Wikipedia

Talk:2006 Lebanon War/Archive 22

< Talk:2006 Lebanon War
(Redirected from Talk:2006 Israel-Lebanon conflict/Archive22)
Latest comment: 18 years ago by Matthew A.J.י.B. in topic General Discussion
Archive 15←Archive 20Archive 21Archive 22Archive 23Archive 24Archive 25

Discussion about casualties

Latest comment: 18 years ago23 comments13 people in discussion

Earlier discussions


"Estimates" from the tourism minister, etc.

Do we need to include every prominent Israeli's "estimate" of the number of Hezbollah militants that have been/will be killed, when the IDF is releasing solid, confirmed kill numbers? I know of at least three different "estimates" from varying ministers (including the tourism minister, whose was the highest), and various editors keep removing any "estimate" save the tourism minister's (including removing Lt. Gen. Dan Halutz' 300 estimate). If we are going to include "estimates" in the infobox, we need to include them all, or decide to stick with only the confirmed kill numbers the IDF is now releasing. Also, if editors wish to only use a "+" figure ("300+," "500+") to cover all estimates, base estimate used must be the lowest. Thanks, Italiavivi 22:48, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

good point, look at the beginning when lebanon said 1000 dead in the first week. That was defitnley a wrong number. Then CNN saying one Hezbollah Terrorist was killed in a week and a half period. --Zonerocks 00:33, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

Editors are still removing all "estimates" save the highest, despite there being multiple such "estimates." Again, if editors insist on listing these "estimates," it's all or nothing. I'm becomming more and more of the opinion that we should stick with the IDF's confirmed kills only. 206.255.20.48 21:46, 11 August 2006 (UTC)
It was done again, changed from 165 to 500, with no one fact-checking or source-checking the anon who did it. 206.255.21.51 05:28, 12 August 2006 (UTC)

I intend to keep an NPOV tag on this article if the IDF-confirmed versus "estimates" matter is not settled on talk. Italiavivi 20:37, 12 August 2006 (UTC)

I've been trying to discuss this all week, no one is willing. The article gets an NPOV tag until it's resolved. Italiavivi 17:20, 13 August 2006 (UTC)

Lebanese Casualties

From Archive:

As of 2/3 August:

  • Guardian attributes Lebanese government with "828 of its civilians"
  • BBC cites the Health Minister's 750
  • CNN attributes to Lebanese government "603 civilians and soldiers" & "2,145 others" wounded
  • CBS "At least 548 Lebanese have been killed since the fighting began three weeks ago, including 477 civilians and 25 Lebanese soldiers and at least 46 Hezbollah guerrillas."

I am reverting to the 577 figure from the 828. I again stress that we either list the best (objective) numbers that distinguish civilians, or remove the civilian qualification and attribute the Lebanese gov't (a solution which has been opposed by several). TewfikTalk 05:45, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

But none of those links support that figure. Itarr-tass also has the 828, so that makes two for it. --Iorek85 05:52, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

You are correct. The first three numbers are attributed to the Lebanese government, and do not distinguish between civilians and others. The CBS/AP number (548 Lebanese, 477 civilians) is the only one that does that, but Paraphelion's previous calculation's came out with a higher number for civilians (577). Like I said before, we cannot list the 828 number as either a civilian count or an objective number. Could you suggest a different way to approach this? Let me know, TewfikTalk 06:21, 3 August 2006 (UTC)
I don't recall ever coming up with a calculation of 577. I have not been part of this discussion, and if I remember the last I was, about 300 was that last figure I said should be used for civilians, as a source said 300. If a source or two uses 828 as a number for civilians why can't it be used?--Paraphelion 19:02, 14 August 2006 (UTC)
You're right, your number was lower and I added the Qana casualties to it. In any event, this is an outdated discussion. The current range is detailed below. Cheers, TewfikTalk 20:32, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

I'd say the only possible way at the moment would be a "between" number, ie, 477 - 828, which covers the range. That, or we see how many news articles (in the last two/three days) with numbers we can find and go for the most popular. --Iorek85 07:35, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

Is there a reason why we need a source that distinguishes between civilians, rather than just subtracting the number of combatants from the total dead ourselves? Are the number of dead combatants unreliable? If so, why are we using them? There are numbers available from Reuters for total Lebanese dead that are less than 3 hours old (http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/5242732.stm). Why should we be using 5 day old data? - 18:15, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

The casualty figures given by Lebanese government are now reported as 828 ->
"Yesterday the Lebanese government said that of the 828 of its civilians killed in the conflict so far, around 35% have been children - that's around 290. Unicef also estimates that about a third of the dead have been children, although it bases that figure on the fact that an estimated 30% of Lebanon's population are children, rather than any actual count of the dead. There are no official figures yet for the number of wounded children, but they will certainly exceed the number killed; as for those displaced, Unicef says that 45% of the estimated 900,000 Lebanese to have fled their homes are children." [1]
"The death toll in Lebanon stands at 828, with some 200 bodies yet to be recovered, according to the country's government." [2] 82.29.227.171 13:36, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

Update

Update as of 11 August:

  • Guardian: "Civilians: 1,009 killed (based on Lebanese government estimates"
  • BBC: "More than 1,000 Lebanese, most of them civilians...Lebanon says" no distinction of civilians
  • CNN: "861 Lebanese, mostly civilians, according to authorities in [Lebanon]" no distinction of civilians
  • CBS News: "727 on the Lebanese side" no distinction of civilians

These numbers raise the same issues as before, namely that there isn't a minimum figure for civilians killed (and thus the "civilians" qualification is problematic). Suggestions? TewfikTalk 16:11, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

We already edited the death count last night for the lebanese, to over a thousand, we talked about it in this talk page yesterday afternoon. --Zonerocks 19:39, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

530+ dead Hezbollah

http://www1.idf.il/DOVER/site/mainpage.asp?sl=EN&id=7&clr=1&docid=56360.EN (10/08/2006)

http://www1.idf.il/DOVER/site/mainpage.asp?sl=EN&id=7&clr=1&docid=56488.EN (11/08/2006)

http://www1.idf.il/DOVER/site/mainpage.asp?sl=EN&id=7&clr=1&docid=56470.EN (11/08/2006)

http://www1.idf.il/DOVER/site/mainpage.asp?sl=EN&id=7&clr=1&docid=56529.EN (12/08/2006)

Flayer 09:06, 12 August 2006 (UTC)

IDF is not necessarily the most objective source in this conflict. --Jambalaya 12:18, 12 August 2006 (UTC)
It is a claim. "530+ claimed by IDF [2], of which 165 claimed confirmed by IDF" Flayer 12:39, 12 August 2006 (UTC)
Jambalya, I know you are being sarcastic. But must statistics during this conflict released by the idf have been true and the lebanese government has agreed with it. Im going to check these links and then do some investigation before we move further on with this. --Zonerocks 15:08, 12 August 2006 (UTC)

"IDF is not necessarily the most objective source in this conflict."

Umm... is Hezbollah? Yonatanh 20:05, 12 August 2006 (UTC)

How many times did the IDF--just call it Israeli military--say they took over a place and not. How many times did they say theu distroyed Hezbollah's capabilities amnd did not! How many times did they say they caught a Hezbollah leader? Did they not claim to have caught or killed Hassan Nasrallah? How many times did they try and fabricate an accomplishment? The Israeli military is definitily not realiable. Oh, ya I forgot they never intentionally bomb civilians either ot attack U.N. international observers...

