Talk:2006 Qana airstrike/Archive 1

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

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)

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)

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.

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)

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 . 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 contrast with Olmert quote
 * your removal contrast with BBC article  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)

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." 82.29.227.171 14:08, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

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

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.

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)

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)

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 using Konqueror all my window borders disapeared. If anyone else is having problems with the video 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)

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." 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

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. " 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.

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)

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)

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)

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)

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

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)

I recently added to the article but it was removed by User:Smyth. The same category was re-added by User:Mani1 and re-removed also by User:Smyth saying it is a controversial category. Quoting from war crime "war crime is a punishable offense under International Law, for violations of the laws of war" and from Laws of war which states that the main sources for laws of war are the United Nations Charter, the Geneva conventions and the Hague conventions. Also, the 2006 Israel-Lebanon conflict is categorized under war crimes. I can't really see how bombing a builiding and killing 54 civilians including children is not a violation of the Fourth Geneva Convention and may not be regarded as war crime!--Wedian 14:39, 30 July 2006 (UTC).


 * Fourth Geneva Convention is not relevant here, as the civilians that were involved, are not in territory controlled by Israel. Regarding the international laws of war, Israel Is Within Its Rights, and the one side that is committing war crimes is the Hisbula, that is using civilians as shelters in Lebanon, and firing missiles intentionally against civil areas in Israel.
 * Quoting the PM of Lebanon as an authority regarding "War Crimes" of Israel, is as good a source as Quoting Nassralla..., I suggest removing this quote.


 * While I am inclined to agree with you, the Fourth Geneva Convention only applies to civilians in the hands of another party in the conflict. For example, if Israel attacked a Lebanese city and killed hundreds of civilians, that would signify a violation of the convention. ugen64 14:53, 30 July 2006 (UTC)


 * Sorry, but is this not what happened here? Or do air attacks not count as "in the hands[...]"? --Michalis Famelis (talk)  17:49, 30 July 2006 (UTC)


 * Until a court has decided that a specific action is a war crime, any such categorisation is POV and should be avoided. Cymruisrael 15:00, 30 July 2006 (UTC)


 * Dear cymruisrael: If you check out an article like Osama bin Laden you'll see that it's in Category:Saudi Arabian terrorists and Category:September 11, 2001 attacks despite the fact that no court has ever decided that ObL is a terrorist, nor that he has any links to the Sep 11 2001 attacks. If you want to remove Category:War crimes from this article, then we would have to remove all the categorisations of alleged terrorists in the wikipedia from those alleged terrorists' pages. (In fact, if you check out the historical record, you'll find out that the Afghanistan government was willing to give up ObL to be tried in a court of law, but the US/UK didn't want to have a court trial in a third-party, neutral country.) For NPOV in this case, it should be sufficient to quote someone who considers the Qana massacre of this morning to constitute a war crime, just as people are quoted who consider ObL to be a terrorist despite his not having been tried in a court of law. Boud 16:22, 30 July 2006 (UTC)


 * This was not a war crime because it was not a deliberate attack on civilians. There have been leaflets dropped and radio broadcasts warning residents to leave. On Fox News they showed a video of missiles being launched from directly next to the building that was hit. --PiMaster3 18:33, 30 July 2006 (UTC)


 * Even attacking the homes of civilians is regarded a war crime. The war crime stamp should stick until the UN and others define it not to be one. --User:Royk 18.41, 30 July 2006 (UTC)


 * There will be plenty of time for history and the UN to decide if this is a war crime. Right now, we should stick to the facts as we know them, rather then assume that the facts are. This is a highly controversial issue, and cool heads must prevail when editing the article. Whether or not it is a war crime is irrelevant 24 hours after what happen; we should concentrate on finding background and verified facts for the article right now.


 * The US was to condemn the action as a war crime, but the USA blocked this. So, in effect, this in indeed a war crime as settled by the UN wasn't it for the US abvuse of its veto.


