Israel/Lebanon/Gaza conflict (continuation thread)

An investigation by who? Israel? You have got to be kidding.AbE:And this just in from the BBC.And we wonder why the US is a target.Edited by jar, : add link to BBC news

---

Aslan is not a Tame Lion

It's just crazy to think Israel would intentionally target a UN base, totally nuts, just as it's nuts to think they would target civilians. There is nothing they could possibly gain by such actions. These are set-ups by their opponents to make it LOOK like Israel does these things.It is Hezbollah who sets up their camp among civilians, so that when Israel attacks them there are likely to be some civilian casualties, no matter how precisely they aim at Hezbollah forces alone, and then Hezbollah can scream and rant to the press about how evil Israel is to fire into a civilian area, when it is their own doing.It's the same in the case of the accusation that Israel targeted a UN post. Here is some information from a retired Canadian General about what really happened. Link to audio interview: Canadian General's report

Meanwhile Israel is murdering innocent civilians and UN officials as if they are on a rampage they are also STILL using Palestinian civilians as human shields. Message 84Care to muster a defense of that? Is any action validated as long as it is done under the presumption of self defense? Who was Israel defending while they forced those innocent people to sit there for hours in the line of fire?

---

Of course, biblical creationists are committed to belief in God's written Word, the Bible, which forbids bearing false witness; --AIG (lest they forget)

I know Israel doesn't act without good reason. I know Hezbollah and other terrorist groups love to set Israel up to look bad. Just knowing all that, I know it was a set up. YOu can bet if evidence shows up I will post it.

When I wrote my post the Israeli ambassador to the US was just being quoted as making this claim. I had my doubts but since I am not there, and fog of war is always pretty large, I decided to mention the possibility and leave it at that.As of today's news there seems to be no more support of that idea, though I see apologists here are trying for the "hezbollah set up Israel to look bad" and "hezbollah was using the outpost as a cover so it was a legitimate target" excuses. I think Rice, Bush, and all the rest of the neocons should go live there, without their bodyguards, and see if they like living through the results of their own rhetoric.

---

holmes {in temp decloak from lurker mode}
"What a fool believes he sees, no wise man has the power to reason away." (D.Bros)

You mean ten accidents right? They were warned at each point at which they told the UN oupost things were going to be okay.Let's pretend that this was a mistake, doesn't this suggest to you that Israel should halt its actions until it has the capability of avoiding well known positions off limit to fire, and warned ten consecutive times that it was actually targeting that position?I mean lets be honest, if you do not have the ability to control fire to that degree, how on earth can they claim to be targeting Hezbollah at all? Essentially its the equivalent of when Iraq sent scuds into Israel... which Israel decried at the time. The UN body generally reflects collective international opinion... hence the name United Nations. What you are suggesting is that the US and Israel have been defying international law in supporting Israeli aggressions and the rest of the world has been upset by this.That said, they have never acted against Israel or the US and its a bit of bearing false witness to make such a claim. Do you have any evidence for this? What is disturbing is that Israel keeps getting free rides based on singular US security council vetos, which the US decries when other security council nations do the same thing. If you want a list, it can be produced. You start by criticizing the secretary general for not waiting for an investigation, and then deliver this kind of argument in support of Israel's actions? I've heard this somewhere before, let's see...Mr. Blonde: Yeah, bam, bam, bam, bam, bam. I told 'em {not to stay in the south}, they {stayed in the south}. If they hadn't done what I told 'em not to do, they'd still be alive.
Mr. White: [clapping] My fucking hero.
Mr. Blonde: Thanks.
Mr. White: That's your excuse for going on a kill-crazy rampage?
Mr. Blonde: I don't like {people staying in the south}, Mr. White.Yeah, that was it.Have you ever heard of the rule of law Buz? In international law you don't get to tell innocent people in neighboring countries, and especially not UN observers who have well defined positions, that they must leave because you have decided to blow up their location.I might point out that while Israel gave such an illegal blanket warning, they were also given a warning by the UN to stop shelling their position... ten times to be exact.Is Israel above the law?Edited by holmes, : shorter, clearer

---

holmes {in temp decloak from lurker mode}
"What a fool believes he sees, no wise man has the power to reason away." (D.Bros)