69.196.164.190

I don't see how your POV is relevant to the situation. Both Hezbollah and the IDF are POV which is why in order to give an NPOV report we need to give the figures submitted by both. The same things you said about the IDF (which actually 90% of them were made up by you) can be said about Hezbollah. Yonatanh 05:47, 13 August 2006 (UTC)

IDF's claims for Hezbollah dead should not be included in the article. Hezbollah has their own claims for the number of their dead, and that should not be used either. Neither group is trustworthy. If some totally independent source can be found, then that source should be used, or both sides of the story should be included. Coolintro 19:48, 13 August 2006 (UTC)

The IDF's claims should definitely not be trusted or relied on - aside from the fact that they're not exactly a neutral party, there's other problems. Since they're the ones trying to kill Hezbollah members, there's likely to be a lot more people who are mistakenly identified as Hezbollah killed than ones mistakenly identified as civilians. Also, in most cases I doubt have any way of confirming that the people they think are killed are actually dead (very heavy use of air bombardment), so there's a risk of false optimism. Unfortunately, we don't really have a reliable source of information on this (as far as I know). - makomk 20:00, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

Discussion about Pictures

Latest comment: 18 years ago14 comments10 people in discussion

Main Picture

The main picture is seriously misleading. It ignores how the conflict started and the current situation. One look at that picture indicates that Israel just began firing. What about the thousands of rockets that Hezbollah has fired? A good majority of these rockets have been fired from people's homes and have caused severe damage and forced hundreds of thousands of Israelis to seek safe places. Furthermore, Hezbollah even uses human shields, which is prohibited by Human Rights Laws. These illegal acts by Hezbollah only make it even more difficult for Israel to eliminate the terror group. It is extremely unfortunate that so many civilians have been killed on both sides, but the civilian toll would be a lot less if Hezbollah didn't use human shields and use innocent lives for its own cause. Israel is fighting for its survival. Unfortunately, it is surrounded by many hostile countries. Hezbollah, is an organization that desires the destruction of Israel. Once Hezbollah and other groups that seek the destruction of Israel are elminiated, can there then be hopes for peace. --68.1.182.215 02:54, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

It's a tank. An Israeli one firing into Lebanon. There's POV there. If we were to be more fair, to show the majority of the damage, it would show the destruction in Beirut or southern Lebanon, but I don't think you'd like that. Iorek85 03:02, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

Fairness does not mean showing who got more damage. Yes, it is regrettable that many lives have been lost on both sides. However, Hezbollah's use of civilans is wrongful. Israel is trying as hard as it can to limit the civilian casualties while eliminating Hezbollah, which seeks Israel's destruction. Israel has nothing to gain from killing innocent people. Fairness has nothing to do with the ouctome. After all, the outcome only became an outcome because someone started it. To be "fair" would be to judge Hezbollah's actions both in starting this conflict and using civlians as human shields which is against human rights. --68.1.182.215 03:11, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

I agree with Iorek85. A picture, especially the main picture, is supposed to give someone who is unfamiliar with the article a sense of the situation that the article can explain more fully. In this case, the tank can suggest two things. First, it could suggest the view of those who support Israel--that Israel is defending itself by military means. Second, it could suggest the view of those against Israel, showing Israel attacking Lebanon without an apparent means of provokation shown in the picture. To find something completely NPOV for this, we'd have to analyze a lot more than what has happened in the last 30 days. Since that isn't practical right now, and since Wikipedia is not the place for analyzing the responsibilities and faults of parties, this main picture seems to me to be the best solution for the time being.--Nibblesnbits 08:20, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

Yes, but what about the people who have no knowledge of the conflict? Then what you're telling me is that rather than presenting the facts, it is better to tell an anti-Israel viewpoint. Either have a fair viewpoint or simply don't have a viewpoint and just state the facts as they are. I believe wikipedia is about telling all the facts, not changing them or using them to support a certain position. --68.1.182.215 18:30, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

Hmm, I think you misunderstood me. I said that it could suggest the views of both parties. Let's put it this way. Someone with an opinion on the conflict will see it their way no matter what. Someone without an opinion and without knowledge would look at this picture and simply see an IDF tank. The person, if they truly know nothing about the conflict, will think, hey, there are two possibilities here. First, this is a tank defending its people. Or second, there's a tank attacking people randomly. So a person completely ignorant to the conflict would not jump to an anti-Israeli conclusion from this. At least, that's my opinion. A person with any knowledge of the conflict will already have his/her own ideas of who is at fault in the conflict anyway, and so my statement above was actually entirely about people with no knowledge of any of the conflict. Like I said, this is just my opinion, but anyway, I hope this clears up what I was trying to say.--Nibblesnbits 13:00, 12 August 2006 (UTC)

I completely agree; there is a certain duality to which the picture can be percieved that makes it NPOV. While I can understand where you come from arguing that the current picture can be percieved as being aggresive and offensive, it can simultaneously be regarded as the opposite, namely defensive, and hence does not inherentely favour any 'position.' I furthermore believe this to apply both to those ignorant of the conflict, and those knowledgable of it. For these reasons and others outlined above, I do not believe that Wikipedia is presenting an "anti-Israel viewpoint" by any measure. --Gregorof 03:21, 13 August 2006 (UTC)

The current picture is a rubbish one to represent the conflict in question. A picture of a tank could be any war at at any time at any place. Why not have a picture of Lebanon somewhere, afterall this is where the vast majority of the conflict has taken place. Someone coming to this article would expect to see some photo of some of the destruction in, say the lebanonese city of Tyre or Beruit surely? Having described Israeli weaponry as the picture is a clear case of POVJamesedwardsmith 18:47, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

Update the Israeli bombing map?

Hey, I was wondering, shouldn't we update that map under the header "Israeli Action" with the caption "Areas in Lebanon targeted by Israeli bombing, 12 July to 27 July 2006"? I mean, it's getting kind of old and there's a new, almost identical map with more up-to-date information. The newer version of the map can be found here. Someone would have to change the "occupied Palestine" label to "Israel" but that's all. The map says "feel free to circulate" so that's not a problem either.--Nibblesnbits 07:43, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

Image

 

Where may we use this? Flayer 21:14, 12 August 2006 (UTC)

What s that a picture of? --Zonerocks 22:18, 12 August 2006 (UTC)

I think that we should use this image as it shows Isreal targeting rocket launchers, at the moment it is POV to talk about high civilian casualties and show damage to civilian areas yet not show Isreal targeting Hezbollah. --Jedi18 16:01, 13 August 2006 (UTC)

Well... the picture is doctored or changed, as U can see... so the authentisity of it, might be questionable... to say the least. Not possible to tell where or when it's from --imi2 11:45, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

This is the url. This is as accurate as anything else. TewfikTalk 15:56, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

Discussion about POV

Latest comment: 18 years ago9 comments3 people in discussion

Making Sense of the Bias

All of this sick pro-Israel bias begins to make more sense when you read articles like THIS ONE. Matthew A.J.י.B. 09:04, 13 August 2006 (UTC)

Oh dear god. Not that again. Howabout making some specific criticisms of the article, rather than blaming the vast Zionist army? I see you did. Good. Iorek85 09:30, 13 August 2006 (UTC)
Oh yes, I'm just blaming the vast 'Zionist army'. Give me a break. I'm pointing out the lengths to which the USA and Israeli governments will go to misrepresent reality and distort public opinion to thier liking. It is just pathetic. The worst thing about all of it is the fact that those two states are about to start a third world war by their own admission, quite possibly. Matthew A.J.י.B. 10:07, 13 August 2006 (UTC)

Since when has the U.S. government or Isreali government admitted to planning WW3, either the BBC news is increadibaly in-accuart or we are dealing with another nutty conspirisy theorist. I am more concerned about Iran wishing to 'Wipe Isreal of the map'. --Jedi18 16:09, 13 August 2006 (UTC)

The BBC, AP, Reuters--all have reported on this matter. Do you not read the news? Honestly. They have all (USA, Israel, Russia, China, etc.) been stockpiling nukes for about five years now, and matter-of-fact statments about World War III are being made by politicians and generals in all of these countries. The admission is that this is 'inevitable' (which it isn't) and the maniacal promotion of this Third World War by many of these people. Matthew A.J.י.B. 16:21, 13 August 2006 (UTC)
'either BBC news is increadibaly in-accuart', whatever the hell that means, or I'm a 'another nutty conspirisy theorist', gosh darn it! Do you people have any better means of addressing reality or discussion about world events than picking up on non-sensical labels that mean nothing? Conspiracy Theory, in its pure form, refers only to the view that history is mostly guided by the combined, planned actions of societies, rather than by random chance. Somehow PR experts have twisted it to mean 'whacky ideas about governments', which is patent non-sense. What would you class as a 'conspiracy theory'? The idea that Pearl Harbour was foreseen by the USA government? The idea that the USA engaged in Operation Gladio and commited terrorist attacks as part of this operation? Perhaps the idea that there were not WMDs in Iraq? If you answer yes to any of these, you need to read some history and seriously re-work your paradigms, my friend. Matthew A.J.י.B. 16:25, 13 August 2006 (UTC)

Bias in article

"The conflict has killed hundreds of people, caused widespread infrastructure damage in Lebanon, ... and disrupted normal life across all of Lebanon and the northern part of Israel." in the third paragraph. This implies a fairly even spread of dead- which is rubbish. Most victims have been Lebanese and this should be stated at the start of the article rather than forcing the reader to go all the way down to the casulties section and do the maths. Very misleading.

