Jump to content

Talk:2006 Lebanon War/Archive 12

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 5←Archive 10Archive 11Archive 12Archive 13Archive 14Archive 15

Discussion about the Combatants

Unsourced claim about Iran

Under Casualties/Foreign nationals it says "Between six and nine Iranian Revolutionary Guard soldiers have been killed by Israeli forces." There is a source where this is claimed [1], but this is a very sensational piece of news, which shouldn't be hidden in this section if it was confirmed. But we must remember that exceptional claims require exceptional evidence, and this has not been reported by more well reputed sources. The beginning of the article doesn't really look convincing "The bodies of Iranian Revolutionary Guard soldiers killed by the Israeli army in Lebanon have been transported to Syria and flown to Tehran, senior Lebanese political sources said. Israeli and Egyptian security officials confirmed the news." Would Lebanese "political sources" and "Egyptian security officials" really speak of such confidential stuff to a small American newspaper? I'm removing the sentence above. --Battra 00:21, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

Some usful sources on these iranian troops. http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=51075 Hypnosadist 14:35, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

"Volunteers" Are Basijis

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20060726/ap_on_re_mi_ea/mideast_fighting_iran_volunteers;_ylt=Aof2REyYreEurI0s8Jc_bWJvaA8F;_ylu=X3oDMTA0cDJlYmhvBHNlYwM- They are either currently are government payroll or have retired. Iran has 11,000,000 of them alone. They serve as cannon fodder. They all have machine gune and grenade training. The Iranian regime that sent them there with monetary incentive. The incentives aren't revealed. They may include a home upon the "volunteer"s return.

The mullahs don't dare to openly fight Israel because they are going to be annihilated.--Patchouli 04:56, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

please quote the sentence which shows all of the Volunteers are Basiji. You can't deduced it by yourselves.--Sa.vakilian 06:25, 28 July 2006 (UTC)



The job of Basijis includes wearing civilian clothes, marching in favor of the government, brutally beating and detaining dissenters indefinitely, spying on people, and much more. The majority of Iranians hate their regime except these guys who are on government's oil payroll. Even the Basijis know that they are being clowns but it's not like jobs are profuse with 11.2% (2004 est.) unemployment.https://www.cia.gov/library/publications/the-world-factbook/geos/ir.html

This is implied in the article. Plus, I myself and all Iranians know this even if the word "Basiji" weren't within the article.--Patchouli 07:16, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

The article doesn't explicitly imply that the volunteers are all Basiji. It is only NPOV to go by what the source says. The source also doesn't quote "volunteers". --Epsilonsa 07:25, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

you deduced it by yourself. The article gives information about basijis and sais some of them are basijis. It is not axiomatic at all and you aren't neutral.--Sa.vakilian 07:36, 28 July 2006 (UTC)
agreed. There is nothing that says all the volunteers are Basijis. --Epsilonsa 07:39, 28 July 2006 (UTC)
I don't think a citation is needed. The link to the news article clearly says that basijis were present with the volunteers. --Epsilonsa 07:44, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

Discussion about the captured soldiers

captured?

Tewfik again without discussion and against consensus has changed from "captured" to "abducted". Please Tewfik, be aware this is a salomonic choice, I am not happy with capture either, but it is as close as an NPOV we will get. You are fast becoming a vandal in my eyes...--Cerejota 03:59, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

it says captured but the correct term is POW or prisoner of war —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 68.41.195.26 (talk • contribs) 23:10, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

If Osama bin Laden kidnaps you, would you consider yourself a POW? Remember, war had not even started yet, since there isn't even an official declaration of war (as required by the Geneva Conventions). --Terrancommander 15:33, 21 July 2006 (UTC)
The Geneva Conventions explicitly say they apply equally to undeclared wars. When was the last time a major world power declared war? And the war or "conflict" starts with the first act of war or "conflict" such as an attack on enemy soldiers.Edison 00:15, 23 July 2006 (UTC)
If I were a soldier, yes.--Paraphelion 15:35, 21 July 2006 (UTC)
Remember, war has not started yet, you call him a Prisoner of War? Wrong context. And, they're terrorists, not even proper participants. Does that mean Israel has a 58 year-long war lasting from 1948? Cause there's not been a single year without violence. --Terrancommander 15:40, 21 July 2006 (UTC)
  • You might be on to something here. One could see this conflict as part of an ongoing civil-war between two groups of Palestine inhabitants. MX44 04:37, 24 July 2006 (UTC)
I'd suggest you read Prisoner of War before commenting. --Terrancommander 15:44, 21 July 2006 (UTC)
Conflict has started, regardless targetting of soldiers is capturing. also note that civilians killed is not called murder anywhere in the article, other than quotes from involved parties. the article doesn't call them all terrorists. Yeah I read the entry on POV, perhaps you should re-read it. - "who is imprisoned by an enemy power during or immediately after an armed conflict". This is a conflict. And nice try on the 58 year old war rhetoric.--Paraphelion 15:54, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

Remember, soldiers are people too. These soldiers were just doing their job, just like if you were doing your job, and suddenly, out of nowhere, they were abducted. It's different if there's a formal declaration of war or a state of open war, but these guys were just sitting in a border camp and were taken out of the blue. --Cyde?Weys 15:45, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

