[shmerek]

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/5215366.stm Brilliant.

[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.

[voodoo]

Doing a thing like this reeks of incompetence. Especially since it is un-intentional.

V

[Doofy]

Right. Red cross convoy yesterday. UN observer tower today.

Something fishy going on.

[Y3a]

I will never trust the UN to do anything right. Why were they really there? Targets for the PR?

[Doofy]

Originally Posted by Y3a

Why were they really there?

Were they really there at all?

[ghporter]

Good point: what have UN observers done to prevent or even report violence in the area of late? Like over the last five or ten years? They certainly haven't pointed out who's getting the missile parts to whomever it is that's been firing them at Israeli civilians.

[davesimondotcom]

I laughed the other day when a reporter said that UN "Peacekeepers" had been in place in Lebanon since 1978.

Doing an exceptional job, they are.

[davesimondotcom]

Oh, and on topic - mistakes like this are made in every conflict. Every effort should be made to prevent such f*ck ups, but they do happen.

[Spliffdaddy]

Hey, they wanted to observe. Reckon they did.

[TheMosco]

Yup, those stupid un observers, they got what they deserved!

Thats what you people sound like.

[Kerrigan]

Maybe they will win Darwin Awards.

[Troll]

I find it hard to believe that Israel didn't know exactly where each and every observation post was. This wasn't one stray shell; it was an organised attack. Israel shelled the rescue crew that went to get the guys out too (which would be a war crime even if it had been a Hizballah site).

As for Israel not deliberately doing this sort of thing, remember the USS Liberty?

[Troll]

Originally Posted by ghporter

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

No. It was a coordinated artillery and aerial bombing attack. The main damage was done by a direct hit by a bomb launched from an Israeli jet.

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. The attack went on for 6 hours!

"The timeline provided CNN by a U.N. officer in Lebanon showed the first bomb exploded about 200 yards from the U.N. outpost at 1:20 p.m. Tuesday, prompting the first call by the UNIFIL observers to their designated contact with the Israeli military. The officer said they were assured by the Israeli liaison that he would stop the attacks.

A series of about nine more bombs hit within 100 to 400 yards from the observers over the next several hours, with a call to the Israeli military following each explosion."
http://www.cnn.com/2006/WORLD/meast/...ers/index.html

If this wasn't deliberate, then the Israeli Army are a bunch of incompetents.

[Taliesin]

Originally Posted by Troll

No. It was a coordinated artillery and aerial bombing attack. The main damage was done by a direct hit by a bomb launched from an Israeli jet.

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. The attack went on for 6 hours!



If this wasn't deliberate, then the Israeli Army are a bunch of incompetents.

I think it was a deliberate attack. The question though is, why did the israeli army attack the UN-post first with artillery and then after the UN-personnel took shelter in a bunker underground used a heavy bunker-busting bomb, despite repeated UN-calls to stop the attack?

Probably it was a test-run for the israeli military to practice on how to effectively attack Hezbollah's posts and bunkers: First, artillery, then bunker-busting bombs to destroy the bunker, and then again artillery to kill those that try to rescue the people from the bunker..

Taliesin

[Kevin]

Originally Posted by Troll

I find it hard to believe that Israel didn't know exactly where each and every observation post was. This wasn't one stray shell; it was an organised attack. Israel shelled the rescue crew that went to get the guys out too (which would be a war crime even if it had been a Hizballah site).

As for Israel not deliberately doing this sort of thing, remember the USS Liberty?

BTW Troll check this out

http://weekly.ahram.org.eg/2000/487/re3.htm

[Krusty]

Originally Posted by Kevin

BTW Troll check this out

http://weekly.ahram.org.eg/2000/487/re3.htm

OMG!!! The head of the UN met with Nasrallah 6 years ago! This whole thing must just be a plot to discredit Israel!

