« Improved Poll Results For The President | Main | Ding dong, the witch is dead »

Rough medicine

Two days ago, after Israeli fire killed four United Nations peacekeepers in Lebanon, Secretary General Kofi Annan issued a statement that called the attack "apparently deliberate." I don't think I'm parsing it too much to read that as "they wanted to kill the UN peacekeepers, but can't readily prove it." Yesterday Annan backed away from that statement.

I've read a lot about that attack since, and I am coming to the conclusion that Annan's initial statement was correct, and the attack was deliberate and not a mistake, not a miss.

UNIFIL (United Nations Interim Force In Lebanon) is the body overseeing the peacekeepers. Its most recent mission was to oversee the fulfillment of UN Security Council Resolution 1559, which called for the withdrawal of all foreign military, the disarmament of all militias, and the re-establishment of the Lebanese military as the sole possessor of military power in the nation of Lebanon. This was merely the latest attempt to return Lebanon to a functioning nation; UNIFIL's "interim" mission has been going on since 1978.

So, since 1559 was passed in 2004, though, the latest focus of UNIFIL is simple: to make sure foreign soldiers leave and militias -- such as Hezbollah -- disarm.

Well, the first part was largely achieved last year, when Syria officially withdrew its forces. But that was to absolutely no credit to UNIFIL, but by the actions of the Lebanese people themselves, who rose up and demanded the Syrians go home.

But how has progress gone in UNIFIL's second part of its mission?

While the language of 1559 referred to "all militias," it was clearly understood that the main focus of it was on Hezbollah, the "Party of Allah," the Iranian-founded, Iranian- and Syrian-backed terrorist organization that, it should always be noted, had killed more Americans than any other terrorist group prior to 9/11. Southern Lebanon is essentially "Hezbollahstan" -- they are the de facto government there, to the point where the Lebanese army doesn't dare enter the territory, and Hezbollah has a sizable representation in the Lebanese government. Under UNIFIL's watchful glare, Hezbollah complied with the United Nations by bringing in about 13,000 missiles and rockets that are currently bombarding northern Israel and staging repeated invasions into Israel, killing and kidnapping Israelis soldiers.

Well, that's not really fair. They didn't just watchfully glare. In one notable case, they watched and assisted Hezbollah in a mission that ended up with three Israeli soldiers kidnapped and killed, then destroyed evidence of their cooperation and went to extraordinary lengths to withhold evidence they possessed. This particular coverup went all the way to the top, to Kofi Annan -- the UN "peacekeepers" who had been bought off by Hezbollah had videotaped the entire incident. Annan explicitly ordered UN officials to first deny the tape existed, then only turned it over to Israel after it had been edited and censored to remove any possible way of identifying the kidnappers.

That was an exception, of course. Normally, the relationship between UNIFIL and Hezbollah was more neighborly than collegial. Hezbollah commanders were regular social guests of UNIFIL,and UNIFIL even went so far as to allow Hezbollah to fly their flag next and superior to the UN's. By the way, the flag of the "Party of God" in the Religion Of Peace is an upraised arm holding an AK-47.

So, Israel recognized UNIFIL as taking the enemy's side, and struck them deliberately? No, not quite. That's too simplistic an explanation. Then, how did Israel come to (in my opinion) deliberately attack a UN outpost?

For that explanation, we turn to the CBC, who interviewed a Canadian veteran who was serving with UNIFIL. Major Paeta Hess-von Kruedener sent the CBC a lengthy e-mail, all of which is worth reading, but I'm going to cut through the military-speak and pick out the key quotes from the good major, and add emphasis.

"Team Sierra is currently observing both IDF/IAF and Hezbollah military clashes from our vantage point which has a commanding view of the IDF positions on the Golan mountains to our east and the IDF positions along the Blue Line to our south, as well as, most of the Hezbollah static positions in and around our patrol Base."

In military speak, "static" means not moving, or permanent. Here the Major is saying that Hezbollah has set up regular positions IN and AROUND the UN's base. UNIFIL had allowed Hezbollah to literally move right in with them.

