Israel "Ignored" UN Troops Pleas To Stop Firing So Close To Them

Perpetrators of terror from any origin are losing support 'cept maybe in the "territories" of support they already hold. There is no new "ground" to win or recapture or convert, the hearts and mind campaign is in full swing in Canada - the eight-sided star crew raised $6M CDN in pledges last night in Toronto in a circle-the-wagons feel-good circle-jerk fest. Good for them; they'all gonna need serious bucks to maintain the level of killing they seem to require to "feel secure". BTW, the production was very professional, lots of pre-planning involved... hmmm, I wonder who owns those production companies? The "Arab Street" will be next and right or wrong or in-between the same crews will bring us the "news" spun as their masters see fit.

I ain't buying. They, like "spoiled-child nations" now have our collective attentions to float their agendas... yawn; my "right" is more valid than your "right"... yahda, yahda, yahda. All perveyors of terror are sub-human moral deviants that devalue life, including their own. Some folks advocate various boycotts, some more radical measures. Me, I just watch the stupid kill each other and embarass themselves and their "nations" and when they achieve mutual-vaporization the job will be indeed finished.

May they all get peaceful or pieceful,

Thanx,

Victor K.

Originally posted by neformore
Ah yes. You must be American. Its what I've come to expect on here (sadly) these days - if its on Fox it must be true and if someone questions it they must be a terrorist sympathising Anti-American, Anti Semitic left wing liberal monkey then - am I right?

Or maybe you could have asked me first, in which case I would have patiently explained to you my own background and exactly where my sentiments lie - as follows.

Your personals may be of interest to somebody, but not to me.

I was responding to your statement:

Kinda disproves it before it starts, really.

You are attempting to paint Fox News as a liar, and to portray anyone that uses them as a source as less than informed.

Now you may attempt to wiggle out of that statement you made by telling us all about yourself, but I don't need to know all about you. Your knee-jerk statement sums you up neatly for me.

The UN working with Hizbollah now. This is hilarious.
People quoting one Resolution while Israel has evaded as well as been purposefully shielded by the USA in dozens of condemnations and resolutions.
America may protect them but it doesn't mean they are innocent. Terrorists looking for the removal of the competition.

Originally posted by smokenmirrors
It seems interesting that anyone would find it surprising that a couple UN military personnell were killed in a war zone, near laughable if you ask me, the fact that a big deal is being made of it all. Maybe the UN should get outta there quick before somebody else gets hurt, haha, now THAT'S funny

It was more than a couple of UN military personel, it was four. But speaking of a couple of military personel, should your rationale and casualness extend to the two Israel soldiers kidnapping over which this whole mess started? Should Israel have just shrugged it off as some kind of irrelevancy like you're saying we all should over these UN troops?

Originally posted by skippytjc
LIES! LIES!

The original post claim here is a COMPLETE LIE.

Hmm "lies" implies intent to deceive, you better have some damn good proof to back up that accusation. Let's look at it shall we.

"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."

Those pesky UN observers were keeping the fact that Hezbollah was near their position so secret werent they? If they reported the fact then they should of been warned about their impending danger by Israel in the ten phone calls they made to the IDF. Not told the bombing would stop and that they were perfectly safe.

Why did Ehud Olmert "personally" vouch for the UN's saftey when Israel intended to vapourise a UN observation post because Hezbollah was near it? Would'nt Olmert have told Annan about the Hezbollah presence near the outpost, warned the UN that they intend to bomb those positions and they should remove themselves from the conflict zone post haste?

"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."

Eh? They came under direct fire but it was not deliberate targeting? This passage wreakes of the kind of calls coming from Flight 93 on 9/11.

Who would call their personal saftey being jeapordized very severely as a "tactical necessity"? UNFIL is there to observe the peace is kept between the sides not claim one sides actions, that just happen to endanger their own lives, to be a tactical "necessity".

So we're meant to believe these UN troops welcomed their own destruction because it was a tactical necessity of Israel? Who writes ths stuff?

Originally posted by smokenmirrors

Originally posted by wang
To say that Hezbollah poked Israel with a 'stick' to many times shows your ignorance of the situation, as it is a much more complicated situation that goes back over 20 years.

