Talk:2006 Lebanon War/Archive 21

message: ===Earlier discussions===
*Talk: 2006 Israel-Lebanon crisis/Archive1#Discussion about the structure and general content of the article
*Talk: 2006 Israel-Lebanon crisis/Archive2#Discussion about the structure and general content of the article
*Talk: 2006 Israel-Lebanon conflict/Archive5#Discussion about the structure and general content of the article
*Talk: 2006 Israel-Lebanon conflict/Archive6#Discussion about the structure and general content of the article
*Talk: 2006 Israel-Lebanon conflict/Archive7#Discussion about the structure and general content of the article
**Article Size, Suggested Sub Articles, Why is there nothing on the gaza strip?, Hezbollah campaign, Historical Background, Relevance? - small posts about Russian language source, "Free Lebanon" and Robert Fisk, Operation Truthful/True/Fulfilled Promise?
*Talk: 2006 Israel-Lebanon conflict/Archive9#Discussion about the structure and general content of the article
**Format of infobox (labeling of civilians, soldiers),Relevance?, "not sure as to the relevance.", External Links, Too many links - what stays?, Various sections about evacuation, International reaction, Infobox gives me a headache, Nothing is mentioned about foreign nationals being evacuated, 
*Talk: 2006 Israel-Lebanon conflict/Archive10#Discussion about the structure and general content of the article
**Video of Hezbollah firing missiles, Hezbollah rocket campaign, Criticism of both sides, pre-planning for the war, Hell in a Hand Basket, Discussion about strength of participants, Edits around 1948 and terms, WP:V and WP:RS, Blank references, Names of operations in the preamble?, Splitting up the article, "Roles of non-combatant State and non-State actors in the 2006 Israel-Lebanon conflict", Introductory paragraph, Missing from this article, Some thoughts on the civilian section
*Talk: 2006 Israel-Lebanon conflict/Archive13#Discussion about the structure and general content of the article
**Article is too long, Strike on UN chapter removed, POLL, What part shoul be moved, External links, Aims section, External links International reaction
*Talk: 2006 Israel-Lebanon conflict/Archive15#Discussion about the structure and general content of the article
**Casualties table
**Length
**Attacks on Civilians
These are archived discussions. Please do not edit them.
===The article is too long===
I moved some part of article to Targeting of civilian areas in the 2006 Israel-Lebanon conflict, Because the length of this this article was more than 60 Kb.--Accessible 10:14, 4 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I would guess the sources accounts for much of the size. If I just cut and paste the article text to notepad and save it is just 26 kB. Vints 20:10, 4 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Not to long to add in some bumpf about resolution 1559 :) Doesnt that belong in the article concerned with the res? 82.29.227.171 00:05, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

text: You can edit as long as you're an established user (basically you need to be registered and with an account that's at least 4 days old). We've had a lot of hit-and-run vandalism on this article, so semi-protection of this sort is a sensible compromise between having to constantly revert vandals and completely protecting it so that nobody can edit. -- ChrisO 16:51, 11 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Discussion about the structure and general content of the article

message: I moved some part of article to Targeting of civilian areas in the 2006 Israel-Lebanon conflict, Because the length of this this article was more than 60 Kb.--Accessible 10:14, 4 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I would guess the sources accounts for much of the size. If I just cut and paste the article text to notepad and save it is just 26 kB. Vints 20:10, 4 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Not to long to add in some bumpf about resolution 1559 :) Doesnt that belong in the article concerned with the res? 82.29.227.171 00:05, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: The article is too long

message: There has been an amazing, unprecedented state-organized pro-Israel activist mobilization to bend international public debate in favour of Israel. See the times online article, and the website [www.giyus.org] which provides automated tool to do this. 
I believe this has its place in this article, but should of course be balanced by info on pro-Hezbollah propaganda. Or perhaps an article exists which I didn't find? --Josce 15:28, 11 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: You can edit as long as you're an established user (basically you need to be registered and with an account that's at least 4 days old). We've had a lot of hit-and-run vandalism on this article, so semi-protection of this sort is a sensible compromise between having to constantly revert vandals and completely protecting it so that nobody can edit. -- ChrisO 16:51, 11 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: International reaction and propaganda

message: The article is semi-protected because of the non-stop removal of pics. -- Szvest 19:12, 6 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Semi-Protected

