Israel at War?

[Rudey]

Originally Posted by RACooper

Ah yes the UN Security Council dropped the language stating that it was an intentional or dileberate attack, as well as making any condemnation at the insistance of the US... I gotta say I'm ever so surprised that the US would take an anti-UN pro-Israel stance



Fair enough Rudey - please point out the number of times, and casualties, that Hezbollah (the "evil terrorists") has attacked a UN post... as say opposed to the number of times the Israelis (the "good guys") have done so...

When you wrap your mind around that - then you might understand why I condemn the "good guys" for yet again F-cking attacking the UN

Oh and nice to see that the IDF has refused any interviews or information to be forthcoming in the UN investivgation (again)... but it's going to be bloody hard to explain how Israel "accidently" dropped 3 laser-guided "bunker-buster
bombs... hopefully this time the IDF won't escape charges for a war-crime.

I'm sure the airforce folks on the site might be able to shed light on how improbible it is to claim this attack as "accidental" given the facts emerging.

Rob it's good to know that Annan accepts that it wasn't intentional and is satisfied with an investigation while you are an armchair general that can provide expert advice with your limited skill set and condemn a country from the beginning. It's great that you can't come up with a single reason as to why they would do it also.

Oh and Rob, it's amazing that you don't comprehend something so simple as terrorists in Lebanon using human shields including the UN to protect themselves and cause PR damage while knowing they can kill anyone in Israel and it would be fine. Really, it's great.

-Rudey

[RACooper]

Originally Posted by Rudey

Evidently you not only can't respond to points I make but you also post irrelevant stories.

In 1996 Hezbollah again attacked Israel and murdered and wounded Israelis (more Israeli casualties than Lebanese by the way).

Operation Grapes of Wrath was launched to fire back into Lebanon. After intense shelling from Lebanon, Israel shot back 15 minutes later.

Israel hit around a UN facility where civilians were and some died. Israel apologized. The UN said they cannot rule out the possibility that it was accidental.

The UN should concern itself more with the fact that on their watch, Hezbollah has brought in over 10,000 rockets into the country and is armed better than most military units in the region. They should be concerned with the fact that Israel is not in Lebanon and gets attacked routinely, has its citizens murdered and kidnapped.

Rob perhaps you should start concerning yourself with the Arab terrorists that use civilians as cover, instead of constantly bashing anything having to do with Israel or America.

-Rudey

Nice to see you glossing over the facts and dancing around the truth... cause the UN report stated that the evidence clearly indicated a deliberate targeting of the UN compound... but shockingly once again the US and Israel somehow managed to place the blame on Hezbollah - not the IDF artillery battery that clearly shifted fire onto the compound and then switched the air-burst munitions...

In fact I'll help you out with the conclusions:
"(a) The distribution of impacts at Qana shows two distinct concentrations, whose mean points of impact are about 140 metres apart. If the guns were converged, as stated by the Israeli forces, there should have been only one main point of impact.

(b) The pattern of impacts is inconsistent with a normal overshooting of the declared target (the mortar site) by a few rounds, as suggested by the Israeli forces.

(c) During the shelling, there was a perceptible shift in the weight of fire from the mortar site to the United Nations compound.

(d) The distribution of point impact detonations and air bursts makes it improbable that impact fuses and proximity fuses were employed in random order, as stated by the Israeli forces.

(e) There were no impacts in the second target area which the Israeli forces claim to have shelled.

(f) Contrary to repeated denials, two Israeli helicopters and a remotely piloted vehicle were present in the Qana area at the time of the shelling.

While the possibility cannot be ruled out completely, it is unlikely that the shelling of the United Nations compound was the result of gross technical and/or procedural errors."

documents available at:
http://domino.un.org/UNISPAL.NSF/0/6...e?OpenDocument

Wiki of the "incident":
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Qana_shelling

[Rudey]

Let me assist you in your reading: " While the possibility cannot be ruled out completely".

It's great that you place all blame on Israel and America and it's perfectly fine that terrorists use the UN and civilians as human shields. You're much too giving though in your blame.

Again, the UN needs to concern itself with how it's being used as an accessory to the murder of Israeli civilians.

-Rudey

Originally Posted by RACooper

Nice to see you glossing over the facts and dancing around the truth... cause the UN report stated that the evidence clearly indicated a deliberate targeting of the UN compound... but shockingly once again the US and Israel somehow managed to place the blame on Hezbollah - not the IDF artillery battery that clearly shifted fire onto the compound and then switched the air-burst munitions...

