miked10270 0 #76 July 29, 2006 QuoteThe Israelis are attacking a 2 mile wide border area. the Hiz's are sending random f-k'ing missles all over Israel. You're right, that's just wrong. Israel is seeking to occupy a 2 mile wide border strip of Lebanon and "sterilise" it so it's free of "freedom-fighters". I honestly don't know WHY israel is trying to achieve this. The rockets fired into Israel have a far greater range and aren't being fired from the area Israel is trying to occupy! In the meantime, Israel is deliberately bombing infrastructure throughout southern to central lebanon. In effect, they have adopted Hezb'Allah's tactics. This is reminiscent of Sir Arthur (Bomber) Harris's "They have sown the wind... They shall reap the whirlwind" speech. The fundamental flaw in this is that Israel is creating hundreds of "martyrs" which will translate into the inspiration of a whole new generation of suiocide-bombers and terrorists seeking to further the retribution for Israel's attacks. I repeat that "An eye for an eye usually ends up with everyone being blinded". Mike. Taking the piss out of the FrenchAmericans since before it was fashionable. Prenait la pisse hors du FrançaisCanadiens méridionaux puisqu'avant lui à la mode. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kallend 2,027 #77 July 30, 2006 QuoteQuote This is reminiscent of Sir Arthur (Bomber) Harris's "They have sown the wind... They shall reap the whirlwind" speech. Harris was, of course, quoting scripture: “They sow the wind, and reap the whirlwind.", Hosea 8:7... The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites kallend 2,027 #78 July 30, 2006 QuoteQuote What does his nationality have to do with it? Only happened once? Wow, is that a good excuse for murder? Seems to me that it illustrates a certain mindset of "the authorities", also seen in Waco and Ruby Ridge. kallend, I was referring to your mindset in these threads. Clearly, you didn't get that. It really disappoints me. My mindset is disappointment in the general tendency of all governments to abuse civilians when it suits them. Clearly you don't get that.... The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites miked10270 0 #79 July 30, 2006 Quotealthough I didn't read the whole thread, let me get this straight. first, you say that it was deliberate because Israel used precision weapons so if it hits something it means that it meant to hit it. then you say that it was deliberate because there were several earlier tries that missed. Hi Ori, Also, it's not the first time: http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/middle_east/5228554.stm OF course Qana is described as being VERY supportive of Hezb'Allah. Something which I'm sure was helped by the previous bombardment of civilians sheltering in a UN compound. It's this & similar incidents which provide the inspiration & justification for another round of bombings. Arabs strap Semtex to themselves and Israel straps American Bombs to it's planes. The intention & results are exactly the same, the only difference is in the delivery system each side has available. One side uses "smart bombs" while the other side uses "not so smart bombs". The reasoning behind "who started it" now assumes the proportions of "The Chicken and The Egg"! Anyone want to go back further than Moses bringing all those Egyptian "Israelite" immigrants into the area and demanding a name change to Judea? May I suggest that the first step in "stopping it" would be for the arms suppliers to stop selling to that particular market? If America stopped shipping bombs and saved them up to help Syria see the benefits of not shipping rockets then the killing would become far less efficient. OK. Taking that to it's logical conclusion, both sides would probably end up throwing rocks at each other, but at least such ammunition is both environmentally friendly and recyclable. Bear in mind that WWI actually ended because one side (Germany) effectively "ran out of ammunition" (was unable to sustain it's side of the war). Put another way; If you turn off the water, the house stops flooding. This war isn't just a sad reflection on the folk actually fighting. It also reflects on the arms suppliers since they know full well the use their supplies will be put to. Mike. Taking the piss out of the FrenchAmericans since before it was fashionable. Prenait la pisse hors du FrançaisCanadiens méridionaux puisqu'avant lui à la mode. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites shropshire 0 #80 July 30, 2006 Good point ..... but the Uncaring Supplier of Arms would probably say... "If we didn't sell the bombs (sent through Atlas Air via Prestwick!! but we're ever so sorry that we didn't tell you) .... then someone else would & thus where would the profit in that be? So, as this nightmare continues, innocent kids on both sides willl be sleeping soundly at their permenant rest, whilst someone else counts the profit being made. . (.)Y(.) Chivalry is not dead; it only sleeps for want of work to do. - Jerome K Jerome Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites miked10270 0 #81 July 30, 2006 QuoteGood point ..... but the Uncaring Supplier of Arms would probably say... "If we didn't sell the bombs..... Y'All missed out the most important bit: The Uncaring Supplier of Arms uses AIRBUS A310's as it's preferred bomb carrier! Not Boeing!!! Consider the advertising potential for that! We should get a few orders for A380's just as soon as the freight version rolls out. Think how many bombs they could carry!Mike. PS: Surely THAT should provoke a significant portion of America to want the flights stopped! Using the competition indeed!! Taking the piss out of the FrenchAmericans since before it was fashionable. Prenait la pisse hors du FrançaisCanadiens méridionaux puisqu'avant lui à la mode. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites miked10270 0 #82 July 30, 2006 QuoteQuoteQuote This is reminiscent of Sir Arthur (Bomber) Harris's "They have sown the wind... They shall reap the whirlwind" speech. Harris was, of course, quoting scripture: “They sow the wind, and reap the whirlwind.", Hosea 8:7 Of course. Now, who was it said: "Before setting out to get revenge, first dig two graves"? Mike. Taking the piss out of the FrenchAmericans since before it was fashionable. Prenait la pisse hors du FrançaisCanadiens méridionaux puisqu'avant lui à la mode. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites shropshire 0 #83 July 30, 2006 oo....oo..... I know.......[waves hand furiously] 007 (.)Y(.) Chivalry is not dead; it only sleeps for want of work to do. - Jerome K Jerome Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites falxori 0 #84 July 30, 2006 QuoteAlso, it's not the first time: http://news.bbc.co.uk/...dle_east/5228554.stm don't forget the part were hizbollah fired its rockets from a few meters from that UN compound. I may be off but i think they might have known that and did it on purpose... QuoteThe reasoning behind "who started it" now assumes the proportions of "The Chicken and The Egg"! but who will stop it? sadly it takes one side to start but two to stop. QuoteBear in mind that WWI actually ended because one side (Germany) effectively "ran out of ammunition" your example is nice but the conclusion is wrong. if both sides of a conflict ran out of ammo they'll use sticks if needs be. according to your example, only one side has to run out of ammo for the war to stop. "Carpe diem, quam minimum credula postero." Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites kallend 2,027 #85 July 30, 2006 QuoteQuoteQuoteQuote This is reminiscent of Sir Arthur (Bomber) Harris's "They have sown the wind... They shall reap the whirlwind" speech. Harris was, of course, quoting scripture: “They sow the wind, and reap the whirlwind.", Hosea 8:7 Of course. Now, who was it said: "Before setting out to get revenge, first dig two graves"? Mike. James Bond?... The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites miked10270 0 #86 July 30, 2006 Quoteoo....oo..... I know.......