message: I am unable to edit right now, so I would like to draw a more senior user's attention on this matter:
This paragraph needs to be changed to use less inflammatory wording:
Strikes on Lebanon's civilian population and infrastructure include Beirut airport, residential buildings,[67] clearly marked ambulances,[68] fleeing civilians prominently waving white flags,[69] United Nations posts and personnel,[70] ports, a lighthouse, grain silos, bridges, roads, factories, medical and relief trucks,[71] mobile telephone and television stations, fuel containers and service stations, and the country's largest dairy farm Liban Lait.
"clearly marked ambulances" and "fleeing civilians prominently waving white flags" is ridiculous wording, clearly showing an Anti-Israel bias.
It is fine to say that there have been confirmed instances of ambulances and fleeing civilians being hit, but to use language like "clearly marked" and "prominently waving white flags" is completely unacceptable and should be removed.
Also, I will request again that some mention be made of Hezbollah's use of warheads filled with ball bearings (whihc are designed to maximize human casualties).  All mention of this was removed, apparently by POV vandals.
19:41, 10 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The part about the ball bearings was moved down and is now next to the part about Hezbollah using civilians as human shields, I believe. --AceMyth 15:59, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

text: 1. I think the objection he expressed was regarding the tone, not necessarily the content. 2. I can't access the source for the civilians "prominently waving white flags", for example, because I'm not registered on the NYT website, but as it stands the article implies basically that Israel attacked civilians waving white flags and Hospitals and so forth for no reason in particular except that it sounded like a fun thing to do at the time. I mean, is that it? Has Israel denied these allegations, issued any official response, anything?... I smell PoV by omission. --AceMyth 16:55, 9 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Request that "Civilians..." section be cleaned up 

message: :Here are some of the sources that lend credibility to this assertion:
:http://www.nysun.com/article/36326
:http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/5242566.stm?ls
:http://english.farsnews.com/newstext.php?nn=8505160247
:http://today.reuters.co.uk/news/articlenews.aspx?type=topNews&storyID=2006-08-09T215844Z_01_L09100220_RTRUKOC_0_UK-MIDEAST-LEBANON-IRANIANS.xml
Ruthfulbarbarity 22:30, 9 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I've just heard reports on WABC news that reporters were shown Iranian identity papers discovered on the person(s) of individuals killed in S. Lebanon. 
Ruthfulbarbarity 02:07, 10 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Hezbollah-Pasderan Links

message: These claims seem to be propaganda because;
* Military personal of a covert natural wil never wear or have anything that can be traced back to their nation
* The Israelis are making a claim, nothing has been proven and verified by a neutral party
* Hezbollah & the Iranian government have said there are no Iranian troops in Lebanon; this are official statements to 'consider', but also NOTE the fact that so far Hezbollah has been more honest than Israel has.
* It is a clear Israeli and White House objective to produce a smoking gun for Iran; meaning blame Iran for the attacks for justification of somesort of future conflict with Iran and /or Syria.
* The claims are made about dead bodies; how can they tell they are Iranian? Even if they are they are not wearing any Iranian uniforms, etc.
* So far a lot of the Israeli claims have either proven to be false and/or contradictory
I also want it to be noted by all impartial and fair editors that there is a strong and repeteaded eagerness to involve Iran in this conflict by Israel and the White House as part of their PR, there are also certain editors who wish to do the same and their history and actions have given strong indications to where they stand on the issue and who they favour. Also remeber that it has been discovered that Israel and the Israeli lobby have declared a cyber-war where they are lunching a campaing to manipulate the internet with propganda. Just checking a lot of these IP histories and so on will confirm what is being said. Thank You
http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au/story/0,20867,20079382-23109,00.html
http://today.reuters.com/news/articlenews.aspx?type=topNews&storyID=2006-08-09T233401Z_01_L09130902_RTRUKOC_0_US-MIDEAST-LEBANON-HIZBOLLAH-DENIAL.xml&WTmodLoc=NewsHome-C1-topNews-3
http://today.reuters.com/News/CrisesArticle.aspx?storyId=L10130494
http://english.aljazeera.net/NR/exeres/09805695-3577-421D-BC35-8FE01E8EAD06.htm
http://www.socialistworker.org/2006-2/597/597_10_MythsLies.shtml
69.196.164.190
Bold text
:I believe the impartial and fair editors of Wikipedia are perfectly able to judge PoV from NPoV and tell propaganda from well-cited material without your generous, neutral efforts to point them in the right direction, thank you very much. This is a discussion forum, not a soapbox. --AceMyth 11:06, 10 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Hezbollah-Pasderan Links Seem to be Propganda

