# Re: Israel Hits U.N. Post



## George Wallace (25 Jul 2006)

This isn't the first time that the Israelis have attacked a UN post.  I think it is about time that they were held accountable and taken to task for it.


----------



## casing (25 Jul 2006)

George Wallace said:
			
		

> This isn't the first time that the Israelis have attacked a UN post.



Are you trying to say it was on purpose?  What would purposely doing this accomplish for Israel?


----------



## Remius (25 Jul 2006)

Casing said:
			
		

> Are you trying to say it was on purpose?  What would purposely doing this accomplish for Israel?



I don't think that's what he was saying.  Just that they should be held accountable.


----------



## George Wallace (25 Jul 2006)

Perhaps!  It could be a variety of reasons; frustration with or hatred for UN Forces, incompetence in their pilots and Artillery; accidental; enemy using the UN Posts for cover.....It could be for a multitude of reasons.  I have yet to hear of them ever apologizing for any such occurrences.


----------



## Scoobie Newbie (25 Jul 2006)

As unfortunate as this is I wonder how the sheep will turn this against the Israel campaign.


----------



## 3rd Horseman (25 Jul 2006)

They just pushed the stop button with that stunt. Watch as things change on wed morning. You can bet that Hezbola was around that camp and using it as cover. That is the typical move by this type of battle. Sounds very sad for the entire UNIFIL team.


----------



## casing (25 Jul 2006)

George Wallace said:
			
		

> Perhaps!  It could be a variety of reasons; frustration with or hatred for UN Forces, incompetence in their pilots and Artillery; accidental; enemy using the UN Posts for cover.....It could be for a multitude of reasons.  I have yet to hear of them ever apologizing for any such occurrences.



I have a very difficult time believing that the Israelis would purposely shell a UN post without a reason (assuming it wasn't accidental, of course).  Israel is well aware of political image in the eyes of the world and likely completely understands any potential ramifications that purposely targetting UN positions would result in.  The reports indicate that shelling around the area of the post had been going on for some time.  That gives me an indication that Hezbollah where in the area as well.  We are all aware of Hezbollah's tendency to use friendlies or non-combatants as shields.  I may be well off target in my assessment of this, of course.  In anycase, it's an unfortunate incident.

_Edit for spelling._


----------



## Sub_Guy (25 Jul 2006)

USS Liberty anyone?


----------



## jollyjacktar (25 Jul 2006)

Sub_Guy you beat me to the punch while I was typing.  

This is not the first occasion on "blue on blue" type of incident involving the IDF.  And as always it stirs up controversy.  Here is a link to the USS LIBERTY organization homepage.  For the uninformed, this was a Comms Research style vessel who came to grief off the coast during the 67 conflict.  You can make your own mind up on who is who and what is what.



http://www.ussliberty.org/


----------



## tomahawk6 (25 Jul 2006)

With the rocket attacks I wouldnt be surprised if one hit the UN post to create an incident. But then again it could have been an accidental hit by the Israelis.


----------



## on guard for thee (25 Jul 2006)

Have a buddy there as a LO...

I hope that he's okay (his wife had their first child within the last month !!)


----------



## Scoobie Newbie (25 Jul 2006)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/USS_Liberty_incident


----------



## tomahawk6 (25 Jul 2006)

Dispatch by Major Paeta Hess-von Kruedener on CTV web site. Hope he is safe.

Plz strike post its already been covered.


----------



## FullSmash26 (25 Jul 2006)

Agreed that at this point it is speculation based on media reports.  Considering the lack of denial and the number of hours since this broke, I saw it is likely to be true.  
CTV is claiming that the outpost hit was right by the Lebanon/Syria/Israel border.


----------



## George Wallace (26 Jul 2006)

It looks like this may be a hot topic on the world stage, as several nations are bringing up in the UN Assembly and Security Council as I type this.  Accusations are starting to fly that Israel did indeed intentionally target the UN Post in Lebanon.  

Question is will the Israelis release the aircraft's "Gun Video" and will they do as the Americans did with the Afghanistan Friendly Fire Incident and put the pilot on trial?  Will the C of C involved be tried for this incident?

The UN Commander was on the phone and in communication with the Israelis and emphasising that there were UN Troops in the area.  The Israelis have known for years the locations of all UN sites.  There is no way that it was not a well know and identified site.


----------



## tomahawk6 (26 Jul 2006)

A Hizbollah position was 400 yards from the UN observation post so an accident is what this really was.
UNIFIL should be withdrawn ASAP their usefulness has long since passed. The hue and cry over the deaths of UN troops is understandable and yet there is no similar outrage over the killing of Israeli civilians from Hizbollah rockets.


----------



## Bo (26 Jul 2006)

Tomahawk, can you list the source that says Hezbollah was 400 yards away?

According to BBC, Israel was told by the UN troops to stop bombing in their area.



> Israel troops 'ignored' UN plea
> 
> Israel had hit Khiam a number of times earlier on Tuesday
> UN peacekeepers in south Lebanon contacted Israeli troops 10 times before an Israeli bomb killed four of them, an initial UN report says.



http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/5217176.stm

Hopefully, someone will be held accountable - accident or not.

RIP soldiers


----------



## Sub_Guy (26 Jul 2006)

tomahawk6 said:
			
		

> The hue and cry over the deaths of UN troops is understandable and yet there is no similar outrage over the killing of Israeli civilians from Hezbollah rockets.



OK, So bombing the crap out of a country, because of the actions of a few is necessary?  The number of Civilians killed on the Israeli side of the house isn't even close to what's going on in Lebanon.  Sure Hezbollah crossed and kidnapped 2 soldiers, but is that any reason to and destroy a country?   But then again the Americans invaded Iraq on a gut feeling, and now look at the place.

IMHO, Israel is creating more hate for their country in the region, and it is only going to get worse.   You can try to say they are defending all you want, but in reality they aren't defending anything.  I am ashamed to know that our PM has allowed this to go on without saying anything.  This is senseless.....  Also your claim that Hezbollah was 400 yards away, I for one,am not buying that, I have seen many UN posts and they are always CLEARLY marked.   No one can mistake that for anything.  I suspect in 15 years we will be reading (once again) that in fact it was a planned attack.


----------



## a_majoor (26 Jul 2006)

Given Hezbollah's clear preference for operating out of mosques, hospitals, schools and residential neighbourhoods, and utilizing civilians as human shields (and even dressing in the uniforms of UN Peacekeepers to carry out attacks against Israeli outposts), I have a strong suspicion that this was engineered by Hezbollah as another info op targetting Western public opinion.

This isn't confined to Hezbollah, similar activities are reported in Iraq, and I recall stories from our own guys during the Yugoslavian Civil Wars where the Serbs/Croats/Muslims would take up a position near a UN position and fire mortars at the opposing forces. The other side had two unappealing choices: shoot back and risk hitting the UN post with the potential consequences, or not respond and face continuing fire from the "bad guys". Most of the time they would shoot back.

Face it, the Hezbollah are fighting a 4GW aiming not at the Israeli military or State (which they have no realistic chance of defeating in an open confrontation), but at us, using civilians as weapons in theinr info ops. I don't know what the counter to this is, "Golani Brigade" snipers fanning out and zapping any male carrying a weapon? (The enemy will shift to women and children carrying and manning the weapons.....). The only possible counter is to carry out strategic operations against the Hezbollah's state sponsors (Syria and Iran), as well as excluding Hezbollah and Syrian attempts to infiltrate or influence the Lebanese government. Once Hezbollah is cut off from outside support, they will be easier to deal with.


----------



## Kirkhill (26 Jul 2006)

Pure hypothetical here and not worthy of speculation:  What is the protocol if a combatant buries a CP underneath a UN post or places an OP or Firing Point adjacent to it

Is the UN permitted to use force to tell them to buggeroff or are they restricted to putting their head down and hoping it never happens?

I am still waiting on this one.


----------



## Cdn Blackshirt (26 Jul 2006)

Out of curiosity, does anyone actually believe that Hezbollah was NOT firing from positions adjacent to the UN observer post with the specific hope that this would happen?

The following report from Canadian Maj Hess Von Kruedener emailed to CTV.ca:
http://www.ctv.ca/servlet/ArticleNews/story/CTVNews/20060718/mideast_lebanon_UN_060716/20060718/

Important Excerpt:


> "What I can tell you is this: we have on a daily basis had numerous occasions where our position has come under direct or indirect fire from both artillery and aerial bombing. The closest artillery has landed within 2 meters of our position and the closest 1000 lb aerial bomb has landed 100 meters from our patrol base. This has not been deliberate targeting, but has rather been due to tactical necessity."



Interpretation:
Hezbollah is firing rockets in near proximity of our observation post and since we're not doing anything to stop them....the Israelis are justifiably firing upon them.



Matthew.   ???


----------



## George Wallace (26 Jul 2006)

a_majoor said:
			
		

> Face it, the Hezbollah are fighting a 4GW aiming not at the Israeli military or State (which they have no realistic chance of defeating in an open confrontation), but at us, using civilians as weapons in theinr info ops. I don't know what the counter to this is, "Golani Brigade" snipers fanning out and zapping any male carrying a weapon? (The enemy will shift to women and children carrying and manning the weapons.....). The only possible counter is to carry out strategic operations against the Hezbollah's state sponsors (Syria and Iran), as well as excluding Hezbollah and Syrian attempts to infiltrate or influence the Lebanese government. Once Hezbollah is cut off from outside support, they will be easier to deal with.