Also in the "begining of conflict" section with have the Israeli view of the account of the start of the conflict but no Hezbollah view..

"In an interview with The Times on 2 August, Israeli Prime Minister Ehud Olmert said: "The war started not only by killing eight Israeli soldiers and abducting two, but by shooting Katyusha and other rockets on the northern cities of Israel on that same morning. Indiscriminately."[24]"

Again this is unacceptable. Olmert's account contradicts the statements written above it- they say only military objects and persons were attacked. Either take away the Olmert comment or add an account given by Hassan Nasralla. -- This unsigned comment was added by User:Rm uk

"forcing the reader to go all the way down to the casulties section" - to the infobox directly to the left of that statement? And it's mentioned that there is dispute: "In a report the Lebanese police force stated that the Israeli soldiers were attacked and captured on the Lebanese side of the border" - it's also mentioned about the shelling "diversionary Katyusha rocket and mortar attack on Israeli military positions and on the villages of Even Menahem and Mattat, injuring 5 civilians". It's exactly in line with what Olmert said. Iorek85 09:38, 13 August 2006 (UTC)

Although generaly I support the pro-Isreal camp i have to agree that we should mention both sides views of the trigger, i.e. Isreal thinks it started when it was attacked by Hezbollah and Hezbollah thinks it started with the Isrealis keeping Lebanese prisoner and Isreals Palestinion campaighn. We should also mention the view that Iran had a hand in starting the conflict. --Jedi18 16:18, 13 August 2006 (UTC)

Okay--and why on Earth do you support the 'pro-Israel camp'? Why is this any better than supporting a renegade militant group in Souther Lebanon? In fact, it is much worse. You can't just pull opinions out of thin air and asser them to be 'yours' without even thinking about it. You have to formulate them based on actual knowledge, logic and evidence. Matthew A.J.י.B. 16:28, 13 August 2006 (UTC)

Israel is well known of influencing american media, why does this recent internet army of pro israel PR sound unlikely or unrealistic?


General Discussion

Latest comment: 18 years ago113 comments33 people in discussion
  • Older Discussion Summaries
  • Talk: 2006 Israel-Lebanon conflict/Archive18#General Discussion
    • Megaphone Software is official Israel Gov policy, beginning of conflict, Why was Rafik Hariri International Airport bombed?, Why was the lighthouse in Beirut eradicated?, Tewfik please discuss removing sources here before, Article, suitable lead, Removing Nasrallah quotation and Hezbollah actions, Widing of the War, Karen Kwiatkowski, Use of weapons with wide blast patterns, Nasrallah - spiritual leader, Criticisms of the allegation that Hezbollah is using human shields
  • Talk: 2006 Israel-Lebanon conflict/Archive21#General Discussion
    • Semi-Protected, Haim Ramon's Comments under "Israeli Position", Request that "Civilians..." section be cleaned up, IRGC should be readded as a combatant, Israeli use of human shields: a look at the other side of the coin & a New light on Hezbollah, Hezbollah-Pasderan Links, Hezbollah-Pasderan Links Seem to be Propganda, Proposed UN resolution, Big bias against Hezbollah, Hezbollah Action, Haaretz References are not acceptable, Reference 22, Section: International Reaction, Political Correctness BS, Begining of the conflict, Background of conflict, Excuse me but Israel was the one that crossed the border, Timeline, Lebanon claims IDF troops have captured around 350 Lebanese soldiers, Israeli Soldiers were kidnapped NOT captured, When can we start calling this a war?, hizbullah did not start this conflict!, The protect tag, Environmental consequences of attacks, Who is Terrorist, IDF allows 400 Lebanese security forces to leave Marjayoun, What's the point of enviromental part, POV & historical revision, No historical background?, International Reaction

What is Terrorism?

Terrorism is consisely defined by WordNet as:

terrorism, act of terrorism, terrorist act -- (the calculated use of violence (or threat of violence) against civilians in order to attain goals that are political or religious or ideological in nature; this is done through intimidation or coercion or instilling fear)

Hezbollah admits, nay, is quite unabashed about doing just that in the words of its envoy to Iran:

"We are going to make Israel not safe for Israelis. [..] We will expand attacks. The people who came to Israel, (they) moved there to live, not to die. If we continue to attack, they will leave."

Calling such deliberate targeting of civilians "terrorism" is not expressing a POV — it is stating a fact.

Whether or not Israel does the same is irrelevant. пан Бостон-Київський 20:20, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

Exactly, and it gives another reason why we should take out milita and add terrorists. Zonerocks 22:29, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

Israel shopuld be added as a Terrorist state... 69.196.164.190

Absolutely. Along with pretty much every other nation in the history of the world, almost definitely including yours. The WordNet entry may be the textbook definition (as well as the one I employ), but the word has picked up far too many connotations in modern parlance to be casually dropped whenever it's technically accurate to do so. That would be propaganda. Seeings as the article already mentions both Hezbollah and Israel being criticized for attacks against civilians, this sort of bombastic nomenclature seems both redundant and incendiary. And this is coming from an Israeli who has no doubt, as far as personal opinion goes, that Hezbollah is a terrorist organization and that the state of Israel is responsible for numerous acts of state terrorism. The "Targeting of civilian areas", "International reaction", and "Historical background" sections seem more than sufficient, and I fail to see how referring to Hezbollah as "militants" or "guerillas" would make the article any less accurate. 89.1.68.175 21:19, 12 August 2006 (UTC)
You would be a fool to think that it is NPOV to selectively call militant vigilantism 'terrorism' and not call 'shock and awe' tactics by the USA and Israel 'terrorism' (when it is the exact same thing). The word is just too broad in its definition. It is a useless term, unless you want to B.S. like Bush and his crew do constantly. There is no such a thing as terrorism--it's all quackery. There are such things as criminal acts, as well as war crimes, which both Israel and Hizbollah are responsible for. But there is no such a thing as this 'terrorism' that is used constantly in terminology these days to demonise certain groups/acts while promoting other groups who perform the same acts. Let's stick to the rational approach. If Hizbollah has commited acts which break the Geneva convention, specify those acts--use the correct terminology, not blanket buzz-words like 'terrorism'. The only real use for the word 'terrorism' is in reference to the tactic in combat--scaring your enemy, or your populous, or some other target, using violence. I would really appreciate it if I could see at least some people around here exercising reason and an understanding of the meaning of words--rather than engaging in the distortion of terminologies. There is a major lack of reason in the world today, as evidenced by the practise of pouring suspect nitroglycerin into trash cans with other prospective volatile chemicals [3](!!!), as some supposed defence against this illusory enemy of 'terrorism'. The whole bomb plot was known a week in advance of the media reports by Bush and Blair, and they actually talked over how they would use this for maximum political effect by using these violent and scary possibilities to incite fear in their populations, and augment this by introducing silly non-sense laws regarding 'safety'. That could be called terrorism, by the definition of it. Just goes to show what a silly and ridiculous term it has become, in its post-911 usage. I wonder what student of Bernays thought that one up. Matthew A.J.י.B. 14:03, 13 August 2006 (UTC)
This isnt a political chat forum, please take this to your respective discussion pages as this talk page is filling fast. Thank you. --zero faults |sockpuppets| 14:07, 13 August 2006 (UTC)
This is about the use of terminology in the article, O great nosy one. Matthew A.J.י.B. 14:08, 13 August 2006 (UTC)
Although modern commentators have invented the word 'scarrorism' to describe such acts of baseless fear-mongering using made-up terror plots and silly laws and security measures. Matthew A.J.י.B. 14:06, 13 August 2006 (UTC)

Reference broken

Reference 72 appears to be broken. The link should be.

http://hrw.org/english/docs/2006/07/30/lebano13881.htm

Update: Appears this link has been removed altogether and is no longer referenced in the document? Why? ---Archeus [edit] Nevermind I see its been moved to another page International reactions to the 2006 Israel-Lebanon conflict by Organizations

I have a question. How is it possible to start a war and report as motive two kidnapped soldiers? Now over 2,000 people have died. Now the rest of the world sits and watches Israel shred Lebanon to pieces. Hundreds of inocent people are dying. I'm not saying that terrorist shouldn't be dealt with, but the childern who died in the bombings had nothing to do with terrorists. How can we in a world of so called human rights sit back and watch as these inocent people are killed? How can an entire country be destroyed for a handfull of terrorist and two kidnapped soldiers? I am curious to here your opinions on this matter. I am sorry if a upset anyone but this is my personal impression on this issue.