I urge you to read the article that you have posted for content rather than just for shiny color photos. In a nutshell, it says that the UN and Kofi Annan was in Lebanon in support of Israel and confirming that they had complied with UN resolutions ... despite the protests of the Lebanese government who said they had not (and this is all 6 years ago BTW, has nothing to do with the current situation).

"Before his arrival, the UN chief and the international body [UN] came under fierce criticism from the Lebanese government and media for "being biased toward Israel." Blared the pro-government daily Kifah Al-Arabi: "Lebanon Loses Border Battle with the United Nations.""

I can only gather you are more of a "pictures" kind of guy than a "reading comprehension" sort of fellow. How would you explain the pictures of Nixon (a vehement anti-communist through most of his political career) shaking hands with communist leader Mao Zedong ? Did that handshake make them "allies" or was it just a greeting when they were having talks?

If I'm misinterpreting you, please set me straight and try to summarize what point you are trying to make with this article link. Connect the dots for us with a logical argument that your article shows X, which proves Y, which draws us to conclusion Z about this bombing incident.

[Taliesin]

Originally Posted by Krusty

If I'm misinterpreting you, ...

No, you aren't, he is basically saying Kofi Annan and Hezbollah were allies and his picture supposedly proves it. He even opened a thread for it a while ago:

http://forums.macnn.com/showthread.php?t=302456

LOL

Taliesin

[vmarks]

Krusty,

The history of six years ago absolutely is related to what is happening now.

The history is this: HizbAllah, feeling pretty legitimised, participating in the Lebanese political process, meeting with and getting feel-good statements from Kofi Annan, and not having to cease killing Israelis in coffee shops, pre-schools, city streets, is confident they can get away with using violence to eradicate Israel.

After all, the UN is repairing roads for them that Israel damaged in order to hinder their movements. http://www.un.org/Depts/dpko/missions/unifil/pr09.pdf -- The UN has taken sides.

HizbAllah thought they were going to get business as usual, that is, a prisoner exchange with Germany as a mediator, and be able to keep killing with impunity.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20060725/...ting_hezbollah

BEIRUT, Lebanon - A senior Hezbollah official said Tuesday the guerrilla group did not expect Israel to react so strongly to its capture of two Israeli soldiers.

Mahmoud Komati, deputy chief of Hezbollah’s political arm, also told The Associated Press in an interview that his group will not lay down arms. “The truth is — let me say this clearly — we didn’t even expect (this) response.... that (Israel) would exploit this operation for this big war against us,” said Komati.

He said Hezbollah had expected “the usual, limited response” from Israel to the July 12 cross-border raid, in which three Israelis were killed. In the past, he said, Israeli responses to Hezbollah actions included sending commandos into Lebanon to seize Hezbollah officials or briefly targeting specific Hezbollah strongholds.

He said the Shiite group had anticipated there would be negotiations on exchanging the Israeli soldiers for three Lebanese prisoners in Israeli jails, with Germany acting as a mediator as it did before.

But that isn't the way situations change. You don't change situations by repeating the mistakes of the past.

Now things seem worse. But when HizbAllah is broken and gone, in history's dustbin, so much the better for the Lebanese, the US, Israel, and all other peace-loving people.

[TETENAL]

Originally Posted by Taliesin

Probably it was a test-run for the israeli military to practice on how to effectively attack Hezbollah's posts and bunkers: First, artillery, then bunker-busting bombs to destroy the bunker, and then again artillery to kill those that try to rescue the people from the bunker..

And why would they "test-run" this on an UN-post? UN-observers are no guinea pigs.

[Dakar]

They were begging for it.

[Zeeb]

It's a shame that the UN is almost a useless organization. Their soldiers are called "peacekeepers" but I can't remember a time when they have been able to prevent a conflict or keep any peace. Any country with a decent military need not pay attention to Kofi Annan. I'm sure when the Israelis realized what had happened, they shrugged their shoulders and kept going.

I'm not saying its not a tragedy they died, just that its a further illustration on just how much the UN doesn't matter.

