Israelis targeted UN peacekeepers in Lebanon: Spanish report - Polidicks

[QUOTE]Madrid (AFP) - A confidential Spanish military report on the death of a Spanish UN peacekeeper in Israeli shelling in Lebanon said he was manning a post that appeared to have been targeted, a newspaper reported Sunday. El Pais cited extracts from the report which drew on testimony from soldiers following the January 28 incident when the Israeli military shelled border areas following a Hezbollah attack that left two Israeli soldiers dead. Corporal Ivan Lopez Sanchez, who was stationed nearby, told investigators that the UN position was clearly targeted. "Every time, they corrected the trajectory from Majidiye to the 4-28" post, where the UNIFIL peacekeepers were stationed, he said. A third soldier said fragmentation bombs were used in the attack and that the shelling finally appeared to target the main watch tower. Spain and Israel have agreed to carry out a joint probe into the death of 36-year-old corporal Javier Soria Toledo. [/QUOTE] [url]http://news.yahoo.com/israelis-targeted-un-peacekeepers-lebanon-spanish-report-183855640.html[/url]

[QUOTE=Ripmax;47467812][url]http://news.yahoo.com/israelis-targeted-un-peacekeepers-lebanon-spanish-report-183855640.html[/url][/QUOTE] Watch as this is buried in the annals of bureaucratic processes.

I seriously doubt Isreal would intentionally shell a UN peacekeeper post like seriously I know people like to paint the IDF as bad guys, but what could they POSSIBLY stand to gain from shelling the UN???

[QUOTE=Timebomb575;47467851]I seriously doubt Isreal would intentionally shell a UN peacekeeper post like seriously I know people like to paint the IDF as bad guys, but what could they POSSIBLY stand to gain from shelling the UN???[/QUOTE] I'm thinking they thought they were Hezbollah positions.

Israel has shelled/bombed UN positions before, such as during the [url=http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/International_incidents_during_the_2006_Lebanon_War]2006 Lebanon war.[/url] Whether or not the strikes were intentional or not is a matter for some debate, but the term 'tactical necessity' (as in proximity of combative enemy troops to UN bases) has come up a few times.

Oh boy, Israel breaking international law! In other news, the sky is blue and water wet.

My Dad was always on about this, he served 3 times in Lebanon during the South Lebanon conflict in the 1980s. He was part of a checkpoint that watched an SLA checkpoint further down a hill near the village of Bra`Shit. The SLA were an Israeli supported militia that committed plenty of war crimes and harassed the villagers constantly with death threats. Anyway, one day one of these militia men wanted to pass the checkpoint and enter the village, yet he refused to give up his gun. So instead of turning back or giving up the gun he kicked whoever was on duty in the balls and took off. He told his mates what happened and they opened up on the checkpoint with RPG's and .50 fire. The UN checkpoint returned fire. For 3 days this went on, until the SLA called in an Israeli M60 tank platoon. The tanks raked the checkpoint with machine gun fire and moved on before UN AML-90s moved into the area to stop the fighting. The village was in bits after it, thankfully no UN troops were killed, but there was a few injured and a few civilians killed.

I wonder what would the reaction be if UN peacekeepers shelled an Israeli position...

[QUOTE=Awesomecaek;47468002]I wonder what would the reaction be if UN peacekeepers shelled an Israeli position...[/QUOTE] Terrible given that the UN troops are suppose to be purely defensive.

[QUOTE=Emperor Scorpious II;47468036]Terrible given that the UN troops are suppose to be purely defensive.[/QUOTE] So IDF should be ideally named more of something like IAF?

[QUOTE=Mabus;47467981]My Dad was always on about this, he served 3 times in Lebanon during the South Lebanon conflict in the 1980s. He was part of a checkpoint that watched an SLA checkpoint further down a hill near the village of Bra`Shit. The SLA were an Israeli supported militia that committed plenty of war crimes and harassed the villagers constantly with death threats. Anyway, one day one of these militia men wanted to pass the checkpoint and enter the village, yet he refused to give up his gun. So instead of turning back or giving up the gun he kicked whoever was on duty in the balls and took off. He told his mates what happened and they opened up on the checkpoint with RPG's and .50 fire. The UN checkpoint returned fire. For 3 days this went on, until the SLA called in an Israeli M60 tank platoon. The tanks raked the checkpoint with machine gun fire and moved on before UN AML-90s moved into the area to stop the fighting. The village was in bits after it, thankfully no UN troops were killed, but there was a few injured and a few civilians killed.[/QUOTE] Not questioning your story, but how do you think it relates to this incident? In this case Hezbollah opened fire on an Israeli convoy and killed several IDF soldiers, and the IDF then returned fire and hit a UN outpost. What reason in this case would the IDF have to fire on a UN position? Spite? A tribute to the brave heroes of the SLA? What?