"a handfull of terrorist and two kidnapped soldiers". What about the many thousands of missiles being fired across the border, which began before the soldiers were taken? I think the conclusion should be: "Don't attack your neighbor if you don't want him to fight back..." Valtam 16:57, 10 August 2006 (UTC)
"a hand full of propganda artists and snakes are fooling the world, pretending to be peace loving, but reality want to take more land and have total control; these criminals all hide in Tel Aviv and are the real terrorists," Father Talmanous, U.S.A.

69.196.164.190

Yes, absolutely. "Mwahahahaha, yeeeessshhh, more land, total CONTROLLLL" is just about what passed through their heads when they authorized the unilateral disengagement plan of 2005. --AceMyth 00:47, 11 August 2006 (UTC)
Your argument is not valid. If you wanted to take control of a region, it is actually a wise thing to purport false treaties with your enemies before such an invasion. Julius Caesar and many other generals of prominence employed this tactic. If I were a barbarian state without any regard for morals or international law, and I wanted to really screw my enemies, I would write up a treaty with them, then invade their country on the first premises that cropped up as a result of the still extant tensions at our border, which I would continue to foment through minor intrusions. This would be especially effective if the enemy were much militarily weaker than me. Matthew A.J.י.B. 16:36, 13 August 2006 (UTC)


This has turned into a political forum, This is un believeable. Fact is Hezbolah 'pre-emtively' struck first. Alright There will be no change. --Zonerocksandproud 00:03, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

Read this about Israeli tactics from Israel; it is about Gaza but it shows you what the Israeli occupation army does with civilians;

http://www.btselem.org/english/Human_Shields/20060720_Human_Shields_in_Beit_Hanun.asp

69.196.164.190

Judging by the link you just provided, it seems that all the Israeli terrorists are indeed hiding in Tel Aviv, maintaining such ambitions of conquest that sometimes they go all the way over into catatonic lapses where they mercilessly, constantly question their own actions with moral rhetoric. Hezbollah, on the other hand, has been conducting no terrorist activities of territorially ambitious nature and thus enjoys an absolutely clean conscience, as evidenced in the glaring lack of similar voices on their side of the conflict. --AceMyth 00:35, 11 August 2006 (UTC)
Actually the terrorists in Tel Aviv have been causing blood to run in the Middle East since they set foot in it. Israel's creation was because of terrorism; Israel was born out of terroris,. WHo bombed the King David Hotel? Who attacked British citizens and Palestinians to bush for the 1948 formation of Israel?
Etzel. To say that their actions were not uncontroversial would be an understatement; the majority, mainstream opinion of the Jewish people in then-Palestine opposed their tactics, openly called them terrorists and campaigned for the foundation of the Jewish state via negotiation with the British rather than violence (especially considering that during most of the time-frame in question the British were busy fighting Hitler, whom the people of Israel were not very fond of either). When the Etzel tried bringing in a ship full of firearms to Israel in 1948 so it can continue acting independently against the wishes of head of the provisional government David Ben-Gurion, he ordered it drowned. Funny that this incident would be brought up, what with the interesting parallels to what the Lebanese government has been doing with its own renegade army-within-an-army, and whatnot. --AceMyth 03:01, 11 August 2006 (UTC)
Hell, plenty of Etzel's members openly referred to themselves as terrorists. Shamir said something to the effect of terrorism being "the only way" of achieving their goals, and he eventually wound up being prime minister. And Etzel wasn't half as bad as Lehi; at least they never wanted to ally with Hitler. I fail to see how any of this has any bearing whatsoever on the article, though. We're not trying to figure out which side is right, nor even test the implicit assumption that one of the sides is right. 89.1.68.175 21:33, 12 August 2006 (UTC)
Good to see some understanding of history here. However, we must further make note of the fact that the Mossad, who have been criminally commiting terrorist acts since their creation, were basically comprised of these terroristic elements within Zionism from the start. And now, with Sharon incapactitated, the Mossad have total control over Israel's foreign policy. They are also in a general agreement with the CIA/Pentagon/President axis in the United States of America. Matthew A.J.י.B. 16:40, 13 August 2006 (UTC)

Message to AceMyth for editing

Have you read my post about the 350 soldiers lebanon has said idf soldiers caught in that city. If you could read it and respond to me about what you think and if it should be added. --Zonerocks 01:00, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

Maybe you already added it..... So Kudos. But should we consider adding that operation to the bottom of the israel action section. Please respond. --Zonerocks 01:07, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

I will. I'm dead tired, but I will. BTW if you want to message me personally Wikipedia has "user talk" pages for that (mine, for example, is at User talk:AceMyth. --AceMyth 01:52, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

Ok, I understand. Were all tired, most of us have jobs beside 69.196.164.190 I mean im tired to. I understand. When i get sprotection then it will be easier as well. So enjoy yourself. Also thanks for the heads up about user talk. --Zonerocks 02:11, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

Yes Israelis yes, keep on acting and working together to put propaganda on this site; but you can not stop the truth from being seen. World opinion is growing and very soon in our life time it will be at the level will Israel will stop getting free weapons and military supplies for free (Israel is the biggest Leech-welfare state that recieves eveything for free and drains other nations economies).

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=imAvXIm_iuw

69.196.164.190

Israel pays for its weaponry.
In fact, the United States preconditions all of its military aid to its chief ally in the Middle East on its acceptance that the equipment will come from American manufacturers.
Hezbollah, to the best of my knowledge, gets everything from its benefactors, i.e. Syria and the IRI, gratis.
Although, I suppose murdering Americans and Israelis, and destabilizing Lebanon, is recompense enough for the two chief rogue states in that region.

Ruthfulbarbarity 02:28, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

Do you even know what a 'Rogue State' is? You just accept that the USA government has arbitrary labelled its opponents as 'rogue' and use this witchhunt-esque term to decry these countries. Incidentally, violent and brutal states like China, who actually have threatened to NUKE the United States, are not labelled 'rogue', but Iran, who with to control their own currency and not end up in debt to the World Bank, are labelled 'Rogue'. What?? And they don't even have nukes--they just 'might' have them in a few years--a decade, maybe. What utter crap. This is all just demonising based on the USA's demarcated plans for the Middle East. See Project for the New American Century]. It is not acceptable to go around labelling entire countries with demonising titles without actually being one bit educated on the real situation. Matthew A.J.י.B. 03:54, 14 August 2006 (UTC)
YAAAAAA, Okay..you want to talk about rogue states; your living in one. Israel is the most disliked state in the world by the masses and if you think not you need a reality check. ISRAEL IS A TERRORIST REGIME AND STATE! It is an illegal state that was created to steal money by the Zionists. No real and practiciny Jew supports Israel.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3dSHl3C9kgY

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jTd08SPfckg

Look I don;t want insult you and I know you are an Israeli, but this is the truth. This violance must be stopped and you following the state line of the Israeli regime is not helping.

69.196.164.190

"The masses are asses."
I'll give you a Canadian dollar if you can tell me whence that quote originated.
By the way, I'm not Israeli, and have never been to Israel.
But feel free to throw around ignorant generalizations, and continue to exhibit your general lack of knowledge about this subject.
It's quite amusing, if not edifying.

Ruthfulbarbarity 02:51, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

And yes, I'm quite familiar with the Naturei Kartei nutbars and their unique, bizarre interpretation of Satmar Judaism.
In fact, I've counterprotested them-along with the rest of the "Death to Israel, Death To America" brigades-at the Salute To Israel Day Parade, so I'm not really sure what posting a video of their inane, semi-coherent ramblings is intended to accomplish.
Yes, Youtube is a wonderful website, where people can upload videos.
Now, would you care to support any of the baseless accusations you've made thus far?
Just curious.