"What I can tell you is this: we have on a daily basis had numerous occasions where our position has come under direct or indirect fire from both artillery and aerial bombing. The closest artillery has landed within 2 meters of our position and the closest 1000 lb aerial bomb has landed 100 meters from our patrol base. This has not been deliberate targeting, but has rather been due to tactical necessity."

Israel has dropped a bomb within 100 meters from the UN outpost, and an artillery shell within 2 meters. However, they are NOT targeting the UN base, and these are NOT misses -- "tactical necessity" means that Israel is firing on targets that are that close to the UN base.

Major Paeta Hess-von Kruedener sent that e-mail on July 18. On July 25, his post was the one struck by Israeli fire. On July 26, the Canadian government announced that Major Paeta Hess-von Kruedener was missing after the attack, and presumed dead.

Hezbollah has already been shown to use any form of innocents it can to provide cover. It stores its weapons in private homes. Israel captured a small arsenal inside a mosque. They set up their offices in apartment buildings. And now we see that they are using UN peacekeepers as unwilling human shields against Israel -- and those peacekeepers, trained soldiers all, are not only staying where they are ordered to, but speaking (as clearly as they can) that they are NOT blaming the Israelis who are dropping the bombs and firing the shells that are landing so close to them.

In fact, this current recent fighting was prompted by Hezbollah's deciding to take Israelis hostage. The lives of others are mere bargaining chips to this "Party of Allah" who claims to speak for The Religion Of Peace.

Hostage situations are among the most difficult situations to deal with. It's hard to allow the innocent to suffer or die, and even more difficult if you're the one who has to pull the trigger. But to give in to the demands of hostage-takers is to give license to even more threats against even more innocents in the future.

I am loath to use such simplistic, absolutist, black-and-white terms as these, but it clearly needs to be said: regardless of what else they have done, Hezbollah is a clear, palpable force of evil in the world today, and needs to be confronted, attacked, crippled, and destroyed. They are a malignant cancer that is threatening the lives of two nations right now, and have gravely injured others -- including us. They put no value on anything but their own cause, and will cheerfully endanger or kill anyone to serve their cause. The innocents are weapons to them, propaganda tools to be used and discarded.

Once the cancer has been excised, then we can take a look at the environmental factors that caused it and helped it grow into the threat it is today. But first things first.


Listed below are links to weblogs that reference Rough medicine:

» Pajamas Media linked with MidEast War: XLVIII

» Conservative Outpost linked with Daily Summary

» Random Jottings linked with Using innocents to provide cover...

» Random Jottings linked with Using innocents to provide cover...

Comments (39)

Why didn't that damned Goof... (Below threshold)

Why didn't that damned Goofy Anus remove those men from the area once the bombing began and Hezbollah was using them for shields?

Part of me thinks that Anan left them there for just this kind of result so that he couls slap Israel with it. I think he left them to die.

Anan is a loathsome piece of filth.

I had been thinking along t... (Below threshold)
Cousin Dave:

I had been thinking along those lines myself, that the bombing of the UN post was not an accident. I had thought that they did it because that outpost was collaborating with Hez in some way. Jay's argument about using the UN as human shields makes sense too, though; it does pain the UN personnel in a somewhat better light. And it does show what the terrorists' end game might be -- using the UN as the ultimate human shield. Should this come about, the UN will have come entirely 180 degrees from its original stated mission.

Still, I wonder. In the Major's own words: "from our vantage point which has a commanding view of the IDF positions on the Golan mountains to our east and the IDF positions along the Blue Line to our south..." Could the UN observers have been passing observations of Israeli movements to Hezbollah, and that's why the post was bombed? If they were, I can't see where the IDF had any other options. They couldn't just let it continue, and they couldn't go in and capture UN personnel because that would have raised a huge international outcry.

With its track record of bl... (Below threshold)

With its track record of blatant anti-semitism, maybe the UN should be a target. Their actions have never helped, only hurt Israel. A war zone is no place for anyone not fighting the war. The UN is weak, corrupt, and criminal. I will not mourn at its passing.

It couldn't possibly have b... (Below threshold)

It couldn't possibly have been an accident. The UN outpost's address is posted online like the home of any other registered sex offender.

Good shot Kofi! Next time a... (Below threshold)

Good shot Kofi! Next time aim a little higher up!