First of all Israel has blatantly targeted civilians in the past. It has had a notorious habit of "collective punishment" from before Israel was a nation. The only difference is that they no longer use suicide missions to deliver such punishment.In any case even if they did not intend to hit the UN base, the results make such theoretical discussions moot. The lack of control required for this to have occured indicates they are not capable of discriminating between civilian and hezbollah targets in practice. And that is supported by the highly disproportionate casualty figures between innocents and hezbollah.If a person gets stung by a wasp from a nest in a neighbors yard, one is not justified in lobbing grenades into that yard, regardless of your intention to avoid your neighbors and hit the wasps. Uhhh... you then go on to create an argument that Israel did in fact target the UN position. If Hezbollah was using the outpost for "cover", and so Israel attacked the outpost to hit Hezbollah then they did in fact intentionally attack the outpost. It doesn't just look that way.I think what you meant to say is that it makes it look like Israel was targeting UN observers at the base rather than Hezbollah militants around the base.Let me ask you something. If Israel thought that Hezbollah was using a UN post for cover, and knows that there are UN officers within that post telling them not to continue firing because they are inside, wouldn't that suggest Israel should have stopped the shelling and switch to a form of engagement with the militants that would not result in UN casualties?Is there some reason Israel was restricted to high powered artillery ordinance or nothing at all? One wonders if this same peacekeeper was the one who repeatedly telephoned Israeli officials that they were using their post as a target, which is even more blatantly illegal than some rogue group using it as temporary cover.I mean this is the height of the qrotesque. You are now trying to use the alleged words of a person killed by Israel about hezbollah, to try to justify his own killing. Do you honestly believe that he felt in those last moments of his life that it was a good thing that Israel was shelling his position, even if there were Hezbollah militants? That it was a legal thing to be doing?That hezbollah might have been doing something illegal, would not justify Israel to even greater illegal action. Or have all principles and reason been flushed down the toilet?

---

holmes {in temp decloak from lurker mode}
"What a fool believes he sees, no wise man has the power to reason away." (D.Bros)

I look forward to it. At least you are honest about your unequivocal support of Israel regardless of any evidence that might be presented. Your default position is "Israel is right" no matter what. I commend you for at least being consistent.

---

Of course, biblical creationists are committed to belief in God's written Word, the Bible, which forbids bearing false witness; --AIG (lest they forget)

1. My understanding is that the UN is so biased against Israel that it is the lone nation of the planet which is not a member.
2. The fact that the US is almost always the sole defender of Israel shows how biased the whole UN body is against Israel.
3. Holmes, have you ever heard of the reality of war wherein you do what you have to do to get at the coward enemy who parks his guns next to the UN an in the homes of civilians so as to blast away at Israel with impunity? Where were the UN protests to Lebanon's Hezbollah terrorist member reps in the Lebanese govt for allowing Hezbollah terrorists to park practically on the UN doorsteps?
4. Israel had no choice but to go after the enemy who cowers next to civilian targets including the UN.
5. It seems to me that the UN should have either persuaded the fighters to bug off or they them selves evacuate as a precaution.
6. These were UN observers. Right? Well then what the heck were they doing sitting there for years quietly observing the Hezbollah missile and armament buildup in violation of Resolution 5959 or whatever the number was forbidding the buildup? Serving coffee?

---

BUZSAW B 4 U 2 C Y BUZ SAW ---- Jesus said, "When these things begin to come to pass, then look up, and lift up your heads, for your redemption draws near." Luke 21:28

Your understanding is wrong, Israel is a member of the UN.Here are the nonmembers:Non-Member Countries of the United Nations

they just make this stuff up don't they?

Thanks anglagard. I stand corrected and informed. I heard it and failed to check it out. Well then how about this for bias? http://www.article.nationalreview.com(I've entered a significant section of the article as I cannot get up a workable link.)

---

BUZSAW B 4 U 2 C Y BUZ SAW ---- Jesus said, "When these things begin to come to pass, then look up, and lift up your heads, for your redemption draws near." Luke 21:28

Faith,Oh, Israel had good reason. They didn't want the UN observing what they were doing so they killed them, premediated murder. Much like they didn't want the US to know all they were upto in the 1967 War so they attacked a US Naval ship to cripple its antennae and killed a lot of service men. Then, mission accomplished, they said it was a mistake.Robert McNamara ordered a cover up. But if you review the attack Isreal knew it was a US Navy ship and they didn't cease their attack until it was incapable of surveilance.http://www.whatreallyhappened.com/ussliberty.html
http://www.washington-report.org/backissues/0693/9306019.htmThe tragedy was the UN observers kept radioing the Israelis letting them know that they had missed so that the Israels could continue their murder attempts until they succeeded and it took awhile. They kept firing until they killed them. Clearly that was their callous
intent. They should be charged with deliberate murder of those canadians. Murder in cold blood planned out. And they made attempt after attempt until they succeeded. Disgusting.But unlike the US they won't even bother to put all the blame on a pregnant noncom. They'll just say sorry, but the next time they want to do something with out third party observation they'll murder who they damn well please in cold blood, cause nobody is going to do anything of consequence. They've gotten away with it and will continue to. The US will face down the line the consequences of the ill treatment of Iraqi's, but Bush and his buddies got their money out of the war and they don't care, and as long as Americans have fast food and televsion they won't care either.lfenEdited by lfen, : miscliced before I had finished cleaning up typos

