Talk:2006 Lebanon War/Archive 12

message: ===Unsourced claim about Iran===
Under Casualties/Foreign nationals it says "Between six and nine Iranian Revolutionary Guard soldiers have been killed by Israeli forces." There is a source where this is claimed , but this is a very sensational piece of news, which shouldn't be hidden in this section if it was confirmed. But we must remember that exceptional claims require exceptional evidence, and this has not been reported by more well reputed sources. The beginning of the article doesn't really look convincing "The bodies of Iranian Revolutionary Guard soldiers killed by the Israeli army in Lebanon have been transported to Syria and flown to Tehran, senior Lebanese political sources said. Israeli and Egyptian security officials confirmed the news." Would Lebanese "political sources" and "Egyptian security officials" really speak of such confidential stuff to a small American newspaper? I'm removing the sentence above. --Battra 00:21, 25 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Some usful sources on these iranian troops. http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=51075  Hypnosadist 14:35, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

text: please quote the sentence which shows all of the Volunteers are Basiji. You can't deduced it by yourselves.--Sa.vakilian 06:25, 28 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: you deduced it by yourself. The article gives information about basijis and sais some of them are basijis. It is not axiomatic at all and you aren't neutral.--Sa.vakilian 07:36, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

text: agreed. There is nothing that says all the volunteers are Basijis. --Epsilonsa 07:39, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

text: I don't think a citation is needed. The link to the news article clearly says that basijis were present with the volunteers. --Epsilonsa 07:44, 28 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Discussion about the Combatants

message: Under Casualties/Foreign nationals it says "Between six and nine Iranian Revolutionary Guard soldiers have been killed by Israeli forces." There is a source where this is claimed , but this is a very sensational piece of news, which shouldn't be hidden in this section if it was confirmed. But we must remember that exceptional claims require exceptional evidence, and this has not been reported by more well reputed sources. The beginning of the article doesn't really look convincing "The bodies of Iranian Revolutionary Guard soldiers killed by the Israeli army in Lebanon have been transported to Syria and flown to Tehran, senior Lebanese political sources said. Israeli and Egyptian security officials confirmed the news." Would Lebanese "political sources" and "Egyptian security officials" really speak of such confidential stuff to a small American newspaper? I'm removing the sentence above. --Battra 00:21, 25 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Some usful sources on these iranian troops. http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=51075  Hypnosadist 14:35, 28 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Unsourced claim about Iran

message: http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20060726/ap_on_re_mi_ea/mideast_fighting_iran_volunteers;_ylt=Aof2REyYreEurI0s8Jc_bWJvaA8F;_ylu=X3oDMTA0cDJlYmhvBHNlYwM- 
They are either currently are government payroll or have retired.  Iran has 11,000,000 of them alone.  They serve as cannon fodder.  They all have machine gune and grenade training.  The Iranian regime that sent them there with monetary incentive.  The incentives aren't revealed.  They may include a home upon the "volunteer"s return.  
The mullahs don't dare to openly fight Israel because they are going to be annihilated.--Patchouli 04:56, 28 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: please quote the sentence which shows all of the Volunteers are Basiji. You can't deduced it by yourselves.--Sa.vakilian 06:25, 28 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: you deduced it by yourself. The article gives information about basijis and sais some of them are basijis. It is not axiomatic at all and you aren't neutral.--Sa.vakilian 07:36, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

text: agreed. There is nothing that says all the volunteers are Basijis. --Epsilonsa 07:39, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

text: I don't think a citation is needed. The link to the news article clearly says that basijis were present with the volunteers. --Epsilonsa 07:44, 28 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  "Volunteers" Are [[Basiji]]s 

message: ===captured?===
Tewfik again without discussion and against consensus has changed from "captured" to "abducted". Please Tewfik, be aware this is a salomonic choice, I am not happy with capture either, but it is as close as an NPOV we will get. You are fast becoming a vandal in my eyes...--Cerejota 03:59, 17 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: If Osama bin Laden kidnaps you, would you consider yourself a POW? Remember, war had not even started yet, since there isn't even an official declaration of war (as required by the Geneva Conventions). --Terrancommander 15:33, 21 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The Geneva Conventions explicitly say they apply equally to undeclared wars. When was the last time a major world power declared war? And the war or "conflict" starts with the first act of war or "conflict" such as an attack on enemy soldiers.Edison 00:15, 23 July 2006 (UTC)

text: If I were a soldier, yes.--Paraphelion 15:35, 21 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Remember, war has not started yet, you call him a Prisoner of War? Wrong context. And, they're terrorists, not even proper participants. Does that mean Israel has a 58 year-long war lasting from 1948? Cause there's not been a single year without violence. --Terrancommander 15:40, 21 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: *You might be on to something here. One could see this conflict as part of an ongoing civil-war between two groups of Palestine inhabitants. MX44 04:37, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

text: I'd suggest you read Prisoner of War before commenting. --Terrancommander 15:44, 21 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Conflict has started, regardless targetting of soldiers is capturing.  also note that civilians killed is not called murder anywhere in the article, other than quotes from involved parties.  the article doesn't call them all terrorists.  Yeah I read the entry on POV, perhaps you should re-read it. - "who is imprisoned by an enemy power during or immediately after an armed conflict".  This is a conflict.  And nice try on the 58 year old war rhetoric.--Paraphelion 15:54, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

