Middle East Continued Again...

[notyoueither]

Surrounded by it.

[Chemical Ollie]

On the radio news a few days ago, I heard some quote by an Israeli politician: "-We will destroy ten residental houses in Lebanon for every rocket that is fired into Israel".

I must say that's about the sickest thing I've heard in a long time, and if the qoute is correct, it means that Israel admits to deliberately targeting civilians.

[Guardian]

If that is true, then it's starting to sound almost like the kind of things the nazis did to "pacify" the resistance in territories they occupied during WWII.

Here in Norway, at a place called Telavåg, there was a local resistance group that helped smuggle people across the North Sea to and from Britain. The Nazis found out about it and sent the Gestapo out there to crack down on the group, but something went very wrong and a couple of high ranking Gestapo officers were killed.

In retaliation, the Nazis blew up every last house in Telavåg and deported everyone. Also, at a prison in the east of the country, they picked out 18 prisoners - who had precisely nothing to do with Telavåg - and shot them.

In Poland, when the Nazis entered a village, they used to have already prepared lists of local residents who would serve as "hostages". They would post the lists in public areas and then announce the "prices" of resistance. For example, destroying or damaging German property could be punished by shooting the first 3 people on the list. Next time somebody tried something, they would shoot the next 6 people on the list. And so on...

Now, I'm not comparing this to what Israel is doing - yet...
But I am saying that quotes like "We will destroy ten residental houses in Lebanon for every rocket", etc. will always leave a very bad taste in my mouth and tend to reduce my sympathy and understanding for whomever I hear making such threats.

[notyoueither]

And the source is?

[Flip McWho]

Israeli politician does not necessarily mean somebody in power as well.

[MOBIUS]

Originally posted by Guardian
Oh, so basically, "Anyone who disagrees with me is either a moron or a barbarian", huh?

Well, that's a nice attitude...

Not really. There are degrees of disagreement, where who is right or wrong is purely a matter of opinion - generally I stick to calling people morons where it is blindingly obvious they are wrong...

I also happen to back my arguments up with cast iron analysis of why I think I do - most of the retards on Poly are usually of the "I think X is correct because it is" blind faith in their 'beliefs' in favour of solid proof. Just like all the idiots who believe in the obvious fallacy of organised religion...

If I have to keep hammering the same obvious points home endlessly, I am liable to think less of those who appear unable to grasp simple concepts...

I wonder... exactly how far is this from "Anyone who disagrees with me is an enemy whom I can take a shot at" ?

No wonder we have wars in the world...

We have wars in this world precisely because of the idiots that believe overwhelmingly disproportionate force is right.

I referred to the inability to grasp simple concepts: Indiscriminately killing civilians, destroying the infrastructure of a non-combatant country (Israel itself has already stated it doesn't believe the Leb govt is involved), targeting UN personnel after repeated warnings to stop - targeting their rescuers after giving them permission to help!

Seriously, does anyone honest believe Israel's response is proportionate or justified!!!? It has turned into a series of squalid war crimes no better than hezb and far more devastating in magnitude - when someone said you need to think like the enemy to beat him, I'm sure that person didn't mean act like your enemy as well!

They are just using terror tactics on a helpless and innocent population!

Another reason why it's wrong is that it isn't even working!

More rockets than ever were fired by hezb in a day. The most IDF deaths in a day - not only is Israel losing the political battle, it is losing the military one too tactically and strategically. And basically they deserve it!

Everyone seems quick to forget that hezb's rocket attacks on Haifa and other Israeli civ towns only started with real ferocity when Israel attacked Leb civ targets...

Basically every Israeli tactic has been wrong so far and now they are reaping what they sowed...

[BeBMan]

Originally posted by Spiffor

So, if I understand well, you think the cannons fired on a target close to the UN post, and that 20% of those shots hit the UN because of bad luck.

Now, please explain me why a precision missile destroyed the bunker in which the UN soldiers hid.

I dunno. I'd rather not believe that Israel intentionally attacked the post because that would be outright stupid, without any gain for Israel, esp. in a situation like this where they talking about an international force there (and Israel seemed to favor this too).

Still it's a big fubar and the UN guys certainly aren't responsible for Israel's mistakes.

