Kofi Annan is correct. The attack WAS apparently deliberate.

[Harper_is_Bush]

Everyone here knows the details, so I will only repeat in short form:

On the fateful day there were 9 close calls, 9 phone calls to the IDF from the UN post, and 9 assurances that the attacks would stop.

Then came the precision bombs directly hitting the post.

So yes, it was "apparently deliberate".

The outrage over Annan's comment from Israel and the US and Canada's Stephen Harper is forgetting something important:

THIS ATTACK COULD HAVE BEEN THE DELIBERATE WORK OF ONE OR MORE BAD APPLES IN THE IDF.

If that is the case then Annan is correct. It is a possibility so far ignored by the Israelis, who prefer to express constant outrage over Annan. How DARE he say the attack was deliberate!

Well, if it was done on purpose by a bad apple then it was deliberate, and I hope all the Americans and Israelis and Canadians who have criticized Annan will apologize. I won't hold my breath though.

[Wonk]

1. It was a message to the U.N. to cut and run

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=364x1751330

I don't think they should.

[Wonk]

3. Israel says UN can't be part of probe of deadly attack on post

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=102&topic_id=2418425&mesg_id=2418425

[tuvor]

6. Fuckers.

I mean "Goddamn motherfuckers."

[hopeisaplace]

4. that's the impression I was left with as well, to get UN out of there

in a not so subtle way (if it's true,..qualifying this 'til the
investigation is completed.)

[mom cat]

67. That way they can get more US/ Israel "friendly" troops in Lebanon.

[hang a left]

25. I think this goes here

[Henny Penny]

37. If there was to be an immediate ceasefire

there would need to be someone standing in the wings saying "We're prepared to send troops to do the peacekeeping..." This will be politically more difficult to do if there is any perception that the bombing was deliberate.

[Igel]

58. Not peacekeeping.

We sent in peacekeepers. "Peace-imposers". "We" tried peacekeepers, and the people around them die.

[MiaCulpa]

70. UN outpost strike

ublished: 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.

http://www.canada.com/ottawacitizen/news/story.html?id=37278180-a261-421d-84a9-7f94d5fc6d50&k=55961

I don't think you can fairly condemn the Israelis for 'deliberately targeting' the UN post without also condemning Hezbollah for deliberately targeting such areas to use as shields. Plenty of condemnation to go 'round. I'm just sayin'.

I'd prefer to stick to Iraq though. It's the war that we actually have a real chance of bringing an end to the carnage. Again, jmo

[Kagemusha]

2. Let's say it wasn't deliberate. The IDF liaison officer's a fat liar.

Those assurances were complete and utter junk...

[Harper_is_Bush]

5. If it wasn't deliberate on an individual or group level then...

the IDF liason (it was a major I believe) might have been lying (which would bring us back to deliberate?) rather the IDF demonstrated a lack of command and control.
If a major in the IDF is unable to communicate information to those doing the targeting then there is an ineptness at work.

[benburch]

10. "Knew or should have known"

Is standard as a test of intention.

[benburch]

7. It was deliberate.

And it was a war crime.

Period.

I want to see those who ordered this in the Hague.

[TahitiNut]

8. Agreed.

:thumbsup:

[MsKandice01]

9. If justice was being served...

The Hague would be filled right now with Presipuppet Bush and the rest of his maladministration. I've pretty much lost hope though.

[Harper_is_Bush]

11. We don't know if it was "ordered".

It pays to be deliberate about your opinions.

So far we can only say this:

It APPEARS deliberate, given all the phone calls to the IDF.

The following possibilities exist:
1. The IDF is inept and has no command and control(i.e. it was a mistake)
2. It was the work of rougue elements (bad apples)
3. It was ordered.

I put my money on #1 or #2 before #3.

As contemptuous of the UN that Israel has been, I cannot see their leadership order an attack like this. They're too concerned about public perception.

[benburch]

15. Again...

...knew or should have known is the legal standard of intent.

[Harper_is_Bush]

17. You said "ordered".

And regardless, "should have known" is not the legal standard of intent.

If this was a crime of an individual or individuals seperate from the Israeli chain of command, then claiming the command "should have known" is downright ridiculous.

[Ignoramus]

20. The Bush admin has relied on "my dog ate my homework" type arguments

for a long time, and it has worked, and for a long time, not hurt their public perception. Over and over, they just need any paper thin excuse and it's good enough.