In fact I'll help you out with the conclusions:
"(a) The distribution of impacts at Qana shows two distinct concentrations, whose mean points of impact are about 140 metres apart. If the guns were converged, as stated by the Israeli forces, there should have been only one main point of impact.

(b) The pattern of impacts is inconsistent with a normal overshooting of the declared target (the mortar site) by a few rounds, as suggested by the Israeli forces.

(c) During the shelling, there was a perceptible shift in the weight of fire from the mortar site to the United Nations compound.

(d) The distribution of point impact detonations and air bursts makes it improbable that impact fuses and proximity fuses were employed in random order, as stated by the Israeli forces.

(e) There were no impacts in the second target area which the Israeli forces claim to have shelled.

(f) Contrary to repeated denials, two Israeli helicopters and a remotely piloted vehicle were present in the Qana area at the time of the shelling.

While the possibility cannot be ruled out completely, it is unlikely that the shelling of the United Nations compound was the result of gross technical and/or procedural errors."

documents available at:
http://domino.un.org/UNISPAL.NSF/0/6...e?OpenDocument

[RACooper]

Originally Posted by Rudey

Let me assist you in your reading: " While the possibility cannot be ruled out completely".

It's great that you place all blame on Israel and America and it's perfectly fine that terrorists use the UN and civilians as human shields. You're much too giving though in your blame.

Again, the UN needs to concern itself with how it's being used as an accessory to the murder of Israeli civilians.

-Rudey

As opposed to say the IDF which directly murders UN troops and civilians?

[shinerbock]

Gentleman, we're straying from the point. I feel bad for the UN officials who died, but I really don't care about anything the UN has to say. The organization has shown itself to be incredibly biased against Israel, constantly condemning them, while doing nothing to stop terrorism. I think now is the perfect time to cut the cord between the U.S. and the UN. Why should we pay 25% of the UN's dues(according to Zogby International), and allow them to hold court in our country, all while they appease terrorists and act against western and Israeli interests?

[Rudey]

Originally Posted by shinerbock

Gentleman, we're straying from the point. I feel bad for the UN officials who died, but I really don't care about anything the UN has to say. The organization has shown itself to be incredibly biased against Israel, constantly condemning them, while doing nothing to stop terrorism. I think now is the perfect time to cut the cord between the U.S. and the UN. Why should we pay 25% of the UN's dues(according to Zogby International), and allow them to hold court in our country, all while they appease terrorists and act against western and Israeli interests?

Agreed.

The UN allowed terrorists to grow and attack Israel and American interests, terrorist nations to continue their nuclear work, and is useless.

-Rudey

[Rudey]

Originally Posted by RACooper

As opposed to say the IDF which directly murders UN troops and civilians?

Murder is intentional and pre-meditated and the possibility that it wasn't intentional has been shown.

Again, it's good to know you support Hezbollah and the terrorists that attack civilians and then hide among civilians as well.

-Rudey

[shinerbock]

I find it ironic you consider the deaths of those UN officials to be so much more important than the thousands of Israeli deaths that the UN continuously ignores and condones.

[RACooper]

Originally Posted by shinerbock

I find it ironic you consider the deaths of those UN officials to be so much more important than the thousands of Israeli deaths that the UN continuously ignores and condones.

Yes to me the officer that was the Lt. in charge of my infantry training platoon, and the Cpt. that commanded my company in Bosnia is much more personal and therefore important. Paeta was an extremely intelligent and dedicated officer that I and others will mourn the loss of, a man who always made an effort to protect the innocent, and who wasn't afraid to backdown in that goal. Paeta came from a long military line, and he was proud of his families history as honourable soldiers - in fact his grandfather was executed by the Germans for helping organize the evacuation of Jews from Denmark.

I can tell you that he took very seriously his duty as an observer on the Lebanese-Israeli border; his emails always talk of his frustration in dealing with the intractability and hostility of the IDF, and his overwhelming disgust with the hatred of the Hezbollah radicals... but he never let this stop him from trying to humanize each side for the other. I can also tell you that he would methodically record and report any observation (he believe in the theory that too many reports was better than too little), so I'm sure more and more info about the bombardment and fatal strike will come to light.

So again I don't think its' ironic at all that I consider the death of this unarmed and trapped UN observer, Canadian soldier, and email-pal a great tragedy... made more all the more galling in the criminal means of his death.

