The Middle East part 2

[Warden 0]

Im pretty sure the UN had told Israel 10 times (i think) that UN Observers where using the outpost, Troops Covered in bright Blue are hard to miss from a Recce, if they even did one.

Didn't the Israelis Attack an area near a refugee camp the other day? Or was i imagining that one?

[Stealth3 0]

True. What's worst is that if they can't denny that it was not their fire, they have to blame somebody. I know at the beginning they said that it was possibly Hezbolah fire that hit the outpost.

Now, they will say there were Hezbolah members using the outpost or something like that.

Already on the news they are saying Hezbolah members were nearby shooting rockets, which is total bs for a couple of reasons:

1. A member there reported that there was no Hezbolah activity around.

2. The most important information is that the OUTPOST itself was hit. Not nearby positions, the roof. Meaning they did not target nearby rocket lunchers (if any), but the outpost itself.

The US ambassador to UN (Bulton), and Israeli ambassador already stated that it was completely Hezbolah's fault for kidnapping the soldiers. Only an idiot would use that ideology.

Using the same ideology, its Israel's fault because if Israel wouldn't invade Lebanon the first time, Hezbolah wouldn't exist.

[billybob2002 0]

Read what I wrote (3 times) about immigration and land purchase under the Mandate being required to protect indigenous rights and position.

Off track = Jewish immigration/land purchases having threatened Arab rights and postion.

On track = Undoing the damage to Arab rights and position caused by Jewish immigration/land purchases.

Undoing the damage = suspending/restricting the Jewish immigration/land purchases that caused the damage.

And read what the Commission ruled on the White Paper. Four members on the Commission believed that the White Paper did not match with the Mandate (violation) and the three other members ruled that it violated the Mandate but existing circumstances overrules the violation.

Illegal?  The Commission was only an advisory panel.  And besides, according to your 1948 UN link

They were the ones with the knowledge with the situation because they were the ones that monitored the Mandate(s). Therefore, their vote on the whether the White Paper is a violation is important.

The White Paper was very much a form of "affirmative action" aimed at quelling a growing Arab revolt.  It was controversial and over 20 years ahead of its time.  Of course, opponents of affirmative action always attack it for being unconstitutional.

According to the United States Supreme Court, you can't use a quota system in affrimative action because it heavily (my word) discriminates against persons that don't fall under the program.

Not really.  Palestine was already an Arabic state.  They simply didn't want it to become split up after decades of reassurances to the contrary.

They weren't reassured for decades that Palestine would become a Arabic state. If you believe that the Arabs were reassured, I got the proof that Jews were reassured that Palestine would not become a Arabic state through the various actions of the British. The only part of the Mandate of Palestine that the British allowed to become a Arabic state was Transjordan.

[Nemesis6 0]

if Israel wouldn't invade Lebanon the first time, Hezbolah wouldn't exist.

And why exactly did Israel enter that place to begin with?

By the way: Hizballah were there -

Quote[/b] ]Retired Canadian Major General Lewis Mackenzie was interviewed on CBC radio, and had some very interesting news about the UN observer post hit by Israeli shells; the Canadian peacekeeper killed there had previously emailed Mackenzie telling him that Hizballah was using their post as cover. (Hat tip: Isadore.)

Quote[/b] ]We received emails from him a few days ago, and he was describing the fact that he was taking fire within, in one case, three meters of his position for tactical necessity, not being targeted. Now that’s veiled speech in the military. What he was telling us was Hezbollah soldiers were all over his position and the IDF were targeting them. And that’s a favorite trick by people who don’t have representation in the UN. They use the UN as shields knowing that they can’t be punished for it.

No HizbAllah, huh? What's more is -

That's a picture from the outpost in question. The flag on the right is the flag of HizbAllah.

[Stealth3 0]

First invasion of Lebanon: June 6th 1982

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1982_Invasion_of_Lebanon

Hezbolah: Hezbollah was inspired by the success of the Islamic Revolution in Iran [2] and was formed primarily to combat Israeli occupation following the 1982 Lebanon War

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hezbolah

The point I'm stressing is that before 82, there was no Hezbolah.

The second point is that the organization was formed to resist Israel's invasion in 82.

Therefore what I said earlier is still valid.

Retired Canadian Major General Lewis Mackenzie was interviewed on CBC radio, and had some very interesting news about the UN observer post hit by Israeli shells; the Canadian peacekeeper killed there had previously emailed Mackenzie telling him that Hizballah was using their post as cover. (Hat tip: Isadore.)