[waves hand furiously] Oh come on then... The slightly scruffy boy at the back.. Taking the piss out of the FrenchAmericans since before it was fashionable. Prenait la pisse hors du FrançaisCanadiens méridionaux puisqu'avant lui à la mode. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites miked10270 0 #87 July 30, 2006 Quote... if both sides of a conflict ran out of ammo they'll use sticks if needs be.... I envisaged BOTH sides being starved of the means to conduct offense. This was a pop at BOTH Washington & Damascus. But to paraphrase the saying: "Sticks & Stones may break my bones... But they won't flatten buildings!" Mike. Taking the piss out of the FrenchAmericans since before it was fashionable. Prenait la pisse hors du FrançaisCanadiens méridionaux puisqu'avant lui à la mode. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites shropshire 0 #88 July 30, 2006 <> sir yes sir, me sir ...... 007 sir (.)Y(.) Chivalry is not dead; it only sleeps for want of work to do. - Jerome K Jerome Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites miked10270 0 #89 July 30, 2006 Quotesir yes sir, me sir ...... 007 sir Stupid Boy! 007 Actually said: "There's an old Chinese Proverb; Before setting out on a journey of revenge, first dig two graves". Ascribed to Confucius. SOme 2,500 years before... Hmmm... Next Question: Which Bond & in which film? Mike. Taking the piss out of the FrenchAmericans since before it was fashionable. Prenait la pisse hors du FrançaisCanadiens méridionaux puisqu'avant lui à la mode. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites Gravitymaster 0 #90 July 30, 2006 Uh, oh.. The story is starting to fall apart. ***Hezbollah was using UN post as 'shield' Canadian wrote of militia's presence, 'necessity' of bombing The Ottawa Citizen Published: Thursday, July 27, 2006 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 on Tuesday night, said retired Maj.-Gen. Lewis MacKenzie yesterday. The strike hit the UN observation post in the southern Lebanese village of El Khiam, killing Canadian Maj. Paeta Hess-von Kruedener and three others serving as unarmed UN military observers in the area. Just last week, Maj. Hess-von Kruedener wrote an e-mail about his experiences after nine months in the area, words Maj.-Gen. 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 Maj.-Gen. 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. That would mean Hezbollah was purposely setting up near the UN post, he added. It's a tactic Maj.-Gen. 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. 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, Maj. Hess-von Kruedener 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. The e-mail appears to contradict the UN's claim there had been no Hezbollah activity in the vicinity of the strike. The question of Hezbollah's infiltration of the area is significant because UN Secretary General Kofi Annan, speaking Tuesday just hours after the bombing, accused the Israelis of the "apparently deliberate targeting" of the base near Khiam in southern Lebanon. A senior UN official, asked about the information contained in Maj. Hess-von Kruedener's e-mail concerning Hezbollah presence in the vicinity of the Khiam base, denied the world body had been caught in a contradiction. "At the time, there had been no Hezbollah activity reported in the area," he said. "So it was quite clear they were not going after other targets; that, for whatever reason, our position was being fired upon. "Whether or not they thought they were going after something else, we don't know. The fact was, we told them where we were. They knew where we were. The position was clearly marked, and they pounded the hell out of us." Even if Hezbollah was not firing rockets at the time of the bombing, Maj. Hess-von Kruedener's e-mail indicates they were using a terrorist tactic of purposely drawing out enemy forces near a neutral site, said retired Capt. 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 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, Capt. Forsberg said. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites falxori 0 #91 July 30, 2006 not surprising... "Carpe diem, quam minimum credula postero." Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites warpedskydiver 0 #92 July 30, 2006 This is what I had expected. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites jaaska 0 #93 July 30, 2006 As stated earlier, this is what most of us were expecting... Of course our point of view differs about the main point: Why did the IDF use deadly, precision-guided weapons (apparently not good enough? or something else?) to wipe out the observation point after of 6 hours and at least 10 phone calls to them that they were in fact going to kill the UN observers if they continued to bomb the same target? Equivalent to this would be: The police is using deadly force in your neighborhood. Someone in the next flat is a terrorist/drug dealer/whatever. Instead of being careful, they would level the place - including yours with you and your buddies playing poker... So what - they did get the bad guy, you and your buddies are collateral damage - TOO BAD, SO SAD! I mean, you did call them and all - they just didn't give a F***! Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites falxori 0 #94 July 30, 2006 QuoteEquivalent to this would be: The police is using deadly force in your neighborhood. Someone in the next flat is a terrorist/drug dealer/whatever. Instead of being careful, they would level the place - including yours with you and your buddies playing poker... So what - they did get the bad guy, you and your buddies are collateral damage - TOO BAD, SO SAD! I mean, you did call them and all - they just didn't give a F***! no, a more accurate analogy would be if... the terrorist/drug dealer/whatever is not just sitting in his flat, he is currently shooting at other civilians from your appartment. and on top of all, the police has asked you to leave but you've refused. then the police did what it had to do, risking hurting you in order to stop the terrorist/drug dealer/whatever from shooting at others in the area. "Carpe diem, quam minimum credula postero." Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites shropshire 0 #95 July 30, 2006 Sorry, but your extension is not too accurate... it also suposes the the UN was asked to leave or get blown up. That's not what appears to have happened.... The UN people called multiple times asking for the shooting to stop and it didn't. (.)Y(.) Chivalry is not dead; it only sleeps for want of work to do. - Jerome K Jerome Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites jaaska 0 #96 July 30, 2006 QuoteQuoteEquivalent to this would be: The police is using deadly force in your neighborhood. Someone in the next flat is a terrorist/drug dealer/whatever. Instead of being careful, they would level the place - including yours with you and your buddies playing poker... So what - they did get the bad guy, you and your buddies are collateral damage - TOO BAD, SO SAD! I mean, you did call them and all - they just didn't give a F***! no, a more accurate analogy would be if... the terrorist/drug dealer/whatever is not just sitting in his flat, he is currently shooting at other civilians from your appartment. and on top of all, the police has asked you to leave but you've refused. then the police did what it had to do, risking hurting you in order to stop the terrorist/drug dealer/whatever from shooting at others in the area. You know, the observers did have a "shelter" that provided cover for anything else but a direct aerial smart bombs... Just guessing, but I would say the H-bollah guys did not have an equivalent shelter build on the UN observation post yard. Thus, I would have understood if IDF would have used lighter, e.g. grenade shells (mortar or something) to just plain kill anyone near the site or even on the site (since the shelter would had provided cover for the observers). What I don't understand is that they seemed to want to flatten the whole post including the shelter (where the observers were trying to stay alive)? I haven't heard that the H-bollah has armoured vehicles nor anything similar so why such a heavy bombing unless your the goal was in fact to level the UN post...? So you analogy is actually incorrect - the H-bollah was not in nor on the observation post. They might have been right next to it. (So not in the flat, might have been in the next one...) Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites falxori 0 #97 July 30, 2006 QuoteThe UN people called multiple times asking for the shooting to stop and it didn't. maybe if UNIFIL did what it was meant to do and didn't allow Hizbollah to use its bases as cover. as soon as a building is used as cover for hizbollah fighters it cannot hide behind the UN flag. anyway, i think the email sent by the UN soldier a few days before the incident is pretty clear in showing that the UN there (much like the civilians) are hostages of Hizbollah "Carpe diem, quam minimum credula postero." Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites jaaska 0 #98 July 30, 2006 QuoteQuoteThe UN people called multiple times asking for the shooting to stop and it didn't. maybe if UNIFIL did what it was meant to do and didn't allow Hizbollah to use its bases as cover. as soon as a building is used as cover for hizbollah fighters it cannot hide behind the UN flag. anyway, i think the email sent by the UN soldier a few days before the incident is pretty clear in showing that the UN there (much like the civilians) are hostages of Hizbollah For F**KS sake - please, tell me what the UNIFIL was supposed to do there?!? I mean the US has basically vetoed everything that would have given the UN guys more leverage than just to observe. These guys were O B S E R V E R S. Look it up in the dictionary. Their mission is to observe what's going on and inform the UN... Nothing less, nothing more! The H-bollah was not in the post nor on the post's ground. They might have been next to it. Israel did not have to level the post including the shelter - it was totally un-called for... Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites falxori 0 #99 July 30, 2006 QuoteYou know, the observers did have a "shelter" that provided cover for anything else but a direct aerial smart bombs... Just guessing, but I would say the H-bollah guys did not have an equivalent shelter build on the UN observation post yard. Thus, I would have understood if IDF would have used lighter, e.g. grenade shells (mortar or something) to just plain kill anyone near the site or even on the site (since the shelter would had provided cover for the observers). so now you're saying it was justified to fire at the post, but the size of the bomb was not ok... what next? you want bombs that will ask a person if he's a member of Hezbollah before it explodes? let me quote again the guy who was actually there: Quote '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)," if Hezbollah was using this post it becomes a valid target, just like any other civilian building used to hide troops or rockets. its sad that civilians/UN get hurt, but its hezbollah who puts them there "Carpe diem, quam minimum credula postero." Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites Amazon 7 #100 July 30, 2006 I wonder if the UN Observers called Hezbollah and asked them to not fire their katusha rockets from the UN position Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites Prev 1 2 3 4 5 6 Next Page 4 of 6 Join the conversation You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account. Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible. Reply to this topic... × Pasted as rich text. Paste as plain text instead Only 75 emoji are allowed. × Your link has been automatically embedded. Display as a link instead × Your previous content has been restored. Clear editor × You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL. Insert image from URL × Desktop Tablet Phone Submit Reply 0 Go To Topic Listing
kallend 2,027 #78 July 30, 2006 QuoteQuote What does his nationality have to do with it? Only happened once? Wow, is that a good excuse for murder? Seems to me that it illustrates a certain mindset of "the authorities", also seen in Waco and Ruby Ridge. kallend, I was referring to your mindset in these threads. Clearly, you didn't get that. It really disappoints me. My mindset is disappointment in the general tendency of all governments to abuse civilians when it suits them. Clearly you don't get that.... The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
miked10270 0 #79 July 30, 2006 Quotealthough I didn't read the whole thread, let me get this straight. first, you say that it was deliberate because Israel used precision weapons so if it hits something it means that it meant to hit it. then you say that it was deliberate because there were several earlier tries that missed. Hi Ori, Also, it's not the first time: http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/middle_east/5228554.stm OF course Qana is described as being VERY supportive of Hezb'Allah. Something which I'm sure was helped by the previous bombardment of civilians sheltering in a UN compound. It's this & similar incidents which provide the inspiration & justification for another round of bombings. Arabs strap Semtex to themselves and Israel straps American Bombs to it's planes. The intention & results are exactly the same, the only difference is in the delivery system each side has available. One side uses "smart bombs" while the other side uses "not so smart bombs". The reasoning behind "who started it" now assumes the proportions of "The Chicken and The Egg"! Anyone want to go back further than Moses bringing all those Egyptian "Israelite" immigrants into the area and demanding a name change to Judea? May I suggest that the first step in "stopping it" would be for the arms suppliers to stop selling to that particular market? If America stopped shipping bombs and saved them up to help Syria see the benefits of not shipping rockets then the killing would become far less efficient. OK. Taking that to it's logical conclusion, both sides would probably end up throwing rocks at each other, but at least such ammunition is both environmentally friendly and recyclable. Bear in mind that WWI actually ended because one side (Germany) effectively "ran out of ammunition" (was unable to sustain it's side of the war). Put another way; If you turn off the water, the house stops flooding. This war isn't just a sad reflection on the folk actually fighting. It also reflects on the arms suppliers since they know full well the use their supplies will be put to. Mike. Taking the piss out of the FrenchAmericans since before it was fashionable. Prenait la pisse hors du FrançaisCanadiens méridionaux puisqu'avant lui à la mode. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
shropshire 0 #80 July 30, 2006 Good point ..... but the Uncaring Supplier of Arms would probably say... "If we didn't sell the bombs (sent through Atlas Air via Prestwick!! but we're ever so sorry that we didn't tell you) .... then someone else would & thus where would the profit in that be? So, as this nightmare continues, innocent kids on both sides willl be sleeping soundly at their permenant rest, whilst someone else counts the profit being made. . (.)Y(.) Chivalry is not dead; it only sleeps for want of work to do. - Jerome K Jerome Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
