UN troops unable to return fire

[Patroklos]

The French-led UN effort in Lebanon has been relatively effective IMO.

1.) They got their after hostilities, correct?

2.) The French have a reputation from their non UN actions, that doesn't mean it doesn't follow them wherever they go

 

[Steph]

In Ivory Coast, after an ivorian aircraft "accidently" bombed a French outpost and killed a few soldiers, Chirac ordered the Ivorian air force to be destroyed.

After this, no more problem. Ivory Coast did not slip into the bloodbath we see too often in Africa.

We could say "Le président Ivoirien manqua de clairvoyance dans cette affaire".

Very hard to translate... "The Ivory Coast president lacked foresight"... Why is it funny?

Because
Ivoirien = adjective for Ivory Coast
and
Y voit rien = he sees nothing

are said exactly the same way.

 

[Flying Pig]

Sweet. That's the way to do it!

 

[Cheezy the Wiz]

Then they should stop letting the hezzies use their bunkers and ambulances.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9ONKb9J2YeU

http://michellemalkin.com/2006/07/26/hezbollah-and-the-un/



Or at least it did for a small amount of time.....hehe.


I mean really, Cheesy....was this what this was all about? Seriously?

A Jesuitical policy concerning war is nothing to be proud of. Is shooting civilians okay, too, because there are enemy soldiers nearby?

 

[Flying Pig]

Aiming for the enemy and happening to hit the civvies is defensible, but not the other way around

 

[Cheezy the Wiz]

Aiming for the enemy and happening to hit the civvies is defensible

Even if you are aware of their proximity?

 

[Gogf]

Even if you are aware of their proximity?

Of course. Unless you think that Hezbollah hiding in crowds of civilians should allow them to murder innocent Israelis without anyone being able to stop them. Or maybe I should replace the word "Israel" in that sentence with any other country if I want a real response from some of the people here.

 

[Cheezy the Wiz]

Of course.

Wow. Talk about disregard for human life. I guess you take that "guilt by association" thing to the extreme, huh?

Unless you think that Hezbollah hiding in crowds of civilians should allow them to murder innocent Israelis without anyone being able to stop them.

I think they should find a new way to fight them rather than killing innocent people. Two wrongs don't make a right. Its a crappy thing for them to hide amongst civilians, but crappier still to target them anyway, knowing there are innocent people around.

That goes for civilians as well as people like UN peacekeepers, i.e. people who should not be attacked.

Or maybe I should replace the word "Israel" in that sentence with any other country if I want a real response from some of the people here.

My morals are sound. Change names as you wish.

 

[amadeus]

Us on the right need to get our stories straight about UN peacekeepers, because I think we tend to criticize the UN for not shooting at militants, etc. in the Congo, but at the same time we don't want them to become an all-powerful international police force that has extrajudicial powers on sovereign soil.

 

[MobBoss]

A Jesuitical policy concerning war is nothing to be proud of. Is shooting civilians okay, too, because there are enemy soldiers nearby?

Couple of points.

UN observers/peacekeepers arent civilians.

The alternative of allowing enemy troops to use civilians as shields is worse. You let them do it, and it will only encourage the behavior.

Civilian casualties of war is simply a reality of war. Its not ok, anymore than war is ok...but it can be justified given the situation. Thats why nations, such as Israel, do indeed employ Rules of Engagement to mitigate and limit civilian casualties in such conflicts. If they didnt, far, far, more civilians would die - and thats not what anyone wants - except maybe the terrorists.

 

[Flying Pig]

Even if you are aware of their proximity?

Depends on the situation. I would say that to fire on an enemy fortress with civillians in the same town, even where your fire may be innacureate, is probably justified (on utilitarian grounds), and killing civillians to prevent a massacre (Spetnaz did that once flooding a theatre with gas, killing about 20% of the hostages) is justified often, especially where they are 'marked for death' ie they would die anyway, but opening up on a crowd to get one man hidden inside there is almost always wrong.