Quote

We received emails from him a few days ago, and he was describing the fact that he was taking fire within, in one case, three meters of his position for tactical necessity, not being targeted. Now that’s veiled speech in the military. What he was telling us was Hezbollah soldiers were all over his position and the IDF were targeting them. And that’s a favorite trick by people who don’t have representation in the UN. They use the UN as shields knowing that they can’t be punished for it.

That doesn't have anything to do with the fact that the OUTPOST ITSELF WAS BOMBED, not Hezbolah positions nearby. You don't bomb the roof of an outpost if the enemy is around it, and you have friendly inside.

And next question: How come the only casualtis on the outpost assault were only 4 UN members. Where are the Hezbolah?

That statement could have easily been fabricated, and there are different statements by different guys over there saying other things.

[mattxr 9]

israel are well bs-ing.. they targeted that outpost no matter, if the LGB hit the roof spot on, they must of been targeting it.

[deanosbeano 0]

if Israel wouldn't invade Lebanon the first time, Hezbolah wouldn't exist.

And why exactly did Israel enter that place to begin with?

By the way: Hizballah were there -

Quote[/b] ]Retired Canadian Major General Lewis Mackenzie was interviewed on CBC radio, and had some very interesting news about the UN observer post hit by Israeli shells; the Canadian peacekeeper killed there had previously emailed Mackenzie telling him that Hizballah was using their post as cover. (Hat tip: Isadore.)

Quote[/b] ]We received emails from him a few days ago, and he was describing the fact that he was taking fire within, in one case, three meters of his position for tactical necessity, not being targeted. Now that’s veiled speech in the military. What he was telling us was Hezbollah soldiers were all over his position and the IDF were targeting them. And that’s a favorite trick by people who don’t have representation in the UN. They use the UN as shields knowing that they can’t be punished for it.

No HizbAllah, huh? What's more is -

image removed

That's a picture from the outpost in question. The flag on the right is the flag of HizbAllah.

Quote[/b] ]We received emails from him a few days ago, and he was describing the fact that he was taking fire within, in one case, three meters of his position for tactical necessity, not being targeted. Now that’s veiled speech in the military. What he was telling us was Hezbollah soldiers were all over his position and the IDF were targeting them

what he actually said

Quote[/b] ]"It appears that the lion's share of fighting between the IDF and Hezbollah has taken place in our area."

He added that there had been numerous occasions when his post had come under fire, but wrote carefully to avoid revealing tactical information.

"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," he wrote.

"The closest artillery has landed within two meters of our position and the closest 1000 lb aerial bomb has landed 100 meters from our patrol base."

well its nice to know they killed them because there was a flag next to theres that represented a terrorist group, now it all makes sense ,we can sleep well knowing the morals of the idf top brass are all good.

I think the question is not what the Email from july 18 says, but when that guy phoned 10 times in 6 hours to say that the bombs were close, they replied with one even closer.so there can be no doubt. that it was a deliberate attack.

the "e-mail"

pitty it was edited/updated on the 26th of july would have liked to see the original text.

[Nemesis6 0]

israel are well bs-ing.. they targeted that outpost no matter, if the LGB hit the roof spot on, they must of been targeting it.

That's some poor logic man: Something hit something, so the ones who launched it must have done it on purpose.

[mattxr 9]

israel are well bs-ing.. they targeted that outpost no matter, if the LGB hit the roof spot on, they must of been targeting it.  

That's some poor logic man: Something hit something, so the ones who launched it must have done it on purpose.  

true, you cant miss with a laser guided bomb and the UN allegedly called the israels 10 times to stop shelling there outpost

[-ZG-BUZZARD 0]

israel are well bs-ing.. they targeted that outpost no matter, if the LGB hit the roof spot on, they must of been targeting it.  

That's some poor logic man: Something hit something, so the ones who launched it must have done it on purpose.  

WITH A PRECISION-GUIDED WEAPON THERE IS NO POINT BUT TO HIT THE TARGET DEAD ON!!!

So don't even try to talk yourself out of that fact.

 

[mattxr 9]

British Foreign Secretary Margaret Beckett has protested to the US about its use of Prestwick Airport in western Scotland to transport bombs to Israel.

"We have already let the United States know that this is an issue that appears to be seriously at fault, and we will be making a formal protest if it appears that that is what has happened," she said.

Opposition parties have reacted angrily to a report in the Daily Telegraph newspaper that two chartered Airbus A310 cargo planes filled with laser-guided bombs landed at Prestwick en-route to Israel from the US.

