TCS Daily


UN Praises Israel for Restraint...

By William S. Smith - July 27, 2006 12:00 AM

NEW YORK (SATIRENEWSSERVICE) -- Yesterday, the General Assembly of the United Nations voted 190 to 4 with one abstention in favor of an Egyptian and Jordanian sponsored resolution that commends Israel's "disproportionately restrained responses in opposing decades of terror, deadly provocation and military assaults." The resolution also condemns Hamas, Hezbollah and Iran for committing mass-murder against Jews and large-scale felony-murder against Arabs.

In a separate motion, the world body also passed a non-binding "sense of the UN" resolution expressing disapproval of CNN, the BBC, al Jazeera and several other media organizations "whose disproportionate emphasis in favor of terror groups substantially contributes to their ability to make civilians into sacrificial cannon fodder."

UN Secretary General Kofi Anan strongly endorsed the resolutions explaining, "These resolutions reverse years of UN appeasement of aggressive terrorists and bring the actions of the UN into concert with its purpose and charter.

Anan continued: "Since at least 1966, we have stood by while well-armed terror groups like Hamas, Hezbollah and the old PLO have used civilians as ammunition, hostages and human armor in their attempts to murder citizens of a member state. In the meantime, we have held Israel to an almost impossibly high standard of action in the face of these genocidal activities. Needless to say, both of these positions violate the core principles of the UN Charter. These resolutions are a small step toward correcting decades of error."

Palestinian leader Mahmood Abbas concurred. "We have blown up Israelis on busses, in nightclubs and on city streets. We have attempted to destroy their country by military attacks and terror. We have kidnapped and tortured them. We have educated our children to hate the residents of our finest neighbor, and worse, sent those same children to kill the people who should be our best friends."

Abbas continued: "All of our acts have been counterproductive and have led to the current disaster. If we had used our energy these past four decades to create prosperity, we would be as rich as Singapore. Instead, terror organizations like Hamas and Hezbollah bring us death and destruction by causing naive Arab civilians to bear the brunt of their -- and our -- hatefulness."

Egyptian UN ambassador, Dr. Shalid Muhammed Fedaya, said, "Most countries faced with forty years of constant attacks by enemies bent on their complete destruction would never have returned vast tracts of land in return for paper promises. But Israel," he said, "is different. The fact that Israel trusted Egypt is the greatest compliment ever made to my most ancient country -- it is a trust we will attempt to live up to for all time by maintaining friendly and warm relations."

The Islamic University of Cairo, long considered the premier interpreter of classical Islam, also issued a statement which read in part: "For the past hundred years, we Muslims have deprived the Jewish residents of the Palestinian area and then, after 1948, the citizens of the great nation of Israel, the basic courtesies required by Arab tradition and the best parts of our Islamic heritage. Instead, we have made ourselves pariahs among the nations. The introduction of this resolution by leading Arab states reasserts that part of Islam that teaches welcoming and caring for strangers in our midst and tolerance and respect for persons of different religions."

The General Assembly debate, while a formality due to the overwhelming international support for the popular resolutions, was marred by contentious communiqués from the ambassadors of Iran, Syria and France.

Pierre Cochin, the French ambassador, stated: "This reversal of hundreds of uniformly harsh and critical resolutions against Israel during the past fifty years makes the UN -- and each of us -- seem petulant, childish, narcissistic and whiny. These are certainly not attributes one usually associates with France!"

"The lone abstention was by the People's Republic of North Korea whose leader, Kim Jong Il, issued the following statement: "I respect you frequently oh metallic serpentine abominable?"

Bill Smith is a lawyer and writer in California.

Categories:

96 Comments

Inane propaganda
If you wanted to contribute something about actual current events you might have written about the bombing of the UN peacekeeping outpost that was obliterated by Israel after no fewer than 16 separate pleas to stop the bombing. The location of the UN post was well known prior to the attack, which killed four UN observers.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/israel/Story/0,,1831067,00.html

Noting that the bombs were "precison guided", and heeding the oft repeated wisdom that Israel has the ability to distinguish intended targets with great discrimination, one is left with the impression that whoever ordered the hit knew exactly what they were doing.

