Israeli air raid struck UN Observation Post

[Genx87]

Originally posted by: firewall
With all this mess in the middle east, and our unconditional support for Israel, we are just creating more anti-American sentiments in a major part of the world. Put Israel on one side, the Muslim countries on the other... yeah... our foreign policy is proving itself to be very really successful... :disgust:

Mardeth, sorry for your loss....

Dont you think by now the people who hate us will already hate us? It isnt like this is a new policy we have so the fear of creating more people hating the US shouldnt be a concern anymore at this point.

The people who hate us, will hate us no matter what we do.

 

[GrGr]

Originally posted by: Doboji

Originally posted by: Siwy

Originally posted by: Doboji

Originally posted by: Siwy

Originally posted by: RichardE
A realist. Civilians die in a war, the difference is Hez and Hamas go only for civilians, Israel does not. You defend Hez and Hamas, you sympathize with organizations that kill civilans on purposely, and publicly state that is what they do.

If Israel is not going after civilians I wonder why they are using cluster bombs in civilian areas .

Wow... Israel must have a pretty weak military... with full exertion for 2 weeks... the most they can kill is 300 people... WOW. All the arab world needs then are about 10,000 men with pitchforks, and they could crush teh IDF and liberate Palestine. At this rate it would take 33 weeks to kill off the 10,000 pitchfork weilding Mujaheeden...

C'mmon seriously guys... it would be one thing if this was a discussion on Israel's success or failure in avoiding civillian casualties. That would be a rational argument. But arguing that Israel is deliberately trying to kill civillians is just plain assanine. If Israel wanted to kill civillians they would... it would take no effort, they wouldn't even have to target them, they could just use different weapons... and they could still claim the civillian deaths were collateral damage. There just is absolutely no logic behind the idea of the bombings being deliberate.

-Max

Israel is known for its collective punishment methods ~ it does not need to kill 100,000 civilians. A fraction of them is enough as long as the rest of them are terrorized, become refugees and have their lives shattered.

Israel?s history is full of such acts, it?s nothing new.

Destruction of UN post using a "a precision-guided missile after six hours of shelling" - and that is after UN contacted Israeli troops 10 times to stop! - shows how determined they are to carry out their devastation and preventing the world from knowing the details by getting rid of ?the eyes of UN? ~ as the Irish UN commander stationed in that area called the UN post, today in an interview on CNN.

And of curse Israel army will apologize, carry out a full and meticulous but fruitless investigation of ?itself? and in the end decide that it was an innocent mistake, as it has done countless of times before.

Well you have a right to your opinion... I for one don't believe that Israel is purposely targetting civillians. I believe Israel is in the right in this war.. and I will now shutup and put my money where my mouth is... gonna donate a couple hundred bucks to the IDF through the Libi fund. Enjoy your pointless arguments...

-Max

07/20/06 "The Independent" -- -- How soon must we use the words "war crime"? How many children must be scattered in the rubble of Israeli air attacks before we reject the obscene phrase "collateral damage" and start talking about prosecution for crimes against humanity?

The child whose dead body lies like a rag doll beside the cars which were supposedly taking her and her family to safety is a symbol of the latest Lebanon war; she was hurled from the vehicle in which she and her family were traveling in southern Lebanon as they fled their village - on Israel's own instructions. Because her parents were apparently killed in the same Israeli air attack, her name is still unknown. Not an unknown warrior, but an unknown child.

The story of her death, however, is well documented. On Saturday, the inhabitants of the tiny border village of Marwaheen were ordered by Israeli troops - apparently using a bullhorn - to leave their homes by 6pm. Marwaheen lies closest to the spot where Hizbollah guerrillas broke through the frontier wire a week ago to capture two Israeli soldiers and kill three others, the attack which provoked this latest cruel war in Lebanon. The villagers obeyed the Israeli orders and initially appealed to local UN troops of the Ghanaian battalion for protection.

But the Ghanaian soldiers, obeying guidelines set down by the UN's headquarters in New York in 1996, refused to permit the Lebanese civilians to enter their base. By terrible irony, the UN's rules had been drawn up after their soldiers gave protection to civilians during an Israeli bombardment of southern Lebanon in 1996 in which 106 Lebanese, more than half of them children, were slaughtered when the Israelis shelled the UN compound at Qana, in which they had been given sanctuary.