miked10270 0 #81 July 30, 2006 QuoteGood point ..... but the Uncaring Supplier of Arms would probably say... "If we didn't sell the bombs..... Y'All missed out the most important bit: The Uncaring Supplier of Arms uses AIRBUS A310's as it's preferred bomb carrier! Not Boeing!!! Consider the advertising potential for that! We should get a few orders for A380's just as soon as the freight version rolls out. Think how many bombs they could carry!Mike. PS: Surely THAT should provoke a significant portion of America to want the flights stopped! Using the competition indeed!! Taking the piss out of the FrenchAmericans since before it was fashionable. Prenait la pisse hors du FrançaisCanadiens méridionaux puisqu'avant lui à la mode. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
miked10270 0 #82 July 30, 2006 QuoteQuoteQuote This is reminiscent of Sir Arthur (Bomber) Harris's "They have sown the wind... They shall reap the whirlwind" speech. Harris was, of course, quoting scripture: “They sow the wind, and reap the whirlwind.", Hosea 8:7 Of course. Now, who was it said: "Before setting out to get revenge, first dig two graves"? Mike. Taking the piss out of the FrenchAmericans since before it was fashionable. Prenait la pisse hors du FrançaisCanadiens méridionaux puisqu'avant lui à la mode. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites shropshire 0 #83 July 30, 2006 oo....oo..... I know.......[waves hand furiously] 007 (.)Y(.) Chivalry is not dead; it only sleeps for want of work to do. - Jerome K Jerome Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites falxori 0 #84 July 30, 2006 QuoteAlso, it's not the first time: http://news.bbc.co.uk/...dle_east/5228554.stm don't forget the part were hizbollah fired its rockets from a few meters from that UN compound. I may be off but i think they might have known that and did it on purpose... QuoteThe reasoning behind "who started it" now assumes the proportions of "The Chicken and The Egg"! but who will stop it? sadly it takes one side to start but two to stop. QuoteBear in mind that WWI actually ended because one side (Germany) effectively "ran out of ammunition" your example is nice but the conclusion is wrong. if both sides of a conflict ran out of ammo they'll use sticks if needs be. according to your example, only one side has to run out of ammo for the war to stop. "Carpe diem, quam minimum credula postero." Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites kallend 2,027 #85 July 30, 2006 QuoteQuoteQuoteQuote This is reminiscent of Sir Arthur (Bomber) Harris's "They have sown the wind... They shall reap the whirlwind" speech. Harris was, of course, quoting scripture: “They sow the wind, and reap the whirlwind.", Hosea 8:7 Of course. Now, who was it said: "Before setting out to get revenge, first dig two graves"? Mike. James Bond?... The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites miked10270 0 #86 July 30, 2006 Quoteoo....oo..... I know.......[waves hand furiously] Oh come on then... The slightly scruffy boy at the back.. Taking the piss out of the FrenchAmericans since before it was fashionable. Prenait la pisse hors du FrançaisCanadiens méridionaux puisqu'avant lui à la mode. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites miked10270 0 #87 July 30, 2006 Quote... if both sides of a conflict ran out of ammo they'll use sticks if needs be.... I envisaged BOTH sides being starved of the means to conduct offense. This was a pop at BOTH Washington & Damascus. But to paraphrase the saying: "Sticks & Stones may break my bones... But they won't flatten buildings!" Mike. Taking the piss out of the FrenchAmericans since before it was fashionable. Prenait la pisse hors du FrançaisCanadiens méridionaux puisqu'avant lui à la mode. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites shropshire 0 #88 July 30, 2006 <> sir yes sir, me sir ...... 007 sir (.)Y(.) Chivalry is not dead; it only sleeps for want of work to do. - Jerome K Jerome Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites miked10270 0 #89 July 30, 2006 Quotesir yes sir, me sir ...... 007 sir Stupid Boy! 007 Actually said: "There's an old Chinese Proverb; Before setting out on a journey of revenge, first dig two graves". Ascribed to Confucius. SOme 2,500 years before... Hmmm... Next Question: Which Bond & in which film? Mike. Taking the piss out of the FrenchAmericans since before it was fashionable. Prenait la pisse hors du FrançaisCanadiens méridionaux puisqu'avant lui à la mode. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites Gravitymaster 0 #90 July 30, 2006 Uh, oh.. The story is starting to fall apart. ***Hezbollah was using UN post as 'shield' Canadian wrote of militia's presence, 'necessity' of bombing The Ottawa Citizen Published: Thursday, July 27, 2006 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 on Tuesday night, said retired Maj.-Gen. Lewis MacKenzie yesterday. The strike hit the UN observation post in the southern Lebanese village of El Khiam, killing Canadian Maj. Paeta Hess-von Kruedener and three others serving as unarmed UN military observers in the area. Just last week, Maj. Hess-von Kruedener wrote an e-mail about his experiences after nine months in the area, words Maj.-Gen. 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 Maj.-Gen. 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. That would mean Hezbollah was purposely setting up near the UN post, he added. It's a tactic Maj.-Gen. 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. 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, Maj. Hess-von Kruedener 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. The e-mail appears to contradict the UN's claim there had been no Hezbollah activity in the vicinity of the strike. The question of Hezbollah's infiltration of the area is significant because UN Secretary General Kofi Annan, speaking Tuesday just hours after the bombing, accused the Israelis of the "apparently deliberate targeting" of the base near Khiam in southern Lebanon. A senior UN official, asked about the information contained in Maj. Hess-von Kruedener's e-mail concerning Hezbollah presence in the vicinity of the Khiam base, denied the world body had been caught in a contradiction. "At the time, there had been no Hezbollah activity reported in the area," he said. "So it was quite clear they were not going after other targets; that, for whatever reason, our position was being fired upon. "Whether or not they thought they were going after something else, we don't know. The fact was, we told them where we were. They knew where we were. The position was clearly marked, and they pounded the hell out of us." Even if Hezbollah was not firing rockets at the time of the bombing, Maj. Hess-von Kruedener's e-mail indicates they were using a terrorist tactic of purposely drawing out enemy forces near a neutral site, said retired Capt. 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 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, Capt. Forsberg said. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites falxori 0 #91 July 30, 2006 not surprising... "Carpe diem, quam minimum credula postero." Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites warpedskydiver 0 #92 July 30, 2006 This is what I had expected. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites jaaska 0 #93 July 30, 2006 As stated earlier, this is what most of us were expecting... Of course our point of view differs about the main point: Why did the IDF use deadly, precision-guided weapons (apparently not good enough? or something else?) to wipe out the observation point after of 6 hours and at least 10 phone calls to them that they were in fact going to kill the UN observers if they continued to bomb the same target? Equivalent to this would be: The police is using deadly force in your neighborhood. Someone in the next flat is a terrorist/drug dealer/whatever. Instead of being careful, they would level the place - including yours with you and your buddies playing poker... So what - they did get the bad guy, you and your buddies are collateral damage - TOO BAD, SO SAD! I mean, you did call them and all - they just didn't give a F***! Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites falxori 0 #94 July 30, 2006 QuoteEquivalent to this would be: The police is using deadly force in your neighborhood. Someone in the next flat is a terrorist/drug dealer/whatever. Instead of being careful, they would level the place - including yours with you and your buddies playing poker... So what - they did get the bad guy, you and your buddies are collateral damage - TOO BAD, SO SAD! I mean, you did call them and all - they just didn't give a F***! no, a more accurate analogy would be if... the terrorist/drug dealer/whatever is not just sitting in his flat, he is currently shooting at other civilians from your appartment. and on top of all, the police has asked you to leave but you've refused. then the police did what it had to do, risking hurting you in order to stop the terrorist/drug dealer/whatever from shooting at others in the area. "Carpe diem, quam minimum credula postero." Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites shropshire 0 #95 July 30, 2006 Sorry, but your extension is not too accurate... it also suposes the the UN was asked to leave or get blown up. That's not what appears to have happened.... The UN people called multiple times asking for the shooting to stop and it didn't. (.)Y(.) Chivalry is not dead; it only sleeps for want of work to do. - Jerome K Jerome Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites jaaska 0 #96 July 30, 2006 QuoteQuoteEquivalent to this would be: The police is using deadly force in your neighborhood. Someone in the next flat is a terrorist/drug dealer/whatever. Instead of being careful, they would level the place - including yours with you and your buddies playing poker... So what - they did get the bad guy, you and your buddies are collateral damage - TOO BAD, SO SAD! I mean, you did call them and all - they just didn't give a F***! no, a more accurate analogy would be if... the terrorist/drug dealer/whatever is not just sitting in his flat, he is currently shooting at other civilians from your appartment. and on top of all, the police has asked you to leave but you've refused. then the police did what it had to do, risking hurting you in order to stop the terrorist/drug dealer/whatever from shooting at others in the area. You know, the observers did have a "shelter" that provided cover for anything else but a direct aerial smart bombs... Just guessing, but I would say the H-bollah guys did not have an equivalent shelter build on the UN observation post yard. Thus, I would have understood if IDF would have used lighter, e.g. grenade shells (mortar or something) to just plain kill anyone near the site or even on the site (since the shelter would had provided cover for the observers). What I don't understand is that they seemed to want to flatten the whole post including the shelter (where the observers were trying to stay alive)? I haven't heard that the H-bollah has armoured vehicles nor anything similar so why such a heavy bombing unless your the goal was in fact to level the UN post...? So you analogy is actually incorrect - the H-bollah was not in nor on the observation post. They might have been right next to it. (So not in the flat, might have been in the next one...) Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites falxori 0 #97 July 30, 2006 QuoteThe UN people called multiple times asking for the shooting to stop and it didn't. maybe if UNIFIL did what it was meant to do and didn't allow Hizbollah to use its bases as cover. as soon as a building is used as cover for hizbollah fighters it cannot hide behind the UN flag. anyway, i think the email sent by the UN soldier a few days before the incident is pretty clear in showing that the UN there (much like the civilians) are hostages of Hizbollah "Carpe diem, quam minimum credula postero." Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites jaaska 0 #98 July 30, 2006 QuoteQuoteThe UN people called multiple times asking for the shooting to stop and it didn't. maybe if UNIFIL did what it was meant to do and didn't allow Hizbollah to use its bases as cover. as soon as a building is used as cover for hizbollah fighters it cannot hide behind the UN flag. anyway, i think the email sent by the UN soldier a few days before the incident is pretty clear in showing that the UN there (much like the civilians) are hostages of Hizbollah For F**KS sake - please, tell me what the UNIFIL was supposed to do there?!? I mean the US has basically vetoed everything that would have given the UN guys more leverage than just to observe. These guys were O B S E R V E R S. Look it up in the dictionary. Their mission is to observe what's going on and inform the UN... Nothing less, nothing more! The H-bollah was not in the post nor on the post's ground. They might have been next to it. Israel did not have to level the post including the shelter - it was totally un-called for... Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites falxori 0 #99 July 30, 2006 QuoteYou know, the observers did have a "shelter" that provided cover for anything else but a direct aerial smart bombs... Just guessing, but I would say the H-bollah guys did not have an equivalent shelter build on the UN observation post yard. Thus, I would have understood if IDF would have used lighter, e.g. grenade shells (mortar or something) to just plain kill anyone near the site or even on the site (since the shelter would had provided cover for the observers). so now you're saying it was justified to fire at the post, but the size of the bomb was not ok... what next? you want bombs that will ask a person if he's a member of Hezbollah before it explodes? let me quote again the guy who was actually there: Quote '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)," if Hezbollah was using this post it becomes a valid target, just like any other civilian building used to hide troops or rockets. its sad that civilians/UN get hurt, but its hezbollah who puts them there "Carpe diem, quam minimum credula postero." Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites Amazon 7 #100 July 30, 2006 I wonder if the UN Observers called Hezbollah and asked them to not fire their katusha rockets from the UN position Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites Prev 1 2 3 4 5 6 Next Page 4 of 6 Join the conversation You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account. Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible. Reply to this topic... × Pasted as rich text. Paste as plain text instead Only 75 emoji are allowed. × Your link has been automatically embedded. Display as a link instead × Your previous content has been restored. Clear editor × You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL. Insert image from URL × Desktop Tablet Phone Submit Reply 0 Go To Topic Listing
shropshire 0 #83 July 30, 2006 oo....oo..... I know.......[waves hand furiously] 007 (.)Y(.) Chivalry is not dead; it only sleeps for want of work to do. - Jerome K Jerome Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