There is nothing about the word "capture" that does not suggest they are not people. Yes, out of nowhere, as if by aliens visiting earth for the first time. And just as if I were doing my job, say I don't know, making biscuits. Making biscuits is about on the same level as border patrol.--Paraphelion 15:54, 21 July 2006 (UTC)
Yes, it should be just like making biscuits if there is no war. The point is that Hezbollah specifically stated that the aim of the operation was to take these soldiers, they weren't captured incedental to combat. TewfikTalk 16:26, 21 July 2006 (UTC)
I diagree that soldiers on border patrol should not be significantly more expected to be the tartget of an attack, be it killing or capture, than civilians.--Paraphelion 16:30, 21 July 2006 (UTC)
What is the source that states there was a Hezbollah "operation" to capture these soldiers in Israel? Were they not captured during an Israeli operation in Lebanon? See references to Aitaa al-Chaab / Aaita ech Chaab above. David O'C 20:26, 23 July 2006 (UTC)

Aliens and Biscuits aside, it is not as though there was a peace agreement. Soldiers are soldiers, if Hezballah started the conflict by capture, right or wrong, attacking/capturing a soldier is an act of war, if it is an act of war, then it is capture, if it involved a civilian, it's an act of terrorism. Remember, even terrorist group CAN do both. Angrynight 01:01, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

Countries declare wars, terrorist groups cannot. Hezbollah is a terrorist group and as such as was required to be disarmed some time ago by the United Nations. These soldiers were not captured as can be seen by Hezbollahs own actions in violation of the Geneva Convention. Captured soldiers have rights and cannot have their lives threatened, these soldiers were obviously abducted, but I have made this arguement before. --zero faults |sockpuppets| 12:26, 24 July 2006 (UTC)
Yes, you've made this "argument" before, and it's just as much a non sequitur then as now. When Hezbollah captured those soldiers (of a GC III signatory, no less), they undertook a responsibility to treat them accordingly. If they fail to do so, then Hezbollah can be said to have violated the GCIII -- called a "war crime". But any such violations, had they occurred, in no way change the status of the captured soldiers. At least that's how it would go if logic had a place here. Instead, we have "policies": since we are to slavishly follow the external concensus no matter how stupid or contrary to the plain, obvious facts and trivial deductions made therefrom (cf. "war" vs. "conflict" in the archives), then the words "kidnapped" and "abducted" and similar must be used in this article, as they clearly dominate in the references used by the article. mdf 14:19, 24 July 2006 (UTC)
Hezbollah isnt a signatory of the Geneva Convention, they do not operate under any guidelines of the Geneva Convention, they are group of people the UN calls a terrorist group. They cannot take prisoners as they are not an army, they abduct people because they are a band of terrorists. You try so hard to have it treated like Hezbollah is a military, they are a terrorist group in the eyes of the world. The country they operate in does not acknowledge them and was told by the United Nations to disarm them. --zero faults |sockpuppets| 11:52, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

I think that where they were taken also matters for this discussion. They were taken from inside Israel and so abducted is more appropriate. IF they had been inside of Lebanon they would have been captured. They were soldiers. But they were not engaged in any action against or in Lebanon. They were "home." If they had been seized out of their beds in downtown tel-aviv I think most readers would agree that they were abducted and not captured. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by [[User:{{{1}}}|{{{1}}}]] ([[User talk:{{{1}}}|talk]] • [[Special:Contributions/{{{1}}}|contribs]]).

I would like to suggest that perhaps the proper terminology is that the Israeli soldiers were taken hostage. Neither captured (which seems to be closer connected to prisoners of war which are generally troops who are defeated and not killed, or who surrender), nor abducted (which seems to infer a kidnapping from one's innocent bed, as mentioned above) cover what happened between Hezbollah and Israel. Hezbollah took the soldiers with the specific purpose of holding them on the condition that their demands (the release of Lebanese prisoners in Israel) were met. This is a hostage taking with demands, not a capture in war time, or an abduction of civilians. For example: the 1972 Munich massacre of Israeli atheletes is considered by wiki to be a hostage taking because the hostage takers demanded a release of palestinian prisoners held in Israel.--Axgoss 01:25, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

Prisoners of war can be considered to be held hostage since they are used in exchanges and the like, even between "civilized" armies. Besides, this isn't Iraq, Hezbollah is unlikely to kill them. As to zerofault. You can kick, scream, and shout that Hezbollah is a terrorist organization, but that means nothing legally. Terrorist has become so rhetorical that calling a group terrorist definitively is POV. Even the articles about such groups will merely state who considers them terrorists. A personally favor 'captured' since kidnapping/abduction are crimes, yet they are only civilian crimes. No one is going to track down the individuals and arrest them for kidnapping. It was a raid by Hezbollah, certainly, but we do not know the purpose of the raid. We believe it was to kidnap, but we do not know. The fact is they killed seven and wounded eight. Maybe it was some other mission gone awry. Regardless Olmert called it an act of war. Kidnapping is not an act of war. Capture is. Angrynight 15:02, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

Captured vs abducted vs ???

It has been brought to my attention that the discussion (Talk:2006 Israel-Lebanon crisis/Archive3#Capture vs Abduct) regarding the validity of "abducted" as a characterisation of the taking of the two Israeli soldiers, as opposed to capture, had not been resolved at the time. Does anybody feel that it would be neutral to use a term other than capture to convey the nature of the soldiers' being taken in contrast to a standard Prisoner of war case? The majority expressed being in favour of using abducted at the time (if I understood the archive correctly). TewfikTalk 06:21, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

I may have lost track with all the page moves and archiving but the first time this came up, it was capture that held consensus. MLA 06:41, 27 July 2006 (UTC)
You may be thinking of capture versus kidnap. You can see the discussion here. TewfikTalk 14:42, 27 July 2006 (UTC)
I thought militaries capture soldiers. Where are these soldiers and military on the Lebanese side? --zero faults |sockpuppets| 16:29, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

Can somebody please cite a dictionary which says that "capture" has specific military overtones and that it implies legality, or can we just drop this finally? Zocky | picture popups 03:28, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

I didn't raise the issue because of any "legality" implications, but rather because the action might be described better using a different formulation, and there was not a clear consensus for either side expressed on Talk in the archive (including unanswered arguments on both sides. TewfikTalk 05:21, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

Here are definitions:

  • Capture - To take captive, as by force or craft; seize.
  • Abduct - To carry off by force; kidnap.
  • Kidnap - To seize and detain unlawfully and usually for ransom.