Au contraire my friend, I can state I am well read with beaucoup common sense and a rather high IQ

Ignorance would be when one limits the history of the middle east to 2 decades, now THAT is funny

Interpretation of events is through the eyes of the beholder.

Israel surely took out a UN post, that is not debateable. Should one believe the UN was successful in its duty to carry out the provisions of resolution 1559 is delusional at best.

Kudo's to the Israeli's for doing the job the UN had been charged to do.

Ok here is a couple of posts of mine in a previous thread describing some more history of the middle east.

Well the only true way to solve the conflict in the middle east, is to have a time machine. Go back to after WW1 and give the arab people their nation, and go back to WW2 and try to stop the holocaust and the relocation of the jewish people.
Wont happen so....
I believe the best situation for the middle east, although compelx could work. Lets go back to the start of the nation of Israel. The jewish population moved to palestine from 1881, to 1946. In this time zionists organizations bought up business and property within palestine. Then in 1947 the UN general assembly came up and aprroved the UN partition plan handing over 55% percent of palestine to the jewish people, and 45% to the palestianian people, the proposal was never accepted by the palestinians.
So to make a analogy of this, imagine that heaps of immigration to California by native american indian tribes, they buy up land and businesses. Then the U.N announces that becasue of the plthy the native american people sufferd that they should have their own nation, then say that 55% of California is now a seperate country, then all non native american people are then kicked out of their homes who live in that 55% area. Would you find that as 'fair'?

Starting around 1200 BCE, a series of Jewish kingdoms and states existed intermittently in the region for more than a millennium.
Under Assyrian, Babylonian, Persian, Greek, Roman, Byzantine, and (briefly) Sassanian rule, Jewish presence in the province dwindled due to mass expulsions. In particular, the failure of the Bar Kochba Revolt against the Roman Empire in 132 CE resulted in the large-scale expulsion of Jews. It was during this time that the Romans gave the name Syria Palaestina to the geographic area, in an attempt to erase Jewish ties to the land.The Muslims conquered the land from the Byzantine Empire in 638 CE. The area was ruled by various Muslim states (interrupted by the rule of the Crusaders) before becoming part of the Ottoman Empire in 1517.

en.wikipedia.org...

With that said, 1200BCE untill the mass expulsion in 132CE Thats around 1300 years that Israel existed, Muslim rule from 638 untill 1517, then the Ottomans took over. Considerd the turkish empire, which is of arab ethniticity, they ruled the land unstill they fell in 1929. Then came the british mandate.

So in essense, Arabs have ruled Israel from 638 untill 1929, again thats around 1300 years. So in essence they have both ruled the area for aslong as each other, its just that the arab people have more modern claim to the land than the jewish people do.

Could you imagine if thousand of year old land claims could be called up today? Could the Australian Aboriginals claim australia back? White men have been in australia for jsut over 200 years, yet the aboroginal population has been dated to been the oldest race on the planet living in australia for thousands of years. How about the red indians? How about a rediculous one like the Gauls decendents comming back and claiming france? I could go on and on....

politics.abovetopsecret.com...'

Also here is my thread i jsut started debating your defense over resolution 1559.
politics.abovetopsecret.com...'

[edit on 083131p://upThursday by wang]

[edit on 093131p://upThursday by wang]

Originally posted by darksided
Janes Intel and Stratfor sources have a similar story, and will be posting the email for subscribers. The email says 3 meters though, not 10 feet.

Just to make things clear for those of you unfamiliar with the metric system, 3 meters IS about 10 feet. That is, 30 centimeters (cm) for every 12 inches. So about 3.333 feet per meter.

Anyway, carry on. I'm going out to smoke a bit of that special stuff that makes you calm. This place is starting to get on my nerves. I really need to take a chill pill, I mean smoke.

Not only did these “Peace Keepers” NOT beg not to be fired on, the commander of the post just a few days earlier sent an email to the UN explaining the “Tactical necessity” of Israel’s bombing of nearby Hezbollah positions.

So are you calling the Captain Ronan Corcoran a Liar as well then??