Ruthfulbarbarity 02:56, 11 August 2006 (UTC)


To clarify: I will look into the sources that are provided, judge them against WP:RS and edit them in if appropriate. When I feel like it. I am a procrastinator of the worst kind. --AceMyth 06:08, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

Iranian Aid for Hizbollah

It is always stated that iran is providing aid to hizbollah in form of arms or finance but nobody stated that israel gets the largest aid from USA than anyother country in the world and USA is the main arm supplier to Israil. User:Abulfazl 10:09, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

I think Iran is mentioned because Iran denies it, though even some government officials say its true, therefore creating a notable situation. Where as the US and Israel are open about their support. Also according to the UN at least, Israel is a state and Hezbollah is a illegal militia operating within the country of Lebanon. Supporting an illegal entity is a little more notable then supporting a legal one. --zero faults |sockpuppets| 10:28, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

By The way Hizbollah has never been an illegal millitia it takes part in elections and have a certain no of seats in Lebanese parliament and has also shown its existence in the Lebanese cabinet. --User:Abulfazl 10:59, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

Umm wrong, according to the UN in resolution 1559 all militias in Lebanon were to be disbanded and disarmed. Having seats anywhere doesnt make you not illegal, its almost like saying Hamas isnt a terrorist organization, they just blow up civilians in between their daily government duties. There is no such thing as a legal militia in Lebanon according to SC res 1559. --zero faults |sockpuppets| 12:32, 11 August 2006 (UTC)
Hezbollah is not an illegal militia, do not make statments about things you don't know. Hezbollah in fact has/ or had a mandate to protect the border of Lebanon from Israel too. 69.196.164.190

It is mentioned - "Further, the United States authorized Israel's request for the expedited processing and shipment of precision-guided bombs to Israel. The United States did not announce the shipment publicly.[104]" Don't ask me why anyone think either is relevent, or why the U.S thinks it's fine to fund Israel, but not fine for Iran to fund Hezbollah. Iorek85 11:30, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

  • Fact is that we have put that, and we put Iran denied it. If you think the usa thing should be in the article, well then bring up a new section in this talk page for open discussion. --Zonerocks 14:48, 11 August 2006 (UTC)
A more recent article documenting Iranian-Hezbollah military links.
http://www.nypost.com/news/worldnews/hez_ranians_worldnews_uri_dan__mideast_correspondent.htm

Ruthfulbarbarity 00:16, 12 August 2006 (UTC)

Hezbollah is classed as a terrorist organisation by the EU and the US, furthermore Isreal is an internationally recognised group by the UN and it is perfectally legal for Isreal to purchase weapons from the US or any other country when it realises that its US made lasor guided bombs always miss. --Jedi18 16:23, 13 August 2006 (UTC)

Although your humorous note about US-made laser-guided bombs is poignant, less accurate bombs means more stray explosions--more injured/murdered civilians. Also, the USA and Israel have been in criminal collusion for decades, and both share an agenda for domination of the Middle-East. Matthew A.J.י.B. 09:43, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

Tasc deletions

I must have missed the discussion. Tasc deleted a lot of material (twice.) Was there a consensus reached that the material does not belong in the article? Or is it just POV censorship? Thanks. Edison 12:59, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

Isn't it pov censorship to claim that those links 'encyclopedic and verifiable'? -- tasc wordsdeeds 13:28, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

Today's reversions by Tasc: at 11:11, at 12:54, and at 13:20. Isn't there some Wikipedia policy about that behavior?Edison 13:31, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

of course there are! plenty of them! wanna play? -- tasc wordsdeeds 13:33, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

Sorry, not into template placing as a video game substitute, and I do not see editing Wikipedia as playing. I see from your talk page that you have been banned several times for 3RR violations, so perhaps you don't mind it.Edison 13:47, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

when i had 700 hundreds edits I haven't been banned a single time. ;) -- tasc wordsdeeds 14:32, 11 August 2006 (UTC)
Your talk page appears to show you were banned May 9, May 27 and August 3.Edison 04:55, 12 August 2006 (UTC)

Please see the arbitration page Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration#External_links_of_2006_Israel-Lebanon_conflict on this longstanding problem and make a statement there if you have something relevant to add. I also note here tasc's deletion of these relevant links (11:11, 11 August 2006, 12:54, 11 August 2006, 13:20, 11 August 2006) to Israeli and Lebanese online journals, weblogs, and news service photographs, who states in the comment field,

This action has been longstanding and has been done while consistently disregarding or mocking the talk, mediation, and now arbitration processes. AdamKesher 14:18, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

Links to blogs and onlien journals should be removed. They are not suitable points of reference. If people want blogs and online journals they can search google for them. --zero faults |sockpuppets| 14:25, 11 August 2006 (UTC)
The salient question is if the external links satisfy Wikipedia's policy WP:EL. It is argued that they are relevent, high quality, and provide a unique resource; therefore, they satisfy several of the exceptions explicitly listed under WP:EL, only one of which is needed to consider their inclusion. AdamKesher 14:33, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

Links normally to be avoided

  • Blogs, social networking sites (such as MySpace) and forums should generally not be linked to. However, there are exceptions, such as in cases where the article is about, or closely related to, the website itself, or where the website is of a particularly high standard.

That is from WP:EL, thank you for pointing me there. Also it fails the verifiable content point in when something should be included. --zero faults |sockpuppets| 14:50, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

Adam! stop it. don't please talk to us as you're a bot. and don't add links into edit summary, there is no single solution or approval of your pov pushing! -- tasc wordsdeeds 14:32, 11 August 2006 (UTC)
You need to be very careful about linking to blogs. WP:EL states: "Blogs, social networking sites (such as MySpace) and forums should generally not be linked to. However, there are exceptions, such as in cases where the article is about, or closely related to, the website itself, or where the website is of a particularly high standard." The "high standard" criterion is set out further up WP:EL, which permits linking to "Sites that contain neutral and accurate material not already in the article." Note that this requires a site to be neutral and accurate. An accurate but partisan blog is not eligible for linking. Hope this helps. -- ChrisO 16:56, 11 August 2006 (UTC)
You need to be careful about reading the policy selectively. Under your reading, an external link to the non-neutral POV website Operation Clambake could not be included in the article Scientology, which is, of course, absurd. It is just as absurd not to provide links in an article on the 2006 Israel-Lebanon conflict to online journals, blogs, and news service photographs of the 2006 Israel-Lebanon conflict. AdamKesher 18:46, 11 August 2006 (UTC)
You have a point. Nonetheless, we need to be careful to include high-quality material, not random ranters (or for that matter well-known ranters). -- ChrisO 19:02, 11 August 2006 (UTC)
Agreed. The online journals and weblogs now up are argued to meet this standard (featured in the New York Times and the like). I'm certainly open to discussion and suggestions to replace any of these with better ones. The intent here is to have a few for each side that represents the best, most insightful, and most representative out there -- definitely don't want a zoo of mediocre blogs. For background on this, please see Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration#External_links_of_2006_Israel-Lebanon_conflict and follow the links. AdamKesher 00:53, 12 August 2006 (UTC)
I've just cleaned up the photographs section (added one Israeli link, deleted several redundant LB links) to address this issue. AdamKesher 12:31, 12 August 2006 (UTC)


Lebanese citizens in Israeli hands

What is the total number of Lebanese POWs in Israeli prisons? Does anyone have an exact figure? --Burgas00 16:18, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

Shi'a page

look, even the non-political Al-Islam.org changed their main page due to the genocide: http://www.al-islam.org/ --Striver 14:30, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

I dont understand what your point is in relation to the article, can you please write it out completely, if this is not related directly toward editing the article can you please move the discussion to user talk space where its more appropriate. --zero faults |sockpuppets| 14:44, 11 August 2006 (UTC)
gen·o·cide

noun : The systematic and planned extermination of an entire national, racial, political, or ethnic group. Let's try and keep our language encyclopedic, or at least vaguely accurate, eh? The Mark David Chapman article mentions the Lennon Assassination, not the Lennon Massacre. 89.1.68.175 21:43, 12 August 2006 (UTC)

For reasons of objectivity, perhaps we should make note that the Israelis are actually developing inherently racist/genocidal weapons. Matthew A.J.י.B. 16:54, 13 August 2006 (UTC)
Doesn't it all make you feel kind of like Nazis? Matthew A.J.י.B. 16:58, 13 August 2006 (UTC)

Casualty table removed...

