Jump to content

Talk:2006 Lebanon War

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by 172.194.74.72 (talk) at 22:41, 14 August 2006 (→Suggested article title change). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Template:Todo priority

Archive

Archives

Archive 1
Archive 2
Archive 3
Archive 4
Archive 5
Archive 6
Archive 7
Archive 8
Archive 9
Archive 10
Archive 11
Archive 12
Archive 13
Archive 14
Archive 15
Archive 16
Archive 17
Archive 18
Archive 19
Archive 20
Archive 21
Archive 22


Discussion about the name of the article

Earlier discussions

Discussion about casualties

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]
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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

Discussion about Pictures

Older discussions:

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

Image

File:54949.jpg

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

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

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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

Discussion about POV

Older Discussions

Please do not edit these archived discussions.

Damage inflicted on Lebanon

Hello there,

I am preparing the Turkish Wikipedia page for the conflict and I am not an active contributor to the English one. I was reading this article to see how English Wikipedia has choosen to write it. I see a lot of POW problems with this English article. The unimaginable damage inflicted on Lebanon is not properly described in this article. Plus the figures for the dead and the wounded are several days old and needs to be updated. I fear that the contributors of this article has taken a pro-Israeli stance. I hope this will be corrected. --85.104.143.135 12:09, 11 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The article used to have more information on the damage in Lebanon. But recently, coincidentally right after the Megaphone software went online, the article has lost much of that information (esp. pictures). Maybe we need a sub-page of the main article that is focused solely on the damage in Lebanon, and one for the damage in Israel to keep it NPOV. That way, people will have no reason to cut things out for summary purposes. --Epsilonsa 19:38, 11 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Thats an excellent idea. --Gregorof 03:23, 13 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Um, summarising is only there when you do have a subpage. So you want a page for casualties, a page for the attacks by Hezbollah, a page for the attacks by Israel, a timeline of both sides attacks, and a page for the damage in Lebanon and one for Israel? This (month long) conflict will end up with more pages than WWII. Targeting of civilian areas in the 2006 Israel-Lebanon conflict isn't enough?

As for the actual complaint, I agree. The NPOV lovers have reduced the article a bit, making it more of a 50:50 either side than pointing out the vast majority of the damage is in Lebanon. Iorek85 03:33, 13 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Although the vast majority of damage has been inflicted by Isreal we must look at the principul, Isreal has a far more powerful military force and so logically in its hunt for Hezbollah will inflict more damage than Hezbollah, despite the fact that Hezbollah is deliberatly aiming at Isreali civilians with small, unaccuart rockets. Now just imagen if the roles were reversed... P.S. the Iranian president has called for Isreal to be wiped off the map, just putting the Isreali campain in prospective. --Jedi18 16:28, 13 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It doesn't put anything into perspective, except maybe that you are thinking in a POV mindset. Showing the damage done in Lebanon is not for the purpose of making Israel look bad. like you said, the IDF is more powerful than Hezbollah and is thus doing more damage. People are requesting that the damage be proportionately reflected as that would put things in perspective. --Epsilonsa 09:06, 14 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
We should report that the damage is disproportionate. That doesn't require that we allocate space to each side in exact proportion to the damage done. A summary will do, we don't need an exhaustive list, at least not here. Regards, Ben Aveling 09:15, 14 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]
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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]
'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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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

General Discussion

Earlier discussions

  • 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


Please do not modify these archived discussions.

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)[reply]

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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]

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)[reply]
"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)[reply]
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)[reply]


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)[reply]

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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]
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)[reply]

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)[reply]


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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]
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)[reply]

  • 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)[reply]
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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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

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)[reply]

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

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)[reply]

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

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)[reply]

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)[reply]
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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]
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)[reply]

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)[reply]
Doesn't it all make you feel kind of like Nazis? Matthew A.J.י.B. 16:58, 13 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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

UN Agrees to Resoultion

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

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)[reply]

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

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

'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)[reply]

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)[reply]
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)[reply]

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)[reply]

--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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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


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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

Damage inflicted on Lebanon

Hello there,

I wrote about this on the NPOV section but I don't think many people read it. I am preparing the Turkish Wikipedia article on the same subject. I have been following this article as well as a comparison. I think there are several important NPOV problems with this article.

The tremendous damage inflicted on Lebanon's infastructure the the extent the Lebanese have suffered are not reported with justice. I believe the authors of this article have taken a somewhat pro-Israeli stance. Just saying that there are over thousand dead and the infastructure is damaged is not enough. The article should be written in such a way that when people read it several years from now, they will understand the horrors involved. Life has been hell in Lebanon during the last month and that should find its place in the article. --85.103.57.38 08:01, 12 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Good luck - the "NPOV" Israeli editors will have it out in seconds, decrying the massive damage caused by Hezbollah and demanding 50:50 coverage of both sides. Iorek85 08:05, 12 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
This is NOT about whether Israel or Hezbollah are 'in the right' or 'in the wrong'. Both groups are terrorists--both are criminals in different ways. Hezbollah are practising an illegal variation on vigilante activity. Israel is responsible for major war-crimes and general incendiary behaviour in the Middle East which threatens to foment WWIII. No one here is 'in the right'. The world will not be at peace until Israeli is totally dissolved and the United States of America withdraws from ALL foreign nations, including Iraq. There is no question about this. It is becoming an extremely serious matter. We cannot pre-occupy ourselves with silly debates about the specifics of who did what in this insane conflict. All of it is criminal--all of it threatens the peaceful way of life of human beings on Earth. It is time for all of these individuals, the Israeli government administration, the militant Muslim groups, George W. Bush's administration, Tony Blair and his goons--all of them are CRIMINALS, and the time is imminent to convict them, lest they make a mess of the entire planet. Matthew A.J.י.B. 10:51, 12 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
This is not a political chat forum, please keep discussions not directly relating to the improvement of the article off of the talk page please. --zero faults |sockpuppets| 14:00, 12 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
You say this as though I do not know what this talk page is for. Every talk page related to a controversial event has discussion about the politics. This is about the approach we need to take to actually be objective, which, it would appear is not the approach you take. Matthew A.J.י.B. 16:19, 13 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
It would appear it is not the approach you take either... Advocating genocide, as you do, is frowned upon... Valtam 17:33, 13 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hold on. When in the name of Wotan did I advocate genocide? Are you completely blind? The only time I ever even mentioned it here was in reference to the fact that the Isarelis have been developing (since the 1990s) inherently genocidal and racist weapons. Namely, race-specifc bioweapons (search for keyword 'Nazi' above). Matthew A.J.י.B. 05:09, 14 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

How do you propose "totally dissolving" a nation-state against its will without the use of genocide? (I do appreciate the fact that you read my user profile - name of Wotan, indeed!) Valtam 18:26, 14 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Apologies, Matt. You know the names of Wotan through your writings on the subject, as per your user page. I find your anti-gun-control and anti-abortion views interesting, although I don't think most people would agree with your proposal to forcibly sterilize prisoners... Valtam 19:06, 14 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
You are missing the point. Lebanon has been reduced to one big pile of rubble. More than a thousand people has died. Life has been hell for the Lebanese. It is our duty to make people, who will read this artic in years to come, feel what has been happening. This article fails to describe the brutuality of the situation. This article unfortunately has taken a pro-Israeli stance when it comes to describe what has happened to the Lebanese. That has to change if we want Wikipedia to be able to live up to its fame for neutrality. --81.214.107.32 18:18, 13 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

And how does it contribute to Wikipedia? Flayer 11:02, 12 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]
"the danger of this whole conflict" is your own point of view. Flayer 12:42, 12 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
Please take this to your talk pages, this is not the place for general discussion. --zero faults |sockpuppets| 03:07, 13 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

Is it time to put on the tin-foil hats yet? Valtam 17:38, 13 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]


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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]
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)[reply]

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)[reply]

IDF is not necessarily the most objective source in this conflict. --Jambalaya 12:18, 12 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
It is a claim. "530+ claimed by IDF [2], of which 165 claimed confirmed by IDF" Flayer 12:39, 12 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]

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

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

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

Consensus vote: Captured, Kidnapped, or Abducted

Polls Closed . .
One vote only. Well it seems we have been talking about this for a week. I say let's settle this once and for all. --Zonerocks 18:52, 12 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Votes are evil and no decisions are final. You can't settle things once and for all, especially not with voting. If the facts support one option, no number of votes for another can overrule the facts. Zocky | picture popups 13:39, 14 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Definitions:

