France ‘was seconds’ from downing Israeli jet

[Alonzo]

France and Israel are on a collision course in south Lebanon following incidents involving Israeli warplanes over- flying the positions of the French military contingent serving with the UN peacekeeping force there.

In the most serious confrontation, French troops were said by sources in Paris to have been "just two seconds" from launching an anti- aircraft missile at two Israeli F-15 fighters carrying out mock low-level attack runs over one outpost.

As this was happening, a pair of Israeli reconnaissance aircraft circled over the headquarters of the French battalion in the Jabal Maroun area, possibly taking aerial photographs there.

Even before these incidents occurred, French diplomatic sources had let it be known that President Jacques Chirac was urging Israel through diplomatic channels to halt their regular incursions into Lebanese air space.

The French officer in command of the 11,500-strong UN contingent, Major General Alain Pellegrini, made it clear that he considered these incursions violated the UN Security Council resolution that brought an end to last summer’s brief but bloody war between Israel and Hezbollah.

If diplomatic efforts should prove inadequate to resolve this issue, Pellegrini added, "maybe other means would have to be considered." In private, French officials contend that the over-flights are designed to provoke Hezbollah into renewing its attacks on Israeli targets, opening the way for massive retaliation.

In response, Israeli sources accuse the French contingent of turning a blind eye to Hezbollah's stealthy rearmament in breach of the UN resolution and doing little to prevent the guerrillas from reoccupying positions close to the border.

The recent announcement that Pellegrini will be replaced in overall command next month by an Italian general elicited a resounding "good riddance" from the Israeli high command, with one senior officer asserting that he had "turned pro-Hezbollah".

Meanwhile, away from the frontline, officials from some 40 countries, the US, Britain and France among them, are meeting in Paris today to discuss efforts to raise some £1.4bn in aid and loans to Lebanon for the reconstruction of war damage and to ease the burden of the country's enormous public debt ($40bn and climbing).

The talks began under the shadow of violent sectarian clashes in Beirut following a general strike called by Hezbollah and its political allies in a bid to topple the pro-Western government headed by Fouad Siniora.

On Thursday, four people were killed and twenty-five injured in further clashes between pro- and anti-government protesters.

Hezbollah's fiery leader, Sheikh Hassan Nasrallah, has warned that street protests will continue unless a new cabinet is formed that includes several ministers representing the opposition.

In that event, the prospect of another round of fighting with Israel, bringing further misery to ordinary Lebanese, could not be ruled out.


http://www.thefirstpost.co.uk/index.php?menuID=2&subID=1371

[jafar00]

Of course, Israel will get away with violating yet another UN resolution without so much as a wimper from that impotent organisation.

[CheesyMuslim]

Sorry bout that,

1. But its a known fact that The UN is a puppet of Islam.
2. While they watch Islam taking over the world, they sure make a lot of noise about The Jews and America.

Regards,
SirJamesofTexas

[speedracer]

Of course, Israel will get away with violating yet another UN resolution without so much as a wimper from that impotent organisation.


Is Hezbollah adhering to the resolution?

[jafar00]

Of course, Israel will get away with violating yet another UN resolution without so much as a wimper from that impotent organisation.


Is Hezbollah adhering to the resolution?


That I do not know but if they weren't, the UN would be dealing with them harshly. Israel needs to stay away from Lebanon. Hizbullah will not attack Israel unless Israel attacks first.


1. But its a known fact that The UN is a puppet of Islam.
2. While they watch Islam taking over the world, they sure make a lot of noise about The Jews and America.


What?? So all the resolutions brought against "Islamic" countries and enforced by the US are an illusion? If the UN was a puppet of Islam, they would not let the US have a veto over resolutions condemning Israeli terrorism would they? They also wouldn't let Israel get away with completely ignoring the few resolutions against it that did pass.
I'm intrigued to know what makes you think that about the UN?

[speedracer]

Is Hezbollah adhering to the resolution?


That I do not know but if they weren't, the UN would be dealing with them harshly. Israel needs to stay away from Lebanon.
What do you base that on? The UN dealing with someone... much less "harshly"?