So the people of Marwaheen set off for the north in a convoy of cars which only minutes later, close to the village of Tel Harfa, were attacked by an Israeli F-16 fighter-bomber. It bombed all the cars and killed at least 20 of the civilians travelling in them, many of them women and children. Twelve people were burnt alive in their vehicles but others, including the child who lies like a rag doll near the charred civilian convoy, whose photograph was taken - at great risk - by an Associated Press photographer, Nasser Nasser, were blown clear of the cars by the blast of the bombs and fell into fields and a valley near the scene of the attack. There has been no apology or expression of regret from Israel for these deaths.

Link

****************

This is not the first time Israel has targeted UN bases. It is obvious it was deliberate.

 

[Doboji]

Originally posted by: GrGr

Originally posted by: Doboji

Originally posted by: Siwy

Originally posted by: Doboji

Originally posted by: Siwy

Originally posted by: RichardE
A realist. Civilians die in a war, the difference is Hez and Hamas go only for civilians, Israel does not. You defend Hez and Hamas, you sympathize with organizations that kill civilans on purposely, and publicly state that is what they do.

If Israel is not going after civilians I wonder why they are using cluster bombs in civilian areas .

Wow... Israel must have a pretty weak military... with full exertion for 2 weeks... the most they can kill is 300 people... WOW. All the arab world needs then are about 10,000 men with pitchforks, and they could crush teh IDF and liberate Palestine. At this rate it would take 33 weeks to kill off the 10,000 pitchfork weilding Mujaheeden...

C'mmon seriously guys... it would be one thing if this was a discussion on Israel's success or failure in avoiding civillian casualties. That would be a rational argument. But arguing that Israel is deliberately trying to kill civillians is just plain assanine. If Israel wanted to kill civillians they would... it would take no effort, they wouldn't even have to target them, they could just use different weapons... and they could still claim the civillian deaths were collateral damage. There just is absolutely no logic behind the idea of the bombings being deliberate.

-Max

Israel is known for its collective punishment methods ~ it does not need to kill 100,000 civilians. A fraction of them is enough as long as the rest of them are terrorized, become refugees and have their lives shattered.

Israel?s history is full of such acts, it?s nothing new.

Destruction of UN post using a "a precision-guided missile after six hours of shelling" - and that is after UN contacted Israeli troops 10 times to stop! - shows how determined they are to carry out their devastation and preventing the world from knowing the details by getting rid of ?the eyes of UN? ~ as the Irish UN commander stationed in that area called the UN post, today in an interview on CNN.

And of curse Israel army will apologize, carry out a full and meticulous but fruitless investigation of ?itself? and in the end decide that it was an innocent mistake, as it has done countless of times before.

Well you have a right to your opinion... I for one don't believe that Israel is purposely targetting civillians. I believe Israel is in the right in this war.. and I will now shutup and put my money where my mouth is... gonna donate a couple hundred bucks to the IDF through the Libi fund. Enjoy your pointless arguments...

-Max

07/20/06 "The Independent" -- -- How soon must we use the words "war crime"? How many children must be scattered in the rubble of Israeli air attacks before we reject the obscene phrase "collateral damage" and start talking about prosecution for crimes against humanity?

The child whose dead body lies like a rag doll beside the cars which were supposedly taking her and her family to safety is a symbol of the latest Lebanon war; she was hurled from the vehicle in which she and her family were traveling in southern Lebanon as they fled their village - on Israel's own instructions. Because her parents were apparently killed in the same Israeli air attack, her name is still unknown. Not an unknown warrior, but an unknown child.

The story of her death, however, is well documented. On Saturday, the inhabitants of the tiny border village of Marwaheen were ordered by Israeli troops - apparently using a bullhorn - to leave their homes by 6pm. Marwaheen lies closest to the spot where Hizbollah guerrillas broke through the frontier wire a week ago to capture two Israeli soldiers and kill three others, the attack which provoked this latest cruel war in Lebanon. The villagers obeyed the Israeli orders and initially appealed to local UN troops of the Ghanaian battalion for protection.