  • Kidnap - To seize and detain unlawfully and usually for ransom. [4]
  • Capture - To take captive, as by force or craft; seize. [5]
  • Abduct - To carry off by force; kidnap. [6]

Captured

  • Vote here if you support the use of the word Captured (Sign your entry.)
  1. Support: I think it's a pretty neutral word taking into account the graveness of the conflict. --Jambalaya 18:55, 12 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Support: These soldiers are captured, not victims for a crime--imi2 19:06, 12 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Support: Per imi2. Lebanese prisioners in Israeli jails were captured inside Lebanon during the occupation. We use the same terms.-- Szvest 19:20, 12 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Support: Per Fayssal. Kidnap and abducted are words associated with criminal activities, not armed conflicts. There is a double standard on en: regarding the actions of Israel and its enemies. Using the term kidnap or abduction is equivalent to using murder for killings. Bombing civilian targets in Beirut is also illegal but no one proposes the use of the word murder. --Burgas00 20:17, 12 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Mega-ultra-Strong Support Kidnapped and abducted are both ultra-POV. "Captured" is the only neutral, factual description. Those who fail to see this are just pushing a POV. If we use "abducted" or "kidnapped" article quality will go to the floor. If they are choosen, am raising a moderation request, as both "kidnapped" and "abducted" are clear violations of NPOV.--Cerejota 20:30, 12 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  6. Support. Most non-POV term on the roster. If "kidnapped" is used, this article will have a permanent NPOV warning tag. Italiavivi 20:33, 12 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  7. Support: This is an armed conflict after all. The article name seems to indicate it. Mceder 20:53, 12 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  8. Support: Capture is a NPOV word in this situation, while kidnapped is not. I just noticed that since the page was unprotected a few hours ago, new anon users have started taking over the editing, and one of the first things they did was changing all the "captured" to "kidnapped", although there has been a consensus to use the word "captured" for at least a week. If we allow "kidnapped" here, then other users will argue that the Israeli Operation Sharp and Smooth action in Balbeek was a kidnapping as well, and we're back to the old edit wars. Thomas Blomberg 22:31, 12 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  9. Support Best term to use to keep the NPOV lovers happy. Iorek85 00:31, 13 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  10. Support This is war - you capture enemy soldiers in war, you kidnap civilians - if Hizballah fighters were CAPTURED, so were Israelis - let's stick to NPOV, past propaganda.--It is better to read the weather forecast before we pray for rain. 14:07, 13 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  11. Support Inahet 18:52, 13 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  12. Support Civilians are kidnapped, military personel are captured. Aelffin 19:21, 13 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  13. Support Coolintro 19:56, 13 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  14. Support both kidnapping and abduction support the Israeli POV that Hezbollah is terrorist, rather than the objective fact that personnel of one armed group were taken prisoner by personnel of another armed group. As much as you might feel that Israel is/was 'in the right' (whatever the hell that means after nearly 6 decades of wrong on both sides), WP:NPOV is one of the five pillars and is non-negotiable.Cynical 23:11, 13 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  15. Support It was a military attack on a military target, and it was a part of a conflict which was never concluded with a peace treaty. Breaking cease-fires is not illegal, and we shouldn't imply that it is. Zocky | picture popups 12:06, 14 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  16. Strong Support The phrases 'kidnapped' and 'abducted' contain with them an opinion of the legality of the action, 'captured' does not. Therefore captured is the only neutral option. Damburger 15:41, 14 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  17. Support. How is kidnapped NPOV? This is just a troll.
  18. Support This is the term used by BBC & the Associated Press ˉˉanetode╦╩ 17:04, 14 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  19. Support As per discussions I've participated here before - [7]. Agree with Damburger. Kidnapped implies breaking a law. Hezbollah operates outside the law and there is no legal system which has been effectively used to deal with their actions. Israel recognizes this and is why they have resorted to war in response rather than any legal channel.--Paraphelion 18:55, 14 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  20. Support yeah. soldiers are captured, not kidnapped. soldiernapped? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.45.196.120 (talk • contribs)

Kidnapped

  • Vote here if you support the use of the word Kidnapped (Sign your entry.)

--Zonerocks 15:35, 14 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  1. Support. Only an actual government can capture prisoners, not a terrorist group. StuRat 23:19, 13 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Support cross border intrusion and the kidnapped them, there using them as a ransom to get something. --Zonerocks 19:03, 12 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Support It was an illegal act, captured does not specify illegality, hence its POV by stating Hezbollah's actions were in any way legal. Crossing into another country without permission is illegal, breaknig a cease fire is illegal, murdering soldiers is illegal since no war, ransoming soldiers is illegal according to geneva convention, soldiers kin has not been notified of ways to contact them, illegal by geneva convention etc. --zero faults |sockpuppets| 19:10, 12 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    That is original research and is in violation of NPOV, as Hezbollah doesn't agree with it. At most we could say "Some sources descibe the captures as "kidnappings" or "abductions" or something like that but in general the article can only be un biased if we say "captured". This is sheer, obvious POV pushing.--Cerejota 20:33, 12 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    I agree. Also, I'm curious -- are you claiming, Zero, that the Israeli soldiers who have been killed in combat since Israeli began this campaign were murdered, and are murder victims? Italiavivi 20:43, 12 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    How is this remotely original research? Hezbollah is a militant group, not a nation, and is therefore not under the geneva convention. In order for the soldiers to be prisoners of war, it needs to be a nation, not a militant entity. If I, and a friend, launched an attack on a military patrol nearby, were we to take soldiers hostage it would be a kidnapping, not a "capture" as we would be a militant group or entity outside of the Geneva convention. To call this POV pushing is a terribly bad faith assessment that is also without base. ~Rangeley (talk) 21:01, 12 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    If John Smith murdered 20 people and was sentenced to death, its barely original research to say he broke the law and cite the penal code. It would actually be against policy to state he broke a law without citing the law, as thats an unsupported statement. --zero faults |sockpuppets| 12:19, 14 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    You failed in our last discussion [8] in this and were never able to answer my questions regarding what law that Hezbollah is bound to that they violated when capturing the soldiers? If there is some law, why wasn't legal recourse taken? The issue is being handled through the system used when there is no law - might makes right, or war. It is no coincidence that this is also the system, or lack thereof, that Hezbollah used to capture the soldiers.--Paraphelion 19:10, 14 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Per above. ~Rangeley (talk) 19:18, 12 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Please, fact check. The geneva conventions do apply to non-State actors acting within signing states, and under the Law of Land Warfare. Uniformed non-state militias are considered legal comabatants, even if they belong to irregular forces. Thsi is the basis of UN-mediated efforts to end various civil wars world-wide, and the basis for groups like HRW to treat Hezbollah as legitimate combatant to be held to the same standards as a State. Only Israel (ie, one side of the POV) calls this a "Kidnapping", and a large number of less POV but generally anti-Hezbollah forces use the weasel word "abducted". But the only true neutral term is "captured". Read the definitions above: if we say kidnapping, we will be breaching NPOV, because we will be saying that Hezbollah performed an illegal act, which is dsiputed and is pro-Israeli POV. Simple, if you can't see it, well go with your concience knowing you are violating WP:NPOV, you cant argue it was not explained in detail to you. Lastly, I am not breaching good faith: I am making an observation so that good faith editors do not fall, unwittingly, into POV pushing. There is a difference and I ask you retract and apologize for your personal attack. I do stand by my word: if we adopt "kidnapping" this article will cease to be neutral until we change it back to captured.--Cerejota 04:29, 13 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Kidnaped is not only used by Israel, but by the White House, many prominent media, and perhaps others. TewfikTalk 05:01, 13 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    "because we will be saying that Hezbollah performed an illegal act" Seeing how countries like Saudi Arabia, Jordan and Egypt all agree with the US and Israel that this was an illegal act as does the UN it's hardly POV to say it was illegal (which it was if you actually take a look at the relevant laws). 84.109.52.88 05:43, 13 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Support Per zero Yonatanh 20:03, 12 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  6. Support Per zero. They are not Samir Kuntar. Flayer 20:09, 12 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  7. Support, as this is the term used by most news agencies. The Secretary-General is using the term "Kidnapping" in his statement to the Security Council on the adoption of a resolution on Lebanon. Fuzzy 21:24, 12 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  8. Support. Kidnapping emphasizes that subjects were taken against their will. Capturing sounds more object-oriented and does not have the connotation of a situation one is being forced into. Sijo Ripa 00:37, 13 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    This is not true, the very definition of the word "capture" is to take using force. Kidnapping emphazises the illegality of an action, which in the context of this article is a contested POV.--Cerejota 04:34, 13 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    The action is seen as illegal by the UN, US, Jordan, Egypt, Saudi Arabi and more. If even these three Arabic countries said it's illegal, when they are hardly biased towards Israel - who are you to disagree? Also, they were taken for ransom which is in the definition of kidnapped as opposed to captured. Yonatanh 05:53, 13 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    The definition I read, said: "to take possession of". While I agree that other definitions may emphasize the force aspect, there shouldn't be an ambiguity (and the fact that some definitions emphasize the force aspect and others don't, make this ambiguity clear), especially not an ambiguity on purpose which, something which would be highly POV. Also: almost all media refer to it as "kidnapping": European, American and even (english) Arab media. Sijo Ripa 12:46, 13 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  9. Support. The only possible factual term. Lancsalot 00:42, 13 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  10. Support as they were kidnapped to secure the release of arab prisoners which would make it for ransom. --PinchasC | £€åV€ m€ å m€§§åg€ 03:48, 13 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  11. Support per above, taken hostage from across the border with the explicitly stated goal of prisoner exchange. TewfikTalk 05:01, 13 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  12. Support per def and args above. ←Humus sapiens ну? 05:09, 13 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  13. Support captured gives the impression that they were taken prisoner during a normal wartime exercise, in reality they were taken during an attack across an internationally recognized border when there was no recent provocation from the Israeli side.- Moshe Constantine Hassan Al-Silverburg | Talk 05:17, 13 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  14. Support Valtam 16:22, 13 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  15. Support per MCHAS, Sijo, and zero. -- Avi 19:09, 13 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  16. Support a cross-border prisoner taking should be considered a kidnapping in this situation Hello32020 19:40, 13 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  17. Support Hemhem20X6 21:06, 13 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  18. Support Soldiers were kidnapped as the UN recognized Israeli withdrawal from all Lebanese territory. Guy Montag 22:46, 13 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  19. Support. "Captured" suggests a legal act of taking a prisoner of war according to Third Geneva Convention. Hizbollah's kidnapping, besides being illegal to begin with, is in violation of at least Article 71 of Geneva Convention, which would allow a prisoner to communicate with his family. -- Heptor talk 18:47, 14 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
What law has broken? If any law was broken, where is the legal system and enforcement dispatched to deal with this breach of the law. These actions are outside law and accordingly Israel's response has been prosecuted through war.--Paraphelion 19:10, 14 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Abducted