A UN peacekeeper who lost four friends when Israeli jets bombed their observation post has dismissed claims it was an accident.

Capt Corcoran, from Ireland, said he was shattered by the deaths of the peacekeepers who were in radio contact with their commanders right up until the moment the bombs destroyed their lookout.

So he must be the biggest liar in the middle east eh..

www.sky.com...

Originally posted by neformore

[Just a quick edit to say this is not on Reuters, or the BBC]

[edit on 27-7-2006 by neformore]

Of course its not on Reuters or BBC. They refuse to use the term terrorist and have been biased against Israel for years. Its a shame too. I used to highly value Reuters as a news agency. Do you know why FOX was grown as a network? Because a lot of us are tired of being spoon-fed crap, and having to dig for alternative sources for the real skinny. So don't think we are blinded by FOX because we are able to figure things out for oureselves and aren't content with the info provided. That discontent alone makes for a pretty good skeptic. Maybe more people should question their news sources *cough BBC*. And yes Fox is conservative. The difference is that they admit it, and yet present both sides. Apparently that is only a threat to those who can't see through what is in front of them.

That discontent alone makes for a pretty good skeptic. Maybe more people should question their news sources *cough BBC*. And yes Fox is conservative

Psssssssst the BBC are more biased than any other News Agency in the World just thougt I would point that out to yall , and yeah we have to pay for it

Originally posted by spencerjohnstone

Psssssssst the BBC are more biased than any other News Agency in the World just thougt I would point that out to yall

, and yeah we have to pay for it

We're in the same boat with National Public Radio.

This brings up an interesting thought: All of the arguing on this thread is brought about because somewhere along the line, we are all getting incomplete news, and I feel it is because of agendas.

[edit on 27-7-2006 by hogtie]

Originally posted by hogtie
This brings up an interesting thought: All of the arguing on this thread is brought about because somewhere along the line, we are all getting incomplete news, and I feel it is because of agendas.

Thats the truth. We will never be able to get the complete truth of the situation.
Everyone has a agenda of some sort, mine is the innocents.

What is yours?

Originally posted by wang

Thats the truth. We will never be able to get the complete truth of the situation.
Everyone has a agenda of some sort, mine is the innocents.

What is yours?

Mine is a lasting peace in the ME, and I've accepted the fact that this must come through violence. An immediate cease fire will just guarantee that there will be no change, Hez will still remain in Lebanon, and will be rearmed by Syria and Iran, then the process will repeat itself. Forgive the analogy, but its like pulling off a bandaid. If you want to avoid even more pain, you have to do it quickly. When you think about the numbers killed so far, considering that there has been a lot of ordinance dropped by both sides, there have been relatively few casualties. So lets say there is a ceasfire, which just assures more violence. Stretch the casualties that we've seen over the past two decades of "peace" and stretch them for another 20 years. How many more innocent will die in 20 more years of "peace" than they will in a short war directed at Hez?

There has been quite a lot talk about the Israeli-attack and newspapers have covered this topic extensively because one of the four UN-officers killed was a 29-year-old captain of the finnish army. He was unarmed.

Here's some pictures from the site.

I dont know if these facts have been posted allready but here it goes: first Israeli-bomb hit ground 13.20 about 200 meters from the UN-base. The unarmed UN-officers immediately contacted representative of the israelian-army and they assured that the bombings would stop. Well they didn't. Israelis dropped approx. 21 bombs around the UN-base and the UN-officers kept calling about the issue. After 19.17 the UN-base went silent. Permanently.

Source of the info: www.iltasanomat.fi... (in finnish, sorry!)

Btw, this my first "real" post in ATS. Hello to everyone.

Originally posted by hogtie
Mine is a lasting peace in the ME, and I've accepted the fact that this must come through violence. An immediate cease fire will just guarantee that there will be no change, Hez will still remain in Lebanon, and will be rearmed by Syria and Iran, then the process will repeat itself. Forgive the analogy, but its like pulling off a bandaid. If you want to avoid even more pain, you have to do it quickly. When you think about the numbers killed so far, considering that there has been a lot of ordinance dropped by both sides, there have been relatively few casualties. So lets say there is a ceasfire, which just assures more violence. Stretch the casualties that we've seen over the past two decades of "peace" and stretch them for another 20 years. How many more innocent will die in 20 more years of "peace" than they will in a short war directed at Hez?