They don't want observers on location able to see what they are about to do.

How much could they see?
What could they see from their observation posts?

Precision guided mean some follow reflected laser energy.

Is it possible stray laser radiation was reflected from the UN site?

Stray laser radiation, indeed
Apparently you haven't troublred yourself to read the reports on the front page of every paper in the country. This well known UN post was hammered by repeated blows from pinpoint strikes until it was demolished. It was apparent to all that the attack was purposeful.

What are your sources?
"An Israeli bomb has hit a UN observation post on the border between Israel and Lebanon, killing four peacekeepers, a UN official has said.

The victims included observers from Austria, Canada, China and Finland, a senior Lebanese military official said, speaking on condition of anonymity because he was not authorised to release the information to the media.

The bomb made a direct hit on the building and shelter of the observer post in the town of Khiam near the eastern end of the border with Israel, according to Milos Struger, spokesman for the UN peacekeeping force in Lebanon known as UNIFIL.

Rescue workers were trying to clear the rubble, but Israeli firing "continued even during the rescue operation," Struger said.

UN secretary-general Kofi Annan has asked Israel to conduct an investigation into the "apparently deliberate targeting" by Israeli defence forces of the UN post.

US ambassador John Bolton said the UN security council had been informed that four officers with the UN mission had been killed, but he had no other information.

"We're obviously very sorry about that, we're attempting to get information where we can to confirm the nature of the incident," Bolton said.

Since Israel launched its military offensive against Lebanon and Hizbullah guerrillas on July 12, an international civillian employee working with UNIFIL and his wife have been killed in the crossfire between Israeli forces and Hizbullah guerrillas in the southern port city of Tyre.

Five UNIFIL soldiers and one military observer have also been wounded, Struger said.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/israel/Story/0,,1830294,00.html?gusrc=rss

I can't find any more information than that.

Hezbullah militants fire rockets from near these observation posts.
The Israeili munitions were precision guided. The UN OP just happened to be a great location from which the terrorists could launch rockets. Both Israeili and UN sources say they have been launching rockets near several different UN observation posts. Hezbullah also launches attacks from the courtyards of schools, hospitals and residential neighborhoods. Similarly, they transport themselves to the launch points with ambulances and fire trucks. If the Israeilis hit any of these targets, it gives the terrorists a propaganda victory.

This sort of behavior is pretty typical of terrorists all over the world. In Somalia, men went in to battle with their wives and children surrounding them because they knew the American rules of engagement required us to avoid killing women and children. They also knew that it would result in bad PR. Read Blackhawk Down, an excellent account of what these thugs will do to make us look evil. Dictators like Saddam frequently do the same thing, like building weapons development facilities below children's hospitals.

Israel is not a terrorist state. They were attacked by Hezbollah terrorists, and are defending themselves using strikes that are as close to pinpoint as is possible in order to AVOID killing innocents. Hezbullah is using civillian launch sites to make sure that as many innocent people as possible ARE killed! There is a clear moral difference between the two sides.

Sketchy information
"I can't find any more information than that."

I know, that's a problem. For some reason Google hasn't made it easy to do the usual searches. And the incident has been reported in the greatest depth on TV and radio.

The Washington Post notes only this today: "The U.N. Security Council failed to agree on a statement condemning an Israeli air strike in which four U.N. military observers were killed in southern Lebanon after the United States blocked language that appeared critical of Israel."

The headline that appeared in the McClatchy papers on Wednesday had this to say:

"Israeli jets attacked Beirut's southern outskirts and a U.N. border post in southern Lebanon on Tuesday, killing two U.N. observers and leaving two others feared dead. Hezbollah rockets struck northern Israel again as Secretary of State C. Rice left the region without pressing for an immediate cease fire.