You didn't answer my questions. I think that is telling, don't you? There are international laws which govern (or are supposed to govern) the actions of NATIONS. Yes, terrorists do not as well as what are becoming referred to as "rogue nations". But legitimate nations are measured by their adherence to such laws.When Iraq was invaded, it was stated that a reason was the number of UN resolutions that Iraq had defied. The number that Israel has defied is greater in number, and if I remember right, greater than any number any other nation has defied... and that does not include the number it could be facing except that the US has unilaterally vetoed the resolution.As has already been pointed out your paranoia regarding the UN is totally misplaced. Israel is a member. The fact that some of its actions receive unilateral support from the UN does NOT indicate that the rest of the world must be biased. In fact I think that is sort of funny. When Russia was doing the same thing, we accused Russia of bias not the rest of the world. In fact when it looked like France was going to veto an Iraq resolution we prepostured ourself to condemn them for bias.History shows that Israel has commited and continues to commit violations of International Law, most specifically the geneva convention in its role as an occupying power. Things like collective punishment which is their openly stated policy is against international law and the US has criticized all other nations which have used it.In Iraq militants used civilian and holy places for cover and we did not always shell them. I get that in warfare sometimes it might become necessary to hit someone in such a place. What you have failed to explain is why this particular instance was one of necessity. It simply makes no sense, not even common sense, beyond callous disregard for innocent life in pursuit of devastation.Why could they not have switched to other weapons, or delivered detailed proof of why they need to shell that area to the UN body, rather than (and this is very important for you to consider buz) just start shelling the position and when warned by innocent people in that position TELL THEM IT WAS GOING TO STOP! If that's not intentional murder it most certainly is negligent homocide. Your argument that they had some need to hit hezbollah there is simply ad hoc reasoning.If the police suspected terrorists had a bomb lab next to your house, would you be alright with them blowing you and your house to smithereens without any notice, and even worse, telling you to sit tight because you'll be just fine (as you scream to them to stop).Also, do YOU have any evidence for your accusation that Hezbollah was using that position during the time period of the shelling? My guess is the observers were unlikely to have allowed militant to use it without some mention heading back to the UN and other world bodies. You claim everyone must shut up until Israel conducts its own investigation yet you seem to feel no similar need when it comes to the UN.And finally you claim the observers were watching a buildup by hezbollah? Why on earth would hezbollah do such a thing right in front of a well marked and longstanding UN oupost? That they used it for cover is one thing, that they'd openly build up armamants in plain site of it seems pretty ridiculous... do you have some evidence for this?But to answer your question, they are unarmed observers. As such all they could do is observe and report to the world body. They are politically and militarily neutral to the conflict (notice the nations involved which for some reason you suggest would support hezbollah?). Notice that they were observing and reporting violations by Israel... look what Isreal did... what were they doing? Serving coffee while blowing innocent people up?You seem to be seriously denying a truth. Just because Hezbollah is a terrorist organization engaged in criminal activity does not mean that EVERYTHING it does is necessarily illegal. Just because Israel is a legitimate nation does not mean that EVERYTHING it does is necessarily legal. And just because Israel is attacked by Hezbollah and should respond (you do not see me disagreeing with that despite my dislike of Israel) does not mean that any and all responses are necessary, legitimate, or legal.If hezbollah had infiltrated into Israeli neighborhoods, Israel would not be conducting the same operations on their own soil as they are doing now in Lebanon out of respect for Israeli lives. That is what is telling about their respect for the lives of others and the criminality of their own actions.Edited by holmes, : Made last statement more clear (thanks lfen for the catch).

---

holmes {in temp decloak from lurker mode}
"What a fool believes he sees, no wise man has the power to reason away." (D.Bros)

Given that the world is engaged in a war on terror which has many of its roots within the MidEast conflict, why would it seem odd to you for them to deal with that issue first and foremost?In fact several of your issues listed in the quote are cultural issues internal to sovereign nations, and not about blatant legal issues regarding nations serving as longstanding and controversial occupying powers over displaced people... hmmm, why would that stand out as more important? Maybe because it is more readily addressable?I'm seeing bias pretty clearly, and you should be at this point as well. If you cannot get simple facts straight like Israel is part of the UN, then isn't it possible you are missing many other (more complex) facts? Perhaps you are avoiding more accurate analysis and focusing on comments by people with a pro Israeli stance?Note: The post before this is my response to your post directly to me.

---

holmes {in temp decloak from lurker mode}
"What a fool believes he sees, no wise man has the power to reason away." (D.Bros)