 * The idea that something IS a war crime until the UN and others define it NOT to be one is not NPOV. When homes of civilians are used for military purposes, attacking those homes is not regarded as a war crime. More importantly, an NPOV article would take no position on whether this is a war crime. 141.154.225.213 19:15, 30 July 2006 (UTC)


 * The Nazi's used to drop leaflets too. Guess that made it all ok. Self-Described Seabhcán 19:52, 30 July 2006 (UTC)


 * See Godwin's Law. 141.154.225.213 19:58, 30 July 2006 (UTC)


 * We are talking about war here. The nazi reference is relavant.Self-Described Seabhcán 20:05, 30 July 2006 (UTC)


 * Anything said by someone using the phrase "The nazis did X. Guess that made it all OK" is irrelevant and rather pointless regardless of what X is. If you have a point to make about leaflets, make it.  Are leaflets good? Bad? Irrelevant? Say what you want to say without bringing up Nazis or you'll just be another internet jerk follwing Godwin's law and getting laughed at. 141.154.225.213 20:10, 30 July 2006 (UTC)


 * PiMaster3 claimed that bombing civilians is not a war crime if you give them prior warning in the form of a leaflet. I was simply pointing out that the Nazi's also informed thier victims by leaflet, yet we don't absolve them of guilt. Not raising the example of the Nazi's when the discussion is about war crimes is like not mentioning a gold medalist when the topic is the olymipix. Godwin's law doesn't apply. Self-Described Seabhcán 21:27, 30 July 2006 (UTC)


 * PiMaster3's post speaks for itself and makes no such claim. Perhaps you should read his entire post again. Or perhaps focus on the article. You wish to include this article in Category:War Crimes because civilians were struck by bombs.  PiMaster3's point is that a rocket launching site was targeted AND civilians were warned. Please stop reading selectively and making fatally flawed comparisons and begin discussing the article. Do you think it is a war crime to attack an area that has been used to launch rockets across an international border? Do you think that's what Germany did after Sept 1, 1939? 141.154.225.213 21:55, 30 July 2006 (UTC)


 * Germany also faked a border clash inorder to invade and occupy a weaker neighbour. There are lots of parallels. Self-Described Seabhcán 22:06, 30 July 2006 (UTC)


 * You either get your news from a different planet or your analysis is flawed beyond all recognition of reality. Hezbollah has said it kidnapped the soldiers in a border clash.  Seabchan reads this and thinking Israel faked the same border clash. Maybe you think Hezbollah and Israel are working together in a great conspiracy against Lebanon? This thread was about placing the article in Category:War crimes.  Please focus on that topic if you are able to. 141.154.225.213 22:18, 30 July 2006 (UTC)


 * It was a border clash alright, but which side of the border? If you are illegally on foreign terroritory, is it a kidnap or an arrest? Self-Described Seabhcán 22:25, 30 July 2006 (UTC)


 * According to UN Resolution 1559 Hezbollah is in Lebanon illegally, and no I did not claim that bombing civilians is not a war crime if you give them prior warning. --PiMaster3 22:36, 30 July 2006 (UTC)


 * Hezbollah is committing war crimes by using civilians as human shields at its launch sites and arms depots.

"This is the talk page for discussing changes to the 2006 Qana airstrike article." 141.154.225.213 22:33, 30 July 2006 (UTC)
 * So wait, since when is bombing civilians a war crime? None of the World War II city bombing articles are considered war crimes. It doesn't really make sense to say it was a war crime for Israel to kill 60 civilians, but not for the US to kill 60,000. -00:13, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

First of all, the leaflets do not work at all considering that those people do not have any supply to leave their position in a desert hot place. With no basic suppliers they do not even have GAS to move away with cars or other vehicles as the GAS STATIONS have been bombed. There have been constant information that the roads including the cars fleeing have been bombed, 2 days ago BBC reporter moving along with his cameraman and mobilized civilians in a road from south have been shelled and it has been recorded. So moving away is fatal, staying is fatal and eveybody talks about conventions which are very improper in these conditions as Hezbollah hijacks Lebanese people which should be out of war as Israel claims it is not a war to Lebanon. Let's assume that Israel is not guilty in terms of LAW but definately NOT INNOCENT. At last the world community shall know the mistakes that Israel did and most probably in future they will be guilty, guilty of war crimes. And I think if further investigation was to be done Israel would be a war criminal. What is going on is a mere DOUBLE STANDART my friends and no one is going to speak like a lawyer here mocking up with other peoples ideas or sayings, here is not a court no one should always speak superlogically, this is a discussion page, please be human, at least a bit this is not a humiliation just a WISH. And sorry for my English if it is meager I am not native. (cantikadam 13:04, 1 August 2006 (UTC))
 * I cannot stress enough that this is the talk page for the 2006 Qana airstrike article and not in any way, anything else. Also, since when do we Wikipedians get to point out events and classify them as war crimes? Please put all this energy into keeping this article NPOV, relevant and current. Ranieldule 13:17, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