[QUOTE=ScumBunny;47468051]Not questioning your story, but how do you think it relates to this incident? In this case Hezbollah opened fire on an Israeli convoy and killed several IDF soldiers, and the IDF then returned fire and hit a UN outpost. What reason in this case would the IDF have to fire on a UN position? Spite? A tribute to the brave heroes of the SLA? What?[/QUOTE] The story is word of mouth and a collection of pictures, I wasn't there so can never be 100% certain it happened, so your absolutely free to question it. The point is that they have allegedly targeted UN outposts before, in the case of the SLA attack it was in support of their efforts to over take the outpost and presumably raze the town to the ground. Throughout that entire awful war the UN were constantly watching all sides and were thus pretty much hated by everyone except for the civilians themselves. [QUOTE]El Pais quoted a UN report which said that Israel had warned the UN peacekeepers at 11:40 am not to venture out, without giving any explanation. Between 11:48 am and 1:43 pm, nearly 120 artillery shells, 90 mortar grenades and five projectiles were fired in the area, El Pais quoted the report as saying.[/QUOTE] I honestly can't say for certain why they targeted the Spanish outpost, but I can hypothesize two things, that either it was a genuine error (although according to the article they seemed to correct the trajectory of their fire towards the outpost and there was a lot of ordnance) or they fired upon them literally as you put out of spite and recklessness, the warning given with little explanation means that they didn't intend for any soldiers to be killed but at the same time they seemed to care little about their welfare. They probably wanted to intimidate and rattle them.

[QUOTE=Mabus;47468120]The story is word of mouth and a collection of pictures, I wasn't there so can never be 100% certain it happened, so your absolutely free to question it. The point is that they have allegedly targeted UN outposts before, in the case of the SLA attack it was in support of their efforts to over take the outpost and presumably raze the town to the ground. Throughout that entire awful war the UN were constantly watching all sides and were thus pretty much hated by everyone except for the civilians themselves. I honestly can't say for certain why they targeted the Spanish outpost, but I can hypothesize two things, that either it was a genuine error (although according to the article they seemed to correct the trajectory of their fire towards the outpost and there was a lot of ordnance) or they fired upon them literally as you put out of spite and recklessness, the warning given with little explanation means that they didn't intend for any soldiers to be killed but at the same time they seemed to care little about their welfare. They probably wanted to intimidate and rattle them.[/QUOTE] I seriously doubt that in the middle of an event with an IDF convoy caught in an ambush their first response would be to shell the nearest UN position. I assume the IDF as usual layed down overwhelming covering fire in the general direction of where the Hezbollah attack came from to prevent them from firing on the forces evicting the casualties. It's not uncommon for Hezbollah forces to [URL="http://www.hrw.org/reports/2007/lebanon0907/8.htm"]use the vicinity of UNIFIL positions[/URL] to fire at the IDF (see the first paragraph in the link), and the IDF is always more concerned with protecting its own troops than keeping anyone else safe.

[QUOTE=Timebomb575;47467851]I seriously doubt Isreal would intentionally shell a UN peacekeeper post like seriously I know people like to paint the IDF as bad guys, but what could they POSSIBLY stand to gain from shelling the UN???[/QUOTE] What could they possibly stand to gain? Removal of UN forces from the border, they want to scare them off for good so they can cross the border whenever they damn please. They've fired over 200 rounds of ordnance for nearly two hours at the UN outpost. Its hard for me to believe this was an accident with all the tools they have in their arsenal.

[QUOTE=ScumBunny;47468607]I seriously doubt that in the middle of an event with an IDF convoy caught in an ambush their first response would be to shell the nearest UN position. I assume the IDF as usual layed down overwhelming covering fire in the general direction of where the Hezbollah attack came from to prevent them from firing on the forces evicting the casualties. It's not uncommon for Hezbollah forces to [URL="http://www.hrw.org/reports/2007/lebanon0907/8.htm"]use the vicinity of UNIFIL positions[/URL] to fire at the IDF (see the first paragraph in the link), and the IDF is always more concerned with protecting its own troops than keeping anyone else safe.[/QUOTE] That still does not take into account the correction of trajectory while firing in that area. It was reported that each barrage moved closer to the outpost almost as if they corrected their fire onto the outpost itself intentionally. The shelling itself was on border areas, well out of range of the ambush area. If anything the shelling was a response to the ambush. This also took place over 2 hours, more than enough time to check maps, of which i'm sure all the Israeli DC's had in hand when they made the fire missions, no doubt with the UN outpost marked.