Hizbullah will not attack Israel unless Israel attacks first.
That's a bold statement after this past year.

[jafar00]

Hizbullah will not attack Israel unless Israel attacks first.
That's a bold statement after this past year.


Hizbullah didn't launch any rockets into Israel until Israel started blowing up scores of Lebanese civilians with their bombing campaign. I don't see what's so bold about that.

[speedracer]

Hizbullah didn't launch any rockets into Israel until Israel started blowing up scores of Lebanese civilians with their bombing campaign. I don't see what's so bold about that.
So what you're saying is that Israel attacked Hizbullah without provocation this past summer? Or are you intentionally skirting the line in order to make your argument more appealing?

[Elrathin]

Hizbullah didn't launch any rockets into Israel until Israel started blowing up scores of Lebanese civilians with their bombing campaign. I don't see what's so bold about that.


You're right that Hezbollah didn't launch any rockets this past summer until Israel started bombing, however, Hezbollah did kidnap Israeli Soldiers and killed others in the kidnapping which CAUSED Israel to start the bombing campaign.

[potter]

You're right that Hezbollah didn't launch any rockets this past summer until Israel started bombing, however, Hezbollah did kidnap Israeli Soldiers and killed others in the kidnapping which CAUSED Israel to start the bombing campaign.



Of course kidnapping a few soldiers is always good justification for bombing a country into oblivion....

If your're an uncivilized heathen.

[speedracer]

Of course kidnapping a few soldiers is always good justification for bombing a country into oblivion....

If your're an uncivilized heathen.

You should play fair. Context is necessary.

[Alonzo]

I still don't understand why capturing a soldier is called "kidnapping".

How many people have americans kidnapped in Iraq then?

[BoogyMan]

I still don't understand why capturing a soldier is called "kidnapping".

How many people have americans kidnapped in Iraq then?


That whole context thing that some have real issues with means something here Zo. When you are at war taking prisoners is not a kidnapping. When not at war........ well, I think you get the idea.

[Alonzo]

So when did the u.s. declare war?

And why aren't captured palestinians called "kidnapped"?

[jafar00]

Hizbullah didn't launch any rockets into Israel until Israel started blowing up scores of Lebanese civilians with their bombing campaign. I don't see what's so bold about that.
So what you're saying is that Israel attacked Hizbullah without provocation this past summer? Or are you intentionally skirting the line in order to make your argument more appealing?


Hizbullah captured Israeli soldiers inside Lebanon after many incursions by the Israelis into Lebanon. That's why these soldiers were ambushed and captured.

Olmert recently admitted that the war was pre-planned, months in advance so it wasn't a reaction to the soldier's capture. Indeed there was a build up on the border before their capture.

Perhaps these incursions were designed to provoke Hizbullah into action?

[BoogyMan]

So when did the u.s. declare war?

Care to explain this one?

And why aren't captured palestinians called "kidnapped"?

Are they not?

[Elrathin]

Are they not?


No, they're called detainees.

[Alonzo]

So when did the u.s. declare war?

Care to explain this one?

Supposedly you claim it's kidnapping unless you declare war.


And why aren't captured palestinians called "kidnapped"?

Are they not?


Find me a reputable source using the term "kidnapped" in reference to palestinians captured or arrested by Israel.

[BoogyMan]

Olmert recently admitted that the war was pre-planned, months in advance so it wasn't a reaction to the soldier's capture. Indeed there was a build up on the border before their capture.

Jafar00, you are misrepresenting what was said by the Israeli PM. He said that the strategy used and what would be considered an act of war was drawn up in advance.

It is no different that the contingency plans we in the US make that prescribe our responses in the case of certain events.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/middle_east/6431637.stm

[BoogyMan]

Supposedly you claim it's kidnapping unless you declare war.

My claim was that it was most likely called kidnapping because there is no declared war Zo.

[Alonzo]

So then we should call the iraqi's we have kidnapped? Or can you only do that when you capture an israeli?

[BoogyMan]

So then we should call the iraqi's we have kidnapped? Or can you only do that when you capture an israeli?


You are making absolutely no sense Zo.