But the Ghanaian soldiers, obeying guidelines set down by the UN's headquarters in New York in 1996, refused to permit the Lebanese civilians to enter their base. By terrible irony, the UN's rules had been drawn up after their soldiers gave protection to civilians during an Israeli bombardment of southern Lebanon in 1996 in which 106 Lebanese, more than half of them children, were slaughtered when the Israelis shelled the UN compound at Qana, in which they had been given sanctuary.

So the people of Marwaheen set off for the north in a convoy of cars which only minutes later, close to the village of Tel Harfa, were attacked by an Israeli F-16 fighter-bomber. It bombed all the cars and killed at least 20 of the civilians travelling in them, many of them women and children. Twelve people were burnt alive in their vehicles but others, including the child who lies like a rag doll near the charred civilian convoy, whose photograph was taken - at great risk - by an Associated Press photographer, Nasser Nasser, were blown clear of the cars by the blast of the bombs and fell into fields and a valley near the scene of the attack. There has been no apology or expression of regret from Israel for these deaths.

Link

****************

This is not the first time Israel has targeted UN bases. It is obvious it was deliberate.

Hmmm I disagree... my argument: *donates another $50.00*

 

[Doboji]

From Wiki:

Text

Shelling of United Nations Compound


The conflict intensified and thousands of Lebanese civilians sought to flee the area and find safe refuge from the fighting. By 14 April, 745 people were occupying the United Nations compound at Qana. More than 800 were there on April 18.[8]

According to a U.N. report, on April 18, Hezbollah, fired two Katyusha rockets and eight mortars at Israeli soldiers near the so-called Red Line (the northern limits of the "security zone") from areas about 200 meters southwest and 350 meters southeast of the United Nations compound. 15 minutes later an Israeli unit responded by shelling the area with M-109A2 155 mm guns.[9] According to the Israeli military, thirty eight shells were fired, two-thirds of them equipped with proximity fuses, an anti-personnel mechanism that causes the weapon to explode above the ground. The UN investigation found that 13 shells exploded within or above the compound and 4 "very close to it."[10]

As a result of the shelling, 106 civilians died, with more wounded. Most of the casualties were residents of nearby villages who had fled the conflict, while four were U.N. troops.

 

[GrGr]

From Doboji's link above:

"The U.N. appointed military advisor Major-General Franklin van Kappen of the Netherlands to investigate the incident. His conclusions were:

Qana shelling
(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.[16]





********************

Massacre in Sanctuary; Eyewitness
By Robert Fisk - 19th April, 1996

http://www.mideastfacts.com/massacre_Fisk.html

Qana-South Lebanon: the place where the Israeli shells killed 102 people, mostly women and children, taking refuge in a United Nations headquarters on April 18, 1996.

Qana, southern Lebanon - It was a massacre. Not since Sabra and Chatila had I seen the innocent slaughtered like this. The Lebanese refugee women and children and men lay in heaps, their hands or arms or legs missing, beheaded or disembowelled. There were well over a hundred of them. A baby lay without a head. The Israeli shells had scythed through them as they lay in the United Nations shelter, believing that they were safe under the world's protection. Like the Muslims of Srebrenica, the Muslims of Qana were wrong.

In front of a burning building of the UN's Fijian battalion headquarters, a girl held a corpse in her arms, the body of a grey- haired man whose eyes were staring at her, and she rocked the corpse back and forth in her arms, keening and weeping and crying the same words over and over: "My father, my father." A Fijian UN soldier stood amid a sea of bodies and, without saying a word, held aloft the body of a headless child.

"The Israelis have just told us they'll stop shelling the area," a UN soldier said, shaking with anger. "Are we supposed to thank them?" In the remains of a burning building - the conference room of the Fijian UN headquarters - a pile of corpses was burning. The roof had crashed in flames onto their bodies, cremating them in front of my eyes. When I walked towards them, I slipped on a human hand...

Israel's slaughter of civilians in this terrible 10-day offensive - 206 by last night - has been so cavalier, so ferocious, that not a Lebanese will forgive this massacre. There had been the ambulance attacked on Saturday, the sisters killed in Yohmor the day before, the 2-year-old girl decapitated by an Israeli missile four days ago. And earlier yesterday, the Israelis had slaughtered a family of 12 - the youngest was a four- day-old baby - when Israeli helicopter pilots fired missiles into their home.