I disagree with this. While casualties are listed as part of the main table for the article, these numbers are confused and often very different from what other media is reporting. The table of casualties gives a good break down by nationality, as well as brief explanation and sources. Casualties are VERY important in war, both as a measure of how large the conflict is, and as a central discussion for a variety of other issues (bombing of civilians, civilian aid, etc). Even the International Reaction section has more text than the casualty section, which is merely a link! Casualties should be one of the most important things on this page, and should absolutely have its own section of text as part of the article. Cut something else thats less important, I'd say. (I dont know enough about the working of tables and such to make the change myself, otherwise I would do so). Harley peters 18:23, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

The table looks ignorant if we put 515-1,009, and someone did that, I don't think we came to consensus. That is a big margin of error and should be fixed. There will always be probelm with casualty counts, no doubt about that. But it is out of control, that we put numbers like 515. Your sources are days and weeks old. Let's get rid of 515 and keep it at 1,009. --Zonerocks 19:46, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

I liked it in, but w'ere trying to keep the article as short as possible. When the conflict is over, and we have some concrete figures, I'd move it back in, since we'd need far less references, and we can give a definitive figure. Iorek85 02:27, 12 August 2006 (UTC)

Im am editing the beginning where it says how many israelis died on july 12th link is not valid and it is a false fact. |url=http://www.haaretz.com/hasen/spages/738310.html}}--Zonerocks 21:33, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

As well, the end note for note 60 links to note 59's news page, when it is sourced as otherwise. If this could be corrected, it would be great. I am interested in how Hezbollah has the ability to use and acquire UAVs.69.17.136.13 00:43, 12 August 2006 (UTC)

It has been employing unmanned aerial vehicles for reconnaisance purposes for the past two years.

This is not the first time that one has entered Israeli airspace.

Familiarize yourself with these events before purporting to be an informed observer of this subject.

Ruthfulbarbarity 00:47, 12 August 2006 (UTC)

Whoa... lets all try to stay cool here. TewfikTalk 03:45, 13 August 2006 (UTC)

UN Agrees to Resoultion

We need to add this to the article. Let's discuss it. --Zonerocks 02:02, 12 August 2006 (UTC)

Yes it needs to be mentioned because it is just hot off the press. Israel OKs Cease-Fire But War Goes On Red1530 03:26, 12 August 2006 (UTC)

Boys, it was already done one hour before Zonerocks asked for it. See the lead. Thomas Blomberg 04:31, 12 August 2006 (UTC)

Should the Resolution thing also be added to the section Cease fire? I think it should --Zonerocks 05:11, 12 August 2006 (UTC)

'Captured' or 'kidnapped'

The anti-Semitic bias of those claiming the word should be "capture" is astounding. They'd even changed the name of Official US Documents in this article to satisfy their anti-Semitic nonsense. Shameful. http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2006/07/20060712.html --12.74.187.169 17:45, 12 August 2006 (UTC)

Anti-semitic??? It could be a bias but tell us why it is considered anti-semitic? People cosider the white house biased anyway!!!! However, they don't consider the white house anti-world! -- Szvest 17:52, 12 August 2006 (UTC)
Didn't you get the memo? Anyone who criticizes Israel is an anti-Semite, and anyone who criticizes Hezbollah, Syria, Iran, et cetera is a Zionist Conspirator. We're all propagandists here. 89.1.68.175 21:46, 12 August 2006 (UTC)

For the last time, you don't kidnap uniformed soldiers conducting operations in enemy territory, you capture them, just like Israel CAPTURED 20 Hezbollah combatants - let's at least be fair here

They were technically captured, yes, making them POWs, in a sense. Let's shy away from sensationalist terminology like 'terrorism' and 'kidnapping', shall we? Then we would have to dredge up all of those nasty Israeli incidents of kidnapping Lebanese citizens and never returning them to their homeland. Matthew A.J.י.B. 14:14, 13 August 2006 (UTC)

--It is better to read the weather forecast before we pray for rain. 13:49, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

  • Israeli soldiers in Israel are operating in enemy territory?Yossiea 13:56, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

Ok look The Concensus has decided that they were kidnapped, We could have a 'Concensus vote' if you would like to. --Zonerocksandproud 00:07, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

Yes, that patrol was ambushed IN southern lebanon, before this invasion began --It is better to read the weather forecast before we pray for rain. 15:18, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

Israeli soldiers were patrolling the bluie line. they were taken from israel. there was NO declaration of war. Had Hezbollah done so, it could be called such. But, they chose to KIDNAP them during a somewhat peaceable time.--AeomMai 20:17, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

Seriously. In any event--does this justify the massive retalitation by Israel? No! It does not--not by any stretch of common sense or international law. Israel and the USA are both war-criminal governments. Their officials are fellons, and should be tried accordingly. There is no room for debate about that--it is all written quite unambiguously in the law. Matthew A.J.י.B. 10:45, 12 August 2006 (UTC)

Regardless of what term we use (though I support captured kidnaped for this, among other reasons), the consensus is that Hezbollah crossed into Israel, attacked the soldiers on the Israeli side of the Blue Line, and took the soldiers back into Lebanon. The UN, EU, G8, and mainstream media including Al Jazeera have characterised the Hezbollah attack as "cross border." You can review more detailed citations at Zar'it-Ayta al-Sha`b incident (déjà vu anyone). Cheers, TewfikTalk 20:25, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

If the Lebanese army had taken the Israeli soldiers, during a time of war, I would call them "captured". However, when somebody other than a country takes somebody, it's taking hostages or kidnapping them. This is especially true because they aren't likely to be treated according to the Geneva Convention, and may very well be tortured and executed. There is also no possibility that they would be returned "when the war ends", because Hezbollah will never end the war until Israel ceases to exist, which will never happen. Think of the reverse happening. What if some group of militant Jewish settlers went and grabbed a bunch of Palestinian Authority soldiers ? Would you say they were captured or taken hostage/kidnapped ? StuRat 00:19, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

I support kidnapped because Hezbollah has already broken the Geneva Convention by attempting to use the soldiers for ransom (prisoner swap) which is against the Geneva Convention. Furthermore Hezbollah is an illegal entity according to the United Nations as per res 1559 as so there action are based on the illegal definition of the word, that being kidnapped. You can look up kidnap and capture, kidnapping is when there is a ransom ... there was a ransom in this situation. Political correctness aside, using captures is just the wrong word, kidnapped fits 100%. Furthermore threatening to kill soldiers of the other faction is also illegal against the Geneva Convention. The soldiers also within 1 week of capture have to be able to contact a neutral representative and their families have to be notified of how to contact them. More violations of the Geneva Convention. --zero faults |sockpuppets| 10:14, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

If for kidnapped, because these soliders are 1. being used as ransom 2. Were kidnapped in there own territory 3. They weren't at the time in a battle with hizbollah, so when they where attacked with no intention, They kidnapped them. 4. It seems this was planned to use the two kidnapped soldiers as a ransom for prisoner exchange. --Zonerocks 05:31, 12 August 2006 (UTC)

It's "kidnapped." The UN resolution even says that hostilities started with Hezbollah actions. The resolution is also clear that Hezbollah is to stop all actions while Israel only needs to stop offensive action (defensive action can continue). All of this is an open acknowledgement by the world that the Hezbollah started the action and that it wasn't defensive or justified in any way.--Tbeatty 05:51, 12 August 2006 (UTC)

Actually the consensus was captured. Kidnapped is POV. Captured is a statement of fact. You cannot even pretend there is NPOV if you call different things the prisioners of both sides, and furthermore, calling "kidnapped" the prisioners of both sides violates bias: unequivocably stated in WP:NPOV is the fact that presentation of two biased position is not NPOV: the presentation itself should be unbiased. I believe failure to understand this leads to too many edit wars. Captured is a great term that satisfies all sides of the POV that are willing to have an NPOV article. Those who insist on "kidnapping" are simply pushing their POV and should be ignored.--Cerejota 07:40, 12 August 2006 (UTC)