 

[Formaldehyde]

Of course. Unless you think that Hezbollah hiding in crowds of civilians should allow them to murder innocent Israelis without anyone being able to stop them. Or maybe I should replace the word "Israel" in that sentence with any other country if I want a real response from some of the people here.

You got a reputable source for that allegation?

http://www.salon.com/news/feature/2006/07/28/hezbollah/

July 28, 2006 | TYRE, SIDON and NABATIYA, South Lebanon -- The bombs came just as night fell, around 7 p.m. The locals knew that the 10-story apartment building had been the office, and possibly the residence, of Sheik Tawouk, the Hezbollah commander for the south, so they had moved their families out at the start of the war. The landlord had refused to rent to Hezbollah when they requested the top floors of the building. No matter, the locals said, the Hezb guys just moved in anyway in the name of the "resistance."

Everyone knew that the building would be hit eventually. Its location in downtown Tyre, which had yet to be hit by Israeli airstrikes, was not going to protect it forever. And "everyone" apparently included Sheik Tawouk, because he wasn't anywhere near it when it was finally hit.

Two guided bombs struck it in a huge flash bang of fire and concrete dust followed by the roar of 10 stories pancaking on top of each other, local residents said. Jihad Husseini, 46, runs the driving school a block away and was sitting in his office when the bombs struck. He said his life was saved because he had drawn the heavy cloth curtains shut on the windows facing the street, preventing him from being hit by a wave of shattered glass. But even so, a chunk of smoldering steel flew through the air, broke through the window and the curtain, and shot past his head and through the wall before coming to rest in his neighbor's home.

But Jihad still refuses to leave.

"Everything is broken, but I can make it better," he says, surrounded by his sons Raed, 20, and Mohammed, 12. "I will not leave. This place is not military, it is not Hezbollah; it was an empty apartment."

Throughout this now 16-day-old war, Israeli planes high above civilian areas make decisions on what to bomb. They send huge bombs capable of killing things for hundreds of meters around their targets, and then blame the inevitable civilian deaths -- the Lebanese government says 600 civilians have been killed so far -- on "terrorists" who callously use the civilian infrastructure for protection.

But this claim is almost always false. My own reporting and that of other journalists reveals that in fact Hezbollah fighters -- as opposed to the much more numerous Hezbollah political members, and the vastly more numerous Hezbollah sympathizers -- avoid civilians. Much smarter and better trained than the PLO and Hamas fighters, they know that if they mingle with civilians, they will sooner or later be betrayed by collaborators -- as so many Palestinian militants have been.

For their part, the Israelis seem to think that if they keep pounding civilians, they'll get some fighters, too. The almost nightly airstrikes on the southern suburbs of Beirut could be seen as making some sense, as the Israelis appear convinced there are command and control bunkers underneath the continually smoldering rubble. There were some civilian casualties the first few nights in places like Haret Hreik, but people quickly left the area to the Hezbollah fighters with their radios and motorbikes.

But other attacks seem gratuitous, fishing expeditions, or simply intended to punish anything and anyone even vaguely connected to Hezbollah. Lighthouses, grain elevators, milk factories, bridges in the north used by refugees, apartment buildings partially occupied by members of Hezbollah's political wing -- all have been reduced to rubble.

In the south, where Shiites dominate, just about everyone supports Hezbollah. Does mere support for Hezbollah, or even participation in Hezbollah activities, mean your house and family are fair game? Do you need to fire rockets from your front yard? Or is it enough to be a political activist?

The Israelis are consistent: They bomb everyone and everything remotely associated with Hezbollah, including noncombatants. In effect, that means punishing Lebanon. The nation is 40 percent Shiite, and of that 40 percent, tens of thousands are employed by Hezbollah's social services, political operations, schools, and other nonmilitary functions. The "terrorist" organization Hezbollah is Lebanon's second-biggest employer.

Israel, however, has chosen to treat the political members of Hezbollah as if they were fighters. And by targeting the civilian wing of the group, which supplies much of the humanitarian aid and social protection for the poorest people in the south, they are targeting civilians.