So you believe that through Israel's violence it will gain peace by obliterating their enemy. Is that what people claim the Iranian presidents statements are, to obiterate its enemy? Israel's actions now will only cause more violence in the future, the brothers and sisters of the children who have died, the orphaned children, and children who have lost their homes and livelihood are going to do whehn they get older? Violence only creates more violence.
Israel Invaded and occupied southern lebanon in 72 which created hezbollah. This befor this situation was created out of violence. Israel should try to deal with its neighbours as equals rather than viewing themselves as rightoues and infallible.

Also, Welcome Ouruboros thanks for the contribution.

[edit on 103131p://upThursday by wang]

Originally posted by Ouruboros

Btw, this my first "real" post in ATS. Hello to everyone.

Welcome aboard! Thanks for the links to the photos.

Just makes me think even more how insane it was to require the UN position to remain in place.

Originally posted by subz
Why did Ehud Olmert "personally" vouch for the UN's saftey when Israel intended to vapourise a UN observation post because Hezbollah was near it? Would'nt Olmert have told Annan about the Hezbollah presence near the outpost, warned the UN that they intend to bomb those positions and they should remove themselves from the conflict zone post haste?

The UN observers are required to stay at their posts until they get a direct order from the secretary general. Therefore, the post commander should have had a direct link to Annan, so that he was able to make the decision to give the order.

"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."

Now you disbelieve the UN? You don't believe the above passage. But you do believe that the UN called Israel ten times, don't you?

Politics of convenience?

Who would call their personal saftey being jeapordized very severely as a "tactical necessity"?

Taking it out of the realm of warfare for a moment, I would say that firefighters do it all the time.

Originally posted by spencerjohnstone

So are you calling the Captain Ron Corcoran a Liar as well then??

A UN peacekeeper who lost four friends when Israeli jets bombed their observation post has dismissed claims it was an accident.

Listen to the ACTUAL video of the interview and tell me he "dismissed" it. He said he couldn't discuss the operational details.

Captain Ronan Corcoran Interview

I don't get how a journalist can write he dismissed it when the Captain is asked point blank if he thought it was an accident and says he couldn't discuss operational details. He does state that both sides knew the location of the base and that a battle was happening in view of the base. He also stated that both sides had the grid coordinates as well.

As I have said previously, more details are needed before we have a clear picture of the event. Having reports that stretch the actual comments of people aren't productive in that manner.

Originally posted by hogtie
Welcome aboard! Thanks for the links to the photos.

Just makes me think even more how insane it was to require the UN position to remain in place.

Israelis have promised an extensive investigation of the incident. I wonder why they chose to ignore all the calls which the UN-officers made?

EDIT: www.aftonbladet.se...

Originally posted by ZeddicusZulZorander
Standard operating procedure in the terrorist handbook is "when attacking is to use innocents (or possibly UN troops) as cover."

Of course, only terrorists use this one.



Come on, you ever see where half of the Military Bases through Europe are? Right next to Civilian Areas. In fact, the stoorage depot in my town in England is next to a childrens park. There are many such ones in Israel and of course, Israel counts Government offices and television stations as "targets". So their own stations also are, which are again in civilian areas.

Originally posted by Odium

Come on, you ever see where half of the Military Bases through Europe are? Right next to Civilian Areas. In fact, the stoorage depot in my town in England is next to a childrens park. There are many such ones in Israel and of course, Israel counts Government offices and television stations as "targets". So their own stations also are, which are again in civilian areas.

I don't think that was the idea in mind when they were built. Many bases have been in existence for decades. The behavior on both sides of WWII showed that the civilian population was fair game, so I don't think any bases were used during the cold war with the idea that Nato or Russia wouldn't strike civilian populations. No point in nukes if that's the case.

Terrorists specifically count on the squeamishness of the "civilized" world. In a micro scale, how many Israeli soldiers fire from behind a crowd of children?