The Israelis have requested the munitions to attack bunkers being used by Hezbollah militants in Lebanon.

[Stealth3 0]

It would be funny as hell if one of the bunker buster "accidently" hits a refugee camp or another UN outpost.

They will probably blame the US for not making the bombs "accurate" enough.

[dm 9]

BUZZARD @ July 27 2006,23:14)]

israel are well bs-ing.. they targeted that outpost no matter, if the LGB hit the roof spot on, they must of been targeting it.

That's some poor logic man: Something hit something, so the ones who launched it must have done it on purpose.

WITH A PRECISION-GUIDED WEAPON THERE IS NO POINT BUT TO HIT THE TARGET DEAD ON!!!

So don't even try to talk yourself out of that fact.

Actually, with the JDAM weapons (which Israel uses on its F-16I's) the circular area of error is between 13 and 30m depending on the guidance. If they were indeed aiming for the Hezbolah positions 10m or so from the UN bunker then probability states that it is very likely the UN bunker could be hit "accidentally"

[deanosbeano 0]

Quote[/b] ]Boeing delivered the 100,000th JDAM tail kit on December 2, 2004, to the US military since production started in 1998. Initial production was 900 tail kits per year, but as of December 2004 and following 9/11 terrorist attacks, tail kit production boosted and stands at 3,000 units per month. These tail kits provide precision strike capability to Mk 80 series bombs through GPS-aided navigation. To date, the US Air Force has received more than 50,000 JDAMs, the US Navy roughly 37,000 units, and the remaining tail kits (10,000?) were produced for international customers.

Specifications

Ceiling 13,700 m 44,948-ft

Circular Error Probable 3 m 3-yd

Max Range 24,000 m 26,374 yd

or 10 feet 3 meters , it dont matter , the fact remains it was a sad ending.[/edit anyway my own opinion is varied ,U.N shud of pulled them out , israelis should of answered the phone. hezbollah could have been bombed instead. i guess war is war, tragedy happens.

[mattxr 9]

British Foreign Secretary Margaret Beckett has protested to the US about its use of Prestwick Airport in western Scotland to transport bombs to Israel.

"We have already let the United States know that this is an issue that appears to be seriously at fault, and we will be making a formal protest if it appears that that is what has happened," she said.

Opposition parties have reacted angrily to a report in the Daily Telegraph newspaper that two chartered Airbus A310 cargo planes filled with laser-guided bombs landed at Prestwick en-route to Israel from the US.

The Israelis have requested the munitions to attack bunkers being used by Hezbollah militants in Lebanon.

US rejects weapon flight concerns

The White House has dismissed UK concerns about the use of Prestwick Airport, in Scotland, by US planes carrying bombs to Israel.

"Apparently, the British foreign minister thinks the paperwork was not in order," said spokesman Tony Snow.

"The Department of Defense does," he added. "We'll get it straightened out."

UK Foreign Secretary Margaret Beckett protested to US Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice, claiming procedures were ignored.

Mrs Beckett said: "We have already let the United States know that this is an issue that appears to be seriously at fault, and we will be making a formal protest if it appears that that is what has happened."

Britain's Daily Telegraph newspaper

[Bordoy 0]

No HizbAllah, huh? What's more is -

That's a picture from the outpost in question. The flag on the right is the flag of HizbAllah.

Shit excuse.

Look, theres Bin Laden in the middle of 10000 civillians...........lets bomb the fuck out of him anyway

[turms 0]

if Israel wouldn't invade Lebanon the first time, Hezbolah wouldn't exist.

And why exactly did Israel enter that place to begin with?

By the way: Hizballah were there -

Quote[/b] ]Retired Canadian Major General Lewis Mackenzie was interviewed on CBC radio, and had some very interesting news about the UN observer post hit by Israeli shells; the Canadian peacekeeper killed there had previously emailed Mackenzie telling him that Hizballah was using their post as cover. (Hat tip: Isadore.)

Quote[/b] ]We received emails from him a few days ago, and he was describing the fact that he was taking fire within, in one case, three meters of his position for tactical necessity, not being targeted. Now that’s veiled speech in the military. What he was telling us was Hezbollah soldiers were all over his position and the IDF were targeting them. And that’s a favorite trick by people who don’t have representation in the UN. They use the UN as shields knowing that they can’t be punished for it.

No HizbAllah, huh? What's more is -

That's a picture from the outpost in question. The flag on the right is the flag of HizbAllah.

