You have commented 339 times on Rantburg.

Your Name
Your e-mail (optional)
Website (optional)
My Original Nic        Pic-a-Nic        Sorry. Comments have been closed on this article.
Bold Italic Underline Strike Bullet Blockquote Small Big Link Squish Foto Photo
Submit your comments on this article
Israel-Palestine-Jordan
Stinking Fisk: Entire Lebanese Family Killed In Israeli Attack On Hospital
2006-08-03
An attack on a hospital, the killing of an entire Lebanese family, the seizure of five men in Baalbek and a new civilian death toll - 468 men, women and children - marked the 22nd day of Israel's latest war on Lebanon.

The Israelis claimed that helicopter-borne soldiers had seized senior Hizbollah leaders although one of them turned out to be a local Baalbek grocer. In a village near the city, Israeli air strikes killed the local mayor's son and brother and five children in their family.

The battle for Lebanon was fast moving out of control last night. Lebanese troops abandoned many of their checkpoints and European diplomats were warning their colleagues that militiamen were taking over the positions. Up to 8,000 Israeli troops were reported to have crossed the border by last night in what was publicised as a military advance towards the Litani river. But far more soldiers would be needed to secure so large an area of southern Lebanon.

The Israelis sent paratroopers to attack an Iranian-financed hospital in Baalbek in the hope of capturing wounded Hizbollah fighters but, after an hour's battle, got their hands on only five men whom the Israeli Prime Minister, Ehud Olmert, later called "tasty fish". The operation suggests what Hizbollah has all along said was the purpose of the Israeli campaign: to swap prisoners and to exchange Hizbollah fighters for the two Israeli soldiers who were captured on the border on 12 July.

Hizbollah continued to fire dozens of missiles over the border into Israel, killing one Israeli and wounding 21, with Israeli artillery firing shells back into Lebanon at the rate of one every two minutes. For the first time, a Hizbollah rocket struck the West Bank as well as the Israeli town of Beit Shean, the longest-range missile to have been fired so far. Yet still the West seems unable to produce an end to a war which is clearly overwhelming both Hizbollah and the Israelis.

Hizbollah obviously has far more missiles than the Israelis believed - there is not a town in northern Israel which is safe from their fire - and the Israeli army apparently has no plan to defeat Hizbollah other than the old and hopeless policy of occupying southern Lebanon. If Hizbollah had planned this campaign months in advance - and if the Israelis did the same - then neither side left room for diplomacy.
Posted by:Captain America

#57  Ed: You still can't execute them in reprisal. Don't take my word for it. Read the FM. It's US doctrine.
Posted by: 11A5S   2006-08-03 23:45  

#56  They are not EPWs. They don't meet the criteria of lawful combattants. Same for Hizb'allah.
Posted by: ed   2006-08-03 23:36  

#55  Ed: Yes and no. The GC does allow reprisals but not on protected persons. So if country X gasses you, then you can gas country X's soldiers, but you cannot execute his EPWs if he executes yours. Google FM 27-10, Law of Lanf Warfare if you want to get the US interpretation of the GC. I don't have time to post a link. Also, the President reserves the authority to authorize reprisals.
Posted by: 11A5S   2006-08-03 23:30  

#54  The thing I hear most from the lefty-weenies is that if we abandon "humane" principles we loose our "humanity". It seems to me only human to treat depravity with extinction. Make the "humans" guilty of depravity extinct and voila: No more depravity. Humans are capable of all kinds of despicable acts. Calling someone more "human" because he doesn't regard eliminating depraved people as "humane" is to deny the "humanity" of , well Humans. We destroy rabid animals. That is considered "humane" riding ourselves of rabid humans is considered in-humane.
Posted by: Deacon Blues   2006-08-03 22:40  

#53  The Third Geneva convention (the one the US is a signatory to) affords protection on the basis of reciprocity. Since we know of 2 or 3 US military prisoners and several civilian hostages, all of whom were executed in the most horrible and barbaric ways, any protection of the other side is only through the kindness and naivity of our leadership. All prisoners the US catches are perfectly eligible to tortured and executed in the most barbaric way science can come up with. In reality, our meek treatment of captives and civilians only serves to let them live to fight another day.