[Troll]

Originally Posted by Zeeb

Their soldiers are called "peacekeepers"

The UN has no soldiers. This is so typical of people that criticise the UN. You seem to think that the UN is a state with its own resources and its own decision-making powers. The UN is nothing but a forum. 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!

Originally Posted by Zeeb

Any country with a decent military need not pay attention to Kofi Annan.

That's because Kofi Annan is the secretary of a forum not a President that can send in troops. How many secretaries are you scared of? Notice that he is called the Secretary General and the organisation he works for is called the United Nations. Makes you think, doesn't it?

Originally Posted by Zeeb

I'm not saying its not a tragedy they died, just that its a further illustration on just how much the UN doesn't matter.

I wonder how much the UN would have mattered if those 4 dead soldiers had been Americans.

[Troll]

Originally Posted by Dakar

They were begging for it.

That's really callous.

Israelis must feel like big heroes today. It takes their army 6 hours to kill 4 unarmed Europeans!

[TETENAL]

Originally Posted by Troll

Israelis must feel like big heroes today. It takes their army 6 hours to kill 4 unarmed Europeans!

For the record: China and Canada are not in Europe.

[Dakar]

Originally Posted by Troll

That's really callous.

Israelis must feel like big heroes today. It takes their army 6 hours to kill 4 unarmed Europeans!

I was joking.

[davesimondotcom]

Originally Posted by Troll

That's really callous.

Israelis must feel like big heroes today. It takes their army 6 hours to kill 4 unarmed Europeans!

Technicality, but it was two Europeans, an Asian and a North American.

I can't buy into the theory that it was "practice." What motive would the Israelis have for "practicing" on representatives of the UN.

If this was intentional, I'd have to think it was someone with a personal vendetta, not a national policy. Perhaps a General who got out of line and should be properly disciplined.

Otherwise, terribly bad intelligence and a huge mistake?

[TETENAL]

http://edition.cnn.com/2006/WORLD/me...ers/index.html

The U.N. observers killed when an Israeli bomb hit their bunker in Lebanon Tuesday called an Israeli military liaison about 10 times in the six hours before they died to warn that aerial attacks were getting close to their position, a U.N. officer said.

After each call, the Israeli officer promised to have the bombing stopped, an officer at the U.N. Interim Force in Lebanon (UNIFIL) base in Noqoura said.

Finally, an Israeli bomb exploded directly on the U.N. post near Khiyam, killing four U.N. observers from Austria, Finland, Canada and China, the U.N. officer said.

If true this leaves no other conclusion than that they were intentionally murdered.

[voodoo]

I want to say Israeli pigs. But no. That's not right. They are *incompetent* pigs. How about getting those Hizbulá ********s instead if allies?

I'm sure the Israeli incompetent army has apologized already.. I mean, they're not *that* incompetent are they?

V

[Doofy]

Originally Posted by voodoo

I'm sure the Israeli incompetent army has apologized already.. I mean, they're not *that* incompetent are they?

They apologised before this thread was started.

But... ...despite that apology I'm not convinced that it went down as reported. There's "playing to the sympathies of the west" propaganda in here somewhere... ...I can smell it.

[ghporter]

Originally Posted by TETENAL

http://edition.cnn.com/2006/WORLD/me...ers/index.html



If true this leaves no other conclusion than that they were intentionally murdered.

In combat, the one real constant is confusion. Communication among forces, even in the best of situations, can be muddled, distorted or otherwise disrupted. An order to "lay off" a certain target can get retransmitted and confused into "lay it on" without a lot of trouble.

This was of course NOT a good thing for Israel to do, but I still do not think that they could have possibly had even a tiny reason to intentionally kill four UN observers. CAN YOU COME UP WITH A LEGITIMATE REASON FOR THEM TO DO THIS?