The problem is captured is POV, it signifies no illegal action was taken when the UN has already stated there was. You cannot say the illegally operating Hezbollah (res 1559), illegally entered Israel, illegally began hostilities by attacking an israeli outpost, and legally captured soldiers. That does not make any sense at all. Look up the word kidnap, most definitions I have ever seen specify a ransom, which is why these soldiers were kidnapped. Furthermore after the illegal action they are being held against the Geneva Convention, capturing soldiers is legal on the battle field, this was not legal in any way. --zero faults |sockpuppets| 11:07, 12 August 2006 (UTC)

Are there any objections to me changing the negoations section? --Zonerocks 07:43, 12 August 2006 (UTC)


ZeroFault is absolutely right. These where illegal actions following the to the soldiers being kidnapped. We have to represent the truth, Not the other way around. Fact is that it is the truth, these guys where kidnapped. --Zonerocks 15:05, 12 August 2006 (UTC)

The killing of hundreds of children by the IDF over the past month is also illegal. However the term murder is not used on wikipedia. Capture is appropriate term in case of armed conflict.--Burgas00 18:02, 12 August 2006 (UTC)

There was no armed conflict prior to the kidnapping. Which is why its the casus belli. Furthermore the intentional targetting of civilians is illegal and murder, however if you read the geneva convetion and conventions on conventional weapons you would see that as long as the military target is deamed to be of more value then the civilians, and the civilians are not being directly targetted and the attackers are taking care to avoid civilian casualties, its not murder. --zero faults |sockpuppets| 03:09, 13 August 2006 (UTC)

So Burgas, the United states should've been charged with war crimes after WWII For bombing german cities and killing thousands upon thousands upon thousands of civilans. What about Hiroshima and Nagasaki. Killing a million people within 2 weeks. Hezbollah is hiding amongst the civilan population and using them on shields. You should be condemning Hezbollah. --Zonerocks 18:08, 12 August 2006 (UTC)

RETURNING THE DISCUSSION TO THE HEADING OF THIS SECTION:
I suggest "abducted" as the most appropriate word. The soldiers were taken in a deliberate cross-border incursion, not "captured" in combat. "Kidnapped," forgive me, suggests a civilian action against children. Since this is apparently under discussion, I won't make the change as an edit. Apart from conventional usage in mainstream English, is there substantiation for "abducted" in this context? -- Deborahjay 18:18, 12 August 2006 (UTC)


Rm uk 01:37, 15 August 2006 (UTC)= Kidnapped? This is nonesense. Israel "captures" Hezbollah fighters but Hezbollah "kidnappes" Israeli soldiers? You kidnap civilians not soldiers- soldiers are captured.

The israelis often "kidnap" palestinian MEMBERS OF GOVERNMENT but they call it "detain". This is ridiculous. The israelis operate in the Occupied Territories ILEGALLY and "kidnap" people all the time. Oops I meant "detain". —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Rm uk (talk • contribs).

Possibly the Beginning of WWIII

There is a great possibility that the actions of the State of Israel and the United States of America in the Middle East could lead to the development of what would qualify as a Third World War. If the Unted Nations does not successfully put an end to this conflict--and if the State of Israel is not immediately thereafter dissolved and replaced with an internationally-regulated government body--such a war is inevitable, because of the war criminal nature of the USA and Israeli governments. Hezbollah and other militia organisations take a foolish approach to resistance of such governments, however, and only incite further attacks. What needs to be done is international war crimes tribunals. these people--the leaders of Israel, the USA and Great Britain responsible for the War in Iraq and the current developing confliccts--need to be severely curtailed and punished for their crimes against humanity. Let's be frank and be realistic here. These are war crimes--and if the international community accepts it and just allows it to happen, we face an impending war worse than WWI and WWII. The State of Israel should have been dissolved and administered by the United Nations more than two decades ago, after their first slew of major war-crimes. Now we have let it go to far, unbridled. Matthew A.J.י.B. 10:35, 12 August 2006 (UTC)

And how does it contribute to Wikipedia? Flayer 11:02, 12 August 2006 (UTC)
We need to view things in an objective manner, without going into these non-sense debates that many have about Israel vs. Hizbollah. Seriously, if someone is on either side of this conflict--they are contributing to the possible annihilation of 2/3 of humanity on Earth. People do not want to report the facts, they only want to report them as they support their siily argument and belief-system. Now we have these crazies on one side saying they want to develop bio-weapons to kill Arabs (race-specific viruses, for instance) and nutcases on the other side planning to blow themselves up. If Wikipedia wants to have any reputation for NPOV, people here need to focus on the reality of the matter, the danger of this whole conflict, and not go into pro-war tirades on either side's behalf. Matthew A.J.י.B. 11:07, 12 August 2006 (UTC)
"the danger of this whole conflict" is your own point of view. Flayer 12:42, 12 August 2006 (UTC)
It's not my point of view. You just watch and see the natural flow of Cause and Effect (wyrd) if nothing is done to stop these events from escalating. The USA is already planning for an invasion of Iran, and if they carry it out, the Russian government has said that they will take it as an offense against their country. All of these Mid-East events point to a possible Third World War, and the USA and Israel are clearly fomenting this situation, and not alleviating it at all. The dangers are evident to even the leaders of those countries, who arrogantly disregard them despite their own acknowledgements of the possibility for a Third World War. Stockpiling nuclear weapons is supposed to be against international treaty, and yet they're all doing it. What a lovely fad. Matthew A.J.י.B. 03:32, 13 August 2006 (UTC)
This is not appropriate here, perhaps you are looking for a political chat forum, this talk page is to add improvements and remove detriments to the article, not discuss world events. --zero faults |sockpuppets| 13:59, 12 August 2006 (UTC)
The problems with biased perspectives is having a major impact on this article. There isn't even an extensive casualty list any longer. It's become all about Hizbollah-supporters defending that organisation and Israel-mongers acting as though this horrendous slew of war-crimes is some kind of justified act. Matthew A.J.י.B. 03:32, 13 August 2006 (UTC)
How exactly is a minor conflict, nowhere near the scale of the 1967 or 1973 wars, going to cause WW3 ? There aren't any major world powers directly involved in the fighting, or any threatening to become directly involved. The only country directly fighting is Israel, not even Lebanon is fighting. It's also interesting how you call the US a "war criminal", I suppose for supporting a UN recognized nation (Israel), while you don't have anything negative to say about Syria and Iran, who are providing weapons to a UN-banned terrorist organization, Hezbollah, specifically with the goal of killing civilians. Your idea to use the UN to somehow punish the US is also absurd, the US would just withdraw from the UN and evict them from their New York HQ if they got out of hand. Without any support from the US, the UN, already thoroughly impotent, would cease to exist altogether. StuRat 18:07, 12 August 2006 (UTC)
Israel has been fomenting this situation for decades, yes. 1982 was a predecessor to this current event. The United States of America has added a new level to it, however, with their continued occupation of Iraq. And you clearly have not been reading much lately, if you think that world powers are not preparing for a global conflict. The Chinese government has openly talked about deploying nuclear weapons in various possible arenas, Russia has threatened to invade Alaska if the USA invades Iran, Muslim terrorist groups have stated their intention to take over southern France and then attack Spain from there, and Dick Cheney is talking about a second 9/11. Meanwhile, major stockpiling is going on both in the USA and in Russia. Israel has been deemed a war-criminal state since the 1970s, so your arguments about Iran and Syria are non-sense. yes, Iran and Syria deal with things in inappropriate ways on occasion because of a foolish approach to violence. however, their activities do not come close to the crimes of the USA and Israel, who have been interfering in the politics of not only Iran and Syria, but just about every country in the Middle East, since the 1950s. Just take the CIA's criminal interference with Mossadegh, as described by Kermit Roosevelt. Unfortunately the UN is the only body in existence that could be used to stop this conflict at the present. I do wish they had done their job properly in the 1970s or 80s and called for the dissolution of Israel as a state, but they have indeed proved, as you say 'impotent' for decades, mostly as a result of bullying by the G8, under the domination of the increasingly corrupt USA.
The USA is a war-criminal government because of their illegal actions in Iraq and Afghanistan. They invaded a sovereign nation, unprovoked, on false premises. They then proceeded to engage in officially-sponsored torture clearly banned under international law. Actually, this is all quite illegal by USA law. There are many people within the USA currently calling for the impeachment of president Bush and the conviction of those responsible in his administration for the Invasion of Iraq. They are not made war-criminals for supporting Israel, which is just partisanship and not a war-crime. However, the USA and Israel are both war-criminal governments for their own respective actions. Most recently, the 2003 Invasion of Iraq by the USA, and the current unprovoked criminal activity in Lebanon by Israel. Matthew A.J.י.B. 03:37, 13 August 2006 (UTC)
Science fiction: Israel successfully bombs the coward Hasrallah in Damascus, Syria attacks Israel, Israel attacks Syria, Iran attacks Israel, USA attacks Iran, Russia attacks USA. Flayer 20:05, 12 August 2006 (UTC)
Science fiction? this scenario sounds rather likely given statements by the Russians and Iranians. Matthew A.J.י.B. 03:32, 13 August 2006 (UTC)
Please take this to your talk pages, this is not the place for general discussion. --zero faults |sockpuppets| 03:07, 13 August 2006 (UTC)

