It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

UNIFIL Choosing Sides in the War?

page: 2
0
<< 1   >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jul, 26 2006 @ 12:21 PM
link   
I cant belive my eyes! So, the claims are:

- civillians are legitimate military target

- UN forces are siding with Hezbollah, and should be delt the same way

This claims are nothing but insane, imo




posted on Jul, 26 2006 @ 12:32 PM
link   
Par for the course I'm afraid - some posters on here have swallowed the goo put out by certain media - 'Hezbollah are brutal, the IDF never are, The UN's corrupt but the US administration never is, China is expansionist but the US spreads democracy to grateful nations' etc etc etc



posted on Jul, 26 2006 @ 12:34 PM
link   
Hmm, my post didn't post.

I think that UNIFIL repairing roads is not siding with anybody except civilians caught in the middle. Tyre is a pretty big city in Lebanon and I am sure still has quite a few civilians in it who will need humanitarian supplies soon.

UNIFIL are stuck in the middle and IMO should be pulled back to safer areas till after Hostilities diminish. Being in the middle of a war zone as an observer while bullets fly from both sides over you is not a great position to be in.



posted on Jul, 26 2006 @ 03:55 PM
link   

Originally posted by pavil

Being in the middle of a war zone as an observer while bullets fly from both sides over you is not a great position to be in.


Quite right. But why haven't they? Besides, the only people I know of who repair roads under fire are combat engineers.



posted on Jul, 26 2006 @ 04:11 PM
link   
How quickly people forget - this isn't the first time Israel has attacked UNIFIL.
During the 1996 flare up with Lebanon they attacked a UNIFIL refugee camp killing around 100 civilians.

I love that they are claiming this was "accidental". Apparently they had shelled this outpost repeatedly, despite the fact that UNIFIL outposts are clearly marked and the locations provided to the Israelis.

It reminds me of the old joke about a lame murder defense: "I didn't kill him on purpose your honor, he just accidentally fell on the knife 37 times!"

As for UNIFIL taking sides, I don't see how repairing a road constitutes "taking a side"... Israel has been ordering people to evacuate southern Lebanon on one hand, and on the other hand bombing the roads and announcing they are targeting all 4x4's on the assumption they are Hezbollah weapons carriers. Now how the hell is anyone supposed to "evacuate" when the Israelis are making damn sure there is no way out?

The degree of self-deception one has to adopt at this point to support the Israelis is staggering. They make only the barest pretense of restraint, which is somehow enough for the noecons to pretend to themselves that this is anything but a slaughter of the Lebanese civil population, especially in the South.


[edit on 7/26/06 by xmotex]



posted on Jul, 26 2006 @ 07:03 PM
link   

Originally posted by xmotex
I love that they are claiming this was "accidental". Apparently they had shelled this outpost repeatedly, despite the fact that UNIFIL outposts are clearly marked and the locations provided to the Israelis.


If you read the reports is says artillery shells landed "near" the outpost. There was fighting between Hezbollah and Israel in the area for quite a while before the UN building was hit. It wasn't as if the Israelis were measuring their artillery barages trying to get a fix on the UN bulidings. More probable, they were getting a bead on Hezbollah fighters in the area near the UN builiding. I don't put it past Hezbollah to place positions near UN buildings.

The details of what happened on the ground will come out. War is not as precise as everyone seems to think it is. Things go horribly wrong sometimes in war even with good intelligence, well trained troops and the latest greatest technology. Some say the attack was intentional, I happen to be of the mind that it was unintended consequence of some close fighting near a UN post that was caught in the middle with no where to go.

My condolences go out to those UN monitors killed, they are probably the bravest one's there in that region, staying put, underarmed and getting hit by both sides as they battle each other. Not a job I envy right now.



posted on Jul, 26 2006 @ 07:09 PM
link   
The artillery barrages were landing near and on the observer post (with four direct hits). But the hit that killed the observers was apparently a direct hit by an Israeli air-dropped PGM. It's hard to believe it was an accident. What evidence there is seems to back up the UN's claim that the UN post was deliberately targeted by the Israelis.



posted on Jul, 26 2006 @ 07:31 PM
link   
xmotex is quite right it was a sustained and deliberate attack on a known, established and clearly-marked UN post.

Rather than asking why the UN is repairing roads shouldn't we be asking why Israel is destroying the roads in the first place?



posted on Jul, 26 2006 @ 08:12 PM
link   

Originally posted by Duby78
- civillians are legitimate military target


Civilians are never legitimate targets in and of their own right as civilians. Traditional laws of war (those that helped for the conventions, accords and protocols etc. today) always consider civilians a protected class in one form or the other...differing from the belligerent parties

Even if each party to a conflict is not a contracting party, traditional laws of war, even common sense, still apply ('Nuremberg' is a great example)…

Why?...why distinguish between the two classes?

Because… (paraphrasing the applicable protocols and traditional laws)…. deliberate “mixing” of civilians and combatants (lawful or unlawful), designed to create any scenario (any scenario) where an attack (any attack) against combatants of any designation would necessarily entail and draw an excessive number of civilian collateral casualties…is a breach...hiding among civilians is a flagrant, reprehensible, known and detestable breach of all traditional rules governing combat.

Guerilla/terroristic warfare place the indigenous populations at an obvious unnecessary lethal risk.

The onus (lawfully, morally and physically) is on the transgressing party which instigates the infraction of "mixing" (making civilians a target) during or prior to belligerency…..with or without signing a treaty.