text: There is nothing about the word "capture" that does not suggest they are not people.  Yes, out of nowhere, as if by aliens visiting earth for the first time.  And just as if I were doing my job, say I don't know, making biscuits.  Making biscuits is about on the same level as border patrol.--Paraphelion 15:54, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

text: Yes, it should be just like making biscuits if there is no war. The point is that Hezbollah specifically stated that the aim of the operation was to take these soldiers, they weren't captured incedental to combat. TewfikTalk 16:26, 21 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I diagree that soldiers on border patrol should not be significantly more expected to be the tartget of an attack, be it killing or capture, than civilians.--Paraphelion 16:30, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

text:  What is the source that states there was a Hezbollah "operation" to capture these soldiers in Israel? Were they not captured during an Israeli operation in Lebanon? See references to Aitaa al-Chaab / Aaita ech Chaab above. David O'C 20:26, 23 July 2006 (UTC)

text: Countries declare wars, terrorist groups cannot. Hezbollah is a terrorist group and as such as was required to be disarmed some time ago by the United Nations. These soldiers were not captured as can be seen by Hezbollahs own actions in violation of the Geneva Convention. Captured soldiers have rights and cannot have their lives threatened, these soldiers were obviously abducted, but I have made this arguement before. --zero faults |sockpuppets| 12:26, 24 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, you've made this "argument" before, and it's just as much a non sequitur then as now.  When Hezbollah captured those soldiers (of a GC III signatory, no less), they undertook a responsibility to treat them accordingly.  If they fail to do so, then Hezbollah can be said to have violated the GCIII -- called a "war crime".  But any such violations, had they occurred, in no way change the status of the captured soldiers.  At least that's how it would go if logic had a place here.  Instead, we have "policies":  since we are to slavishly follow the external concensus no matter how stupid or contrary to the plain, obvious facts and trivial deductions made therefrom (cf. "war" vs. "conflict" in the archives), then the words "kidnapped" and "abducted" and similar must be used in this article, as they clearly dominate in the references used by the article.  mdf 14:19, 24 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Hezbollah isnt a signatory of the Geneva Convention, they do not operate under any guidelines of the Geneva Convention, they are group of people the UN calls a terrorist group. They cannot take prisoners as they are not an army, they abduct people because they are a band of terrorists. You try so hard to have it treated like Hezbollah is a military, they are a terrorist group in the eyes of the world. The country they operate in does not acknowledge them and was told by the United Nations to disarm them. --zero faults |sockpuppets| 11:52, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

text: I may have lost track with all the page moves and archiving but the first time this came up, it was capture that held consensus. MLA 06:41, 27 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: You may be thinking of capture versus kidnap. You can see the discussion here. TewfikTalk 14:42, 27 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I thought militaries capture soldiers. Where are these soldiers and military on the Lebanese side? --zero faults |sockpuppets| 16:29, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

text: They don't think that they operate illegally, that's the whole point. Zocky | picture popups 12:34, 28 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: It really does not matter, if a masked murder feels he is doing gods work it doesnt make his crimes not murder. There is a concensus on their legality, in the worlds view that is, its a bit higher then our community here. --zero faults |sockpuppets| 15:50, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

text: And besides what they consider themselves, there is no effective system of law under which the capture of these soldiers falls under, or which they are subject to.  Which is why a war has started, and which rather than focusing on purely a retrieval effort is mainly concerned with destruction of an enemy completely independent of the so-called crime.--Paraphelion 13:17, 28 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I am not sure if this is adressing me, but the fact that there is no law addressing this is because Hezbollah oeprates outside all international convention regarding laws of war. Which is why the UN called for thier disarmament. Your statement there is no effective system of law under which the capture of these soldiers falls under" is because the soldiers are not "captured" they are hostages, they were kidnapped. Hence the definitions above. --zero faults |sockpuppets| 15:49, 28 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: My statement there is no effective system of law under which the capture of these soldiers falls under" means the act was not unlawful since no laws apply to it.  So by your definition, they cannot have been kidnapped.--Paraphelion 18:34, 28 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The groups existence is against the ruling of the United Nations. Its also illegal to enter a soveriegn state and forcefully abduct people from it, its called kidnapping. I am almost 100% sure that there are laws regardering kidnapping in Israel, if I find one will this debate be over? There is also laws against illegally entering the country I am sure, and then there is murder since they did kill people while over the border. I will have to look up weapons laws, not sure if you need a permit or something of that sort to carry military grade weapons in Israel however. --zero faults |sockpuppets| 19:32, 28 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Hezbollah are not Israeli subjects.  Israel is not prosecuting this issue through the Israeli legal system.  They are not even negotiating international law with Lebanon.  They are using their might as they see right.  These actions are all taking place outside of law.  The United Nations is not yet a world government under which all are held to its laws.  At best it's a dictatorship of a few powerful countries who sit on the security council and vote on how they will impose their will on others, presumably for the betterment of the world.  I'm not even sure UN rulings are described as law, but rather conventions, prohibitions, sanctions, etc.  Anyone can make up rules and claim someone else is breaking them and then call them criminals, but it doesn't make it so.  People routinely enter a soveriegn state and forcefully abduct people from it.  For instance the US keeps many of these abductees in offshore prisons specifically meant to circumvent their own laws, say Israel has captured Hezbollah in Lebanon - they are not doing so on behalf of the UN, citing some UN law.  They are doing it because they can and no one will stop them. --Paraphelion 21:00, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