I never took it to be a place for general discussion, but was making note of the foolish bias shown by many on this article, who simply want to condone vigilante behaviour by Hisbollah or state-sponsored terrorism by Israel. Matthew A.J.י.B. 03:32, 13 August 2006 (UTC)

Newt Gingrich - Just look at this fool. He's actually calling for World War Three! This is the epitome of war-mongering. I'd like to see what he says when people like him make his dreams/nightmares come true and the entire Northern Hemisphere is a warzone. Just pathetic. I can't believe how insane the USA and Israeli governments have become. Matthew A.J.י.B. 09:06, 13 August 2006 (UTC)

Is it time to put on the tin-foil hats yet? Valtam 17:38, 13 August 2006 (UTC)
Wow, Valtam. Just like the real followers of Wotan, you have gone completely berserk. Tin-foil hats? This is SUCH an empty and idiotic tactic. You don't even bother to attempt to debate or research anything--you just say 'tin foil hat', evoking images from the cheesy M. Night Shyamalan movie 'Signs'. I am confounded as to what this has to do with World War Three. But, you seem to know something I don't. Maybe you've ingested too much Amanita muscaria in your blood rituals to Odin? Maybe you're just a lunatic? By the way, I have a question: is it true that all of you berserkers are hideously ugly? Is it also true that you are the historical basis for Grendel? In that case, maybe you're trying to tell us that you have come to 'High Heorot' to disrupt the peace with non-sense. Matthew A.J.י.B. 03:59, 14 August 2006 (UTC)
Calm down, no need for such language. I know that emotions are running high, this conflict has also left me upset and angry, but let's not take it out on others. Plus, you're setting self up to be banned. That would be unfortunate as you're an excellent and much needed contributor. --Inahet 04:10, 14 August 2006 (UTC)
Matt - If I went "completely berserk", there's no way I'd spend my time writing comments on the talk page of an encyclopedia entry. That would require some coherent thought. P.S. I've never seen 'Signs.' Is it any good? Valtam 19:16, 14 August 2006 (UTC)
Come now. This isn't a personal attack. This is a jocund response to a ridiculous and ill-formed insult claiming that I wear a 'tinfoil hat' because I'm neutral on the Israel/Hizbollah conflict and am worried that it will cause World War Three. Matthew A.J.י.B. 04:51, 14 August 2006 (UTC)
I do know something you don't... It may come from rituals to Odin (although hanging things was more preferred than blood), or it may come from other, more (or less) nefarious sources. How can I "disrupt[...] the peace with non-sense" if there is no peace on this talk page? I also note that the mention of tin-foil hats has really struck a nerve with you. Is it because the comment struck too close to home? (All hail the All-Father!) Valtam 18:32, 14 August 2006 (UTC)
The mentions of Grendel/Heorot/Odin/Berserkers were just humour analogies. I was referring to the patent absurdity of your association with people who wear 'tin-foil hats' with the very serious and real concern for a Third World War this year. It is no laughing matter. Things have escalated to a very dangerous situation. My mockery of you was not very serious, but merely illustrating the utter stupidity of your 'tin-foil hat' remark. How does this have anything to do with World War Three? It seems that some people have reached a point of delusion where they deem anything that they find frightening to be 'crazy', so that they don't have to think about it seriously. Matthew A.J.י.B. 09:54, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

I find it hard to believe that someone calling for the dissolution of the state of Israel could call themselves neutral, but you are entitled to your opinion. However, it needs to remain out of article space, as it would violate WP:OR 8-) . -- Avi 04:55, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

Hello. Anyone in support of the maintenance of the Israeli state as it exists is inherently not neutral. Also, many politicians in Switzerland, a traditionally neutral country, have called for the dissolution of Israel over the ages--specifically becuase Israeli is a non-neutral state. I am for the dissolution of Israel and then the establishment of a universally-agreed-upon World Government, the ultimate neutral aim. Israel has no right to exist, is an incendiary entity, and treats Arabs unfairly. There isn't even a genuine historical or religious basis for Zionism (the Ancient Hebrews were genetically just a mixture of Indo-European and Semitic peoples, and the Bible calls for Israel to be founded by the Messiah). It's all non-sense. But, now that there are already many Ashkenazi Jews living in Israel, we'll just have to make do and create a neutral state with NO ethnic associations that treats everyone like human beings, regardless of their origins and religion. However, if one is to argue that Israel DOES have the right to exist, we might as well resurrect Hammurabi or Sargon and establish them as the indisputed Emperor of the Middle East, since they were in the region long before either the Israelis or the Arabs. Actually, why don't we go back a few more thousand years, abduct a Neanderthal, and put him in power. Matthew A.J.י.B. 05:19, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

Matthew. This is not a political soapbox. The discussion here is specifically about the article itself, not about the subjects in the article or what they should do. Same with everyone else, dont be baited into a political debate here as it is not what this is for. ~Rangeley (talk) 05:45, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

Ohhh-kay, Mathew, you are more than welcome to your particular weltanshaung regarding Israel, the world, and paeleolithic man, but as Rangeley put it succinctly, that is for your own website. This is an encyclopædia; not a blog, so please read WP:OR, and join us in editing this article according to wiki policies and guidelines. -- Avi 05:58, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

As I have pointed out before, the philosophical approach to the article is what allows the article to become neutral. Wikipedia has plenty of memory to store long archives of talk pages. Also, to Avraham: the paleolithic man comment and Hammurabi/Sargon comment were jokes, related to the absurdity of the claims originally behind the Zionist movement. Judaism is a religion--not a race--and a religion that is specifically against the tenets of Zionism, according to its own (albeit not so reliable) texts. This is just one of many thousands of good reasons for everyone in their right mind to want Israel dissolved and the whole area administered by an international body. Matthew A.J.י.B. 06:07, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

Last I checked, I was in my right mind, and yet I find myself disagreeing with your thesis of Israeli dissolution. One of us must be wrong ;) No matter, here is neither the place nor time for reductio ad absurdum political debates, we are here to build an encyclopedia. -- Avi 06:10, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

Obviously you haven't made a correct assessment of the matter. "Right Mind" means Thinking Rationally, and not just 'believing' in a false ideology by decision. It seems that many people are under the delusion that everything is about their 'opinion', when there is in fact an objective reality. Linguistically and anthropologically, there is simply too much evidence that the Ancient Hebrews were nothing but a mixture of Hurrians and various Semitic peoples (such as Phoenicians and Khemites (original Egyptians)), for it to be ignored. If Zionism is based on some cooked-up late 19th-century belief that the 'Jews' are a race/ethnic group with rights to the Land of Canaan, this should be considered as a major point in any discussion of the ongoing Israeli war-crimes. It gives perspective to the increasing desire among rationals to dissolve Israel in favour of an internationally-administered country. Also, regardless of historical basis, the Mossad is full of criminals, just like the CIA, and both organisations need to be dismembered and criminally prosecuted. Matthew A.J.י.B. 06:16, 14 August 2006 (UTC)
Maybe you didnt see it when I said it the first time. This is not a political soap box. The discussion here is about the article itself, not about the participants in the article, or your overall world view on where things should go or are going. ~Rangeley (talk) 07:27, 14 August 2006 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:2006_Lebanon_War/Archive_22&oldid=1079211389"