15
   

ISRAEL - IRAN - SYRIA - HAMAS - HEZBOLLAH - WWWIII?

 
 
Walter Hinteler
 
  1  
Reply Wed 26 Jul, 2006 05:48 am
I kindly suggest that you update your information about the various UN 'military' engagements and who does what where why - this will certainly limit misinterpretations.

The four UN peacekeepers that were killed in the air strike were part of the UN Truce Supervision Organisation (UNTSO).
And these observers are stationed there since 1948.


So still my question to fofyre: what is your source saying "they are billed as peacekeepers"?
0 Replies
 
Foxfyre
 
  1  
Reply Wed 26 Jul, 2006 05:56 am
Walter Hinteler wrote:
I kindly suggest that you update your information about the various UN 'military' engagements and who does what where why - this will certainly limit misinterpretations.

The four UN peacekeepers that were killed in the air strike were part of the UN Truce Supervision Organisation (UNTSO).
And these observers are stationed there since 1948.


So still my question to fofyre: what is your source saying "they are billed as peacekeepers"?


Okay, here's what I found doing a quick search on UNTSO. Every source refers to them as peace keepers or involved with UN peace keeping.

Okay here is what I found on UNTSO

http://www.issafrica.org/Pubs/ASR/6No1/Malan.html

http://wwwnew.towson.edu/polsci/ppp/sp97/unpeace/peace5.htm

http://learning.turner.com/efts/un/blueflag.htm

Now please answer my questions.
0 Replies
 
squinney
 
  1  
Reply Wed 26 Jul, 2006 05:58 am
Walter - I don't think we are getting the same news over here.

Bear came downstairs this morning after hearing on the news that "4 UN peacekeepers were killed by Isreali missiles last night."

If they were'nt peacekeepers, but were observers, I don't think it matters. Isreal wasn't showing much discretion in who was being targeted.
0 Replies
 
Walter Hinteler
 
  1  
Reply Wed 26 Jul, 2006 05:58 am
The camp in Khiam, btw, was literally there since 1948, at more or less the very same geographical position.

"It is difficult to accept that the strike would have been planned", Commander Kimmo Salomaa, the head of the peacekeeping sector of the Finnish Defence Staff's international department, said, "but on the other hand the poszion of these camps are known since nearly 60 years."
(source: Finnish News Agency [STT])
0 Replies
 
Brand X
 
  1  
Reply Wed 26 Jul, 2006 05:59 am
The term Truce Supervision would indicate an element of peacekeeping indeed.
0 Replies
 
Walter Hinteler
 
  1  
Reply Wed 26 Jul, 2006 06:04 am
Brand X wrote:
The term Truce Supervision would indicate an element of peacekeeping indeed.


Did you read about their mission or just guess it?

Two nephews of sister-in-law's were engaged their (Austrian officers): both with official papers as UN-OBSERVERS ... and got their money for that. (Hopefully, one stilöl there is okay.)

Never mind, I'll give it up.

You know it better than those who have been there, who are the commanding officers of the dead, ...

Americans really just know one opinion: their own.
0 Replies
 
Foxfyre
 
  1  
Reply Wed 26 Jul, 2006 06:04 am
And whether or not Walter answers my questions, it seems apparent they weren't doing any job that was accomplishing anything and they should have been taken out of harm's way in a war zone.
0 Replies
 
Walter Hinteler
 
  1  
Reply Wed 26 Jul, 2006 06:04 am
Foxfyre wrote:
And whether or not Walter answers my questions, it seems apparent they weren't doing any job that was accomplishing anything and they should have been taken out of harm's way in a war zone.


What I said above.
0 Replies
 
Foxfyre
 
  1  
Reply Wed 26 Jul, 2006 06:06 am
Walter Hinteler wrote:
Foxfyre wrote:
And whether or not Walter answers my questions, it seems apparent they weren't doing any job that was accomplishing anything and they should have been taken out of harm's way in a war zone.


What I said above.


So aren't you being rather arrogant about your own opinion? You can 'kindly request' I answer your questions but you refuse to answer mine? I will accept that you can't answer them without admitting that the "American opinion" is probably the correct one in this case.
0 Replies
 
Walter Hinteler
 
  1  
Reply Wed 26 Jul, 2006 06:10 am
Foxfyre wrote:
Okay, here's what I found doing a quick search on UNTSO. Every source refers to them as peace keepers or involved with UN peace keeping.