Jay Tea, If you feel "Thi... (Below threshold)
Steve Crickmore:

Jay Tea, If you feel "This was not so much deliberate targeting, as tactical necessity." after the Israelis had killed the 4 UN soldiers, Egyptian UN troops were sent in to retrieve the bodies. The Israelis fired on them too. Was that tactical necesity as well?..Or is it perhaps that the Israelli IDF doesn't like the idea of unarmed official observers around as you were conjecturing ... to witness their actions. (Two birds with one stone.) We have seen this before in the Gaza strip, where soldiers were under orders to fire on any problematic unarmed observer
You consistently make the point that Hezbollah are engaging in hostage situations and maligningly "use civilians to provide cover" while at the same you don't censure the Israeli solution to use heavy air power" on civilan centers, to bomb them into submission... As Brigadier General Dan Halutz, the Israeli Chief of Staff, emphasised the offensive (and it has been planned for more than a year.) . . was open-ended (reminds me Of Iraq). "Nothing is safe (in Lebanon), as simple as that," he said...that would seem to include widespread civilian targets :a milk factory, some clinics, schools and
hospitals and now even a UN observer post for good measure..Indeed, the Israeli IDF is holding the 3.8 million Lebanonese people up for ransom to put pressure on Lebanon to rid themselves of the Hezbollah for their underhanded incivilised tactics...Of course, the Hezbollah shouldn't be retaliating by launching primitive 'rockets' against northern Israeli civilian centers..And the country should be rich enough to provide proper material health, education and training resources without relying on a popular terrorist organization to provide services for a large minority of the people.

Steve, when you accede to t... (Below threshold)
Jay Tea:

Steve, when you accede to the demands of hostage-takers, you trade the possibility of saving the current hostage for the near-certainty that there will be more hostages in the future.

Holding hostages is what Hezbollah does. It is their most consistent tactic. Currently, they hold two Israeli soldiers hostage, along with the populations of halves of two nations (southern Lebanon and northern Israel). Why are you so eager to give in to their demands? Have you not heard of the Danegeld?

Israel played it your way before. They traded ceasefires for hostages, prisoners for hostages, concessions for hostages. All it got them was more attacks and more kidnappings.

Yes, the people of southern Lebanon -- especially those who live near, around, or with Hezbollah facilities, who deliberately place them in such places -- are suffering. But to give Hezbollah the slightest concession is to reward them for their atrocities.

Hezbollah is currently raising hell with the best weapons Iran and Syria can provide to them. Do you want to give them even more time, so those nations can get their hands on even more powerful weapons to pass along?

Yes, what's going on is ugly. But I fear an even uglier future if the world follows your counsel.


Excellent post. A "cancer" ... (Below threshold)

Excellent post. A "cancer" is the perfect analogy with which to describe Hezbollah and all the other terrorist organizations as well. Too bad the "healthy tissue", the innocent Lebanese people, has to be lost in order to exorcise the cancer.

Perhaps we are finally awakening to the true moral issue here. While pacifist liberals ring their hands over the loss of human life in this kind of war, the real moral failure occurs when we appease terrorist evil, when we lack the will and the guts to act preemptively. Faced with the threat of nuclear weapons in the hands of terrorists, and it's only a matter of time, sooner or later we have to act.

We can't let this cancer fully metastasize.

Steve you are attributing t... (Below threshold)

Steve you are attributing the "tactical necessity" quote to J. It was the UNs own Major Kruedener or whats it spelled who said that. I think Israel is starting to realize the true "tactical necessity" of leveling towns near their border. Hesbollah fighters blend into the population like white on rice.

So, Hizb'allah fires rocket... (Below threshold)
Lurking Observer:

So, Hizb'allah fires rockets into Israel long before this past week, but somehow, it's shield-u"retaliation"?

One wonders what Steve Crickmore makes of Samir Kuntar, one of the terrorists Hizb'allah intended to negotiate the soldiers for. No doubt he, too, will be described as acting only "in retaliation"?


But then, in the worldview of Steve Crickmore, it's the Israelis who are taking hostages (and presumably Hizb'allah is the force that's going to free them??).