[Guardian]

It would be interesting to know which "Israeli politician" we're talking about and if he or she has any real influence or was just blowing hot air.

I have heard interviews with an "American politician" (Ann Coulter) who has argued in full sincerity that the US should nuke North Korea, but I don't think that's official policy - even under the Bush Administration.

[BeBMan]

But Ann Coulter is dumb.

[Guardian]

Agreed. And so could the "Israeli politician" be, right?

[MOBIUS]

Originally posted by BeBro


I dunno. I'd rather not believe that Israel intentionally attacked the post because that would be outright stupid, without any gain for Israel, esp. in a situation like this where they talking about an international force there (and Israel seemed to favor this too).

Still it's a big fubar and the UN guys certainly aren't responsible for Israel's mistakes.

As I said earlier it has lots to gain if the UN pulls out and is not replaced by an international force...

Already Australia (a staunch US ally) is pulling out its 12 peacekeepers in the area and I doubt it will be contributing to an international force.

Notice how everyone agrees there should be an international force but no one has offered any troops yet?

This attack will delay one being sent it and all the while Israel will be blasting 10, 20, 30 - 100 civilians just trying to get that one hezb fighter they *think* is hiding amongst them...

Indeed they think the Rome summit is carte blanche to continue their bombardment...

[MOBIUS]

The summit fails. War rages

· 14 IDF soldiers killed
· Surprise at Hizbullah strength
· US-UK block ceasefire move

Ewen MacAskill and Ian Black in Jerusalem and Rory McCarthy in Haifa
Thursday July 27, 2006
The Guardian

Israel yesterday suffered its worst day since the Lebanon conflict began when 14 of its soldiers were believed to have been killed in fighting with Hizbullah, a military calamity that could prove to be a turning point in the war

The setback appeared to unnerve Ehud Olmert, Israel's prime minister. Less than a day after he had vowed to fight Hizbullah to the end, he yesterday spoke for a need for a quick end to the conflict. The Israeli military has been taken by surprise by the ferocity of Hizbullah's resistance and may have to rethink its strategy.

Last night Mr Olmert called an emergency meeting of his generals as General Udi Adam, head of the Israeli army's northern command, said fighting in Lebanon could continue for several more weeks. Israel confirmed that eight soldiers were killed and 22 injured in a fierce battle with Hizbullah fighters at Bint Jbeil in southern Lebanon. The death toll was expected to rise to at least 13.

Later, it emerged that an Israeli officer was killed in Maroun el-Ras, a village the army had moved in to over the weekend. Four other soldiers were injured.

Even before the scale of casualties was disclosed there had been growing disquiet in Israel over the failure to stop rocket attacks on the north of the country - more than 100 landed yesterday - and the absence of a significant victory against the Shia guerrillas in more than two weeks of fighting. Israel Radio said yesterday's casualties marked a potential turning point for public opinion, which has so far been strongly in favour of the war.

Fighting escalated on both sides as the much-vaunted peace conference in Rome broke up after failing to reach agreement to call for an immediate ceasefire. Condoleezza Rice, the US secretary of state, backed by Margaret Beckett, the foreign secretary, resisted calls from 13 other countries, as well as the UN secretary-general, Kofi Annan, for such a ceasefire.

Ms Rice said: "We have to have a plan that will actually create conditions in which we can have a ceasefire that will be sustainable." Mrs Beckett said: "Even if you could get a ceasefire half an hour ago, you would probably be back in hostilities in a few days."

The summit ended in failure, issuing only a joint statement in support of sending an international force into Lebanon under a UN mandate but without any specifics of which countries might contribute troops. Diplomats, who have failed to come up with a solution after two weeks of fighting, now head back to the UN security council but no discussion is likely there until next week.

In another setback for Israel, Mr Olmert yesterday had to apologise for the deaths of four UN observers, killed by Israeli shelling at a border post, after protests from the international community.

In a seeming U-turn, Mr Olmert signalled that he would make do with a weakened Hizbullah rather than one that had been completely disarmed. "We want to stop the operation as fast as possible," Mr Olmert told MPs, "but we will not do so until we achieve the results which would justify the price we have paid and which would prevent us paying a price which we cannot pay."

