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.

 

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

page: 7
0
<< 4  5  6    8  9  10 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jul, 27 2006 @ 10:51 AM
link   

Originally posted by pavil


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.


Thanks much for the link. A perfect example of how reporting bias is shaping the situation more than the actual events do.




posted on Jul, 27 2006 @ 10:58 AM
link   

Originally posted by subz
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?


I think it is pretty clear you have no military experience, none, and you have basically put yourself out there as an instant expert, only for the rest of ATS to learn you are just another opinion who really doesn't know what the heck you are talking about.

The person who wrote 'that stuff' was a Major Paeta Hess-von Kruedener, a Canadian Forces soldier in the Princess Patricia's Canadian Light Infantry, serving with the UN in South Lebanon. A soldier who has recently died in his duty, who you need to be very careful not to insult, and would be very lucky not to be compared.

I have to say, after reading Maj Hess-von Kruedener's email, my first impression is Canada lost a really good soldier in Lebanon the other day. That email gives us insight into his professionalism and dedication to duty. I think it makes it more important that he is honored by finding the truth.

I am particularly impressed with this very carefully worded group of paragraphs. This really is a tribute to how professional of an officer he was, to provide information without violating his duty not exposing tactical information:


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.


So far I have spoken with nearly 2 dozen men and women with military experience, 3 of whom are from different countries, one of which is Indian and served in Lebanon with UNIFIL, and every single one of them has the same take.

When the soldier is saying "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."

That is basically politically correct infantry officer duty-speak meaning their position has been compromised, because when he says it was due to tactical necessity, he is basically saying the IDF is attacking Hezbollah.

If my country had peacekeepers in Lebanon, I would be asking the UN some serious questions and I wouldn't accept whitewash answers either.



posted on Jul, 27 2006 @ 11:10 AM
link   

Originally posted by darksided


Oh no! Inconvenient facts strike again! You know, considering which way the lines are usually drawn on threads like this, there has been an outstanding ammount of outside sources linked on this subject. I want to give a big
to everyone who has tried to keep the data rolling in, especially the sources that contradict the mainline "Israel sucks" argument. Historical perspective and conjecture, regardless of what side you're on can only go so far.

To all you folks.



posted on Jul, 27 2006 @ 11:24 AM
link   

Originally posted by hogtie
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?


Probably less than fire into the crowd of children.

Sorrry, but every war we have always tried to break the moral of the civilian population. It's only terrorism when you decide to label it as that. Dresden is an example. Just like what Israel is doing now. They want to break the people, so they will submit and give in - just like Hamas and every other group does.

You never win a war another way.



posted on Jul, 27 2006 @ 11:34 AM
link   

Originally posted by Odium
Dresden is an example. Just like what Israel is doing now. They want to break the people, so they will submit and give in - just like Hamas and every other group does.

You never win a war another way.


Dresden, 3 days, 35,000-100,000

Lebanon, 15 days, 372 Lebanese

Not even close.

The difference between what Hez and Ham want to do and what Israel want to do is that if Hez and Ham win, they have a population subject to the rule of those who think its ok to walk on to a crowded bus and detonate a bomb. If Israel wins, less busses blow up.



posted on Jul, 27 2006 @ 11:35 AM
link   
A war fought by Israel without keeping in mind the "new age" political correctness of warfare, what a concept! Kudo's to Israel for not giving a rats posterior what the world thinks in terms of their methodology of warfare, if only the United States would learn the same lesson


UN peacekeepers should evacuate the area ASAP, as it is a war zone, and they are placing themselves, obviously, in harms way...........



posted on Jul, 27 2006 @ 11:36 AM
link   
Odin,

There is unfortunate wisdom in your words, which is why when the threshold of war is as low as it is today, it is more likely civilized nations will lose than win.

The threshold for war either needs to rise considerably, or civilized countries will need ot break the shackles of external perception pretexted as moral judgement in order to win wars.

I'm always for option A first, but once a war starts and my country is involved, I go with B.



posted on Jul, 27 2006 @ 11:41 AM
link   

Originally posted by hogtie
Dresden, 3 days, 35,000-100,000

Lebanon, 15 days, 372 Lebanese

Not even close.

The difference between what Hez and Ham want to do and what Israel want to do is that if Hez and Ham win, they have a population subject to the rule of those who think its ok to walk on to a crowded bus and detonate a bomb. If Israel wins, less busses blow up.