Source for the claim that that pic is from the murdersite of 4 UN soldiers? Pic taken when?

[dm 9]

Quote[/b] ]Boeing delivered the 100,000th JDAM tail kit on December 2, 2004, to the US military since production started in 1998. Initial production was 900 tail kits per year, but as of December 2004 and following 9/11 terrorist attacks, tail kit production boosted and stands at 3,000 units per month. These tail kits provide precision strike capability to Mk 80 series bombs through GPS-aided navigation. To date, the US Air Force has received more than 50,000 JDAMs, the US Navy roughly 37,000 units, and the remaining tail kits (10,000?) were produced for international customers.

Specifications

Ceiling 13,700 m 44,948-ft

Circular Error Probable 3 m 3-yd

Max Range 24,000 m 26,374 yd

or 10 feet 3 meters , it dont matter , the fact remains it was a sad ending.[/edit anyway my own opinion is varied ,U.N shud of pulled them out , israelis should of answered the phone. hezbollah could have been bombed instead. i guess war is war, tragedy happens.

The 3m radius is for the JDAM-PIP variant (with an active terminal seeker) which I believe is only in US service. As far as I know, and according to all the info I could find, the Israeli AF/DF uses the "regular" JDAM. I could be wrong though, clarification from someone more "in the loop" than me would be nice.

[martinovic 0]

We received emails from him a few days ago, and he was describing the fact that he was taking fire within, in one case, three meters of his position for tactical necessity, not being targeted. Now that’s veiled speech in the military. What he was telling us was Hezbollah soldiers were all over his position and the IDF were targeting them. And that’s a favorite trick by people who don’t have representation in the UN. They use the UN as shields knowing that they can’t be punished for it.

He never directly says anything like that: http://www.ctv.ca/servlet....0060718

Where does he say that?

And Nemesis 6, hezbollah was created because Israel invaded Lebanon in 82, so they couldn't have been there.

BTW, has Israel used white phoshorous bombs?

Note: Some links from these sites might lead to images of dead poeple so be cautios. (I haven't seen any but in the comments sections there might be some.)

http://www.democracynow.org/article.pl?sid=06/07/25/1442242

http://www.democracynow.org/article.pl?sid=06/07/25/1442232

http://www.gnn.tv/headlin....phorous

[Bernadotte 0]

The Mandate didn't put a restriction on the immigration of Jews. How could the White Paper of 1939 put the Mandate back on track if it violates the Mandate?

Read what I wrote (3 times) about immigration and land purchase under the Mandate being required to protect indigenous rights and position.

Off track = Jewish immigration/land purchases having threatened Arab rights and postion.

On track = Undoing the damage to Arab rights and position caused by Jewish immigration/land purchases.

Undoing the damage = suspending/restricting the Jewish immigration/land purchases that caused the damage.

And read what the Commission ruled on the White Paper.

I did read that ruling that was never brought before the League or even acted upon by the Mandate authority (Britain).  So what?  You asked me how the White Paper was meant to get the Mandate back on track and then you deleted your question when you quoted my answer.  If you don't agree with my interpretation of the White Paper's intentions then say so.  However, the lame duck Commission's legal opinions is not the same thing as an assessment of the White Paper's aims, which is what your question was about.

The Commission was only an advisory panel.

They were the ones with the knowledge with the situation because they were the ones that monitored the Mandate(s). Therefore, their vote on the whether the White Paper is a violation is important.

Hardly.  They were bureaucratic regulators sitting in Switzerland who probably never even set foot in Palestine or the very conference that spawned the White Paper.  Their task was to review policy changes in accordance with their interpretation of the Mandate.  Times and circumstances changed.  Their recommendations might have brought about a review of the Mandate rather than the White Paper to avoid the tail wagging the dog.  Or do you honestly believe that splitting up Palestine was more in accordance with the Mandate than what the White Paper proposed?

According to the United States Supreme Court, you can't use a quota system in affrimative action because it heavily (my word) discriminates against persons that don't fall under the program.

Yeah?  And who exactly didn't fall under the program in Palestine?  It's not as though hundreds of thousands of non-Jews suddenly appeared in place of all the Jews who would have immigrated.

Not really.  Palestine was already an Arabic state.  They simply didn't want it to become split up after decades of reassurances to the contrary.

They weren't reassured for decades that Palestine would become a Arabic state.

I didn't say that.  I said that they were reassured that Palestine would not be split up.