[Zeeb]

Originally Posted by Troll

The UN has no soldiers. This is so typical of people that criticise the UN. You seem to think that the UN is a state with its own resources and its own decision-making powers. The UN is nothing but a forum. 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!
That's because Kofi Annan is the secretary of a forum not a President that can send in troops. How many secretaries are you scared of? Notice that he is called the Secretary General and the organisation he works for is called the United Nations. Makes you think, doesn't it?
I wonder how much the UN would have mattered if those 4 dead soldiers had been Americans.

I know that the UN doesn't have "soldiers" per se. I used that term for lack of a better one but perhaps I should have chosen more wisely. However, if they are not "soldiers" why do they ride around in military vehicles and are sometimes armed with rifles? Why are these individuals then sent into areas of military conflict and called "peacekeepers"? How would one keep peace in an area of military conflict without shooting someone? They are not always "observers". You realize the nuclear weapons in some countries are also called "peacekeepers"--doesn't mean anything. The difference seems a matter of semantics.

Yes Kofi Annan is the secretay and I don't view him as the "President" of a country that can dispatch troops. I believe the UN was created however to try and provide diplomatic solutions to conflicts rather than all out war. They have failed at this, repeatedly and have no credibility in my opinion. Kofi Annan says this, Kofi Annan says that--no one cares.

As for the last part of your post I did say originally it was a tradegy they died--definately--especially since they died in vain, not making a bit of difference. What if they had been American UN Peacekeepers--personally I would have felt the same way.

[davesimondotcom]

Originally Posted by voodoo

How about getting those Hizbulá ********s instead if allies?

While I think they should be going after Hezbollah (duh), your statement assumes they did this intentionally.

It also assumes that the UN are allies of Israel...

[TETENAL]

Originally Posted by ghporter

CAN YOU COME UP WITH A LEGITIMATE REASON FOR THEM TO DO THIS?

No, I can't. It doesn't make sense. But I also have a hard time believing it was a mistake. Bombing an area that is known to be an UN post. For 6 hours. With 10 times promising the UN observers to stop it. If that was a mistake than it was a gigantronic amount of incompetence going on there.

[voodoo]

Originally Posted by Doofy

They apologised before this thread was started.

But... ...despite that apology I'm not convinced that it went down as reported. There's "playing to the sympathies of the west" propaganda in here somewhere... ...I can smell it.

Good, I missed that aopolgy. It's just that in this modern world of uber-comminication this thing should never have happened.

If your hunch is right then that changes everything.

V

[voodoo]

Originally Posted by davesimondotcom

While I think they should be going after Hezbollah (duh), your statement assumes they did this intentionally.

It also assumes that the UN are allies of Israel...

The UN is an ally of Israel. Heck it was the UN that helped create Israel. My statement assumes that they did this un-intentionally.

V

[Troll]

Originally Posted by Zeeb

Why are these individuals then sent into areas of military conflict and called "peacekeepers"? How would one keep peace in an area of military conflict without shooting someone? They are not always "observers".

Sigh! Why don't you look up the history rather than feed us rubbish and wait for us to correct it? These observers were not sent into an area of military conflict, they are not called peacekeepers, the difference between observers and peacekeepers is not semantic.

Originally Posted by Zeeb

I believe the UN was created however to try and provide diplomatic solutions to conflicts rather than all out war. They have failed at this

What are you using to measure the UN's failure? The UN was formed shortly after the planet had been through 2 World Wars in less than 50 years. Have we had another one since then? Have there been more or less wars since the UN came into existence?

You may not care what Kofi Annan says but a lot of people do. Notice how Israel has quickly responded to him.

[Troll]

Originally Posted by TETENAL

For the record: China and Canada are not in Europe.

Slip of the fingers! Oops.

[Troll]

Originally Posted by davesimondotcom

I can't buy into the theory that it was "practice." What motive would the Israelis have for "practicing" on representatives of the UN.

If this was intentional, I'd have to think it was someone with a personal vendetta, not a national policy. Perhaps a General who got out of line and should be properly disciplined.