text: Actually, the drama is your call to sentiment and labelling as a game, all opposed to your rhetoric.  Go back to lifting out of context passages from weapon conventions.--Paraphelion 13:17, 28 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: If you cant be civil refrain from addressing me. --zero faults |sockpuppets| 15:49, 28 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Really must you keep at this game of drama.--Paraphelion 18:34, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

text: This is false, prisoners of war cannot be held for ransom unless in vioaltion of the geneva convention, furthermore the lives of such POW's cannot be threatened, also would be a violation of the geneva convention. As for your distinction of capture and kidnap, Hezbollah is made up of civilians, hence the problem with counting casualties. They do not form a regular standing army, they do not identify themselves, and if killed there is no distinction between a Hezbollah fighter and a civilian. The action was very much illegal, unless there was an open state of war between these two countries, even the breaking of a cease fire would be an illegal act, as it breaks the ceasefire. The idea of not listing this as kidnappings only servers the POV of promoting Hezbollah as a standing legal army, which they are not according to the United Nations. --zero faults |sockpuppets| 15:55, 28 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: There is no note on ransom in the Geneva conventions that I can see. If you cite one I'll take that back. Hezbollah have, in fact, and continue to wear uniforms and identify themselves as combatants. They are legally part of the Lebanese Government, making them technically a "Power" under the very conventions you name. Those fighting for Hezbollah out of uniform are subject prosecution. However, most armies engage in non-convential warfare to some degree. The armies are rarely held liable, only the individual combatants  are prosecuted as violating the laws of war. Yet, the only constant here is war, in war people are captured, sorry. Unless you have evidence that the soldiers that captured the Israeli soldiers were not in uniform at the time, you have no ground to stand on. Breaking a ceasefire is not illegal. There is no court which can prosecute a country breaking a cease-fire. Where there is no law there is no crime. As for an open state of war, the cease-fire was with lebanon, not with Hezbollah, now that hezbollah has become part of lebanon, technically lebanon violated cease-fire. Countries violate ceasefire all the time. Finally the idea that initial action doesn't count as an act of war is stupid. It would be like saying Hitler's invasion of Poland was not an act of war because there was no war. Reprehensible, Godawful, terrible, pick as many adjectives as you like to describe the capture, but a capture is a capture is a capture. Finally the UN called for Hezbollah to disband, no mention was made as to whether it was "recognized" that's not what the UN does anyway. Angrynight 16:45, 28 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Hezbollah militants are not part of the government, you seem to be mistaking the people in office with those that fire rockets into towns in Israel, they are not one in the same. Hence why they claim ignorant of the attack and of knowing where the soldier is etc. Article 13 of the Third Geneva Convention specifically states "Prisoners of war must at all times be protected, particularly against acts of violence or intimidation and against insults and public curiosity." Having their lives threatened if a prisoner swap is not conducted violates that. Furthermore you have not ackowledged the issue of Hezbollah being an illegal group under the eyes of the United Nations, therefore their actions are not sanctioned by their own government nor any world body, nor are they recognized as legitamate by any world body. Since they are illegal, not sanctioned, not recognized, they are an illegally operating group, and as such their actions are illegal, making it a kidnapping. You can dodge the issue ally ou want, but a band of people wearing the same arm band is not a recognized army. Also they are not a power because they are not recognized by the Labanese government, if one senator said I reconize this Nazi militia, it doesnt mean the US recognizes that nazi militia. Lebanon cannot recognize them, they were already ordered disbanded many many years ago. You have yet to prove their "recognized" status, by whom are they recognized? --zero faults |sockpuppets| 17:25, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

text: *Sigh* I am going to say this one more time. The UN does not consider them a terrorist group.Not even the EU considers them one. The UN language refers to them as a "militia". It considers them to be in violation of a resolution. But entire countries ignore resolutions it doesn't make them a non-entity that can suddenly no longer conduct war.  Also, again, this is not Iraq, they are not going to kill the soldier, but will certainly hold on to him as long as they can. Even if they did, it means they committed a war crime and has no bearing on their identity as a recognizable army. It doesn't matter if Lebanon recognizes them. Read the Geneva convention, it was there when the US fought the revolution and hasn't changed much in this regard. Just because the British considered them an internal insurrection it did not alter their status under the conventions. Many of Hezbollah conduct operations in full military clothing march in regalia. Just because a large proportion do not, it does not mean that they are not, at least on occassion, recognizable as combatants. Recognizibilty is battlefield trait, not a political one. Carrying arms openly is technically the bare minimum. Political recognition is unimportant in the conventions. To claim that the raids into lebanon were perpetrated by the ununiformed is unverified and unlikley since numerous films by Hezbollah documenting attacks have demonstrated that they prefer to don uniform in such raids and even suicide attacks. They are not Hamas, and incurse into Israel with a preference for military members.Angrynight 00:40, 29 July 2006 (UTC)