[QUOTE=Mabus;47469027]That still does not take into account the correction of trajectory while firing in that area. It was reported that each barrage moved closer to the outpost almost as if they corrected their fire onto the outpost itself intentionally. The shelling itself was on border areas, well out of range of the ambush area. If anything the shelling was a response to the ambush. This also took place over 2 hours, more than enough time to check maps, of which i'm sure all the Israeli DC's had in hand when they made the fire missions, no doubt with the UN outpost marked.[/QUOTE] No argument there. I have no idea why the IDF appeared to shoot closer to the UN position, although I still think if they were aiming at them specifically they would hit with the first few shots. As always, I guess we'll know better when the conclusions of the investigation are officially released.

[QUOTE=ScumBunny;47469060]No argument there. I have no idea why the IDF appeared to shoot closer to the UN position, although I still think if they were aiming at them specifically they would hit with the first few shots. As always, I guess we'll know better when the conclusions of the investigation are officially released.[/QUOTE] Exactly, until the report itself is published there is nothing but speculation. It was a tragedy either way.

[QUOTE=Lamar;47468973]What could they possibly stand to gain? Removal of UN forces from the border, they want to scare them off for good so they can cross the border whenever they damn please. They've fired over 200 rounds of ordnance for nearly two hours at the UN outpost. Its hard for me to believe this was an accident with all the tools they have in their arsenal.[/QUOTE] intentionally shelling UN forces isnt going to fucking scare them off, history shows that killing peacekeepers only results in MORE peacekeepers showing up if I can figure this shit out, the IDF can too. call them what you want, but the IDF arent comicbook supervillans

[QUOTE=Timebomb575;47469109]intentionally shelling UN forces isnt going to fucking scare them off, history shows that killing peacekeepers only results in MORE peacekeepers showing up if I can figure this shit out, the IDF can too. call them what you want, but the IDF arent comicbook supervillans[/QUOTE] The IDF does have a history of behaving as comicbook supervillians though. [url]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iqrit[/url] [url]http://www.wrmea.org/1987-december/iqrit-and-bir-am-a-christmas-tale-with-a-moral.html[/url] [quote]"For the second time, the village elders marched across the hill and presented the order to the Zionist soldiers...Without question or dispute, the commanding officer read the order. He shrugged. 'This is fine...We need some time to pull out. You can return on the 25th.' "On Christmas! What an incredible Christmas gift for the village. The elders fairly ran across the hill to Gish to spread the news. At long last they would all be going home. The Christmas Eve vigil became a celebration of thanksgiving and joyful praise. On Christmas morning...bundled in sweaters and old coats supplied by the Bishop's relief workers, the villagers gathered in the first light of day...Mother, Father, Wardi, and my brothers all joined in singing a jubilant Christmas hymn as they mounted the hill...At the top of the hill their hymn trailed into silence...Why were the soldiers still there? In the distance, a soldier shouted, and they realized they had been seen. A cannon blast sheared the silence. Then another—a third...Tank shells shrieked into the village, exploding in fiery destruction. Houses blew apart like paper. Stones and dust flew amid the red flames and billowing black smoke. One shell slammed into the side of the church, caving in a thick stone wall and blowing off half the roof. The bell tower teetered, the bronze bell knelling, and somehow held amid the dust clouds and cannon fire... Then all was silent—except for the weeping of women and the terrified screams of babies and children.[/quote] Long story short, the IDF forced Palestinian Christians out of their homes from the village of Iqrit. Later after much protest, the IDF told them they can return to the village on the 25th, leading the Christian villagers into thinking they would be able to return to their homes as "Christmas gift". The IDF took them up to a hilltop that overlooked the village and then forced them to watch their village get destroyed by tanks and cannon fire on Christmas day.

[QUOTE=Lamar;47469381]The IDF does have a history of behaving as comicbook supervillians though. [url]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iqrit[/url] [url]http://www.wrmea.org/1987-december/iqrit-and-bir-am-a-christmas-tale-with-a-moral.html[/url] Long story short, the IDF forced Palestinian Christians out of their homes from the village of Iqrit. Later after much protest, the IDF told them they can return to the village on the 25th, leading the Christian villagers into thinking they would be able to return to their homes as "Christmas gift". The IDF took them up to a hilltop that overlooked the village and then forced them to watch their village get destroyed by tanks and cannon fire on Christmas day.[/QUOTE] razing that village had some tangible benefit to Isreal though, so that wouldnt really be comic book villainy. When I say "comic book villian" I mean someone who is a moron that does terrible things for no reason or perceived benefit to them self. Isreal wouldnt deliberately shell the UN because there is literally nothing in it for them. It sure isnt going to get the UN to pull out (if they were trying to oust the UN, why would they frame this as an accident?), and it most definitely wont result in anything good for them. They might be reckless but they arent stupid.