These soldiers were taken with the intent of forcing a prisoner swap. ie for ransom. Its obviously best to say kidnap. The people who did the kidnapping did it against the governments wishes ie. illegally. The group itself operates against UN Resolutions calling for their disarmament, further supporting illegally. Can we drops this game now, its not POV to pick the most appropriate word, they operate illegally, the act was illegal, what is the drama? --zero faults |sockpuppets| 11:50, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

They don't think that they operate illegally, that's the whole point. Zocky | picture popups 12:34, 28 July 2006 (UTC)
It really does not matter, if a masked murder feels he is doing gods work it doesnt make his crimes not murder. There is a concensus on their legality, in the worlds view that is, its a bit higher then our community here. --zero faults |sockpuppets| 15:50, 28 July 2006 (UTC)
And besides what they consider themselves, there is no effective system of law under which the capture of these soldiers falls under, or which they are subject to. Which is why a war has started, and which rather than focusing on purely a retrieval effort is mainly concerned with destruction of an enemy completely independent of the so-called crime.--Paraphelion 13:17, 28 July 2006 (UTC)
I am not sure if this is adressing me, but the fact that there is no law addressing this is because Hezbollah oeprates outside all international convention regarding laws of war. Which is why the UN called for thier disarmament. Your statement there is no effective system of law under which the capture of these soldiers falls under" is because the soldiers are not "captured" they are hostages, they were kidnapped. Hence the definitions above. --zero faults |sockpuppets| 15:49, 28 July 2006 (UTC)
My statement there is no effective system of law under which the capture of these soldiers falls under" means the act was not unlawful since no laws apply to it. So by your definition, they cannot have been kidnapped.--Paraphelion 18:34, 28 July 2006 (UTC)
The groups existence is against the ruling of the United Nations. Its also illegal to enter a soveriegn state and forcefully abduct people from it, its called kidnapping. I am almost 100% sure that there are laws regardering kidnapping in Israel, if I find one will this debate be over? There is also laws against illegally entering the country I am sure, and then there is murder since they did kill people while over the border. I will have to look up weapons laws, not sure if you need a permit or something of that sort to carry military grade weapons in Israel however. --zero faults |sockpuppets| 19:32, 28 July 2006 (UTC)
Hezbollah are not Israeli subjects. Israel is not prosecuting this issue through the Israeli legal system. They are not even negotiating international law with Lebanon. They are using their might as they see right. These actions are all taking place outside of law. The United Nations is not yet a world government under which all are held to its laws. At best it's a dictatorship of a few powerful countries who sit on the security council and vote on how they will impose their will on others, presumably for the betterment of the world. I'm not even sure UN rulings are described as law, but rather conventions, prohibitions, sanctions, etc. Anyone can make up rules and claim someone else is breaking them and then call them criminals, but it doesn't make it so. People routinely enter a soveriegn state and forcefully abduct people from it. For instance the US keeps many of these abductees in offshore prisons specifically meant to circumvent their own laws, say Israel has captured Hezbollah in Lebanon - they are not doing so on behalf of the UN, citing some UN law. They are doing it because they can and no one will stop them. --Paraphelion 21:00, 28 July 2006 (UTC)
Actually, the drama is your call to sentiment and labelling as a game, all opposed to your rhetoric. Go back to lifting out of context passages from weapon conventions.--Paraphelion 13:17, 28 July 2006 (UTC)
If you cant be civil refrain from addressing me. --zero faults |sockpuppets| 15:49, 28 July 2006 (UTC)
Really must you keep at this game of drama.--Paraphelion 18:34, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

Reposted from above, since I have no idea where this discussion is taking place: Definitions mean nothing, we all use words as we see fit. Prisoners of war can be considered to be held hostage since they are used in exchanges and the like, even between "civilized" armies. Besides, this isn't Iraq, Hezbollah is unlikely to kill them. As to zerofault. You can kick, scream, and shout that Hezbollah is a terrorist organization, but that means nothing legally. Terrorist has become so rhetorical that calling a group terrorist definitively is POV. Even the articles about such groups will merely state who considers them terrorists. A personally favor 'captured' since kidnapping/abduction are crimes, yet they are only civilian crimes. No one is going to track down the individuals and arrest them for kidnapping. It was a raid by Hezbollah, certainly, but we do not know the purpose of the raid. We believe it was to kidnap, but we do not know. The fact is they killed seven and wounded eight. Maybe it was some other mission gone awry. Regardless Olmert called it an act of war. Kidnapping is not an act of war. Capture is. Either way, the manner in which some are intent to make Hezbollah look as bad as possible is POV, no matter how much they deserve it. Sorry, forgot to sign Angrynight 15:22, 28 July 2006 (UTC)