  • Vote here if you support the use of the word Abducted (Sign your entry.)
  1. Support -- abducted is a fairly neutral term. -- ArglebargleIV 19:24, 12 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Support as second choice - Szvest 19:26, 12 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Support for reasons I stated above. -- Deborahjay 13:46, 13 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Discussions here please:

I agree the term Kidnapped is somewhat POV, and during an armed conflict the correct term is naturally Captured. However, the incident took place before it became a war (or an armed conflict), hence the correct term, AFAIC, should be Kidnapping. Fuzzy 21:39, 12 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Before it became a war? C'mon look past 4 weeks - this conflict had been going on for decades, Israel was occupying the area, conducting military operations, and "capturing" Lebanese militants for a long time, so let's be objective and neutral here.--It is better to read the weather forecast before we pray for rain. 14:07, 13 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Uhu... Ask the "militant" Samir Kuntar. According to UN, Israel is NOT occupying any area of Lebanon. Flayer 16:17, 13 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I thought Israel gave back all captured Lebanese/Hezbolla militants for, what was his name, you know, that drug dealer. Never mind, this discussion is a waste of time. Fuzzy 21:56, 13 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You know whats so funny fuzzy? the fact israel has given lebanon all of it's 350 soldiers within a day that the caught in that one city, that israel has given back thousands of criminals to all these terrorists. But Israel can't get 3 soldiers who where kidnapped after a long six months of peaceful time. After Ehud Olmert met with the prime minister of palestine and they shook hands and promised peace, and then all of this crap happened. has people like crejota forgotten hezbollah isn't supposed to even be there. --Zonerocks 04:04, 14 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You distort the truth. Israel has failed to release many Lebanese prisoners. Furthermore, Hezbollah has a right to exist, as does any militia group formed of civilians during war-time. The criminal actions of the 'organisation' can be attributed to a few specific people who ordered and/or carried out these actions. In general, Hezbollah is just a civilian group oriented at community work. Matthew A.J.י.B. 04:49, 14 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Hezbollah's military wing operates against UN resolution 1559 --Epsilonsa 08:39, 14 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The UN is far from a world government. The UN operates against my personal resolution 53,663,773, which I signed into law last week in my personal kingdom.--Paraphelion 19:14, 14 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I got this from the article on kidnapping a few minutes ago, from the definition section. "It has come to mean any illegal capture or detention of persons against their will, regardless of age, as for ransom; since 1768 the term abduction was also used in this sense. Another case is when two countries are at war: enemy soldiers may be captured in another country and detained as prisoners of war under the law of the capturer's state, and suspected war criminals and those suspected of genocide or crimes against humanity may be arrested." I'm not quite sure I understand what it is trying to say, perhaps that soldiers "captured" in one country can be considered by the other country to have been "kidnapped"? 71.123.31.93 21:30, 14 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Prisoners of War

How about we all forget about the words abducted, captured and kidnapped and simply use POW which stands for prisoner of war for those of you not familiar with it. Technically Israel and Lebanon were at a "state of war" before this 2006 conflict started so we can all just use the neutral term "POW" to determine prisoners from both sides. Fedayee 17:20, 12 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Highly unacceptable. Technically Israel and Lebanon were at state of "ceasefire". Hez doesn't respect any legal status anyway. Hez kidnaped the soldiers, not Lebanese army. Flayer 21:26, 12 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Agreed. I see no problem with "captured" (nor either of the alternative terms), but "Prisoners of War" is just plain inaccurate, save maybe in a purely technical sense. 89.1.68.175 21:52, 12 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The definition of kidnap implies illegality, the group operates illegally under UN Res 1559, the act was illegal as they crossed an international border, it was during the course of a cease fire, the soldiers were captured to force a prisoner swap (ie ransom) also illegal under geneva convention, they are being held for more then a week without a neutral international organization being made aware of their location adn status, also illegal under geneva convention, the soldiers have not been able to contact their kin after 1 week of capture, also illegal under geneva convention, the soldiers have had their lives threatened, also illegal under geneva convention. Stating captured is highly POV because it labels the actions to be legal as capturing soldiers is legal, however kidnapping implies ransom and illegality. --zero faults |sockpuppets| 03:06, 13 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

With all due respect, putting this up for a vote merely illustrates the absurdity of this debate.
What Hezbollah did was patently illegal, no ifs, ands, or buts.
They illegally crossed into Israeli territory, and illegally abducted members of the IDF.
Everyone on Wikipedia could participate in this debate and posit a contrary point of view, but that wouldn't alter the facts on the ground.
No matter how much the apologists for Hezbollah's actions, or the actions of rogue regimes like Syria and Iran, want to contest the notion of truth, or replace it with some post-modern, Edward Said or Michel Foucalt-type subjectivity, they cannot alter essential, indisputable facts.
It's just that simple.

Ruthfulbarbarity 04:13, 13 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]


Ruth this is an important part of the article to show to readers that it was illegal. No where in the article does it say these actions where illegal. Thus these key words would show it. --Zonerocks 04:24, 13 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This whole talk section is full of POV and original research. People, regardless of what we thinka are the facts, we aruled by something called WP:NPOV. That means we cannot simply take one POV and push it. That means we must, like it or not, consider "apologists for Hezbollah" whoa re editors as part of the community: the language and hatred expressed to them here is disheartening. Basically, any editors who so much as mentions a belief in the illegality of Hezbollah's action is choosing a side in the POV and cannot claim to be part of writing an NPOV article. Please keep that in mind.

