WATCH THIS VIDEO OF ISRAELI BOMBING MISSIONS

[berni_mccoy]

http://www.cnn.com/video/player/player.html?url=/video/world/2006/07/25/lebanon.cockpit.strike.aptn

And tell me they didn't know what they were hitting when they targeted the U.N. outpost.

They have extreme accuracy with weapon systems purchased from the U.S.

[babylonsister]

1. Errr, link, b_m?

[berni_mccoy]

2. fixed, sorry

[Rainscents]

3. Yup... Clarki need to watch this.

Clarki is defending... Israel has right to bomb the fuck out of anyone they please to and Israel is not targeting civilians. I can't believe this statement Clarki is making.

[babylonsister]

4. Who's Clarki?

:shrug:

[Rainscents]

5. Here is the link to Clarkie tread...

It looks like, Mod finally lock it.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=364x1729656

[babylonsister]

20. Thanks. nt

[liberaltrucker]

6. Appears to me

To be the classic definition of "gun control".
Hitting what you aim at.

If Hezbollah didn't hide behind women and children
like the cowards they are, there would be far less, if
any, civilian deaths.

Israel only wants to be left alone, and the majority of
Palestinians want to do just that. It's a tiny minority
of zealots fucking things up for everyone. Sound familiar?

[Clarkie1]

11. You said it. Exactly. nt

[berni_mccoy]

13. That's one lame excuse

Imagine if cops shot kidnap victims to get to the kidnappers. That's exactly what you are talking about here.

Even the U.S. avoided targeting Mosques during the war in Afghanistan *and* the war in Iraq.

Attacking a U.N. outpost is WAY BEYOND justification. You are definitely drinking the koolaid.

[liberaltrucker]

18. No Kool Aid here

Throughout history, those zealots with no balls hid
behind civilians instead of fighting by the "rules".

Cops usually can negotiate with kidnappers, and for
the most part, the situation ends peacefully.

Hezbollah is a bunch of cowards who can't be negotiated
with. When faced with such an enemy, innocents will die,
but the blame lies with Hezbollah, not Israel.

[berni_mccoy]

22. Well, so much for humanity then... better kill every citizen of Lebanon

Because after this disproportionate response by Israel, Hezbollah's recruitment is going to be way up.

Your response: kill them all.

[liberaltrucker]

24. Not at all

Question: What would be your solution to the situation Israel faces?
Surrounded by governments committed to your destruction. As a liberal
I'm always open to new ideas. Otherwise, I'd be a Rethug.

[berni_mccoy]

27. The Solution would be exactly what the U.N. proposed:

Lebanon was working with other Arab nations and the U.N. on dismantling Hezbollah. They had been making progress in the TWO years that they have been tasked with doing so (by U.N. resolution). Israel was given over 15 years to comply with its requirements on past U.N. resolutions.

Instead of BOMBARDING the citizens of Lebanon, why not bring a U.N. task force into Lebanon to assist with the Hezbollah issue. Indeed, this was proposed by the U.N. and BLOCKED by the U.S. (thanks to Bolton).

After Israel destroyed Lebanon's infrastructure and went on a citizen-decimating rampage, the U.N. Security Council put forward TWO RESOLUTIONS to call for cease fire and install a peace-keeping force. The U.S. VETOED BOTH.

The U.S. is blocking any chance to stop the slaughter of the Lebanese civilians and U.N. aid workers and observers.

[liberaltrucker]

30. I'll check into that

If you're right, I'll publicly admit my error
linking to this thread. Give me a few days, I work
for a living. Deal?

[berni_mccoy]

34. Here's a head start for you:

http://journals.democraticunderground.com/berni_mccoy/36

The above article links to the first U.N. resolution for a cease fire. The Administration (Snow) blatantly denied that it happened, even though the U.S. vetoed it.

Here is a list of vetos by the U.S. with regard to middle east issues (each time favoring Israel, even if it violated prior U.N. resolutions): http://www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org/jsource/UN/usvetoes.html

The last two on that list are important to look at.

[eridani]

41. Get the fuck back behind the 1967 boarders

--and quit stealing all the water from Lebanon and Palestine.