Okay here is what I found on UNTSO

http://www.issafrica.org/Pubs/ASR/6No1/Malan.html

http://wwwnew.towson.edu/polsci/ppp/sp97/unpeace/peace5.htm

http://learning.turner.com/efts/un/blueflag.htm


Foxfyre wrote:
it seems apparent they weren't doing any job that was accomplishing anything and they should have been taken out of harm's way in a war zone.



Quote:
Established in May 1948 to assist the United Nations Mediator and the Truce Commission in supervising the observance of the truce in Palestine.

Since then, UNTSO has performed various tasks entrusted to it by the Security Council, including the supervision of the General Armistice Agreements of 1949 and the observation of the ceasefire in the Suez Canal area and the Golan Heights following the Arab-Israeli war of June 1967.

At present, UNTSO assists and cooperates with the United Nations Disengagement Observer Force (UNDOF) on the Golan Heights in the Israel-Syria sector, and the United Nations Interim Force in Lebanon (UNIFIL) in the Israel-Lebanon sector. UNTSO is also present in the Egypt-Israel sector in the Sinai. UNTSO maintains offices in Beirut and Damascus
source: UNTSO - Mandate
0 Replies
 
Walter Hinteler
 
  1  
Reply Wed 26 Jul, 2006 06:15 am
Foxfyre wrote:
I will accept that you can't answer them without admitting that the "American opinion" is probably the correct one in this case.


At least - as said above - even Israel has a different opinion than Foxfyrre's American opinion:

Quote:

Foreign Minister Tzipi Livni used a press conference in Haifa to respond to remarks by UN Secretary-General Kofi Annan, who accused IDF soldiers of deliberately targeting UN observers in Lebanon.


"There is no commander in the army who would deliberately direct fire at civilians or UN soldiers," she said. "We expressed our sorrow over the regret. I spoke with the foreign ministers of Austria and Canada whose soldiers were killed yesterday and I apologized for the incident," Livni said. (Ronny Sofer)


(07.26.06, 14:36)
0 Replies
 
Foxfyre
 
  1  
Reply Wed 26 Jul, 2006 06:25 am
Walter Hinteler wrote:
Foxfyre wrote:
I will accept that you can't answer them without admitting that the "American opinion" is probably the correct one in this case.


At least - as said above - even Israel has a different opinion than Foxfyrre's American opinion:

Quote:

Foreign Minister Tzipi Livni used a press conference in Haifa to respond to remarks by UN Secretary-General Kofi Annan, who accused IDF soldiers of deliberately targeting UN observers in Lebanon.


"There is no commander in the army who would deliberately direct fire at civilians or UN soldiers," she said. "We expressed our sorrow over the regret. I spoke with the foreign ministers of Austria and Canada whose soldiers were killed yesterday and I apologized for the incident," Livni said. (Ronny Sofer)


(07.26.06, 14:36)


And I am noting that you keep posting all sorts of stuff, but you won't answer my questions which refer to the "American opinion" that you reject.
0 Replies
 
msolga
 
  1  
Reply Wed 26 Jul, 2006 06:28 am
They're called "UN observers" in this part of the world, too, Walter.:

http://www.abc.net.au/news/newsitems/200607/s1697819.htm

... and I disagree that the work of these observers is meaningless. Impartial observers are essential in a situation like this. Otherwise we'd be relying solely on propaganda (from both sides of the conflict) to try & work out what's really happening.
0 Replies
 
Foxfyre
 
  1  
Reply Wed 26 Jul, 2006 06:30 am
msolga wrote:
They're called "UN observers" in this part of the world, too, Walter.:

http://www.abc.net.au/news/newsitems/200607/s1697819.htm

... and I disagree that the work of these observers is meaningless. Impartial observers are essential in a situation like this. Otherwise we'd be relying solely on propaganda (from both sides of the conflict) to try & work out what's really happening.


So tell me what good are they Msolga? Walter won't answer that question. Why should tax payers pay for 'peace keepers' or 'observors' who do not apparently do either?
0 Replies
 
Walter Hinteler
 
  1  
Reply Wed 26 Jul, 2006 06:32 am
All right, Foyfyre - kill them all, nuke the UN, what ever you want.

(Of course not the US military within UNTSO.)
0 Replies
 
Walter Hinteler
 
  1  
Reply Wed 26 Jul, 2006 06:37 am
Quote:
UNTSO:
Strength (30 April 2006)
154 military observers,
supported by 99 international civilian personnel
and 120 local civilian staff

Contributors of Military Personnel Argentina, Australia, Austria, Belgium, Canada, Chile, China, Denmark, Estonia, Finland, France, Ireland, Italy, Nepal, Netherlands, New Zealand, Norway, Russian Federation, Slovak Republic, Slovenia, Sweden, Switzerland and United States