By the same bedrock principle of reciprocity, the Israelis are within the Geneva Conventions to bomb the crap out of any Lebanese civilians it sees fit since Israeli civilians are the primary targets of rockets launched from Lebabon. Same for Gaza and West Bank.
Posted by: ed   2006-08-03 22:32  

#52  Can't hold Dublin responsible for one half-wit.
Posted by: Broadhead6   2006-08-03 21:28  

#51  Conor is posting from Dublin, Ireland. You know, that nice place where the IRA came from?
Posted by: Pappy   2006-08-03 20:56  

#50  As has been pointed ou. "the prescence of non-civilians in e civilian population" does not cover rocket launchers and machine gunners.
Aggressors cannot be protected by hiding behind civilians and even IF they were lawful combatants or representatives of a government or a legitimate army instead of a KKK like group of professional international terrorists with apocalyptic visions of grandeur. They would be making the conventions moot by their very tactics.
Wars and rumours of wars are not won or ended by tit for tat half measures and phony cease fires.
Posted by: J. D. Lux   2006-08-03 18:40  

#49  gorb,
Israel signed the convention 8th December 1949 and ratified the treaty on 6th July 1951 with the reservation that they would use the red shield of David in place of the Red Cross.

it can be found on the international committee of the red cross webiste - wwww.icrc.org
Posted by: Conor   2006-08-03 18:25  

#48  Conor,
Just take yourself to DU. You'll be appreciated and lauded there.
Heck, they don't even beleive any soldiers got kidnapped in the first place.
All a plot to take over lebanon.
Posted by: J. D. Lux   2006-08-03 15:38  

#47  So these "civilized" islmafascists don't mind wiring the kiddies up with bombs and sending them into Israel to kill as many Israeli citizens as they can. How the f*ck sick is this? They could care less about any rules of civilized warfare. Spare me the bleeding heart bullshit.
Posted by: Whaling Unomoger7693   2006-08-03 15:12  

#46  Hey Conor:

Fuck off. Folks like you that defend the cold-blooded acts of terrorists while simultaneously decrying any attempt of the attacked to defend themselves aren't worthy of reasoned debate.
Posted by: Crusader   2006-08-03 15:11  

#45  Fisk - hear this as my answer..
So what?
Posted by: 3dc   2006-08-03 14:50  

#44  Just a thought here. Has anyone ever heard of an empty hospital ? One has to ask, why was it empty ? Was it actually being used for something beside medical applications ?
Hezbs tunnel under hospitals, mosques, and schools. There, they sleep and prepare for the killing of others. In this case, the hospital appears to have been used as an office complex for the tunnel rats. A breath of fresh air, as it were. The mindset of the splodydope scum is to use civilians and normal institutions as shields while they throw shit at the wall in increasing amounts.
The civilized world should declare all of the hezbs guilty of murder by association, and to be killed on sight. Then bring out the dogs and flame throwers. Islam must go.
Posted by: wxjames   2006-08-03 14:48  

#43  Conor, are you confusing the observation that Israel tries to abide by the GC with the idea that Israel is signatory to the GC?

I wonder if Hezb'Allah, Hamass, Fatah, and Al Qaeda would be so kind . . . . Nah! Just kidding! :-)
Posted by: gorb   2006-08-03 13:54  

#42  Should someone clue Conor in to the idea that Israel won't be a signatory to the GC until the terrorists and hostile states around it agree to and in practice abide by it?

Maybe in another 10 or 20 years if all went well, I suppose? Hopefully sooner, but that's just a pipe dream for now.
Posted by: gorb   2006-08-03 13:48  

#41  Connor, I don't care what anyone "tells" me, buddies or otherwise. I just check facts.
Posted by: twobyfour   2006-08-03 13:38  

#40  Well the pdf I am reading has Lebanon on it, but I don't see Israel on it.

Well it does mention Israel in that Kuwait felt it an appropriate venu to insert a line saying that they don't recognize the existance of Israel nor will they have any treaties with it. Nya nya nya nya nya, nyaaaa!

Conor, how's the research going? Badly, I suppose? :-)
Posted by: gorb   2006-08-03 13:34  

#39  Well the pdf I am reading has Lebanon on it, but I don't see Israel on it.
Posted by: djohn66   2006-08-03 13:28  

#38  And don't forget: Hezb'Allah, Hamass, and Al Qaeda are not signatory to the convention.
Posted by: gorb   2006-08-03 13:26  

#37  not that it really matters but Israel is signatory of the Geneva Convention as many of your buddies will tell you

Conor: Give us a link to an official site documenting this, would you?
Posted by: gorb   2006-08-03 13:24  

#36  twobyfour -

not that it really matters but Israel is signatory of the Geneva Convention as many of your buddies will tell you
Posted by: Conor   2006-08-03 13:05  

#35  Oh twobyfour and 11A5S, that's class ;)

Conor, I think the phrase is 'you got p0wned'
Posted by: Tony (UK)   2006-08-03 12:51  

#34  Geneva Convention article 48 of Protocol I states that "the presence within the civilian population of individuals who do not come within the definition of civilians does not deprive the population of its civilian character.