We can, I say we must, mention who considers Hezbollah's actions legal and illegal, and when and if the UN expresses any proper declaration in this respect include that. But this article cannot have an NPOV presentation and tone and at the same time say any actions by any side where illegal as a statement of facts. We must klimit ourselves to show facts and let the readers reach their own conclusions, as easy as that. That my friends is NPOV.--Cerejota 04:44, 13 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, legality or illegality is problematic because it implies that an act is condoned or proscribed by some law. The issue of what law to use will usually result in a POV one way or another. I think where no law applies, it could be said to be "alegal". Another issue is that words like "captured" or "kidnapped" may be viewed a little differently, in terms of their connotations, in different English-speaking cultures. 71.123.31.93 05:46, 13 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]


With all respect cerejota, you are sadly wrong. Look How can you say on this talk board and basically say " Hey let's misrepresent the facts to be fair to those that support Hezbollah, or the NPOV people, or the Im against the conflict period." It's unfair to our readers to misrepresent the facts, and by keeping the word 'Captured' your misrepresenting it. So by putting 'kidnapped' we are being very fair, because the fact is, these guys were kidnapped. --Zonerocks 06:11, 13 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]


No thats the issue: the "kidnapping" is a disputed fact because one sise of the POV denies there was kidnapping, rather a taking of POWs in combat. See? You are unwittingly destroying neutrality, and disrispecting the intellingence of the same readers you claim to respect by calling it a "kidnapping". "Captured" doesn't misrepresent facts: the fact is the guys were taken by force against their will. It is a disputed fact if this action was legal under laws of land warfare (ie POWs) or illegal (ie kidnapping). Again, I have no problem with a discussion of both POVs (Kidnapping vs POW) in a section, but I do have a problem with kidnapping being used as part of the NPOV presentation of the events.
I think people who are pushing for "kidnapping" need to calm down and really think if they want to start an edit war over this, because one will assuredly happen. I am just asking people to have common sense and understand both the spirit and the letter of the NPOV policy.--Cerejota 12:01, 13 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

First of all, I'm not aware of Hezbollah actually making that claim. Even if they did, it is not balanced to present both claims merely because two claims have been made. The claim is presented as the extreme minority position that it is in world consensus. How we should characterise that is certainly up to (this) discussion. And there is no reason to fear any edit wars. If we reach a new consensus, we will behave towards it the same as we have towards previous ones. TewfikTalk 15:57, 13 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Er... for those quoting resolution 1559 as evidence that Hezbollah was 'acting illegally', what about the 40 that Israel is currently in violation of? Doesn't that mean that the IDF was 'acting illegally' too? Cynical 23:14, 13 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Question of information, and not contradiction: which SC resolutions is Israel currently in violation of? Let me know, TewfikTalk 00:39, 14 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Picking just one SC resolution on, say Jerualem: SC Resolution 252 (1968) of 21 May 1968 [Adopted at 1426th meeting (13-0-2) (2 abstentions were Canada, U.S.)] Deplores the failure of Israel to comply with General Assembly resolutions 2253 (ES-V) and 2254 (ES-V) of 4 and 14 July 1967; considers that all legislative and administrative measures taken by Israel, including the expropriation of land and properties thereon, which tend to change the legal status of Jerusalem are invalid and cannot change the status; and urgently calls upon Israel to rescind all such measures taken and to desist from further actions changing the status of Jerusalem. MX44 10:24, 14 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
OK, I misinterpreted, what I said above was incorrect. Israel may not necessarily be in violation of 40 resolutions at this present time, in fact the situation is that there have been 40 GENERAL ASSEMBLY resolutions which criticise Israel's actions. I don't have an accurate number for the number of Security Council resolutions (which, unlike GA ones, are legally obligatory), but I think it would be accurate to say that the resolution quoted above by MX44 is not the only one of which Israel is in violation
  • The Palestinians still don't have a state
  • East Jerusalem is still controlled by Israel (whatever the rights and wrongs are, the UN and international law says that East Jerusalem is Palestinian)
  • Israel still maintains settlements in the West Bank (again, whatever you think about whether the settlements should remain in any two-state solution, they are at the moment illegal)
  • The security fence/separation wall/apartheid law/anti-terrorism fence (insert your preferred POV of choice) - same as the above two
  • Israel still controls the Shebaa Farms area, which according to United Nations Security Council Resolution 497 is 'null and void, and of no international legal effect'. This is particularly significant as it provides the legal basis under which Hezbollah claims legitimacy in continuing to fire on Israel, because Syrian officials have later stated that they consider the territory Lebanese [9], and Hezb therefore claims that (the UN certification of withdrawl notwithstanding), Israel continues to occupy Lebanese territory (the Lebanon-Syria border in the area is not conclusively demarcated) and therefore Hezbollah (claims that it) is continuing to act as a 'resistance' movement (rather than a terrorist one) when it fires on Israel. It is therefore at least arguable (in the absence of a court ruling - unlikely - a definitive answer is unlikely) that Hezbollah was not acting illegally when it kidnapped/captured/abducted the two Israeli soldiers, and that 'kidnapped' and 'abducted' (both of which imply illegality) are inappropriate as a matter of fact as well of a matter of WP:NPOV
Sorry for what I wrote before, as I said I had misinterpreted the information (not from that site - that is just a link I dug up to clarify the situation). Cynical 11:34, 14 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
A list of UNSC resolutions against Israel can be found here. I count them to 84. Although many of these have in part been followed by Israel, like the very odd Resolution 337: On Seizure of a Lebanese Airliner (15 Aug, 1973), tecnically it is none (because they all include reminders back to earlier resolutions like the ones from 1967 - 68.)MX44 12:05, 14 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Can anybody point to a peace treaty which would make Hezbollah's initial attack illegal? Israel and Hezbollah were at war all along, there was only a cease-fire and breaking cease-fires is not illegal. If it was, we would have to call every Israeli incursion into Lebanese territory in last 6 years illegal. 12:42, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

Hezbollah is an illegal entity in the eyes of the UN, you cant have a ceasefire with a group that technically should not exist. Even this ceasefire is with Lebanon not Hezbollah. --zero faults |sockpuppets| 13:00, 14 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Uhmm ... If it was Hezbollah that attacked Israel a month ago, and Israel were going after them, then a cease-fire with Lebanon is about as helpful as a cease-fire with ... say Greece? If not Hezbollah/Israel have agreed on that they are the parties central to this conflict, then there cannot be any serious attempt of an agreement on any cease-fire. MX44 13:13, 14 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Probably why the last UN resolution went so well ... --zero faults |sockpuppets| 13:50, 14 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Neither of these objections is true. No more is Hizbullah an illegal entity for not complying with 1559 than Israel is an illegal entity for not complying with 242. Geneva conventions explicitly mention militias as parties to conflicts, so Hezbollah can be a party to wars and treaties and cease-fires. It certainly was in existence and fighting Israel in 2000, and when Israel withdrew it was a unilateral withdrawal, without an agreement of any kind from Hezbollah. Border skirmishes continued all along, with frequent breeches and incursions from both sides. At no time were Hezbollah and Israel at peace. Hezbollah's attack on Israeli soldiers may have been stupid, counterproductive, malicious, even evil, but that doesn't make it illegal. Zocky | picture popups 13:33, 14 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
You state "No more is Hizbullah an illegal entity for not complying with 1559 than Israel is" this is obviously a misunderstanding because Lebanon was to comply with the resolution not Hizbollah. Hizbollah is not even recognized in the resolution specifically, it calls for all militias in Lebanon to be disarmed and disbanded. Hence any militia still operating in Lebanon is donig so against the UN resolution. You keep stating things like "without an agreement of any kind from Hezbollah" but they do not get a say, they are to be disbanded as per the UN resolution. Why would the UN say Hezbollah needs to have a ceasefire if they arent even suppose to exist? Hence that cease fire and this one are both with Lebanon not Hezbollah. So if you read the resolution, no militia can operate in Lebanon legally, hence their an illegal entity. --zero faults |sockpuppets| 13:50, 14 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
That's a lot of talk about nothing. The ideal state of the world where sovereign countries control their territory is not the reality on the ground. Per conventions, the distinction between state armies and militias is irrelevant for establishing whether there's a state of war or not and who the sides are. Note also that UN never called for Hezbollah to be disbanded, only for the militias, including Hezbollah's militia, to be disarmed.
The argument that the other side is acting illegally is used by all sides in all conflicts - if both sides thought everything was legal, there would be no conflict in the first place. The article shouldn't prefer Israel's line that Hezbollah is illegal to Hezbollah's line that Israel is illegal, nor the other way around. Zocky | picture popups 14:43, 14 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
You said "UN never called for Hezbollah to be disbanded, only for the militias, including Hezbollah's militia, to be disarmed." Which still proves they are acting against the UN resolution ... Hence firing rockets, attacking anyone with a weapons is against the UN resolution, how can unarmed people fire weapons? As "ideal state of the world" I really dont care what you think is ideal, however the fact remains the UN said Hezbollah needs to disarm, instead they just attacked another country, sounds like the broke the resolution. As for Israel being illegal, the UN recognizes them as a state, the UN does not recognize Hezbollah as a legal militia. --zero faults |sockpuppets| 14:50, 14 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
So what if they're acting against the resolution? Israel acts against UN resolutions all the time, but it doesn't make every action it takes illegal, and neither does it for Hezbollah. Zocky | picture popups 18:41, 14 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