[shinerbock]

I never claimed his death wasn't a tragedy. I understand it may be more personal to you than others. However, the troubling part is how eager you are to assume his death is "criminal." There is obviously no resolution to this debate. I favor Israel's right to defend itself, while you obviously are biased against the country. I find it incredible that you made mention of "hezbollah radicals," as if there are several kinds. The organization is a radical one, if you're in it, you're a radical. If I'm in a Christian group blowing up abortion clinics, and although I don't fully agree, I stay in the group, I'm a radical. Its called association.

I hope that Israel roots out Hezbollah wherever it exists. I hope that they do whatever is neccesary to keep their citizens safe. Israel should advise the UN to leave Lebanon to avoid danger. The UN is clearly biased against Israel, and have failed miserably in their proposed duties. They have continuously condoned the actions of terrorists groups, and have continuously condemned Israel for defending itself. Please know that I am sorry for the loss of the Canadian man, however, I cannot not blame Israel. If it is shown that Israel purposefully targeted the position, that might be a different situation. However, in this situation, I must refer to GWB's "with us or against us" position. Seeing as the UN is clearly against Israel, I think Israel should strongly urge them to leave. If it were me making the decisions, the presence of UN officials in a war zone would not prevent me from achieving the mission which is to protect Israeli citizens.

[RACooper]

Originally Posted by shinerbock

I never claimed his death wasn't a tragedy. I understand it may be more personal to you than others. However, the troubling part is how eager you are to assume his death is "criminal." There is obviously no resolution to this debate. I favor Israel's right to defend itself, while you obviously are biased against the country. I find it incredible that you made mention of "hezbollah radicals," as if there are several kinds. The organization is a radical one, if you're in it, you're a radical. If I'm in a Christian group blowing up abortion clinics, and although I don't fully agree, I stay in the group, I'm a radical. Its called association.

I hope that Israel roots out Hezbollah wherever it exists. I hope that they do whatever is neccesary to keep their citizens safe. Israel should advise the UN to leave Lebanon to avoid danger. The UN is clearly biased against Israel, and have failed miserably in their proposed duties. They have continuously condoned the actions of terrorists groups, and have continuously condemned Israel for defending itself. Please know that I am sorry for the loss of the Canadian man, however, I cannot not blame Israel. If it is shown that Israel purposefully targeted the position, that might be a different situation. However, in this situation, I must refer to GWB's "with us or against us" position. Seeing as the UN is clearly against Israel, I think Israel should strongly urge them to leave. If it were me making the decisions, the presence of UN officials in a war zone would not prevent me from achieving the mission which is to protect Israeli citizens.

Seriously... WTF the point? The only way Israel would ever claim that the UN is un-biased is if they were given a blank cheque to do whatever they wanted. Despite the strides taken to bring Israel into the UN community, and to fight the anti-Israeli attitude of some nations, Israel and the US constantly claim an anti-Israeli bias.

Personally I don't ever see the anti-UN bias dimishing from Israel or the American right... the get far to much play and mutual support of their respective positions from each other when it comes to the UN. The part that pisses me off is that the same people that bemoan the faults of the UN are the same ones actively fighting against reforms and working to weaken the instution further...

I have never understood the virulent hatred of the UN fostered by the American right... it is something almost unique in the world; an opinion of political view that I haven't seen anywhere else in the poltical mainstream (except of course Israel). Further I also take it personally when people slam peacekeepers or the UN as a whole; firstly because I look back with pride and honour at the good accomplished while I wore the blue, secondly because I know that the overwhelmingly vasy majority of UN are some of the most noble people I have ever had the pleasure of knowing... and yet I continuely see both gleefully vilified on this site by some, by the American political right... and now even the new conservative movement in Canada

As for Paeta, he requested this posting - he saw enormous hope for the future of Israel and Lebanon... he wanted to be there to help ensure that cooler heads prevailed, and that no side provoked the other - and even then that no one took the bait. Even after the surprisingly violent Israeli response, he wanted to stay to help in a ceasefire... instead it looks like he fell victim, murdered if you will, to the same hate and lack of respect for the UN that neither he nor I could ever understand.