This means that military folk are allowed to sit in coffee shops and live in their houses among civilians. It does not mean that those same military folk can fight amongst civilians.

And sometimes their danger to their adversary and value of their being dead in the context of ending the conflict is so great that even the civilian nature of their surroundings is not enough to ward off an attack, such as top leaders, etc. These guys basically have to understand that they are full-time walking targets, and that any civilians nearby ought to remove themselves. Hitler and Pol Pot would be some of, but not all, of the most obvious examples.

Conor, use your brain. You are reading the rules letter for letter and forgetting the spirit and intent. The only thing you are proving if you stick to this path is that you are incapable of meaningful logic. In which case the folk here will make fun of you. :-)
Posted by: gorb   2006-08-03 12:50  

#33  Wow, I'll just sit back and refrain from piling on to "mr." connor. Geez, nothing we ever sign is a suicide pact. Get that through your thick skull first and foremost.
Posted by: BA   2006-08-03 12:46  

#32  Connor, you (and the liberal elites that run Europe and want to run this country) quote selectively from the GC to support your agenda. You picked the wrong site to do that since some of here have actually studied the conventions. Here are some articles that caveat your quote:

GC IV, Art. 28. The presence of a protected person may not be used to render certain points or areas immune from military operations.

GC IV, Art. 19. The protection to which civilian hospitals are entitled shall not cease unless they are used to commit, outside their humanitarian duties, acts harmful to the enemy. Protection may, however, cease only after due warning has been given, naming, in all appropriate cases, a reasonable time limit and after such warning has remained unheeded.

There are other such clauses. The GC is actually pretty good law in that it protects non-combatants in a reasonable fashion. Efforts to use it to outlaw war will destroy the conventions and only increase the suffering of non-combatants. These kinds of efforts make the GCs unenforceable and thus "bad" law. Bad law always tends to fall into disuse.
Posted by: 11A5S   2006-08-03 12:45  

#31  Another thing, Conor....
Lebanon did sign GC on 11 April 1969.

Hezbollah has its members as a part of Lebanese government. Thus, Lebanon government is violating the treaty they signed, by allowing Hezbollah using civilians as a cover for their activities.

Nothing is as it seems, Conor, eh?

GC Signatories
Posted by: twobyfour   2006-08-03 12:30  

#30  the Israeli army apparently has no plan to defeat Hizbollah other than the old and hopeless policy of occupying southern Lebanon.

Mr. Fiskkkk,
There is a secret plan but I can't tell you about it because it involves secret hydrogen bombs and also secret neutron bombs and some plain old vanilla flavored fission bombs.
So you see Mr. Fissssskkkkkk, the Israeli army does have a plan but its so secret that we cant tell you about it.
Posted by: Elder of Zion   2006-08-03 12:24  

#29  WTF Conor you cannot be that stupid. GC is not a suicide pact. That has got to be the dumbest stuff I have ever heard.
Posted by: djohn66   2006-08-03 12:03  

#28  Conor, you're aware of the IDF phoning some guy in Gaza to tell him they're going to take out the building because he just happens to be living on top of a Hamas Ammo dump?

You're aware of the IDF dropping leaflets in Lebanon telling people to get out of the area?

You're aware of the IDF burying Hizbullah terrorists in accordance with their religious rites?

Your quote:
but countries such as Israel who have signed the Geneva Convewntion should try a little bit harder to follow it.

Why is it that Israel, who is involved in an existential war, has to fight by some rules which just keep giving the advantage to a group who would kill Israeli children just as soon as look at them? This isn't a game, these people will kill all Israelis if they get a chance, so what would you have the Israelis do?

Answer that and stay fashionable.
Posted by: Tony (UK)   2006-08-03 12:02  

#27  Conor, you're mistaken. Israel did not sign GC.
Posted by: twobyfour   2006-08-03 12:00  

#26  Conor just isn't familiar with Hezbollah and the Hezbolitos, that's all:

Hezbolitos

Hezbolito that forgot to tie his shoe, how cute.