According to Haaretz

I want to put "According to Haaretz" at the bigining of "Bigining the conflict). What's your idea.?--Azmanet 05:52, 13 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It's not just according to Haaretz, it's according to almost (if not all) major news outlets. Iorek85 06:05, 13 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

first of all, you need a spell checker. second what is the point of putting that, and what will you put under it. and if you do it without concensus, it will be considered vandalism and you'll probably be reported and banned. --Zonerocks 06:13, 13 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Don't bite the newbies. TewfikTalk 07:19, 13 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

lol tewfik --Zonerocks 07:23, 13 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Nothing funny about biting newcomers. Just don't. Zocky | picture popups 13:36, 14 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

If I'm not mistaken, his asking "What's your idea" is seeking consensus. --Epsilonsa 08:07, 14 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Questions Pertaining To The Infobox

1. Why is the number 40,000 placed beneath Israel under the "strength" section? They don't currently have 40,000 troops placed in Lebanon. And if it's an estimate of the number of Israeli active-duty soldiers and reservists-which one would assume, since the number placed below Hezbollah is 5-10,000, i.e. the number of Hezbollah militiamen/terrorists currently under arms-then it's even more inaccurate.

2. Why is the box beneath Lebanon vacant, rather than being filled with an exact number of active-duty soldiers in the Lebanese military?

3. Where are the sources documenting the deaths of non-Hezbollah combatants? I realize that there have been reports about Palestinian gun-men and Amal gun-men being killed during the present conflict, but it would be nice if there were some verifiable sources to document this.

Ruthfulbarbarity 07:06, 13 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Well Ruth. This person added this on his own will. He has no documentation of this obviously. It should be changed immeaditly, and if he or she adds it again, they will be reported. --Zonerocks 07:32, 13 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Interesting photos

This is an interesting Lebanese report, which was cited by Michael Béhé (a controversial figure in Lebanon I understand). TewfikTalk 07:46, 13 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

There's a controversial Michael Behe? In Lebanon of all places?
LOL.
Shouldn't there be a section documenting the attempts at manipulating Lebanese casualties by staging photo ops, considering the amount of attention it has attracted, and the amount of media outlets that have been forced to retract erroneous reports?

Ruthfulbarbarity 07:56, 13 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ok im not signing up to view this. Can you maybe give me a google image link to view it. Or use something else, ok. --Zonerocks 07:57, 13 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

File:54949.jpg

(You don't need to sign up for the first link, only the New Republic article) Another image that should be somehow included is this shot of a Hezbollah rocket launcher. Perhaps a conflict box? TewfikTalk 08:07, 13 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

A confict box on a POV allegation? WOW, this is going way out of hand...--Cerejota 12:05, 13 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I am suggesting that the picture be inserted into the conflict box. It is not a "POV allegation" that one primary feature of the conflict has been the Hezbollah rocket campaign, and there were previously requests for such an image. TewfikTalk 15:51, 13 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You shouldve given two seperate links. --Zonerocks 08:23, 13 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]


hmmmmm, perhaps a conflict box about allegations that hezbollah is using civilans as shields. Something on how this has caused the civilian deaths. Image should be used. You should draft some text or a it's own conflict box and post it in this talk page and then we can consider adding it to the article. --Zonerocks 08:27, 13 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Some simple additions would help. I do not know the details myself. 1. When did Hezbollah start the launch of rockets into"Israel"? 2. When were rockets previously launched (How much of a lull - months?) 3. Where did the "kidnappings" actually take place? 4. Is there any evidence to support the "pre-meditation" of these particular kidnappings, or did some member of Hezbollah simply "panic" do to the effect of the Israeli buildup (Gaza)? In other words, does Hezbollah (or anyone) declare the kidnappings as a planned military action? (Were they a spontaneous actions triggered by Israeli troops in a particula=r proximity to the border? Are the conditions know by israeli when Hexbollah will attept to kidnap? In general, I do not find the events that "triggered' this war clear, but they are very critical to the US response and media campaign, and also central to Britain, Astrailia, and Canada's official positon that this action was cause by an attack by hezvollah on Israel. We need some insight as to what happened in the USA (although this is a matter for other topics.)


Insight could turn into an opinon. Why don't you show us the insight. --Zonerocks 17:12, 13 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Israeli preparations for a response to Hizbollah

This article appeared in the British Press today, regarding preparations alleged to have been made over the last year for a response to a Hizbollah provocation.. It has been denied by the US govt, but is relevent to the history/timeline discussion. As I dont know where best to include it I leave that to you guys. http://news.independent.co.uk/world/americas/article1219021.ece Fig 09:30, 14 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The fact that Israel may have prepared for the scenario does not change anything as long as we agree that Hezbollah still initiated hostilities. Beware of framing things in the context of some kind of conspiracy theory. TewfikTalk 15:42, 14 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Suggested article title change

Having reviewed this article, its edit history, and the back and forth on the discussion page, I would like to suggest that the title of the article be changed to Israeli Rationale for the Invasion of Lebanon 2006. --172.192.114.34 14:49, 13 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

No. That would not be a good idea. Matthew A.J.י.B. 16:17, 13 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I think he is joking, I think he is trying to say where tryng to make a rationale for Israel. Well were not, the media has already done that, and if your not joking, well then make yiur ow wikipedia page. --Zonerocks 17:09, 13 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not joking. There should be a page centrally about the conflict, and not just a bunch of scattered articles. You can make a 'rationale for israel' article, however, if you want to. Doesn't matter what the rationale is, in the end, now does it? Matthew A.J.י.B. 18:18, 13 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
He does have a point, however--creating a new article for these issues would suffice. Matthew A.J.י.B. 18:21, 13 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Im talking about the 172 guy. --Zonerocks 18:35, 13 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Great, just what we need, yet another POV fork! Yes! Long live anarchy! WOOT!

Seriously, the rationale is not complicated: Hezbollah attacked, Israel retaliated. Simple no? Of course there is all kinds of ancillary infomation, but I don't see how we cannot fit it in the main page. I mean, causus belli and rationale are PRIME information, entirely supposeed to be in the manin article. I simply think this propossed page would be a POV fork, and an exercise in lazyness and/or POV driven inability to bring the main page to a good standard. sorry, but I much rather have that info on the main page. An "Israeli rationale" sounds a bit POV,a lthought I could live with it if no alternative emerges.--Cerejota 00:59, 14 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

That's actually not the case. You cannot say that a conflict which really began with Israel refusing to return captured Lebanese to thier homeland, is the fault of Hezbollah. [10] Furthermore, western powers like the USA and Great Britain are partially responsible for not interfering before this got messy, and staging fake debates about 'ceasefire'. [11] Also, there is some evidence emerging that suggests that this may be the first major invasion over water sources of the 21st century, [12], in which case it is all just about Israel expanding its territory and control of resources, using this one of many militia-attacks throughout their history as a strategic pretext. Matthew A.J.י.B. 04:41, 14 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I was not proposing a fork, and in a sense, I was joking. My point is that this article is ridiculously POV. The entire story is told from the official Israeli standpoint. Source quotes which say that the capture of Israeli soldiers took place on Lebanese territory are suppressed. This article could be a press release from Dick Cheney's office, or backgrounder in the New York Post. So therefore, why pretend that it is an objective article about the conflict? Why not give it a title that honestly proclaims, "this is the preferred Israeli version of the story?" Sincerely, 172.194.74.72 22:41, 14 August 2006 (UTC) "the 172 guy."[reply]

