Talk:2006 Qana airstrike/Archive 1

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

You have new messages (last change).

Contents

[edit] Name

What we called this atrocity? Robin Hood 1212 13:40, 30 July 2006 (UTC) The building was striked TWO times. Robin Hood 1212 13:42, 30 July 2006 (UTC)

The article on the site is a complete distortion of facts. In the first paragraph it is claimed that “after some time the building collapsed”, that’s not what the whole world thinks. Who wrote this dribble? IDF Spokesperson? Utter rubbish. Becase

[edit] Name Change

If you are going to call this article Second Qana Shelling, then to be consistent you should change the name of the 1996 shelling of Qana article to First Qana Shelling. Cymruisrael 13:58, 30 July 2006 (UTC)

But it wasn't a shelling. It was an air strike. This article shouldn't be called a shelling, that is misleading.

Very true, in which case this sentence "The circumstances were similar to those of a 1996 incident in which over 100 civilians died." should also be removed. Cymruisrael 14:28, 30 July 2006 (UTC)
I've adjusted the wording to "reminiscent" instead of similiar because this was not an artillery strike. Emax0 20:29, 30 July 2006 (UTC)
I suggest renaming to "2006 bombing of Qana".--Wedian 14:37, 30 July 2006 (UTC)
First and second Qana massacres--TheFEARgod 14:14, 30 July 2006 (UTC)
Are you stupid? Massacre? Hezbollah is shooting rockets out off places like this on purpose; the fault is on their hands, not Israel's. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 80.178.127.74 (talk • contribs).

Depends who you believe "unsigned". (me)

Not only is that a personal attack, but it's also rather misinformed. The CNN article says: "Israel said it mistakenly destroyed a four-story building near a Hezbollah rocket-launching site in Qana, Lebanon." That really annoying spokesperson who's interviewed on CNN every day said there will be a "full investigation." So obviously even Israel admits it's their own fault. ugen64 14:56, 30 July 2006 (UTC)
Oh yeah? Israel's long-infested history of massacres (over 70), is evidence that this was indeed another massacre, another murder...LebanonChild 21:31, 30 July 2006 (UTC)

IMO, there should be a disambig statement at the top of each article like, This article is about the 2006 shelling. For the shelling of Qana during Operation Grapes of Wrath, see 1996 shelling of Qana. -Fsotrain09 14:44, 30 July 2006 (UTC)

There is no need for a disambiguation notice if the article titles are already unambiguous, as they are now. – Smyth\talk 20:31, 30 July 2006 (UTC)

It is a terrible tragedy, but it is not a massacre because it was not intentional. There was a Hezbollah outpost nearby. Israel realized that this was a terrible mistake and that is why they are having a ceasefire for 48 hours, but it shouldn't be viewed as a massacre. --Sagtkd 00:53, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

What ceasefire? They violated that too..These people have no ethics. Of course it was intentional. No one believes them anymore. Where should libanese go? There are no safe routes to flee, and every moving car is a target...even ambulances! When they hit UN post killing 4 ppl, they had been already warned not to do so several times. The bastards r bloodthursty, they are up for a genocide. And we still call it another air strike...What do u expect them to say? That they intentioally killed so many children? Its a massacre!213.5.32.247 22:34, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

Anyone saying it should be named "massacre" needs to go read up on WP:NPOV. The current article name seems fine; it's more descriptive than merely "bombing" or "massacre" anyway. --Cyde↔Weys 22:44, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Wording of rocket-launching claim

I think the claim of a rocket-launching site in the first paragraph should be attributed to Israel instead of being stated as a fact, since it has not been independently verified.

changed the wording accordingly. Arnob 15:38, 30 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Hezbollah is using civilian areas as firing grounds

You can read this article about photos smuggled out of Lebanon clearly showing how Hezbollah is using civilian areas as firing grounds. http://www.news.com.au/adelaidenow/story/0,22606,19960056-5006301,00.html I think this qualifies as a reliable source. Yossiea 13:52, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