Trained canon fodder

Training for his big day

Oh, and to give you an idea about some of the civilians...
Posted by: Thoth   2006-08-03 11:59  

#25  Conor, with all due respect, anyone that believes the Geneva Conventions apply to terrorists and other criminal non-signatories ought to have their head examined. But don't feel bad. That belief, misguided as it is, seems to be held by many, such as fine 'patriots' Ruth Bader Ginsburg, John Paul Stevens and Steven Breyer.
Posted by: mcsegeek1   2006-08-03 11:58  

#24  Does Conor realizer that Hizbollah fighters are totalitarians? Ethnocentrism will lose this war with the Islamofacists. The King of Persia wants the Middle East and large portions of Asia, and eliminating Israel is the surest way to engender loyalty of the masses, Arab or otherwise, in that area, because for the last 70 years the Moslems have made Jews the scapegoats for EVERYTHING wrong in their individual and collective life experience.
Posted by: ex-lib   2006-08-03 11:47  

#23  If I read your post correctly, Conor, since the terrorist Hizb'allah is deliberately using its civilian population as a shield, Israel should simply surrender? You do understand the result of that surrender, I assume: Hizb'allah's objective is not merely the defeat of Israel, but the erasure of the country by killing all the Jewish people. They have stated plainly that nothing less will suffice them.
Posted by: trailing wife   2006-08-03 11:44  

#22  Trailing wife- fyi dear, terrorist groups don't fight using the Marquis of Queensberry rules or follow the international laws of war guidelines and will at every opportunity force/put civilians in danger, that their nature , but countries such as Israel who have signed the Geneva Convewntion should try a little bit harder to follow it.
- Geneva Convention article 48 of Protocol I states that "the presence within the civilian population of individuals who do not come within the definition of civilians does not deprive the population of its civilian character. Also you can critical of a government policy and still have respect for it's people.
Posted by: Conor   2006-08-03 11:30  

#21  What's all this business about a 'Journalist'? A terrorist is a terrorist is a terrorist. They shouldn't be allowed to hide behind a pen, anymore than the Hezzie pieces of filth hide behind women and children.
Posted by: mcsegeek1   2006-08-03 11:06  

#20  I'm getting really tired of seeing that "tasty fish" comment being taken out of context.

"Yet still the West seems unable to produce an end to a war which is clearly overwhelming both Hizbollah and the Israelis."
Stupidest line of the day... so far.
Posted by: Darrell   2006-08-03 09:42  

#19  Conor, that's actually a good, if incomplete question. You need to finish by asking, "Why the hell did Hizb'allah (The Army of God --that's the "allah" bit, dear) not take care to shoot off their beloved rockets in places far from children, why did their parents not keep them away from the armed men?" The International Laws of War, of which the various Geneva Conventions are only the most recent additions, mandate that armed groups separate themselves from civilians in order to protect the civilians from exactly the kind of threat that Mr. Fisk invented out of whole cloth. So why has Hizb'allah, and the various Palestinian groups, and the insurgent groups in Iraq, chosen instead to insinuate themselves so deeply in civilian neighborhoods as to cause such things to happen?

The Laws of War define those who cause such situations as the ones committing the war crime -- and no coubt you'll have remarked that Israel did nothing against Lebanon until Hizb'allah started shooting off rockets and coming across the border to kidnap soldiers. Conor, dear, I do look forward to your further analysis of the situation, now that you have some facts to work with.
Posted by: trailing wife   2006-08-03 09:16  

#18  What kills me about Conor and his bullshit is I never see them here when kids are dying in Israel, which makes him nothing more than POS no good SOB who needs to F*cking grow up.
Posted by: djohn66   2006-08-03 09:10  

#17  OldSpook the same holds true for 99% of all BBC reporters involved in covering the Middle East and Asia.

In this case send Mossad out after them and take them out. I got banned from Biased BBC for saying that but it''s the truth. Anything else is intellectual wanking.
Posted by: Sock Puppet of Doom   2006-08-03 09:09  

#16  Kill Fisk. He's a legitimate target of war.

He has become an agent of the enemy, actively promoting their cause and supporting them directly with propaganda.
Posted by: Oldspook   2006-08-03 08:55  

#15  There were 468 men, women, and children in the family.
Posted by: Whaling Unomoger7693   2006-08-03 07:44  

#14  A more pertinent question is "how many of the children at the qana incident actually dies elsewhere and were planted"?
Posted by: Bright Pebbles   2006-08-03 07:30  

#13  Sounds really but one question - do they say what percentage of the children killed were terrorists??

OOOH! How Catchy! How Deep! Don't need to think any further than that because nobody has ever thought this far before!