message: It looks like the international media suppresses news of big jewish losses. The chief of zionist army in the area was sacked the day before yesterday, because he was deemed "overly cautious and slow-acting". Major-General Mose Kaplinski replaced him. During first night following this leadership change FIFTEEN zionists soldiers were killed by hezbollah warriors, which is a huge loss for such a short time. Even if it is true that jews killed 40 hezbolah warriors in the same clashes, the proportion is still very good for the jihadists, considering the vast equipment overpower of jews due to tens of billions of dollars in free american weapon shipments. The fact that Hezbollah is not an underdog is not properly represented in this article. Hezbollah is the best muslim army, besides Pakistan.—The preceding unsigned comment was added by  195.70.32.136  (talk • contribs) 04:47, 10 August 2006  (UTC)
:Please provide sources, I know people want to help balance the article and add information, but you have to post links or some other information for anything to be included in the article. --zero faults |sockpuppets| 13:09, 10 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes I read that he was fired, first time this had happened the media said. Although what they expect him or his men to do against such well trained and well equipped Guerilla is beyond me.  A former leader of 'Peace Now' who protested the previous invasions and an 'military correspondant' as prime minister may not be the best candidates for the job :D RandomGalen 13:34, 10 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Who would give a military job to someone who wants peace ... that is not sarcasm, seriously who would do such a thing? --zero faults |sockpuppets| 13:38, 10 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Big bias against Hezbollah 

message: What's wrong with the last sentence in this section on the main page? Precis 11:16, 10 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Hezbollah Action

message: References from haaretz are weakning the reliability of article.
Abulfazl 11:26, 10 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I think you make a good point.  Haaretz and JPost are in the business of selling papers to a public in battle, they are also under restrictions from the censors in Israel.  Haaretz does report well but the JPost has frequently inserted words into the IDF spokesmans mouth which give a misleading impression.  Editors should take care to check the actual IDF press releases/video and Hezbollah output which the journalists write about.  I always take care when a strange statement, figure, or remark is reported to use the qualifier "reportedly this happened"- this alerts the reader that this may not be the entire picture. This protects wikipedia from journalistic bias in combatant nations.  Just as you would not take comment from journalist in Lebanon Daily Star reports about "Israeli crimes" so you should do the same for all sources. RandomGalen 13:25, 10 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Please read WP:RS and argue there if they are sources that meet the standards. Until a concensus forms on WP:RS that they are to no longer meeting the requirements, they are acceptable. Also if you have reports from Lebanese news sources that are in english, feel free to add them, they are more then welcomed as has been pointed out numerous times. --zero faults |sockpuppets| 13:36, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

text: Because of Mordechai Vanunu telling it to the british press? My point is that their media is operating in national conflict, with some journalistic reportage and some censor control. I accept your point. RandomGalen 22:48, 10 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Haaretz References are not acceptable 

message: It's a dead link... 84.109.52.88 17:10, 10 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Reference 22 

message: Hi, why is it that the begining of the conflict states that Hezbollah attacked Israel with Katyushas and mortar? I never heard of that and I see no source proving this. The only source there is a 404 link. This should be corrected. If two versions of the story are available (from Israel and from Hezbollah) then both versions should be stated, not the 'pro-israel, anti-hezbollah' version. This article really looked biased and non-neutral. KaKaRoTo
It's like clamoring for equal numbers of pro-heliocentric and pro-geocentric editorials in the Times.  Would we say a paper is biased because it runs off a thousand and one heliocentric aritcles before printing a geocentric one? Gidklio 19:47, 10 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Won't respond. Too busy oppressing Greeks and Turks. --AceMyth 21:50, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

text: This is not a political forum. --zero faults |sockpuppets| 20:10, 10 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Begining of the conflict 

message: 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
--It is better to read the weather forecast before we pray for rain. 13:49, 10 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Regardless of what term we use (though I support captured 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  Israeli Soldiers were kidnapped NOT captured 

message: (Here Ruthfulbarbarity and Khosrow II made some antesemitist remarks. The text written here was deleted (fairly justly), but it was reinserted (rather unjustly). To make sure that personal ideas would not be lost, the text was moderated into a more neutral stance.)
The history of this conflict is not only 4 weeks for you to say that hizbullah started, you cannot choose to say who started because you sympathize with the other side! This article is very biased! I will be editing this article to show the hizbullah point of view! Also, whoever put the protect tag on there, obviously not an administrator because editing is still possible. For the record, I'm not muslim, so I think im pretty neutral. Khosrow II 05:27, 11 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Wow. Those declamatory exclamation marks sure do constitute an irrefutable argument. My bad. 
Ruthfulbarbarity 05:37, 11 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  hizbullah did not start this conflict! 