So the analysts talking on cable news about Hezbollah "hiding within the civilian population" clearly have spent little time if any in the south Lebanon war zone and don't know what they're talking about. Hezbollah doesn't trust the civilian population and has worked very hard to evacuate as much of it as possible from the battlefield. And this is why they fight so well -- with no one to spy on them, they have lots of chances to take the Israel Defense Forces by surprise, as they have by continuing to fire rockets and punish every Israeli ground incursion.

And the civilians? They see themselves as targeted regardless of their affiliation. They are enraged at Israel and at the United States, the only two countries on earth not calling for an immediate cease-fire. Lebanese of all persuasions think the United States and Israel believe that Lebanese lives are cheaper than Israeli ones. And many are now saying that they want to fight.

It's all about blowback. And deliberate misinformation.

 

[Cheezy the Wiz]

Couple of points.

UN observers/peacekeepers arent civilians.

Yes I know, but they aren't combatants, they aren't enemies. Shoot enemy soldiers all you want, but UN peacekeeping forces deserve a special status, otherwise we might as well just as the contributing nations to the force to just send their regular forces in their themselves.

The alternative of allowing enemy troops to use civilians as shields is worse. You let them do it, and it will only encourage the behavior.

Your lesson you're "teaching" them doesn't change the fact that you're killing innocent people. I don't see why that's so hard to understand. That's murder, Mobby.

Civilian casualties of war is simply a reality of war.

That may be true, but it doesn't mean we shouldn't absolutely minimalize it.

Its not ok, anymore than war is ok...but it can be justified given the situation.

Not when other options exist. At the very least, killing a few less baddies isn't going to change the situation of the war.

Thats why nations, such as Israel, do indeed employ Rules of Engagement to mitigate and limit civilian casualties in such conflicts.

Israel is probably the worst example you could've possibly used for that.

If they didnt, far, far, more civilians would die - and thats not what anyone wants - except maybe the terrorists.

The terrorist wants you to shoot those innocent civilians. That's what asymmetrical warfare is all about; sure, you kill him, but he doesn't care, because it makes you look bad internationally, and it shows the other civilians around that you don't care about them, only about your objectives, only about killing the enemy. He's fanatical - are you? By justifying your actions with his, you lower yourself to his level. Don't do that.

 

[MobBoss]

Wow. Talk about disregard for human life. I guess you take that "guilt by association" thing to the extreme, huh?

Its not disregard for human life, its making the decision that you wont allow terrorists to use civilians as protection in order to kill even more people down the road.

I think they should find a new way to fight them rather than killing innocent people.

Come on cheesy your're better than this. Of course newer methods are being tried and fielded all the time....and most of them revolve around established Rules of Engagement and also in intel gathering via electronic data collection (i.e. UAVs etc.). Civilian casualty rates have actually been very mitigated over the last 70 years or so, and will continue to be mitigated as technology advances.

Two wrongs don't make a right. Its a crappy thing for them to hide amongst civilians, but crappier still to target them anyway, knowing there are innocent people around.

Yeah, war is crappy. Guess we didnt know that till now. Thanks.

That goes for civilians as well as people like UN peacekeepers, i.e. people who should not be attacked.

People shouldnt be used as human shields either. But its nice to see whose side you are on.

My morals are sound.

Pardon me for disagreeing with you there. Everyone finds innocents killed regretable (except again, the terorrists), but that doesnt mean the attacks on terrorists unecessary or illegitimate.

 

[Cheezy the Wiz]

Its not disregard for human life, its making the decision that you wont allow terrorists to use civilians as protection in order to kill even more people down the road.

Still killing innocent people, still murder. The desired ends do not change this.

Come on cheesy your're better than this. Of course newer methods are being tried and fielded all the time....and most of them revolve around established Rules of Engagement and also in intel gathering via electronic data collection (i.e. UAVs etc.). Civilian casualty rates have actually been very mitigated over the last 70 years or so, and will continue to be mitigated as technology advances.

I never said they weren't. I'm criticizing the mindset of people like you who are so fanatical about killing the enemy that you're willing to destroy anything, even innocent people, to do so. That said, what then makes you so different from them?