Shortly afterwards, three Israeli jets dropped bombs only 250 metres from a UN convoy on which I was travelling, blasting a house 30 feet into the air in front of my eyes. Travelling back to Beirut to file my report on the Qana massacre to the Independent last night, I found two Israeli gunboats firing at the civilian cars on the river bridge north of Sidon.

Every foreign army comes to grief in Lebanon. The Sabra and Chatila massacre of Palestinians by Israel's militia allies in 1982 doomed Israel's 1982 invasion. Now the Israelis are stained again by the bloodbath at Qana, the scruffy little Lebanese hill town where the Lebanese believe Jesus turned water into wine.

The Israeli Prime Minister Shimon Peres may now wish to end this war. But the Hizbollah are not likely to let him. Israel is back in the Lebanese quagmire. Nor will the Arab world forget yesterday'a terrible scenes.

The blood of all the refugees ran quite literally in streams from the shell-smashed UN compound restaurant in which the Shiite Muslims from the hill villages of southern Lebanon - who had heeded Israel's order to leave their homes - had pathetically sought shelter. Fijian and French soldiers heaved another group of dead - they lay with their arms tightly wrapped around each other - into blankets.

A French UN trooper muttered oaths to himself as he opened a bag in which he was dropping feet, fingers, pieces of people's arms.

And as we walked through this obscenity, a swarm of people burst into the compound. They had driven in wild convoys down from Tyre and began to pull the blankets off the mutilated corpses of their mothers and sons and daughters and to shriek "Allahu Akbar" (God is Great") and to threaten the UN troops.

We had suddenly become not UN troops and journalists but Westerners, Israel's allies, an object of hatred and venom. One bearded man with fierce eyes stared at us, his face dark with fury. "You are Americans," he screamed at us. "Americans are dogs. You did this. Americans are dogs."

President Bill Clinton has allied himself with Israel in its war against "terrorism" and the Lebanese, in their grief, had not forgotten this. Israel's official expression of sorrow was rubbing salt in their wounds. "I would like to be made into a bomb and blow myself up amid the Israelis," one old man said.

As for the Hizbollah, which has repeatedly promised that Israelis will pay for their killing of Lebanese civilians, its revenge cannot be long in coming. Operation Grapes of Wrath may then turn out then to be all too aptly named.

**********************


Yup the civilians had been given sanctuary in the UN compound (again fleeing their homes on orders from the IDF). All that did was make them sitting ducks for IDF artillery. And Israel wonders where the suicide bombers come from.

 

[The Green Bean]

Originally posted by: RichardE

Originally posted by: senseamp

Originally posted by: RichardE

Originally posted by: senseamp

Originally posted by: RichardE

Originally posted by: senseamp

Originally posted by: RichardE

Originally posted by: senseamp

Originally posted by: RichardE

What matters is only if Israel is targetting civilians. Infrastructre, apartment buildings ect are fair game. So again, why are there not more civilian deaths in this war with the amount of missiles used and ground forces in?

You guys brought this to the table, I am asking for your reasoning when faced with some basic facts.

Is an Israeli bus "fair game" if there is a member of IDF riding on it?

Hez and Hamas policy dictates civilians are fair game. To them that bus if fair game, another good reason for this war.

So if Hamas and Hez change policy from "blowing up civilians riding to work" to "blowing up transportation infrastructure", i.e. buses, you would have no problem with them, since you have already said that infrastructure is "fair game". It's simply the language you object to, not the act of blowing up a bus?

How can I object to what a countries policy is? The point is, and one that you seem to be missing rather purposefully, Hez and Hamas directly target civilians. No "what if" that is what is happening. You seem to love to bring out hypothetical situations, which is useless. Right now, as of this momment, Hez and Hamas target civilians. I love the fact you shed no tears for any Israel civilians killed but scream about the unfairness of any arab civilians killed. Like watching Israelies die?

You are losing the arguement and getting defensive. Since you already called bombing of apartment buldings "fair game," you don't really have a leg to stand on when pretending to care about civilians being killed. As far as Israeli civilians, I do feel bad for them, and I do hope Israel goes after Hezbollah, but that doesn't absolve them of moral responsibility for killing civilians in Lebanon. Unlike you, I am not excusing killing of civilians on either side.