This is false, prisoners of war cannot be held for ransom unless in vioaltion of the geneva convention, furthermore the lives of such POW's cannot be threatened, also would be a violation of the geneva convention. As for your distinction of capture and kidnap, Hezbollah is made up of civilians, hence the problem with counting casualties. They do not form a regular standing army, they do not identify themselves, and if killed there is no distinction between a Hezbollah fighter and a civilian. The action was very much illegal, unless there was an open state of war between these two countries, even the breaking of a cease fire would be an illegal act, as it breaks the ceasefire. The idea of not listing this as kidnappings only servers the POV of promoting Hezbollah as a standing legal army, which they are not according to the United Nations. --zero faults |sockpuppets| 15:55, 28 July 2006 (UTC)
There is no note on ransom in the Geneva conventions that I can see. If you cite one I'll take that back. Hezbollah have, in fact, and continue to wear uniforms and identify themselves as combatants. They are legally part of the Lebanese Government, making them technically a "Power" under the very conventions you name. Those fighting for Hezbollah out of uniform are subject prosecution. However, most armies engage in non-convential warfare to some degree. The armies are rarely held liable, only the individual combatants are prosecuted as violating the laws of war. Yet, the only constant here is war, in war people are captured, sorry. Unless you have evidence that the soldiers that captured the Israeli soldiers were not in uniform at the time, you have no ground to stand on. Breaking a ceasefire is not illegal. There is no court which can prosecute a country breaking a cease-fire. Where there is no law there is no crime. As for an open state of war, the cease-fire was with lebanon, not with Hezbollah, now that hezbollah has become part of lebanon, technically lebanon violated cease-fire. Countries violate ceasefire all the time. Finally the idea that initial action doesn't count as an act of war is stupid. It would be like saying Hitler's invasion of Poland was not an act of war because there was no war. Reprehensible, Godawful, terrible, pick as many adjectives as you like to describe the capture, but a capture is a capture is a capture. Finally the UN called for Hezbollah to disband, no mention was made as to whether it was "recognized" that's not what the UN does anyway. Angrynight 16:45, 28 July 2006 (UTC)
Hezbollah militants are not part of the government, you seem to be mistaking the people in office with those that fire rockets into towns in Israel, they are not one in the same. Hence why they claim ignorant of the attack and of knowing where the soldier is etc. Article 13 of the Third Geneva Convention specifically states "Prisoners of war must at all times be protected, particularly against acts of violence or intimidation and against insults and public curiosity." Having their lives threatened if a prisoner swap is not conducted violates that. Furthermore you have not ackowledged the issue of Hezbollah being an illegal group under the eyes of the United Nations, therefore their actions are not sanctioned by their own government nor any world body, nor are they recognized as legitamate by any world body. Since they are illegal, not sanctioned, not recognized, they are an illegally operating group, and as such their actions are illegal, making it a kidnapping. You can dodge the issue ally ou want, but a band of people wearing the same arm band is not a recognized army. Also they are not a power because they are not recognized by the Labanese government, if one senator said I reconize this Nazi militia, it doesnt mean the US recognizes that nazi militia. Lebanon cannot recognize them, they were already ordered disbanded many many years ago. You have yet to prove their "recognized" status, by whom are they recognized? --zero faults |sockpuppets| 17:25, 28 July 2006 (UTC)
  • Sigh* I am going to say this one more time. The UN does not consider them a terrorist group.Not even the EU considers them one. The UN language refers to them as a "militia". It considers them to be in violation of a resolution. But entire countries ignore resolutions it doesn't make them a non-entity that can suddenly no longer conduct war. Also, again, this is not Iraq, they are not going to kill the soldier, but will certainly hold on to him as long as they can. Even if they did, it means they committed a war crime and has no bearing on their identity as a recognizable army. It doesn't matter if Lebanon recognizes them. Read the Geneva convention, it was there when the US fought the revolution and hasn't changed much in this regard. Just because the British considered them an internal insurrection it did not alter their status under the conventions. Many of Hezbollah conduct operations in full military clothing march in regalia. Just because a large proportion do not, it does not mean that they are not, at least on occassion, recognizable as combatants. Recognizibilty is battlefield trait, not a political one. Carrying arms openly is technically the bare minimum. Political recognition is unimportant in the conventions. To claim that the raids into lebanon were perpetrated by the ununiformed is unverified and unlikley since numerous films by Hezbollah documenting attacks have demonstrated that they prefer to don uniform in such raids and even suicide attacks. They are not Hamas, and incurse into Israel with a preference for military members.Angrynight 00:40, 29 July 2006 (UTC)
Where do you get what is and isnt an act of war? I would like to see this source of yours stating kidnapping is not an act of war but capturing is. Considering kidnapping is illegal and capturing isnt, I do not see why capturing would be an act of war and the illegal counter part not. --zero faults |sockpuppets| 17:30, 28 July 2006 (UTC)
You miss my point. In war, we can agree, people get captured. Historically and as recently as Iraq capture of prisoners is an acceptable goal for a belligerent force. Whether they wish to exploit them for intelligence or for other prisoners, it has been and continues to be done without restriction from the conventions. When you attack an outpost to capture a prisoner to exchange him for other prisoners during a cease-fire, you break a ceasefire (which has its own consequences, but is not itself a crime) If there was a peace, maybe this would be another situation. Kidnap is not mentioned in the conventions as far as I can tell (once again you can do your own research). If kidnap is not a factor in the law, then there is no law, and where there is no law, there is no crime. Ironically this is especially so because Israel is not a signatory to the International Criminal Court, which may allow your charges of kidnapping. Since the Conventions are descriptive of both conventional and non-conventional warefare, it says everything, or doesn't. Please put a space in the edit page between comments from different users to make it easier to determine when and where comments start and stop. Angrynight 00:40, 29 July 2006 (UTC)
Its against Israeli law to illegally enter the country and remove persons from it. Hence why its against the law to kidnap. This group did that. I dont know why you are attempting to complicate the issue with international law etc. Capturing soldiers on a battle field is legal, however these soldiers were not on the battle field, they were in their own country, on the opposite side on a UN barrier. They were illegally removed during a time of peace (technically) from their country, ie kidnapped. The definitions speak for themselves. Illegally removing people is kidnapping. --zero faults |sockpuppets| 16:00, 29 July 2006 (UTC)

I have to say this though, those who wish to change it to kidnap seem to have no other reason to do so other than POV. I prefer to maintain good faith but I cannot see any other reason for such hard lobbying o use a phrase which has no legal basis and is generally associated with perverse criminality. Angrynight 00:48, 29 July 2006 (UTC)

I didnt say you, I said the idea. Do not take everything so personally. --zero faults |sockpuppets| 16:02, 29 July 2006 (UTC)

Discussion about weapon types

chemical weapons

Removed statement about chemical weapons because I didn't think this article looked credible and the rest of the site is in Arabic so I'm not sure what kind of site it is : As-Safir newspaper also ran a story about alleged use of unknown chemical weapons, citing a member of the "French Association of Cardiovascular Surgeons" [1].