Israel has hundreds of troops in southern Lebanon fighting house to house, and village to village, in an attempt to create a buffer zone that they hope will be filled by a multinational peacekeeping force some time in the future.

Israel tried to balance its losses by claiming that Hizbullah had lost scores of men in the heavy fighting which was continuing as night fell. Hizbullah, which is heavily armed, has reportedly mined all approaches from Israel. The guerrillas are said to have sophisticated roadside bombs of the type used against US and British forces in Iraq and Afghanistan.

Israeli analysts predicted there will be a change in military strategy following the latest casualties. "There will be pressure from the public for a change of strategy. This will be a shock," the military commentator Ron Ben-Yishai said.

A more far-reaching possibility is to move straight to the search for a deal that would have to include negotiations with Syria, Hizbullah's chief ally after Iran, as well as a prisoner swap.

"We have had two weeks of fighting and we are still at a draw," said one Israeli opposition MP. "We have not been able to destroy all the launchers. There is the danger of sinking back into the Lebanese quagmire ... If our goal is not to destroy Hizbullah we have to think about diplomatic means and bring Syria into negotiations. At the moment we have no exit strategy."

Two Israeli missiles last night struck a seven-storey building in the centre of Tyre injuring 12 people, including six children, hospital officials said. The building was used as a Hizbullah community centre and included a school. In Gaza, Israeli forces killed 21 Palestinians, including three children.

So basically abject failure then - already weakly talking of talks with Syria and Iran, prisoner swaps and damaging rather than destroying hezb...

[Guardian]

I've heard two different UN veterans argue two different views on possible reasons for the bombing of the UN bunker.

One of them practically argued that this had to be a deliberate attack on the UN post because the Israelis know southern Lebanon better than most peple know their own backyards. They knew exactly where that post was and in his opinion could not possibly not have known they were hitting it.
He argued that the UN post was monitoring and reporting movements and activities by all parties in the area and that this was "inconvenient" for Israel at the moment.


The other guy argued - like the one notyoueither heard on Canadian TV - that the Hezbollah is notorious for operating in civilian neighborhoods and close to UN positions. So, he went pretty far in suggesting that the Hezbollah had been moving stockpiles closer to the UN post or something and that this could be the reason for the Israeli bombardment.

On the other hand, the observers who were at the post claimed there was nothing anywhere near them that would be a legitimate target for Israel. But I suppose if they were holed up at their post, they couldn't have known what was going on behind even the nearest buildings.

It's hard to know what really happened here, but it's easy to see what shouldn't have. I have to say I am somewhat less understanding towards Israel after this...

[MOBIUS]

And the US are in this **** up to their eyebrows...

Beckett protest at weapons flight

Glasgow Prestwick Airport
The airport said it provided logistical support to military flights
British Foreign Secretary Margaret Beckett has protested to the US about its use of Prestwick Airport in western Scotland to transport bombs to Israel.

Amid the Lebanon crisis, she said it seemed the US was ignoring procedure, and she registered her concerns with US Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice.

SNP leader Alex Salmond claimed the UK government must decide whether to "be an aircraft carrier" for the US.

The Lib Dems suggested the Americans were taking the UK for granted.

Mrs Beckett was asked about the controversy after discussing the Middle East crisis with fellow foreign ministers in Rome.

"We have already let the United States know that this is an issue that appears to be seriously at fault, and we will be making a formal protest if it appears that that is what has happened," she said.

Do we really think that it's a great idea at this particular moment with an escalating Middle East conflict to have GBUs [guided bomb units] sent to arm one side in that conflict to the teeth?
Alex Salmond

Opposition parties have reacted angrily to a report in The Daily Telegraph newspaper that two chartered Airbus A310 cargo planes filled with laser-guided bombs landed at Prestwick en-route to Israel from the US.

The Israelis have requested the munitions to attack bunkers being used by Hezbollah militants in Lebanon.

'Provocative'

Mr Salmond said that "with an escalating Middle East conflict", it was ill-advised to send bombs "to arm one side in that conflict to the teeth, at a time when hundreds of civilians, many children, United Nations observers, have already been eliminated, killed, by similar weapons".