Although the article claims that the pictures show that Hezbollah hides "heavy weapons in the residential areas of southern Lebanon", what you actually see are six pictures, whereof three show fighters posing on and around a small-calibre truck-mounted anti-aircraft gun close to some apartment blocks, one show a bomb crater in a road with a wrecked semi-trailer in the background, and the remaining two show fighters armed with rifles standing on a hilltop overlooking a village where a big fire is raging. Anti-aircraft guns are defensive weapons which are normally positioned near the objective they are supposed to protect, so there's noting sinister about that. The article also states that the pictures were taken "clandestinely" and then "smuggled" out of Lebanon, as "images and footage of Hezbollah activities taken by local newspapers and TV crews are routinely seized by the group’s fighters at road blocks." However, these pictures show Hezbollah fighters posing for the camera, so they were hardly taken "clandestinely" and against their will. Considering that the newspaper in question belongs to Rupert Murdoch's News Corporation (Fox News, The Sun, News of the World, The New York Post etc.), the inaccuracies are hardly surprising. Thomas Blomberg 14:58, 31 July 2006 (UTC)
That's a NNPOV, that only newspapers supporting your views are acceptable. And there are other articles that show that the bodies taken out of the building were of bodies that have been dead for quite a while, rigor mortis set in, no blood at all, etc. This looks like it's going to be another "Jenin Massacre" story. In addition, here's a blog that analyzed the photos:

http://eureferendum.blogspot.com/2006/07/milking-it.html and here's a news article regarding the strike: http://web.israelinsider.com/Articles/Diplomacy/8997.htm The fact that the collapse happened hours after the strike and nobody was allowed access to the site until AFTER the collapse has to make people stop and contemplate whether the strike caused the collapse or other items caused the collapse. Yossiea 15:17, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

I'm not at all convinced by the second link. Some of it's facts are in contradiction to other reports - for example no survivors. The BBC clearly showed at least one child being removed with the commentary stating that the child was alive and being taken to hospital, so the claim that these were all bodies from a morgue is contradicted. The BBC also reported that most died of sufforcation so the contrast with victims of other blasts is given a credible explanation. The Fisk piece cited elsewhere on this page also identifies survivors in hospital confirming the BBC report that there were survivors from the collapse. Whatever the cause of the collapse I don't think claims that dead bodies were planted for effect look credible.

[edit] Air Strike

Who is a witness that saw it was an Air strike that caused a house to collapse?

Are you kiddin'? --68.14.110.73 05:35, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Added detail of 2 convoys that were bombed previously

There are other instances but I used 2 examples- one convoy fleeing north- one convoy moving East from Syria. 82.29.227.171 21:03, 30 July 2006 (UTC)

