Harper Doubts Attack On UN Deliberate

Perhaps we should call him "Stephen Harpler" Can Israel do not wrong in this guys eyes?

Of course he will say that. To say otherwise would offend the Bush-shites. Harper is a good puppet, when his masters in DC pull the strings he jumps.

Where would a Bush dingleberrie's strings be I wonder? Although Bush too is just a dingleberry of some other string puller. There are both pieces of shite.

---
"And those who were seen dancing were thought to be insane by those who could not hear the music." Friedrich Nietzsche

Considering the Americans helped to create islamic militancy as part of their turf war with the Russians they can hardly cry too much if this all now blows up in their faces. The state of Israel was originally a creation of the British from territory that certainly didn't belong to the citizens of Brooklyn or Montreal. The people who cry "jew hater" to anyone who criticizes Israel would be the first ones to complain if some Muslim nutcase were to claim (let's say) Sable island as a prototype "islamic" republic in North America. These things go both ways. The Israelis have no business claiming that "God" has directed them to turf the arabs out or reduce them to "observer" status in their own world. Here are some words from David Ben Gurion first president of Israeli concerning the fate of the Arabs

"We must use terror, assassination, intimidation, land confiscation, and the cutting of all social services to rid the Galilee of its Arab population."
Dvid Ben-Gurion, May 1948, to the General Staff. From Ben-Gurion, A Biography, by Michael Ben-Zohar, Delacorte, New York 1978.

Nonetheless he admitted the following:
"Let us not ignore the truth among ourselves ... politically we are the aggressors and they defend themselves... The country is theirs, because they inhabit it, whereas we want to come here and settle down, and in their view we want to take away from them their country."
-- David Ben Gurion, Simha Flapan's "Zionism and the Palestinians pp 141-2 citing a 1938 speech.

Eventually I am hopeful that the United States and its "friends" will eventually hear a more reasonable and pragmatic voice or at least one based on intelligent self-interest.ie. that the state of Israel is a "front"... a very expensive “gated community” supported by religious zealots ... NOT all of whom are jewish obviously. At some point we MUST establish a rational working relationship with the arab world ( after all that’s where the oil is ) if the basis for islamic extremism is to be EFFECTIVELY undercut. The idea of a binational state ( or maybe no state at all ... that would be even better. Cooperative Commonwealth Federation, maybe? ), deep-sixed by the British after 1948, should be seen as a minimum solution in Palestine. It's strange the western world seemed to understand this process ( more or less ) where the fate of post war Germany was concerned ... at least as much should be done in the middle east.

Harper is showing his true colors.

1. First defending Israeli strikes as "defence".

2. Then fails to even "request" an Israeli ceasefire until Canadians can be evacuated. Does a simple request cost that much? Not only have we abandoned the notion of peacekeepers, basic decency model is abandoned as well.

3. Next Harper in the newly embraced global doublespeak says we won't be sending peacekeeping troops to Lebanon, it's up to "those" countries to work it out amonst them selves. Gee will that model work in Afghanistan? One would wonder at this point days after Harper declines peacekeepers for Lebanon that we have such a monumental blunder as an attack on a UN post. Perhaps the hawkes have misinterpreted the opposition the Afghani mission as simple vapors at the loss of any soldiers and a lack of backbone in the collective Canadian conscienceness, instead of calling into question the moral justification for military aggresion.

4. Now Harper is immediately convinced that the UN attack is not deliberate, and condems Kofi Annan's statement right off the mark. Harper promises "our military will liase with Israel's and get to the bottom of it all". I have to wonder why an investigation is necessary when Harper already has all the facts at his instantaneous disposal to assure us it wasn't deliberate.

I think that next to the Peace tower, we need a plant a tree. Make it a fast gowing tree. Call it: "The Tree of Accountability and Transparency", and attach a noose. Make it a maple tree, on second thought, and put a monument in bronze by the tree to read that:"those who turn their back on the national symbol of this country of Canada may well be doomed to swing from it.

Israel needs the observers gone so there will be no "neutral" people around to report on its atrocities. Simple as that - give it a week or two and you'll see the UN pull out of the area, giving the IDF free reign.

Of course, the corporate press will continue frame their reporting to make the Arabs the aggressors and the Israeli's the victims. Its quite simple really - they just name every Israeli action a "response".