Allright, mine is just a comment I am profoundly eager to improve Wİkipedia's liability and its creditibility.(cantikadam 14:07, 1 August 2006 (UTC))
 * May be i didn't make myself clear above . Please review the articles in Category: War crimes . Many of the incidents in the articles in this category were not classified as war crimes by international courts. Same applies to other categories asCategory:Terrorists. I am sure some of these subjects could be regarded as heroes in other countries. Yet, these categories still exist. Killing 57 civilians including handicapped children is a war crime and was described as a war crime by other sources e.g., ,  and . As i understood from the above discussion, some users think it might be a war crime but it is not wikipedia's job to classify it.  But, as i said, these categories still exist. Wikipedia is supposed to be an encyclopedia and certainly shouldn't have double standards. So IMO,  either we categorize the article in Category:War crimes or request to delete the whole category as it may be regarded as a POV category.--Wedian 16:14, 1 August 2006 (UTC)


 * I agree; the category should be deleted, or even better, renamed to "Alleged war crimes". – Smyth\talk 17:58, 1 August 2006 (UTC)


 * For a previous discussion about deleting this category, see []. Deleting or renaming an entire category because one particular article is not in it would be disrupting Wikipedia to prove a point...big mistake. War crimes are real and there should be a category for them. If you think some of the other articles in the war crimes category should not be in that category then remove them and discuss the issue on those talk pages. Wedian says "killing 57 civilians inclusing handicapped children is a war crime."  However, the atomic bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki article is not currently in this category.  Do you think fewer people were killed there?  Maybe fewer handicapped children?  Perhaps the atomic bombings were a war crime,  but the talk page of that article indicates a huge and continuing fact-based debate over 60 years after the event.  In this article we are talking about a very recent event.  Users like me who think it might  be a war crime are simply asking for more time so real arguments and counter-arguments may be made.  This is not a double standard.  This is waiting for additional facts to emerge. 151.203.7.6 12:13, 2 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Discussions on talk pages are not disruption to wikipedia and i don't think that war crimes are classified according to number of victims. Is one civilian not bad enough? My question is as simple as this " What are the criteria or standards for categorizing articles in this category?" Is it common sense? Is it classification by international courts? How come the article Attacks on United Nations personnel during the 2006 Israel-Lebanon conflict is a war crime but this one and Hiroshima bombing aren't? Who decided this? Is it because the UN personnel article states that HRW are investigating the incident as a possible war crime? Well, same applies to this article. How come that Kfar Etzion massacre is certainly a war crime ? Who and what decides this? What i mean is, if there are certain criteria for categorizing in this category of which i'm ignorant, please inform me to end this dispute and save everybody's time. If not, don't you think the whole category is POV? BTW, do you really think that after some time this won't be disputed? so why Hiroshima bombing is?--Wedian 14:31, 2 August 2006 (UTC)
 * I never said discussions on talk pages are disruptive. I said that renaming or deleting an entire category name would be disruptive if it were done by someone with the attitude "if this one article isn't in the category then the category shouldn't exist."  Discussion isn't disruptive, but if you're interested in a discussion about what should be in Category:War Crimes in a global sense, then the talk page there is the best place for it.  This talk page is for this article.  After some time, this issue will probably still be disputed.  Who decides and how?  The decision is made the same way as everything else in Wikipedia I guess. I think that involves a lot of arguing about details maybe with a poll or request for comments or something like that.  But I think that before getting to the point where that is possible, time must pass for additional facts and official opinions to emerge. 151.203.7.6 15:26, 2 August 2006 (UTC)
