the place for 6 hours and then killing the 4 observers with a precision guided missile? Of course Israel stands accused. I don't doubt that Israel expresses regret. I think that was the plan all along. Get rid of the pesky UN observers by pretending to make a tragic mistake. Like the time Israel made the tragic mistake of sinking the USS Liberty with unmarked torpedo boats.

But you're right, there's an investigation under way by the UN. It has only released preliminary findings. Let's put this on hold till they have released their findings.

[Troll]

Originally Posted by lpkmckenna

Canadian General: UN Observer Post Used By Hizballah. Interview audio included.

As noted, that has about as much credibility as OJ Simpson.

[PacHead]

Originally Posted by Troll

As noted, that has about as much credibility as OJ Simpson.

So you don't trust the statements of your beloved UN all of a sudden ? The UN soldier who was killed emailed about the situation.

[lpkmckenna]

Originally Posted by Troll

As noted, that has about as much credibility as OJ Simpson.

Pointless hyperbole.

[PacHead]

Originally Posted by lpkmckenna

Pointless hyperbole.

That's because he has nothing to counter it with.

[Troll]

Originally Posted by PacHead

The UN soldier who was killed emailed about the situation.

Four UN Observers were killed. Do try to follow Pachead. And once you've caught up, show me the email this UN soldier sent and show me and the "code" I need to interpret it the way your blogger says I should. Come on, that blog has 0 credibility.

[Pendergast]

MORT DE QUATRE OBSERVATEURS DE L'ONU
Les casques bleus avaient brandi le drapeau blanc

Sorry, but I can't find an English translation for the article, but the title says that the UN station had had a white flag out before being destroyed.

[Pendergast]

Originally Posted by vmarks

What is surprising is the disproportionate response displayed by the UN in their condemnation of only the Israelis.

But then, what else is new?

What I find disproportionate is the attack on Lebanon, and yes, nothing is new there either.

[hey!_Zeus]

Originally Posted by ghporter

Gotta be a blunder. Some lack of communication to the artillery crew covering that area.

By the way, "bombs" is WRONG. It was artillery, not bombs-there's a serious and important difference.

Bad move, sure, but I cannot believe that the Israeli leadership, or the military commanders, planned to shell UN observers.

Of course Hizbollah WOULD intentionally attack UN observers. Or day care centers. Or anyone else. If they could aim, that is-their rockets are pretty much as well aimed as bottle rockets.

The Israelis intentionally torpedoed an American ship back in '67 I think. Why would they hesitate to bomb this hilltop outpost to smithereens? It had an excellent 360 degree view of everything. Both sides don't mind about killing innocent people.

[Kerrigan]

Originally Posted by Troll

As noted, that has about as much credibility as OJ Simpson.

I thought OJ was innocent

[Busemann]

Originally Posted by hey!_Zeus

The Israelis intentionally torpedoed an American ship back in '67 I think. Why would they hesitate to bomb this hilltop outpost to smithereens? It had an excellent 360 degree view of everything. Both sides don't mind about killing innocent people.

The US govt. and military should be ashamed of how the Liberty attack was just glossed over. US men serving their country get killed and everything is conveniently swept under the rug.

Disgusting.

[Kerrigan]

Sometimes the alliance between Israel and the US seems rather one-sided.

[Pendergast]

Originally Posted by Kerrigan

Sometimes the alliance between Israel and the US seems rather one-sided.

Israel is the American Shield against the Middle East.

[vmarks]

Originally Posted by Busemann

The US govt. and military should be ashamed of how the Liberty attack was just glossed over. US men serving their country get killed and everything is conveniently swept under the rug.

Disgusting.

Liberty was not glossed over. There were American and Israeli investigations into what occurred.

It was a tragic accident that resulted only after mistakes were made by both Americans and Israelis. The only people who haven't moved past it are the folks who want to use it as a wedge between the good relationship Israel and America has had since that time.

What are just a few of the errors that contributed to the Liberty accident?

1) The "Liberty" was attacked in a combat zone, far removed from any recognized international shipping lane. Her very presence in the area provided grounds enough for the assumption that she was an enemy vessel. Furthermore, the Chief of Staff at the time Lieutenant General Yitzhak Rabin noted:

"On 5 June 1967, we approached the American naval attaché and said "We shall protect our coastline against Egyptian attack by a combination of air and naval forces. We shall not be able to delay our reaction to the presence of Egyptian vessels in the proximity of our coast. We request you to withdraw all of your vessels from the Israeli coast or to inform us of their exert positions in the area close to our coastline."61

The American Command was, or at least should have been aware of the danger entailed by the "Liberty 's" presence in the area. The Joint Chiefs of Staff in fact did order the vessel's withdrawal from the coast, only this order "lost its way" amongst the maze of bureaucracy and the military chain of command, and never reached the "Liberty."62

It is almost certain that had this order been carried out it would have been possible to avoid this tragic incident.