[QUOTE=Timebomb575;47469436]razing that village had some tangible benefit to Isreal though, so that wouldnt really be comic book villainy. When I say "comic book villian" I mean someone who is a moron that does terrible things for no reason or perceived benefit to them self. [/quote] Depopulating and razing a village is one thing, misleading the the villagers into thinking they can return on Christmas day and then destroying it in front of them is another. There was no tangible benefit in doing that, they were just being spiteful and even more cruel than they already were. [QUOTE=Timebomb575;47469436]Isreal wouldnt deliberately shell the UN because there is literally nothing in it for them. It sure isnt going to get the UN to pull out.[/quote] Well the UN peacekeepers are out of Syria now that its too dangerous, the IDF could just make it too dangerous for them to stick around the Lebanese border. [QUOTE=Timebomb575;47469436](if they were trying to oust the UN, why would they frame this as an accident?)[/quote] They would never say that it would be done deliberately, at least by saying it was an accident people can raise doubt. [QUOTE=Timebomb575;47469436]They might be reckless but they aren't stupid.[/QUOTE] If it was an accident they would have to be pretty stupid though, they've fired at the outpost for 2 hours with over 200 pieces of ordnance. Like Mabus mentioned, these guys didn't check a map while they were shelling the same spot for 2 hours?

[QUOTE=Lamar;47468973]What could they possibly stand to gain? Removal of UN forces from the border, they want to scare them off for good so they can cross the border whenever they damn please. They've fired over 200 rounds of ordnance for nearly two hours at the UN outpost. Its hard for me to believe this was an accident with all the tools they have in their arsenal.[/QUOTE] lmfao this dude actually thinks shooting at peacekeepers will just "scare them off".

[QUOTE=Melnek;47469769]lmfao this dude actually thinks shooting at peacekeepers will just "scare them off".[/QUOTE] lmao this guy likes shilling out contentless rebuttles

[QUOTE=Kyle902;47470774]lmao this guy likes shilling out contentless rebuttles[/QUOTE] Well hes got a point. They wouldn't intentionally shoot peacekeepers. Just because he has a different point of view from you doesn't make him a shill. His alternative views should help you better understand the world, even if you don't agree with them.

I don't think they shelled the UN on purpose, although I am certain they will squirm out of getting any blame for it.

[QUOTE=Kyle902;47470774]lmao this guy likes shilling out contentless rebuttles[/QUOTE] there's literally nothing to say to a person who has consistently shown nothing but mule-like stubbornness towards israel in his almost creepy obsession with this country. whenever his points get debunked he just leaves the thread and then comes back to spew the same shit the day after having learned nothing. a man like that deserves nothing but ridicule and none should indulge him in debate much less bother with a lengthy rebuttal.

[QUOTE=Melnek;47470942]there's literally nothing to say to a person who has consistently shown nothing but mule-like stubbornness towards israel in his almost creepy obsession with this country. whenever his points get debunked he just leaves the thread and then comes back to spew the same shit the day after having learned nothing. a man like that deserves nothing but ridicule and none should indulge him in debate much less bother with a lengthy rebuttal.[/QUOTE] No man you're only a shill if you aren't rabidly anti-Israel!!! What next, you're going to say we support the Holocaust?

It is pretty damning if they shot rounds for range, then deliberately corrected to shell a clearly-marked UN outpost with a sustained barrage. What in the hell could they possibly have been thinking?

[QUOTE=Used Car Salesman;47472111]It is pretty damning if they shot rounds for range, then deliberately corrected to shell a clearly-marked UN outpost with a sustained barrage. What in the hell could they possibly have been thinking?[/QUOTE] According to the report in the OP the IDF notified the UN to keep its soldiers inside the outpost a few minutes ahead of the shelling, so at least someone in the IDF was aware of them existing there. Now, unless like Lamar you think the IDF just wanted them all inside so they're all conveniently in one place to shoot at (in which case: how come most of them are still alive?), you can assume the IDF probably wasn't intentionally trying to kill them. Obviously that didn't work, since one guy [I]is[/I] dead, but we don't know where exactly he was when he was hit , where were everyone else, what exactly the IDF were shooting at and where exactly in relation to the UN outpost they hit. For example, the report says the IDF seemed to be aiming for the guard tower, but I'm not sure it says the tower was actually hit. Bottom line: we don't know enough about what happened there to assume anything, certainly to assume the IDF was intentionally targeting UN positions for no reason at this point.