Iran Ready To Fill Lebanon Military Aid Gap From US

[Purveyor]

Source: Sydney Morning Herald


JASON KOUTSOUKIS
August 12, 2010

JERUSALEM: Iran has promised Lebanese officials that it will make up any shortfall left by a US decision to suspend $US100 million ($110 million) worth of military aid to Lebanon.

Direct Iranian military aid to Lebanon would exacerbate tensions along the Israeli-Lebanese border that erupted last week when a Lebanese Army sniper killed an Israeli officer involved in a brush-clearing operation.

Israeli troops responded, killing two Lebanese soldiers and one Lebanese journalist.

The clash, the worst since Israel's 2006 war against Hezbollah, the Iranian-backed Shiite movement that controls southern Lebanon, has revived fears that Hezbollah has infiltrated the Lebanese Army.

US congressional Democrats Howard Berman and Nita Lowey said they were suspending the aid pending the results of further investigations into the border clash because of concerns that US aid might be used to buy arms that could be turned against Israel.

Read more: http://www.smh.com.au/world/iran-ready-to-fill-lebanon-...

[Arctic Dave]

1. A couple of people are killed and the US cuts off aid to Lebanon.

Israel continues to kill people on a regular basis and wee just keep giving them more.

[azurnoir]

2. Neither Howard Berman or Nita Lowey come up on opensecrets

meaning they do want where their funding comes from public as to their actions IMO they have threatened to destabilize the mideast to punish Lebanon for killing an Israeli Military Officer really is it worth it?

[nyy1998]

3. Why did Israel kill a Lebanese journalist?

Doesn't sound like a proportionate response

[Jazzgirl]

4. Is Israel's response ever proportionate?

I have yet to see it. That would be the Israeli government.

[hack89]

7. It shouldn't be proportionate if the other side fires first

and there are no civilians in the area.

[The Stranger]

9. The IDF shot and killed a journalist, ergo, a civilian.

Thanks for playing.

[hack89]

14. A journalist covering a war embedded with military forces?

I don't think so. He had the choice not to be there - he made a deliberate choice to put him self in danger.

[The Stranger]

17. Bullshit. "Embedded" media was a construct of the Iraq war. Having someone there covering an event

does not authorize you to murder him or her.

Keep trying.

[hack89]

21. So tell me exactly how the IDF knew he was a journalist.

keep trying - I know how badly you need this to be murder.

[nyy1998]

19. To add to what The Stranger said

He didn't choose to be there, his editors wanted him to be there. And what's wrong with trying to cover what's going on in the border?

[hack89]

22. So how did he identify himself as a journalist?

how close was he to the Lebanese army soldiers who were shooting?

[nyy1998]

26. Well generally speaking, they're only wearing protective gear and not the full

camouflages(sp). It's usually blatantly obvious which guys is sticking out. ANd yes, the Israelis would know who he was and what he was doing.

[hack89]

28. So you don't know anything about what happened, right?

Why do you assume that he had been seen or identified? Wouldn't he had taken cover when the shooting started?

[hack89]

29. Does Hezbollah wear regular army uniforms?

The IDF had no way of knowing whether the regular army, Hezbollah, or a combination of both was shooting at them. Militias blur the lines when it comes to the rules of wars - that's when situations like this happen.

[nyy1998]

11. On the contrary a response to the sniper death is supposed to be porportionate

Killing 2 Lebanese soldiers and a journalist for the death of one Israeli commando(however accidentally) is definitely not proportionate by any measure

[hack89]

15. It was a deliberate attack

the IDF had the right to kill every Lebanese soldier they could. This is war - not some school yard fight.

[nyy1998]

16. And war is govern by rules

If someone intentional shoots you, and you can shoot them back. But only in porportion. This is the real world, not Call of Duty.

[hack89]

23. So is 10 to 1 deaths OK? 20 to 1?

are you really saying it has to be one to one? Really?

I think the rules of war say that the IDF couldn't level Beirut because of this fire fight. It certainly does not say that they could not engage all Lebanese troops that were shooting.

[nyy1998]

24. Yes I am saying 1 to 1 killings are appropriate.

And by your logic, it should've also been 1 to 1. All lebanese troops that were shooting was just the one sniper. You really don't much of a logical case here.

[hack89]

27. You really don't understand combat, do you?

just how did the IDF know that there was only the one sniper? Did the Lebanese army tell the IDF what their plans were?

Secondly, was that sniper in plain view so the IDF had a clean shot at him? If not, just how were they to stop him from killing more Israelis? They do what every army is trained to do - they hose down the area with machine guns to make the sniper keep his head down while they recover their killed and wounded.

You have a childish view of combat - just because the Lebanese army only used a single sniper does not mean the IDF couldn't use all the fire power they had to protect their troops. It is not a game. If the Lebanese army wants to start a war, they don't get to say just how hard the IDF hits back.

[nyy1998]

30. "just how did the IDF know that there was only the one sniper?"

OMG, you have lost all credibility on this subject based on that one line. That might be the dumbest thing you've said in this debate. You seriously don't know anything about guns work, how the armys work, how the Geneva Convention works, how Hezbollah works, how journalists-embedded-in-army works.

You sir, unfortunately have the "childish" view on how war is suppose to work. And i don't it's worth continuing this argument.

[hack89]

31. How did they know?

insults aside, you don't have a clue do you?

I see you refuse to explain just how the IDF was supposed to engage a single sniper who was hidden. You really do believe that the law of war required them to not shoot until they knew exactly where he was even if that meant he killed more Israelis. Truly amazing.

Here is a simple challenge - show me the law of war that says what the IDF did was illegal. Not your interpretation - the actual text. I don't think you can.

[hack89]

25. And what do the rules say about the Lebanese army endangering the lives of civilians

by starting a fire fight knowing that there were civilians around them that any reasonable person would assume would be in danger when the IDF fired back?

Are you endorsing the legality of human shields?

[hack89]

6. He was most likely with the Lebanese army

which was a bad place to be when they decided to start a firefight with the Israeli army.

[The Stranger]

10. Is that supposed to be some sort of macho bravado?

Killing civilians is exactly what you condemned in your prior post. Therefore, logic dicatates, if you are to be consistent and not hypocritical, that you condemn this murder of a civilian.

[hack89]

13. Journalist who cover dangerous events are unique

they willingly assume a higher degree of risk - especially if they decide to cover a war up front and personal. He chose to put himself in the middle of a fire fight - it was not murder.

[The Stranger]

18. The shooting of the journalist wasn't an accident. No choice of his allows Israel to murder him.

Keep trying.

[hack89]

20. How do you know it was not an accident?

explain to me exactly how he identified himself as a journalist.

[davidinalameda]

5. has Iran donated any money to relief efforts in Pakistan

just asking

[classysassy]

8. What would happen if the muslim congressman

suggested we cut off aide to Israel?

[CJvR]

12. Let them.

If the Lebanese army is stupid enough to get into a shooting war with Israel then at least we should let Iran finance it.