So, Israel could get with the times and boldly say false things, trusting that the media will echo whatever they say.

I think there should be a simple notion that people bring to these types of issues: People might be lying.

The "a few bad apples" answer should sound the same as "my dog ate my homework" to people by now.

Also, the "oops we blew up some reporters", or "oops we blew up ______" (insert group of people that are not to the particular government's liking), should be transparently obvious by now.

[QuestionAll...]

23. they could give a rat's ass about public opinion.

who exactly will do exactly what?

[Clarkie1]

12. You have actually no justification whatsoever in saying that.

We determine guilt or innocence by rule of law, nothing else.

[Harper_is_Bush]

13. Yes. Wait for it to be investigated.

Making definitive statements like that only hurts our credibility.

[benburch]

16. I detemine guilt or innocence by what seems logical to me.

As I am not a trier of fact nor an imposer of punishments, that is all I need to do.

I am happy to have The Hague do those things.

[QuestionAll...]

24. what god damned laws are there?

please cite them and make a possible case that may take 21 years and 21 vats of tears.
There is No Law, There is no Justice for too many. this is the Wild West all over again, encompassing all directions and no good Marshalls to be found to solve it all in a tv half hour show.

[iverglas]

34. oh don't be ridiculous

We determine guilt or innocence by rule of law, nothing else.

We determine GUILT BEYOND A REASONABLE DOUBT, for the purpose of PUNISHMENT BY THE STATE, by the rule of law.

We determine REALITY, on the other hand, by the entirely different process of using the grey matter inside the round things adorning our shoulders, and the eyes and ears they're equipped with.

Nobody here has the power to punish Israel, or anyone or anything else.

Everybody here is capable of assessing the available evidence and, if there is sufficient such evidence, drawing rational conclusions.

If you notice someone preparing to lob a rocket at Israel without affording it due process, be sure to point it out.

If Israel wants to complain about being condemned in the court of public opinion, or if you wish to do so on its behalf, it and you might do well to remember the basic rule of equity: s/he/it who seeks equity must come to court with clean hands.

[sendero]

54. The perpetrators..

... are the investigators. You really think there will be any truth revealed?

[stepnw1f]

65. yes he does

this isn't a court, it's a discussion forum where people are allowed to speculate and judge based on what evidence we are given by whatever source is posted here. That's the beauty of this forum.

[ThomCat]

73. Except when it's Israel committing attrocities.

In which case no law at all seems to apply.

[HongKonger]

31. Send them to Holland

I say.

[sweetheart]

51. It was to erase the witnesses to the war crime

The UN and journalists are the new ameri/israeli enemy and are killed with impunity.

It is only a war crime if you can catch them, and israel is above the law, like the US,
and it can murder anyone without any crime being committed, it is a perfect nation.

[stepnw1f]

64. I'll Second That

or third

[BillZBubb]

14. It was deliberate at some point in the command chain.

Their is no Israeli spin that can get around that fact. So, the question is who called the shot.

I have no doubt there are a large number of IDF members with no love for the UN and who would want to "send them a message". Just one of those nuts in the wrong slot and you get a war crime.

[kittykitty]

18. ..."dead men don't tell tales."

[Canuckistanian]

19. B... B... But Harper said they shouldn't have been there!

I heard him tonight on the TeeVee saying that UN observers shouldn't be in a war zone! The UN is obviously at fault!

This is just an evil UN plot just to make the poor Israelis look bad.

[QuestionAll...]

21. fucking Harper, I hate that Little Boots 2.

He has brought SHAME on our country, the little fucking neocon toe licking weasel.

[Marr]

22. "We strike with surgical precision!" "Hey! Bombs miss things!"

"We strike with surgical precision!"

[QuestionAll...]

26. like the Patriot missile. ah huh. sure.

[TankLV]

27. But yet we all KNOW that Hezbollah DELIBERATLY targets innocent civilians

and has done so with apparent impunity from all of you here, but yet no a single word of condemnation of these TERRORISTS acts from thse TERRORISTS.

And this has been going on for many YEARS - suicide bombers in busses, shops, all over the world, not just Israel.

Nothing.

Yet a supposition is related as fact.

Very interesting...

[rucky]

33. Start a thread about Hezbollah

and we'll all call 'em terrorists.

I don't see how it applies to this discussion, though.

[iverglas]

35. did Hezbollah become a state recently?