 * I never meant it to sound like this "if this one article isn't in the category then the category shouldn't exist". I was replying to the question above "since when do we Wikipedians get to point out events and classify them as war crimes?" Wikipedians do classify articles as war crimes. Otherwise, the category wouldn't exist. Keep in mind that there are no criteria for classifying except what editors actually think. I think categories are there to help browsing and not for POV pushing. So, if in one article it is ok to categorize according to wikipedians thoughts and in another (not specifically this one) it is not ok -not because of the dispute but just because wikipedia shouldn't do that -, haven't we just lost nutrality? Another thing, i don't think that there polls are used for categorizing articles. Remember, wikipedia is not a democracy. Yet, I agree this discussion might not totally belong in this article's talk page.--Wedian 22:54, 2 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Before you wrote "either we categorize the article in Category:War crimes or request to delete the whole category as it may be regarded as a POV category." You never meant this to sound like what? Wikipedians can classify or not classify anything. My argument is that classifying such a recent event is a huge mistake because otherwise rational people often believe nonsense and garbage on conspiracy websites and half-baked news stories when events are new.  After a little time has passed and more facts and official opinions are known, only irrational people tend to believe such things. An encyclopedia would reserve judgement for a little while longer. 151.203.7.6 13:30, 3 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Did you actually read what i've said above? I 'll try to make it as clear as i can for the last time. The sentence you are refering to was an answer for the question above. I'm not arguing your point about when to classify articles. I'm arguing the idea that this article couldn't be classified as war crime if the only reason was that it is not wikipedians job to classify events as war crimes. If it was not wikipedia's job to classify events, then the category should be deleted because as i pointed out above, there are no criteria for classifying these articles. For example, if the only criterion for adding articles to this category was classification by international courts then the category would be ok. But this not the case here, wikipedians are only classifying them according to their thoughts. Again, if in one article it is no problem to categorize according to our thoughts while in an another it is a problem -not because there is a dispute and not because of the timing but only because wikipedia as a neutral encyclopedia shouldn't classify events- then these are double standards. Can you understand it now? One more time, if you think this is a war crime but you still don't want to categorize it because you think that a neutral encyclopedia shouldn't do original classification then the category should be deleted or renamed because this would be the case with all other articles. It is not about the timing of this categorization or the dispute about this categorization, it is just about the neutrality of categorizing in this category and the neutrality of categorizing one article and refusing to categorize another to avoid bias thugh bias was not a problem in the first article. I hope it is clear now because i feel it is a little bit strange that there is a SPA just to argue my comment here.--Wedian 15:12, 3 August 2006 (UTC)


 * I agree that anyone who says in one article's dispute "Wikipedia must categorize this a war crime" and in another article's dispute "Wikipedia can only maintain neutrality by not categorizing war crimes" has a double standard. The category label was not removed by such a person for this reason. I am sorry that you feel strange. I have a user account, but I've never used it to post opinions about current events. I am also a different IP address that made the change http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=2006_Qana_airstrike&diff=prev&oldid=66723663 and discussed things with Seabchan above. I didn't know that my ISP changes my IP address and I don't know if according to Wikipedia that makes me some kind of sock puppety chamelion jerk who should go away.  If you ask me not to post here again using an IP address, I won't. But I hope this article is not categorized in war crimes until Wikipedians have a fact-based discussion, and I hope that does not occur for at least another week or so for the reasons given above. 151.203.7.6 17:39, 3 August 2006 (UTC)
 * I don't really think the article would be categorized in war crimes now or anytime soon, at least without being reverted in 60 seconds. Unfortunately,WP:CG currently provides no guidelines for controversial categories and discussions about the neutrality of this category don't belong to this page anymore. As for your IP address, i think it would be much appreciated if you use your user account. It is my first time to comment in a current event too but i can't see anything wrong about that. Accorging to WP:SOCK use of sock puppets is discouraged in most cases. --Wedian 16:05, 4 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Like the terrorism category, War crimes probably does more harm than good to the encyclopedia, but it survived a deletion vote. Maybe we should take this debate to the War crimes talk page.  (I'm headed there now, if anyone wants to join).  TheronJ 16:17, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

Time of collapse
Something doesn't add up with that, the IDF claims it attacked the building somewhere between 12-1am. The building collapsed at 8am.