[Alonzo]

So consistency makes no sense? Why do we take prisoners and they kidnap?

[BoogyMan]

We are at war in Iraq, that is my whole point.

[Elrathin]

We are at war in Iraq, that is my whole point.


Actually war against Iraq was authorized and it has ended. We are no longer at war with Iraq. So what war has congress declared Boogy?

The war on terror is not a valid war to be declared by congress. The Iraq war, when we were topling Sadaam's forces, yes. But the war on Terror is not a valid war. Otherwise you could say the same thing if we captured someone in the war on drugs.

[BoogyMan]

We are at war in Iraq, that is my whole point.


Actually war against Iraq was authorized and it has ended. We are no longer at war with Iraq. So what war has congress declared Boogy?

The war on terror is not a valid war to be declared by congress. The Iraq war, when we were topling Sadaam's forces, yes. But the war on Terror is not a valid war. Otherwise you could say the same thing if we captured someone in the war on drugs.


Since we are doing little more than discussing a sematical point based on the usage of a term I am OK with that El.

We have drug this thread off topic and need to head back in the direction of its intent.

[Alonzo]

Hmm..... So why are palestinians not at war with Israel then? Israel is in possession of occupied territory after all.

[Caravaggio]

You're right that Hezbollah didn't launch any rockets this past summer until Israel started bombing, however, Hezbollah did kidnap Israeli Soldiers and killed others in the kidnapping which CAUSED Israel to start the bombing campaign.



Of course kidnapping a few soldiers is always good justification for bombing a country into oblivion....

If your're an uncivilized heathen.


Nah...continuous suicide bombings might be though!

[BoogyMan]

Hmm..... So why are palestinians not at war with Israel then? Israel is in possession of occupied territory after all.


Is there a declared war between Israel and Palestine Zo?

The semantic gymnastics you are doing here are impressive. :D

[Alonzo]

Is there a declared was between Iraq and the u.s.?

[BoogyMan]

Is there a declared was between Iraq and the u.s.?


There has been recently with a declared end to major hostilities. Does that mean that the war itself is over? I think we both know that idea cannot be born out.

[Elrathin]

Does that mean that the war itself is over?


The war that Congress approved of Yes.

[Alonzo]

Is there a declared was between Iraq and the u.s.?


There has been recently with a declared end to major hostilities.Â*Â*Does that mean that the war itself is over?Â*Â*I think we both know that idea cannot be born out.


There was no officially declared war.

Remember when I said:

Hmm..... So why are palestinians not at war with Israel then? Israel is in possession of occupied territory after all.

You responded with this:
Is there a declared war between Israel and Palestine Zo?

So where's the formally declared war with Iraq?

[jafar00]

Olmert recently admitted that the war was pre-planned, months in advance so it wasn't a reaction to the soldier's capture. Indeed there was a build up on the border before their capture.

Jafar00, you are misrepresenting what was said by the Israeli PM. He said that the strategy used and what would be considered an act of war was drawn up in advance.

It is no different that the contingency plans we in the US make that prescribe our responses in the case of certain events.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/middle_east/6431637.stm


I'm not misrepresenting at all. Olmert had plans to attack Lebanon drawn up in advance. The capture of 2 Israeli soldiers was just an excuse. Perhaps they were sent to where they would most likely be captured in order to start the war?

[BoogyMan]

I'm not misrepresenting at all. Olmert had plans to attack Lebanon drawn up in advance. The capture of 2 Israeli soldiers was just an excuse. Perhaps they were sent to where they would most likely be captured in order to start the war?

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/middle_east/6431637.stm

You are completely and blatantly misrepresenting him Jafar00. You make it sound like they were frothing at the mouth for an attack when all they did was create contingency plans on what would happen if such an event were to occur. All nations make such plans. Your insistence that it was a ruse shows has exposed your prejudice.

[speedracer]

The capture of 2 Israeli soldiers was just an excuse.

I've met the wife of Shalit personally. I feel sorry for someone with as much hate in their heart as you. You're bordering subhuman.

[Elrathin]

The problem with Palestine and Israel is the fact neither of them want to stop hurting the other unless THEY get the last word in from an attack.