"Secretary General Kofi Annan said he was 'shocked and deeply distressed by the apparently deliberate targeting' of the U.N. post.

"Annan said Israeli P.M. Ehud Olmert had assured him that U.N. positions would be spared, and the U.N. force commander, Gen. Alain Pellegrini, had been in contact with Israeli officers throughout the day stressing the need to protect the post.

"The Israeli military said it was investigating and had no immediate comment."

etcetera

Yahoo reports three different UN observer posts being hit:

"Three U.N.-run positions near the border were struck. One post on the Israeli side was hit and severely damaged, though the Ghanian troops inside were safely in shelters. A U.N. officer said it was hit by an Israeli artillery shell, but Israel said Hezbollah rockets struck it.

"Two more U.N. positions on the Lebanese side took direct hits from Israeli artillery, also causing damage but no casualties, the U.N. observer force said."

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20060721/ap_on_re_mi_ea/lebanon_israel

And here's a Canadian dispatch. Note the interesting dateline: Friday, July 21, whereas the strike making all the news occurred later, on Tuesday, July 25.

http://www.cbc.ca/story/world/national/2006/07/21/israeli-post.html

As the Guardian observes in the story I cited above, and here again below, General Pellegrini and others from the UN were apparently in contact with the Israeli military no fewer than 16 times that day, to no effect.

"Israel came under mounting pressure last night to explain why its military ignored repeated warnings and bombed a prominent UN post in southern Lebanon, killing four unarmed international observers.

"The four UN soldiers, from China, Austria, Finland and Canada, were taking shelter in a bunker at the white, three-storey building in Khiyam on Tuesday after at least six hours of Israeli bombing and shelling, when it was destroyed by what UN sources say was a precision-guided aerial bomb.

"The UN contacted Israeli forces up to 10 times about the strikes. The UN's deputy general secretary, Mark Malloch Brown, made several calls to the Israelis to protest at the shelling and to call for it to stop, he told the security council yesterday.

"In response, Israel reportedly promised to halt the firing. An Irish army officer warned the Israelis six times.

"Although Israel expressed its "deep regret" yesterday and offered condolences to the families of the dead men, the incident quickly triggered international condemnation. Kofi Annan, the UN secretary general, condemned the "apparently deliberate targeting" of the UN post."

http://www.guardian.co.uk/israel/Story/0,,1831067,00.html

The gist of it seems to be that although communications were maintained, orders to stop the bombing were never given. This would lead those cynics among us to infer that Israel did not really want any observers along the border in southern Lebanon... where their ground operations continue today, unobserved.

We've seen this kind of tactic before, in Ramallah and Jenin, April, 2002. But then UN observers were merely on the outside, and being kept outside. Here they were forcibly neutralized in what appears to have been a planned array of attacks on various outposts over several days.

And your source is?
I notice that when I bring up something factual that others may be unaware of, I always cite references. My post above, "Sketchy information" is chock full of them.

Maybe you could do the same, as I have seen zero information to the effect that Hezbollah rockets were being fired from locations adjacent to the three UN outposts that were fired on July 21, or near the outpost targeted in the incident that resulted in four UN fatalities on July 25. I would suggest this is a "fact" that you may have just fabricated because it sounds reasonable to you.

It is actually insufficient just to recite the magic mantra "Israel is not a terrorist state" and presto, all evidence that it is dissipates in the morning dew. Israel continues its record of killing ten civilians for each single civilian killed by Hezbollah. I note here the obvious, that Hezbollah is a terrorist organization. Please achnowledge the corollary: the IDF is a terrorist organization ten times more effective-- and one, moreover, that wants no witnesses on the ground to its current incursionary activities.

try another propaganda approach Roy
hezbollah UN observation posts

google the above

Results 1 - 10 of about 505,000 for hezbollah UN observation posts.

you are funny.