Is this really relevant or just propaganda? Omarthesecound 22:02, 30 July 2006 (UTC)
Believe its relevant, they were hit with the leaflets apparently telling them to flee. There are a number of reports of convoys fleeing areas that have been hit with the leaflets. Also reports of UN aid convoys being hit, and foreign aid convoys being hit. Like anyone else I can only go by whats reported by the major news agencies. 82.29.227.171 21:46, 30 July 2006 (UTC)
We have read and listern to the news, but how is it relevat to this article(2006 Qana airstrike) Omarthesecound 22:01, 30 July 2006 (UTC)
" AFP reported that nearly half of the 37 children killed were physically or mentally handicapped children awaiting evacuation. The BBC maintained that because Israel was bombing roads, many civilians were too afraid to move and leave their homes"
I posted details on the previous attacks on the convoys to demonstrate that their fears were real and not imagined. My feeling is that it was likely they, living in the country, wouldve heard about those attacks and many other attacks we dont hear about- giving them good reason to be fearful. As the first source indicates there was also fear amongst truck drivers ferrying aid, its likely the fear generated by the air campaign forced many to stay in makeshift shelters such as that one. 82.29.227.171 22:17, 30 July 2006 (UTC)
Notice you removed the sentence 4 minutes before I posted [1]. Please settle it here with argument against stating why attacks on fleeing/aid convoys which cause fear amongst civilians and force them into makeshift bomb shelters is "not relevant". Would like to avoid an edit war. Thanks 82.29.227.171 22:23, 30 July 2006 (UTC)
Your point has already been made, now it sound like propaganda Omarthesecound 22:29, 30 July 2006 (UTC)
You misunderstood the point. I gave 2 examples of convoy bombing proving that their fears were right and they likely thought they were right to stay where they were. I cited two articles describing them, and the fear these attacks generated. The preceeding sentence in the article says "roads" were bombed. Point I am making is that convoys were targets. That isnt propaganda its just accurate description of what they were doing in a makeshift bunker. It belongs in the article, its cited, what sounds like propaganda? 82.29.227.171 22:52, 30 July 2006 (UTC)
Notice you previously deleted relevant information from the article before deleting what I edited in. Notice that the people just put it back in again, I will do that too as you havent come up with any argument against including my edit.
  • your removal [2] contrast with Olmert quote [3]
  • your removal [4] contrast with BBC article [5] 82.29.227.171 23:13, 30 July 2006 (UTC)
You point has already been made in: "The BBC maintained that because Israel was bombing roads, many civilians were too afraid to move and leave their homes". There is no need to make this point again. Please let keep this article balanced. My other removals was also because it was already mentioned in the article.143.160.124.41 07:34, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

Please be clear. The BBC article about this specific incident which is cited reports that "Israeli officials say leaflets had been dropped in the area warning civilians to leave their homes" then follows that with the point that "with the number of civilian cars and convoys which have been bombed on the roads heading to Tyre, many residents chose to ignore the Israeli warnings." This is rather different from saying that Israel was bombing roads. ..dave souza, talk 09:03, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

Well exactly, but I didnt edit that line in, I edited in the line which Omarthesecound removed. My edit was about clarity in what was being bombed on the "roads". The editor of the preceeding line made a point of not being clear. With that in mind it probably should have been his/her sentence that was removed and mine included/ammended. Although I wonder why "bombing of roads" when its "cars and convoys" being bombed isn't considered "propaganda".
Now the article reads: "The BBC maintained that because Israel was bombing civilian cars and convoys on the roads, many civilians were too afraid to move and leave their homes" -more clear on what might have prevented them travelling than "The BBC maintained that because Israel was bombing roads, many civilians were too afraid to move and leave their homes. There had also claims that there has been incidents of one convoy travelling north being bombed, and the bombing of humanitarian aid convoys in the east of Lebanon by the IAF" but still leaves the reader with the impression its the BBC's opinion and not, as the people of Qana probably knew, fact.
I wrote it up for the Targeting of civilian areas in the 2006 Israel-Lebanon conflict anyway so will link to it from here also so its "clear" on whats known so far. 82.29.227.171 14:01, 31 July 2006 (UTC)
The neutrality of the article Targeting of civilian areas in the 2006 Israel-Lebanon conflict is disputed. Please lets keep this one neutral 143.160.124.41 15:11, 31 July 2006 (UTC)
I've looked at the BBC report again, and have modified the sentence to bring it closer to their statement, thus making it clear that this is a report and not an opinion. Why don't you folks get usernames to make it clearer who's saying what? ..dave souza, talk 17:16, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Condoleeza Rice Quote

In the Reaction section, it states that Condoleeza Rice said: "I think it is time to get to a ceasefire", and it gives footnote 26 (the Washington Post). But nowhere in the linked Post article does it have the specified quotation. What gives? Does anyone have a direct source for this quote or is it BS?

Its spin, her statement that she postponed her trip to Lebanon is also spin. The Lebanese PM told the nation earlier in the day that she shouldnt show her face in Lebanon unless she had a ceasefire to give him.