Yeah, war is crappy. Guess we didnt know that till now. Thanks.

Easy for you to blow it off - you're not the one whose family is being killed simply because they were standing next to a "baddie" when the Maverick impacted the building.

People shouldnt be used as human shields either. But its nice to see whose side you are on.

I'm on the side of people who don't commit murder. Don't you dare impune me for defending innocent people. It doesn't matter who is killing them.

Pardon me for disagreeing with you there. Everyone finds innocents killed regretable (except again, the terorrists), but that doesnt mean the attacks on terrorists unecessary or illegitimate.

Yes it does.

 

[Flying Pig]

Yes I know, but they aren't combatants, they aren't enemies. Shoot enemy soldiers all you want, but UN peacekeeping forces deserve a special status, otherwise we might as well just as the contributing nations to the force to just send their regular forces in their themselves.

If you know how to play the rules, the UN are every bit as aggressive and strong as combatant armies, and can be very effective at their job. I agree that they don't want to be shot at, but the worst thing is to be waiting on the sidelines; whenever I saw that I literally marched into the combat zone, got the two sides to stop long enough to get between them, and problem solved.

Your lesson you're "teaching" them doesn't change the fact that you're killing innocent people. I don't see why that's so hard to understand. That's murder, Mobby.

I would go with you on that. You don't hurt people to set an example

That may be true, but it doesn't mean we shouldn't absolutely minimalize it.

The ptoblem nowadays is that it's not always your scalp the enemy are after; their tactics include directly targeting civvies. In that case, you have to use your judgement and work out whether the people they might kill if allowed to go are worth the people that will die in attackingh them. However, there are better ways to clear out the enemy when they have civillians (remember that day in 1980 in London?) inside, which are not only useful but a lot of fun (if you like that sort of thing )

Not when other options exist. At the very least, killing a few less baddies isn't going to change the situation of the war.

Most of the time it isn't, but there are situations where the people they are holding, frankly, aren't as important as the people that the enemy put in danger by their continued eixistance; for example I would shoot almost anyone to protect one of my mates or men under my command.

Israel is probably the worst example you could've possibly used for that.

I think they followed my example with regard to the rules, except they're not so good at it

The terrorist wants you to shoot those innocent civilians. That's what asymmetrical warfare is all about; sure, you kill him, but he doesn't care, because it makes you look bad internationally, and it shows the other civilians around that you don't care about them, only about your objectives, only about killing the enemy. He's fanatical - are you? By justifying your actions with his, you lower yourself to his level. Don't do that.

If by blowing up one innocent civillian I can remove a bomber with his eyes on a crowd of them, then regardless of its effects on my immortal soul I will take him out. I know I can stand before God (if he exists) and say 'look, boss, I did what was best.' He's throwing me to the pits anyway

 

[MobBoss]

Yes I know, but they aren't combatants, they aren't enemies. Shoot enemy soldiers all you want, but UN peacekeeping forces deserve a special status, otherwise we might as well just as the contributing nations to the force to just send their regular forces in their themselves.

Then the UN shouldnt co-locate their bunkers with those of Hezbollah. Simple.

Cheezy, no one is targeting such people specifically - there has to be some point where the UN takes some responsibility here and acknowledges that it needs to get the hell away from groups like Hezbollah. There is no way the UN should allow Hezbollah to co-locate a command bunker with them, and yet I know you have seen the pictures of their two flags flying side-by-side. If they cant figure out that being that close to the hezzies means live fire is incoming then /oh well.

Your lesson you're "teaching" them doesn't change the fact that you're killing innocent people. I don't see why that's so hard to understand. That's murder, Mobby.

No, its not murder. Its collateral damage, and if you dont take out terrorists when you have the chance to, civilian casualties aside, its just going to mean more dead civilians down the road somewhere.

Arent you a history major? I mean really, this is a part of war and has been since man tossed the first rock in anger. All your ranting about 'murder' isnt going to change it one whit as long as terorists continue to hide behind innocent civilians.