Roy, wake up
the outpost was hit because it was being used as a Hezbollah firing base. The Canadian officer who was killed reported the day before that Hebollah were firing from as little as three metres from his position.

Moreover, the Hezbollah have been shooting up UN convoys for days. Why is it, do you suppose that none of this has been reported in the media?

Mr Bean should read this
Hezbollah uses UN posts as shields

Joel Kom
CanWest News Service; Ottawa Citizen; with files from Reuters


Thursday, July 27, 2006


OTTAWA - The words of a Canadian United Nations observer written just days before he was killed in an Israeli bombing of a UN post in Lebanon are evidence Hezbollah was using the post as a ''shield'' to fire rockets into Israel, says a former UN commander in Bosnia.

Those words, written in an e-mail dated just nine days ago, offer a possible explanation as to why the post which according to UN officials was clearly marked and known to Israeli forces was hit by Israel Tuesday night, said retired major general Lewis MacKenzie Wednesday.

The strike hit the UN observation post in the southern Lebanese village of El Khiam, killing Maj. Paeta Hess-von Kruedner, a Canadian serving at the post as an unarmed UN military observer, and three other UN observers.

Just last week, Hess-von Kruedner wrote an e-mail about his experiences after nine months in the area, words MacKenzie said are an obvious allusion to Hezbollah tactics.

''What I can tell you is this,'' he wrote in an e-mail to CTV dated July 18. ''We have on a daily basis had numerous occasions where our position has come under direct or indirect fire from both (Israeli) artillery and aerial bombing.

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

Those words, particularly the last sentence, are not-so-veiled language indicating Israeli strikes were aimed at Hezbollah targets near the post, said MacKenzie.

''What that means is, in plain English, 'We've got Hezbollah fighters running around in our positions, taking our positions here and then using us for shields and then engaging the (Israeli Defence Forces),'' he said.

It's a tactic MacKenzie, who was the first UN commander in Sarajevo during the Bosnia civil war, said he's seen in past international missions: aside from UN posts, fighters would set up near hospitals, mosques and orphanages.

It's also one he would likely use if he was a ''belligerent'' and not a Canadian soldier, he said.

''The most important thing in combat these days, funnily enough, is not to win the firefight but to win the information battle and the PR battle,'' he said.

Hess-von Kruedner was a Canadian Forces infantry officer with the Edmonton-based Princess Patricia's Canadian Light Infantry and the only Canadian serving as a UN military observer in Lebanon.

He was no stranger to fighting nearby.

The UN post, he wrote in the e-mail, afforded a view 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,'' he wrote, noting later it was too dangerous to venture out on patrols.

Retired major David Kilmartin, a Canadian soldier and UN commander in the Golan Heights when Israel invaded Lebanon in 1982, said Hess-von Kruedner's words indicate Hezbollah was certainly close by and Israel was targeting those fighters.

However, Kilmartin says he believes the fatal bombing was deliberately done by a ''cowboy'' pilot who wasn't sanctioned to do so by his commanders.

''I think the individual who did it was a pilot who was a loose cannon on the deck,'' he said, adding the damage done indicated a direct hit. ''It's either that or he's a ****-poor pilot.''

Kilmartin said Israel would not always send warnings to his UN troops when it was preparing an attack because it feared the UN sharing the information with others.

''What the Israelis would do would be the same thing we would do,'' he said.

On Wednesday, a deputy head of UN peacekeeping told a closed-door meeting of the UN Security Council in New York that firing on and near the post continued despite ''repeated requests'' from the UN to the IDF to end it.

Jane Holl Lute said 21 strikes occurred within 300 metres of the patrol base, including 12 artillery rounds which fell within 100 metres four of which scored direct hits on the base, she said.

''To our knowledge, unlike in the vicinity of some of our other patrol bases, Hezbollah firing was not taking place within the immediate vicinity of the patrol base,'' she said.