The suggestion that Israel would *intentionally* kill 4 UN peacekeepers is ludicrous and repugnant and pretty much what I expected to find when I came here. <br />
<br />
From the NY Sun:<br />
<br />
Based on reporting by the U.N.'s peacekeeping chief, Jean-Marie Guéhenno, Mr. Annan alleged in Rome Tuesday that the incident was an apparent "deliberate targeting by Israeli Defense Forces of a U.N. Observer post in southern Lebanon." Although Mr. Annan began to backtrack yesterday, his spokeswoman, Marie Okabe, said he stood by the accusation.<br />
<br />
Mr. MacKenzie, who after retiring from the Canadian military became a politician, had a very different interpretation. "I happen to know" the now-deceased Canadian U.N. observer, Major Paeta Hess-von Kruedener, Mr. MacKenzie told the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation in a radio interview yesterday.<br />
<br />
"We've received e-mails 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,'" Mr. MacKenzie said he wrote.<br />
<br />
In one such e-mail, obtained by The New York Sun, Hess-von Kruedener wrote about heavy IDF artillery and aerial bombardment "within 2 meters of our position." The Israeli shooting, he added, "has not been deliberate targeting, but has rather been due to tactical necessity."<br />
The correspondence between the trooper and former commander amounted to "veiled speech in the military," Mr. MacKenzie, who once commanded the U.N. troops in Bosnia, told the CBC. "What he was telling us was Hezbollah fighters 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 U.N. They use the U.N. as shields knowing that they cannot be punished for it."<br />
<br />
That article can be found in it's entirity here:<br />
<br />
<a href="http://www.nysun.com/article/36860">http://www.nysun.com/article/36860</a><br />
<br />
Now marinate on this for a bit (link below):<br />
<br />
UNIFIL's official mandate is to a) Confirm the withdrawal of Israeli forces from southern Lebanon; b) Restore international peace and security; c) Assist the Government of Lebanon in ensuring the return of its effective authority in the area. If each of the press releases is read in their entirety is manifestly clear that UNIFIL is performing none of these authorized missions. Instead it has become a kind of ambulance and relief service for the killed and injured on the Lebanese side of the border. The releases are peppered with accounts of UNIFIL personnel escorting what are described as civilians and villagers to places of safety. This is not really part of its mandate, which is not to say that it is immoral or wrong.<br />
<br />
All the incidents of IDF fire reported in the press releases are clearly related to some kind of nearby combat with the Hezbollah. In one case the IDF fired on a village into which the UNIFIL had gone, but rockets had originated from the vicinity of the village prior. In another case, an Israeli aerial bombardment detonated mines all around a UNIFIL position. Those mines were presumably not planted by UNIFIL, but they were so close to it that the UN position caught fire. The UN observation post in Maroun al-Ras was hit by artillery, but we know from press reports that Maroun al-Ras was the epicenter of heavy fighting and the location of a Hezbollah bunker complex. The UN even ran a convoy from the Hezbollah "capital" of Bint Jubayl to another area. Bint Jubayl is well known to be the target of an IDF attack. Yet the UN felt that it was possible to move convoys through such areas, albeit at considerable danger.<br />
<br />
One reason that they could was that UNIFIL was evidently in contact with the IDF. In a sentence which speaks volumes we learn that "One unarmed UN military observer, a member of the Observer Group Lebanon (OGL), was seriously wounded by small arms fire in the patrol base in the Marun Al Ras area yesterday afternoon. According to preliminary reports, the fire originated from the Hezbollah side during an exchange with the IDF. He was evacuated by the UN to the Israeli side, from where he was taken by an IDF ambulance helicopter to a hospital in Haifa." This strongly implies that UNFIL was able to coordinate their movements with the IDF and that the IDF was willing to risk men and aircraft to help UNFIL.<br />
<br />
Now a lot will be made of UN positions being "clearly marked". However nearly all of the fire reported on UN positions with the exception of the July 23 indicident in Kiyam, where the 4 UN observers were killed today, were from artillery, which is an area weapon. Artillery, depending on the angle and range from which it is fired, has a certain dispersion even allowing for crew perfection. (In contrast UNIFIL took small arms fire from the Hezbollah between Kunin and Bint Jubayl and small arms can only be used when visual contact is made). Imperfections in shell manufacture, operator error, barrel wear etc can cause an artillery round to fall off target. It is not called an area weapon for nothing. The one exception was a tank round that landed in a Ghanain position. But the firing was evidently not repeated which it would have had the tank gunner intended to destroy the Ghanaians.<br />
<br />
The July 23 incident in Kiyam in "seven incidents of firing close to UN positions" involving aerial bombardment strongly suggests that Hezbollah positions were fairly close to the position of Observer Group Lebanon. It should be clear by now that the IDF had certainly not been deliberately targeting UNIFIL from July 17 to 25. How likely is it that the IDF after not aiming at UNIFIL should suddenly change their policy and aim to kill the observers at Kiyam, as categorically stated by UN Secretary General Kofi Annan?<br />
<br />
Here: <a href="http://fallbackbelmont.blogspot.com">http://fallbackbelmont.blogspot.com</a> (there 2nd and 3rd entries have excellent analysis to counter your speculation.