For Israel, they want peace AFTER a bombing campaign or incursion that they do.

For Palestine, they want peace AFTER a suicide bombing.

The only way peace is going to happen in that area is for one side to completely decimate the other OR one side is going to just have to take a slap across the cheek and not retaliate after something is done to them. Because neither side is willing to just stop what they are doing .

Each side is saying they attack out of retaliation. They can't even agree on who started it. Palestine says it was started when Israel was given land. Israel says it is Palestine that started it when they suicide bombed.

At this point, does it really matter who started it? I want to know who is going to be the country to have the respect for peace to finish it without any retaliations and without wanting peace after they do something bad.

[jafar00]

The capture of 2 Israeli soldiers was just an excuse.

I've met the wife of Shalit personally. I feel sorry for someone with as much hate in their heart as you. You're bordering subhuman.


Gilad Shalit is unfortunate in that he is the only Israeli person in Palestinian custody and that he is being used as a political pawn to get Israel to do a prisoner swap. That's all the Israeli govt has to do to get him back. Make a prisoner swap.
The Israeli reaction was way over the top. Bombing Palestine, murdering scores of innocent people and violating International Law by destroying civilian infrastructure to mass punish the Palestinians.

Back to the 2 soldiers captured in Lebanon... and yet another Israeli reaction that was planned well in advance. Why would Israel make incursions into Lebanon if they weren't planning to spark off a conflict?

[BoogyMan]

Jafar00, you still have yet to deal with the complete falsehood you propagated about Olmert planning to intentionally attack Lebannon and bait such an activity into happening.

I refuted that falsehood here -> http://www.democracyforums.com/showthread.php?tid=4551&pid=50750#pid50750

[speedracer]

Gilad Shalit is unfortunate in that he is the only Israeli person in Palestinian custody and that he is being used as a political pawn to get Israel to do a prisoner swap. That's all the Israeli govt has to do to get him back. Make a prisoner swap.
Dude, you're a serial half-truth teller. It gets tiresome trying to inject perspective and context into all of your posts. We could really have a solid exchange if you would cut it out.

They're already negotiating via Egypt/Jordan/et al. over the prisoner swap. As always, the devil is in the details... who gets swapped. I realize you're never going to be a Zionist (and I'm not either, despite my constant defense of Israel when conversing with you), but credit needs to go to negotiation. Israel and the holders of Shalit (who actually has him, does anyone know?) are trying. Let's do just that.. give them both some credit.

The Israeli reaction was way over the top. Bombing Palestine, murdering scores of innocent people and violating International Law by destroying civilian infrastructure to mass punish the Palestinians.
I agree. Just for the sake of argument and perspective, I'm curious as to what you would have done as Olmert given the following political realities:

1. You are the first non "warrior-king" of Israel and perceived as soft militarily.
2. You are perceived as being hit consecutively by Hamas and Hizbullah. Escalation with multiple neighbors is perceived as imminent.
3. Lebanon, a sovereign, is unable and unwilling to handle Hizbullah.

You are Olmert, jafar. What do you do?

[Caravaggio]

Is there a declared was between Iraq and the u.s.?


There hasn`t been a declared war by America since WWII.

[Alonzo]

Is there a declared was between Iraq and the u.s.?


There hasn`t been a declared war by America since WWII.


That was the point.

[Caravaggio]

That was the point.

So?

[Caravaggio]

Kosovo

The issue of presidential authority to deploy forces in the absence of congressional authorization, under the War Powers Resolution, or otherwise, became an issue of significant controversy in late March 1999 when President Clinton ordered U.S. military forces to participate in a NATO-led military operation in Kosovo. This action has become the focus of an on-going policy debate over the purpose and scope of U.S. military involvement in Kosovo. The President's action to commit forces to the NATO Kosovo operation also led to a suit in Federal District Court for the District of Columbia by Members of Congress seeking a judicial finding that the President was violating the War Powers Resolution and the Constitution by using military forces in Yugoslavia in the absence of authorization from the Congress.


http://www.fas.org/man/crs/IB81050.html

[jafar00]

Gilad Shalit is unfortunate in that he is the only Israeli person in Palestinian custody and that he is being used as a political pawn to get Israel to do a prisoner swap. That's all the Israeli govt has to do to get him back. Make a prisoner swap.
Dude, you're a serial half-truth teller. It gets tiresome trying to inject perspective and context into all of your posts. We could really have a solid exchange if you would cut it out.