That is where a "Strong, Aggressive Force" is required.  Israel is not going to take on NATO and its might.  If Hezbollah isn't removed by a "Strong, Aggressive Force" than it will be no better than the UN.  They have to be taken out.  If they want to play the game that they are, and get down to arming women and children......Guess what?......If they are carrying arms and in an aggressive stance threatening the NATO Force, then they are targeted.....No Race/Sex/Age/Religious/Cultural/etc distinction has to be made as long as they pose a threat.  Time to get "Hard" with these people, as that seems to be the only thing they understand.


----------



## GAP (26 Jul 2006)

George Wallace said:
			
		

> That is where a "Strong, Aggressive Force" is required.  Israel is not going to take on NATO and its might.  If Hezbollah isn't removed by a "Strong, Aggressive Force" than it will be no better than the UN.  They have to be taken out.  If they want to play the game that they are, and get down to arming women and children......Guess what?......If they are carrying arms and in an aggressive stance threatening the NATO Force, then they are targeted.....No Race/Sex/Age/Religious/Cultural/etc distinction has to be made as long as they pose a threat.  Time to get "Hard" with these people, as that seems to be the only thing they understand.



A NATO force would be reluctant to interfer with Israel retaliating with return fire, and I think Hezbollah would encourage that, in much the same way they have been doing. They know the western press will focus on Israel violating the agreement and "targeting" women and children, meanwhile it is Hezbollah that emplaced their weapons in civilian areas. 

You are going to find the average NATO forces member having a difficult time, even when it is known, targetting women and children. They don't have the careless disregard for civilian casualties others may have.


----------



## Teddy Ruxpin (26 Jul 2006)

> The hue and cry over the deaths of UN troops is understandable and yet there is no similar outrage over the killing of Israeli civilians from Hizbollah rockets.



One of whom, according to multiple (unconfirmed) media reports was a Canadian.  Given that I know two officers currently serving as UNMOs in that very region, I suggest that you're bound to see some "hue and cry" on this _Canadian_ army forum.  T6, I've had issues with some of your comments before, but this one pushes my buttons - for obvious reasons.

Sub_guy and GW:  +1

As many know, I have no love for the UN and feel that their "peacekeeping" missions - of which UNIFIL is a prime example - border on a joke.  In this theatre, the force has an apparent reputation for vacillation and ineffectiveness, part of which is due to the mandate provided to it by UNNY.  However, as George points out, the force has been in place in static locations for many, many years.  Surely the much-vaunted IDF (who aren't nearly as good as made out, BTW) had each OP and camp entered into their GPS years ago...

To quote Sub_Guy:



> I suspect in 15 years we will be reading (once again) that in fact it was a planned attack.



Indeed...


----------



## a_majoor (26 Jul 2006)

Working in that position was similar to moving into a high crime neighbourhood and hoping you would not get robbed. Here is some of what they were doing before the bombing:

http://www.smalldeadanimals.com/archives/004344.html



> July 26, 2006
> *When Luck Runs Out*
> At the Belmont Club, a lengthy list of the close calls INIFIL had already suffered due to their proximity with Hezbollah installations;
> 
> ...



Full article here:
http://fallbackbelmont.blogspot.com/2006/07/knife-thrower-at-carnival.html


----------



## big bad john (26 Jul 2006)

I've noticed a lot of rumour and speculation on this subject and on who the KIA might be.  I have started a new thread:  http://forums.army.ca/forums/threads/47969.0.html

on the evils of rumour and speculation.  PLEASE READ AND KNOW IT WELL!  It should not be tolerated here at all.  Remember that we are professionals and that we are a family.  Please protect our own.


----------



## jollyjacktar (26 Jul 2006)

I agree with Sub_Guy in that these posts are clearly marked as "UN".  I fully believe there is no way that someone in IDF command did not know full wekk of it's location and purpose. 

Further, with the state of the art weapons a first rate western supplied/led force has at it's disposal nowadays command and control of the fall of shot of these weapons is considerable.  We all have seen the "guided weapon entering the third window from the top left video" or what have you we are familiar with since GW1.

The UN are claiming their people made at least 10 calls to the IDF with regard near misses on their position before contact was lost.

Full story here:  http://www.ctv.ca/servlet/ArticleNews/story/CTVNews/20060725/israel_fighting_060726/20060726?hub=TopStories


----------



## CanadaPhil (26 Jul 2006)

This morning on CNN, an Irish officer (forgot his name) stationed in the area was being interviewed. 

If I understood him correctly he was stating that the posts on the high ground were "unmanned" at time of the "attack" and all the UN personnel were taking shelter from the fighting.

When asked by the CNN correspondent if it was in ANY way possible that Hezbollah fighters had occupied the positions and were using them to fire on the IDF, the officer stated he had "no comment" on that??

I am not sure what that means?


----------



## FredDaHead (26 Jul 2006)

CanadaPhil said:
			
		

> This morning on CNN, an Irish officer (forgot his name) stationed in the area was being interviewed.
> 
> If I understood him correctly he was stating that the posts on the high ground were "unmanned" at time of the "attack" and all the UN personnel were taking shelter from the fighting.
> 
> ...



It means exactly what it means. He most likely didn't know and didn't want to put the UN in an embarassing position if whatever he said turned out to be wrong.


----------



## Babbling Brooks (26 Jul 2006)

> I agree with Sub_Guy in that these posts are clearly marked as "UN".



Fair enough.  And if some IDF soldier deliberately targeted a UN post, he or she should be incarcerated until the sun goes nova.

But look at this picture of a UNIFIL post, and tell me mistakes aren't possible: http://www.smalldeadanimals.com/archives/upload/2006/07/flags.jpg

Hezbollah should not have been allowed to use UNIFIL posts for cover.  They should not have been allowed to impersonate UN troops to kidnap Israelis (http://volokh.com/archives/archive_2006_07_16-2006_07_22.shtml#1153523571).  They should not have been allowed to direct small-arms fire against a UN soldier, severely wounding him, or open fire on a clearly-marked UN convoy (http://fallbackbelmont.blogspot.com/2006/07/knife-thrower-at-carnival.html).

In fact, the UN administration itself should be roundly castigated for leaving in an active shooting war a force with no strong mandate, no real resources, for no real purpose.


----------



## CanadaPhil (26 Jul 2006)

This from Canadian Press:

Harper says he doesn't believe UN post deliberately targeted by Israelis KEVIN BISSETT
 13 minutes ago



HOPEWELL CAPE, N.B. (CP) - Prime Minister Stephen Harper says Israel's deadly attack on a UN observation post in Lebanon, which claimed the life of a Canadian soldier, was a "terrible tragedy" and he doubts whether the bombing was deliberate.

Harper, speaking to reporters after a funding announcement in eastern New Brunswick, said the Canadian military would consult with the UN and the Israeli government to find out what happened.

The prime minister also said he wants to know why the post was still manned even though it was in the middle of an obvious war zone. Three other peacekeepers - from Austria, China and Finland - were killed when a bomb hit their post in the town Khiyam, near the eastern end of Lebanon's border with Israel.

UN Secretary General Kofi Annan has suggested Israel deliberately targeted the UN outpost. But Harper said the facts suggest otherwise.

"I certainly doubt that to be the case, given that the government of Israel has been co-operating with us in our evacuation efforts, in our efforts to move Canadian citizens out of Lebanon and also trying to keep our own troops that are on the ground, involved in the evacuation, out of harm's way," he said.

"We want to find out why this United Nations post was attacked and also why it remained manned during what is now, more or less, a war during obvious danger to these individuals."

Harper said he expected to hear from the Israeli Prime Minister Ehud Olmert.

"I expect that he will be expressing his deep regret. But also I'll be asking for his full co-operation in getting to the bottom of this."

Harper said it was too early to say whether a UN peacekeeping force should be dispatched to Lebanon and he confirmed Canada's current evacuation policy for non-resident Canadians will be reviewed when the rescue effort ends.

"Our priority in this case has been the evacuation of citizens who are also residents but we have also been willing to evacuate residents who are not permanent residents of Canada," he said following a news conference in Hopewell Cape, a picturesque community at the eastern edge of the Bay of Fundy.

"That has been somewhat controversial. There are large numbers involved, and in other parts of the world there are even larger numbers."

On Tuesday, Harper said Canada would prefer to keep its troops out of Lebanon because any ceasefire between Israel and the Lebanese militant group Hezbollah would be better enforced by Middle East countries.

The United States is proposing a NATO-led intervention force in southern Lebanon. It wants the UN to sanction a force as it did for coalition forces in Afghanistan.

Neither Canada nor the United States has called for a ceasefire in the region, insisting that Hezbollah must first be dismantled.

Canada's evacuation efforts are expected to wind down in the coming days. Officials expect 10,000 Canadians will be evacuated by the time the rescue effort ends.




Copyright © 2006 Canadian Press


----------



## jollyjacktar (26 Jul 2006)

Babbling Brooks said:
			
		

> But look at this picture of a UNIFIL post, and tell me mistakes aren't possible: http://www.smalldeadanimals.com/archives/upload/2006/07/flags.jpg



Correct me if I am mistaken, but geeze, the great big freaking UN flag on a registered UN bunker should give a highly trained observer such as a pilot or FOO a clue as to the identity of who's there.


----------



## Cdn Blackshirt (26 Jul 2006)

I still remain confused every time a Prime Minister makes a public statement that's actually logical, fair and not intended to pander to specific voting block.


Matthew.   ???


----------



## CanadaPhil (26 Jul 2006)

The Hezbollah banner is flying HIGHER than the UN one.

A definite NO-NO in flag flying protocol.