Here's a thought if Israeli's are that incompetant or indiscriminate that they hit civilians, infastructure, and peacekeeping posts rather than ememy targets, they need to be disarmed. How far are we to permit "collateral damage" of innocents in support of Isreaels right to avenge the kidnapped soldiers/defend itself? Do you care to set a bag limit Jeff? Do you care to set any parameters on just who can be targeted? Where's your line in the sand Jeff?

Another poster, sorry can't remember who, said to paraphrase that talking points aside this is a moral issue. I couldn't agree more.

Classic.

“How far are we to permit "collateral damage" of innocents in support of Isreaels right to avenge the kidnapped soldiers/defend itself?”

Yeah, and you were oh, so concerned and vocal when Hezbollah was indiscriminately shelling Israeli towns for the last year. Allow me to flip that up for you big boy:

How far are we to permit the murder of civilians in support of Hezbollah’s right to wipe Israel off the map?

Don’t bother replying. Nobody is changing anyone’s mind.

The points in my post above, which you chose not to address, stand. Period.

Out.

"The suggestion that Israel would *intentionally* kill 4 UN peacekeepers is ludicrous and repugnant and pretty much what I expected to find when I came here."

You make some interesting arguments, but there is one glaringly obvious thing you overlooked.

Artillery is not a precision weapon. One doesn't throw a hand grenade into a crowded room with the intent to hit one person.

Granted, the article states that the UN forces called down arty near their own position out of nessecity, and other articles start they re-directed up to 10 times in a few hours. So, to be hit with arty may have been a mistake on the part of the IDF, but not using ground forces to take out these 'targets' was very deliberate.

The IDF put the UN forces at risk, instead of risking their own troops.

---
"I think it's important to always carry enough technology to restart civilization, should it be necessary." Mark Tilden

The United Nothings put them at risk, Dr.

They’ve been navel gazing for years, to the tune of some 100 million a year. I mean, God bless them and all, but they weren’t doing jack WRT disarming the militia and Hezbollah decided to commit an act of war then use them as shields - they sure as hell should have been evacuated by the UN. For days on end they’d reported being shelled too close for comfort. Why weren’t they pulled?

Regardless, I think it’s a tragic, disgusting event that unfolded, but the claims I took issue with, that it was “intentional”, as though Israel thinks it’s kosher to kill 4 UN peacekeepers, is sheer bat-shit idiocy.

BTW – I was very sorry to read about the gentleman you knew who died over the weekend. You have my sincere condolences.

On that, we can agree. I was under UNPROFOR in Croatia, and I know what enduring days of constant shelling is like. And how lame the UN can be when it wants to be.

Thanks for the condolences. He was a good man, who gave everything he had for his country. And he was proud to give it.

We served together in Somalia. Now there was a C.F. if there ever was one.

---
"I think it's important to always carry enough technology to restart civilization, should it be necessary." Mark Tilden

I'm probably going to take some heat for what I'm going to say, but no matter.

I recall back in the late 1970's early 1980's hearing reports of so called "freedom fighters" taking up postions in apartment buildings and using the occupants as human shields so that the only way the Israelis could take out the position was to also kill the tenants as well.

Far as I can see, based on what I have read, the practice is still being used.

I don't care who the hell they are, or what their so called "cause" is, if they use civilians or observers as human shields they not only prove their cause to be totally bankrupt morally and ethically, they also show themselves to be cowards and not soldiers.

I don't believe Israel should have bombed so close to the observation post, but as was evidenced by the reports from Maj. Hess-von Kruedener there may not have been any other option.

The fact remains that if the UN outpost was not being used as a shield then it would not have come under fire.

And for that, the blame rests SOLELY on the Hezbollah guerillas regardless of whatever spin is used.

---
"and the knowledge they fear is a weapon to be used against them"

"The Weapon" - Rush

This man is a dangerous idiot. There is no way that one can accidentally hit a
building (whether or not it is painted with large UN letters) with a GBU28 laser
guided bomb. It is just conceivable that a missile might wobble and hit the
wrong thing. But an LGB has to have its target painted by a laser target
designator mounted either in a helicopter, a vehicle of some description, or
hand held. And this came after the post had come under attack 14 times, and
10 times had communicated with the Israeli local commander.

Does Harper have no shame at all?

Is he actually Canadian? Do you think he changed his name at some time in
the past from Vidkun Quisling?