Now we know what they’re there for
August 28th, 2006 | by Craig R. Harmon |They were actually acting as spies for Hisbullah.
UNIFIL–the United Nations Interim Force in Lebanon, a nearly 2,000-man blue-helmet contingent that has been present on the Lebanon-Israel border since 1978–is officially neutral. Yet, throughout the recent war, it posted on its website for all to see precise information about the movements of Israeli Defense Forces soldiers and the nature of their weaponry and materiel, even specifying the placement of IDF safety structures within hours of their construction. New information was sometimes only 30 minutes old when it was posted, and never more than 24 hours old.
Meanwhile, UNIFIL posted not a single item of specific intelligence regarding Hezbollah forces. Statements on the order of Hezbollah “fired rockets in large numbers from various locations” and Hezbollah’s rockets “were fired in significantly larger numbers from various locations” are as precise as its coverage of the other side ever got.
Good thing we’re sending 15,000 more neutral UN troops into Southern Lebanon.
I guess they’re not useless after all.
36 Responses to “Now we know what they’re there for”
By Paul Merda on Aug 29, 2006 | Reply
Intriguing, probably why Hezbolla did so well… Why isn’t this being reported more widely??
By Dusty on Aug 29, 2006 | Reply
Craig, did you go on the UNIFIL site and check it out?
By Craig R. Harmon on Aug 29, 2006 | Reply
Dusty,
No. I didn’t know that they had a site until last night reading the article.
By Paul Merda on Aug 29, 2006 | Reply
Zionist guy wrote the article making these claims, but I am not really sure he can bolster them with evidence. If UNIFIL was there to help Hezbollah, then why did Israel agree to the cease-fire when UNIFIL was going to do the police work? I think the article brings up more questions than answers myself…
Perhaps more info would have been posted on Hezbollah if UNIFIL knew where they were and what they were up to, no?!
By Craig R. Harmon on Aug 29, 2006 | Reply
Paul,
Heh! It’s another one of those wacky Zionist chicks. You just can’t trust ‘em. You know. how those people lie.
By Paul Watson The Cranky Brit on Aug 29, 2006 | Reply
Craig,
I’ve checked the website. The closest I can find is the reports sent to the UN by the UNIFIL commanders, which are not done in real time. Therefore they were saying things that were at least a few days old, and I’m sure Hezbollah already knew where the Israelis were by then. After all, they were the ones shooting at the Israelis. I think the reporter may be engaged in exagerration or misconstrued things, whether she is a zionist or not.
By Craig R. Harmon on Aug 29, 2006 | Reply
So you went to the UNIFIL website and expected to find…what…evidence/an admission that they were, when the fighting was going on, posting locations and movements of Israeli forces in Southern Lebanon that were “sometimes only 30 minutes old”? Because…what…that sounds like something they’d advertize/admit? Really?
By Dusty on Aug 29, 2006 | Reply
on the actual UNIFIL site is every one of their transmissions day by day..They are under the Press Releases.
They give information on hezbollah locations in some of the ones I have read..its a long damn list of press releases.
By Craig R. Harmon on Aug 29, 2006 | Reply
First, let’s see what the claims are:
‘ …at least some of UNIFIL’s postings, in the words of one retired senior military analyst, “could have exposed Israeli soldiers to grave danger.” ‘
and
“the same intelligence would not have been provided by the U.N. about Israel’s enemies.”
It then says:
“while UNIFIL was daily revealing the towns where Israeli soldiers were located, the positions from which they were firing, and when and how they had entered Lebanese territory, it never described Hezbollah movements or locations with any specificity whatsoever.”
I guess we need to determine whether these claims are true. I’m on that. Back with you later. I may have some crow to eat! Let’s see, where’s the mayo?
By Craig R. Harmon on Aug 29, 2006 | Reply
I think that whether and which releases might have exposed the IDF soldiers to grave danger might not be something that one could tell without specific knowledge that retired military analysts might have that I don’t. However, whether UNIFIL was revealing the locations of IDF soldiers, positions from which they were firing and how they had entered Lebanese territories and whether the same info was revealed for Hezbollah’s movements and locations with equal specificity should be learnable.
By Craig R. Harmon on Aug 29, 2006 | Reply
Okay, this from the July 18 report:
“Two IDF ground incursions inside Lebanese territory were reported yesterday. Three PUMA armored vehicles entered approximately one kilometer inside Lebanese territory in the area of Ras Naqoura on the Mediterranean coast yesterday afternoon, and withdrew to the Israeli side after a while. IDF forces also operated on the Lebanese side of the divided village of Ghajar. They demolished two Hezbollah outposts on the northern edges of the village, and set up a barrier of cement blocs along parts of the northern boundary of the Lebanese side of the village. Exchange of fire was reported during this operation.”
Analysis: While there is quite a bit of specificity of IDF troop movement as well as specifying vehicles, the report is of these being Hezbollah outposts. Presumably by the next day report of this raid would have been known to Hezbollah command. Also the first reported troops and vehicles had already withdrawn to the Israeli side and would be in no danger. However, this does indicate the specificity with which the movements IDF troops and vehicles are being given. There is nothing about the movements of Hezbollah fighters or their vehicles or armaments.