 * What time does the sun rise in Lebanon in July? If the building collapsed at 8 AM in an area under intense military surveillance by a nation with total air superiority, why have no pictures taken between dawn and 8 AM been released? Herne nz 07:23, 5 August 2006 (UTC)

The hour gap suggests this is not a direct IDF's strike that made the building fall down, but something else, it could very well be Hezbolla's own rockets that took it down, as it was known there is a large amount of ammunition in that place.



If it really took the building 8 hours to collapse after the israeli strike, how come there were still more than 60 people in the building, & do you think Hezbolla would let anybody enter the building they were hiding there explosives or weapons in there.


 * So did it take 10 minutes for the building to collapse or 8 hours? There needs to be a time of full collapse in the article.

I belive that in order to count this as a war crime, it would have to be delibirated aginst the civilians, according to this information, this is not the case.

I guess we have to wait and see as more information about this reveals itself. —Preceding unsigned comment added by ZeroLeveL (talk • contribs)


 * Are you really suggesting that a deliberate bombing of an occupied appartment building was not a war crime? By that logic, if a hamas bomber kills 55 people on a bus in Tel aviv is ok so long as the bomber thought there might have been an IDF soldier onboard. Great logic. Self-Described Seabhcán 19:44, 30 July 2006 (UTC)


 * Poor comparison. If a Hamas bomber killed 55 people on a bus in Tel Aviv that had just fired rockets across an international border then it would not be a war crime nor an act of terrorism.  But, unlike Lebanese homes, Tel Aviv buses do not fire rockets across international borders. 141.154.225.213 20:02, 30 July 2006 (UTC)


 * The suggestion that the building fell hours after being hit comes entirely from the IDF itself, as those linked articles state. I don't think they count as a reliable source in this case. Self-Described Seabhcán 19:49, 30 July 2006 (UTC)


 * Who dicides what is a reliable source, and their is no evedince that this was a deliberate bombing. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 196.207.37.228 (talk • contribs)


 * For information to be added to the article, see WP:RS. What I meant above is that the IDF claim shouldn't be taken as fact. If we were to add this information to the article it would have to say the "IDF claims that...". On the issue of deliberateness... The IDF certainly deliberately bombed this building, there is no question of that. Whether they knew there were civilians in the building or not is a different question. (Shortly after they bombed all the roads, they dropped leaflets warning people to leave. It seems they didn't care if people did leave or could leave) Self-Described Seabhcán 20:03, 30 July 2006 (UTC)


 * What time do IDF give for the leaflet drops? I mean is it possible to establish a timeline for the road bombing, the leaflet drops, then the attack and aftermath? A timeline would be preferable. 82.29.227.171 21:07, 30 July 2006 (UTC)


 * Some details from the residents of Qana:"'Witnesses at the scene corroborated the IDF claim that the strike on the building, which is located in the Hariva neighborhood of Qana, was carried out at 1:00 A.M. After the initial strike, some of the building's residents exited in an attempt to survey the damage, in effect saving themselves. A few minutes later, IAF planes struck the building once again, causing the walls to collapse on the residents who did not vacate, killing them in the process. Arab media began reporting on the incident after dawn Sunday, approximately seven hours after the strike. The reports did not note, however, that the building collapsed a short time prior to Arab journalists' arrival on the scene'". The links in the 'Lebanon position' section used to support IDF claims are in Hebrew, can we get some corroboration of the IDF claims of explosives/timeline in English? 82.29.227.171 21:30, 30 July 2006 (UTC)

Regarding the "war crime" issue, I'm not sure that there is a definitive definition in international law. But, attacking a civilian target and/or disregarding civlian casualties (even though they are unintended) or even carrying out an attack where there the attacker knows that there is a high risk of civilian casualties is often described as a war crime (or at least being against the Geneva Convention). Are there any experts on intl. law available here?Osli73 15:06, 31 July 2006 (UTC)