Although, if the Israelis are intent on inflicting casualties, one has to wonder why it is, with massive airpower, "heavy bombing," and all that capability, the casualties are so low? Or are we to believe that an Israeli Air Force, equipped with massive supplies of ordnance can do no better than kill 20 people a day? One wonders how to explain this paradox of ruthless blood-lust, high levels of skill and absolute incompetence at the tactical level?

BTW, isn't it funny how "milk factories" are always among the first thing that those naughty, naughty westerners hit?


But, of course, Hizb'allah says that it's a milk factory, so by Gum, it's a baby milk factory!

As for those UN observers, let's see what they've done in the past?

How about allowed themselves to be used in the kidnapping of Israeli soldiers?


Now, if the UN were half as impartial and stringent in their conduct as Crickmore implies, more tears might be shed on their behalf. And that's not to say that the deaths of the four observers isn't a tragedy. But the UN hardly is this pristine organization of angels, evenhanded and not taking sides.

But then, they're acting against those hostage-taking, civilian-bombing (but not very effectively) Israelis, so, hey, waddaya expect, right?

Jay,<a href="http://en.wi... (Below threshold)
Steve Crickmore:

Jay,Danegeld"thanks for informing me as to the term..I actually thought this was a realtively small price to pay. My biggest problem is that as Wikipedia says Hezbollah is considered by many Arabs and Muslims as a legimitate resistance movement and not as a terrorist movement..I thought it might have been better to work with it as Israel has, on prisoner swaps etc for 6 years and allow it to evolve as a more or less reponsible party. in Lebanon..( Danegeld can work two ways. It was being bought of too with perks of power, government ministries etc.) than to try to destroy it with half of the country in the bargain.. If Hezbollah is shattered 'a big IF 'more militant groups will likely form in its offspring as the Hezbollah was sucessor to the PLO, after the Israeli invasion of Lebanon in 82.. The one thing no one wants is another intifada( God forbid)

Doesn't everyone who works ... (Below threshold)

Doesn't everyone who works in a milk factory wear a t-shirt that says milk factory in English on the back...or is it just in the middle east where I suspect very few could even read it.

Steve, why do you say Israe... (Below threshold)
Jay Tea:

Steve, why do you say Israel has "destroyed half the country?" The Israeli Air Force is one of the best in the world; their army likewise. But they've only killed 20 a day? They're either incredibly incompetent or simply not trying to cause "indiscriminate destruction."

And as it can be empirically proven they are not incompetent, then the only explanation for the situation is they're simply not trying to wreak massive destruction.

And as far as what a majority of the Arab and Muslim world thinks... as Opus the Penguin once said, "if 10,000 people do a silly thing, it is still a silly thing." At one point, nearly everone thought the earth was flat. What do we think of those that still do argue that?


Cousin Dave:"Could t... (Below threshold)

Cousin Dave:
"Could the UN observers have been passing observations of Israeli movements to Hezbollah, and that's why the post was bombed?"

I think the Canadian Major answered your question with his statement "from our vantage point which has a commanding view of the IDF positions on the Golan mountains to our east and the IDF positions along the Blue Line to our south..."

UN observors did not need to pass any information along. High ground benefits any who occupy it and Hezbullah fighters occupying the same ground could virtually see what the UN could see from the same vantage point.

A more natural question from the IDF perspective may be "Were the UN observors collaborating with Hezbullah?" From their vantage point, IDF sees the UN outpost, flag flying and all, and they also see Hezbullah fighters swarming around the position. What other conclusion could be taken?

And SC, when leaflets fall on your ground telling you to evacuate the area for your own safety days before any action occurs in that area, what can you conclude? The civilians in the area don't believe the leaflets? More probably, they have been told they would be protected by Hezbullah or they have been prohibited from leaving by these same so-called protectors.

And what do you think it means to use "heavy airpower"? I do not see the IDF carpet bombing the area, do you? I see precision guided munitions being used. In the same areas where leaflets were dropped. Yeah, we do not see the fancy video we are so used to seeing from our own forces but we have seen F-16s taking off from IDF bases and the munitions loaded are LGBs (Laser Guided Bombs). I should know, I flew hundreds of similar missions with the same munitions in the F-4 and F-111 before I retired from the US Air Force. Now contrast that with Katyusha rockets being fired into Israel. Has Hezbullah dropped any warning leaflets?