They're already negotiating via Egypt/Jordan/et al. over the prisoner swap. As always, the devil is in the details... who gets swapped. I realize you're never going to be a Zionist (and I'm not either, despite my constant defense of Israel when conversing with you), but credit needs to go to negotiation. Israel and the holders of Shalit (who actually has him, does anyone know?) are trying. Let's do just that.. give them both some credit.


Shalit is being held by the Palestinian Government, well what is left of it after Israel kidnapped half of it. I haven't heard anything about these negotiations. If it's true, then it's a good thing and I hope that it leads to a peaceful solution. It still doesn't excuse the destruction wrought upon Palestine in the kneejerk reaction by Israel.


The Israeli reaction was way over the top. Bombing Palestine, murdering scores of innocent people and violating International Law by destroying civilian infrastructure to mass punish the Palestinians.
I agree. Just for the sake of argument and perspective, I'm curious as to what you would have done as Olmert given the following political realities:

1. You are the first non "warrior-king" of Israel and perceived as soft militarily.

I'm not sure what you men here, but I wouldn't want to "prove" myself militarily by lashing out at my neighbours. If he was perceived that way, perhaps the Lebanon fiasco was his way of proving himself?


2. You are perceived as being hit consecutively by Hamas and Hizbullah. Escalation with multiple neighbors is perceived as imminent.


Hamas is part of the general Palestinian resistance against Israeli occupation. They have always been hitting back at Israel for what they do.
Hizbullah didn't hit out at Israel at all before Israel started incursions into Lebanon. In my opinion they were within their rights to ambush and capture those 2 Israeli soldiers who invaded their country.[/quote]


3. Lebanon, a sovereign, is unable and unwilling to handle Hizbullah.

You are Olmert, jafar. What do you do?


Hizbullah are a democratically elected part of the government in Lebanon, and are also the resistance against Israeli agression. Israel provoked that last conflict against Lebanon. Olmert admitted plans were made in advance of the war. The buildup before the soldiers were captured lasted weeks. Like they knew it was going to kick off. They provoked Hizbullah into reacting by making incursions into Lebanon.
All they have to do to handle Hizbullah is not attack Lebanon since it's part of Hizbullah's charter that they not attack Israel unless Israel makes the first move. It's that simple.

[jafar00]

Jafar00, you still have yet to deal with the complete falsehood you propagated about Olmert planning to intentionally attack Lebannon and bait such an activity into happening.Â*Â*

I refuted that falsehood here -> http://www.democracyforums.com/showthread.php?tid=4551&pid=50750#pid50750


If Israel wasn't baiting Hizbullah into action, then why were they sending soldiers on missions across the border?

[speedracer]

1. You are the first non "warrior-king" of Israel and perceived as soft militarily.

I'm not sure what you men here, but I wouldn't want to "prove" myself militarily by lashing out at my neighbours. If he was perceived that way, perhaps the Lebanon fiasco was his way of proving himself?
He was elected solely to give land back. That was his mandate. Seriously dude, are you incapable of understanding the politics of Israel?

2. You are perceived as being hit consecutively by Hamas and Hizbullah. Escalation with multiple neighbors is perceived as imminent.


Hamas is part of the general Palestinian resistance against Israeli occupation. They have always been hitting back at Israel for what they do.
And since they're the government now, isn't the attack an act of war by a legitimate government?

Hizbullah didn't hit out at Israel at all before Israel started incursions into Lebanon. In my opinion they were within their rights to ambush and capture those 2 Israeli soldiers who invaded their country.
You keep saying that. You've offered no proof.