text: Where do you get what is and isnt an act of war? I would like to see this source of yours stating kidnapping is not an act of war but capturing is. Considering kidnapping is illegal and capturing isnt, I do not see why capturing would be an act of war and the illegal counter part not. --zero faults |sockpuppets| 17:30, 28 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: You miss my point. In war, we can agree, people get captured. Historically and as recently as Iraq capture of prisoners is an acceptable goal for a belligerent force. Whether they wish to exploit them for intelligence or for other prisoners, it has been and continues to be done without restriction from the conventions. When you attack an outpost to capture a prisoner to exchange him for other prisoners during a cease-fire, you break a ceasefire (which has its own consequences, but is not itself a crime) If there was a peace, maybe this would be another situation. Kidnap is not mentioned in the conventions as far as I can tell (once again you can do your own research). If kidnap is not a factor in the law, then there is no law, and where there is no law, there is no crime. Ironically this is especially so because Israel is not a signatory to the International Criminal Court, which may allow your charges of kidnapping. Since the Conventions are descriptive of both conventional and non-conventional warefare, it says everything, or doesn't. Please put a space in the edit page between comments from different users to make it easier to determine when and where comments start and stop. Angrynight 00:40, 29 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Its against Israeli law to illegally enter the country and remove persons from it. Hence why its against the law to kidnap. This group did that. I dont know why you are attempting to complicate the issue with international law etc. Capturing soldiers on a battle field is legal, however these soldiers were not on the battle field, they were in their own country, on the opposite side on a UN barrier. They were illegally removed during a time of peace (technically) from their country, ie kidnapped. The definitions speak for themselves. Illegally removing people is kidnapping. --zero faults |sockpuppets| 16:00, 29 July 2006 (UTC)

text: I didnt say you, I said the idea. Do not take everything so personally. --zero faults |sockpuppets| 16:02, 29 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Discussion about the captured soldiers

message: Tewfik again without discussion and against consensus has changed from "captured" to "abducted". Please Tewfik, be aware this is a salomonic choice, I am not happy with capture either, but it is as close as an NPOV we will get. You are fast becoming a vandal in my eyes...--Cerejota 03:59, 17 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: If Osama bin Laden kidnaps you, would you consider yourself a POW? Remember, war had not even started yet, since there isn't even an official declaration of war (as required by the Geneva Conventions). --Terrancommander 15:33, 21 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The Geneva Conventions explicitly say they apply equally to undeclared wars. When was the last time a major world power declared war? And the war or "conflict" starts with the first act of war or "conflict" such as an attack on enemy soldiers.Edison 00:15, 23 July 2006 (UTC)

text: If I were a soldier, yes.--Paraphelion 15:35, 21 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Remember, war has not started yet, you call him a Prisoner of War? Wrong context. And, they're terrorists, not even proper participants. Does that mean Israel has a 58 year-long war lasting from 1948? Cause there's not been a single year without violence. --Terrancommander 15:40, 21 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: *You might be on to something here. One could see this conflict as part of an ongoing civil-war between two groups of Palestine inhabitants. MX44 04:37, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

text: I'd suggest you read Prisoner of War before commenting. --Terrancommander 15:44, 21 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Conflict has started, regardless targetting of soldiers is capturing.  also note that civilians killed is not called murder anywhere in the article, other than quotes from involved parties.  the article doesn't call them all terrorists.  Yeah I read the entry on POV, perhaps you should re-read it. - "who is imprisoned by an enemy power during or immediately after an armed conflict".  This is a conflict.  And nice try on the 58 year old war rhetoric.--Paraphelion 15:54, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

text: There is nothing about the word "capture" that does not suggest they are not people.  Yes, out of nowhere, as if by aliens visiting earth for the first time.  And just as if I were doing my job, say I don't know, making biscuits.  Making biscuits is about on the same level as border patrol.--Paraphelion 15:54, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

text: Yes, it should be just like making biscuits if there is no war. The point is that Hezbollah specifically stated that the aim of the operation was to take these soldiers, they weren't captured incedental to combat. TewfikTalk 16:26, 21 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I diagree that soldiers on border patrol should not be significantly more expected to be the tartget of an attack, be it killing or capture, than civilians.--Paraphelion 16:30, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

text:  What is the source that states there was a Hezbollah "operation" to capture these soldiers in Israel? Were they not captured during an Israeli operation in Lebanon? See references to Aitaa al-Chaab / Aaita ech Chaab above. David O'C 20:26, 23 July 2006 (UTC)

text: Countries declare wars, terrorist groups cannot. Hezbollah is a terrorist group and as such as was required to be disarmed some time ago by the United Nations. These soldiers were not captured as can be seen by Hezbollahs own actions in violation of the Geneva Convention. Captured soldiers have rights and cannot have their lives threatened, these soldiers were obviously abducted, but I have made this arguement before. --zero faults |sockpuppets| 12:26, 24 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, you've made this "argument" before, and it's just as much a non sequitur then as now.  When Hezbollah captured those soldiers (of a GC III signatory, no less), they undertook a responsibility to treat them accordingly.  If they fail to do so, then Hezbollah can be said to have violated the GCIII -- called a "war crime".  But any such violations, had they occurred, in no way change the status of the captured soldiers.  At least that's how it would go if logic had a place here.  Instead, we have "policies":  since we are to slavishly follow the external concensus no matter how stupid or contrary to the plain, obvious facts and trivial deductions made therefrom (cf. "war" vs. "conflict" in the archives), then the words "kidnapped" and "abducted" and similar must be used in this article, as they clearly dominate in the references used by the article.  mdf 14:19, 24 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Hezbollah isnt a signatory of the Geneva Convention, they do not operate under any guidelines of the Geneva Convention, they are group of people the UN calls a terrorist group. They cannot take prisoners as they are not an army, they abduct people because they are a band of terrorists. You try so hard to have it treated like Hezbollah is a military, they are a terrorist group in the eyes of the world. The country they operate in does not acknowledge them and was told by the United Nations to disarm them. --zero faults |sockpuppets| 11:52, 25 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: captured?