I got an idea. Lets cut right to the quick here. Lets suppose Hezbullah, and even Hamas and Fatah were to lay down their arms and the Muslim world recognizes Israels right to exist. What happens? The war is over! And I am not talking about this little scuffle. I am talking about the 60 year war between Israel and the Muslim world. It's over. Period.

But lets suppose the opposite were to happen. Lets suppose Israel unilaterally disarmed - completely! Hezbullah, Hamas and Fatah would shake their hands and live in peace happily ever after? Get a grip! Within weeks, maybe it might even take months - every Jew in Israel would be dead. Period. How can I say that? I am saying nothing more than these groups, and virtually the entire world of Islam (Religion of Peace?) have been preaching for years.

destroyed half the count... (Below threshold)
Steve Crickmore:

destroyed half the country no not yet..but if they shatter Hezbollah they will have to come pretty close..The Israeli air force is coming in for its share of home criticism, if you believe The Guardian...o'kay thats a big if. I suppose this comes down to what one believes are or were the alternatives to a war policy..In your previous pieces about the Palestinians, Jay you correctly wonder whether Palestian leaders including Arafat ever wanted a negotiated peace...but in Lebanon, the countries didn't seem so far apart . Lebanon was evolving as Rice repeatedly congratulated them on, into a western cedar democracy..I don't know know exactly but how many Israeli soldiers have the Hezbollah killed in the last few years? Only a handful as I recall since 2000, probably as many as the Israelis have lost to friendly fire in this campaign ...It seems like such a waste to back to zero, now after the shelling stops which is likely to last weeks.

So, Lebanon was evolving, i... (Below threshold)
Lurking Observer:

So, Lebanon was evolving, it was steadily progressing on the path to democracy, with one tiny little caveat---the country was so honeycombed by Hizb'allah that rooting it out will require destroying half the nation.

Perhaps the progress was more apparent than real?

And this Hizb'allah, for which Steve Crickmore holds out such high hopes, is the same one that continues to espouse the doctrine that

...before us lies an exceptional and historic chance to exterminate this complete Zionist project which has been threatening our nation and region for over fifty years now. We as a nation must not waste this great chance... The continuation of the combating Palestinian resistance deprives the Zionists of security, or even the reason for their existence on this land... Their only correct choice, or in other words their only inescapable destiny is to pack their baggage, leave Palestine, and go back to where they came from

from: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hezbollah#_note-60

A position that remains true even now:


You know, when someone sez, repeatedly, "I'm going to kill you, and I won't stop 'til you're dead," perhaps one should believe them?

And it remains an interesting artifact of the ongoing debate about Lebanon, how easily those who are happily denouncing Israel can go so blithely from "they are destroying Lebanon, slaughtering civilians, deliberately inflicting casualties" to "they could destroy Lebanon, slaughter civilians, etc., etc." Especially when asked to explain how the IAF, "heavily bombing" the Lebanese, are not inflicting more casualties?

Steve,If Hezbollah... (Below threshold)


If Hezbollah is a "legitimate resistance movement" with whom are they resisting? If Israel, this is in violation of all UN resolutions. Surely, you don't buy this nonsense.

It is true, Hezbollah needs to make up its mind if it is part of the government or part of the terrorist movement. You can't be both.

The IRA did this for years of course: "It was not us, it was our terrror wing that we cannot control", type of stuff. This is the model for all these groups, and their sponsors Iran and Syria.

It did not work in Ireland and if we keep our heads, it will not work here either.

You, and the honorable people of Lebannon are being played for chumps and I cannot understand why you are not angry about it.

As long as Iran and Syria can sit back and say: "we cannot control these groups that we send money and arms to", we will always have this trouble.

There is something that you... (Below threshold)

There is something that you are forgetting in your analysis. If the Hizb'allah positions were, as they appear to have been, numerous, entrenched, and immediately adjacent to the UN OP, then it would have taken a significant amount of munitions to dig them out. Indeed, the Canadian MAJ gives a count of numerous fire missions from artillery and aircraft in the area of his OP. Now, let's think about two things: statistics, and trajectory.