Yeah, I guess the big bad UN must have sneaked that by when nobody was looking ...

[mogster]

50. Could it be

That we don't compare ourselves and our allies to terrorists, and expect a civilized nation to do war in a civil manner, and not adopt those methods?
I don't need to condemn terror - it comes naturally out of having grown up in a normal world, with certain standards and rules of engagement.

But you seems to miss the point of this thread; it is not a scale where we should measure the violence done by each side in the conflict as kids share the last drops of Coca Cola. It is about the Israeli attack on the UN, and wether it's intentional or not.

[maxrandb]

52. I'm so sick of this crap!

I'm tired of the Israeli apoligist behaving like two-year olds screaming; "well they do it too!!"

I'm not interested in having my country become equated with "terrist".

I have an idea. The next time you're at a sporting event, instead of joining in with the chant "USA-USA-USA", why don't you start your own chant. It could go something like this..."We're not worse, we're not worse, we're not worse!!"

[Harper_is_Bush]

55. Hezbollah has not actually used terrorism in a long time

At the moment, Hezbollah is engaging in a war using conventional means. The constant drone of "TERRORISM" is a propaganda tactic being over-used by Israel IMO.

And in either event, why should people BOTHER to condemn Hezbollah as TERRORISTS in a topic UNRELATED to that?

This topic is about the apparent deliberate targeting of a UN post despite 10 assurances that the attacks would stop.

[ComerPerro]

72. So does Israel. So does the US. And you are paying for both.

[TankLV]

81. I expected as much from you all. Plenty of excuses.

All not willing to condemn the TERRORISTS except in the most obtuse ways.

Figures...

[AliceWonderland]

82. I saw no excuses, sir

and I note that you fail to respond to any points above. Some interesting issues were raised -- perhaps you could respond, instead of making personal attacks? It might help the exchange.

[Phrogman]

28. http://www.ussliberty.org/ and learn about Israeli "accidents"

eom

[stopbush]

29. Obviously, it was ordered.

I'm amazed that so many DUers willlingly embrace the MIHOP theory on 9/11, but
when it comes to Israel there's suddenly a, "nah, they wouldn't ever do that" attitude.

So, our Republican-led government will kill its own citizens to gain their new Pearl Harbor,
but the Israelis are saints when it comes to bombing UN outposts? Please!

I'm also amazed that DUers will rail when the "few bad apples" theory is bandied about as the reason
for Abu Gharib but immediate float that defense as the reason for Israel's deliberate action on the
UN outpost.

Bullshit!

Israel wants time to do their dirty work. Bush is giving them as much time as he can. The UN was
talking about bringing in a stabilizing force. That would upset Israel's war plan. Bombing the UN
outpost and killing 4 observers had the desired effect - Annan says UN nations are now thinking twice
about sending in observers and military.

Looks like Israel's bombing plan worked.

[magellan]

36. I haven't doubted it at all

Not since the US/Israel (and now Canada) campaign for an apology from Annan started. If only the apologies to the UN and the families of these peacekeepers had been as fervently delivered as the outraged protests of innocence.

[Harper_is_Bush]

56. Why is it "obvious"?

I'm interested in whatever evidence you have. None, I suspect.

Much more likely it was a criminal decision outside the chain of command, or the command and control was inept.

And I don't embrace the MIHOP theory on 9/11. Those people are wackos, and I think MOST DU'ers would agree with that.

[fooj]

30. Remember the UN in Iraq? That was an accident, too.

Sure it was.

[mogster]

32. Makes you think, doesn't it?

Who benefitted from the UN withdrawal, I have asked myself ever since the explosion.

[malaise]

53. Who benefitted?

Bush, Blair and Sharon.

[fooj]

80. Sharon has been "taken out" as a major player...

now the LIKUD party is in charge. That makes me sleep sooooo much better at night. Yikes.

[rman]

38. The attacks were captured on video

by a nearby Norwegian UN observer. The area was overflown by two Israeli helicopters and a drone.
This was on the news in the Netherlands yesterday. As of yet i can't find the footage on the internet.

[mogster]

39. I haven't heard of this

But the paper dagbladet had a picture today:



The caption reads:
BOMBED: Israel Tuesday bombed a UN post in Khiam in southern Lebanon. Four UN observers were killed in the attack. Photo: AP

I'll check this out, rman.