message: What was Haganah, the first ever terrorist organization of modern world which later formed the most part of Isareli Army and there is long list of its terrorist activities pls see Zionist Terrorism.
--Abulfazl 11:08, 11 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Actually, Irgun and Lehi organization may be called "terrorist", but not the Haganah. Irgun came out from Haganah bacause Haganah were not terrorists, and Lehi came out of Irgun, because they were even more radical. Flayer 11:43, 11 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: And none of this is really relevant to the issue in the article except to call the Israeli army terrorists. This isnt a political forum, please stop spamming this page with non article related information. --zero faults |sockpuppets| 12:30, 11 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:   Who is Terrorist 

message: http://www.ynetnews.com/articles/1,7340,L-3289754,00.html Flayer 12:56, 11 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  IDF allows 400 Lebanese security forces to leave Marjayoun 

message: Im against having a enviromental part. There are parts of the article that need to be cleaned. This should be the thing that is cleaned up. The enviromental issue is a waste of space on this article. Let's be smart and get rid of this part. It is absolutely irrelevent. This is just to move someone's take on the enviromental issue. I hope we can have a good debate about this, and then maybe move to have a general census on the issue. --Zonerocks 15:42, 11 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: That's a pretty daft argument. All wars have damaging effects on the environment. This one is no exception - it's led to one of the biggest oil spills ever seen in the Mediterranean, which is already affecting two countries and may affect two more . The issue is one of transnational importance and more than justifies inclusion in this article. -- ChrisO 15:48, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

text: First of all, these things should be implemented in the israeli or hizbollah action parts. --Zonerocks 16:06, 11 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I think you are neglecting the severity of this oil spill. I suggest you read up on it to see why it deserves its own section. Additionally, it may deserve an entire page on the wikipedia. --Epsilonsa 19:31, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

text:  One of them already does at Jiyeh power station oil spill. Hello32020 20:14, 11 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  What's the point of enviromental part 

message: Please stop qualifying the consensus version of the casus in the Intro as an Israeli version while adding in numerous rebuttals defending the Hezbollah position. Among the problematic edits are insertion of extensive background in the intro. These issues have all been discussed countless times, read the Talk archives and the WP:NPOV policy about how we are supposed to convey competing positions. TewfikTalk 20:15, 11 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: you are clearly showing your bias and un-neutrality by refusing to have the other side of the story in this article. therefore, i suggest you refrain from editing this article. it is you that is rewritting history by refusing to have the history of the conflict in this article and the other positions side of the story. I suggest you read the NPOV rules so that you may stop putting your POV in here and stop editing out things you dont agree with it. this is the real world, there is more than one side to every story.Khosrow II 20:20, 11 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I think what he is complaining about is that too much backstory is being added in hopes of changing the concensus on the casus belli being the kidnapping/hostage taking of soldiers. One side is attempting to state the casus belli as the beach shelling or something earlier, the other is stating this specific situations turning point was due to the kidnapping/hostage taking. I think since a concensus was built it should be followed or a RfC should be opened and a new poll taken. You have those two options open to you if you are unhappy with the current situation, but edit warring gets nowhere. --zero faults |sockpuppets| 20:42, 11 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I deleted both your bickering comments, take it to your talk pages or off Wikipedia all together. This page is to discuss the article not fight with eachother and call eachother names. --zero faults |sockpuppets| 20:59, 11 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  POV & historical revision 

message: Why is there absolutely no historical background for given to the conflict, this is simply mad  considering that an understanding of its background is essential for any understanding whatsoever of the current crisis and is one of the main bases for the immorality of Israel's actions.Nwe 21:01, 11 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: trust me, i have tried making this article as neutral as possible, but some users just dont want that it seems. they keep reverting my factual changes.Khosrow II 21:04, 11 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: You misinterpret what I say. 'It's not about being fair khosrow II it's about representing the facts. Were not going to misrepresent the facts, just to be 'fair'. Think hard about that. What im saying is were not going to be biased by saying stuff that helps hizbollah or israel, were not going to make stuff up to be 'fair' were going to represent fact all through this article. Got it now? --Zonerocks 21:15, 11 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  No historical background? 