Conclusion: No useful information that would endanger troops on either side but the alleged specificity with regard to IDF troop and vehicle movements is obvious. Nothing like the same specificity of Hezbollah fighting forces, movements, vehicles or armaments.
By Craig R. Harmon on Aug 29, 2006 | Reply
This from the report of July 19:
Analysis: First incursion reported with great specificity including vehicles.
Conclusion: Since all had returned to the Israeli side before report, no danger to IDF forces.
Analysis: Second incursion only a half an hour previous. Exact location of IDF troops and tanks. This is pretty dicey, in my estimation. It is both specific and timely. On the other hand, there were exchanges with Hezbollah forces who, presumably would have communicated with Hezbollah command. Could communications been severed before such communications were made and, thus, this report have allerted Hezbollah command? I doubt it. Hezbollah would communicate in real time giving more specific locations and details, I would think. On the other hand, the level of specificity is high with regard to IDF troops, vehicles activities and movements with nothing regarding any of these things with reference to Hezbollah fighters.
Conclusion: probably nothing here to endanger IDF troops but a pattern is forming here with regard to how the activities of the two are being reported and the difference does seem to back up the claim in the article that UNIFIL is not reporting the same way with regard to the two sides.
By Dusty on Aug 29, 2006 | Reply
Now, I saw a couple of ones that gave the road hezbollah was one..in between two cities..I was just clicking and scanning them for info..they do seem to concentrate on IDF, but jeez..there easy to spot..Hezbollah..not so much.
By Craig R. Harmon on Aug 29, 2006 | Reply
Question to any and all:
Why is UNIFIL reporting troop movements and activities? Fun facts? Trivia? Making sure that all Hezbollah commanders and fighters know where Israel is being active so they can reinforce those areas? Offers of suggestions of innocent explanations will be welcomed.
By Craig R. Harmon on Aug 29, 2006 | Reply
From the July 20 report:
Analysis: The report doesn’t say that the tanks, bulldozers and troops left, says that they stayed into this morning. Does this mean that they then left that morning and, therefore, were now gone by the time of the report? Or does this mean that, as of the time of this report’s posting, they were still there? It would help to know when the report was posted. If this is a morning report, reporting exactly where IDF troops and heavy machinery and tanks are…what the hell?
Conclusion: This could be a pretty damning bit of information if it is an up to the minute (as of the time of posting) report. There were reports of action close to various UN posts from both sides but only in very general terms. It is the quoted section that is troubling to me. There is nothing in any of the reports that I’ve read so far that comes anywhere near reporting on Hezbollah troops, equipment, armaments, or movements. I am beginning to see a pattern here and it doesn’t speak well for the impartiality of the UNIFIL reporters.
By Craig R. Harmon on Aug 29, 2006 | Reply
Dusty,
Yes, I hear you. When IDF wear uniforms and come with tanks and bulldozers they’re easier to spot than ununiformed Hezbollah fighters. I guess that’s a point but, well, maybe they shouldn’t be reporting with this kind of specificity regarding any troop movements, especially where those reports are very timely (one within a half-hour, one that might be right up to the minute at the point of posting).
By Dusty on Aug 29, 2006 | Reply
Well, they are reporting it, and I am sure it was common knowledge..I don’t think it was a secret by any stretch..with press releases and all…
Doesn’t make it right..I know..but I haven’t heard the Israeli’s bitching about it..have you heard anything else other than that one website you originally quoted?
By Craig R. Harmon on Aug 29, 2006 | Reply
From the July 21 report:
Analysis: “The IDF and Hezbollah are engaged in exchanges…” sounds like present tense. This is a report of current military engagements. On the other hand, it is equally informative of the locations of both sides and no particular specificity regarding either side.
Conclusion: No reports here that would be particularly dangerous to either side that I can see.
By Craig R. Harmon on Aug 29, 2006 | Reply
From the July 22 report:
Analysis: This reads like a Hezbollah recon report to headquarters. Notice that the second sentence is a present tense, up to the moment report of the location of IDF troops. Zounds!
Conclusion: Cripes. No wonder the Israelis are pissed at UNIFIL. Are they just acting as spotters for Hezbollah at this point? Perhaps they could publish coordinates. That would make targeting Hezbollah rockets that much more accurate. Shoot, man, this is pretty damning stuff right here.
By Craig R. Harmon on Aug 30, 2006 | Reply
By the way, nothing anywhere near the specificity or timeliness of reports of locations of Hezbollah forces so far that I’ve seen except for reports of actual exchanges of fire that both sides would know about because both are actively involved in the exchange.
I think the Israelis have a beef here, at least as regards early reports. I’m going in order from earliest to most recent so this may change in later reports. We’ll see.
By Craig R. Harmon on Aug 30, 2006 | Reply
The July 23 report cites IDF presence still in Marun Al Ras and action there but by now the presence of IDF troops would be known from the previous days report.
No particular problem here.