[mogster]

40. I'm not sure the pic above shows the actual UN compound

Here's another, from the article that broke the story:


Caption: HEAVY ATTACK: Israeli air forces yesterday bombed the city of Khiam to pieces. Photo: REUTERS

[malaise]

44. Watch this

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/help/3681938.stm

[Emit]

45. can you check your link?

I'm not sure, but i think you posted the the wrong one. tx.

[malaise]

47. Use this one

and click the video below Israel bombed UN staff 'despite pleas'

http://search.bbc.co.uk/cgi-bin/search/results.pl?scope=all&edition=i&q=Kofi+Annan&go.x=10&go.y=15&go=go

[rman]

62. I viewed "Israel bombed UN staff 'despite pleas'"

on that page.
But it does not contain not the footage i refer to. The footage i refer to shows the two Israeli helicopters and the drone. It was part of an ITV (UK) coverage.

[malaise]

69. I haven't found that one yet n/t

[mogster]

41. It happened in 1996 as well

http://domino.un.org/UNISPAL.nsf/db942872b9eae454852560f6005a76fb/62d5aa740c14293b85256324005179be!OpenDocument

"10. The technical survey of the impacts of the Israeli shells yielded the following information:

(a) Thirty-six impacts were found in the Qana area. Shell fragments of 155-millimetre calibre were found throughout the United Nations compound. The distribution of the impacts was uneven; there were two distinct areas where the impacts were concentrated and two "stray" impacts.
(b) The first concentration of impacts was centred about 100 metres to the south of the United Nations compound, on a group of houses some 75 metres north-west of the mortar firing point. In all, 17 shells (16 with impact fuses, 1 with proximity fuse) landed south of the United Nations compound.

(c) The second concentration of impacts was centred on the middle of the United Nations compound. Given the number and state of the casualties and the destruction caused by the shelling, a major clean-up operation had to be launched immediately after the end of the shelling. This resulted in the loss of important evidence. However, there was substantial evidence of multiple proximity-fused artillery ammunition detonating directly above the compound, covering a large portion of its area. While the exact number cannot be determined, the available evidence suggests that eight such projectiles detonated over the compound and one just outside it. There was also evidence that five high-explosive point-detonating projectiles detonated in the compound and three close to it. In sum, evidence was found of 13 detonations inside or directly above the compound and 4 very close to it.

(d) Almost all the proximity fuses were used in the area of the United Nations compound.

(e) Despite an extensive aerial and ground search, no impacts were found at the second target area identified by the Israeli forces (350 metres south-south-east of the United Nations compound), although evidence was found that rockets had been launched from a site nearby.

(...)

13. The following are my findings:

(a) The distribution of impacts at Qana shows two distinct concentrations, whose mean points of impact are about 140 metres apart. If the guns were converged, as stated by the Israeli forces, there should have been only one main point of impact.
(b) The pattern of impacts is inconsistent with a normal overshooting of the declared target (the mortar site) by a few rounds, as suggested by the Israeli forces.

(c) During the shelling, there was a perceptible shift in the weight of fire from the mortar site to the United Nations compound.

(d) The distribution of point impact detonations and air bursts makes it improbable that impact fuses and proximity fuses were employed in random order, as stated by the Israeli forces.

(e) There were no impacts in the second target area which the Israeli forces claim to have shelled.

(f) Contrary to repeated denials, two Israeli helicopters and a remotely piloted vehicle were present in the Qana area at the time of the shelling.

While the possibility cannot be ruled out completely, it is unlikely that the shelling of the United Nations compound was the result of gross technical and/or procedural errors."

There's also this:

"Events prior to the shelling
9. My team and I questioned a number of witnesses on the activities of Hezbollah fighters in Qana prior to the incident. The following was found:

(a) Between 1200 and 1400 hours on 18 April, Hezbollah fighters fired two or three rockets from a location 350 metres south-east of the United Nations compound. The location was identified on the ground.
(b) Between 1230 and 1300 hours, they fired four or five rockets from location 600 metres south-east of the compound. The location was identified on the ground.

(c) About 15 minutes before the shelling, they fired between five and eight rounds of 120 millimetre mortar from a location 220 metres south-west of the centre of the compound. The location was identified on the ground. According to witnesses, the mortar was installed there between 1100 and 1200 hours that day, but no action was taken by UNIFIL personnel to remove it. (On 15 April, a Fijian had been shot in the chest as he tried to prevent Hezbollah fighters from firing rockets.)