Civilians die in war. It is up to them to make sure there leaders do not cause conflict.

Well, that can be used to justify killing of any civilians.
Israeli civilians elected their leaders too. Are Israeli civilians fair game too? Or only non-Israeli ones?

I am not getting defensive, just understand you are being pathetic. I am still waiting for a reason on how Israel is targetting civilians, yet only 400 have been killed. You guys defend organizations that have it in there policies to kill civilians, yet you cry when civilians die. You are hypocrites, plain and simple.

You just defended killing of civilians yourself in the same post. What does that make you?

A realist. Civilians die in a war, the difference is Hez and Hamas go only for civilians, Israel does not. You defend Hez and Hamas, you sympathize with organizations that kill civilans on purposely, and publicly state that is what they do.

Hezbollah does not have precision weapons. The Israelis do. Guess who has killed more civilians? Both say that they do not target civilians.

Your posts are biased.

 

[GrGr]

The investigations showed that the IDF targeted the Qana base and fired for effect. I don't think you should accuse anyone of bias Doboji without acknowledging your own.

 

[imported_peachee]

Those who support Israel in spite of Israel's attack on the UN observation post and on civilians are heavily biased for one reason or another. They seemingly will never ever make Israel take responsibility. It is these blind extremists (yes both sides have extemists) that causes Israel to continue its path towards eternal warfare (because Israel is never wrong ... or at least they will never admit it because it means they will have to be punished for past war crimes). All the while, more and more civlians are killed all for what? Not peace. Not justice. It is done just so Israel can continue doing what it is doing without answering to anyone. Can those without restraints ever restrain themselves (from committing attrocious crimes against humanity)? History says no.

 

[jimkyser]

Originally posted by: GrGr

The investigations showed that the IDF targeted the Qana base and fired for effect. I don't think you should accuse anyone of bias Doboji without acknowledging your own.

Come on man! Don't you know that the only investigations that matter are those by the IDF itself. I mean, the IDF is a perfect institution that would never cover up wrong-doing on the part of it's soldiers. You're quoting from an investigation by someone from the UN, those bunch of jew-hating, arab-loving, america-hating wackos! That'll never fly on this forum.

 

[Red Dawn]

One would think that the IDF would go out of their way not to fsck up like this, especially with all the criticism it's getting even here in America.

 

[daniel49]

Originally posted by: Red Dawn
One would think that the IDF would go out of their way not to fsck up like this, especially with all the criticism it's getting even here in America.

friendly fire happens in any conflict. One only has to use rudimentry logic to see there was no advantage to purposefully hitting a UN post for Isreal.
What would be thier reasoning?
On the other hand Annan's accusation that it was purposeful from hour one seems both premature and irresponsable.

 

[Red Dawn]

Originally posted by: daniel49

Originally posted by: Red Dawn
One would think that the IDF would go out of their way not to fsck up like this, especially with all the criticism it's getting even here in America.

friendly fire happens in any conflict. One only has to use rudimentry logic to see there was no advantage to purposefully hitting a UN post for Isreal.
What would be thier reasoning?
On the other hand Annan's accusation that it was purposeful from hour one seems both premature and irresponsable.

Yeah he seems to think it wasn't so freindly of fire. We don't know if it wasx or not but I tend to believe the the IDF isn't so stupid as to purposely target them. Careless maybe possibly even a little cavelier about it.

 

[smack Down]

Originally posted by: daniel49

Originally posted by: Red Dawn
One would think that the IDF would go out of their way not to fsck up like this, especially with all the criticism it's getting even here in America.

friendly fire happens in any conflict. One only has to use rudimentry logic to see there was no advantage to purposefully hitting a UN post for Isreal.
What would be thier reasoning?
On the other hand Annan's accusation that it was purposeful from hour one seems both premature and irresponsable.

Friendly fire isn't getting attacked for 6 hours.

