Talk:2006 Qana airstrike/Archive 4

no rockets launched from Qana.
It is stated in the article that "IDF admitted that there had been no rockets launched from Qana" but did the IDF ever admit this? Omarthesecound 19:08, 2 August 2006 (UTC)
 * They certainly didn't. They even released video footage of rockets firing from Qana. --aishel 19:49, 2 August 2006 (UTC)
 * You might want to re-read that part of the article - it says that no rockets had been fired on the day of the attack. The cited Haaretz article says: "The Israel Defense Forces had said after the deadly air-strike that many rockets had been launched from Qana. However, it changed its version on Monday. The site was included in an IAF plan to strike at several buildings in proximity to a previous launching site. Similar strikes were carried out in the past. However, there were no rocket launches from Qana on the day of the strike." -- ChrisO 20:12, 2 August 2006 (UTC)


 * Chris, your point taken, but the claim that the IDF admitted this is questionable. Do we have other sources? If this was true; I'm sure other sources would have reported this. Omarthesecound 20:34, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

All IDF said was that previous rocket launches had taken place from that area. No rocket launches on the day the IDF struck implies no rocket launchers or Hezbollah firing rockets. No rocket launcher or Hezbollah firing them implies no military target that day to drop the bombs on.

The phrase "the site [Qana] was included in an IAF plan to strike at several buildings in proximity to a previous launching site" implies the target for that day was the buildings "in proximity to a previous launching site" ie. the building the people of Qana were in when it was hit. 82.29.227.171 22:14, 2 August 2006 (UTC)


 * That would make sense, given that it's been reported that Hezbollah has been storing rockets in and under civilian buildings. The IAF may well have assumed that the targeted building was empty. -- ChrisO 23:23, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

Difficulty of evacuation
There's some dispute about where to put this (or whether to keep it?):


 * The BBC reported that although Israeli officials have stated that leaflets had been dropped in the area warning civilians to leave their homes, Israel had been bombing civilian cars and convoys on the roads and many residents were too afraid to move and leave their homes or had no means of transport.

As a former military man, I can tell you that the fear of being bombed is quite urgent and visceral. No one wants to drive on a road that might shelled by enemy fire (or by friendly fire for that matter, which is no joke).

So if civilians had been "warned" but were "afraid", that's a powerful argument somebody is making that Israel is to blame for the civilian deaths: it's the POV that they had no place to go, so the 'warnings' were meaningless.

We need to identify the source of that argument. Is the BBC arguing that? Was that an anti-IDF commentary?

If so, perhaps we need an additional section for pundits and commentators in the media - not just what countries say. I daresay the BBC carries a bit more weight in the English-speaking world than any half-dozen Arab countries. --Uncle Ed 19:52, 3 August 2006 (UTC)


 * IIRC, it was a BBC correspondent who reported this. The BBC is pretty good about differentiating what they are reporting as fact vs. analysis by their correspondents, which is one reason I like BBC.  So this was a little analysis-y, but on the other hand, those correspondents often have good insight into what is going on on the ground.
 * I share your qualms about this... I think it is very relevant information, but I'm just not sure where to put it. --Jaysweet 20:02, 3 August 2006 (UTC)


 * If the report came from a correspondent on the ground, it probably reflects what he was told by the locals - I'd call it direct reportage, not speculative analysis. -- ChrisO 20:21, 3 August 2006 (UTC)


 * Sure, I agree with you. It's just a little bit less fact-y than, say, an official document or a press conference or a picture of a blown up building, since it's just what some people were saying.  But I still agree that a Beeb correspondent is reliable enough for inclusion.  And it does yield an important insight into why/how this tragedy occured.
 * Any thoughts on where to put it, though? It was originally in the intro, which I think is the wrong place for it.  I'm at a loss for where it should be, though... --Jaysweet 20:30, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

Well, analysis of the reasons people remained in the area is significant, if only in that it fuels arguments condemning or exonerating the bombing. Suppose a published source argues that Israel is to blame for the 20 to 60 deaths because "despite leaflet warnings, civilians had no way to leave the area". We could include that, along with any opposing POV such as "Civilian noncombatants were warned and should have left; terrorists who use civilians as human shields are to blame, not us."