----------



## Michael Dorosh (26 Jul 2006)

jollyjacktar said:
			
		

> Correct me if I am mistaken, but geeze, the great big freaking UN flag on a registered UN bunker should give a highly trained observer such as a pilot or FOO a clue as to the identity of who's there.



Not if there was no wind...


----------



## Michael Dorosh (26 Jul 2006)

Cdn Blackshirt said:
			
		

> I still remain confused every time a Prime Minister makes a public statement that's actually logical, fair and not intended to pander to specific voting block.
> 
> 
> Matthew.   ???



I can't wait for the next election.  Good for him. I hope he doesn't blow things through some idiotic scandal - as seems to be inevitable no matter which party is in power.


----------



## Sub_Guy (26 Jul 2006)

Michael Dorosh said:
			
		

> Not if there was no wind...



The wind isn't going to blow the big black UN lettering off of the big white bunker!


----------



## Teddy Ruxpin (26 Jul 2006)

From the BBC (http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/5216230.stm)



> How UN Lebanon post was bombed
> 
> There was fierce fighting in the Khiam area for six hours
> Details of the circumstances in which the Israeli air force bombed a United Nations observation post in south Lebanon, killing four UN peacekeepers have begun to emerge.
> ...



My emphasis added...


----------



## jollyjacktar (26 Jul 2006)

It must be alright.  Uncle Steven said he believes it was an accident.....

http://www.cbc.ca/story/world/national/2006/07/25/un-lebanon.html


----------



## 1feral1 (26 Jul 2006)

jollyjacktar said:
			
		

> Further, with the state of the art weapons a first rate western supplied/led force has at it's disposal nowadays command and control of the fall of shot of these weapons is considerable.  We all have seen the "guided weapon entering the third window from the top left video" or what have you we are familiar with since GW1.



These 'state of the art weapons' are only as smart as the guy who is painting the target. Thats not speculation, but fact.

I think we should do a 'wait out' on this one.

As for Uncle Steven, Jolly, he has shown more leadership in one day than other PMs have in decades, and if I lived back in dear ole Canada, he would have got my vote.

Regards,

Wes


----------



## jollyjacktar (26 Jul 2006)

The chap killed has been identified.  Sadly it's true he was one of ours.  I am thankful however, my friend is still safe.

http://www.ctv.ca/servlet/ArticleNews/story/CTVNews/20060725/israel_fighting_060726/20060726?hub=TopStories  

Wes, true enough.  But you have to agree, the days of dumb iron bomb going where the wind blows is pretty much gone for a first rate military force.  Especially if they have any interest in bringing fire down upon the target and minimising collateral damage.


----------



## jollyjacktar (26 Jul 2006)

Wesley 'Down Under' said:
			
		

> As for Uncle Steven, Jolly, he has shown more leadership in one day than other PMs have in decades, and if I lived back in dear ole Canada, he would have got my vote.



Wes, have met him.  I call all the PM's "Uncle" regardless of political stripe.  And he did get my vote.


----------



## 1feral1 (26 Jul 2006)

jollyjacktar said:
			
		

> The chap killed has been identified.  Sadly it's true he was one of ours.  I am thankful however, my friend is still safe.
> 
> http://www.ctv.ca/servlet/ArticleNews/story/CTVNews/20060725/israel_fighting_060726/20060726?hub=TopStories
> 
> Wes, true enough.  But you have to agree, the days of dumb iron bomb going where the wind blows is pretty much gone for a first rate military force.  Especially if they have any interest in bringing fire down upon the target and minimising collateral damage.



I don't know the circumstances, and maybe we will never know, but what is known is that we have yet lost another, this time a man of experience, and over 20yrs TI. Canada mournes for another lost.

Wes


----------



## Jay4th (26 Jul 2006)

Regardless of how well marked the UN post was, and how well trained the operator was, its (the outpost) proximity to a legitimate target meant there was a danger of collateral damage. We all know how easily these things happen, why just last week a 500 pounder landed on my platoon who were all wearing the right IFF ( I was absent having been in the hospital for unrelated stuff).  I think the point is the UN should have had the teeth to ensure Hez wasn't operating in the area or gotten the hell out.  Teddy Ruxpin and I have similar views on UN usefulness born of long experience.  My sympathy to the Major's family. He undoubtedly knew the risks, but it is never as easy for those at home to understand or accept.


----------



## klambie (26 Jul 2006)

I'm unable to listen to this CBC clip to verify, but this link claims that Lewis MacKenzie claims that Hezbollah is using UN personnel as human shields.  He bases this on the recent email from the Canadian casualty.  

http://www.damianpenny.com/archived/007119.html

This would seem to put him largely in agreement with Cdn Blackshirt earlier today, whose post has been ignored by many here.

http://forums.army.ca/forums/threads/47957/post-417642.html#msg417642


----------



## career_radio-checker (26 Jul 2006)

Rant On

Bull  sh!t,  Bull Sh!t what ever Israel says is Bull sh!t. The fact they are saying this was an accident and that they are sorry for this incident has just thrown salt on a fresh wound. It enrages me and should to everyone else :evil: :evil: :evil:

At the outbrake of this war I had some sympathy for Israel because they were had pullled out of Lebanon as a goodwill gesture but were now going to have to invade it again because of Hezbollah. But when they began wholesale bombing of suburbs and killing civilians. including 7 Canadians began to change my mind. Then the IDF were quick to release videos of how precise their attacks were to prove to the world that they were targeting military targets not civilians. And now Israel says that the bombing of a clearly marked bright WHITE outpost was an accident when, one of own recounts that they were nearly bombarded repeatedly the week prior and that they contacted  
IDF 10 times, let me say that again 10 TIMES!!!  6 hrs prior to their deaths, telling the IDF that they were shelling too close.  And let's not forget those videos of precision bombing.
Accident?!!!*********. This is nothing short of murder.
And worst of all... worst of ALL. our government... the dead major's government, who he was serving is blindly siding with the biggest belligerent in the entire Middle East -- Israel.

At heart I supported Harper and the realist thinking but after witnessing:
-Israel stopping the bombing for Condi Rice;
-Condi Rice saying she wants to have new Middle East;
-America's refusal to take an active role in the Ceasefire;

A lot of that leftwing conspiracy / secret agenda crap is starting to make sense

Rant off


***Edit for racial epithet***


----------



## Pikepusher (26 Jul 2006)

Big Bad John, appreciated your "speculation and rumours" warning.   Reading to-day's Whig-Standard article in conjunction with the 18 Jul e-mail report to CTV practically forced the conclusion on the identity of the casualty.  RIP.

There are two other development indicated on this thread that bother me: links to blogs, and politicking.  Just because something is posted on a blog does not make it the real gen.  A lot of blogs are purpose-driven (and the spreading of objective truth usually is not that purpose,) and there are no rules of evidence.  Just because something is posted on Small Dead Animals does not make it proof of or for anything.

I understood this to be a military/Army forum, and the military used to be apolitical.  So let us leave Conservative or Liberal, right or left, pro or agin' Harper, and politics in general out of it.  Even in Ruxted Group Editorials.  There are enough blogs out there where partisan aims can be pursued.


----------



## Michael Dorosh (26 Jul 2006)

career_radio-checker said:
			
		

> And now Israel says that the bombing of a clearly marked bright WHITE outpost



Everyone sure is certain that visibility was good and that this outpost was clearly marked and distinguishable from, say, any number of other white coloured buildings. I don't see what good all the speculation is doing. Let's save our indignation for people who can be demonstrated to deserve it - ie wait for the investigation. Israel is in a shooting war with her soldiers in harm's way - let's respect that for now and just hope no more of our own soldiers are injured in the interim. It's about all we can do.


----------



## Kirkhill (26 Jul 2006)

Is now a good time to suggest that we all take a valium, have a drink and turn up the air conditioning?

There's a lot more information to come on this one with a whole lot more questions to be asked as to who gave what orders to whom and what were the circumstances.

In the meantime the critical issue is that a good man has died doing his job.  My respects and thanks to him and my condolences to his family.


----------



## jollyjacktar (26 Jul 2006)

Kirkhill said:
			
		

> Is now a good time to suggest that we all take a valium, have a drink and turn up the air conditioning?
> 
> There's a lot more information to come on this one with a whole lot more questions to be asked as to who gave what orders to whom and what were the circumstances.
> 
> In the meantime the critical issue is that a good man has died doing his job.  My respects and thanks to him and my condolences to his family.



+1


----------



## GAP (26 Jul 2006)

Pikepusher said:
			
		

> I understood this to be a military/Army forum, and the military used to be apolitical.  So let us leave Conservative or Liberal, right or left, pro or agin' Harper, and politics in general out of it.  Even in Ruxted Group Editorials.  There are enough blogs out there where partisan aims can be pursued.



I understand this to be a forum where many military people frequent. People who are not in the military frequent it also. Opinion is opinion, and as long as there is freedom of speech, why should anyone on this forum adjust to PC speak? No where in the rules does it say that you cannot support a view by a particular political party or individual or media outlet. 

That said, the said support *"opinionated"* must be in reasonably good taste. They do not tolerate political rants nor trolls. I, for one, am quite comfortable with the opinions, even though many I do not agree with and take a polar opposite position.

thank you


----------



## CanadaPhil (26 Jul 2006)

career_radio-checker said:
			
		

> Accident?!!! ******. This is nothing short of murder.



Wow! Now that I have seen it put that way, You have convinced me!


----------



## Kirkhill (26 Jul 2006)

Phil and Checker, please don't go down that road.

A favour.


----------



## tourza (26 Jul 2006)

Some of you may remember this:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Qana_massacre

There is much information on the Internet about this; some biased, some not. The UN sent a general from the Netherlands to investigate and his report is on the Internet. 