[TripeOmatic]

39. Uh, "rules"??? Helo-oo, it's WAR!

Where is this "rules" stuff coming from? I know, I know, there are 'conventions' and such. But really, "rules" are applicable in games like chess - not in war. I mean, what's the point of war? - It's not a prom date, with "rules". Is spying illegally on US citizens "by the rules"? This charade that there are "rules" in war just doesn't make sense on the face of it and we certainly don't adhere to any "rules" other than the ones we expect the other side in any conflict to adhere to and then only rarely those (like when someone's watching). The mere notion that there are "rules" of war is ludicrous just by virtue of the nature of the two ideas. I know full well that there is a popular notion afoot that there is such a thing as "rules" of war. There's also a popular notion afoot that it's possible to be "compassionate" and "conservative" and be named Bush. Then there's the notion that the power shortage in the western states in 2001 wasn't caused by ENRON, and that Kenneth Lay may have actually been unaware of what was going on, and that there are WMDs still hidden in Iraq, and that Saddam Hussein was in cahoots with Bin Ladin, and that the Indonesian Tsunami is God's wrath on sunbathers, and that there's a Santa Clause (that one's true though). Take your pick - they're all as true as the next. If there were "rules" of war, it would obviate the need to do battle because the conflict could just be modeled on a computer with no one getting hurt. Clearly that's not the point. The point of war is to inflict pain and suffering until one side or the other cries 'uncle'. Innocents have always died. Innocents will always die. Otherwise it's not war.

[eridani]

40. No, they don't want to be left alone

They want the complete ethnic cleansing of all Palestinians, and Lebanon's water.

[JackDragna]

43. Israel doesn't just want to be "left alone"...

Israel is proactive in abusing Palestinians, taking their lands and subjecting them to all kinds of civil rights abuses. Funny how a country that just wants to be left alone is doing a good job of blowing up all kinds of Lebanese infrastructure that has nothing to do with Hezbollah.

[Clarkie1]

7. Yes, as I have been saying all along.

They are not carelessly bombing civilian areas at random. They are picking and choosing their targets very deliberately to minimize tragic loss of life.

Fortunately, they have the weapons systems to do other, otherwise the toll would be even higher.

Edit: recommended.

[babylonsister]

8. Except for those bothersome UN and Red Cross targets. nt

[Clarkie1]

9. I don't know the truth of that.

Were there Hezbollah nearby? Were rockets being fired from inside? I have no idea an neither do you until the investigation is completed.

[jsamuel]

32. so taking out a member of Hizbollah justifies killing the UN observers?

"Were there Hezbollah nearby?"

Is that what you are saying? I think not, but I just needed to ask.

[Lerkfish]

38. and except for those pesky fleeing refugees, and except for those

clearly marked UN workers. and except for that ambulance with a cross on top of it.

gee, I guess they really are trying to minimize loss of life.

[Emit]

10. How or where are they getting their coordinates, though?

Who is telling them where to bomb with these high precision weapons?

[Clarkie1]

12. That's an interesting question.

The more on-ground intelligence they have, the better. We don't know of course how much intelligence they have, but clearly they are picking and choosing targets for a reason.

[berni_mccoy]

14. You people are simply blind

The U.N. GAVE ISRAEL THE COORDINATES so they WOULD NOT HIT THEM BY MISTAKE!!!

Israel KNEW what the place was. THERE IS NO QUESTION ABOUT IT.

[CuteNFuzzy]

36. Yup Israel knew where they were

[Emit]

17. Clarkie1

They would have to have a lot of intelligence to know where to bomb, particularly if the enemy is hiding out with civilians. I lean toward believing they are bombing indiscriminately. It just doesn't seem logical that they can tell where their true targets really are. Think about it.

[blonndee]

26. ExACTly. So they intended to hit the ambulances, and the UN

observation post, as well. There is the evidence you've been saying doesn't exist.

[babylonsister]

15. Question answered: Annan told them where NOT to bomb:

UN attack looks deliberate: Annan (assurances were given positions

would be spared)

http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au/story/0,20867,1991...

UN Secretary General Kofi Annan today said he was "shocked" at Israel's "apparently deliberate targeting" of a UN post in Lebanon, in which up to four UN observers were killed.

Mr Annan described the strike as a "co-ordinated artillery and aerial attack on a long established and clearly marked UN post."

He said it took place "despite personal assurances given to me by Prime Minister Ehud Olmert that UN positions would be spared Israeli fire."