Even if Hezbollah was not firing rockets at the time of the bombing, Hess-von Kruedner's e-mail indicates they were using a terrorist tactic of purposely drawing out enemy forces near a neutral site, said retired captain Peter Forsberg, who did two UN tours between 1993 and 1995 during the Bosnian war.

The UN's limited mandate, meaning that its observers are unarmed and have few options, put the dead observers in a poor position, he said.

If indeed Israel was attempting to hit Hezbollah fighters in the area, it hasn't yet used the excuse to explain its actions because it wouldn't make it any less guilty in the world's eyes, Forsberg said. Israel likely kept aiming near the post despite knowing it was there the current post has been standing since 1978 because they had their sights on the threat posed by Hezbollah.

''They don't care from where that threat comes, they're going to go at that threat whether or not it's beside a UN (observation post),'' he said.

Ottawa Citizen

© CanWest News Service 2006

Question to Roy
Sigh, I did "un observation posts hezbollah" and only got 404,000 hits in .32 seconds (though the first dozen or so were the same story from as many different sources).

My question to Roy is if he were Israel, and having just endured several cross border raids resulting in fatalities and soldiers being kidnapped (plus the normal monthly average of rockets being fired from the same areas the attacks came from), how would you have responded?

Especially given the fact that the terrorists make it a point to embed themselves in and around "non combatants."

UN Praises.......
.
Make sure you first read the news source at the heading. I don't know why TCS bothered publishing this.

Baaaahhhhh
I got sucked into this pratical joke too
I feel so sheepish

Good catch
georgerotter

lol

Clearly some people read for ideology
1. Duh!
2. Read the source: NEW YORK (SATIRENEWSSERVICE)
3. Duh
4. Delightful satire!

UN posts not protected?
They should have razor wire and gun towers to keep unfriendlies at a safe distance.

If the UN can't keep the enemy from launching attacks from their position, call in an air strike and get out of Dodge.

A link to help the Google-ly impared...
Here you go Roy:

http://www.cjnews.com/pastIssues/02/aug15-02/main.asp

Enjoy! I really like the two flags flying together.

Old story marjon
The Israelis have watched for years as terrorists, such as Hezbollah, have set up bases right next to each other as well as using UN ambulances and vehicles to transport terrorists and their materials.

On the Lebanese border some of the UN positions are so friendly with Hezbollah that they share water and electrical accommodations. Pretty good for an organization that had a resolution to rid that area of the very people they meet at the drinking fountain.

Here are a few of my sources, roy_bean. I accept your apology for calling me a liar.
"Hezbollah uses UN posts as shields"
http://www.canada.com/nationalpost/story.html?id=b4923801-9def-4606-af6a-bc5eea30b89b

(ColinH beat me to the draw on posting this. Thank you for showing the hippies that are stinking up this forum a little dose of reality.)

"Kofi's Snap Judgment"
http://www.americanthinker.com/comments.php?comments_id=5652

General discussion of terrorists use of innocents as human shields in Lebanon:(Requires Free Registration)
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/blog/2006/07/25/BL2006072500408.html?sub=new

Thanks for the implication that I am making things up roy_bean. And for the rest of you, I am sorry I forgot to post my sources.

In keeping with the spirit of the article, theUN is neutral
.

How about this one?
I remember this story but thought the rest of you would like to read it. I can understand if the Israelis gave the UN 24-hours to get out before they bombed every UN outpost they could target.

http://www.mia.org.il/archive/010706ha_eng.html

Absolutely disgusting.

There's nothing new
about Hezbollah's tactics. Gen. Lewis McKenzie, the Canadian who served as the first UN commander in Bosnia noted in an article today that one of the sides would routinely try to establish mortar and defensive positions right beside hospitals and UN areas. His reply was always the same: you have one hour to move and then my soldiers will open fire to kill you. They moved. Unarmed UN observation posts were not in the same position to tell the Hezbollah military to take a hike or else.

what's apparent to the paranoid, is rarely apparent to the rational.
...

roy's imagination goes into overdrive
16 pleas???

Precision guided????