Hizballah ( 'hizb' in Arabic means party and 'allah' means God - Party of God) draws its support from the southern villages of Lebanon. Most, if not almost all, of the fighters have families that live in these villages. During 'Grapes of Wrath' in 1996, many of these southern villagers sought refuge in UN compounds/OP's/HQ's. etc. If you were a Hizballah fighter, would you set up your artillery 200M away from where you know your wife/children/parents/siblings/friends are seeking protection? 

There are several good books out there that cover the Lebanon War in great depth. For an excellent read about the Lebanese War, pick up a copy of Pity the Nation: The Abduction of Lebanon. It is an excellent book written by Robert Fisk, an Irishman writing for an English paper that lived in Beirut almost continuously from 1976 to 1992. I first read it when I was in University and have re-read several chapters many times over since then. For a real comprehensive understanding of the Middle East and Far East (Lebanon, Israel, Palestine, Algeria, Syria, Afghanistan, Iran, Iraq, et al) pick up a copy of Robert Fisk's new book, The Great War for Civilisation: The Conquest of the Middle East. At a little over 1000 pages, it's not a one weekend read, but well worth the effort. I have already read it once, and am in the middle of reading it again. I've read almost everything that has ever been written about the Lebanon War and I've found that Fisk is the only writer that actually has the credibility to tell it the way it was (is). 

Regards,

Tourza


----------



## 1feral1 (26 Jul 2006)

career_radio-checker said:
			
		

> Rant On
> 
> 
> Accident?!!! ******. This is nothing short of murder.
> ...



Mate you are way out of line here, way out of line. 

Views and opinions are one thing, and I am sure you could have chose better langue or words to express such. In honour our latest casualy of this war against radical islam (yes thats what it is), be professional and have some respect.

You, as I and everyone else were not there and DO NOT know the circumstances.

Wes


----------



## CanadaPhil (26 Jul 2006)

tourza said:
			
		

> .................
> pick up a copy of Robert Fisk's new book, The Great War for Civilisation: The Conquest of the Middle East. At a little over 1000 pages, it's not a one weekend read, but well worth the effort. I have already read it once, and am in the middle of reading it again. I've read almost everything that has ever been written about the Lebanon War and I've found that Fisk is the only writer that actually has the credibility to tell it the way it was (is).
> 
> Regards,
> ...



Welcome Tourza!

Since you have come make a point, and you are claiming that you have re-reading the ONLY credible account on this issue, would you kindly indulge us and explain just exactly "the way it is"?


----------



## Michael OLeary (26 Jul 2006)

Keep the discourse rational folks, or this thread will start seeing 24 hour lockdowns.


----------



## 1feral1 (26 Jul 2006)

Maybe thats what it needs now. I agree 100%.

WEs


----------



## Remius (26 Jul 2006)

Michael Dorosh said:
			
		

> Everyone sure is certain that visibility was good and that this outpost was clearly marked and distinguishable from, say, any number of other white coloured buildings. I don't see what good all the speculation is doing. Let's save our indignation for people who can be demonstrated to deserve it - ie wait for the investigation. Israel is in a shooting war with her soldiers in harm's way - let's respect that for now and just hope no more of our own soldiers are injured in the interim. It's about all we can do.



+1


----------



## Pikepusher (26 Jul 2006)

Gap,

the last thing I would advocate is "PC speak."  I would push the exact opposite: opinion that based on fact, experience or knowledge, and that is expressed clearly.  Opinion that is not based on these is bullshit, and bullshit was detested in this man's Army.  I trust that this tradition has not disappeared.


----------



## Kirkhill (26 Jul 2006)

I would support that Michael.


----------



## George Wallace (26 Jul 2006)

Pikepusher said:
			
		

> the last thing I would advocate is "PC speak."  I would push the exact opposite: opinion that based on fact, experience or knowledge, and that is expressed clearly.  Opinion that is not based on these is bullshit, and bullshit was detested in this man's Army.  I trust that this tradition has not disappeared.



Pikepusher

Although what you say is commonly held by many here as being what they stand for; I hope that you realize that this is a Privately owned site, not an "Official" DND site.


----------



## MarkOttawa (26 Jul 2006)

Fisk was interviewed on Newsworld around 1130 EDT, saying Hezb were great warriors and, in strictly military terms, beating the pants off the IDF.

Time will tell.  Then maybe the Fisking can resume.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fisking

Mark
Ottawa


----------



## jollyjacktar (26 Jul 2006)

MarkOttawa said:
			
		

> Fisk was interviewed on Newsworld around 1130 EDT, saying Hezb were great warriors and, in strictly military terms, beating the pants off the IDF.
> 
> Time will tell.  Then maybe the Fisking can resume.
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fisking
> ...




Interesting read Mark.  I guess I would rather be accused of being a Fisker than a Flamer.  Although I suppose I've been a Fiskee at times ;D


----------



## tomahawk6 (26 Jul 2006)

PM Harper's comments.

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/servlet/story/RTGAM.20060726.wmidea0726/BNStory/International/?page=rss&id=RTGAM.20060726.wmidea0726

Radio interview with MG Mackenzie.

http://cbc.ca/metromorning/media/20060726LMCJUL26.ram


----------



## tourza (26 Jul 2006)

Thanks for the welcome CanadaPhil.

I never claimed to be reading the 'only' credible source on this issue, you said that. Fisk's book that deals with the Lebanon War is called Pity the Nation: The Abduction of Lebanon. The book that I'm currently re-reading is his latest work, The Great War for Civilisation: The Conquest of the Middle East. I highly recommend both books, especially his latest book, to sort of fill in all the blanks in everything else we have read or studied regarding the Middle East and Far East.

As to your question about why I believe that Fisk tells it the way it is - I've read several books on the Middle East and in particular, the Lebanon War. Depending on who the author is and what his frame of reference is, the books tend to reflect the biases and prejudices of each author(not always, but most of the time). Example: pick up a book about Israeli forces in Lebanon during the Lebanon War written by an Israeli author and you might get one side of the story; pick up a book by an Arab author and you might get the other half of the story. The truth, as the old adage goes, lies between these two sides. Fisk lived the Lebanon War. He has nothing good to say about any of the parties involved. They were all complicit in the destruction of people and property. Rare is the author that writes about the ME and FE and dishes out criticism all around. 

CanadaPhil, I would encourage you and anyone else who is truly interested in the situation in the Middle East today to consider reading one or both of these books. 

Regards,

Tourza


----------



## Cdn Blackshirt (27 Jul 2006)

Copyright The Ottawa Citizen 2006:



> Hezbollah was using UN post as 'shield'
> Canadian wrote of militia's presence, 'necessity' of bombing
> Published: Thursday, July 27, 2006
> 
> ...


----------



## dredwulf (27 Jul 2006)

I Can't Believe  HVK is dead.  

He was a scary man, an absolute epitome of a soldier and I reckoned him indestructible. I remember vividly the day he 'killed' me during a FIBUA ex. He was the course commander of my ISCC in '95.

To see that face posted with that news article...

It's surreal.

We've truly lost ot only an amazing man, but a very valuable weapon from the Canadian arsenel.

Sgt Crough JP


----------



## MarkOttawa (27 Jul 2006)

Audio of interview on CFRA, Ottawa, with Colonel (ret'd)  Michel Drapeau .
http://www.cfra.com/chum_audio/Colonel_Michel_Drapeau_July26.mp3

Mark
Ottawa


----------



## GAP (27 Jul 2006)

Pikepusher said:
			
		

> Gap,
> the last thing I would advocate is "PC speak."  I would push the exact opposite: opinion that based on fact, experience or knowledge, and that is expressed clearly.  Opinion that is not based on these is bullshit, and bullshit was detested in this man's Army.  I trust that this tradition has not disappeared.



Pikepusher this was your original post (emphasis is mine)



> There are two other development indicated on this thread that bother me: *links to blogs, and politicking*.  Just because something is posted on a blog does not make it the real gen.  A lot of blogs are purpose-driven (and the spreading of objective truth usually is not that purpose,) and there are no rules of evidence.  Just because something is posted on Small Dead Animals does not make it proof of or for anything.
> 
> I understood this to be a military/Army forum, and the military used to be apolitical.  So let us leave Conservative or Liberal, right or left, pro or agin' Harper, and politics in general out of it.  Even in Ruxted Group Editorials.  There are enough blogs out there where partisan aims can be pursued



without trying start a flaming war, your comments taken in the context given is exacty what I maintain you advocate...PC speak. Again, I would point out that the focus of this site is develop debate about issues. Sources and links to blogs and political issues are a relevant part of that debate, but they need and are taken with the grain of salt all such sources engender. Many times I have followed the link to a blog, where the article/discussion of the subject is outlined in greater detail and allows me a clearer understanding of where the person I am debating is "coming from". Do I believe everything I see and read...not on your life, and neither should anyone else. Do we have a duty to clearly enunciate the views that we are supporting, along with supporting data/links...you bet.


----------



## tomahawk6 (27 Jul 2006)

Not sure why Anan has not pulled the UN observers out of the line of fire. In fact its high time for UNIFIL to withdraw as its mandate ends Monday and is unlikely to be renewed. The presence of a PRC officer as part of the observation team was a might curious.


----------



## Journeyman (27 Jul 2006)

tomahawk6 said:
			
		

> The presence of a PRC officer as part of the observation team was a might curious.