However I did find other articles about chemical weapons : [2] This one claims this picture is of a scene in Lebanon of an IDF soldier handling a chemical weapon shell : [3] This one claims that chemical weapons from Iraq were passed to Syria and then to Hezbolla : [4]--Paraphelion 12:50, 22 July 2006 (UTC)

That first article doesn't even pretend to be unbiased (it refers to "Zionist aggression in Israel"). Please, wait until we get some verifiable sources, anyone with an agenda can put any claims they want to on a website. You know what they say, extraordinary claims require extraordinary proof ... and saying that Israel somehow needs to resort to chemical weapons (which would cause more international outrage) when their conventional weapons are doing just fine doesn't make much sense. --Cyde?Weys 14:32, 22 July 2006 (UTC)

I had no intenion of adding anything based on these sources. I mentioned them to show what little and low quality there is for this topic, after having removed the statement on it.--Paraphelion 16:22, 22 July 2006 (UTC)

That is not a picture of a 'chemical' weapon in the cited source from globalresearch.ca. It is a mine clearing device called 'Carpet'. http://www.defense-update.com/news/6702carpet.htm

  • The New Zealand Herald (which has fairly unbiased coverage of this type of thing) indicates that they may be in use, but it is unverified whether they are chemical weapons. Anyway, I think that there is enough justification to include that it is alleged, but unverified, that Israel has used chemical weapons. Hope that helps --222.154.123.120 10:17, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

News.com.au has reports of something Israel might be using. --Iorek85 10:04, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

WTF?!

"Some" user has been removing peoples contribution to the talk page, this is TOTALY unaccapatable!

Here is my part again:

white phosphorous Guys, im not involved here, so im just droping the info: is Israel is using white phosphorous that targets that include children www.prisonplanet.com/articles/july2006/250706ethniccleansers.htm]? Is that not a serious war crime? Is that not CNN? --Striver 02:16, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

Because it's not very clear, what I assume he is referring to is the linked youtube clip from CNN in that article. Direct link to CNN clip : [5]--Paraphelion 07:15, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

Also, they are again and still targeting sivilian ambulances www.prisonplanet.com/articles/july2006/260706attack.htm]. Yes, Again and still [6][7] [8]! Imagin Muslims doing this... --Striver 02:26, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

"If the peace option fails because of Israeli arrogance, there will be no other option but war," Saudi state television quoted the king as saying in an official statement. www.prisonplanet.com/articles/july2006/260706fullscale.htm] --Striver 02:40, 26 July 2006 (UTC)
er? hello, muslims are doing worse... using human shields, locating their military among densely populated civilian centers, etc... and lets not forget the fact that this whole war was started by hezbollah to secure the release of "Samir kuntar", a person who killed a man in front of his 4-year-old daughter, and then smashing her head against a rock.. anyone who supports hezbollah even knowing this fact cannot be allowed to live Shakespeare Monkey 05:29, 30 July 2006 (UTC)


Also, see www.prisonplanet.com/articles/july2006/260706Annan.htm Annan calls attack 'deliberate targeting'], and [http://infowars.net/articles/july2006/260706deaths.htm China agrees] --Striver 14:24, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

A article about "Myths" and "proportions" [http://infowars.net/articles/july2006/260706Myths.htm]. Good reading for anyone editing this article. --Striver 16:29, 26 July 2006 (UTC)


White phosphorus is not a war crime, and is not a chemical weapon. It is the main ingredient in vacuum bombs, that Israel uses to destroy Hizbollah buildings. there are no major conventions that denounce use of white phosphorus. --Doom777 19:13, 26 July 2006 (UTC)
Protocol III of that convention on conventional weapons whatever covers incindiary weapons. However as pointed out above since its not being used to target civilians or soldiers its use doesnt violate anything. --zero faults |sockpuppets| 20:27, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

Oh, and btw, Striver, what is the point of putting those 3 links here? They are completely off topic, and just serve as anti-Israeli, anti-Zionist, and to an extent anti-Semitic propoganda --Doom777 20:42, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

lol! Anything that chalenges FOX news is anti-<insert word>? lol! --Striver 14:05, 27 July 2006 (UTC)
No, but those three pages are. "semitic supremacist", yada yada yada. The issue, though, is not even that. The issue is that they do not contribute to the talk page at all. --Doom777 14:29, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

Are you referring to me? (with regards removal) I'm not removing comments - I'm moving them to the correct sections to make the talk page easier to follow. You will find your comments either in the archives listed above, or in the correct section (Discussion about weapon types), or depending on the comment, the separate pages provided. There is, however, a chance that I accidentally lost your comments while refactoring. If that is the case, I apologise. --Iorek85 10:10, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

Oh, ok. I guess then that we are cool.