2) The "Liberty" bore the accepted identification signs for peace time. However these signs were insufficient for aerial identification. The vessel's color was battleship grey and the aircraft which carried out the identification runs did not discern any identifying signs or any flag which right indicate its identity. The U.S. Navy Court of Inquiry likewise established that the vessel's slow speed rendered it difficult for attacking planes to distinguish its flag.63 (i.e. with little wind, the flag drooped, thus its markings were indiscernible) Even when the torpedo boats advanced to within eyesight of the vessel in an attempt to identify her, they did not sea any flag. The " Liberty 's" commander testified in fact that the flag had been knocked down in the course of the air raid and that he had ordered another flag hoisted.64 Even if this flag was hoisted the torpedo boats did not see it, apparently due to the smoke which shrouded the vessel.

3) The ship was mis-identified as the Egyptian ship El-Quseir. When Division 914 arrived within eyesight of the vessel, the division commander discerned that the vessel was not a destroyer but rather a mercantile or supply ship. Due to his doubts, he rescinded the order to torpedo the vessel end proceeded to identity the craft. The evasive answer which he received from the vessel in response to his demands of her to identify herself, as well as the gunshot flashes which emanated from the target, strengthened his belief that he was confronted with an enemy craft. The enemy vessel was identified by him and by the other torpedo boat - as the "El Quseir". While it is true that the "EL Quseir" and the "Liberty" are not identical in appearance, they do resemble each other, Given the conditions which prevailed at the time (the "Liberty" was enveloped in smoke), such an identification was made independently by two different officers on two different torpedo boats.

However, this attack was delayed. Air Command informed Fleet Operations Control Center, of the discovery of the letters on the ship's side and Naval Operations/3 instructed the Division (at 1420 hours) not to attack since there was possibly a mistake in the identification of the vesse1.44 The Chief of Naval Operations also ordered the attack delayed but for another reason. He wanted the Division to delay its attack until it was within effective firing range, and not to open fire from too far away. The letters on the ship's side appeared to him as an Egyptian deception tactic, an enemy effort to operate in daytime in spite of Israel 's air superiority in the region. He did not believe that another ship could possibly be in the area.45

The Commander of Division 914, who was on the bridge, later testified that he did not receive the order from Naval Operations/3.46 However, the Division approached the target to within visual range and immediately realized that the ship was not a destroyer but rather a merchant or supply ship. An attempt was made to identify the vessel, although this was difficult due to the billowing clouds of smoke which enveloped the vessel; only her bow, part of her bridge and the tip of her mast could be discerned. As a result, the Division Commander cancelled the attack order.47 Even though the torpedo attack was delayed for a variety of different reasons, the end result was the same the torpedo Division held its fire and approached the target in order to more clearly identify the vessel.

At 1427 hours the Division commander signaled the target ship requesting identification -"What ship?". The answer received was "AA" - i.e. "Identity yourself first". This appeared to be an evasive answer, which did not satisfy the identification request. This response was identical to the answer given by the "Ibrahim-el-Awal" (an Egyptian destroyer) during the Sinai Campaign, when she was asked to identify herself by the Israel Navy destroyers which had closed in on her. This fact was etched in the memory of the Division commander.48 In addition, the latter discerned flashes of gunshot fire emanating from the ship, and the commander of T203 saw the fire and reported hits in the vicinity of T-206.49 Since he still did not possess any clear confirmation of the ship's identity, he requested that the identification guide to Arab fleets be brought to him. After an examination of the pamphlet, he identified the target as an Egyptian supply ship, the "EL-Quseir". At the same time, the commander of T203 also tried to identity the vessel and without any connection to the Division commander's conclusions, likewise identified the vessel as the '"EL-Quseir", due to the ship's silhouette and what appeared to be a gun mounted on her bow.50

-- http://www.usslibertyinquiry.com/evi...ael/idfhr.html

So, there were errors by both Israelis and Americans which led to the torpedoing of the USS Liberty. None of these errors were the result of negligent or criminal conduct, malfeasance, or recklessness.