Talking with one of our MilReps a while ago (now making this 3rd hand info), PRC had been "goaded" into actually supporting some of the operations, given their P5 status. UNIFIL was seen as a "safe" tour where nothing happened that could cause diplomatic problems for them. 
Sometimes God just has a twisted sense of humour


----------



## Teddy Ruxpin (27 Jul 2006)

> Talking with one of our MilReps a while ago (now making this 3rd hand info), PRC had been "goaded" into actually supporting some of the operations,



The PRC had a full Colonel MILOBS with UNIKOM (Iraq-Kuwait post April 1991) (second-hand info).  It does happen - we've even seen Bosnian observers recently


----------



## GAP (27 Jul 2006)

Australia to withdraw peacekeeping troops
Associated Press  POSTED AT 1:47 AM EDT ON 27/07/06 Globe & Mail
http://www.theglobeandmail.com/servlet/story/RTGAM.20060727.wausileb0727/BNStory/International

CANBERRA — Australia has decided to withdraw its 12 peacekeeping troops from southern Lebanon because of the danger there, the defence minister said Thursday.

Defence Minister Brendan Nelson said the decision was made Wednesday but declined to say whether the pullout had occurred yet.

“Late yesterday, we made a decision to bring our 12 Australian Defence Force personnel back from southern Lebanon to Beirut where, of course, it is important that they continue to work with our Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade officials,” Mr. Nelson told Australian Broadcasting Corp. radio.

The withdrawal comes after four UN observers, including a Canadian, were killed by an Israeli air strike in southern Lebanon on Tuesday.


----------



## chupracabra (27 Jul 2006)

Michael Dorosh said:
			
		

> Everyone sure is certain that visibility was good and that this outpost was clearly marked and distinguishable from, say, any number of other white coloured buildings. I don't see what good all the speculation is doing. Let's save our indignation for people who can be demonstrated to deserve it - ie wait for the investigation. Israel is in a shooting war with her soldiers in harm's way - let's respect that for now and just hope no more of our own soldiers are injured in the interim. It's about all we can do.



I must agree with waiting for an enquiry, but unfortunately, it will be done by Israel, which doesn't bode well. I think the facts that have come in are pretty damning, but this will all go away quietly like it has always done in the past, all the more made easier by a Prime Minister who apparently has no balls and excepts Israel at face value! Where is the outrage? If this was done by anyone else, there would be serious repercussions.


----------



## Dare (27 Jul 2006)

A brief summary of the listed points. Many of which had been said previously but not as directly. The fact that a few posts in someone starts off about "USS Liberty" has being evidence of this being a conspiracy I find distasteful. 



http://blogs.news.com.au/heraldsun/andrewbolt/index.php/heraldsun/comments/why_the_un_post_was_bombed/

Why the UN post was bombed
Icon - Comments 115 Comments | 0 Trackbacks | Permalink
Andrew Bolt Blog Icon Arrow

By Andrew Bolt
Thursday, July 27, 2006 at 09:22am


The lynching of Israel continues, this time with United Nations boss Kofi Annan accusing it of the “apparently deliberate targetting” of a UN observation post, killing four observers.

The usual suspects are now running with this line, with The Age front page screaming: “UN told: please explain.’’

The venom against Israel - as splashed about by former Deputy Prime Minsiter Tim Fischer on ABC 774 this morning - is extraordinary. Do these people seriously think Israel aims to kill UN staff, and that this was not simply - as Israel insists - a tragic mistake?

What makes Annan’s allegation so unforgiveable is that his UN Interim Force in Lebanon has been warning for days about what almost certainly caused this tragedy. Hezbollah fighters, who have already been firing behind screens of women and children, have also been shooting from behind and next to the UN positions, presumably hoping Israel will not dare shoot back and risk exactly this kind of propaganda disaster.

Read the UNIFIL press releases for yourself to learn that Hezbollah has not just shot at and seriously wounded UNIFIL observers - without any protest from Kofi Annan or The Age. You’ll also learn that UNIFIL has repeatedly reported Israeli shelling and bombing near UNIFIL outposts because Hezbollah fighters were shooting from right beside them .

Says the UNIFIL press release of 20 July:

Hezbollah firing was also reported from the immediate vicinity of the UN positions in Naquora and Maroun Al Ras areas at the time of the incidents (of Israeli return fire).

Can the jeering critics of Israel stop catcalling for a minute and explain how Israel is to defend itself against an enemy that shoots from among women and children, and from behind UN soldiers?  Can they explain why they are such apologists for terrorists? Can Annan explain why he did not call on Hezbollah to stop risking the lives of his staff, or pull them out when they were being used to screen terrorist fighters?

UPDATE 1: More evidence.  Retired Canadian Major General Lewis Mackenzie says he recently received emails from the Canadian peacekeeper killed at the UN post who’d told him that Hezbollah was using his post as cover.

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.

(Thanks to Little Green Footballs)

UPDATE 2: Canada’s prime minister Steven Harper also makes sense:

Canada’s Prime Minister Stephen Harper said an Israeli attack on a UN outpost that killed four, including a Canadian, was a “terrible tragedy” but not likely deliberate.

At the same time, he questioned why the UN had manned the outpost in Lebanon near the Israeli border as bombs exploded all around.

“We want to find out why this United Nations post was attacked and also why it remained manned during what is now, more or less, a war during obvious danger to these individuals,” he told reporters.

UPDATE 3: Hezbollah is listed here and in the US and Canada as a terrorist group. Yet The Age today gave one of its spokesmen, Ali Fayyad, a senior member of Hezbollah’s executive committee, a quarter of a page to put his case against Israel. Am I alone in finding this shameful? I guess the paper at least “balanced” it by running alongside it a piece by an Israeli minister. Can someone older than I tell me if it was the habit of The Age in World War 2 to run pieces by Mr Hitler alongside ones by some Jewish spokesman not yet dead for the sake of a “balanced” argument?  We can’t be far from the day that The Age hires Mr Osama bin Laden as a columnist. When Michael Leunig retires, perhaps?


----------



## Dare (27 Jul 2006)

chupracabra said:
			
		

> I must agree with waiting for an enquiry, but unfortunately, it will be done by Israel, which doesn't bode well. I think the facts that have come in are pretty damning, but this will all go away quietly like it has always done in the past, all the more made easier by a Prime Minister who apparently has no balls and excepts Israel at face value! Where is the outrage? If this was done by anyone else, there would be serious repercussions.


You think so? First off, what damning facts are you talking about? If the US had done this, how different do you think it would be? If we had been fighting in Afghanistan and shelled a position overrun with the enemy, flying the enemies flag.. what would be done then? You know what I'm outraged at? Hezb'allah using UN troops as shields! THAT's what I'm outraged at. You know why they do that? So people like *you* can spout off about how it's all some Israeli conspiracy. Yes, in the middle of a war, I'm sure Israeli generals were sitting in a smoke filled bunker plotting to piss off everyone who's supporting them! Clearly.

P.S. I saw your post before you edited out the snide remark about "chosen people".. not quick enough, bud.


----------



## tamouh (27 Jul 2006)

> You think so? First off, what damning facts are you talking about? If the US had done this, how different do you think it would be? If we had been fighting in Afghanistan and shelled a position overrun with the enemy, flying the enemies flag.. what would be done then? You know what I'm outraged at? Hezb'allah using UN troops as shields! THAT's what I'm outraged at. You know why they do that? So people like *you* can spout off about how it's all some Israeli conspiracy. Yes, in the middle of a war, I'm sure Israeli generals were sitting in a smoke filled bunker plotting to piss off everyone who's supporting them! Clearly.



Bravo Israel....use Canadian passports to move their spies, infiltrate the US defense , their greatest allie with a spy agents then when caught denounce the agent, fire upon UN observers, bomb canadians on vacation, and not hesitate once to put its allies at risk for the selfish purpose of securing their own being. This is Israel you defend, a great allie who bomb you from behind then come out to your funeral.


----------



## CanadaPhil (27 Jul 2006)

Ahhhhhh.....Tamou! 

Welcome Back!

Everyone was starting to miss your pearls of wisdom.


----------



## Scoobie Newbie (27 Jul 2006)

Bravo Hezbollah...use UN positions to fire from, us UN uniforms to kidnap Israel troops, fires rockets with no regard or tactics, started this latest mess by kidnapping two soldiers off their own land, don't hesitate once to put their own citizens in harms way.  This is Hezbollah YOU DEFEND.


----------



## chupracabra (27 Jul 2006)

I removed that last part as I felt it was not necessary and maybe too angry, so I don't think you needed to re post it jerk! I feel the gist of your post can be boiled down to 'poor Israel, the media is so hard on them'. Give us a break already. Ten phone calls in six hours to the Israelis notifying them of their presence, getting the promise of the Israeli officials that it wouldn't be struck and then it is. And boy is it hit - 17 bombs and 12 artillery shells. Does this sound like an accident? The Israeli's went out of their way to say how precise their pin-point bombing was in response to critics saying they were indiscriminately hitting civilians, but now they are back-peddling and saying they hit a clearly marked white bunker - and then continued to fire upon those who came to the victims aid. If you can honestly say that is an accident, then you are quite obviously deluded my boy, and personally I don't think we need MORE Israeli apologists such as you, the world seems full enough with them as it is.


----------



## Scott (27 Jul 2006)

Tamouh, this shall be your only warning from me:

I have sat back and watched how you try to ignite fires in threads and then withdraw when the hard questions are asked. If you continue this MO I *will* see to it that you are put into the warning system and, if need be, banned from the site.

If you are here to contribute then do so, your behavior thus far would hardly be considered a contribution.

The ball is in your court.