Look, man!!  It was a good discussion and I learned a lot from those documents and quotes you dug up.  Thanks.  However, rewording the other's statements is just a debating tactic for people who like arguing for the sake of arguing.   Which is my cue to leave.

Thanks again.  

[Bernadotte 0]

http://michellemalkin.com/archives/images/hezlove002.jpg

That's a picture from the outpost in question.

Prove it.

That image is actually from this article posted 4 years ago in Candian Jewish News.  It only claims that the photo was taken at a UN post. That's all.  No other details, questions, comments or credits.  In fact, it could be a photo of any piece of fencing anywhere in the world.  And it certainly isn't necessarily the outpost that got struck as you have claimed.

Welcome back.   And keep trying.

[billybob2002 0]

I did read that ruling that was never brought before the League or even acted upon by the Mandate authority (Britain).  So what?  You asked me how the White Paper was meant to get the Mandate back on track and then you deleted your question when you quoted my answer.  If you don't agree with my interpretation of the White Paper's intentions then say so.  However, the lame duck Commission's legal opinions is not the same thing as an assessment of the White Paper's aims, which is what your question was about.

What are you talking about? I'm not arguing about the White Paper's intention but what the Permanent Mandates Commission ruled on the White Paper. The Commission did not see the White Paper has putting the Mandate back on track but, in fact, the White Paper was violating it. Therefore, according to the Commission, they, the British, violated the Mandate that the League of Nations passed in 1922.

Hardly.  They were bureaucratic regulators sitting in Switzerland who probably never even set foot in Palestine or the very conference that spawned the White Paper.  Their task was to review policy changes in accordance with their interpretation of the Mandate.  Times and circumstances changed.  Their recommendations might have brought about a review of the Mandate rather than the White Paper to avoid the tail wagging the dog.  Or do you honestly believe that splitting up Palestine was more in accordance with the Mandate than what the White Paper proposed?

The British surely didn't know what they were doing. The Peel Commission and Woodhead Commission favored partition of Palestine has the solution to the problem. All the sudden in 1939, the British (not all the British) thought partition will not work and there should be a single state headed by Arabs and Jews. It is illogical to think that Arabs and Jews would run the government together because the Arabs even didn't want to meet the Jews during the St. James Conference (1939).

I didn't say that.  I said that they were reassured that Palestine would not be split up.

Oops, I should had worded it better or something. Palestine wasn't considered to be a Arabic state, thus a indepedent country, but a terrority under British advice and assistance until it is time for the terrority, Palestine, to be a state( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/League_of_Nations_mandate ) . Therefore, I don't believe Palestine was considered to be Arabic state but a terrority with a Arab majority which in time would be a state. Yet, the British traded a part of Palestine for a region that was in the French Mandate of Syria. Additionally, the British would had partition Palestine into two states in the 1930s but the Jews and Arabs didn't agree on it. The one state solution for Palestine didn't come until 1939 but it would be a Arab and Jewish state.

Therefore, Palestine wasn't a Arabic state during the Mandate period (and before that) and the British didn't totally reassure the Arabs until 1939 that Palestine would not be split up into two states. However, Palestine wasn't going to be a Arabic state or a Jewish state but a state governed by Arabs and Jews. So, Palestine wasn't a Arabic state.  

Edit: Only I can end the argument...

If you want to end it, fine by me....

[Bernadotte 0]

...you deleted your question when you quoted my answer.

What are you talking about?

It's quite simple.  If you quote your question along with my answer to that question then you won't be able to pretend that you don't know what I'm talking about.

Enough games, ok?  Bye.  

[Nemesis6 0]

It only claims that the photo was taken at a UN post.

That's not how I understood it. Oh well. It doesn't really change anything as it was just a supplemental part of my post. Besides, it still carries the same message.

[billybob2002 0]

...you deleted your question when you quoted my answer.

What are you talking about?

It's quite simple.  If you quote your question along with my answer to that question then you won't be able to pretend that you don't know what I'm talking about.

Enough games, ok?  Bye.  

I got what you were saying about fixing a wrong but you can't put something right if the Paper itself violates the Mandate. According to the Commission appointed by the League of Nations to monitor all Mandates voted and approved by the League, the Paper violates the Mandate. That was my arugment and I didn't need to quote my question. I wasn't playing a game. I though you understood my question.

How could the White Paper of 1939 put the Mandate back on track if it violates the Mandate? You can't because the Paper is considered a violation of the Mandate.

I still like you....