As for myself right now I find it hard to put into words the rage and disgust I feel right now for the IDF... writing has never been my best medium to communicate effectively through (even though I am a writer now). I know I am so angry right now that I can't talk to friends or others I know that were (or are know) in the IDF, for fear of what I might say... or fear of what they might (given what I know of their views of the UN). It is so bloody frustrating knowing what I know, and looking at the attack... everything points to it being a planned and deliberate attack based on the information officially available and unofficially available... a conclusion that enrages me for more than one reason - 1) it means a man I deeply respected, and considered a friend was murdered; 2) other people that I consider friends belong or belonged to the org. that did it; 3) that his death, his murder, is being lampooned by the right-wingers nutters... some in my own party...; and 4) that his death/murder is being used to score cheap political points by politicans, including Paeta's (and mine) former commander - a man I used to respect as well....

[shinerbock]

I still think it is quite early to call the IDF murderers.

Regarding the UN...This is how the American right views it: It is supported by the United States, significantly funded by the United States, and housed in the United States. However, it often goes against U.S. policy, and continually condemns our ally Israel, while rarely if ever condemning the terror states and groups which target Israel. That is in addition to the fact that the UN is an incredibly corrupt organization led by a man with very questionable character. This isn't to say the UN doesn't have a role, it does fairly well with some hunger and health issues. However, it seemingly takes the position of "peace at any cost." The UN seems to forget the enemy in today's world is terrorism, and they do little to stop it. They spend their efforts, rather, on attempting to dissuade America and Israel and others from protecting themselves. How about taking a stand on terrorism? How about referring to Hezbollah as the terrorist group they are, rather than the bullsh*t PC term of "alleged aggressors." Is it that difficult to understand why certain people despise the UN? Sure, its easy for France or Russia or Canada to question America or England or Israel, considering they aren't constant targets of terrorism. It makes no difference to some countries if the UN appeases terrorists, since they haven't been threatened yet. The reason some Americans hate the UN is the same reason they get angry at foreign nations who after billions in aid and assistance from the U.S., curse our name and rail against our practices. I think people like yourself, RA, give groups like Hezbollah too much credit. Do you think they will stop the shelling if Israel stops? Absolutely not. They'll proclaim a victory for Islam, and plan more strikes. All the while, Israel can expect little action from the UN, who is traditionally much more inclined to defend terror organizations than to go to bat for Israel.

Often, I wonder what would happen if much of the world got their wish, and the U.S. stayed out of international affairs. For one, the UN would lose most of its legitimacy. Economic aid for countries in need would plummet, including many who hate us. If this keeps up, I imagine one day it will happen. When it does, I fear for those knocking at America's door, desperately in need. One day that knocking will go unanswered, and then perhaps those countries will understand the feeling of being rebuked.

[RACooper]

Okay lets examine the evidence:
1) The post is clearly defined on IDF maps (highlighted and GPS co-ordinates clearly marked) for the past 20+ years. So, it can be easily ruled out that the post was “misploted” or unknown to the IDF forces in the area or the IDF command.
2) The post had been subject to close-in ground and air bombardment during the previous 10 days. This rules out a scenario where the post could have been mistakenly targeted by rapidly advancing troops in the heat of battle.
3) In the 14 hours prior to the fatal attack, the post had extremely tight air and ground bombardment patterns, including some 450kg bombs coming within 100 metres. The extremely well placed bombardment striking all around the post indicates the use of forward observer or drones to plot the bombardment. Incidentally this close bombardment also effectively prohibited the UN observers from evacuating the post.
4) The IDF was in communication with the post for the 12 hours previous, with the post repeatedly (at least 10 times) expressing serious concern about how close the bombardment was. This rules out the possibility that the IDF forces or command were unaware that the post was still occupied by UN personnel.
5) 3 air dropped guided munitions were used in destroying the post: 1 destroying the communication centre; 1 destroying the vehicle garage/storage area; and 1 destroying the living area/bomb shelter. The fact that they were guided is supported by the fact the centres of each structural component was struck, as well as the repeated claims by the Israelis are only using guided munitions in their precisions strikes.
6) The fact that a hardened bomb-shelter was destroyed by a bomb that penetrated 3 hardened/reinforced floors indicates the use of a specialized munition, or a “bunker buster”. This at some level indicates at least some pre-planning in if not the mission/weapons selection for the F-16, while also indicating a conscious decision on the pilot’s or FO’s part on the mention needed to take-out the bunker component of the target.
7) Initial Israel claims that the post was being used by Hezbollah forces is proven to be extremely unlikely for the following reasons: no mention of Hezbollah in the base by UN personnel, and no bodies recovered other than the UN personnel.