(d) The United Nations compound at Qana had taken a large number of Lebanese seeking shelter from Israeli bombardments. By Sunday, 14 April, 745 persons were in the compound. On 18 April, the day of the shelling, their number is estimated to have been well over 800. When the Fijian soldiers heard the mortar being fired not far from their compound, they began immediately to move as many of the civilians as possible into shelters so that they would be protected from any Israeli retaliation.

(e) At some point (it is not completely clear whether before or after the shelling), two or three Hezbollah fighters entered the United Nations compound, where their families were."

The event has a wiki:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Qana_Massacre

[mogster]

42. There's also a video

http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/quana_01_19_03.htm

I don't have realplayer, so I haven't seen it.

[Emit]

46. And from your link, some text

from the bombing at that time in 1996:

One of the UN soldiers who saw the video being made says that neither he nor his colleagues understood in the first few seconds what was happening at Qana. "We know the Israelis are perfect in their accuracy. The previous day, when Katyushas had been fired a couple of miles away, we saw the Israeli return fire come back on the launch site with complete accuracy. We felt so safe about the Israeli artillery that we never went indoors when shells flew over.

"They knew we were here and so they never hit us. So we didn't even wear flak jackets when there were shell warnings. The Israelis knew what they were doing. And then we saw Qana and by the end, none of us believed it was an accident. Yes, the Israelis knew what they were doing. What do you think the drone' was for?"

A UN officer from a NATO nation who saw the videotape -- a copy of which has been obtained by the Independent -- before it was handed over to UN investigating General Frank van Kappen, was more emotional. "If the UN report is diluted to please the Israelis and the Americans, how is the UN going to live with it? How are we on the ground here supposed to pass by that mass grave with a clear conscience?

"I and many others have risked our lives under constant Israeli shelling. We put up with their lies and the arrogance of their explanations. They blame us because we let unarmed Hizbollah men visit their families in our base. But back in 1984, Israeli soldiers were ambushed near my base and we let them in and protected them. Of course, the Israelis don't mention that now. But even if it means the end of my military career, I'll never say this was an accident. The Israelis knew they were firing at innocent people."

[rman]

48. thanks for that

[goclark]

68. Do you think they will ever show that on our Corporate Owned=CON News?

All we hear, 24/7 is Annan is wrong, wrong, wrong.

Huum, The NeoCons wanted to destroy the UN, they gave us Bolton, Condi to "bring Democracy to the Region" and now a tiny little bomb that happened to land in the "wrong"place.

[rman]

74. No. I suppose we'll have to tell people ourselves

Good thing that we have the internet, to bad it doesn't reach everyone.

[Name removed]

43. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[HamdenRice]

49. It was obviously deliberate and it was not "bad apples"

As several have pointed out, Israel has a history of targeting UN peacekeepers during when they do not want peacekeepers observing their operations. Because of the political sensitivity of this kind of incident it had to have been approved and ordered at the very highest levels of the Israeli government.

[Harper_is_Bush]

57. Your logic is devoid of logic.

If it was a criminal decision outside of the command and control then the "political sensitivity" would not be in play. Why would a criminal care about the political sensitivity of the incident?

It could also have been inept command and control.

Consider the logic that Israel is so pre-occupied by PR. Why would the Israeli government order an attack that would surely bring international condemnation? Not logical.

[rman]

59. Political damage to Israel can be limited if it is covered up,

for instance by convincing other governments that it was a mistake, or that is was done outside of command and control by a few "bad apples".

[mogster]

61. Extremism

There's no logic where extremism is involved.

Look at this conflict from the view of world opinion:

- Israel bases it's invasion on the kidnapping of soldiers, yet this fact glides more and more into the background. Now, it's the disarmament of Hizbollah that's used as pretext.
- The Hizbollah rockets has been fired since 2002, at least, yet the invasion was sudden and trapped many civillians and tourists.
- The civillian casualties are disproportionate from what it could have been if proper evac had been set in motion AND the IDF told to exercise restraint.
- The bombings affected a lot of foreign citizens staying in Lebanon, they brought their experiences back home after evac.
- Certain statements from leading officials (not to mention the general language) tells of a disdain for human life and consequences (the '10 for 1'-statement by the army chief is an example).
- They bombed and fired upon aid organizations, ambulances and relief convoys - there has been several reports in Norw. media about this.
- The language and messages from the Israeli leaders are confusing; cease fire, no cease fire, crush Hizbollah, push Hizbollah back, deal Hizbollah a serious blow. The conflict will go on for an undefined period of time vs. the conflict will be over in a week vs. 'until the job is done'.
- Targeting the UN and at the same time shutting the UN out of future peace keeping missions in the area.