message: It has been brought to my attention that the discussion (Talk:2006 Israel-Lebanon crisis/Archive3#Capture vs Abduct) regarding the validity of "abducted" as a characterisation of the taking of the two Israeli soldiers, as opposed to capture, had not been resolved at the time. Does anybody feel that it would be neutral to use a term other than capture to convey the nature of the soldiers' being taken in contrast to a standard Prisoner of war case? The majority expressed being in favour of using abducted at the time (if I understood the archive correctly). TewfikTalk 06:21, 27 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I may have lost track with all the page moves and archiving but the first time this came up, it was capture that held consensus. MLA 06:41, 27 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: You may be thinking of capture versus kidnap. You can see the discussion here. TewfikTalk 14:42, 27 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I thought militaries capture soldiers. Where are these soldiers and military on the Lebanese side? --zero faults |sockpuppets| 16:29, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

text: They don't think that they operate illegally, that's the whole point. Zocky | picture popups 12:34, 28 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: It really does not matter, if a masked murder feels he is doing gods work it doesnt make his crimes not murder. There is a concensus on their legality, in the worlds view that is, its a bit higher then our community here. --zero faults |sockpuppets| 15:50, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

text: And besides what they consider themselves, there is no effective system of law under which the capture of these soldiers falls under, or which they are subject to.  Which is why a war has started, and which rather than focusing on purely a retrieval effort is mainly concerned with destruction of an enemy completely independent of the so-called crime.--Paraphelion 13:17, 28 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I am not sure if this is adressing me, but the fact that there is no law addressing this is because Hezbollah oeprates outside all international convention regarding laws of war. Which is why the UN called for thier disarmament. Your statement there is no effective system of law under which the capture of these soldiers falls under" is because the soldiers are not "captured" they are hostages, they were kidnapped. Hence the definitions above. --zero faults |sockpuppets| 15:49, 28 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: My statement there is no effective system of law under which the capture of these soldiers falls under" means the act was not unlawful since no laws apply to it.  So by your definition, they cannot have been kidnapped.--Paraphelion 18:34, 28 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The groups existence is against the ruling of the United Nations. Its also illegal to enter a soveriegn state and forcefully abduct people from it, its called kidnapping. I am almost 100% sure that there are laws regardering kidnapping in Israel, if I find one will this debate be over? There is also laws against illegally entering the country I am sure, and then there is murder since they did kill people while over the border. I will have to look up weapons laws, not sure if you need a permit or something of that sort to carry military grade weapons in Israel however. --zero faults |sockpuppets| 19:32, 28 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Hezbollah are not Israeli subjects.  Israel is not prosecuting this issue through the Israeli legal system.  They are not even negotiating international law with Lebanon.  They are using their might as they see right.  These actions are all taking place outside of law.  The United Nations is not yet a world government under which all are held to its laws.  At best it's a dictatorship of a few powerful countries who sit on the security council and vote on how they will impose their will on others, presumably for the betterment of the world.  I'm not even sure UN rulings are described as law, but rather conventions, prohibitions, sanctions, etc.  Anyone can make up rules and claim someone else is breaking them and then call them criminals, but it doesn't make it so.  People routinely enter a soveriegn state and forcefully abduct people from it.  For instance the US keeps many of these abductees in offshore prisons specifically meant to circumvent their own laws, say Israel has captured Hezbollah in Lebanon - they are not doing so on behalf of the UN, citing some UN law.  They are doing it because they can and no one will stop them. --Paraphelion 21:00, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

text: Actually, the drama is your call to sentiment and labelling as a game, all opposed to your rhetoric.  Go back to lifting out of context passages from weapon conventions.--Paraphelion 13:17, 28 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: If you cant be civil refrain from addressing me. --zero faults |sockpuppets| 15:49, 28 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Really must you keep at this game of drama.--Paraphelion 18:34, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