3. Lebanon, a sovereign, is unable and unwilling to handle Hizbullah.
Hizbullah are a democratically elected part of the government in Lebanon, and are also the resistance against Israeli agression.
Therefore, an attack by Hizbullah is an act of war by a sovereign nation, since Hizbullah is a democratically elected part of the government, right? Sovereign, democratically elected members are responsible for their actions, no?
Israel provoked that last conflict against Lebanon.
Saying it over and over doesn't make it true. Sorry.
Olmert admitted plans were made in advance of the war. The buildup before the soldiers were captured lasted weeks. Like they knew it was going to kick off. They provoked Hizbullah into reacting by making incursions into Lebanon.
So if the act of buildup is a provocation, is Hizbullah not also guilty of that same crime?

I'm through with you. There's no point. You aren't interested in debate. You don't back up anything you say, and when caught in contradictions you don't bother answering them.

Why even bother posting?

[BoogyMan]

Jafar00, you still have yet to deal with the complete falsehood you propagated about Olmert planning to intentionally attack Lebannon and bait such an activity into happening.

I refuted that falsehood here -> http://www.democracyforums.com/showthread.php?tid=4551&pid=50750#pid50750


If Israel wasn't baiting Hizbullah into action, then why were they sending soldiers on missions across the border?


You need to deal with the falsehood you tried to propagate Jafar00. Israel, just as every other nation, makes plans about what to do in certain situations. Those plans were activated by a triggering event.

[Caravaggio]

Jafar00, you still have yet to deal with the complete falsehood you propagated about Olmert planning to intentionally attack Lebannon and bait such an activity into happening.

I refuted that falsehood here -> http://www.democracyforums.com/showthread.php?tid=4551&pid=50750#pid50750


If Israel wasn't baiting Hizbullah into action, then why were they sending soldiers on missions across the border?


Yep...terrorist are always innocent bystanders according to the left .

Haaaaa....Haaaaaa...

[jafar00]

1. You are the first non "warrior-king" of Israel and perceived as soft militarily.

I'm not sure what you men here, but I wouldn't want to "prove" myself militarily by lashing out at my neighbours. If he was perceived that way, perhaps the Lebanon fiasco was his way of proving himself?[/quote]

He was elected solely to give land back. That was his mandate. Seriously dude, are you incapable of understanding the politics of Israel?

Thus the mention of not really understanding the question.


2. You are perceived as being hit consecutively by Hamas and Hizbullah. Escalation with multiple neighbors is perceived as imminent.


Hamas is part of the general Palestinian resistance against Israeli occupation. They have always been hitting back at Israel for what they do.

And since they're the government now, isn't the attack an act of war by a legitimate government?

Likewise, Israel's continued attacks and constant embargo in Palestinians are an act of war.

Hizbullah didn't hit out at Israel at all before Israel started incursions into Lebanon. In my opinion they were within their rights to ambush and capture those 2 Israeli soldiers who invaded their country.

You keep saying that. You've offered no proof.

I had a lot of interesting links to information but have since lost them. I can find a couple from a simple google search such as

http://www.whatreallyhappened.com/israeli_solders.html
http://www.antiwar.com/frank/?articleid=9401
http://www.williambowles.info/syria_lebanon/captured_in_lebanon.html


3. Lebanon, a sovereign, is unable and unwilling to handle Hizbullah.
Hizbullah are a democratically elected part of the government in Lebanon, and are also the resistance against Israeli agression.[/quote]
Therefore, an attack by Hizbullah is an act of war by a sovereign nation, since Hizbullah is a democratically elected part of the government, right? Sovereign, democratically elected members are responsible for their actions, no?

Hizbullah acted in self defence remember. So, the capture of Israeli soldiers on their territory was fully justified. Also note in this case, unlike the recent thing with Iran, the borders here are clearly marked and internationally recognised.

Israel provoked that last conflict against Lebanon.

Saying it over and over doesn't make it true. Sorry.

Ok, I won't say it again unless provoked :p

Olmert admitted plans were made in advance of the war. The buildup before the soldiers were captured lasted weeks. Like they knew it was going to kick off. They provoked Hizbullah into reacting by making incursions into Lebanon.

So if the act of buildup is a provocation, is Hizbullah not also guilty of that same crime?

Hizbullah build up to defend their country from attack, not in order to instigate an attack. It's not the same thing at all.