----------



## Scott (27 Jul 2006)

chupracabra said:
			
		

> *I removed that last part as I felt it was not necessary and maybe too angry, so I don't think you needed to re post it jerk!* I feel the gist of your post can be boiled down to 'poor Israel, the media is so hard on them'. Give us a break already. Ten phone calls in six hours to the Israelis notifying them of their presence, getting the promise of the Israeli officials that it wouldn't be struck and then it is. And boy is it hit - 17 bombs and 12 artillery shells. Does this sound like an accident? The Israeli's went out of their way to say how precise their pin-point bombing was in response to critics saying they were indiscriminately hitting civilians, but now they are back-peddling and saying they hit a clearly marked white bunker - and then continued to fire upon those who came to the victims aid. If you can honestly say that is an accident, then you are quite obviously deluded my boy, and personally I don't think we need MORE Israeli apologists such as you, the world seems full enough with them as it is.



Quit the personal attacks or go back into the warning system. I won't tell you again.

All, keep this on track *and civil* or it shall be locked.


----------



## chupracabra (27 Jul 2006)

Dare said:
			
		

> UPDATE 2: Canada’s prime minister Steven Harper also makes sense:
> 
> 
> At the same time, he questioned why the UN had manned the outpost in Lebanon near the Israeli border as bombs exploded all around.
> ...



Isn't the point of a U.N. Observer to 'observe' the happenings goiung on around them? They were there, as they always have been for some years now, and one can hardly observe coflict far removed from it! This is the most stupid point I have ever heard.

As for the the third quote, I don't think Hitler and some A-hole from Hezbollah can be equated. can they? Why is the first reaction of apologists of Israel to  call their detractors supporters of Hezbollah (or whomever) or simply anti-Semites? That is a dirty trick that has been used a little too frequently and is losing steam. I personally would like to see Hezbollah wiped out, but I don't think wiping out infrastructure and innocent civilians the way to do it, or maybe you think they are less human than Israeli's?


----------



## childs56 (27 Jul 2006)

Bottom line is we have seen numerous times in many different conflicts where the UN has been used as a form of shield for one side or the other. What we have lacked in the past is a Country that has a war minded attitude towards this. Isreal is a country that fights to win. They hold very little back in the form of conventional warfare. 

If the UN council had allowed this shield to of been used with the knowledge that the Hezbolla or other sanctions were using UN observation posts as safe areas, then they should have known the risks and pulled their soldiers out. Or they should have sent in a force to have proplery secured those posts to prevent further misuse of UN safe zones. 

As for Isreal bombing the post, not excusable but at the same time not to much of a grey area here as to how or why it occured. 
  
   My questions are why did we have observers on the border at this time? Why does the UN have a large lack of ability or mandate to remove it's soldiers from harms way at a moments notice such as this conflict has shown. 

I myself am very happy that I have not participated under a strictly UN controlled mission. Most of them seem to be very bare bones and not very forth comming when it comes to security of it's own members. Number one priority of a UN mission should be it's soldiers safety. Number two should be the re instatement of peace. Both of those go hand in hand.


----------



## tamouh (27 Jul 2006)

CanadaPhill: merci! couldn't resist being away!



> This is Hezbollah YOU DEFEND.



I'm in no way defending Hezbollah, read my posts again. You can go and talk about them all you want. All I know about them is they're putting up sure amount of resistant that IDF hadn't anticipated. Not sure for how long they're going to last though!

chupracabra: ez man , I can see why you're angry but the guys also have a point that Hezbollah tries to utilize situations to its advantage. Nevertheless, Israel shouldn't have fired in the direction of the UN no matter what, this is my argument. On th e other side, there were clear indications from the UN report that IDF was firing towards the UN position, yet, there were no clear message that Hezbollah fighters were around the region. Some suggested 'tactical' means Hezbollah was there, I'd find it surprising the report makes direct accusation against Israel yet no mention of Hezbollah is around. I'm still giving IDF the benefit of the doubt because no reasonable person would fire upon the UN especially one in a position like Israel. Yet, these are still doubts.

Scott: thx, i'm always here to contribute as long as the conversation is balanced and open-minded.



> CTD:
> My questions are why did we have observers on the border at this time? Why does the UN have a large lack of ability or mandate to remove it's soldiers from harms way at a moments notice such as this conflict has shown.



I agree with that too. I was surprised knowing the UN observers were still there. However, this is not a grey area, firing upon UN observer as an absolute violation and from the reports there had been number of registered complaints against the IDF to stop firing upon UN position.


----------



## chupracabra (27 Jul 2006)

Now this is what I think this site is all about - a debate about something with meat and potatoes! If the Hezbollah was using the UN members as shields, then that is a different story, bu this doesn't seem to be the case, and in fact seems like an ad hoc embellishment. When I watched the news, the first thing I thought was of the excuses that would be thrown around and that was the most obvious one. Like someone said in a previous post, if the Israeli forces can produce un-doctored cockpit footage  of the bombing, nothing will be resolved in my opinion. Let's wait and see.


----------



## Dare (27 Jul 2006)

tamouh said:
			
		

> Bravo Israel....use Canadian passports to move their spies, infiltrate the US defense , their greatest allie with a spy agents then when caught denounce the agent, fire upon UN observers, bomb canadians on vacation, and not hesitate once to put its allies at risk for the selfish purpose of securing their own being. This is Israel you defend, a great allie who bomb you from behind then come out to your funeral.


Honestly though, .. what does that mean? .. *eyebrow*


----------



## Scoobie Newbie (27 Jul 2006)

chupracabra there is an email floating around here by the Canadian officer that recently died stating the Hezbollah were taking up fighting postions very close to the UN outpost.


----------



## Dare (27 Jul 2006)

chupracabra said:
			
		

> I removed that last part as I felt it was not necessary and maybe too angry, so I don't think you needed to re post it jerk! I feel the gist of your post can be boiled down to 'poor Israel, the media is so hard on them'. Give us a break already. Ten phone calls in six hours to the Israelis notifying them of their presence, getting the promise of the Israeli officials that it wouldn't be struck and then it is. And boy is it hit - 17 bombs and 12 artillery shells. Does this sound like an accident? The Israeli's went out of their way to say how precise their pin-point bombing was in response to critics saying they were indiscriminately hitting civilians, but now they are back-peddling and saying they hit a clearly marked white bunker - and then continued to fire upon those who came to the victims aid. If you can honestly say that is an accident, then you are quite obviously deluded my boy, and personally I don't think we need MORE Israeli apologists such as you, the world seems full enough with them as it is.


"Us" a break? Who do you represent?.. My point was it's very clear from the reports directly from the people who were there that Hezb'allah were taking up positions around the outpost, which is flying a Hezb'allah flag. It being an accident is different than saying they missed. So the shots may have been accurate, but it was directed at Hezb'allah. What has Israel gained in killing 4 UN troops, including one of ours? ZERO. Where is your outrage at the UN letting these guys sit there in the crossfire? Invariably *someone* had to occupy the hill. If the UN was not going to defend it from both parties, or even one party, it's simply going to get overrun. The purpose of having them there? What was UNIFIL's mission? I can't say I know a lot about what it was, but it doesn't seem to have been worth it, in my opinion.


----------



## HItorMiss (27 Jul 2006)

I find it intresting that anyone from a "civilized western nation" could even remotely defend an organization who's goal is *Genocide* of the Jewish population, and lets be clear destruction of the Jewish state of Israel *IS* Genocide. I wont even get into kidnap and murder for which they are currently under siege for.


----------



## Babbling Brooks (27 Jul 2006)

> What was UNIFIL's mission? I can't say I know a lot about what it was, but it doesn't seem to have been worth it, in my opinion.



Since you asked:

_According to Security Council resolutions 425 (1978) and 426 (1978) of 19 March 1978, UNIFIL was established to: 

Confirm the withdrawal of Israeli forces from southern Lebanon; 
Restore international peace and security; 
Assist the Government of Lebanon in ensuring the return of its effective authority in the area. 
Most recently the mandate of UNIFIL was extended until 31 July 2006 by Security Council resolution 1655 (2006) of 31 January 2006.
_
(link here: http://www.un.org/Depts/dpko/missions/unifil/mandate.html)

Note that their mandate ends in four days.  What could the UN hope they'd accomplish by keeping them there until 31JUL06, when they couldn't fulfil their mission in 28 years?

Maj HVK was actually with UNTSO, though, and their mandate is as follows:

_Established in May 1948 to assist the United Nations Mediator and the Truce Commission in supervising the observance of the truce in Palestine. 

Since then, UNTSO has performed various tasks entrusted to it by the Security Council, including the supervision of the General Armistice Agreements of 1949 and the observation of the ceasefire in the Suez Canal area and the Golan Heights following the Arab-Israeli war of June 1967. 

At present, UNTSO assists and cooperates with the United Nations Disengagement Observer Force (UNDOF) on the Golan Heights in the Israel-Syria sector, and the United Nations Interim Force in Lebanon (UNIFIL) in the Israel-Lebanon sector. UNTSO is also present in the Egypt-Israel sector in the Sinai. UNTSO maintains offices in Beirut and Damascus._

(link here: http://www.un.org/Depts/dpko/missions/untso/mandate.html)

Harper's call for why the UN didn't withdraw those troops is a reasonable one, given the fact that they had absolutely no hope of fulfilling their mandate with the resources provided.  But his gov't also has to answer the same question, as I see it.  Correct me if I'm wrong, but the Cdn gov't could have recalled Maj HVK at any time, and if they thought the UN mission was a waste of time and not worth the risk to soldiers' lives, they could have pulled Cdn participation like the Aussies just did.