"Rice said, “I called him and told him that I was not coming today because I felt very strongly that my work toard a ceasefire is really here, today.” Siniora, however, had made it clear in a televised address that her trip would have been pointless." [6] 82.29.227.171 14:08, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

154.20.89.204 00:10, 31 July 2006 (UTC)Tess

[edit] It was more than 60 dead!

CNN and the iran UN representative claim more than 60 killed in the air stike.. get the figures right!!

Still counting. Dysmorodrepanis 03:16, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

Every source I can find dated July 31st or later says more than 50 civilians killed, with the most commonly cited number 56. In the intro section of the article there is a conflicting source. The source cited at the end of this sentence - "According to the Red Cross, the collapse killed at least 28, out of which 19 were children, and injured many others. [2][3]" - source [3] says "More than 54 civilians, at least 34 of them children". I don't see how someone has cited this source to support the claim that only 28 civilians were killed. Please update the intro with the current accepted number of dead. JBull 07:28, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

Human Rights Watch, which certainly is not considered pro-Israel, still has the confirmed count at 28, complete with names. This article, explains how the estimates of 50+ were based on how many people were in the building and assumed them all to be dead, but 22 or so seem to have gotten out alive. I think it is high time that the Qane airstrike article be changed to "at least 28" instead of 56 or 57. Better yet, why not end all the bickering and go with a broader term and just say "dozens" were killed. I don't really care how many times the higher numbers are reprinted by CNN or AP or BBC when an organization like HRW whose mission is to document killings like these won't go higher than 28. --SVTCobra 23:05, 2 August 2006 (UTC)
You make a strong point with the HRW article, which as you say, explains in great detail where the numbers came from. I'd be cool with "dozens," I think that is pretty NPOV. Any other (reasoned) opinions? --Jaysweet 23:07, 2 August 2006 (UTC)
More recent references give a lower number, based on Human Rights Watch. It explicitly explains where the earlier count came from, and corrects it. Do you still dispute the revised estimate? In the meantime, if it is disputed, it makes sense to cite both numbers and put the controversy plainly within the wikipedia article. [7]

[edit] Iran Quote

"There are 50 more innocent dollars Rice can add to her already Iraqi-filled wallet" - source? Dysmorodrepanis 03:16, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

I spent some time looking for it on news media pages with international reaction and couldn't find it. Remove? Utopianheaven 11:01, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Title reference

Is putting a reference in the title of Reactions right out? I guess I haven't seen it come up before. --Adamrush 13:49, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

No, it would not be proper. Temporary fix in place. --Keyne 15:45, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] video link

I have tried downloading the video of the bombing from the link on this article and when trying to play it using MPlayer it froze and didn't allow me to play anymore videos (after restarting). I'm using the CentOS distribution of Linux and expierienced problems later on with Firefox after updating. When trying to access later on the site from which I downloaded the video ([8]) using Konqueror all my window borders disapeared. If anyone else is having problems with the video ([9]) I would suggest removing it from the article.

Jazzman 19:44, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

Working ok for me 21:53, 31 July 2006 (UTC)
OK, guess it's just me...--Jazzman 14:50, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Identity of Victims

An article of this nature ought to try to list the names of the victims since they are what define the event. Is this possible? Robert Fisk has identified three of the children from the tags: "Mehdi Hashem, aged seven Qana", "Hussein al-Mohamed, aged 12 Qana", "Abbas al-Shalhoub, aged one Qana." [10] I have not been able to find any articles where others are named. 24.86.12.143 19:56, 31 July 2006 (UTC) A from Vancouver


[edit] Changes to IDF Timeline

Dont think the timeline attributed to JPost article is right- they appear to have missed out a lot of detail in their reporting which Haaretz got from the press conference. Namely, the distances from the buildings, and the time between strikes. Residents say minutes, and two strikes, (did their timeline change?), IDF says hours between bombing1@midnight & bombing2 & a third bombing3.