 

[daniel49]

Originally posted by: smack Down

Originally posted by: daniel49

Originally posted by: Red Dawn
One would think that the IDF would go out of their way not to fsck up like this, especially with all the criticism it's getting even here in America.

friendly fire happens in any conflict. One only has to use rudimentry logic to see there was no advantage to purposefully hitting a UN post for Isreal.
What would be thier reasoning?
On the other hand Annan's accusation that it was purposeful from hour one seems both premature and irresponsable.

Friendly fire isn't getting attacked for 6 hours.

Isreal says an investigation will happen lets hear both sides of the story.
But again what would purposefully targeting a UN post gain them?

 

[Red Dawn]

Originally posted by: daniel49

Originally posted by: smack Down

Originally posted by: daniel49

Originally posted by: Red Dawn
One would think that the IDF would go out of their way not to fsck up like this, especially with all the criticism it's getting even here in America.

friendly fire happens in any conflict. One only has to use rudimentry logic to see there was no advantage to purposefully hitting a UN post for Isreal.
What would be thier reasoning?
On the other hand Annan's accusation that it was purposeful from hour one seems both premature and irresponsable.

Friendly fire isn't getting attacked for 6 hours.

Isreal says an investigation will happen lets hear both sides of the story.
But again what would purposefully targeting a UN post gain them?

Rogue Commanders? You know that the Israelis have somewhat of a bunker mentality or an us vs the world mentality, kind of like some cops out on the mean streets of America.

 

[smack Down]

Originally posted by: daniel49

Originally posted by: smack Down

Originally posted by: daniel49

Originally posted by: Red Dawn
One would think that the IDF would go out of their way not to fsck up like this, especially with all the criticism it's getting even here in America.

friendly fire happens in any conflict. One only has to use rudimentry logic to see there was no advantage to purposefully hitting a UN post for Isreal.
What would be thier reasoning?
On the other hand Annan's accusation that it was purposeful from hour one seems both premature and irresponsable.

Friendly fire isn't getting attacked for 6 hours.

Isreal says an investigation will happen lets hear both sides of the story.
But again what would purposefully targeting a UN post gain them?

And OJ is out trying to find the real killer.

 

[daniel49]

Originally posted by: smack Down

Originally posted by: daniel49

Originally posted by: smack Down

Originally posted by: daniel49

Originally posted by: Red Dawn
One would think that the IDF would go out of their way not to fsck up like this, especially with all the criticism it's getting even here in America.

friendly fire happens in any conflict. One only has to use rudimentry logic to see there was no advantage to purposefully hitting a UN post for Isreal.
What would be thier reasoning?
On the other hand Annan's accusation that it was purposeful from hour one seems both premature and irresponsable.

Friendly fire isn't getting attacked for 6 hours.

Isreal says an investigation will happen lets hear both sides of the story.
But again what would purposefully targeting a UN post gain them?

And OJ is out trying to find the real killer.

And smack down is trying be objective and not judge without all the facts.

 

[fallenangel99]

What's funny is that there has been NO talk from the Israelis about the return of the captured soliders (that is how all this started). Even when the Israelis talk about carving out a buffer zone and allowing international troops in south lebanon, they don't mention the return of the soldiers in any way.

They know getting back the soldiers is a lost cause and might as well do damage/destory hezbollah before finally the U.S. says enough is enough.

 

[smack Down]

Originally posted by: daniel49

Originally posted by: smack Down

Originally posted by: daniel49

Originally posted by: smack Down

Originally posted by: daniel49

Originally posted by: Red Dawn
One would think that the IDF would go out of their way not to fsck up like this, especially with all the criticism it's getting even here in America.

friendly fire happens in any conflict. One only has to use rudimentry logic to see there was no advantage to purposefully hitting a UN post for Isreal.
What would be thier reasoning?
On the other hand Annan's accusation that it was purposeful from hour one seems both premature and irresponsable.

Friendly fire isn't getting attacked for 6 hours.

Isreal says an investigation will happen lets hear both sides of the story.
But again what would purposefully targeting a UN post gain them?

And OJ is out trying to find the real killer.

And smack down is trying be objective and not judge without all the facts.

What facts are we missing?