We have a vandal

It seems we got a vandal who has been tampering with the section: Israeli Action. It seems he added some qutoes and changed some qutoes that where there before. He put qutoes that make israel look really bad and that they want israel to be wiped out. Here are the qutoes. "and promised Lebanon a “very painful and far-reaching response.” “[i]f the soldiers are not returned, we will turn Lebanon’s clock back 20 years.” “Israel is attempting to create a rift between the Lebanese population and Hezbollah supporters by exacting a heavy price from the elite in Beirut. The message is: If you want your air conditioning to work and if you want to be able to fly to Paris for shopping, you must pull your head out of the sand and take action toward shutting down Hezbollah-land. His screen name is Avraham. and though those are qutoes. He changed the wording, and added new words to the qutoes, and the link of sending lebanon back 20 years is not in the article, that is provided for the link. --Zonerocks 21:14, 13 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Unfortunately, that is what the citation says. Follow the link. Now, if that source is a forgery, or is judged to fail WP:RS, that is another story, but when going through the citatiuons one-by-one I check links and content. I save the WP:RS, WP:V judgements for when I have more time to think. If you ask a few editors around here, I think it is quite clear where my personal opinion about this conflict lies. However, here on Wikipedia we need to provide both sides of the story, and that means I check, confirm, and enhance sources for both sides of the conflict. And my name is Avraham, by the way, but please call me Avi. -- Avi 21:17, 13 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I must say, I guess this proves I'm doing something correctly. Oiboy and Sarastro accuse me of vandalism and being an Israeli pawn of operation megaphone, and now I've been accused of vandalizing this article for the Hezbollah side. :D :lol: -- Avi 21:25, 13 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
If it makes you feel any better, I, of all people, have even beena accused of being a 'Zionist spy'! It all depends upon which extremist camp you're debating with. If I'm debating with the American Bush-ites about their criminal government, I'm called a 'Left Winger' or an 'America-Hater'. If I'm debating the unethical and criminal behaviours of the IDF with Israeli extremists, they call me a 'Nazi' or a 'Self-Hating Jew' (as if that has anything to do with the State of Israel). On the other hand, if I'm talking to those folks who believe that 'the Jews' are behind everything from Freemasonry to Homosexuality, I'm accused of being a 'Zionist Freemason conspirator' or simply a 'Zionist', seemingly only on the grounds that I don't believe the Israelis should be kicked out of their homes when the State of Israel is dissolved... People these days--they're all extremists. There are only a few rationals out there who can see it all for what it really is: a bunch of criminals manipulating different creeds against one another. Quite sad. Matthew A.J.י.B. 04:29, 14 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I disagree with labeling what Avraham is currently doing as vandalism, and I don't see how he is making Israel look bad at all. His profile indicates that he is possibly an Israeli himself, and he is actually telling the truth indiscriminately in the article, something refreshing to see among Israeli Wikipedians. Coolintro 21:28, 13 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The funny thing is that I usually do not add material to this article; rather, I check material for accuracy. CNN reported Halutz said that. For all you know, I agree with him >:) . Regardless, CNN is a reliable source, and thus there is no reason to remove it from the article. Conversely, I monitor whitewashing of Hezbollah as well. For the record, I'm an American, (great satan, not little satan ;) <-- HUMOR ALERT!!! ) -- Avi 21:34, 13 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

LOL, man I apologize, there are words added to the qutoe though that I hadn't seen before that qutoe and i checked the link and it doesn't have the exact words and words where added and made israel look bad. The CNN link doesn't have that link. I couldn't find it at least. But man I am really really really sorry. What can I do to make up for it, and are you talking about sarasto777? --Zonerocks 21:59, 13 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah Avu, you of the few good editors here. As to the link, man, I read the "turn lebanon clock back 20 years" quote in Ynet. If you think that makes Israel look back then try to change the government official who said it... Now in all honesty, my OR is that what he meant was that they were going to create a situation similar to Operation LItani, which to a certain extent has happened, except the Hezbollah forces have proven much better in combat than the PLO ever was. In other words is not as omnious and "bad" as it sounds. On the other hand, its a bit ironic to see an editor who is keen on making Hezbollah look "bad" trying to make Israel look "good": I mean, we must, constarined by the verifiable facts from reliable sources, make both sides look neutral to the average reader. And neutral generally means neither good nor bad. And that goes for both sides.--Cerejota 00:50, 14 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Cerejota, am i one of the good editors??? --Zonerocks 02:40, 14 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

see, when you ask, it ruins it --Epsilonsa 08:54, 14 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Casus belli

"Hezbollah cross-border raid and shelling resulting in death of eight and capture of two IDF soldiers"

Didn't the cross-border raid result in the death of three IDF soldiers, not eight? To my understanding, the other five died while trying to retrieve their comrades. This comment seems a bit misleading. Coolintro 23:54, 13 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I agree.--Cerejota 00:44, 14 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

We already discussed this, you must be new to this talk page, we earlier decided to keep that. Because there are other news report where they where 8 where kiled at the same time. --Zonerocks 02:15, 14 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Even the article states that three were killed during the raid and the rest were killed trying to rescue the kidnapped soldiers. Coolintro 02:56, 14 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

We already agreed on this cool. Because it doesn't matter, Ehud Olmert gave his reasons for it, and that is mentioned. --Zonerocks 03:30, 14 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The Fauxtography Scandal

There is no mention of Hezbollah manipulation of the press, now known as "the Fauxtography Scandal." As a journalist, I find this very disturbing.

Fauxtography is so pervasive that it has already become one of the greatest scandals in the history of journalism. As of this date, the evidence of tampering and coverup is overwhelming. The Reuters clouds, the "Passion of the Toys," the Green Helmet Guy, the Pieta of Tyre (taken by an American photographer for the NYT) -- all will affect careers and personal relationships for years to come. The reaction may have an effect on the outcome of the war.Scott Adler 00:28, 14 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Sources?--Cerejota 00:41, 14 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
2006 Israel-Lebanon conflict photographs controversies presents some of the basic claims. TewfikTalk 01:09, 14 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks wasn't aware of the page, thanks! Seems like the mother of all the POV forks tho...--Cerejota 02:44, 14 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Well Scott, that's what I don't like about our administration's PR efforts in the war on terror. the terrorist's know how to work other people's media's and especially ours. --Zonerocks 02:28, 14 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, for example Haditha. OUCH! :D--Cerejota 02:44, 14 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

First of all haditha is disputed. It would be POV, POV, POV, omg POV, POV that POV this, POV, POV. --Zonerocks 03:25, 14 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, CLinton and wako, The Asprin Factories, Kosovo. OUCH :D --Zonerocks 03:26, 14 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]


Vote

Well the voting found a concensus that most people support the word kidnapped over captured. By a vote of 14-18-3, the word kidnapped will be implemented into the article in whatever place it needs to be added.If anyone changes the words, you will be reported for vandalism. --Zonerocks 15:42, 14 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Dear Zonerocks, striking out other people's votes will get you reported for vandalism. Please note that the log shows everything you do. The same goes for removing anything on this page. You just removed a response to you claim above, which, just as I do, accused you for striking out other people's votes. Thomas Blomberg 18:26, 14 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I asked him about it, and he explained that it was because they were made after the vote was closed. And it is true, he did set a deadline originally that it be closed at a set hour, and when this came he closed it. That is essentially his rationale. ~Rangeley (talk) 18:36, 14 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I will reaffirm this again, these polls closed at 8 am cst today. it clearly says untop polls close. votes casted after polls close will be deleted. it says this untop. --Zonerocks 18:38, 14 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hersh says U.S. integral in conflict initation

In this week's New Yorker, Seymour Hersh makes the case that an Israeli delegation visited the White House earlier this summer to receive approval for an attack on Lebanon. Hersh further argue that the U.S. agreed to the removal of Hezbollah as a deterrent for Iran to discontinue their nuclear development activities. A tidbit worthy of inclusion?

http://www.democracynow.org/article.pl?sid=06/08/14/1358255

So wait, your telling me that the murder of 8 soldiers and 2 kidnapped in the beginning, where....Staged. So this has been a big plot by israel. They have been staging this and hezbollah is innocent? Also I would like to see a link from the new yorker to prove it, and so what if the US agreed to the removal of hezbollah. The UN agreed for the removal of hezbollah, that is what un resoultion 1559 is. --Zonerocks 17:34, 14 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not saying anything, and I agree with your demurral. However, considering Mr. Hersh stature as a reporter with insider knowledge of the Bush administration it is certaintly relevant in the context. If you have a closer look at the link, there's an in-depth interview with Mr. Hersh. I believe the article will be online in a day or two. Shoplifter 18:02, 14 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I heard Hersh being interviewed on NPR a day ago, explaining the general details of his report.
I suppose that it could go under an alternative theories section, if one exists.
His amount of insider knowledge with respect to the Bush administration is a sketchy matter.
He has some sources within the Pentagon and CIA, most likely.
However, how reliable, or close to the Bush administration, they are is a matter of some dispute.
His assertion that a strike on a convoy carrying Mullah Omar during the initial days of Operation Enduring Freedom was forbidden by JAG officers still has yet to be verified by outside sources.