When a bomb, even a smart bomb, drops, it does not drop straight down; it goes in at an angle. If it hits something in its path before it gets to its target, it still detonates. So let's say Israel dropped 10 bombs within 100 meters of the OP. Aren't the odds good that one of them could have been released at the wrong point, so that it could hit its target, but its trajectory took it through the UN building first?

It seems to me that the hit on the UN post could easily have been accidental, even though the attack was deliberate. It was just aimed at an adjacent enemy position.

Don't let up on the "UN iss... (Below threshold)

Don't let up on the "UN issue". Keep pushing it, please. The world needs to hear exactly where the Republicans stand on the UN.

I think the world has known... (Below threshold)
Lurking Observer:

I think the world has known exactly where the United States has stood on the UN since Mayor Ed Koch (noted Republican) denounced it as a "stagnant cesspool."

I suspect that the world also had its suspicions when President William Clinton (Republican) authorized the bombing of Serbia over Kosovo despite the UN's refusal to grant an authorization, b/c of Russian and Chinese recalcitrance.

This had squandered the good will and respect that President George HW Bush (Democrat) had claimed for the US, when he sought UN authorization for Operation Desert Shield/Desert Storm.

Of course, nothing the US did could possibly have made the UN more respectable than the way it policed the Oil-for-Food sanctions regime. Despite billions of dollars flowing through its hands, repeated audits showed that the UN's officials were squeaky clean to an extent never before seen. Kofi Annan's orders to arrest his own son for taking bribes are what has elevated the public's impression of the UN.

Following on the strict enforcement of women's rights and prohibitions on white slavery, enforced on UN peacekeepers in all their operations, the UN today is a shining beacon to oppressed peoples everywhere. Notice the demand for UN peacekeepers in Sudan, Cote d'Ivoire, and Lebanon, after their stirring successes in Rwanda, Srebenica, and Cambodia.

SSheill: You make good poin... (Below threshold)
Cousin Dave:

SSheill: You make good points. Still, we know that the UN observers and Hezbo had communicatoins prior to the war starting. I still wonder if this UN post was reporting Israeli movements to the Hezbo command structure, via either telephone or radio, prior to the Hezbo troops showing up at their post. That would go way being just being used as human shields; it would make the blue helmets combatants on Hezbo's side and therefore legitimate targets. You can't let anyone who occupies high ground observe and report your movements to the enemy, no matter who or where they are (e.g., Palestine Hotel).

Decades from now, when the papers are declassified, it'll be interesting to find out what intel the IDF had on this before it was hit.

And an aside to Jeff Medcalf: There are such things as cruise missiles and guided bombs and shells which can alter their trajectory and fly straight down to hit a target from the top. I have no idea if the IDF has these or where they might have used them.

"I still wonder if this ... (Below threshold)

"I still wonder if this UN post was reporting Israeli movements to the Hezbo command structure, via either telephone or radio, prior to the Hezbo troops showing up at their post."

Sounds like you believe that if Israel didn't deliberately target the UN post, they should have. Is that what the Republicans think?

I dunno, Lee, do Democrats ... (Below threshold)
Lurking Observer:

I dunno, Lee, do Democrats think the UN is a "stagnant cesspool"? Do they ignore the UN when votes don't go their way?

And why is this even a "Republican" issue? Is Israel Republican? Or are you suggesting that, if Democrats were in power, they'd be punishing Israel for its actions?

Is that what Democrats think? That Israel should be punished for an attack on a UN post? That Ohmert should be tried as a war criminal?

Well, Lee?

The vast majority of the co... (Below threshold)

The vast majority of the commenters posting here are Republicans.

Who else thinks the Israel should deliberately fire upon UN observers - speak up now - don't be shy...

Who thinks Israeli soldiers... (Below threshold)
Lurking Observer:

Who thinks Israeli soldiers and political leaders should be tried as war criminals---speak up now, don't be shy.


B/c most of the posters here recognize that it was Kofi Annan who implied that Israel had deliberately fired upon UN observers, a position that he now backtracks from. So, from your own viewpoint, Republicans are the ones who disagreed w/ Kofi, and were vindicated.