That may be true, but it doesn't mean we shouldn't absolutely minimalize it.

You see, this is where you are in error. It is absolutely minimized to the best extent possible. You have no real concept of how RoE is implemented or developed. I do (at least for the USA I do). Do mistake occur? Of course. Its war, and it can often be chaotic. But we do have processes in place to minimize civilian casualties.....unlike our enemies who have no regard for civilian life what-so-ever.

Not when other options exist. At the very least, killing a few less baddies isn't going to change the situation of the war.

Wrong. We live in a world were 'a few less baddies' can actually inflict thousands and thousands of casualties. Remember 9/11?

Whats this 'other option' you keep mentioning? You have a plan? Other than just surrender and let the bad guys win cause we are too afraid to fight them where they are?

Israel is probably the worst example you could've possibly used for that.

No. And your comment shows your ignorance. Should Israel wage their conflicts like the various African nations where tribal genocide is part of the formula to wage war? You have no concept of how many people could really be killed if a nation like Israel decided to really take the gloves off.

The terrorist wants you to shoot those innocent civilians. That's what asymmetrical warfare is all about; sure, you kill him, but he doesn't care, because it makes you look bad internationally, and it shows the other civilians around that you don't care about them, only about your objectives, only about killing the enemy. He's fanatical - are you? By justifying your actions with his, you lower yourself to his level. Don't do that.

You have also forgotten the other part of asymmetrical warfare - the bleeding heart who complains about war being so harsh since poor innocents get killed in the process. Without that person, asymmetrical warfare fails. You, yourself are playing an important part in the terrorists plan. Without you whining and crying about collateral damage, they lose, and lose badly.

Think about it.

 

[I'm Cleo!]

Cheezy the Wiz,

As a matter of humanitarian law, the avoidance of civilian casualties (the principle of "distinction") is basically a balancing test -- you try to minimize it as much as you can to accomplish the military action's objective. It's possible for a military objective to be unlawful simply because you would end up killing too many civilians -- i.e., the barracks next to the POW hospital case. If the commanders cannot distinguish, the military action would be unlawful. Cf. the prohibition on the use of poisonous gases*, which cannot really be controlled and cannot distinguish between combatants and non-combatants.

Cleo

*The use of poison gases is specifically covered by treaty law, but the principles employed are the same; hence the "Cf." signal.

 

[Flying Pig]

As a general rule, if you think that when the boss calls you into his office and says 'now I heard about this, what is it?' you will be able to say something convincing starting with 'well, sir, what happened was this, and I thought that...' it's prohbably not a bad move.

 

[MobBoss]

Still killing innocent people, still murder. The desired ends do not change this.

Not going to argue with you over word semantics. You are college educated. Its not murder. Get over it.

I never said they weren't. I'm criticizing the mindset of people like you who are so fanatical about killing the enemy that you're willing to destroy anything, even innocent people, to do so. That said, what then makes you so different from them?

I am not fanatical. /sheesh. I look at the situation quite objectively and leave my emotion out of it. You also mistate my position quite badly. I am not willing to destroy ANYTHING, and neither is say, Israel or the USA for that matter. Do you not understand what Rules of Engagement ARE? Because if you had clue one as to what they are and how they are used you would see how silly your allegation of willingness to destroy anything truly is.

Cheezy, all you are doing is speaking from emotion, and thats making your arguement quite irrational. You are also making more than a few totally unfounded allegations.

Easy for you to blow it off - you're not the one whose family is being killed simply because they were standing next to a "baddie" when the Maverick impacted the building.

If they were, I would blame those that put my family in harms way to begin with - that would be the terrorists.

Do you think the French blamed the Allies for all the French civilians that died on D-Day? Do you?

I'm on the side of people who don't commit murder. Don't you dare impune me for defending innocent people. It doesn't matter who is killing them.

I will impune you for being emotional and short-sighted over the issue just as you earlier impuned me for being a 'fanatic willing to destroy anything'. Your precisely the kind of person the terrorists want to influence. Try not to fall into their ploy any further.

Yes it does.

Ummmm. Nope.