Ruthfulbarbarity 18:25, 14 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

http://www.newyorker.com/fact/content/articles/060821fa_fact is an interesting read, explains much (if these anonymous sources can be believed). The title of this section is neither an accurate assessment of Hersh or his sources though. mdf 20:12, 14 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Polls

The polls are closed. no more voting. We have agreed to kidnapped. --Zonerocks 16:56, 14 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Rubbish. You struck out votes, and even were the count only 14-18, that is not consensus. Wikipedia is not 51%-rules democracy, nor do the "polls close" when building consensus. You and your "kidnapped" POV don't have consensus.
((removed personal attack)) 80.216.124.251 17:35, 14 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

and how long should this poll be open? --Zonerocks 18:49, 14 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Consensus, lack thereof, and removal of cited information

I agree that there was no consensus, 14-18-whatever is not overwhelming. However, when there is no consensus on wikipedia, the usual result is that no changes should be made to the status quo, which in this particular case happens to be "kidnapped". I will be restoring that pending a more clear resolution on talk.

Further, people keep on removing properly cited material with edits such as "does not belong in lead". That is somewhat confusing, as the acceptance of the cease fire is critical to the article. I am putting that information back in.

Lastly, this article seems to be devolving into a full-scale edit war based on this consensus/lack of consensus. The article may need to be locked for a while until the various editors here can hammer out their differences without skirtinig WP:3RR, WP:V, WP:RS, WP:NPA, and whatever other alphabet soup is being honored in the breach.

-- Avi 18:43, 14 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Avi, what was the status quo? -- Szvest 18:52, 14 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It was "kidnapping" the entire time I was monitoring the article. Are there diffs that prove otherwise? -- Avi 18:57, 14 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hey it's avraham. lol. --Zonerocks 18:58, 14 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

What if someone considers the status quo to begin w/ the first stub we had instead of the "time you were monitoring the article"? -- Szvest 19:00, 14 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I thought "status quo" meant "existing state of affairs." What state of affairs existed during the polling? Valtam 19:11, 14 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
During the polling it was "kidnapped" -- Avi 19:13, 14 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

That is reasonable. Do we know which term was in the article longer? I was going based on what was in the article at the time of the discussion, with the discussion aimed to change status quo.

By-the-By, would the term "abducted" be acceptable? It has both connotations, I believe. -- Avi 19:04, 14 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You need to review the, um, "discussion" in the archives here and at the article for Hamas' business in Gaza: it's all been said before. At this point, it doesn't make a spit of difference what started it all, let alone which word is used to describe the action. Archduke Ferdinand -- oh, right, wrong war. Ooops! Not a war, a "conflict"! I suggest that we follow the references directly cited by this article: they use "kidnap". Anything else is just an inevitible exercise in Israeli/Hezbollah agitprop. mdf 19:16, 14 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Abduction is too vague and inexact. Hizbullah violated international law by _kidnapping_ soldiers. Capture (according to Wikipedia) means a legal capture, as in a Prisoner of War capture. Hizballah is an illegal organization to begin with, but that does not excuse them from accurately depicting their actions Claymoney 19:07, 14 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Plus, 'abduction' was an option in the poll and it received only 2 or 3 votes. BTW, is the poll still open? Valtam 19:09, 14 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Clay, as you can see from the voting, I agree with you. But abduction also has connotations of illegality, and perhaps shades of ambiguity are what is required to allow everyone to feel as if their views are represented, without sacrificing what each of us believes is the truth. -- Avi 19:13, 14 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
What international law was violated? Where is the force being used to apprehend these supposed criminals to be tried by the supposed legal system to which they are supposedly held? The captures took place outside of law and the response is being taken outside of law - aka war/conflict. Hezbollah are not citizens of any entity which is trying to apprehend them for criminal activities.--Paraphelion 19:22, 14 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
It seems clear that Hizbullah violated UN resolutions establishing borders as well as the Geneva Conventions regarding captures/kidnappings, etc. Just because a specifically legalistic remedy is not used does not mean that the actions should not be described as illegal. Claymoney 19:30, 14 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, so clear that we can't cite the laws and so clear that the UN has not dispatched a force to apprehend the supposed criminals. Of course, Hezbollah isn't part of the UN or a signatory to the geneva convention. This is nothing but an attempt to describe actions in terms of civility when there is none. Anyone can make up laws and claim aliens on another planet are breaking it.--Paraphelion 19:45, 14 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I am wondering if "Hezb is an illegal organization" is Clay's POV or it is just based on the few countries accusing it of being that! -- Szvest 19:16, 14 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Humane and dignified treatment of prisoners is present throughout the Geneva conventions because it has been accepted as a norm of international law. Therefore, the fact that Hizbullah is not a signatory is irrelevant. This thread is getting away from the discussion, however. Claymoney 19:50, 14 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I was referring to a previous comment calling Hizbullah an illegal organization. I was not describing my position Claymoney 19:30, 14 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It doesn't make sense guys if during the poll it was X. Editors were engaged on a revert war. "Captured" lasted for a long long time before edit warring begun after the article stopped being semi-protected. -- Szvest 19:18, 14 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]


This is ridculous. I opened the poll because there where previous and current discussions about the matter. I set a date, monday 8 am cst. people casted votes after that time while it read polls closed. You don't need to be a rocket scientist to comprehend what polls closed means. you can't vote on a poll after it closes. Alright. Do we understand that. But instead we are making this into a 2000 presidental elections dispute. It isn't that and we shouldn't treat it like that. the votes where 14-18-2. Kidnapped won the votes. So we put that word. Valtam the polls are indeed closed. They have been since 8 AM TODAY. There should not be any more votes casted. kidnapped won, now let's move on. This is so ridciculous. I would scratch out votes if it where casted for the word kidnapped, and szvest, that was a STUB alright a stub. Now im done, I will say it again NO MORE CASTING VOTES. --Zonerocks 19:30, 14 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

As you are new to wikipedia, i have the duty to guide you to read Wikipedia:Consensus -- Szvest 19:37, 14 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I would very much appreciate if you could say it 43 more times. BTW this is official notice that I have extended your deadline to Feb 29th, 2170. I am also offering voter amnesty at this time.--Paraphelion 19:38, 14 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]


I set a date for closing, there is no excuse. --Zonerocks 19:40, 14 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

(EC) FayssalF is correct in stating that the word used prior to the vote was captured. However, as the vote makes clear (50/50 split), it was hardly consensus, and it was contested from day one, which makes me doubt that it is any more legitimate. Perhaps we can take the opportunity to find a compromise solution that would satisfy both sides? TewfikTalk 21:39, 14 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Guys! Here is a short article from 12 July, signed Der Spiegel ... You've read it now? Good! As you can see it doesn't really matter what word we use, or if we use them all at once, nobody has a problem with understanding what's going on anyway. For some obscure reason Israel prefers kidnapped, so if we wan't we can go that route and make the article look like an IDF press-release. This will positively make a lot of people giggle! Hezb etc prefferes captured, which we have also found out is making another group of people very annoyed ... So, abducted is the word left to be used for consistency, or use all three of them ... MX44 21:35, 14 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Events leading up

What do events in March have to do with this, especially unfounded allegations? Perhaps we can go back to the 1982 invasion? The direct cause was the Hezbollah action. There is a millenium of internecine battles and strife in the Levant; it is out-of-scope for this article.