"Furthermore, General Alain Pelligrini, the UN Force Commander in south Lebanon, had been in repeated contact with Israeli officers throughout the day on Tuesday, stressing the need to protect that particular UN position from attack.

"I call on the Government of Israel to conduct a full investigation into this very disturbing incident and demand that any further attack on UN positions and personnel must stop.

"The names and nationalities of those killed are being withheld pending notification of their families. I extend sincere condolences to the families of our fallen peacekeepers."

[liberaltrucker]

16. Self Delete

[Emit]

19. So

OnStar requires a device to be in the car, doesn't it? Who has equipment on the ground? Are there Israeli intelligence on the ground telling these guys where to bomb?

[Wonk]

21. The ground is stationary, coordinates for buildings don't change :/

[Emit]

28. Right, so,

The Israelis have someone on the ground?

[liberaltrucker]

23. Self delete due to user f*** up

I missed the point of the post. Been a long day:blush:

[LibertyorDeath]

35. "They are picking and choosing their targets very deliberately "

Well at least you got this part right.

UN observers
Ambulances
Women
Children.

Yes they are choosing their targets "very deliberately"

Here's a bunch of targets for you

http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/article14180.htm

How much are your rose colored glasses?

[eridani]

42. Like UN outposts

Was Hezbollah hiding behind the UN?

[Igel]

25. I still don't know if I trust the report.

Annan said aerial bombing and artillery shelling. But I've read other reports that the Israelis don't do high-altitude bombing that close to the border, it's a waste of a mission. Helicopters gain enough altitude to target and launch their missiles, and artillery handles the rest.

Al-Khayim is 3-4 miles or so inside Lebanon. Targetting from inside Israel, or just over the border, is doable. I don't know that the kind of targeting that you'd be using would be the same as the coordinates that a jet pilot would be using.

So you'd know not to bomb a given coordinate, but you might not know that you're targeting it. Esp. if there are katyushas coming from there, or nearly there, and the coordinates you have are labeled "UNIFIL observation post". Not a command post.

On the other hand, the Israelis targeted the place 14 times, wasn't it? And they hit it how many times? I'd argue they achieved neither great precision nor accuracy.

This isn't to say that the Israelis didn't aim for the building; but it's to say that it's unclear that the conclusion that Israel was aiming specifically at the UNIFIL observation post is the only possible one, or even the most likely. (However, I will say that Israel has little love for UNIFIL.)

[babylonsister]

29. If the Israelis were given a 'specific' spot NOT to bomb,

how is it that's exactly the spot they hit? That's what troubles me.

[berni_mccoy]

31. Don't forget, they hit it 14 times, even during the rescue mission

Israel is sending a message to the U.N.: "Stay out"

[blonndee]

33. Right: it wasn't some "stray" bomb.

It makes me tremble for what they have planned next. Also may explain why they apparently continue to block aid to Lebanon.

http://www.news24.com/News24/World/Middle_East/0,,2-10-2075_1973118,00.html
http://www.alertnet.org/thenews/newsdesk/UNHCR/51004040108e1a902591da115dc71c08.htm

[LibertyorDeath]

37. UN Attacks Look Deliberate: Annan

MsKandice01 Donating Member (724 posts) Tue Jul-25-06 04:01 PM
Original message
UN Attacks Look Deliberate: Annan

UN attacks looks deliberate: Annan
From correspondents in Rome

July 26, 2006 08:33am

UN Secretary General Kofi Annan today said he was "shocked" at Israel's "apparently deliberate targeting" of a UN post in Lebanon, in which up to four UN observers were killed.

Mr Annan described the strike as a "co-ordinated artillery and aerial attack on a long established and clearly marked UN post." He said it took place "despite personal assurances given to me by Prime Minister Ehud Olmert that UN positions would be spared Israeli fire."

"Furthermore, General Alain Pelligrini, the UN Force Commander in south Lebanon, had been in repeated contact with Israeli officers throughout the day on Tuesday, stressing the need to protect that particular UN position from attack.

"I call on the Government of Israel to conduct a full investigation into this very disturbing incident and demand that any further attack on UN positions and personnel must stop.

http://www.news.com.au/heraldsun/story/0,21985,19916610...

Wow!

[berni_mccoy]

44. UPDATE: THERE CAN BE NO DOUBT OF INTENT NOW

Check this out:

UN: Observers made many calls before strike

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=102x2413881