From LGF:
From today's United Nations Interim Force in Lebanon press release, more reports of Hizballah using UN positions as cover:There were two direct impacts on UNIFIL positions from the Israeli side in the past 24 hours. Eight artillery and mortar rounds impacted inside an Indian battalion position in the area of Hula, causing extensive material damage, but no casualties. One artillery round impacted the parameter wall of the UNIFIL Headquarters in Naqoura. There were five other incidents of firing close to UN positions from the Israeli side. It was also reported that Hezbollah fired from the vicinity of five UN positions at Alma Ash Shab, At Tiri, Bayt Yahoun, Brashit, and Tibnin.
All UNIFIL positions in the area of operation remain permanently occupied and maintained by the troops. UNIFIL dispatched three logistic convoys to resupply some positions yesterday. Additional convoys are planned for today, particularly to the forward positions in the eastern and central sectors which are facing critical shortages of basic supplies. The number of troops in some Ghanaian battalion positions is somewhat reduced because of the increased safety risk for the troops due to frequent incidents of Hezbollah firing from the vicinity of the positions, and shelling and bombardment close to the positions from the Israeli side.
Permalink | Linking Blogs | Sphere: Related Content | Digg this! | FARK It!
Filed under:
Middle East, War On Terror
Comments (6)
Well, I look on the bright ... (Below threshold)1. Posted by Adjoran | July 28, 2006 11:37 PM | Score: 0 (0 votes cast)
Well, I look on the bright side.
It's about time someone got some use out of UN troops.
1. Posted by Adjoran | July 28, 2006 11:37 PM |
Score: 0 (0 votes cast)
Posted on July 28, 2006 23:37
2. Posted by Steve Crickmore | July 29, 2006 8:55 AM | Score: 0 (0 votes cast)
It goes without saying too, that that the UN observation posts are located in presumably high ground that both sides desire for tactical reasons, but the Hezbollah holds, such as occured, in the bloody battle of Bint Jbail "Hezbollah's most troublesome position from which it fired upon soldiers was the towering mosque in the village.
There were maybe 30 terrorists [in the mosque]," Shalom said
2. Posted by Steve Crickmore | July 29, 2006 8:55 AM |
Score: 0 (0 votes cast)
Posted on July 29, 2006 08:55
3. Posted by jpm100 | July 29, 2006 12:14 PM | Score: 0 (0 votes cast)
Sorry for my ignorance as to exactly who, but whoever is in charge of the UN deployment should also get some credit for leaving them there.
If its Kofi, he deserves his props on this. If its somehow us, someone deserve it too and has some explaining to do.
Someone somewhere has the power to pull these guys out or at least allow them to vacate when things get rough.
3. Posted by jpm100 | July 29, 2006 12:14 PM |
Score: 0 (0 votes cast)
Posted on July 29, 2006 12:14
4. Posted by Lurking Observer | July 29, 2006 12:41 PM | Score: 0 (0 votes cast)
Steve:
Are you really suggesting that Hizb'allah forces are using mosques as military sites? This would mean that Hizb'allah was operating in violation of international law. It would even allow the Israelis to fire upon mosques, since they are now being used for military operations.
4. Posted by Lurking Observer | July 29, 2006 12:41 PM |
Score: 0 (0 votes cast)
Posted on July 29, 2006 12:41
5. Posted by Steve Crickmore | July 29, 2006 5:11 PM | Score: 0 (0 votes cast)
Lurking Observer..from the Israeli soldier's testimony, I'm sure the Hezbollah fighters were in violation of international law. But didn't our president say our treatment of terrorists isn't protected by the Geneva Conventions either. All sides seem to abide by international law when it pleases them. and the UN especially, is everyone's whipping boy, J the best exemplar of this is of course, in John Bolton, Bush's choice for American ambassador to the UN.: "While treaties may well be politically or even morally binding, they are not legally obligatory. They are just not "law" as we apprehend the term. And what happens to countries when they do not adhere to international law on some matter? Usually nothing. Why, then, do we continue to talk about international "law"? Because the word has a strong emotive appeal."
5. Posted by Steve Crickmore | July 29, 2006 5:11 PM |
Score: 0 (0 votes cast)
Posted on July 29, 2006 17:11
6. Posted by Steve Crickmore | July 29, 2006 5:15 PM | Score: 0 (0 votes cast)
Lurking Observer..from the Israeli soldier's testimony, I'm sure the Hezbollah fighters were in violation of international law. But didn't our president say our treatment of terrorists isn't protected by the Geneva Conventions either. All sides seem to abide by international law when it pleases them. and the UN especially, is everyone's whipping boy, the best exemplar of this is of course, in John Bolton, Bush's choice for American ambassador to the UN.
John Bolton :"While treaties may well be politically or even morally binding, they are not legally obligatory. They are just not "law" as we apprehend the term. And what happens to countries when they do not adhere to international law on some matter? Usually nothing. Why, then, do we continue to talk about international "law"? Because the word has a strong emotive appeal."
6. Posted by Steve Crickmore | July 29, 2006 5:15 PM |
Score: 0 (0 votes cast)
Posted on July 29, 2006 17:15