Discussion about casu belli/purpose military operations

Please Visit [www.Uruknet.com]; the real reasons why Israel has attacked Lebanon

Read the articles about the new oil pipeline near Lebanon nd Syria, the article about the Russian plans for a naval base near the temrinal, and how the U.S. wanted to have a base near the pipeline to secure it for both ISraeli and American interests. Its nice to hear that there will be foreign troops in Lebanon maybe the U.S. will get its base after all.

READ THIS...then you will see why Israel is attacking Lebanon (not Hezbollah, but all Lebanon) and why the U.S. and Britain have savatoged all ceasefire agreements...

http://www.globalresearch.ca/index.php?context=viewArticle&code=CHO20060726&articleId=2824

An article on the oil link with the Israeli attacks

http://www.globalresearch.ca/index.php?context=viewArticle&code=20060728&articleId=2839

the Russian base in Syria

http://www.globalresearch.ca/index.php?context=viewArticle&code=20060523&articleId=2508 The militarization of the area near the oil pipeline

http://www.uruknet.info/?p=m25004&hd=0&size=1&l=e

The murder of Hariri according to intelligence sources and his opposition to U.S. base in Northern Lebanon....the U.S, base was for securing the oil pipeline

http://www.rense.com/general63/aahi.htm The murder of Hariri according to intelligence sources and his opposition to U.S. base in Northern Lebanon

http://www.uruknet.info/?p=m25005&hd=0&size=1&l=e Lebanon as also a pretext for war in Iran, to secure Iranian oil too

How was the beginning of the conflict?

I see different narrations about the beginning of conflict in the article 2006 Israel-Lebanon conflict.Please look at these [9] , [10],[11].And also look at this [12] . And if you look at the earlier edition of the article [13] you'll find a link to AP report on 12 July which isn't accessible now. Indeed there isn't any agreement about what has happened. So we should write all of the narrations in the articles equally and we can't judge which one is correct.--Accessible 12:39, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

If something is removed, it is obviously incorrect. There are very good sources saying it was on Israel soil(Al Jazeera, CNN, BBC, NYTimes), and very poor ones saying it was on Lebanon soil.--Doom777 14:15, 27 July 2006 (UTC)
If you look at the article, then you find this part doesn't have fact.

"At 9:05 AM local time (06:05 CET), on 12 July 2006, Hezbollah initiated a rocket and mortar attack on Israeli military positions and on the villages of Even Menahem and Mattat, injuring 11 soldiers and civilians[citation needed]. " So I don't agree with you that " If something is removed, it is obviously incorrect. "--Sa.vakilian 14:20, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

The article should discuss other important actions leading up to the conflict. Back in June 2006 Hamas captured a first Israeli soldier. This was in response to the Israeli Navy shelling that killed a Palestinian family on a Gaza beach. This ended the informal 16-month cease-fire. Two more Israeli soldiers were killed the next day. Hamas started firing rockets and Israel increased the shelling of Gaza. Israel put all border patrols on "high-alert". IN spite of the warning two more were captured on the Lebanon border. This is where the current wikipedia article picks up. All these events instigated the current conflict and should be included in the article. --Jeff Bullard 0:30, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

Actually, if you look at Wikipedia's own page on the Gaza beach blast, you'll see that a German newspaper has raised significant questions about the blast, suggesting that at least the video footage of the aftermath may have been staged. In any case, the blast may have been caused by any number of things, including a Palestinian land mine, unexploded IDF ordinance, or indeed shelling by the IDF. Valtam 16:29, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

General Discussion

Mediation

The question of what links should be present in the article is currently in mediation by the Cabal. Please come to the case page if you can comment on the issue. Also, other questions can be directed to mediation to be resolved with assistance of a third party. CP/M (Wikipedia Neutrality Project) 21:33, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

Excellent. Lets get it sorted out. --Iorek85 09:15, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

For the record here and as per CP/M's request at the case page, I have suggested the following links and descriptions:

BEGIN
Frontline blogs
Israeli blogs
Lebanese blogs
Frontline photographs (Warning: Extemely graphic wartime imagery)
END

AdamKesher 15:15, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

Denis Diderot, on 05:18, 28 July 2006 (UTC), you stated "I have repeatedly removed [the links] and will do so again." You made this statement after the mediator CP/M requested on 22:53, 27 July 2006 (UTC), "stop removing any links at least until the case is closed. This is essential for providing proper view on the subject for parties involved in the dispute." Would you please clarify your current position vis-a-vis removing information from this article at the case page?. AdamKesher 15:25, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

I'm going to add this proposal to the page, and clean up the other links at the same time. The characterization of assorted news reports as pro- one side or the other doesn't satisfy NPOV or WP:V; I'll make edits to these too. AdamKesher 20:06, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

Changes in AP story on July 12

It seems that either AP (Joseph Panossian) substantially changed its story during the course of the day on July 12, or local editors/publishers of the story did. As noted by Guerrilla News Network:

The Associated Press departed from the official version as well. “The militant group Hezbollah captured two Israeli soldiers during clashes Wednesday across the border in southern Lebanon, prompting a swift reaction from Israel, which sent ground forces into its neighbor to look for them,” reported Joseph Panossian for AP on July 12. “The forces were trying to keep the soldiers’ captors from moving them deeper into Lebanon, Israeli government officials said on condition of anonymity.” [14]

The first sentence quoted (my bold) is only present in early versions of the article: [15] [16]

Later in the day, the sentence had been changed to "Hezbollah militants crossed into Israel on Wednesday and captured two Israeli soldiers. Israel responded in southern Lebanon with warplanes, tanks and gunboats, and said eight of its soldiers had been killed in the violence." [17] [18]

In another instance, on a less reputable site, AP apparently said: "Hezbollah said Wednesday its guerrillas captured two Israeli soldiers in a cross-border raid, triggering Israeli airstrikes on southern Lebanon and widespread clashes along the frontier that killed two Lebanese civilians." [19] Hezbollah said that? Are you sure, FindLaw? No one else seems to have interpreteed the AP story that way. "Cross-border raid" also becomes vague here, because in the first item above, "across the border" meant "in southern Lebanon".