All of the above leads me to the conclusion that it was a deliberate attack on the site… because it would require far to many basic mistakes on the part of the IDF: the local and higher command would have had to fail to emphasize the location of the UN post; the local and higher command would have had to have failed to pass on the UN personnel’s communications/concerns; the FO or attack director would have had to have suddenly forgotten that it was a UN post they had been avoiding striking in the previous bombardments; and finally the pilot would have had to have possessed, and selected a specific weapons deployment for striking the post that would have been clearly marked on his hard and electronic maps.



Alright on to what I think Hezbollah’s reaction to Israel ceasing it’s assault… I don’t think they would cease their missile bombardment unless Hezbollah and Lebanon received some truly extraordinary concessions. Personally Israel’s assault has basically batted the hornet’s nest – you can stop swinging the bat, but that doesn’t mean the hornets won’t stop stinging. From a political standpoint Hezbollah couldn’t back down without sacrificing their standing (politically or militarily) in the post assault period… if say there was a ceasefire that returned to the status-quo, then Hezbollah would look weak and they would have failed in their primary role as defenders against Israeli aggression (as defined by themselves). Now say if Israeli troops remain in Lebanon, then whatever negative impact the assault created within Hezbollah will be mitigated by a renewal of their core mission statement… however if a multinational force occupied at “buffer-zone” then Hezbollah would be hardpressed to portray itself as “defenders against Israeli aggression” (especially if this force is authorized to enforce the peace). Of course the multinational force proposed by the EU to enforce a ceasefire is also problematic for other reasons though… for example it may have to use force against the Hezbollah or the IDF, which is a concern – a concern that becomes even more problematic say if German troops are involved. Regardless, a ceasefire and multinational force would be unwelcome by both of the combatants…

Now of course the situation is becoming even more complex and volatile as Lebanese military units are being drawn into the fighting, and an increasing number and size of Israeli “incursions” brings up the spectre of invasion and occupation - a perception not helped by the images of Israeli troops proudly displaying captured Lebanese flags. The focus of the assault has been slipping away from a directed attack against Hezbollah, into a war against Lebanon… and if that happens who knows who else will be drawn into the conflict.

Finally as for the UN, or even America's economic aid programs, lets just say that I reject the policy of throwing money at a problem to fix it - thats an easy fix that never works, and a fix that almost always leads to international and domestic corruption. Until such time that this becomes apparent to all concerned, then the rest have to slog on... hoping against hope that leaders will realize that men and material go a lot further than $$$

[shinerbock]

Well, I'd be happy to solve the problem by cutting off U.S. aid. If people don't think we should "throw money" at problems, I think we should oblige. Also, we'll stop allowing our troops to be used for anything but American missions, and we'll provide no supplies to anyone. I don't think Americans are looking to be put on a pedestal, but rather a simple "thanks" every now and then, or even the discontinuation of international spite.

As for the attack on the UN post, I imagine there will be much more to come of this.

Regarding Hezbollah, I still place my support behind Israel, in defending itself. I do feel bad that Lebanon got in the way, but after the continued failing of UN policy and weak Lebanese government, this is to be expected. If you cannot use your governmental and military authority to keep terrorists from controlling your country, you have little right to call upon that authority when asking Israel to pack up and go home. The situation for Israel is this: They can oblige the Lebanese, and stop the bombing and incursion, thus failing to defend themselves and allowing Israeli citizens to be killed. The second option would be to continue with the mission, eventually destroying their attackers, but with civilian Lebanese casualties as a by product. Naturally, I understand Israel's choice. As defender of their land, they must value their own citizens' lives more than those of a foreign country being controlled by a terrorist organization. This is another issue I have a problem with, involving the UN. They often portray international life as equal to everyone. Although that is a nice politically correct notion, it simply cannot be true in a world of nation-states. In a conflict such as the one Israel is involved in, I would easily say I value American life more than the opposition. That is a prime component of war, which unfortunately the world no longer has the stomach for. Of course, I am pleased at the world's distaste for death and destruction, however, when that distaste interferes with what must be done, that becomes a problem.

[Rudey]

Rob, as much as I'd like to say this is a result of the pain you are suffering from your loss I think you also harbor anti-Israel and anti-American beliefs.

Again, you don't see people constantly discussing their hate for Canada. Don't you think you can just give it a rest for a day...maybe two?

-Rudey