I'd hate to think war is about keeping score with lives treated as points, and highest or lowest points determines wins and losses. War never should be painted as a game, yet, we see exactly that happening in some places.

I think the contrast is striking though, on one side, you have Hezbollah who is trying to create as many dead people as possible, on both sides, to score points, while on the other side, you have Israel who is trying to prevent as many deaths as possible, on both sides, to score points.

Whether the points are measured in military gain or PR gain, it is really sad that war is now the modern version of the World watching a Roman Colosseum.



posted on Jul, 27 2006 @ 11:41 AM
link   
I love the "ignore" button! That which is good for the goose is also... as ye reap so shall ye... you get the notion...

Thanx,

Victor K.



posted on Jul, 27 2006 @ 11:59 AM
link   
Hezbollah and Lebanon both ignored numerous requests and conveyances of concern about the locations of Hezbollah positions being formed, built and bunkered around UNIFIL posts by UN officials and the UNIFIL commander prior to the onset of these major hostilities.


Originally posted by darksided
When the soldier is saying "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."


The UNIFIL forces (Maj. Gen. Pellegrini) presented reports, letters and claims complaining about Hezbollah positions being installed near to UNIFIL locations as a “significant security risk to UN personnel” months prior to the current conflict:

Why, because if things "hit the fan" those positions would be tageted by the IDF!


Jul21, 2006, Secretary General’s Report (pdf.)

28 Control of the Blue Line and its vicinity appears to have remained for the most
part with Hizbollah.

During the reporting period, Hizbollah maintained and reinforced a visible presence in the area, with permanent observation posts, -temporary checkpoints and patrols. It continued to carry out intensive construction works to strengthen and expand some of its fixed positions, install additional technical equipment, such as cameras, establish new positions close to the Blue Line and build new access roads. These measures resulted in a more strategically laid out and fortified structure of Hizbollah's deploynlent along the Blue Line.

Some Hizbollah positions remained in close proximity to United Nations positions, especially in the Hula area, posing a significant security risk to United Nations personnel and equipment, as demonstrated during the heavy exchanges of fire on 28 May. In letters to the Foreign Minister, dated 23 March, 27 June and 5 July 2006, the Force Commander, General Pellegrini, expressed grave concern about the Hizbollah construction works in close proximity to United Nations positions and requested that the Government of Lebanon take necessary actions to rectify the situation.

However, the situation remained unchanged despite repeated objections addressed by UNIFIL to the Lebanese authorities. UNIFIL observed the
reconstruction of Hizbollah positions that were daniaged or destroyed during the
28 May exchange of fire.
emphasis added


The UNIFIL commander (just as Maj Hess-von Kruedener has emphasized) knew and understood the risks Hezbollah was placing their forces under.

Futhermore, Hezbollah did not cooperated with the free movement of the UNIFIL forces in the region.

29. UNIFIL encountered an increase of temporary denials of access by Hizbollah in different areas along the Blue Line. On one occasion Hizbollah searched a UNIFIL vehicle and temporarily confiscated United Nations equipment.


It appears, from the entire document, Hezbollah began a full and permanent occupation attempt of the UNIFIL zone, disregarding calls from the UN and the UNIFIL commander expressing "grave concerns" over the proximity of Hezbollah positions to UNIFIL positions and began restricting the movements of the UNIFIL command.

Hezbollah locations were purposefully, knowingly and intentionally placed near UNIFIL locations, despite numerous complaints, to draw the chance of negative responses (as exampled and displayed through-out this thread)...it worked...good job Hez.


mg



posted on Jul, 27 2006 @ 12:04 PM
link   
dual post. sorry

[edit on 27-7-2006 by hogtie]



posted on Jul, 27 2006 @ 12:05 PM
link   
Do you think Kofi Anan was hoping to use fire on a UN post (not the deaths necessesarily) as a trump card to keep Israel in line with the UN position? I can't conjure a good reason for them to have been kept in position. If so, I think it is a gamble that the UN has lost.



posted on Jul, 27 2006 @ 12:27 PM
link   
Nice find Missed Gear.

There seems to be more info comming out about Hezbollah intentionally placing UNIFIL forces in harms way by setting up close to them. Even those that say Israel intentionally targeted the UN post must say that Hezbollah didn't help matters by setting up postions next to them.



posted on Jul, 27 2006 @ 01:05 PM
link   
The missed gear link is broke, but this is how to get the doc:

Go here:
www.un.org...