falxori 0 #84 July 30, 2006 QuoteAlso, it's not the first time: http://news.bbc.co.uk/...dle_east/5228554.stm don't forget the part were hizbollah fired its rockets from a few meters from that UN compound. I may be off but i think they might have known that and did it on purpose... QuoteThe reasoning behind "who started it" now assumes the proportions of "The Chicken and The Egg"! but who will stop it? sadly it takes one side to start but two to stop. QuoteBear in mind that WWI actually ended because one side (Germany) effectively "ran out of ammunition" your example is nice but the conclusion is wrong. if both sides of a conflict ran out of ammo they'll use sticks if needs be. according to your example, only one side has to run out of ammo for the war to stop. "Carpe diem, quam minimum credula postero." Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kallend 2,027 #85 July 30, 2006 QuoteQuoteQuoteQuote This is reminiscent of Sir Arthur (Bomber) Harris's "They have sown the wind... They shall reap the whirlwind" speech. Harris was, of course, quoting scripture: “They sow the wind, and reap the whirlwind.", Hosea 8:7 Of course. Now, who was it said: "Before setting out to get revenge, first dig two graves"? Mike. James Bond?... The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites miked10270 0 #86 July 30, 2006 Quoteoo....oo..... I know.......[waves hand furiously] Oh come on then... The slightly scruffy boy at the back.. Taking the piss out of the FrenchAmericans since before it was fashionable. Prenait la pisse hors du FrançaisCanadiens méridionaux puisqu'avant lui à la mode. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites miked10270 0 #87 July 30, 2006 Quote... if both sides of a conflict ran out of ammo they'll use sticks if needs be.... I envisaged BOTH sides being starved of the means to conduct offense. This was a pop at BOTH Washington & Damascus. But to paraphrase the saying: "Sticks & Stones may break my bones... But they won't flatten buildings!" Mike. Taking the piss out of the FrenchAmericans since before it was fashionable. Prenait la pisse hors du FrançaisCanadiens méridionaux puisqu'avant lui à la mode. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites shropshire 0 #88 July 30, 2006 <> sir yes sir, me sir ...... 007 sir (.)Y(.) Chivalry is not dead; it only sleeps for want of work to do. - Jerome K Jerome Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites miked10270 0 #89 July 30, 2006 Quotesir yes sir, me sir ...... 007 sir Stupid Boy! 007 Actually said: "There's an old Chinese Proverb; Before setting out on a journey of revenge, first dig two graves". Ascribed to Confucius. SOme 2,500 years before... Hmmm... Next Question: Which Bond & in which film? Mike. Taking the piss out of the FrenchAmericans since before it was fashionable. Prenait la pisse hors du FrançaisCanadiens méridionaux puisqu'avant lui à la mode. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites Gravitymaster 0 #90 July 30, 2006 Uh, oh.. The story is starting to fall apart. ***Hezbollah was using UN post as 'shield' Canadian wrote of militia's presence, 'necessity' of bombing The Ottawa Citizen Published: Thursday, July 27, 2006 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 on Tuesday night, said retired Maj.-Gen. Lewis MacKenzie yesterday. The strike hit the UN observation post in the southern Lebanese village of El Khiam, killing Canadian Maj. Paeta Hess-von Kruedener and three others serving as unarmed UN military observers in the area. Just last week, Maj. Hess-von Kruedener wrote an e-mail about his experiences after nine months in the area, words Maj.-Gen. 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 Maj.-Gen. 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. That would mean Hezbollah was purposely setting up near the UN post, he added. It's a tactic Maj.-Gen. 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. 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, Maj. Hess-von Kruedener 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. The e-mail appears to contradict the UN's claim there had been no Hezbollah activity in the vicinity of the strike. The question of Hezbollah's infiltration of the area is significant because UN Secretary General Kofi Annan, speaking Tuesday just hours after the bombing, accused the Israelis of the "apparently deliberate targeting" of the base near Khiam in southern Lebanon. A senior UN official, asked about the information contained in Maj. Hess-von Kruedener's e-mail concerning Hezbollah presence in the vicinity of the Khiam base, denied the world body had been caught in a contradiction. "At the time, there had been no Hezbollah activity reported in the area," he said. "So it was quite clear they were not going after other targets; that, for whatever reason, our position was being fired upon. "Whether or not they thought they were going after something else, we don't know. The fact was, we told them where we were. They knew where we were. The position was clearly marked, and they pounded the hell out of us." Even if Hezbollah was not firing rockets at the time of the bombing, Maj. Hess-von Kruedener's e-mail indicates they were using a terrorist tactic of purposely drawing out enemy forces near a neutral site, said retired Capt. 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 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, Capt. Forsberg said. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites falxori 0 #91 July 30, 2006 not surprising... "Carpe diem, quam minimum credula postero." Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites warpedskydiver 0 #92 July 30, 2006 This is what I had expected. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites jaaska 0 #93 July 30, 2006 As stated earlier, this is what most of us were expecting... Of course our point of view differs about the main point: Why did the IDF use deadly, precision-guided weapons (apparently not good enough? or something else?) to wipe out the observation point after of 6 hours and at least 10 phone calls to them that they were in fact going to kill the UN observers if they continued to bomb the same target? Equivalent to this would be: The police is using deadly force in your neighborhood. Someone in the next flat is a terrorist/drug dealer/whatever. Instead of being careful, they would level the place - including yours with you and your buddies playing poker... So what - they did get the bad guy, you and your buddies are collateral damage - TOO BAD, SO SAD! I mean, you did call them and all - they just didn't give a F***! Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites falxori 0 #94 July 30, 2006 QuoteEquivalent to this would be: The police is using deadly force in your neighborhood. Someone in the next flat is a terrorist/drug dealer/whatever. Instead of being careful, they would level the place - including yours with you and your buddies playing poker... So what - they did get the bad guy, you and your buddies are collateral damage - TOO BAD, SO SAD! I mean, you did call them and all - they just didn't give a F***! no, a more accurate analogy would be if... the terrorist/drug dealer/whatever is not just sitting in his flat, he is currently shooting at other civilians from your appartment. and on top of all, the police has asked you to leave but you've refused. then the police did what it had to do, risking hurting you in order to stop the terrorist/drug dealer/whatever from shooting at others in the area. "Carpe diem, quam minimum credula postero." Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites shropshire 0 #95 July 30, 2006 Sorry, but your extension is not too accurate... it also suposes the the UN was asked to leave or get blown up. That's not what appears to have happened.... The UN people called multiple times asking for the shooting to stop and it didn't. (.)Y(.) Chivalry is not dead; it only sleeps for want of work to do. - Jerome K Jerome Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites jaaska 0 #96 July 30, 2006 QuoteQuoteEquivalent to this would be: The police is using deadly force in your neighborhood. Someone in the next flat is a terrorist/drug dealer/whatever. Instead of being careful, they would level the place - including yours with you and your buddies playing poker... So what - they did get the bad guy, you and your buddies are collateral damage - TOO BAD, SO SAD! I mean, you did call them and all - they just didn't give a F***! no, a more accurate analogy would be if... the terrorist/drug dealer/whatever is not just sitting in his flat, he is currently shooting at other civilians from your appartment. and on top of all, the police has asked you to leave but you've refused. then the police did what it had to do, risking hurting you in order to stop the terrorist/drug dealer/whatever from shooting at others in the area. You know, the observers did have a "shelter" that provided cover for anything else but a direct aerial smart bombs... Just guessing, but I would say the H-bollah guys did not have an equivalent shelter build on the UN observation post yard. Thus, I would have understood if IDF would have used lighter, e.g. grenade shells (mortar or something) to just plain kill anyone near the site or even on the site (since the shelter would had provided cover for the observers). What I don't understand is that they seemed to want to flatten the whole post including the shelter (where the observers were trying to stay alive)? I haven't heard that the H-bollah has armoured vehicles nor anything similar so why such a heavy bombing unless your the goal was in fact to level the UN post...? So you analogy is actually incorrect - the H-bollah was not in nor on the observation post. They might have been right next to it. (So not in the flat, might have been in the next one...) Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites falxori 0 #97 July 30, 2006 QuoteThe UN people called multiple times asking for the shooting to stop and it didn't. maybe if UNIFIL did what it was meant to do and didn't allow Hizbollah to use its bases as cover. as soon as a building is used as cover for hizbollah fighters it cannot hide behind the UN flag. anyway, i think the email sent by the UN soldier a few days before the incident is pretty clear in showing that the UN there (much like the civilians) are hostages of Hizbollah "Carpe diem, quam minimum credula postero." Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites jaaska 0 #98 July 30, 2006 QuoteQuoteThe UN people called multiple times asking for the shooting to stop and it didn't. maybe if UNIFIL did what it was meant to do and didn't allow Hizbollah to use its bases as cover. as soon as a building is used as cover for hizbollah fighters it cannot hide behind the UN flag. anyway, i think the email sent by the UN soldier a few days before the incident is pretty clear in showing that the UN there (much like the civilians) are hostages of Hizbollah For F**KS sake - please, tell me what the UNIFIL was supposed to do there?!? I mean the US has basically vetoed everything that would have given the UN guys more leverage than just to observe. These guys were O B S E R V E R S. Look it up in the dictionary. Their mission is to observe what's going on and inform the UN... Nothing less, nothing more! The H-bollah was not in the post nor on the post's ground. They might have been next to it. Israel did not have to level the post including the shelter - it was totally un-called for... Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites falxori 0 #99 July 30, 2006 QuoteYou know, the observers did have a "shelter" that provided cover for anything else but a direct aerial smart bombs... Just guessing, but I would say the H-bollah guys did not have an equivalent shelter build on the UN observation post yard. Thus, I would have understood if IDF would have used lighter, e.g. grenade shells (mortar or something) to just plain kill anyone near the site or even on the site (since the shelter would had provided cover for the observers). so now you're saying it was justified to fire at the post, but the size of the bomb was not ok... what next? you want bombs that will ask a person if he's a member of Hezbollah before it explodes? let me quote again the guy who was actually there: Quote '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)," if Hezbollah was using this post it becomes a valid target, just like any other civilian building used to hide troops or rockets. its sad that civilians/UN get hurt, but its hezbollah who puts them there "Carpe diem, quam minimum credula postero." Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites Amazon 7 #100 July 30, 2006 I wonder if the UN Observers called Hezbollah and asked them to not fire their katusha rockets from the UN position Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites Prev 1 2 3 4 5 6 Next Page 4 of 6 Join the conversation You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account. Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible. Reply to this topic... × Pasted as rich text. Paste as plain text instead Only 75 emoji are allowed. × Your link has been automatically embedded. Display as a link instead × Your previous content has been restored. Clear editor × You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL. Insert image from URL × Desktop Tablet Phone Submit Reply 0
miked10270 0 #86 July 30, 2006 Quoteoo....oo..... I know.......[waves hand furiously] Oh come on then... The slightly scruffy boy at the back.. Taking the piss out of the FrenchAmericans since before it was fashionable. Prenait la pisse hors du FrançaisCanadiens méridionaux puisqu'avant lui à la mode. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
miked10270 0 #87 July 30, 2006 Quote... if both sides of a conflict ran out of ammo they'll use sticks if needs be.... I envisaged BOTH sides being starved of the means to conduct offense. This was a pop at BOTH Washington & Damascus. But to paraphrase the saying: "Sticks & Stones may break my bones... But they won't flatten buildings!" Mike. Taking the piss out of the FrenchAmericans since before it was fashionable. Prenait la pisse hors du FrançaisCanadiens méridionaux puisqu'avant lui à la mode. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
shropshire 0 #88 July 30, 2006 <> sir yes sir, me sir ...... 007 sir (.)Y(.) Chivalry is not dead; it only sleeps for want of work to do. - Jerome K Jerome Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
miked10270 0 #89 July 30, 2006 Quotesir yes sir, me sir ...... 007 sir Stupid Boy! 007 Actually said: "There's an old Chinese Proverb; Before setting out on a journey of revenge, first dig two graves". Ascribed to Confucius. SOme 2,500 years before... Hmmm... Next Question: Which Bond & in which film? Mike. Taking the piss out of the FrenchAmericans since before it was fashionable. Prenait la pisse hors du FrançaisCanadiens méridionaux puisqu'avant lui à la mode. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Gravitymaster 0 #90 July 30, 2006 Uh, oh.. The story is starting to fall apart. ***Hezbollah was using UN post as 'shield' Canadian wrote of militia's presence, 'necessity' of bombing The Ottawa Citizen Published: Thursday, July 27, 2006 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 on Tuesday night, said retired Maj.-Gen. Lewis MacKenzie yesterday. The strike hit the UN observation post in the southern Lebanese village of El Khiam, killing Canadian Maj. Paeta Hess-von Kruedener and three others serving as unarmed UN military observers in the area. Just last week, Maj. Hess-von Kruedener wrote an e-mail about his experiences after nine months in the area, words Maj.-Gen. 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 Maj.-Gen. 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. That would mean Hezbollah was purposely setting up near the UN post, he added. It's a tactic Maj.-Gen. 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. 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, Maj. Hess-von Kruedener 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. The e-mail appears to contradict the UN's claim there had been no Hezbollah activity in the vicinity of the strike. The question of Hezbollah's infiltration of the area is significant because UN Secretary General Kofi Annan, speaking Tuesday just hours after the bombing, accused the Israelis of the "apparently deliberate targeting" of the base near Khiam in southern Lebanon. A senior UN official, asked about the information contained in Maj. Hess-von Kruedener's e-mail concerning Hezbollah presence in the vicinity of the Khiam base, denied the world body had been caught in a contradiction. "At the time, there had been no Hezbollah activity reported in the area," he said. "So it was quite clear they were not going after other targets; that, for whatever reason, our position was being fired upon. "Whether or not they thought they were going after something else, we don't know. The fact was, we told them where we were. They knew where we were. The position was clearly marked, and they pounded the hell out of us." Even if Hezbollah was not firing rockets at the time of the bombing, Maj. Hess-von Kruedener's e-mail indicates they were using a terrorist tactic of purposely drawing out enemy forces near a neutral site, said retired Capt. 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 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, Capt. Forsberg said. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