 

[daniel49]

Originally posted by: smack Down

Originally posted by: daniel49

Originally posted by: smack Down

Originally posted by: daniel49

Originally posted by: smack Down

Originally posted by: daniel49

Originally posted by: Red Dawn
One would think that the IDF would go out of their way not to fsck up like this, especially with all the criticism it's getting even here in America.

friendly fire happens in any conflict. One only has to use rudimentry logic to see there was no advantage to purposefully hitting a UN post for Isreal.
What would be thier reasoning?
On the other hand Annan's accusation that it was purposeful from hour one seems both premature and irresponsable.

Friendly fire isn't getting attacked for 6 hours.

Isreal says an investigation will happen lets hear both sides of the story.
But again what would purposefully targeting a UN post gain them?

And OJ is out trying to find the real killer.

And smack down is trying be objective and not judge without all the facts.

What facts are we missing?

both sides of the story.
And I can still see no logic for Isreal choosing to bomb the post, can you?

 

[Siwy]

Originally posted by: daniel49

Originally posted by: Red Dawn
One would think that the IDF would go out of their way not to fsck up like this, especially with all the criticism it's getting even here in America.

friendly fire happens in any conflict. One only has to use rudimentry logic to see there was no advantage to purposefully hitting a UN post for Isreal.
What would be thier reasoning?
On the other hand Annan's accusation that it was purposeful from hour one seems both premature and irresponsable.

The logic for purposely targeting UN base is simple; IDF does not want the UN to stay in the area since they are armed with the most destructive weapons - aka binoculars and cameras. They know they can easily weasel out of it by saying it was a mistake, it worked for them countless of times before.

Anyone that says targeting a base 21 times is an accident must be delusional, especially after 10 warnings from UN. One close call can be called an accident, two close calls an extraordinary coincidence, but what do you call targeting the same base twenty one freaking times?!

 

[smack Down]

Originally posted by: daniel49

Originally posted by: smack Down

Originally posted by: daniel49

Originally posted by: smack Down

Originally posted by: daniel49

Originally posted by: smack Down

Originally posted by: daniel49

Originally posted by: Red Dawn
One would think that the IDF would go out of their way not to fsck up like this, especially with all the criticism it's getting even here in America.

friendly fire happens in any conflict. One only has to use rudimentry logic to see there was no advantage to purposefully hitting a UN post for Isreal.
What would be thier reasoning?
On the other hand Annan's accusation that it was purposeful from hour one seems both premature and irresponsable.

Friendly fire isn't getting attacked for 6 hours.

Isreal says an investigation will happen lets hear both sides of the story.
But again what would purposefully targeting a UN post gain them?

And OJ is out trying to find the real killer.

And smack down is trying be objective and not judge without all the facts.

What facts are we missing?

both sides of the story.
And I can still see no logic for Isreal choosing to bomb the post, can you?

So we should just trust Israel when it says it didn't intintional bomb the UN post.

I see no reason to wait for them to say what we all know there going to say.

 

[ThePresence]

Smack Down, you seem to be avoiding the question. What possible gain would Israel have from attacking a UN post?

Also, I wonder if you also believe that Israel intentionally shot down it's own chopper last week when it was brought down by friendly fire. After all, Israel did do it. And we all know they would say that it wasn't intentional.

 

[smack Down]

Originally posted by: ThePresence
Smack Down, you seem to be avoiding the question. What possible gain would Israel have from attacking a UN post?

Also, I wonder if you also believe that Israel intentionally shot down it's own chopper last week when it was brought down by friendly fire. After all, Israel did do it. And we all know they would say that it wasn't intentional.

Sorry I was invited to there breifing so I'm not sure what there goal was. Made to punish the UN for not doing enough who knows.

 

[ThePresence]

Originally posted by: smack Down

Originally posted by: ThePresence
Smack Down, you seem to be avoiding the question. What possible gain would Israel have from attacking a UN post?

Also, I wonder if you also believe that Israel intentionally shot down it's own chopper last week when it was brought down by friendly fire. After all, Israel did do it. And we all know they would say that it wasn't intentional.

Sorry I was invited to there breifing so I'm not sure what there goal was. Made to punish the UN for not doing enough who knows.

Okay, so basically you can't come up a motive that makes any kind of sense while I can tell you many reasons that make perfect sense why they would not do it, yet you are convinced it was done intentionally. Just so that's clear.