"Israel Air Force, Brigadier General Amir Eshel. Speaking at a press conference at the Kirya military complex in Tel Aviv last night 30 July, Eshel said that of three Israeli air strikes on Qana early Sunday, only the first strike hit the building in which the civilians were staying. The other two hit areas at least 400 meters away.

I can't say whether the house collapsed at 12 A.M. or at 8 A.M.," said Eshel. "According to foreign press reports, and this is one of the reports we are relying on, the house collapsed at 8 A.M. We do not have testimony regarding the time of the collapse. If the house collapsed at 12 A.M., it is difficult for me to believe that they waited eight hours to evacuate it."

"In the second IAF strike on Qana, which took place at around 2:30 A.M. Sunday, IAF planes bombed two targets located about 500 meters from the building that collapsed, and in the third strike, at around 7:30 A.M., three targets were bombed 460 meters away from the building, Eshel said. He told reporters that an analysis of photographs of the strikes, taken by cameras installed in the warplanes, showed that the four bombs dropped during the second and third strikes hit the intended targets, and that an IAF plane sent on a photo sortie in the afternoon confirmed that the intended targets had been hit. " [11] 82.29.227.171 21:44, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

Can anyone identify the Foreign press report refered to by General Amir Eshel? He seems to go from saying that there is more than one report and then says he is relying on a particular report.

[edit] Chile reaction

This is the chilean goverment reaction. if some one could translate and add it in the international reactios. Thank's. Rakela 22:13, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Hizballah attack?

BBC was reporting eariler that there is some evidence that Hizbollah may have collapsed the building.

Do you have a link? --aishel 14:53, 1 August 2006 (UTC)


[edit] Where is the Picture of Victims

Where is the Picture of Victims ? Must be with prove that the bomb kill people.

And who is the pilot of IDF who shoot the bomb?


You will not find much footage in North American media, evidently. For actual footage of the events, you'd have to see Al-Jazeera (now now, they are supplied by Reuters and AP, same as NBC, CNN, etc, and have as many live correspondents in northern Israel as they have in Lebanon) and/or Israel TV; even the Israelis are less censoring of info than the North American media is. You may see some footage in a video linked from this page, but nothing compared to the carnage I've been seeing on middle-eastern TV. A couple of quick points (and I have to say this because I'm really sickened): 1- There are no 'civilian-void' areas of the conflict area, it's a pretty crowded place and any open areas are still very close to houses and schools. Whether or not Hizbullah should be firing rockets is one thing, but there are no open areas that are wide enough to withstand a US-made missile without severely damaging civilian infrastructure in the vicinity, so let's not clutter up WP talk pages with 'deliberate hiding behind civilians' talk. 2- For those who really identify with Israel and love the country, it is my hope that such individuals would do all they can to help guarantee that such devastation will never happen again - for Israel's sake, instead of coming here to try and cover it up with conspiracy theories or whatnot.
You're right let's not clutter up talk pages. Starting with this one. Ranieldule 16:28, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] No original research

I've just removed several pieces of unsourced speculation from the article. Could people please take care not to add such material - it's prohibited by our no original research policy. -- ChrisO 07:48, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Casualty/fatality figures need updating

HRW report into it- testimony from 2 that got bombed taken by HRW also- worth beefing up the Residents timeline with perhaps [12]

Also probably worth quoting the report a little eg.

"Human Rights Watch researchers who visited Qana on July 31, the day after the attack, did not find any destroyed military equipment in or near the home. Similarly, none of the dozens of international journalists, rescue workers and international observers who visited Qana on July 30 and 31 reported seeing any evidence of Hezbollah military presence in or around the home. Rescue workers recovered no bodies of apparent Hezbollah fighters from inside or near the building."

And there is a list of names of the dead- can some of the conspiracy theorists start tracking down if they were residents of Qana or some other town please? Thank you. 82.29.227.171 21:58, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org../../../2/0/0/Talk%7E2006_Qana_airstrike_Archive_1_8bde.html"