message: Allright, if no one objects to me updating the International Page. Read this to see what I am updating http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:2006_Israel-Lebanon_conflict#Section:_International_Reaction I'll give yall 30 minutes to object. --Zonerocks 21:49, 11 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  International Reaction 

message: *Talk: 2006 Israel-Lebanon conflict/Archive10#Discussion about the talk page
Summary
I am GOING THERE!, Front Line Photographs Section - concerns re clear breach of NPOV, edits by banned editor, Citecheck / Tens of thousands of Israelis displaced?, Iran's role isn't mentioned in the reference 185, Just ban the vandals already!, Fork for deletion
Someone has vandalized the article again, Opinions on civilian attacks??, Am I the only one concerned with article quality?, User Hellznrg accusation of vandalism, Salvage French, Article becoming a JOKE and a BLOG, Adding Links, Where are the kidnapped soldiers?, New page, Video of the shot up ambulances, Lebanon's PM Praises Hezbollah, By Hezbollah, Disproportionate in what moral universe
*Talk: 2006 Israel-Lebanon conflict/Archive12#General Discussion
Mediation, Changes in AP story on July 12, Pictoral bias?, Attacks on United Nations personnel, Claims about captured Hezbollah, July 2006 Seattle Jewish Center shooting
*Talk: 2006 Israel-Lebanon conflict/Archive13#General Discussion
Bad footnote, IAF/IDF alleged attacks on convoys incl. UN convoy, BBC analysis of the effect of the war, Two more Un observers die
Sorry, trying to fix intro, Unbalanced info box, Why no pictures of the destruction in Lebanon?, Categorisation, use of IDF leaflet is non Neutral, use of "Muslim Protests Against Israel" image is non Neutral, Breaking News: IDF going to suspend air operations for 48 hours, effective immediately, Added suspension of air operations to main page, Possible War Crimes, Sources, SOME ISRAELI KEEPS..
Anti Israel people/sites, Please help edit related articles, Infobox UN dead, Time to remove "AA [antiaircraft]-only" tag for Lebanon?, "Precision-guided", An Analysis on the way middle east "works" that is "jews vs muslims"-free., Oil Spill?
*Talk: 2006 Israel-Lebanon conflict/Archive14#General Discussion
**Irrelevant facts, moving casualties, Megaphone Software & "the battle for the internet", References broken, If it's not war so what is war, Israeli soliders landing in Baalbeck, NPOV Tag Added, Pictures show clear POV, Asian Cup, OMG PWND!!!, International Law, I Was Thinking, New images every second, Where is the background to the conflict.
*Talk: 2006 Israel-Lebanon conflict/Archive15#General Discussion
** POV terms used for Israel campaign
Why the Israel-Lebanon war?, Herald Sun's "smuggled pictures", The War between the Straits, War or Conflict, Introduction
Numbers, Yesha Rabbinical Council: all Lebanese may be killed, Hizbollah offered a cease-fire?, Phosphorus & sub-articles, IDF casualties up to date (not 41), 12 Rhetorical support, Equating Hezbollah and IDF operations in this article, please don't add POV pictures, Can we add this photo?, Image use in this article, Beginning of conflict is June 9th Gaza explosion?, Moved the POW stuff to its article, Repeated Sentences, Good artile, Rabbinical Question, Ayta a Shaab Claim, Hezbollah KIA, other figures, Hadera instaed of Beit-Shean, Some statistics you might find interesting, Criticism of advanced warnings, Wounded soldiers and civilians, What's that? Where did it come from?? Flayer 11:43, 5 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Earlier Discussions

message: 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
--It is better to read the weather forecast before we pray for rain. 13:49, 10 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Regardless of what term we use (though I support captured 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  Israeli Soldiers were kidnapped NOT captured 

message: I have to agree with you about the death tolls. We need to do a better job about handling the death tolls. For example, right at the beginning, Where it says cause belli: It states this "Hezbollah cross-border raid and shelling which resulted in the capture of two and killing of three other IDF soldiers" Do you see the error? "killing three other IDF soldiers" It was eight not three. Then under that it gives terrible statistics. Now come on. The deaths grow every day. We need to update this. But because there are hooligans who do stupid crap, we have to have censorship on the pages.  So We can't keep it up to date, and that is the other issue.
The other five were killed in "hot-pursuit," but belligerence already existed by then, so I don't think they can be included in its cause. TewfikTalk 20:47, 10 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Israel gave there reasons for the cause of it all, and that is the reason. Zonerocks22:34, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

text: My mistake for overlooking. In any event, there must be a subjective definition of casus belli, and I have a feeling it wouldn't include the 5 latter casualties. As opposed to many other parts of an article, a casus can't just be what is claimed by one of the combatants, but should be the international consensus. In this case (while the sources I checked weren't clear and I haven't the patience to conduct detailed research now), I'm not sure that the 8 are in the consensus, though the initial raid and barrage seem to be. Cheers, TewfikTalk 06:29, 11 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Death Toll

message: We need to be able to keep up with the death counts. Also fix the beginning where it says cause belli: fix from 3 deaths to 8, to understand what im talking about, scroll up to death counts and read that. --zonerocks 19:05, 10 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  RE: Updating death counts