Take it easy on Conor, everyone. It's not nice to get into a battle of wits with an unarmed opponent.
Posted by: gorb   2006-08-03 05:53  

#12  It's still current in Oz, SPoD.
Posted by: phil_b   2006-08-03 05:52  

#11  phil-b now it's "piss up a rope and die." piss off has gone out of style.

Posted by: Sock Puppet of Doom   2006-08-03 05:44  

#10  do they say what percentage of the children killed were terrorists??

Conor, I know your trolling, but I'll answer you question anyway. I happen to have first hand experience of terrorists and how they operate in communities. Kids think they are cool. They hang around. Run errands for them. Happily form a crowd to protect the terrorists. And this ignores that terrorists deliberately place children in danger and try and get them killed because it makes great propaganda. And then of course terrorists use the homes of people who are either willing or coerced into helping them.

So how many of those kids were innocent uninvolved bystanders, probably not very many. But then you don't care do you Conor, because you have already decided the Jews are to blame and they should just put up with terrorism and be good little victims.

Piss off.

Posted by: phil_b   2006-08-03 05:25  

#9  "According to a study by the Menapress (Metula News Agency), 60% of the so-called Lebanese "civilians" are Hezbollah terrorists"

Sounds really but one question - do they say what percentage of the children killed were terrorists??

Posted by: Conor   2006-08-03 04:29  

#8  Joe, what kinda meds?
Posted by: Captain America   2006-08-03 03:20  

#7  Just like the Chicom extermination of 200-Milyuhn or more of America = Amerika's 300-Milyuhn population or more, plus taking over 1/2 or more of NORAM-CONUS, is good and necesary for America, Americans, China, the world, and of course Chinese-centric Communism-Socialism. CLINTONISM says Americans=Amerikans like it, want it, and demand it, D *** you. America can attack and make war, just SSSSSSSHHHHHHHHH not fight let alone win or fight to win. Its for the Sun, its for the Environment,Its for the chilluns. for the World you selfish Male Brute decadent capitalist Westernist pig you.
Posted by: JosephMendiola   2006-08-03 03:01  

#6  According to a study by the Menapress (Metula News Agency), 60% of the so-called Lebanese "civilians" are Hezbollah terrorists...
Posted by: leroidavid   2006-08-03 02:56  

#5  Gone totally native Fisk. His homies are eating it big time. A pathetic piece of work, to bad it's not human.
Posted by: Sock Puppet of Doom   2006-08-03 02:49  

#4  mods: not sure why this ends up on p.4 since it recaps an operation?
Posted by: Captain America   2006-08-03 02:44  

#3  Whoops, there was another column to that article! Here it is, read it. It only gets better!

The French have wisely said they will lead a peacekeeping force in southern Lebanon only after a ceasefire. And to be sure, they will not let this become a Nato-led army. France already has a company of 100 soldiers in the UN force in southern Lebanon, whose commander is himself French, but Paris, after watching the chaos in Iraq, has no illusions about Western armies in the Middle East.

Outside the shattered Dar al-Hikma hospital in Baalbek yesterday stood two burnt cars and a minivan, riddled with bullet-holes. Hizbollah, it seems, fought the Israelis there for more than an hour. The hospital, which includes several British-manufactured heart machines, was empty when the Israeli raid began and was partly destroyed in the fighting.

The Lebanese army, which has tried to stay out of the conflict - heaven knows what its 75,000 soldiers are supposed to do - was attacked again by the Israelis yesterday when they fired a missile into a car which they claimed was carrying a Hizbollah leader. They were wrong. The soldier inside died instantly, joining the 11 other Lebanese troops proclaimed as "martyrs" by the government from a logistics unit killed in an Israeli air raid two weeks ago.

The obscene score-card for death in this latest war now stands as follows: 508 Lebanese civilians, 46 Hizbollah guerrillas, 26 Lebanese soldiers, 36 Israeli soldiers and 19 Israeli civilians.

In other words, Hizbollah is killing more Israeli soldiers than civilians and the Israelis are killing far more Lebanese civilians than they are guerrillas. The Lebanese Red Cross has found 40 more civilian dead in the south of the country in the past two days, many of them with wounds suggesting they might have survived had medical help been available.
Posted by: gorb   2006-08-03 02:31  

#2  Fisk is a stinking buffoon.

He should abandon journalism for grocery.

Maybe wouldn't he be as bad a grocer as he's a journalist.

And that would spare us his filth.
Posted by: leroidavid   2006-08-03 02:19  

#1  Bekaa Bob
Posted by: Monsieur Moonbat   2006-08-03 02:17  

00:00