The above post was not tested on the words kidnapping or capture, and can be enjoyed without guilt

-- Avi 19:02, 14 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not entirely familiar with the entire history of the Israel-Lebanon conflict, but this article is specific to 2006. I find a rocket bombing/exchange between the two (three, four, whatever) sides six weeks prior to the current conflict perfectly relevant, and this section could be expanded. What's unfounded here? -- Kendrick7 19:10, 14 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This article is specific to the recent conflict, not all of 2006. The events that led up to the July/August 2006 conflict could be correctly argue to have begun 1000 years ago. This article is about this conflict, not all of 2006. -- Avi 19:12, 14 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not arguing for 1000-years of pre-history. But that that last cease-fire lasted only six weeks, that at least provides context. Are you sugesting, six weeks from now if hostilities recommense, it would be an entirely different article, with no mention of this whole ancient July/August spat?? -- Kendrick7 19:20, 14 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

No, but I think that it is eminently reasonable to treat this conflict as beginnning with the world-wide accepted cause of Hezbollah's actions, and not allow the pre-history to crep in, becuase there is no limit once that starts. -- Avi 19:28, 14 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I understand what you're saying (I wrote the article on Loki's Wager, don't need to tell me about slippery slopes). But the introductory paragraph already dates and gives the causes of the this conflict. We could easily say something like, "while the conflict between Israel and Lebanon goes bad X years, this conflict began after a ceasefire of six weeks", or some similar disclaimer. The actors and the modus operandi are the same, it does inform the reader that tensions were ongoing, etc. so I don't see the unrelevancy. -- Kendrick7 19:53, 14 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Now I am REALLY MAD, How distorted is that section. That is pure biased bull. It should be automactically deleted. Did anyone here actually check the links? I went to the leaders page and that the refernce or the link is from may 26 2005. That's right may 26 2005. This should be automatically deleted. This is unbelieveable. Are there any objections. I will leave objections open for two hours. --Zonerocks 19:39, 14 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Zone, following the link does give the date of "May 26, 2006". The 05 in the URL is for May, not 2005. I think we can all use a bit of a breather here, and WP:AGF is helpful (though I admit, difficult at times). 8-D -- Avi 20:03, 14 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
This is official notice that I have extended your 2 hours to 72,000 hours, which puts the deadline sometime in 2014.--Paraphelion 19:47, 14 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Don't confuse him. He's having a hard enough time with his years anyway. These events were 2006. Kendrick7 19:53, 14 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Come on, now, Kendrick, everyone is entitled to make mistakes. Let's try and keep even the semblance of WP:NPA out of this, as hard as I agree that may be (I love sardonic cutting wit as much as anyone >:) ). We have enough emotion riding here as it is 8-D -- Avi 20:03, 14 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

206.255.1.73

Stop icon You may be blocked from editing without further warning the next time you vandalize Wikipedia.

Avi seems this user can't stop switching kidnapped with captured. Indentification of userHe has been reported and it will not be tolerated. --Zonerocks 20:12, 14 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Quote: "Avi seems this user can't stop switching kidnapped with captured".
And methinks "another user" cannot stop switching it back. The soldiers were kidnapped, not captured. : They were not involved in any military action against Hizballah then. So they are clearly kidnapped, : to be used in an exchange deal for convicted child murderer Kuntar and not "captured". Nice use of : : euphemisms for Islamist propaganda, but I think the one who should not be tolerated is the one who : : writes this "captured" crap. Regards, Aleverde. — Preceding unsigned comment added by [[User:{{{1}}}|{{{1}}}]] ([[User talk:{{{1}}}#top|talk]] • [[Special:Contributions/{{{1}}}|contribs]])

Conflict and Dates

It is important to note that Lebanon and its military units were involved on a minor scale, this was a war and not a conflict, it was between Israel and Hezbollah, do not put the end date Aug 14, since there will be some fights on the borders and as of today there are casualties. It's important to stress that Israel did not win this, because their goal was to destroy hezbullah and they did not do that, on average they dropped 150 rockets into Israel, on Sunday they dropped 260 or more. So this tells us a lot, they could have continued doing that for the next year or more. It's hard to say who won, but certainly more victory belongs to Israel, since the party exists and it will exist and they will be part of rebuilding Lebanon. It's important that this does not happen again, such attacks only destroyed Lebanon and its people, not only Hezbollah, all those bridges, hospitals, institutions could have been mostly prevented. I do not see the point of destroying them since Hezbollah's supplies in 35 days did not diminish one bit.
Somebody should change the name of the conflict to Israel-Hezbollah war, not conflict because conflict is on a minor scale, this was on a huge scale, all Lebanon now looks as Warsaw did in its uprising of 63 days in Oct 1944.
This is Hezbollah-Israel war, only and the date of the end of the war not known yet... Victory is mostly on Hezbollah side! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.99.2.11 (talk • contribs)

Again this is the same guy. To bad your ip will be banned from editing. --Zonerocks 20:20, 14 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Removing paragraph and source about South of Litani

This is getting somewhat bothersome. Firstly, that source is the source for the acceptance of the cease-fire as well, it is the same article. Read the first through sixth paragraphs. I am afraid this is not a content dispute, but vandalism, and may not be subject to WP:3RR.

BEIRUT, Lebanon (CNN) -- The U.N.-brokered cease-fire between Hezbollah and Israel will begin at 8 a.m. (1 a.m. ET) Monday, U.N. Secretary-General Kofi Annan said Saturday in a taped statement.

Israeli Prime Minister Ehud Olmert and Lebanese Prime Minister Fouad Siniora agreed on the time, Annan said. But on the deadliest day yet for Israeli soldiers, he urged both sides to stop fighting immediately.
"Preferably, the fighting should stop now to respect the spirit and intent of the council decision, the object of which was to save civilian lives, to spare the pain and suffering that the civilians on both sides are living through," Annan said. (Watch Annan announce the deadline -- 1:15)
Hours earlier, Hezbollah leader Hassan Nasrallah said that his militia would honor the call for a cease-fire once a deal on the timing was reached.
The Lebanese government, which includes two members of Hezbollah, unanimously approved Security Council Resolution 1701 on Saturday, Siniora said.
The announcement followed a meeting of the Lebanese Cabinet, and Siniora said the Cabinet would meet again Sunday to discuss implementation.

While Siniora said only the Lebanese Army and U.N. forces would be allowed to bear arms, the two Hezbollah members told the Cabinet that the Islamic militia has no intention of disarming south of the Litani River, about 15 miles (25 kilometers) north of the Israel-Lebanon border, a senior Cabinet member said.

— CNN, http://www.cnn.com/2006/WORLD/meast/08/12/mideast.main/index.html

This has been sourced by a reliable and verifiable source, and removing it is plain vandalism, unless someone can show me a wikipedia policy that implies otherwise. -- Avi 20:34, 14 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Well who is doing it? --Zonerocks 20:43, 14 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

That isn't important as long as they stop. TewfikTalk 21:31, 14 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

However, I cannot restore it for a while, as I have to be careful about WP:3RR. Cest la vie. -- Avi 22:23, 14 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The End of the Conflict?

I think it's fair to say that there will be extensive debate about how to write about the end of this conflict which (hopefully) is coming about now. I think it's fair and in the NPOV spirit to simply talk about the cease-fire and not to begin (yet) to talk about who won or much about who is withdrawing or being disarmed. The cease-fire is a fact on the ground. Victory is much more POV-based and biased. Claymoney 21:11, 14 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I agree, good thinking, no end yet!

Clay, the conflict isnt over, and the result isnt a ceasefire. That is where we are now though, a ceasefire. It may turn out to be the end, it may not be, we will have to wait. The result of this will continue to be "ongoing" as its not over. Do not confuse the "result" section with a "current status" section. ~Rangeley (talk) 21:13, 14 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Shouldn't there be something in the table reflecting the UN-brokered cease-fire, which both sides (at least right now) are treating as potentially permanent? The opening paragraph mentions both that the conflict is ongoing and that a cease-fire is in place, so I think the table should as well. Claymoney 21:21, 14 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Like I said, no end yet, the end will be once israeli army leaves the territory, I wonder what will happen to Shebaa farms, but before Zonorocks rudely interrupted us, this is only ceasefire, people still dying it's important to find out eventually how many soldiers died on each side, israel like cia hides the deaths of their special commandos and within days at least few soldiers will die from wounds.

In the "Date" section, the ceasefire can be noted. But to put the ceasefire as a result is premature, anything except "ongoing" is premature and I would appreciate if people helped to keep it as this for the time being as I unfortunately have already reverted it 3 times. ~Rangeley (talk) 21:23, 14 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Correct heading

Hey, did lebanese government fight Israel or hezbolla? stop vandalizing, we need to add that this was aka Israeli-Hezbollah Conflict. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.107.1.23 (talk • contribs)

Location of original raid

There has been some confusion over whether Hezbollah's initial raid was actually in Israeli territory. Could someone please provide a map or otherwise help clear this up?—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 58.104.236.127 (talk • contribs) 18:29, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

Most news agencies (including Al-jazeera) and world governments say the attack occurred in Israel proper. Hezboallah claims otherwise. I believe it is in the article. Without a photograph and GPS devices, it will not get much clearer than that. -- Avi 22:34, 14 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:2006_Lebanon_War&oldid=69680960"