E.g.

Protocol I; Art. 57:7

“The presence or movements of the civilian population or individual civilians shall not be used to render certain points or areas immune from military operations, in particular in attempts to shield military objectives from attacks or to shield, favour or impede military operations. The Parties to the conflict shall not direct the movement of the civilian population or individual civilians in order to attempt to shield military objectives from attacks or to shield military operations.”

Why?...in addition to what I have already stated…because civilians will die in greater numbers….period.

Not to mention...this was not "dreamed-up out of thin air"...its common friggin' sense leaving no excuses.


Originally posted by Duby78
- UN forces are siding with Hezbollah, and should be delt the same way
This claims are nothing but insane, imo


There are reasons to believe UNIFIL (or individual members thereof) have previously and historically acted in concert with Hezbollah and may still today.

If members of UNIFIL are operating beyond their mandate and have become corrupted…deal with them legally and do not hold back one measure the consequences of their actions due.

mg



posted on Jul, 26 2006 @ 08:30 PM
link   
Perhaps there trying to repair roads and bridges so that some of these people can receive humanitarian aid.


Although Unicef has been unable to gain access to the areas in Lebanon that are under attack, it is trying to provide water, sanitation and emergency drugs to displaced people in that country, about 80,000 of whom it says are staying in schools and other public buildings not meant to be used as housing.


reprinted from the wall street journal

www.mercycorps.org...

No, well they must be declaring war then.



posted on Jul, 26 2006 @ 08:47 PM
link   

Originally posted by Strangerous
xmotex is quite right it was a sustained and deliberate attack on a known, established and clearly-marked UN post.


Not quite. The best that can be said is that there was a sustained and deliberate battle between both Hezbollah and Israel that had been going on for an extended period in the region surrounding the UN observers. I am pretty sure that both sides knew the exact location of the UN observers. Let's find out circumstances of the battle before we say it was a deliberate attack on the UN post.UN observer talks
No one knows exactly what was going on during the end of that battle, more details will come out.

First reports of a battle are usually neither 100% accurate or complete most of the time.



posted on Jul, 27 2006 @ 02:58 AM
link   
I'll stand by my original statement. Israel has a long history of poking out the eyes of the U.N. whenever they want to conduct military operations with a free hand. Can't say as I blame them. If we ever find ourselves in that situation, we might end up doing the same thing.



posted on Jul, 27 2006 @ 03:59 AM
link   
UNFIL takes no sides.It has its own!!



posted on Jul, 27 2006 @ 06:42 AM
link   
mg, I agree wiht you - in some points. But, is destroying country's infrastructure (roads, bridges, water pumps, airports, fuel dumps, radio/tv transmitters, industry etc etc etc) is not anti terrorist action - it is a brutal agression. And this cannot be called self defense. In fact, I can's see much difference between actions of hezbollah and idf. Both of them are commencing deeds of great evil.

Second, you actually accuse UN forces for collaborating with hezbollah and corruption. This is a serious accusation, solid evidence is required to prove that.
It is belived does not qualify. And this attack on UN OP (if it really was deliberate) is nothing else then murder.

And like Daedalus3 said, UN isn't taking side - it is side of its own.



posted on Jul, 27 2006 @ 08:00 AM
link   

Originally posted by subz
Can I ask you to prove that because I know for a fact that the very opposite is true. Civilians are never legal targets according to the Geneva Conventions.


You will not find any International Law that proves me wrong, it doesn't exist. The Geneva Conventions says no such thing. You will not find it in the Geneva Convention.

Killing civilians in war is "LEGAL", some here have said "legitimate", well... I think that is questionable, but legal, certainly.



posted on Jul, 27 2006 @ 08:06 AM
link   

Originally posted by darksided

Killing civilians in war is "LEGAL", some here have said "legitimate", well... I think that is questionable, but legal, certainly.



So, for example, destruction of Warsaw ghetto was also LEGAL ????
Bombardment of London also?

[edit on 27-7-2006 by Duby78]



posted on Jul, 29 2006 @ 12:02 AM
link   

Originally posted by Duby78
Second, you actually accuse UN forces for collaborating with hezbollah and corruption. This is a serious accusation, solid evidence is required to prove that.
It is belived does not qualify. And this attack on UN OP (if it really was deliberate) is nothing else then murder.


My apologies…I thought I linked the source it to another thread…but obviously did not…anyway...it's not a blind comment... I can find it but here is a copy of the info from the other thread:

Perhaps people forget that the in 2000, Hezbollah kidnapped three IDF soldiers, dressed as UN troops while UNIFIL troops observed and took bribes from Hezbollah.

The UN withheld the video of the incident by denying any existed; one tape eventually was acknowledged and reviewed, but only after pressure from the US, later a second video would appear. The conspiracy of sorts and cover-up continued for years. (There are archived news reports about this) here is some non-archived information:


The Indian soldier said that at least four UN soldiers collaborated with the Hizbullah to help them reach the ambush location, and to assist them in locating the IDF soldiers.

Some of the collaborators later returned to India and reported what happened. Israeli officials went to India to investigate. Senior Indian sources also conducted an investigation and seriously criticized the soldiers' behavior.

The Hizbullah had made intimidating threats against the Indian contingent. But at the same time, they had bribed several soldiers in the Indian contingent with liquor, Lebanese women and money.
Source





mg



new topics

top topics



 
0
<< 1   >>

log in

join