He told BBC Radio 4's Today programme that for the UK to stand up to the Americans, it "would require an independent foreign policy, as opposed to merely acquiescing everything the United States chooses to do".

If these reports are true, it is particularly provocative for the United States to have acted in this way
Sir Menzies Campbell

Liberal Democrat leader Sir Menzies Campbell called for the UK government to respond

"If these reports are true, it is particularly provocative for the United States to have acted in this way," he said.

"It can only reinforce the belief of many that Britain is taken for granted in the so-called special relationship.

"Who knows how many of these munitions may be used to cause the kind of damage to Lebanon which the prime minister of that country described in Rome as cutting his country to pieces."

According to BBC Two's Newsnight programme, the US has lodged requests to bring two more planes through the UK carrying bombs and missiles for Israel in the next two weeks.

'Logistical support'

A Foreign Office spokesman said: "We have procedures in place for flights carrying arms.

"It's important that they are followed. If they are not, we will raise it with the US but we are not going to comment on US flights transiting through the UK.

"The foreign secretary has discussed this issue with Condoleezza Rice."

A Downing Street spokeswoman refused to comment on the matter, saying it was being dealt with by the Foreign Office.

Meanwhile a spokesperson at Prestwick said the airport - 30 miles south of Glasgow - had supplied logistical support for military flights since WWII in "moving troops and cargo".

"That support involves allowing crew to rest, refuelling aircraft and providing food and water.

"The airport is obliged to allow aircraft from any CAA-registered country to land here."

I am actually embarrassed and shamed that our once proud nation is nothing by a lapdog and poodle for one of the most odious governments in the world today...

I sincerely apologise to the rest of the world for our spineless actions (or in this case, lack of them)

[MOBIUS]

Originally posted by Guardian
I've heard two different UN veterans argue two different views on possible reasons for the bombing of the UN bunker.

One of them practically argued that this had to be a deliberate attack on the UN post because the Israelis know southern Lebanon better than most peple know their own backyards. They knew exactly where that post was and in his opinion could not possibly not have known they were hitting it.
He argued that the UN post was monitoring and reporting movements and activities by all parties in the area and that this was "inconvenient" for Israel at the moment.

Just like the USS Liberty, the world's most sophisticated surveillance ship at the time was inconvenience in 1967...

Have you read those links I provided, Guardian? Chilling stuff bearing an awful resemblance to the UN deaths.

The other guy argued - like the one notyoueither heard on Canadian TV - that the Hezbollah is notorious for operating in civilian neighborhoods and close to UN positions. So, he went pretty far in suggesting that the Hezbollah had been moving stockpiles closer to the UN post or something and that this could be the reason for the Israeli bombardment.

Perhaps they may have done - but Israel would know that it was firing on a UN target at the same time! It's not like they gave the UN any warning to get out if that was the case!

On the other hand, the observers who were at the post claimed there was nothing anywhere near them that would be a legitimate target for Israel. But I suppose if they were holed up at their post, they couldn't have known what was going on behind even the nearest buildings.

If true, they would have been observing when hezb fired their first salvo (I have a feeling katyushas aren't very quiet... ) because something would have had to have provoked the Israelis into firing onto that position.

It was only when their position came under repeated fire that they went to the bunker and repeatedly called for the shelling to stop - no mention was made of hezb on top of their positions! In fact as far as I know, no mention has been made of hezb in the vicinity by either side! And that still doesn't excuse their shelling the rescue mission after giving them permission!!!

It's hard to know what really happened here, but it's easy to see what shouldn't have. I have to say I am somewhat less understanding towards Israel after this...

Even if hezb was firing from on top of the bunker - that gives them no excuse to deliberately target the bunker.

In fact using THAT LOGIC means that Israel DID DELIBERATELY TARGET THE UN POSITION - what were they thinking, that they have special weapons that only kill hezb fighters and leave everyone else miraculously unharmed!!!!!!!!!!!????????????????????

Ergo if you believe apologist whitewashing from the likes of nye, this wasn't actually a mistake after all...

Emphasis because I honestly can't believe people are actually suckered in by this apologist drivel (not referring to you!) - this would be ROTF hilarious if it wasn't for the grave subject matter...