text: This is false, prisoners of war cannot be held for ransom unless in vioaltion of the geneva convention, furthermore the lives of such POW's cannot be threatened, also would be a violation of the geneva convention. As for your distinction of capture and kidnap, Hezbollah is made up of civilians, hence the problem with counting casualties. They do not form a regular standing army, they do not identify themselves, and if killed there is no distinction between a Hezbollah fighter and a civilian. The action was very much illegal, unless there was an open state of war between these two countries, even the breaking of a cease fire would be an illegal act, as it breaks the ceasefire. The idea of not listing this as kidnappings only servers the POV of promoting Hezbollah as a standing legal army, which they are not according to the United Nations. --zero faults |sockpuppets| 15:55, 28 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: There is no note on ransom in the Geneva conventions that I can see. If you cite one I'll take that back. Hezbollah have, in fact, and continue to wear uniforms and identify themselves as combatants. They are legally part of the Lebanese Government, making them technically a "Power" under the very conventions you name. Those fighting for Hezbollah out of uniform are subject prosecution. However, most armies engage in non-convential warfare to some degree. The armies are rarely held liable, only the individual combatants  are prosecuted as violating the laws of war. Yet, the only constant here is war, in war people are captured, sorry. Unless you have evidence that the soldiers that captured the Israeli soldiers were not in uniform at the time, you have no ground to stand on. Breaking a ceasefire is not illegal. There is no court which can prosecute a country breaking a cease-fire. Where there is no law there is no crime. As for an open state of war, the cease-fire was with lebanon, not with Hezbollah, now that hezbollah has become part of lebanon, technically lebanon violated cease-fire. Countries violate ceasefire all the time. Finally the idea that initial action doesn't count as an act of war is stupid. It would be like saying Hitler's invasion of Poland was not an act of war because there was no war. Reprehensible, Godawful, terrible, pick as many adjectives as you like to describe the capture, but a capture is a capture is a capture. Finally the UN called for Hezbollah to disband, no mention was made as to whether it was "recognized" that's not what the UN does anyway. Angrynight 16:45, 28 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Hezbollah militants are not part of the government, you seem to be mistaking the people in office with those that fire rockets into towns in Israel, they are not one in the same. Hence why they claim ignorant of the attack and of knowing where the soldier is etc. Article 13 of the Third Geneva Convention specifically states "Prisoners of war must at all times be protected, particularly against acts of violence or intimidation and against insults and public curiosity." Having their lives threatened if a prisoner swap is not conducted violates that. Furthermore you have not ackowledged the issue of Hezbollah being an illegal group under the eyes of the United Nations, therefore their actions are not sanctioned by their own government nor any world body, nor are they recognized as legitamate by any world body. Since they are illegal, not sanctioned, not recognized, they are an illegally operating group, and as such their actions are illegal, making it a kidnapping. You can dodge the issue ally ou want, but a band of people wearing the same arm band is not a recognized army. Also they are not a power because they are not recognized by the Labanese government, if one senator said I reconize this Nazi militia, it doesnt mean the US recognizes that nazi militia. Lebanon cannot recognize them, they were already ordered disbanded many many years ago. You have yet to prove their "recognized" status, by whom are they recognized? --zero faults |sockpuppets| 17:25, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

text: *Sigh* I am going to say this one more time. The UN does not consider them a terrorist group.Not even the EU considers them one. The UN language refers to them as a "militia". It considers them to be in violation of a resolution. But entire countries ignore resolutions it doesn't make them a non-entity that can suddenly no longer conduct war.  Also, again, this is not Iraq, they are not going to kill the soldier, but will certainly hold on to him as long as they can. Even if they did, it means they committed a war crime and has no bearing on their identity as a recognizable army. It doesn't matter if Lebanon recognizes them. Read the Geneva convention, it was there when the US fought the revolution and hasn't changed much in this regard. Just because the British considered them an internal insurrection it did not alter their status under the conventions. Many of Hezbollah conduct operations in full military clothing march in regalia. Just because a large proportion do not, it does not mean that they are not, at least on occassion, recognizable as combatants. Recognizibilty is battlefield trait, not a political one. Carrying arms openly is technically the bare minimum. Political recognition is unimportant in the conventions. To claim that the raids into lebanon were perpetrated by the ununiformed is unverified and unlikley since numerous films by Hezbollah documenting attacks have demonstrated that they prefer to don uniform in such raids and even suicide attacks. They are not Hamas, and incurse into Israel with a preference for military members.Angrynight 00:40, 29 July 2006 (UTC)

text: Where do you get what is and isnt an act of war? I would like to see this source of yours stating kidnapping is not an act of war but capturing is. Considering kidnapping is illegal and capturing isnt, I do not see why capturing would be an act of war and the illegal counter part not. --zero faults |sockpuppets| 17:30, 28 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: You miss my point. In war, we can agree, people get captured. Historically and as recently as Iraq capture of prisoners is an acceptable goal for a belligerent force. Whether they wish to exploit them for intelligence or for other prisoners, it has been and continues to be done without restriction from the conventions. When you attack an outpost to capture a prisoner to exchange him for other prisoners during a cease-fire, you break a ceasefire (which has its own consequences, but is not itself a crime) If there was a peace, maybe this would be another situation. Kidnap is not mentioned in the conventions as far as I can tell (once again you can do your own research). If kidnap is not a factor in the law, then there is no law, and where there is no law, there is no crime. Ironically this is especially so because Israel is not a signatory to the International Criminal Court, which may allow your charges of kidnapping. Since the Conventions are descriptive of both conventional and non-conventional warefare, it says everything, or doesn't. Please put a space in the edit page between comments from different users to make it easier to determine when and where comments start and stop. Angrynight 00:40, 29 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Its against Israeli law to illegally enter the country and remove persons from it. Hence why its against the law to kidnap. This group did that. I dont know why you are attempting to complicate the issue with international law etc. Capturing soldiers on a battle field is legal, however these soldiers were not on the battle field, they were in their own country, on the opposite side on a UN barrier. They were illegally removed during a time of peace (technically) from their country, ie kidnapped. The definitions speak for themselves. Illegally removing people is kidnapping. --zero faults |sockpuppets| 16:00, 29 July 2006 (UTC)

text: I didnt say you, I said the idea. Do not take everything so personally. --zero faults |sockpuppets| 16:02, 29 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Captured vs abducted vs ??? 