Man roy takes knowing nothing about anything to an art form.

Since when are mortar and tank rounds, precision guided?

It was revealed today that the UN position had been over run by Hezbollah guerillas, and even the people in the post admitted that Israel was targetting those guerillas.

now google is part of the vast right wing conspiracy
roy gets more paranoid and irrational by the hour

don't you know that only Hezbollah is impartial
...

This is pretty funny
But not likely to happen in the next few decades. Still, it made for some light reading in the face of all the death and destruction the UN is going to try and condemn Israel for.

Terrorists target civilians
IDF has not targeted civilians and has in fact provided repeated warnings, even though not obligated to do so.

Did the USA warn Tokyo or Hiroshima or Nagisaki or Dresden or....

The USA is a terrorist state.

Warnings
The occupants of the UN observation post to which you refer warned both the Isrealis and a highly placed Canadian officer that there were Hezbollah fighters very near their position. In the case of the Isrealis, the warnings took the form of "your fire endangers us" while the Canadian peacekeeper's emails took the form of "Hezbollah personnel are all over us". In this situation stating the fact, i.e. that there were missles being launched from that site, was not acceptable to the UN commanders, hence the circumlocution. I must confess to being unsurprised at your ignorance of the news stories since they have not appeared in any of the MSM outlets. Having read a number of your posts I doubt that you would stoop to actually searching out any evidence that does not support your propositions. A shame since you seem to have a fully functional mind with a fair to middling analytical capacity.

Sources?
Would you please, please give your source? I haven't read anything like this. Did it come to you in a dream?

A wide open war
Thanks for the ref. The Canadian piece is illuminating. So it would appear that Hezbollah operating in the area makes it into a free fire zome.

I'm a little puzzled by this though:

"Jane Holl Lute said 21 strikes occurred within 300 metres of the patrol base, including 12 artillery rounds which fell within 100 metres four of which scored direct hits on the base, she said.

''To our knowledge, unlike in the vicinity of some of our other patrol bases, Hezbollah firing was not taking place within the immediate vicinity of the patrol base,'' she said.

"Even if Hezbollah was not firing rockets at the time of the bombing, Hess-von Kruedner's e-mail indicates they were using a terrorist tactic of purposely drawing out enemy forces near a neutral site, said retired captain Peter Forsberg, who did two UN tours between 1993 and 1995 during the Bosnian war."

So according to the rules of the game now, they don't even need to be near, or to be firing. Just their existence in the general area is considered to be "drawing out".

In other words a belligerent is now given a free pass to take out any target, so long as there either are or could conceivably be enemy soldiers in the general area, and even though there may be no firing coming from that area. That's something I didn't realize was standard practise nowadays.

But to your point, yes, Hezbollah operates close to civilians and neutral parties. And the IDF responds by firing on these areas regardless. I see the moral distinction.

"Israel likely kept aiming near the post despite knowing it was there the current post has been standing since 1978 because they had their sights on the threat posed by Hezbollah."

Hezbollah likely also has its sights on the threat posed by Israel. I'm glad to see you weren't just dreaming.

Thanks for the info
Mr Bean would have found this informative article a day earlier had you seen fit to address your post to him, and not to someone else. BTW it takes up less space just to copy the address, not the entire article.

In future, if you have a beef with something Mr Bean says you can bring it directly to him. Mr Bean doesn't bite. And even if he occasionally does, they're only electronic wounds. They heal quickly.

Mr Bean responds well to being offered actual information rather than unsupported opinion, and will appreciate in future that you share anything else you've found on the web.

More sources requested
I'm sure you have read about the following from first hand impeccable sources: "The Israelis have watched for years as terrorists, such as Hezbollah, have set up bases right next to each other as well as using UN ambulances and vehicles to transport terrorists and their materials."

Could you direct me to accounts where neutral UN observers have allowed one party, either in Lebanon or in any conflict, to use their ambulances and vehicles to transport war materiel?