Do a search for:
July 21, 2006 Secretary General Report

The first option should be:

1. Title: Report of the Secretary-General on the United Nations Interim Force in Lebanon (for the period from 21 January to 18 July 2006)
Imprint: [New York] UN, 21 July 2006
UN Document Symbol: S/2006/560
Publication Date: 20060721


10 page report, includes the UN report on the original battle confirming that Hezbollah both fired rockets and went across the blue line. There are lots of missing pieces in the report.

This is a great find, not out in the open yet for some reason, you get WATS from me for this.

What troubles me is if General Pellegrini had written 3 letters expressing grave concern about the Hizbollah construction works in close proximity to United Nations positions, what the heck is Kofi Annon doing making statements like he did the other day, and why has he left his peacekeepers along the blue line if he knows they are being used as human shields?

Is he that out of touch with UNIFIL? How can he expect to be an honest broker or be a serious player in the international community if he ignores the information coming out of his own organization?



posted on Jul, 27 2006 @ 01:13 PM
link   
Thanks, sorry it worked for me when I previewed.

You can also access the report through here, directly to the correct report in (pdf.) format.

www.un.org...

This site lumps together other applicable reports, probably a better choice than the direct route anyway.

mg



posted on Jul, 27 2006 @ 01:41 PM
link   

Originally posted by hogtie

Dresden, 3 days, 35,000-100,000

Lebanon, 15 days, 372 Lebanese

Not even close.


It's the intention not the number of people killed. 9/11: 5k people, 1day? Clearly, not terrorism if we play the numbers game.


Originally posted by hogtie
The difference between what Hez and Ham want to do and what Israel want to do is that if Hez and Ham win, they have a population subject to the rule of those who think its ok to walk on to a crowded bus and detonate a bomb. If Israel wins, less busses blow up.


Ohh...because Israel is so nice right?

Segregated education. Segregated for inter-religious marriages? I can go on and on. Attacking their allies. Paying U.S. Troops to spy on the U.S. and so on and so fourth.

Seriously, if you ever visit Israel and any other Middle Eastern Nation you'll realise they're not different. Israel is just as violent and their Government is filled with just as many bigots as Ham or any other terrorist organization. Otherwise, they'd have been smart about where they target and not bombed civilian areas to help boost numbers.

Every Israeli Bomb boosts the numbers of the terrorists. Every innocent person who dies makes it worse for them.

Some of us remember what it was like living with the I.R.A in the United Kingdom and know the way Israel does business won't help them. The more they push, the more people have to fight against and for and token gestures won't solve the issue at hand.

There's an easy way to do things and Israel won't do it.



posted on Jul, 27 2006 @ 01:54 PM
link   
I find very convenient when the death can talk . . .

Now I can sleep better at night knowing that one of the death make sure that Israel had an alibi with an E-mail after his own death.

What a whole bunch of BS. . .

I can not believe that people can fall for this type of propaganda with not questions at all.



posted on Jul, 27 2006 @ 01:56 PM
link   

Originally posted by Odium

There's an easy way to do things and Israel won't do it.


I'm not being facetious when I ask, what is the easy way? Israel has already tried withdrawing.



posted on Jul, 27 2006 @ 01:59 PM
link   

Originally posted by hogtie

Originally posted by Odium

There's an easy way to do things and Israel won't do it.


I'm not being facetious when I ask, what is the easy way? Israel has already tried withdrawing.


Withdrawing wasn't what they wanted.

Since day one, they've wanted shared rule of Jerusalem. They've always wanted to have their Heads of State in there. If Israel can't share it, they should hand it over to the United Nation's like it was intended to be.

The problems we have now, were seen and certain "Jewish Terrorist Organisations" never disarmed. So the U.N. never moved in to help control it.

That's what the biggest problem for Muslims is, the rule of Israel over their Holy Sites. Many of them can't ever visit it and those who live there are treated as the second class.



posted on Jul, 27 2006 @ 02:06 PM
link   

Originally posted by marg6043
What a whole bunch of BS. . .

I can not believe that people can fall for this type of propaganda with not questions at all.


UN documents support his position....many prior to the onset of recent events.

Why is it hard to understand that Hezbollah would use as cover the UNIFIL positions despite repeated, direct objection from UNIFIL commanders in the field?

Why would those UNIFIL commanders object to the positioning of Hezbollah installations near thier post? Why?


mg



new topics

top topics



 
0
<< 4  5  6    8  9  10 >>

log in

join