Otherwise, terribly bad intelligence and a huge mistake?

I don't buy the practice theory either. I don't think it's relevant what the motivation was. I think this is illustrative of the whole problem with Israel. Israel fights dirty. Look at the USS Liberty case (where they used unmarked torpedo boats to attack the US), look at this case. This is not a model army.

When people are getting killed in the occupied territories and in Lebanon, most of us think Israel is doing its best to limit casualties. Every now and then a report comes out about troops committing murder or worse and the report is met with violent protest from Israel. It keeps happening over and over. Israel's tactics get more and more violent and more and push the limits of what is acceptable more and more. As I've said before, no other country, not even apartheid South Africa has used the anti-terror tactics (like assassination of leaders) that Israel considers perfectly acceptable. This incident shows yet again how out of control the Israelis are. They are a law unto themselves.

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.

[Zeeb]

Originally Posted by Troll

Sigh! Why don't you look up the history rather than feed us rubbish and wait for us to correct it? These observers were not sent into an area of military conflict, they are not called peacekeepers, the difference between observers and peacekeepers is not semantic.
What are you using to measure the UN's failure? The UN was formed shortly after the planet had been through 2 World Wars in less than 50 years. Have we had another one since then? Have there been more or less wars since the UN came into existence?

You may not care what Kofi Annan says but a lot of people do. Notice how Israel has quickly responded to him.

You aren't reading what I'm writing. I'm not going into the history of the UN that you need to correct. I just said they are not always "observers". I know the difference. geesh!

Speaking of history, the first attempt at an international peacekeeping group in 1919 "The League of Nations" did a great job at preventing WWII. Will the UN keep another major war from happening? Not in my opinion. Usually a single large country that has a powerful army and deterrent is responsible for preventing major conflicts. Now who could that be?

[Zeeb]

Originally Posted by Troll

I don't buy the practice theory either. I don't think it's relevant what the motivation was. I think this is illustrative of the whole problem with Israel. Israel fights dirty. Look at the USS Liberty case (where they used unmarked torpedo boats to attack the US), look at this case. This is not a model army.

When people are getting killed in the occupied territories and in Lebanon, most of us think Israel is doing its best to limit casualties. Every now and then a report comes out about troops committing murder or worse and the report is met with violent protest from Israel. It keeps happening over and over. Israel's tactics get more and more violent and more and push the limits of what is acceptable more and more. As I've said before, no other country, not even apartheid South Africa has used the anti-terror tactics (like assassination of leaders) that Israel considers perfectly acceptable. This incident shows yet again how out of control the Israelis are. They are a law unto themselves.

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.

You said no other country has assassinated leaders before? Pop open a history book sometime. Israel has violated the rights of various groups and has used less than lawful tactics in its missions. However, as a whole these tactics really aren't any worse than other countries engaged in military conflicts in the recent or distant past. If any country in Europe went to war, eventually they would employ the same tactics.

[analogika]

Originally Posted by Zeeb

You aren't reading what I'm writing. I'm not going into the history of the UN that you need to correct. I just said they are not always "observers". I know the difference. geesh!

Speaking of history, the first attempt at an international peacekeeping group in 1919 "The League of Nations" did a great job at preventing WWII. Will the UN keep another major war from happening? Not in my opinion. Usually a single large country that has a powerful army and deterrent is responsible for preventing major conflicts. Now who could that be?

The League of Nations was a completely different entity.

The United Nations was set up specifically NOT to be like the League of Nations.

[Troll]

Originally Posted by Zeeb

Will the UN keep another major war from happening?

The UN has done a pretty good job so far. The last 50 years of the last century went a hell of lot better than the first.

Besides, the UN doesn't have to prevent wars to be a success. It just has to reduce the recourse to wars to be a success. It just has to be an alternative to war to be a success. Clearly the UN has been a success in many cases. And then there is the humanitarian aspect which has been phenomenally succesful.