By Craig R. Harmon on Aug 30, 2006 | Reply
Dusty,
No I haven’t seen it more widely reported but that doesn’t necessarily mean anything. Most of my time, recently, is spent here at BIO! and less and less time spent trolling Concervative sites or news reporting. Also, it may be that knowledge of these reports and of the analysis of their contents and importance to the conduct of the war have just recently come to light. I don’t know.
By Dusty on Aug 30, 2006 | Reply
omg..your not trolling anymore? Your becoming one of us…hey did you see the story of Frist lying on his dr’s lic. renewal? Big no no..
By Craig R. Harmon on Aug 30, 2006 | Reply
From the July 24 report:
Analysis: Presence of IDF troops in Marun Al Ras is old news by now. New news, however, is their advancement toward Bint Jubayl and the significant reinforcements of troops, tanks and armored personnel carriers. This report references as recent as “this morning”. It would help to know how recent that was with reference to what time this report was filed. If it was filed at 9 am that morning, this is recent info but if it was filed late in the afternoon it would already be getting old. For this reason, it’s hard to analyze the danger that this information might have proven to IDF.
Conclusion: The total one-sidedness of the reporting has been consistent. There have been no reports of Hezbollah troop movements or reinforcements or reports of presence of armaments and this is the eighth report filed by UNIFIL. This report is troubling for it’s continued focus on IDF forces and movements, reinforcements and armaments and lack of interest in reporting on Hezbollah fighters.
I’ve reached my conclusion: based upon the first eight reports filed by UNIFIL, I think the report from the American Standard is accurate and files a real beef. It is impossible for me to determine whether any of these reports resulted in added danger or deaths to IDF troops that would not have occurred without the reports. That sort of risk determination is beyond my expertise. On the other hand, there is no question in my mind that the reports are way more specific about IDF troop movements and activities and give almost nothing of the same information regarding Hezbollah troops.
I’m going to go out on a limb here and venture a reason why: these are UN peacekeeping troops who have no mandate, and probably no means of defending themselves from attack from Hezbollah fighters. If they were to be posting the kind of info on the Hezbollah fighters that they post on IDF troop activities, their lives wouldn’t be worth spit. Understandable but there’s no question in my mind that these reports are biased, whether out of favor shown to Hezbollah or out of sheer survival instinct, I don’t know, but in my opinion, they should not be making the kind of reportings of one side’s movements and activities without reciprocality. If they will not report on Hezbollah activities and locations in the same way they did the IDF troops, they should not be reporting on either side.
Just my opinion but I’m pretty adamant in that opinion.
Anyway, I’m gonna stop the reporting now. I’ve satisfied myself on the matter. I’ll still read through the reports but I have a pretty good idea what I’ll find.
By Craig R. Harmon on Aug 30, 2006 | Reply
Dusty,
His doctor’s license renewal form? No I didn’t. Sheesh! Does he still practice anymore, do you know.
I do still hit a few select sites, NRO, Powerline, Instapundit mainly but not as much as I used to.
By Dusty on Aug 30, 2006 | Reply
Yeah, he still practices..for phto-ops..He lied about taking a manditory 40 hrs of education..a requirement since 2002 I think. This could tarnish Billy.
By Craig R. Harmon on Aug 30, 2006 | Reply
Sheesh! You’d think a public personage would cross his eyes and dot his tees…or something like that.
By Dusty on Aug 30, 2006 | Reply
Well, Billy wants to run for Prez in 08. I hope this puts a crimp in his plans..at least he looks like a lying sack of sheep dip.
By Craig R. Harmon on Aug 30, 2006 | Reply
On becoming one of the BIO! community, I would hope that I am already. However, I still keep on top of the Conservative side from what I consider to be the best examples of intelligent Conservative points of view. And I do have live feeds from New York Times (headlines to the most recent 5 or so stories) and the BBC (headlines to the most recent bunch of stories from them) on the top of my browser that I check from time to time.
By Dusty on Aug 30, 2006 | Reply
Ah..you missed my snark..pity :p
By Craig R. Harmon on Aug 30, 2006 | Reply
I wasn’t sure how to take that. I thought about it for a while and decided to go the serious route.
By Dusty on Aug 30, 2006 | Reply
your no fun. So you think this will taint Bill’s prez bid? Do you think he would be a good Prez from a repube standpoint?
By Craig R. Harmon on Aug 30, 2006 | Reply
“your no fun.”
I’ve been told that and worse. What can I say?
I honestly don’t know much about Frist. I get the sense that he didn’t have a chance even before this so I really don’t think it’s something he’s going to have to worry about.
As for what kind a President he’d make from any stand-point, I’m afraid I couldn’t say.
By Dusty on Aug 30, 2006 | Reply
Well, Billy is dead serious about running..he is retiring in order to run. This is the man that diagnosed Terry Schiavo from watching a video. oh jeez..no pun intended..seriously.
By Craig R. Harmon on Aug 30, 2006 | Reply
Yes, I remember the Schiavo thing…not a stellar time for much of anybody. A real circus. As for Frist, I think he’s delusional if he thinks he’s got a snowball’s chance in hell of making it to the White House but, heck, what do I know. In this case, next to nothing.
Anyway, I’m off to bed. See ya!
By Dusty on Aug 30, 2006 | Reply
g’night..