falxori 0 #91 July 30, 2006 not surprising... "Carpe diem, quam minimum credula postero." Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
warpedskydiver 0 #92 July 30, 2006 This is what I had expected. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
jaaska 0 #93 July 30, 2006 As stated earlier, this is what most of us were expecting... Of course our point of view differs about the main point: Why did the IDF use deadly, precision-guided weapons (apparently not good enough? or something else?) to wipe out the observation point after of 6 hours and at least 10 phone calls to them that they were in fact going to kill the UN observers if they continued to bomb the same target? Equivalent to this would be: The police is using deadly force in your neighborhood. Someone in the next flat is a terrorist/drug dealer/whatever. Instead of being careful, they would level the place - including yours with you and your buddies playing poker... So what - they did get the bad guy, you and your buddies are collateral damage - TOO BAD, SO SAD! I mean, you did call them and all - they just didn't give a F***! Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
falxori 0 #94 July 30, 2006 QuoteEquivalent to this would be: The police is using deadly force in your neighborhood. Someone in the next flat is a terrorist/drug dealer/whatever. Instead of being careful, they would level the place - including yours with you and your buddies playing poker... So what - they did get the bad guy, you and your buddies are collateral damage - TOO BAD, SO SAD! I mean, you did call them and all - they just didn't give a F***! no, a more accurate analogy would be if... the terrorist/drug dealer/whatever is not just sitting in his flat, he is currently shooting at other civilians from your appartment. and on top of all, the police has asked you to leave but you've refused. then the police did what it had to do, risking hurting you in order to stop the terrorist/drug dealer/whatever from shooting at others in the area. "Carpe diem, quam minimum credula postero." Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
shropshire 0 #95 July 30, 2006 Sorry, but your extension is not too accurate... it also suposes the the UN was asked to leave or get blown up. That's not what appears to have happened.... The UN people called multiple times asking for the shooting to stop and it didn't. (.)Y(.) Chivalry is not dead; it only sleeps for want of work to do. - Jerome K Jerome Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
jaaska 0 #96 July 30, 2006 QuoteQuoteEquivalent to this would be: The police is using deadly force in your neighborhood. Someone in the next flat is a terrorist/drug dealer/whatever. Instead of being careful, they would level the place - including yours with you and your buddies playing poker... So what - they did get the bad guy, you and your buddies are collateral damage - TOO BAD, SO SAD! I mean, you did call them and all - they just didn't give a F***! no, a more accurate analogy would be if... the terrorist/drug dealer/whatever is not just sitting in his flat, he is currently shooting at other civilians from your appartment. and on top of all, the police has asked you to leave but you've refused. then the police did what it had to do, risking hurting you in order to stop the terrorist/drug dealer/whatever from shooting at others in the area. You know, the observers did have a "shelter" that provided cover for anything else but a direct aerial smart bombs... Just guessing, but I would say the H-bollah guys did not have an equivalent shelter build on the UN observation post yard. Thus, I would have understood if IDF would have used lighter, e.g. grenade shells (mortar or something) to just plain kill anyone near the site or even on the site (since the shelter would had provided cover for the observers). What I don't understand is that they seemed to want to flatten the whole post including the shelter (where the observers were trying to stay alive)? I haven't heard that the H-bollah has armoured vehicles nor anything similar so why such a heavy bombing unless your the goal was in fact to level the UN post...? So you analogy is actually incorrect - the H-bollah was not in nor on the observation post. They might have been right next to it. (So not in the flat, might have been in the next one...) Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
falxori 0 #97 July 30, 2006 QuoteThe UN people called multiple times asking for the shooting to stop and it didn't. maybe if UNIFIL did what it was meant to do and didn't allow Hizbollah to use its bases as cover. as soon as a building is used as cover for hizbollah fighters it cannot hide behind the UN flag. anyway, i think the email sent by the UN soldier a few days before the incident is pretty clear in showing that the UN there (much like the civilians) are hostages of Hizbollah "Carpe diem, quam minimum credula postero." Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
jaaska 0 #98 July 30, 2006 QuoteQuoteThe UN people called multiple times asking for the shooting to stop and it didn't. maybe if UNIFIL did what it was meant to do and didn't allow Hizbollah to use its bases as cover. as soon as a building is used as cover for hizbollah fighters it cannot hide behind the UN flag. anyway, i think the email sent by the UN soldier a few days before the incident is pretty clear in showing that the UN there (much like the civilians) are hostages of Hizbollah For F**KS sake - please, tell me what the UNIFIL was supposed to do there?!? I mean the US has basically vetoed everything that would have given the UN guys more leverage than just to observe. These guys were O B S E R V E R S. Look it up in the dictionary. Their mission is to observe what's going on and inform the UN... Nothing less, nothing more! The H-bollah was not in the post nor on the post's ground. They might have been next to it. Israel did not have to level the post including the shelter - it was totally un-called for... Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
falxori 0 #99 July 30, 2006 QuoteYou know, the observers did have a "shelter" that provided cover for anything else but a direct aerial smart bombs... Just guessing, but I would say the H-bollah guys did not have an equivalent shelter build on the UN observation post yard. Thus, I would have understood if IDF would have used lighter, e.g. grenade shells (mortar or something) to just plain kill anyone near the site or even on the site (since the shelter would had provided cover for the observers). so now you're saying it was justified to fire at the post, but the size of the bomb was not ok... what next? you want bombs that will ask a person if he's a member of Hezbollah before it explodes? let me quote again the guy who was actually there: Quote '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)," if Hezbollah was using this post it becomes a valid target, just like any other civilian building used to hide troops or rockets. its sad that civilians/UN get hurt, but its hezbollah who puts them there "Carpe diem, quam minimum credula postero." Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Amazon 7 #100 July 30, 2006 I wonder if the UN Observers called Hezbollah and asked them to not fire their katusha rockets from the UN position Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