There's a lot of factors that show that the Israeli govt. doesn't care what people think about this war, and that their view is reflected down the ranks of the IDF.

[HamdenRice]

79. Actually your response is completely illogical

You are contrasting a criminal act outside the chain of comman and political sensitivity.

If you read my post, the point was that it was not outside the chain of command. It was deliberate and therefore undoubtedly approved at the cabinet level. There is a history of Israel targetting observers, whether a US spy ship or UN observers.

[Harper_is_Bush]

83. Your comprehension of my response is poor.

I understand (and it was apparent) that you're suggesting the order was within the chain of command.

I have pointed out that it could very well not have been.

Bottom line, you're saying unequivocably that it was an ordered attack - from the "cabinet level". You have no proof of that at all, so don't waste time and personal credibility making the claim.

[Name removed]

60. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[smacky44]

63. Well, you simply can't say that it was a Hizbollah shield and then say

the bombing was an accident. Israel is trying to have both ways as usual. Their spokespeople have been taught to use whichever argument is convenient at the time.

[BigMcLargehuge]

66. Well, it had the desired effect

With the observers out of the way, and therefore no international oversight, we can expect a ratcheting up of the ground offensive. The last obstacle to brutal occupation is removed.

Sad. I at least figured China would step up and REALLY rattle their sword.

U.N. observers leave Israel-Lebanon border
AP - 12 minutes ago
BEIRUT, Lebanon - The United Nations has decided to remove 50 unarmed observers from posts along the Israeli-Lebanese border and relocate them with lightly armed U.N. peacekeepers, a spokesman said Friday. The decision came three days after an Israeli airstrike destroyed one of the posts earlier this week, killing four observers from Austria, Canada, China and Finland. U.N. Secretary-General Kofi Annan has said Israel appeared to have struck the site deliberately -- an accusation Israel vehemently denies.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20060728/ap_on_re_mi_ea/lebanon_israel_531;_ylt=Aog3.TcDozVjaXPGTBFYNWUUvioA;_ylu=X3oDMTBiMW04NW9mBHNlYwMlJVRPUCUl

[Solo_in_MD]

71. There is a bit more on the comms side than you understand

Consider some technical points:

- Some of it may have been artillery fire. The reports are mixed. Important because there are very different comms paths to an artillery unit versus an aircraft.

- Aerial ordinance was most likely not a GPS based missile but bombs if they were indeed PGMs. This is an important distinction. GPS goes to predetermined preprogrammed coordinates. LGBs are used with a designator (real time). LGBs have problems when there is dust, fog, clouds or other obscuration in the area for obvious reasons. It could also have been dumb bombs, which can be targeted fairly well in some tactical situations. I go into this technical arcana since it could figure in Israel's defense.

- Report near misses to a liaison office does little good in a tactical situation. The liaison guy can't just pickup the phone and tell the jets or artillery to back off. Military tactical comms are quite complex and layered for good reasons. However that architecture makes it very hard to get a particular message to a particular unit or plane immediately, especially from a source outside the chain, which a liaison office would be. Again, not defending the attack, but these are factors that will figure into any investigation.

Speaking of an investigation, note that the IDF will have to do the bulk of the investigation since it would require full access to their Command and Control records, tactical doctrine, communications infrastructure, and weapons technology. I don't think that kind of access is going to be given to a 3rd party, no matter who it is. They control almost all of the relevant data and the scene. Its not like the UN issues meaningful subpoenas or search warrants.

I am not justifying or accepting the attack as "stuff happens", but look for a fog of war defense from the IDF. The Bad Apples theory is a little tinfoilish for me.

We will get the Israeli side of the story, backed up my things like the email that recently surfaced. We will get other views. Both sides will claim conspiracy by the other. In the end the dead will still be dead.

BTW, from what I have read it was 6 not 9.

[Name removed]

75. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[VOX]

76. Yeah, and Michelle Malkin says so, so it, uh, **must** be true.

Enjoy your stay at DU. :hi:

[blonndee]

77. And what reason is that, again? Any comments of your own? nt

[uppityperson]

78. Poster is Tombstoned,don't bother replying