message: Removed statement about chemical weapons because I didn't think this article looked credible and the rest of the site is in Arabic so I'm not sure what kind of site it is : As-Safir newspaper also ran a story about alleged use of unknown chemical weapons, citing a member of the "French Association of Cardiovascular Surgeons"  "Israeli Agression on Lebanon", July 19 and 21, 2006, in As-Safir, Retrieved on 2006-07-16..
However I did find other articles about chemical weapons : 
This one claims this picture is of a scene in Lebanon of an IDF soldier handling a chemical weapon shell : 
This one claims that chemical weapons from Iraq were passed to Syria and then to Hezbolla : --Paraphelion 12:50, 22 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I had no intenion of adding anything based on these sources.  I mentioned them to show what little and low quality there is for this topic, after having removed the statement on it.--Paraphelion 16:22, 22 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  chemical weapons 

message: ===Please Visit [www.Uruknet.com]; the real reasons why Israel has attacked Lebanon===
Read the articles about the new oil pipeline near Lebanon nd Syria, the article about the Russian plans for a naval base near the temrinal, and how the U.S. wanted to have a base near the pipeline to secure it for both ISraeli and American interests. Its nice to hear that there will be foreign troops in Lebanon maybe the U.S. will get its base after all. 
READ THIS...then you will see why Israel is attacking Lebanon (not Hezbollah, but all Lebanon) and why the U.S. and Britain have savatoged all ceasefire agreements...
http://www.globalresearch.ca/index.php?context=viewArticle&code=CHO20060726&articleId=2824
An article on the oil link with the Israeli attacks
http://www.globalresearch.ca/index.php?context=viewArticle&code=20060728&articleId=2839
the Russian base in Syria
http://www.globalresearch.ca/index.php?context=viewArticle&code=20060523&articleId=2508
The militarization of the area near the oil pipeline
http://www.uruknet.info/?p=m25004&hd=0&size=1&l=e
The murder of Hariri according to intelligence sources and his opposition to U.S. base in Northern Lebanon....the U.S, base was for securing the oil pipeline
http://www.rense.com/general63/aahi.htm
The murder of Hariri according to intelligence sources and his opposition to U.S. base in Northern Lebanon
http://www.uruknet.info/?p=m25005&hd=0&size=1&l=e
Lebanon as also a pretext for war in Iran, to secure Iranian oil too
===How was the beginning of the conflict?===
I see different narrations about the beginning of conflict in the article 2006 Israel-Lebanon conflict.Please look at these  , ,.And also look at this  . And if you look at the earlier edition of the article  you'll find a link to AP report on 12 July which isn't accessible now. Indeed there isn't any agreement about what has happened. So we should write all of the narrations in the articles equally and we can't judge which one is correct.--Accessible 12:39, 27 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: If something is removed, it is obviously incorrect. There are very good sources saying it was on Israel soil(Al Jazeera, CNN, BBC, NYTimes), and very poor ones saying it was on Lebanon soil.--Doom777 14:15, 27 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: If you look at the article, then you find this part doesn't have fact.
"At 9:05 AM local time (06:05 CET), on 12 July 2006, Hezbollah initiated a rocket and mortar attack on Israeli military positions and on the villages of Even Menahem and Mattat, injuring 11 soldiers and civilians[citation needed]. "
So I don't agree with you that " If something is removed, it is obviously incorrect. "--Sa.vakilian 14:20, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

text: Actually, if you look at Wikipedia's own page on the Gaza beach blast, you'll see that a German newspaper has raised significant questions about the blast, suggesting that at least the video footage of the aftermath may have been staged.  In any case, the blast may have been caused by any number of things, including a Palestinian land mine, unexploded IDF ordinance, or indeed shelling by the IDF. Valtam 16:29, 28 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Discussion about casu belli/purpose military operations

message: I see different narrations about the beginning of conflict in the article 2006 Israel-Lebanon conflict.Please look at these  , ,.And also look at this  . And if you look at the earlier edition of the article  you'll find a link to AP report on 12 July which isn't accessible now. Indeed there isn't any agreement about what has happened. So we should write all of the narrations in the articles equally and we can't judge which one is correct.--Accessible 12:39, 27 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: If something is removed, it is obviously incorrect. There are very good sources saying it was on Israel soil(Al Jazeera, CNN, BBC, NYTimes), and very poor ones saying it was on Lebanon soil.--Doom777 14:15, 27 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: If you look at the article, then you find this part doesn't have fact.
"At 9:05 AM local time (06:05 CET), on 12 July 2006, Hezbollah initiated a rocket and mortar attack on Israeli military positions and on the villages of Even Menahem and Mattat, injuring 11 soldiers and civilians[citation needed]. "
So I don't agree with you that " If something is removed, it is obviously incorrect. "--Sa.vakilian 14:20, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

text: Actually, if you look at Wikipedia's own page on the Gaza beach blast, you'll see that a German newspaper has raised significant questions about the blast, suggesting that at least the video footage of the aftermath may have been staged.  In any case, the blast may have been caused by any number of things, including a Palestinian land mine, unexploded IDF ordinance, or indeed shelling by the IDF. Valtam 16:29, 28 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: How was the beginning of the conflict?

