Pages: 1 … 7 8 9

 

2006-07-28 05:43:26
B.Schuss
I'm back, baby... ( sort of )
+664|6842|Cologne, Germany

cosmichippo wrote:

B.Schuss wrote:

cosmichippo wrote:

Prisoner of war?? Please dude..so you are saying there was an "active" war at the time of their abduction? I don't think so. It was clearly kidnapping. The Lebanese Shiite Hezbollah movement announced that its guerrillas have captured two Israeli soldiers in southern Lebanon. "Implementing our promise to free Arab prisoners in Israeli jails" ...hmm we may also call it blackmale.

http://english.aljazeera.net/NR/exeres/ … ED3E0A.htm

http://www.blogsofwar.com/2006/07/12/he … ct-of-war/
hm, let's see, Israeli Armed Forces enter Lebanese territory while actively engaged in skirmishes with Hezbollah militants. I am no IDF member, but I don't think they had any illusions about what might happen.
You know, I wasn't there, but I wonder how it was possible that the IF soldiers could have been captured by militants...
Regardless...they are not classified as POW's. Despite their illusions, or lack of, the point remains. There are other means of going about expediting "hostile" forces from your territory. It does not call for an abduction and blackmale to release prisoners. Defend it all you want. Those are the facts. Even if they should not have been in that territory, Hezbollah had "bad" intentions with the capturing of these soldiers. Primarily Blackmale to release POW's!
I am not defending anything or anybody. I am simply saying that the sodiers knew what they were going in when crossing the border, and I am probably also implying that something went wrong on part of the IDF, allowing the hezbollah to capture two ISF soldiers. That's a fair assumption, I believe.

And as far as "good" or "bad" intentions are concerned, that concept seems flawed in the ME. If you have to kill 10 civilians to maybe kill one hezbollah activist, your so called "good" intentions suddenly look not so good any more...

It's always a matter of perspective...
2006-07-28 05:55:07
Bertster7
Confused Pothead
+1,101|6582|SE London

cosmichippo wrote:

BN wrote:

redhawk454 wrote:

what about the 2 isreali soldiers who were kidnapped?
Hardly a kidnapping, they were in Lebanon at the time. More like a POW


http://www.whatreallyhappened.com/IMAGE … -finul.gif

http://www.forbes.com/technology/feeds/ … 73051.html
Prisoner of war?? Please dude..so you are saying there was an "active" war at the time of their abduction? I don't think so. It was clearly kidnapping. The Lebanese Shiite Hezbollah movement announced that its guerrillas have captured two Israeli soldiers in southern Lebanon. "Implementing our promise to free Arab prisoners in Israeli jails" ...hmm we may also call it blackmale.

http://english.aljazeera.net/NR/exeres/ … ED3E0A.htm

http://www.blogsofwar.com/2006/07/12/he … ct-of-war/
POW sounds about right to me - their has been a guerilla war going on there for ages. Unauthorised military patrols on foreign soil are also considered an act of war, so yes - POWs.
2006-07-28 19:20:30
cosmichippo
Member
+5|6487|New Brunswick, Canada

Bertster7 wrote:

POW sounds about right to me - their has been a guerilla war going on there for ages. Unauthorised military patrols on foreign soil are also considered an act of war, so yes - POWs.
Israel withdrew from the "security zone" in the spring of 2000, under the Prime Minister Ehud Barak, who formerly ruled over the security zone as Chief of Staff. Israel continues to control a small area called Shebaa Farms, which Lebanon and Syria claim to be Lebanese territory but Israel insists to be former Syrian territory with the same status as the Golan Heights. The United Nations has determined that Shebaa Farms is not part of Lebanon. The UN Secretary-General concluded that, as of 16 June 2000, Israel had withdrawn its forces from Lebanon in accordance with UN Security Council Resolution 425 of 1978, bringing, in the UN's opinion, closure to the 1982 invasion.

The capture of Corporal Gilad Shalit, being by itself an act of war, ceased to be such immediately after the soldier was hidden in a concealed location. Had Hamas wanted to acquire some semblance of legitimacy, it would have declared Gilad a POW, allow ICRC access to him to establish that he is alive and to report on his health, in short - demonstrate behavior expected of a polity. Such behavior would have allowed negotiations on exchange of prisoners (although most of the prisoners kept in Israeli jails could hardly claim the status of POW, but I am sure a way could have been found). Instead, everything that happened since the capture clearly shows that Hamas cannot liberate itself from the behavior pattern of a terrorist gang. Now the capture of Gilad Shalit became a kidnapping, and any demands issued by Hamas are no more than blackmail by a kidnapper.

Last edited by cosmichippo (2006-07-28 19:27:57)

2006-07-28 21:31:52
Bertster7
Confused Pothead
+1,101|6582|SE London

cosmichippo wrote:

Bertster7 wrote:

POW sounds about right to me - their has been a guerilla war going on there for ages. Unauthorised military patrols on foreign soil are also considered an act of war, so yes - POWs.
Israel withdrew from the "security zone" in the spring of 2000, under the Prime Minister Ehud Barak, who formerly ruled over the security zone as Chief of Staff. Israel continues to control a small area called Shebaa Farms, which Lebanon and Syria claim to be Lebanese territory but Israel insists to be former Syrian territory with the same status as the Golan Heights. The United Nations has determined that Shebaa Farms is not part of Lebanon. The UN Secretary-General concluded that, as of 16 June 2000, Israel had withdrawn its forces from Lebanon in accordance with UN Security Council Resolution 425 of 1978, bringing, in the UN's opinion, closure to the 1982 invasion.

The capture of Corporal Gilad Shalit, being by itself an act of war, ceased to be such immediately after the soldier was hidden in a concealed location. Had Hamas wanted to acquire some semblance of legitimacy, it would have declared Gilad a POW, allow ICRC access to him to establish that he is alive and to report on his health, in short - demonstrate behavior expected of a polity. Such behavior would have allowed negotiations on exchange of prisoners (although most of the prisoners kept in Israeli jails could hardly claim the status of POW, but I am sure a way could have been found). Instead, everything that happened since the capture clearly shows that Hamas cannot liberate itself from the behavior pattern of a terrorist gang. Now the capture of Gilad Shalit became a kidnapping, and any demands issued by Hamas are no more than blackmail by a kidnapper.
The kidnapping of the Israeli soldiers was in response to 3 Lebanese being kidnapped on their own soil. Hamas were not involved, this is Hezbollah we're talking about - Hamas is Palestine.
2006-07-29 02:59:10
cosmichippo
Member
+5|6487|New Brunswick, Canada

Bertster7 wrote:

The kidnapping of the Israeli soldiers was in response to 3 Lebanese being kidnapped on their own soil. Hamas were not involved, this is Hezbollah we're talking about - Hamas is Palestine.
First of all, please provide a link to establish that fact.(3 Lebanese being kidnapped)  I have searched high and low and find that statement truly unfounded.
My apologies, I was on a roll, responding to several posts simultaneously on similar subjects.

Regardless...they are not classified as POW's. A POW ceases in retaining that title when it's captives hide the prisoner in secret and do not contact the proper authorities to brief on the soldiers, health, wherabouts, etc.  There are other means of going about expediting "hostile" forces from your territory. It does not call for an abduction and blackmale to release prisoners. Defend it all you want. Those are the facts. Even if they should not have been in that territory, Hezbollah had ulterior motives with the capture of the soldiers; Primarily Blackmail to release POW's!

 

Pages: 1 … 7 8 9

Board footer

Privacy Policy - © 2024 Jeff Minard