Is AP itself ever the party updating the story during something like this? Or are the publishers editing/"updating" it? As I understand it, and I'm by no means an expert here, publishers of AP content are generally allowed to edit AP stories for fit, but not to substantially change their meaning. Off the top of my head I'm aware of a previous controversy, when newspaper publisher Canwest Global was inserting the word "terrorist" in AP articles relating to certain Palestinian groups a couple years ago.

Just trying to put the pieces together here. Am I missing something?

Btw, can anyone find a copy of the Agence France-Press article, cited in the GNN article I quoted above, on a "reputable" website for similar comparison purposes? The cited article - the one that apparently says "According to the Lebanese police force, the two Israeli soldiers were captured in Lebanese territory" - may have been first published in another language (French?). Of course we have that same fact in this English-language story. heqs 20:06, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

The yahoo India page is the only one that says today that the kidnapping/arrest occured in Lebanon. Most other sources say it was in Israel. --Doom777 20:22, 26 July 2006 (UTC)
Not true. As I just pointed out, there are many copies/versions of a July 12 AP report that says "The militant group Hezbollah captured two Israeli soldiers during clashes Wednesday across the border in southern Lebanon". heqs 20:50, 26 July 2006 (UTC)
And as I pointed out above, very very reputable sources have acknowledged that this happened on Israeli soil, including Al Jazeera, CNN, BBC, NYTimes, and more--Doom777 02:34, 27 July 2006 (UTC)
I'm not disputing that. You said "the yahoo India page is the only one", that's not true, there's AP and AFP. I'm trying to draw attention to what happened July 12 with a "very very" reputable source: AP, to see if anyone has any insight. I don't think anything to do with the seminal events of July 12, media included, should be overlooked. heqs 07:41, 27 July 2006 (UTC)
So the AP story was written before anyone knew anything. The facts came out. And I don't have the source, but I've seen the two burning Hummers on TV, and the camera crew said it was in Israel. --Doom777 14:27, 27 July 2006 (UTC)
Once again: I'm not debating what happened. I'm discussing the news itself. I think it helps to illuminate the situation, and probably should be noted in this article or one of the related articles. heqs 03:02, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

Pictoral bias?

It seems that there are far more pictures of suffering Lebanese people than suffering Israelis. In addition, the suffering of the Lebanese people is shown more prominently since the picture at the top of the article only depicts their suffering. Would anybody mind if I did the following to try and fix this? :

  • Comment out some pictures of Lebanese people suffering so that the amount of pictures depicting the suffering of either side is equal
  • Change the picture at the top of the page to be 2 images next to each other, with each image depicting suffering in a different country

-- Where 21:43, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

Go for it. --Doom777 22:09, 26 July 2006 (UTC)
Aren't there a disproportionate number of Lebanese casualties (at least 2.5:1) and displaced (not even close, going by #s in article)? heqs 22:19, 26 July 2006 (UTC)
Yes!! Around 20x more Lebanese have been killed than Israelis (if we looked at the children killed, that ratio would be even higher) - so on what basis is equal representation of pictures of people suffering justifiable? ρ¡ρρµ δ→θ∑ - (waarom? jus'b'coz!) 22:22, 26 July 2006 (UTC)
yes, do not confuse neutrality with equality. --200.88.223.98 22:31, 26 July 2006 (UTC)
If there have been 20x more children killed on one side than the other, I would expect that there will be more photos floating around depicting that reality. This is especially so if dead bodies of children need to be left out in the open for days on end, in street gutters, on ditches by the side of the road, etc, if the Red Cross, the UN, or indeed anyone, cannot go and retrieve them. ρ¡ρρµ δ→θ∑ - (waarom? jus'b'coz!) 00:27, 27 July 2006 (UTC)
I actually agreed with you. --200.88.223.98 15:43, 27 July 2006 (UTC)
Speaking of pictoral bias, the image of the map of Lebanon showing where Israeli airstrikes were targeted renames Israel "Occupied Palestine" at the very bottom. Hmm. (PatDonovan130 05:24, 27 July 2006 (UTC))
Definitely. Also, this is another subject. This topic is about the number of images, not the quality of individual ones. --200.88.223.98 15:43, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

The casualty rate probably would have been much more equal if the Israelis did not have bomb shelters. Are you implying that since the Israelis tryed to avoid being killed, they should be portrayed as the aggressor? Should they just stand in open fields while the rockets are fired on them? 70.18.81.10 22:37, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

Attacks on United Nations personnel

→ NOTE: The previous section 13.13 "Attacks on United Nations personnel" was included into this section. In order to prevent discussions on the same topic taking place under two headers. --Attraho 16:49, 29 July 2006 (UTC)

Why was this section deleted?

According to Democracy Now!, as of July 27th, 2006:

The killings of the four UN observers brought the UN death toll in the current crisis to six. A Nigerian couple with UNIFIL's civilian staff were killed when an Israeli airstrike hit their home near Tyre. Meanwhile, the United Nations Security Council failed to agree on a statement responding to the Israeli attack after the United States refused to accept language condemning: "any deliberate attack against U.N. personnel."[2]

It clearly provides new info to the article pertinent to the Attacks on United Nations personnel. It provides a death toll as well as the UN's reaction.