message: It seems that either AP (Joseph Panossian) substantially changed its story during the course of the day on July 12, or local editors/publishers of the story did. As noted by Guerrilla News Network:
The Associated Press departed from the official version as well. “The militant group Hezbollah captured two Israeli soldiers during clashes Wednesday across the border in southern Lebanon, prompting a swift reaction from Israel, which sent ground forces into its neighbor to look for them,” reported Joseph Panossian for AP on July 12. “The forces were trying to keep the soldiers’ captors from moving them deeper into Lebanon, Israeli government officials said on condition of anonymity.”  
The first sentence quoted (my bold) is only present in early versions of the article:  
Later in the day, the sentence had been changed to "Hezbollah militants crossed into Israel on Wednesday and captured two Israeli soldiers. Israel responded in southern Lebanon with warplanes, tanks and gunboats, and said eight of its soldiers had been killed in the violence."   
In another instance, on a less reputable site, AP apparently said: "Hezbollah said Wednesday its guerrillas captured two Israeli soldiers in a cross-border raid, triggering Israeli airstrikes on southern Lebanon and widespread clashes along the frontier that killed two Lebanese civilians."  Hezbollah said that? Are you sure, FindLaw? No one else seems to have interpreteed the AP story that way. "Cross-border raid" also becomes vague here, because in the first item above, "across the border" meant "in southern Lebanon". 
Is AP itself ever the party updating the story during something like this? Or are the publishers editing/"updating" it? As I understand it, and I'm by no means an expert here, publishers of AP content are generally allowed to edit AP stories for fit, but not to substantially change their meaning. Off the top of my head I'm aware of a previous controversy, when newspaper publisher Canwest Global was inserting the word "terrorist" in AP articles relating to certain Palestinian groups a couple years ago.
Just trying to put the pieces together here. Am I missing something?
Btw, can anyone find a copy of the Agence France-Press article, cited in the GNN article I quoted above, on a "reputable" website for similar comparison purposes? The cited article - the one that apparently says "According to the Lebanese police force, the two Israeli soldiers were captured in Lebanese territory" - may have been first published in another language (French?). Of course we have that same fact in this English-language story. heqs 20:06, 26 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The yahoo India page is the only one that says today that the kidnapping/arrest occured in Lebanon. Most other sources say it was in Israel. --Doom777 20:22, 26 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Not true. As I just pointed out, there are many copies/versions of a July 12 AP report that says "The militant group Hezbollah captured two Israeli soldiers during clashes Wednesday across the border in southern Lebanon". heqs 20:50, 26 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: And as I pointed out above, very very reputable sources have acknowledged that this happened on Israeli soil, including Al Jazeera, CNN, BBC, NYTimes, and more--Doom777 02:34, 27 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm not disputing that. You said "the yahoo India page is the only one", that's not true, there's AP and AFP. I'm trying to draw attention to what happened July 12 with a "very very" reputable source: AP, to see if anyone has any insight. I don't think anything to do with the seminal events of July 12, media included, should be overlooked. heqs 07:41, 27 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: So the AP story was written before anyone knew anything. The facts came out. And I don't have the source, but I've seen the two burning Hummers on TV, and the camera crew said it was in Israel. --Doom777 14:27, 27 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Once again: I'm not debating what happened. I'm discussing the news itself. I think it helps to illuminate the situation, and probably should be noted in this article or one of the related articles. heqs 03:02, 28 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Changes in AP story on July 12 

message: It seems that there are far more pictures of suffering Lebanese people than suffering Israelis. In addition, the suffering of the Lebanese people is shown more prominently since the picture at the top of the article only depicts their suffering. Would anybody mind if I did the following to try and fix this? :
* Comment out some pictures of Lebanese people suffering so that the amount of pictures depicting the suffering of either side is equal
* Change the picture at the top of the page to be 2 images next to each other, with each image depicting suffering in a different country
-- Where 21:43, 26 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Go for it. --Doom777 22:09, 26 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Aren't there a disproportionate number of Lebanese casualties (at least 2.5:1) and displaced (not even close, going by #s in article)? heqs 22:19, 26 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes!! Around 20x more Lebanese have been killed than Israelis (if we looked at the children killed, that ratio would be even higher) - so on what basis is equal representation of pictures of people suffering justifiable?   ρ¡ρρµ δ→θ∑ - (waarom? jus'b'coz!) 22:22, 26 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  yes, do not confuse neutrality with equality. --200.88.223.98 22:31, 26 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: If there have been 20x more children killed on one side than the other, I would expect that there will be more photos floating around depicting that reality.  This is especially so if dead bodies of children need to be left out in the open for days on end, in street gutters, on ditches by the side of the road, etc, if the Red Cross, the UN, or indeed anyone, cannot go and retrieve them.  ρ¡ρρµ δ→θ∑ - (waarom? jus'b'coz!) 00:27, 27 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  I actually agreed with you. --200.88.223.98 15:43, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

text: Speaking of pictoral bias, the image of the map of Lebanon showing where Israeli airstrikes were targeted renames Israel "Occupied Palestine" at the very bottom. Hmm. (PatDonovan130 05:24, 27 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  Definitely. Also, this is another subject. This topic is about the number of images, not the quality of individual ones. --200.88.223.98 15:43, 27 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Pictoral bias? 

message: If anyone finds any information relating events going on in Lebanon or in Gaza to this event, please post in article. (Just stating cause it's possible) (AP source) Hello32020 01:08, 29 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: From the Seattle Post-Intelligencer:  At least five people were shot - one fatally - this afternoon at the Jewish Federation of Greater Seattle by a man a witness said was upset about "what was going on in Israel." Perhaps we should add a sentence somewhere saying that initial reports indicate that the shooter may have been motivated by the 2006 Israel-Lebanon conflict? I'd prefer to hear other's opinions before adding this to the article. GabrielF 01:17, 29 July 2006 (UTC)

text: Good idea. Hello32020
I think this article is long enough - perhaps add it to the International reactions to the 2006 Israel-Lebanon conflict ? --Iorek85 01:33, 29 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[July 2006 Seattle Jewish Center shooting]]