[Troll]

Originally Posted by Zeeb

You said no other country has assassinated leaders before? Pop open a history book sometime. Israel has violated the rights of various groups and has used less than lawful tactics in its missions. However, as a whole these tactics really aren't any worse than other countries engaged in military conflicts in the recent or distant past. If any country in Europe went to war, eventually they would employ the same tactics.

What other countries have openly and proudly pursued assassination as a policy? I don't know of any. That was my point. The apartheid South African government may have assassinated "terrorist" leaders but it always denied involvement. Because world opinion was that the government had to arrest and try people accused of crimes before killing them. Not so with Israel. Israel openly kills leaders (and collateral damage takes care of others) before any trials or capture. That to my mind is unprecedented but if you can point me to the page of the history book you're referring to, I'd be very pleased to be enlightened.

[Zeeb]

Originally Posted by Troll

What other countries have openly and proudly pursued assassination as a policy? I don't know of any. That was my point. The apartheid South African government may have assassinated "terrorist" leaders but it always denied involvement. Because world opinion was that the government had to arrest and try people accused of crimes before killing them. Not so with Israel. Israel openly kills leaders (and collateral damage takes care of others) before any trials or capture. That to my mind is unprecedented but if you can point me to the page of the history book you're referring to, I'd be very pleased to be enlightened.

So if I understand you correctly, the only problem you have with a country assassinating a leader is if they admit to it? If said country in fact does assassinate a leader, but then claims they did no such thing and instead blames it on someone else this is acceptable to you? Your beef sounds as if you are dissapointed that Israel hasn't pretended to be as humanistic as other countries have pretended to be.

[analogika]

There is a difference between commiting despicable violations of basic rights and human conduct through covert operations, and openly proclaiming them to be official policy.

Neither is acceptable.

[Troll]

Originally Posted by Zeeb

So if I understand you correctly, the only problem you have with a country assassinating a leader is if they admit to it? If said country in fact does assassinate a leader, but then claims they did no such thing and instead blames it on someone else this is acceptable to you? Your beef sounds as if you are dissapointed that Israel hasn't pretended to be as humanistic as other countries have pretended to be.

Analogika clarified this for you I think. My point was that Israel is out of control, that it adopts strategies that continuously push the limits of what is considered civilised behaviour. This is another example of the trend. Murdering unarmed UN Observers in a sustained 6 hour bombardment. Why? Who knows. Probably to scare the UN off so it can get on with business the way the Israeli Army does business.

Assassinating leaders in covert operations has never been considered acceptable but it happened. Israel is the first and only country that I know of that assassinates people in OVERT operations. Israel is actually proud of the fact that it assassinates people.

You do need to be tough on terrorists and I have no problem with using military force against terrorists but Israel goes too far too often.

[Zeeb]

Originally Posted by Troll

Analogika clarified this for you I think. My point was that Israel is out of control, that it adopts strategies that continuously push the limits of what is considered civilised behaviour. This is another example of the trend. Murdering unarmed UN Observers in a sustained 6 hour bombardment. Why? Who knows. Probably to scare the UN off so it can get on with business the way the Israeli Army does business.

Assassinating leaders in covert operations has never been considered acceptable but it happened. Israel is the first and only country that I know of that assassinates people in OVERT operations. Israel is actually proud of the fact that it assassinates people.

You do need to be tough on terrorists and I have no problem with using military force against terrorists but Israel goes too far too often.

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.

The UN issue is separate but since it just happened why should we pass judgement yet? The Israelis have said it was an accident, but there are suspicious circumstances. It seems you are coming into this arguement with prejudice.

I look at this always as choosing the lesser of two evils. Israel in my view is far less evil than Hezbollah, which by the way, supports a fundamentalist style government in which women have absolutely no power, gays get executed and has overtly and proudly proclaimed that Israel should be destroyed. Good riddance.

[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.

[bstone]

Originally Posted by shmerek

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/5215366.stm Brilliant.

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