There is already a detailed accounting (including this information) in the appropriate sections. This is redundant right now. TewfikTalk 21:59, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

Where does this article mention a death toll or the UN's reaction? FightCancer 11:56, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

I dont believe that the mans wife was UN staff- according to UN press releases anyway. You could add his death to the "deaths" area- currently it is in the casualties section

Created daughter page: Attacks on United Nations personnel in the 2006 Israel-Lebanon conflict. We can expand on the circumstances of the incident, response, and background of UN's role and operation there. --Vsion 00:11, 28 July 2006 (UTC)
OK, I'll move it to the deaths section. FightCancer 11:56, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

You know something is fishy when the US denies common sense stuff such as condemning "any deliberate attack against U.N. personnel" which I guess includes by Hezbollah... If the USA is willing to let Hezbollah off the hook, you got to worry... I stand off my soapbox. --Cerejota 04:48, 29 July 2006 (UTC)


→ moved here from previous "13.13 Attacks on United Nations personnel":

In the MacKenzie paragraph: "According to an interview on CBC radio and multiple print sources, Retired Canadian Major General Lewis MacKenzie, referring to an email he had received a few days previously from the killed Canadian peacekeeper Major Paeta Hess-von Kruedener, stated that "...what he was telling us was Hezbollah fighters were all over his position and the IDF were (sic) 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." "

  • Doesnt cite text of Kruedener's email so unclear what MacKenzie is commenting on.
  • Makes it sound like MacKenzie received the email personally, he didnt, CTV.ca did (also misrepresented in most of the articles except CTV.ca)
  • Makes it sound like MacKenzie isnt expression his opinion/interpretation
  • Doesnt include the remarks of others, including the widow of the dead man who indicated that the bombing (to her knowledge) had been going on for weeks.

Full details do belong in child section as it will probably grow but it would be good to represent at least a skeleton of the facts in the parent article. 82.29.227.171 02:10, 29 July 2006 (UTC)

I left it in as balance, as if I'd chucked it in the main article, people would be all up in arms about anti Israeli bias. If you want to change it or add something else from the main article about the claims that Hezbollah are hiding around U.N observers, that would be great. --Iorek85 02:13, 29 July 2006 (UTC)

OK well thats good. My only point is that to state MacKenzie received the email personally when he didnt, and to quote his opinion on something when the reader isnt presented with what hes commenting on, looks uneven. I will think about best way to make small NPOV changes along the lines you suggested. Thanks for your comments. 82.29.227.171 02:41, 29 July 2006 (UTC)
Noticed also that in the 'Casualties' section that Israeli/Lebanese dead and wounded are given space, but in the UN subsection details on UN wounded dont appear- only fatalities. Its probably right to also have a link there to Attacks on United Nations personnel in the 2006 Israel-Lebanon conflict child article (preferable) or duplicate UN wounded details. 82.29.227.171 04:22, 29 July 2006 (UTC)

I think Mackenzie comments can be included, but as a one line comment with a link to the article, something like "A Canadian officer interpreted the comments as supportive of Israel's assertion that Hizbollah is using the UN as a shield." followed with source followed by the caveat of the wife and the source. I think NPOV rather than calling for his comments to be excluded, calls for his comments not to be given the undue weight they seemingly have: for a person 1000s of miles away, with no direct knowledge of the region, nor any particular expertise on its history from an academic standpoint, his comments certainly are peripherally relevant, and its inclusion rather tenous.

In the big scheme of things this attack is a footnote: Israel has attacked the UNIFIL and other UN personnel and troops dozens of times before, and killed hundreds of UN personnel (please see the pages for the fact check) so 4 dead, well, thats just another number. Plus IMHO the civilian casualties are much more important than covering the occupational hazards of being a blue helmet, and devoting so much space to what belongs in the UNIFIL page in this already ultra long article goes squarely against the grain of our purpose of building a quality encyclopedia.--Cerejota 04:43, 29 July 2006 (UTC)
I agree and when the story broke I voiced doubts as to whether it should be included at all [20]. Nothing has erased my doubts on the importance of what he said. I'm saying that if his comments are to be included then they should be in context of what the original comments were.
Probably a good idea to move it off the parent article and settle it completely on the child but I know someone will just reinclude it because of the weight they think it lends to their POV on the rights and wrongs of the incident. 82.29.227.171 05:18, 29 July 2006 (UTC)

Claims about captured Hezbollah

It was reported several days ago that Israelis captured two Hezbollah. This was not the case. See: http://www.israelnationalnews.com/news.php3?id=108354 —The preceding unsigned comment was added by TassadarAlpha (talk • contribs).

July 2006 Seattle Jewish Center shooting

If anyone finds any information relating events going on in Lebanon or in Gaza to this event, please post in article. (Just stating cause it's possible) (AP source) Hello32020 01:08, 29 July 2006 (UTC)

From the Seattle Post-Intelligencer: [21] At least five people were shot - one fatally - this afternoon at the Jewish Federation of Greater Seattle by a man a witness said was upset about "what was going on in Israel." Perhaps we should add a sentence somewhere saying that initial reports indicate that the shooter may have been motivated by the 2006 Israel-Lebanon conflict? I'd prefer to hear other's opinions before adding this to the article. GabrielF 01:17, 29 July 2006 (UTC)
Good idea. Hello32020

I think this article is long enough - perhaps add it to the International reactions to the 2006 Israel-Lebanon conflict ? --Iorek85 01:33, 29 July 2006 (UTC)

Or perhaps add July 2006 Seattle Jewish Center shooting to related articles section...Hello32020 01:37, 29 July 2006 (UTC)

I'll just be bold and do it Hello32020 01:38, 29 July 2006 (UTC)

  1. ^ "Israeli Agression on Lebanon", July 19 and 21, 2006, in As-Safir, Retrieved on 2006-07-16.
  2. ^ [22]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:2006_Lebanon_War/Archive_12&oldid=1143395224"