I would also appreciate the straight scoop on how they share their water and generators with one party's soldiers. Thanks in advance for supplying the goods.

Not the best analogy
The IDF must have difficulty in aiming, then. Despite the fact that Hezbollah is aiming at civilians and the IDF is not, the IDF ends up killing ten times the number.

How do you explain that?

BTW as I recall, the US did warn Japan they were thinking of using a new and terrible weapon in 1945. But the Japanese had a real war to the death mentality, and failed to respond. Thus we did incinerate several hundred thousand of their civilians, to illustrate the point that we were invincible. But most people agree that such a move was justified, and cut short a war that could have lingered on for much much longer. And I'm inclined to go with that assessment.

No Subject
"So according to the rules of the game now, they don't even need to be near, or to be firing. Just their existence in the general area is considered to be "drawing out".

In other words a belligerent is now given a free pass to take out any target, so long as there either are or could conceivably be enemy soldiers in the general area, and even though there may be no firing coming from that area. That's something I didn't realize was standard practise nowadays."

Not quite that chaotic.
IDF contacts the residences, by phone I assume, and tells them to evacuate.

The UN posts are told to clear out in advance as well.

Civilians didn't leave
Civialians have been warned to leave and according a headline, IDF has actually called their house and warned them before attacking.

Those that stay are not innocent, but supporters of Hezbollah.

Referencing news reports
"Having read a number of your posts I doubt that you would stoop to actually searching out any evidence that does not support your propositions."

You would be flat out mistaken. Had you read any number of my posts you'd find that I'm always requesting sources, and have no interest in opinions that are not backed up by facts.

If you'll look at the response a few posts above, by Publius, Jr, you'll note that he actually gives me some refs. You might read my response to him.

You could have done the same, but elected not to. It was easier to offer the jibe that I missed it because it was not in the MSM. In actuality I look at all the media, and find that between the web, radio and television there is quite a lot out there that comes from first hand sources. There is also quite a lot of unsupported opinion.

So next time a difference of opinion comes up, you can trounce me with an actual front line report. I will adjust my opinions accordingly, in light of new information.

**

One thing you've said puzzles me. "In this situation stating the fact, i.e. that there were missles being launched from that site, was not acceptable to the UN commanders, hence the circumlocution."

Why would that be? For that matter, why couldn't a UN observer just go out to the offending Hezbollah unit and ask them to leave? That would seem to be the logical approach to take. And that in fact is what Lebanese civilians have done on a number of occasions-- told them to go play somewhere else.

the notification of the article's existence
would have found its way into your inbox. like they do into mine.
I post the whole article because they become archived on the original site.
The source might not remain accessible for the active duration of the thread.

If the moderator has a problem with that then he can remove the post.

Thanks for the tip
My search engine lists 42,200 hits, and I'm reading them as fast as time permits. As I assume you are.

But again, you address your comment to Publius Jr, not to me. Do I really have to read everything in the thread just to find something you may be saying to me?

If you bring up any comment I've made, and click on the "post comment" icon, a message will get to me that someone has something to say to me. Try that, instead of directing your comments elsewhere.

Thanks in advance.

Please use the protocol
I don't understand how it is that so many people can write to me and forget to address their message correctly.

If you have something to say to roy_bean, bring up any comment roy_bean has made. Then click the "send message" icon. When your response is posted, a little message will come up in my in box that I have a message on the board.

Address your comment to outsidethebox, and the message gets sent to him instead. And if you really want to talk with outsidethebox and not with roy, don't title your message "Question to Roy".

Thanks. I'll be glad to respond to anything you have to say.

No Subject
"Why would that be? For that matter, why couldn't a UN observer just go out to the offending Hezbollah unit and ask them to leave? That would seem to be the logical approach to take. And that in fact is what Lebanese civilians have done on a number of occasions-- told them to go play somewhere else."

These un post occupants are unarmed.
They cannot intervene because they are only observers.