----------



## GAP (27 Jul 2006)

> Harper's call for why the UN didn't withdraw those troops is a reasonable one, given the fact that they had absolutely no hope of fulfilling their mandate with the resources provided.  But his gov't also has to answer the same question, as I see it.  Correct me if I'm wrong, but the Cdn gov't could have recalled Maj HVK at any time, and if they thought the UN mission was a waste of time and not worth the risk to soldiers' lives, they could have pulled Cdn participation like the Aussies just did.



But was the Canadian government as aware of the situation as the UN was. They reported to the UN, not Canadian authorities.


----------



## tamouh (27 Jul 2006)

Quagmire: This is the email, and there is NO mention of Hezbollah being close to their position, however, he rather indicated the bombing is NOT deliberate rather tactical. In other reports it mentions the UN post called the IDF several times to stop bombing close to the observation post (* need confirmation):

http://www.ctv.ca/servlet/ArticleNews/story/CTVNews/20060718/mideast_lebanon_UN_060716/20060718/

Quote him:
"
This is all the information of a non-tactical nature that I can provide you. I cannot give you any info on Hezbollah position, proximity or the amount of or types of sorties the IAF is currently flying. Suffice to say that the activity levels and operational tempo of both parties is currently very high and continuous, with short breaks or pauses. Please understand the nature of my job here is to be impartial and to report violations from both sides without bias. As an Unarmed Military Observer, this is my raison d'etre.

What I can tell you is this: we have on a daily basis had numerous occasions where our position has come under direct or indirect fire from both artillery and aerial bombing. The closest artillery has landed within 2 meters of our position and the closest 1000 lb aerial bomb has landed 100 meters from our patrol base. This has not been deliberate targeting, but has rather been due to tactical necessity.

I thank you for the opportunity to provide you with some information from the front lines here in south Lebanon.

Maj Hess-von Kruedener
"

Now that I read his email several times, I think Maj. Kruedener had a feeling the bombing will get more intense and may even hit his post. It all goes to what you want to interpret the words of "tactical necessity" since he can't disclose the Hezbollah positions. Maybe the IDF thought their smart-bombs can never miss, or thought its worth the risk?


----------



## [RAMMSTEIN] (27 Jul 2006)

Can someone tell in a simple way what is going on around the UN post ?   I am confused.  :blotto:
           Thank you.


----------



## CanadaPhil (27 Jul 2006)

Tamouh???

Did you actually read the last few paragrahs....

Here they are again:

(4) Team Sierra is currently observing both IDF/IAF and Hezbollah military clashes from our vantage point which has a commanding view of the IDF positions on the Golan mountains to our east and the IDF positions along the Blue Line to our south, as well as, most of the Hezbollah static positions in and around our patrol Base. It appears that the lion's share of fighting between the IDF and Hezbollah has taken place in our area. On the night of 16 July, at 2125 hrs, a large firefight broke out between the Hezbollah and the IDF near a village called Majidyye and lasted for one hour and 40 minutes.

(5) Based on the intensity and volatility of this current situation and the unpredictability of both sides (Hezbollah and Israel), and given the operational tempo of the Hezbollah and the IDF, we are not safe to venture out to conduct our normal patrol activities. We have now switched to Observation Post Duties and are observing any and all violations as they occur.

This is all the information of a non-tactical nature that I can provide you. I cannot give you any info on Hezbollah position, proximity or the amount of or types of sorties the IAF is currently flying. Suffice to say that the activity levels and operational tempo of both parties is currently very high and continuous, with short breaks or pauses. Please understand the nature of my job here is to be impartial and to report violations from both sides without bias. As an Unarmed Military Observer, this is my raison d'etre.

What I can tell you is this: we have on a daily basis had numerous occasions where our position has come under direct or indirect fire from both artillery and aerial bombing. The closest artillery has landed within 2 meters of our position and the closest 1000 lb aerial bomb has landed 100 meters from our patrol base. This has not been deliberate targeting, but has rather been due to tactical necessity.

I thank you for the opportunity to provide you with some information from the front lines here in south Lebanon.

Maj Hess-von Kruedener


-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

I have emphasised that one part. What he is saying obviously went right over your head didn't it??


----------



## GAP (27 Jul 2006)

> This is all the information of a non-tactical nature that I can provide you. I cannot give you any info on Hezbollah position, proximity or the amount of or types of sorties the IAF is currently flying
> 
> and
> 
> It all goes to what you want to interpret the words of "tactical necessity" since he can't disclose the Hezbollah positions. Maybe the IDF thought their smart-bombs can never miss, or thought its worth the risk?



He was constrained in what he could say as to tactical information, but to anyone that has had feet on the ground and people not trying to dismiss possible Hezbollah activity, it does not take a lot of thought. If the IDF was hitting around and near him, that meant Hezbollah was there.


----------



## HItorMiss (27 Jul 2006)

tamouh said:
			
		

> The closest artillery has landed within 2 meters of our position and the closest 1000 lb aerial bomb has landed 100 meters from our patrol base. This has not been deliberate targeting, but has rather been due to _*tactical necessity*_.



Not being Military I forgive you not being able to figure that part out...tactical necessity means that there are viable targets firing at the IDF from that location.


----------



## tamouh (27 Jul 2006)

CanadaPhil: yes I read the last lines, did you read the few last lines in my post ?


> Now that I read his email several times, I think Maj. Kruedener had a feeling the bombing will get more intense and may even hit his post. It all goes to what you want to interpret the words of "tactical necessity" since he can't disclose the Hezbollah positions. Maybe the IDF thought their smart-bombs can never miss, or thought its worth the risk?



obviously me is not implying that IDF is wasting 1,000lb bombs to just flatten the ground. However, there is good possibility the IDF suspects Hezbollah bunkers in, around the UN post.

GAP: Agreed as I said above, yet I go back if IDF knew UN post was there, Hezbollah was there then it is not an excuse to bomb the UN. Someone else mentioned it here earlier. Additionally, the UN was ending its mission in 4 days, looking at the speed their ground invasion is progressing, the IDF could have waited 4 days before bombing the UN post.

To sum it: the report indicates the IDF was not deliberately attacking the post, yet they were hitting very close to it due to suspected activities around the UN post. However, that is not an excuse to bomb the UN post nor anywhere close that could endanger the UN observers, especially if they were leaving in 4 days. Someone here said Israel wants to win, I'd add they want to Win by any way or shape.


----------



## Weinie (27 Jul 2006)

Since none of us were there, nor have any inside information on what was "really" happening on the ground, I would suggest that this entire argument of right or wrong is moot.


----------



## 1feral1 (27 Jul 2006)

CanadaPhil said:
			
		

> Tamouh???
> 
> Did you actually read the last few paragraphs....
> 
> ...




Your waisting your time Phil, this guy would argue the sky is green, after all, we know what he really wants on here. 

Honestly though, he has carved his place on here, and he should not or never be taken seriously.

Ignore him.

Wes


----------



## HItorMiss (27 Jul 2006)

Hmmm you mean fighting a WAR requires winning by any and all means as swiftly as possible to stop your enemy and lessen the blood shed of innocents?

Jeez who would have thought that strategy up?

Tamouh, If I was an Officer and I had a known enemy hiding within close proximity of a UN bunker using it's neutral protection for a fighting position I don't think I could order my troops not to fire on it. When it comes to my life and the life of my men vs the life of UN observes and civilians being used as shields, I find I side with my life and my troop's life. Also by eliminating the use of that postion or the ability for my enemy to think that non-combatant's and neutral observers can be used as shields also means that it may stop their use at a future date seeing as they have lost their use as protection.

My above does not mean that the loss of those 4 UN observers is not tragic nor something not to be morned, but it does mean I at least see why it happened.

*Edit: Wesley has it right and I seemed to have fallen into the trap as well...If I must argue with Tamouh let it be over this;


THE EARTH IS FLAT!


----------



## CanadaPhil (27 Jul 2006)

tamouh said:
			
		

> ..........To sum it: the report indicates the IDF was not deliberately attacking the post, yet they were hitting very close to it due to suspected activities around the UN post.



No your not getting it. They are not SUSPECTED activities. They are THERE. That is what he is saying. 

From what I have gleaned, at the time of the fatal strike, the 4 UN personnel were NOT observing but taking cover in the lower bunker. There has also been some speculation that at that particular time, the post had IN FACT been overrun by Hezbollah who were actively firing at the IDF. Maybe the UN flag was no longer even flying at that point?? This has not been proved or disproved yet. That is the point of any inquiry.

To make it even simpler, when in combat if a flag is taken down or if another belligerents flag is seen to fly ABOVE the other, it is an indication in military terms that the position has been overrun and captured by the other force.


----------



## Fishbone Jones (27 Jul 2006)

Break time is over. Play nice or it goes down for good next time.


----------



## tamouh (27 Jul 2006)

The Point is: Bombing a UN observation post from ANYONE at ANYTIME is WRONG and PROHIBITED. Israel or others are no exceptions.

CanadaPhil: Lets leave speculations aside, until what you're saying is confirmed and valid report then we need not to make up stuff. What you're saying amounts to propoganda talks of Hezbollah running over UN posts.

HitorMiss: If I'm an Officer near a UN post, receiving fire from a close proximity to it, I would not go after these positions with laser-guided 1,000lb missiles that have a chance of missing its target and put my troops, army and country in an awkward position. This reminds me of operation Medak Pocket!


----------



## George Wallace (27 Jul 2006)

tamouh said:
			
		

> HitorMiss: If I'm an Officer near a UN post, receiving fire from a close proximity to it, I would not go after these positions with laser-guided 1,000lb missiles that have a chance of missing its target and put my troops, army and country in an awkward position. This reminds me of operation Medak Pocket!