Conversely, then, it must be Democrats who either continue to insist that Israel did deliberately target the UN position, and therefore, it must be Democrats who want to see Israelis charged with war crimes.

Jay said: "Then, how did... (Below threshold)

Jay said: "Then, how did Israel come to (in my opinion) deliberately attack a UN outpost?"

Cousin Dave: "I had been thinking along those lines myself, that the bombing of the UN post was not an accident. "

Jphn F Not Kerry: "With its track record of blatant anti-semitism, maybe the UN should be a target."

Steve Crickmore: ""Nothing is safe (in Lebanon), as simple as that," he said...that would seem to include widespread civilian targets :a milk factory, some clinics, schools and hospitals and now even a UN observer post for good measure.."

Lurking Observer: "But then, they're acting against those hostage-taking, civilian-bombing (but not very effectively) Israelis, so, hey, waddaya expect, right?"

Cousin Dave: "I still wonder if this UN post was reporting Israeli movements to the Hezbo command structure, via either telephone or radio, prior to the Hezbo troops showing up at their post. That would go way being just being used as human shields; it would make the blue helmets combatants on Hezbo's side and therefore legitimate targets."

Sorry if Im missed anyone - I'll be back later for more - keep posting!

According to the Canadian e... (Below threshold)

According to the Canadian email making the rounds, Hezbollah was using the UN post as a skirt to hide behind & the Israelis were having none of it.

With rounds landing withing meters of the UN post and Hezbollah hiding nearby, it does not seem to me to be outside the range of possibility that this was an accident. Koffi even, has backed down.

Ihis does however, confirm that the UN presence there is LESS THAN USELESS.

I have no problem with Isra... (Below threshold)

I have no problem with Israelis shooting at UN peacekeepers. In fact, I think anywhere a UN blue helmet appears everyone on each side should stop shooting at each other and start firing at the UN.

This would solve a myriad of problems. Any UN helmet represents a child-raping, corrupt creature no more deserving of a warning shot than a terrorist and I don't care what country they're from. (Bolton excluded, of course. But you'd never see him in a blue helmet anyway.)

I guess this means I won't get the UN Fan Club offer in the mail.

Lee darling,You're... (Below threshold)
Red Fog:

Lee darling,

You're on record here wanting to nuke Islam but it's inexplicably 'too late'; therefore, you are in time out. Go to the corner and masterbate on your poster of Hillary, big time fool.

Coulter's column this week: "Spring 1993: Muslim extremists (al-Gama'a al-Islamiyya, the Sudanese Islamic Front and at least one member of Hamas) plot to blow up the Lincoln and Holland tunnels, the U.N. complex, and the FBI's lower Manhattan headquarters."

Apparantly no one wants the U.N. around except corrupt dictators and Lee's party of self-righteous cowards.

"According to the Canadi... (Below threshold)

"According to the Canadian email making the rounds, Hezbollah was using the UN post as a skirt to hide behind & the Israelis were having none of it."

The email was from last week, July 18 to be exact.

Nice to see that Bonnie isn't afraid to speak her mind, what about the rest of you?

"Hezbollah is considered... (Below threshold)

"Hezbollah is considered by many Arabs and Muslims as a legimitate resistance movement and not as a terrorist movement."

Well sure, if you think Arafat was a terrific guy, and Osama is your hero. If you think Sharon eats palestinian babies and you have to blow the devil out of your nostrils with water when you wake in the morning and your wife should be killed if she's raped, then sure, Hizballah is a legimitate resistance movement.

So, was that statment supposed to be a qualifier or what?

"Rough Medicine" Wha... (Below threshold)

"Rough Medicine" What an appropriate title for a post and comments from conservatives who advocate the killing of innocent UN observers - soldiers from countries such as Canada and Ireland.

You Republicans are a disgrace to this country.

You Republicans are a disgr... (Below threshold)

You Republicans are a disgrace to this country.

Posted by: Lee

Why, becuase we think the UN is a corrupt, evil-abetting kleptocracy that doesn't deserve our money? Or that if they were supposed to be in Lebanon to observe the disarmament of Hezbollah (per UN Res. 1559) and stood by and did nothing?
Or is it because we think that Oil for Food, Sex with Children for Food just might disqualify the UN as any sort of moral authority?