Then click the "send message" icon ???
I looked high an low I even went into my personal profile.

where is this send message icon?

OK now
Okay, "post comment". Not "send message".

I think you've got it now though. This latest message reached me.

Your own aim could stand improvement
"16 pleas???"

Yes. If you read the story you'd have found that no fewer than 16 contacts had been made to the IDF, 13 by the UN and three from, as I recall, the Italians.

"Precision guided???? Since when are mortar and tank rounds, precision guided?"

Any mortar and tank rounds would have been fired from closer range. And the air strike that actually took out the UN post could conceivably been just from rocket fire. But my comment went to the general observation that the Israelis use a lot of satellite and laser guided systems, thus they should presumably be hitting only intended targets, not nearby and well known UN observation posts.

You'll also note the date of my comment. At that time their were no reports to my knowledge on the exact character of the weaponry that destroyed the post.

"It was revealed today that the UN position had been over run by Hezbollah guerillas, and even the people in the post admitted that Israel was targetting those guerillas."

No, it has been reported in any account that the UN post had been "overrun". No one has claimed they were "overrun", which would mean that Hezbollah had occupied the post. What was said was that Hezbollah was operating near the post. Try to be more precise.

The bombing of Dresden
The RAF and USAF fire bombing of Dresden was certainly a grave war crime by any definition.

The target had no military value but was instead a world cultural center, with a very large civilian population and a very large number of refugees. The only purpose of the bombing was to create terror through inflicting immense pain on the citizens of Germany. It was strategically unnecesary.

Any justifications that might be offered in defense of such a heinous act only reinforce the notion that history is written by the victors. I wish I could recall the name of the American general who said of this incident, "You know, if we'd lost the war we'd all be prosecuted for war crimes."

Feel free to review the incident as you wish. This is one commentary I can find very little fault with, other than to offer that the victims were uncountable in that most were completely incinerated:

http://www.rense.com/general19/flame.htm

If you say so
"The UN posts are told to clear out in advance as well."

None of the accounts I've read mention that on the many occasions in which the UN called the IDF to caution them about destroying their observation post, they received the response that they should just "clear out".

Did you actually read that? Or did you just put it together? Please, a citation.

"IDF contacts the residences, by phone I assume, and tells them to evacuate."

Prior to bombing residential Beirut, I'm almost certain they didn't call every resident by phone to tell them to evacuate.

Are you sure?
"Civialians have been warned to leave and according a headline, IDF has actually called their house and warned them before attacking."

Which headline?

Next, Beirut and surrounding suburbs have a population of about 1.3 million (2001 estimate). And the IDF called all those people individually?

I'm very, very impressed. I had no idea.

I disagree
We're not talking about an intervention. There is no reason an unarmed UN observer can't go out, walk over to a Hezbollah unit placing a rocket launcher near their doorstep and say "This is a neutral site, and you're calling down a lot of problems on my head. Please move your act somewhere else."

Common sense would dictate that approach. And that in fact is the approach some Lebanese citizens have taken with Hezbollah. Successfully, too. I don't have the reference handy.

When the UN observers called up the IDF to suggest to them that they not target the post, would that also have been an instance of intervening in the conflict?

Just try it, Roy
and you'll get shot. Peacekeepers in Bosnia had a fair number of exchanges with combattants, and none of them were amicable.

No problemo!
Right after you provide that link that shows the Israelis bombed a hospital. Don't worry, I have my sources ready for you. I wouldn't want you to hurt those two fingers of yours.

Did you check out the other sources below?

I think not
Your comment doesn't surprise me in the slightest.The mindset that's basically distrustful of people will never find them to be anything but treacherous and barbaric.

Normally when someone who is demonstrably unarmed approaches a military unit they'll ask him to stop and to identify himself and his business. You demonize the enemy a bit too much.

BTW don't try this in subsaharan Africa, like in Kivu or northern Uganda. Teenagers with automatic weapons don't always know the polite amenities.

TCS Daily Archives