You'll have to excuse my ignorance of what you are trying to say here; but could you expand on what you are saying about laser-guided 1,000lb missiles and also what you mean about the MedaK Pocket?


----------



## Jay4th (27 Jul 2006)

In the same way that a school or church or culturally signifigant building is protected.  As soon as the enemy occupies or fires from said building, it is no longer protected and is now a legitimate target.  UN post or not.  Any recruit halfway through basic knows that.  Read the conventions, they are probably here somewhere. Or go get shot at from a protected site and see how you like sitting on your hands.  This is going nowhere.


----------



## KevinB (27 Jul 2006)

+1 Jay

P.S. I have no qualms shooting at UN vehicles...

and I was a Patricia.


----------



## HItorMiss (27 Jul 2006)

tamouh said:
			
		

> The Point is: Bombing a UN observation post from ANYONE at ANYTIME is WRONG and PROHIBITED. Israel or others are no exceptions.



Well point of fact bombing anyone is wrong really, but if you have to defend yourself or in the very your going to take offensive action I don;t begrudge my opponents or the people I am observing for doing their job.



			
				tamouh said:
			
		

> HitorMiss: If I'm an Officer near a UN post, receiving fire from a close proximity to it, I would not go after these positions with laser-guided 1,000lb missiles that have a chance of missing its target and put my troops, army and country in an awkward position. This reminds me of operation Medak Pocket!




Here's the point Tamouh you'll never be an officer because you haven't the stones for it, you're an arm chair general who likes to pick fights based on ideology and conjecture. Picking which ever side of the fight that could possibly run counter to the majority of people on here, you're a Troll and one to which I am engaging because I have had enough of you and the vomitous you spew as fact or even opinion.

Medak pocket my left buttocks you haven't a clue what being under fire means, I know people (real people I talk to daily) that were there for it, They did their job's and even in that fight could look back and grudgingly see that the Croat's were doing what they thought was theirs. I have been under fire Tamouh, I know what actions I will and will not take to defend my life and that of my troop's, It's all well and good to sit in your nice comfy computer chair sipping a latte and spouting off about how " I would not go after these positions with laser-guided 1,000lb missiles that have a chance of missing its target and put my troops, army and country in an awkward position."  But you haven't been in that situation have you?....nor will you ever, because you haven't picked up a rifle or stood a watch in a war while others sleep safely, nor do I expect you ever will.

Tamouh, If I was in Israel this very second and was taking fire from Hezbollah, I think I would have to engage that target because lord knows I'm sure the professional soldiers manning that UN out post knew I had to.

Not that you'll ever be able to grasp this concept....

THE EARTH is FLAT!

*Edit: changed Serb for Croat, my brain had a gas attack, my appolgies to all those that were in that fight.


----------



## tamouh (27 Jul 2006)

There is no point of arguing further here as you seem to have made your mind that firing on the UN is OK against all rules and regulations.

gggg....I wonder if the Lebanese were returning IDF artillery fire and mistakenly hit the UN post, how different this post will be !! I'm not gonna argue over an agenda driven posts.

Firing on UN is WRONG, period.


----------



## CanadaPhil (27 Jul 2006)

tamouh said:
			
		

> CanadaPhil: Lets leave speculations aside, until what you're saying is confirmed and valid report then we need not to make up stuff. What you're saying amounts to propoganda talks of Hezbollah running over UN posts.



LOL!  

<radio static> Kettle....this is Pot.....Kettle....this is Pot.... OVER.

Well, Tamouh, that is the FIRST thing you have ever said here that half way makes any sense.

Exactly..........this entire thread has been hijacked by those who want to Monday morning quarterback and second guess without ANY REAL facts whatsoever. 

Here is a suggestion..... Have you seen any of those links I posted in the "Middle East TV" thread?????? If you check some of them out, you can see EXACTLY what is being said by those you wish to act as an apologist for. 

Why don't we DEBATE some of what has been coming directly from the mouths of those inciting all of this violence??


----------



## HItorMiss (27 Jul 2006)

Point of note, Shooting at anyone is wrong, but in a shooting war sometimes you have to make hard choices....you know choices you'll never have to make.

THE EARTH is FLAT!


----------



## Loachman (27 Jul 2006)

tamouh said:
			
		

> What you're saying amounts to propoganda talks of Hezbollah running over UN posts.


If not in, they were certainly on the doorstep. The account given by Maj HvK makes that pretty clear - and he was not pushing out propaganda about that for the reason that he gave.



> If I'm an Officer near a UN post, receiving fire from a close proximity to it, I would not go after these positions with laser-guided 1,000lb missiles



But you're not, are you. You're safe at home, sitting at your computer, speculating based on a poor understanding of sketchy details. Your life is not on the line, your troops' lives are not on the line, and your countrymen's lives are not on the line. You don't have to make instant, serious decisions in a chaotic situation while under unimaginable pressure.

My guess is that every single Israeli directly involved in this thoroughly regrets what happened on may different levels. As professionals, I'm sure that they view the dead as brethren. As human beings, I'm sure that they feel deep sympathy for the families. As Jews, I'm sure that they regret the loss of innocent life. As Israelis, I'm sure that they regret what this has done to the international reputation of their country.

I am quite content to await the findings of an inquiry before forming judgement.

And unless negligence or some variety of criminal intent is proven, I am prepared to forgive them for this - not that I feel that that it is right for me or required of me to forgive. That's up to the families, for whom, of course, I have the utmost sympathy.

Stuff like this has been going on for centuries, and will continue to happen as long as more than two people are involved in any given conflict.


----------



## Jay4th (27 Jul 2006)

Well said.


----------



## tomahawk6 (27 Jul 2006)

http://www.jpost.com/servlet/Satellite?cid=1153292016352&pagename=JPost%2FJPArticle%2FShowFull

The UN needs to pull these guys out. I feel sorry for them cut off from the world and their COC seem's to be less than forthcoming with information.


----------



## KevinB (27 Jul 2006)

T6 -- your 100% right 

However- the UN ignoring troops in contact in the field -- I refuse to believe it


----------



## Michael OLeary (27 Jul 2006)

tamouh said:
			
		

> HitorMiss: If I'm an Officer near a UN post, receiving fire from a close proximity to it, I would not go after these positions with laser-guided 1,000lb missiles that have a chance of missing its target and put my troops, army and country in an awkward position. This reminds me of operation Medak Pocket!



Since we're chatting in the hypothetical realm.....

[pondering on]
If I were a hezbollah operative, and had managed to acquire a laser designator that matched frequencies with the Israeli smart bombs, what target in my vicinity would I want to "paint" that the effective engagement of would most thoroughly discredit my enemy ....
[/pondering off]

Just wondering .....


----------



## pbi (27 Jul 2006)

> However- the UN ignoring troops in contact in the field -- I refuse to believe it



Personally, I would believe almost anything where the UN is concerned, but until we get a better analysis of this whole matter, it isn't really fair to assume too much.

Cheers


----------



## Lost_Warrior (27 Jul 2006)

> As soon as the enemy occupies or fires from said building, it is no longer protected and is now a legitimate target.  UN post or not.  Any recruit halfway through basic knows that.



Correct me if i'm wrong, but if the enemy is attacking from a protected building, isn't the opposing army supposed to neutralize said enemy with the minimum amount of collateral damage possible? (ie: take the building as opposed to leveling it)


----------



## Scoobie Newbie (27 Jul 2006)

minimum BUT if the cost is too great then the gloves come off


----------



## KevinB (27 Jul 2006)

PBI -- roger however in my experience -with the UN I tend to beleive in guilty until proven innocent...

They prove to me they care about the troops then I may consider it...


----------



## Lost_Warrior (27 Jul 2006)

> minimum BUT if the cost is too great then the gloves come off



Then one would have to ask.  Would the cost have been that great for the IDF to engage the fighters using the UN post a shield, or is their destruction of it justified?


----------



## George Wallace (27 Jul 2006)

All three parties are guilty.  There is no right side here.


----------



## Kirkhill (27 Jul 2006)

George Wallace said:
			
		

> All three parties are guilty.  There is no right side here.



+1


----------



## tomrunder (28 Jul 2006)

Regardless of why the post was hit (we can argue until we're blue in the face but in the end we dont know anything about what happened), I think we can all agree that the soldiers should not have been there in the first place. What I want to see the the UN officials responsible for leaving the soldiers out to dry in a war zone for no purpous whatsoever be held accountable for their gross disregard for the life of those soldiers. The article T6 linked to just goes to prove that the UN treats these soldiers as if they are a expendable commodity. Why should they DIE because the UN doesnt want to admit that what it is doing is a total waste of time?


----------



## Fishbone Jones (28 Jul 2006)

Signed up, signed on, posted, signed off.

Nice drive by there, tomrunder. Stick around for a couple of seconds after you post the next time,  : and, oh, fill out your profile.


----------



## Michael OLeary (28 Jul 2006)

Ask a Mod to reopen this thread when some facts are available to post.


----------



## Michael OLeary (28 Jul 2006)

The following letter to the editor of the Ottawa Citizen was identified and forwarded by Pikepusher:



> "The unarmed observers at this United Nations observation post were reporting on the security situation, part of their job.  The Israeli Defence Forces monitors these communications and believes that Hezbollah does too.  For operational security reasons, that is, to deny information to the enemy, the IDF removed the post.  Knowing the disdain held by the IDF towards the UN forces, this makes the most sense to me.  Canadians should be outraged."  Sgd. Garry Furrie, Ottawa, Col. (Ret'd)


----------