What disgraces this country is people who want to continue trusting our naional security to the veto power of dictatorships like China and cowards like France. I thank God that people like you are not in charge of protecting this country.

Blah, Blah, Blah. Don't con... (Below threshold)

Blah, Blah, Blah. Don't confuse me with the facts. It doesn't take a tome to figure this out. Simple - the Israeli's killed the UN observers. Not Syria, nor Iran, nor even Hezbollah. So take the neo-con drivel and stick it where the sun don't shine!

Hey, Lee...I'm not a Republ... (Below threshold)
James Cloninger:

Hey, Lee...I'm not a Republican, but I am conservative, so in regards to the UN being deliberately targeted:

If they are actively assisting Hizb'allah, or refuse to get out of an active warzone...then tough titties, bombs away.

Cogitate on that one. I wouldn't piss in Kofi's mouth if he way dying of thirst.

So, Len, let's see if I hav... (Below threshold)
Lurking Observer:

So, Len, let's see if I have this straight:

If a robber takes multiple people hostage, and a police sniper shoots, but hits a hostage, then the cop is a murderer?

Indeed, it places the cop on the same level as the hostage taker?


Thank goodness we have folks like Len, to clarify morally challenging situations like this one!

Right Lurking.Rule... (Below threshold)

Right Lurking.

Rules of engagement. If you had served, you would understand this concept. If the hostage is not being held hostage you don't shoot the neighbor. Who held the UN hostage? Oh, the IDF when they refused to respond to their pleas and not allow them to evac.

Blah, Blah, Blah. The IDF murdered the UNARMED UN OBSERVERS! Simple as that.

"if the hostage is not bein... (Below threshold)
Lurking Observer:

"if the hostage is not being held hostage"? WTF does that even mean?

As for ROEs, perhaps you could enlighten us as to what the Israeli ROEs were? Simply claiming that they murdered the UN troops is not evidence of an ROE.

Indeed, as you should well know, ROEs (speaking in the general sense, unless you can provide a copy of the Israeli ROE) do not necessarily prohibit military operations even if there are civilians (as opposed to UN observers) about.

More importantly, it is the side that deliberately places their forces so as to endanger civilians or other non-combatants (e.g., UN observers) that is at fault. Which, judging from the Canadian officer's email, was Hizb'allah.

And what is the evidence that it was the IDF that prevented a UN evacuation? Especially when we have on the record Kofi Annan's instructions that only he could authorize a withdrawal, and then never issued such an order?

Once again, let's ignore th... (Below threshold)

Once again, let's ignore the facts. The UN folks were unarmed. The IDF killed them. Is this a tough concept for the neo-cons to understand. I guess if they were armed and shot down the Israeli plane that was about to bomb them that would have been OK. Right. As for ROE, try not to read to many books or watch FOX snooze.






Follow Wizbang

Follow Wizbang on FacebookFollow Wizbang on TwitterSubscribe to Wizbang feedWizbang Mobile


Send e-mail tips to us:

[email protected]

Fresh Links


Section Editor: Maggie Whitton

Editors: Jay Tea, Lorie Byrd, Kim Priestap, DJ Drummond, Michael Laprarie, Baron Von Ottomatic, Shawn Mallow, Rick, Dan Karipides, Michael Avitablile, Charlie Quidnunc, Steve Schippert

Emeritus: Paul, Mary Katherine Ham, Jim Addison, Alexander K. McClure, Cassy Fiano, Bill Jempty, John Stansbury, Rob Port

In Memorium: HughS

All original content copyright © 2003-2010 by Wizbang®, LLC. All rights reserved. Wizbang® is a registered service mark.

Powered by Movable Type Pro 4.361

Hosting by ServInt

Ratings on this site are powered by the Ajax Ratings Pro plugin for Movable Type.

Search on this site is powered by the FastSearch plugin for Movable Type.

Blogrolls on this site are powered by the MT-Blogroll.

Temporary site design is based on Cutline and Cutline for MT. Graphics by Apothegm Designs.

Author Login

Terms Of Service

DCMA Compliance Notice

Privacy Policy