Quote:
Following the wars of 1956, 1967 and 1973, the functions of the observers changed in the light of changing circumstances, but they remained in the area, acting as go-betweens for the hostile parties


(Sorry for the source, but it's from the ) UNTSO homepage
0 Replies
 
msolga
 
  1  
Reply Wed 26 Jul, 2006 06:38 am
Foxfyre wrote:
msolga wrote:
They're called "UN observers" in this part of the world, too, Walter.:

http://www.abc.net.au/news/newsitems/200607/s1697819.htm

... and I disagree that the work of these observers is meaningless. Impartial observers are essential in a situation like this. Otherwise we'd be relying solely on propaganda (from both sides of the conflict) to try & work out what's really happening.


So tell me what good are they Msolga? Walter won't answer that question. Why should tax payers pay for 'peace keepers' or 'observors' who do not apparently do either?


I thought I'd already explained that in my post, which you've quoted, Foxfire. Put simply, we want to know what's really happening, not rely on biased accounts from either side of the conflict. I don't see that as a waste of money at all. It's the sort of work the UN should be doing.
0 Replies
 
msolga
 
  1  
Reply Wed 26 Jul, 2006 06:41 am
Walter Hinteler wrote:
Quote:
Following the wars of 1956, 1967 and 1973, the functions of the observers changed in the light of changing circumstances, but they remained in the area, acting as go-betweens for the hostile parties


I don't see how this could be considered a waste of money, either. It's very important work.
0 Replies
 
Walter Hinteler
 
  1  
Reply Wed 26 Jul, 2006 06:42 am
I agree, msolga.

And to see it in the historic context: this was the first ever UN military action ... and it's still going on.
Of course, nowadays UN-forces have more "robust" mandates, but actually only since some years.

And if the Security Council would change the mandate - well, it should be done.

But than/before, the "world's leader" had to agree.
0 Replies
 
revel
 
  1  
Reply Wed 26 Jul, 2006 06:42 am
It don't matter what good they are. How callous you are. And yes, they were observers, there to observe, not keep the peace. The point is that building has been there long enough for Israel to know they were there and what their purpurse was. They had been assured that they would not be targeted. The UN building was clearly marked. I mean how many times can they can get away with "uh, sorry, we goofed, we were aiming for the other guy..."

Quote:
One Chinese killed in Israeli airstrike in south Lebanon



A Chinese UN observer was among the four UN peacekeepers killed in an Israeli air strike on south Lebanon on Tuesday night.

The body of the Chinese victim, whose name is Du Zhaoyu, has been recovered, said sources of the United Nations Interim Force in Lebanon (UNIFIL). The UN observer from China was part of the U.N. peacekeeping mission in south Lebanon.

Milos Struger, spokesman of the UNIFIL, said earlier that an Israeli bomb directly hit the base of the United Nations Observer Group in the town of Khiam near the eastern end of the border with Israel.

By 03:10 am local time Wednesday, the UNIFIL have recovered three bodies of the victims from the rubble, including the Chinese observer.

The other three dead UN observers were from Finland, Austria and Canada, the UNIFIL sources confirmed.

Since Israel launched a massive military offensive against Lebanon and Hezbollah guerrillas on July 12, a Nigerian civilian employee working with UNIFIL and his wife, also a Nigerian, have been killed in the crossfire between Israeli forces and Hezbollah guerrillas in the southern port city of Tyre.

Five UNIFIL soldiers and one military observer have also been wounded, Struger said.

U.N. Secretary-General Kofi Annan said he was "shocked and deeply distressed by the apparently deliberate targeting by Israeli Defense Forces of a U.N. Observer post in southern Lebanon." "This coordinated artillery and aerial attack on a long established and clearly marked U.N. post at Khiam occurred despite personal assurances given to me by (Israeli) Prime Minister Ehud Olmert that U.N. positions would be spared Israeli fire," Annan said in a statement.

In Jerusalem, Israel expressed regret on Wednesday over the deaths of four U.N. observers in south Lebanon.

"Israel sincerely regrets the tragic death of the U.N. personnel in south Lebanon," said Israeli Foreign Ministry spokesman Mark Regev.


http://english.people.com.cn/200607/26/eng20060726_286838.html
0 Replies
 
 

Related Topics

Israel's Reality - Discussion by Miller
THE WAR IN GAZA - Discussion by Advocate
Israel's Shame - Discussion by BigEgo
Eye On Israel/Palestine - Discussion by IronLionZion
 
Copyright © 2024 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.13 seconds on 11/18/2024 at 09:40:56