The Reactions section doesn't distinguish between POV and insinsuation. Stating part of an argument (phrased as a mere dry recitation of well-known facts) is a tricky way of making an argument without taking responsibility for it. I think this evades NPOV.

Better to say, X & Y condemned the airstrike because of A, B, & C. While Z justified the strike because of D & E. --Uncle Ed 14:00, 4 August 2006 (UTC)


 * Criticism of attacks on civilian areas is in the article Targeting of civilian areas in the 2006 Israel-Lebanon conflict. Dont think media speculation on why the people were there is helpful- its conjecture. Statements from the people who survived would probably be best, with you may find in the recent 50+ page Human Rights Watch report "Israel’s Indiscriminate Attacks Against Civilians in Lebanon" 82.29.227.171 14:51, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

IDF issued a statement not a report
Fixed this misleading section on the statement. Interesting to note that the statement wasnt actually linked to anywhere in the text, only 2nd hand reports of the statement. A report was not issued, a summary of the report by Chief of Staff Halutz was issued in the form of a statement. Also it was the JPost who claimed information on the 'previous attacks'- it is not present in the statement. JPost POV clearly. Please discuss here before messing around with the section as it is now accurate in terms of what the statement was, said, and its quotes from the statement. If in doubt try reading what the statement says. 82.29.227.171 12:14, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

Timeline move
I moved the local and IDF timelines to the same subsection to clarify the distinction between the two. If the more recent news reports make clear when the collapse actually occured (i.e., at 1:30, rescue then delayed by the difficulty of moving at night; or at 7:00, shortly before rescue and initial news reports), then maybe we can just delete one of them and make a single timeline based on all news sources. TheronJ 16:30, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

Regarding the Timeline according to the IDF, points #1, #3 and #4, all seem to mention Israel's reason for striking the village, i.e. they thought it was empty and that Hizubllah was firing rockets from there. They have very little or nothing to do about the timeline of events. Unless anyone thinks otherwise, I suggest these be removed from the article - you could argue about placing them elsewhere (Position of Israel or the IDF investigation sections) but those mention the same points as well - and that we make the Timeline section continuous, not dividing it into two separate accounts, while keeping #2 from the IDF account (which seems to be the only one discussing the timeline). --Bluerain (talk) 08:29, 5 August 2006 (UTC)

Dan Gillerman
Is Israeli ambassador to the UN not a journalist. 82.29.227.171 18:09, 4 August 2006 (UTC)


 * Well spotted - I missed that. Anyays, I've now shifted his quote into "Position of Israel" section Jacob 18:32, 4 August 2006 (UTC)


 * Which is why we must give extra attention to the identity of each person/group advocating a POV on this matter. --Uncle Ed 19:14, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

Details on the building
Available here from Lebanese Daily Star 07/31  notice the conflict with the 0/30 reports of it being the reinforced building- the reports the conspiracy theorists picked up on. 82.29.227.171 18:32, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

Human rights watch
This sentence was added by Omarthesecound to HRW section "The HRW also labelled the Hezbollah's attacks in Israel as serious violations of international humanitarian law". The reference he used was which dates back to July 18 and is a statement by HRW on Hezbollah's attacks in Israel on the previous Sunday and Monday. Does this have anything to do with Qana airstrike ? At best, this belongs to the 2006 Israel-Lebanon conflict.--Wedian 22:59, 4 August 2006 (UTC)


 * HRW made a statement on the 30 July regarding Qana:


 * "Responsibility for the Israeli airstrikes that killed at least 54 civilians sheltering in a home in the Lebanese village of Qana rests squarely with the Israeli military", Human Rights Watch said, and added:

Just because the Israeli military warned the civilians of Qana to leave does not give it carte blanche to blindly attack.


 * as did ICRC:
 * The inference made by the Israeli Justice Minister Haim Ramon that those civilians who remain behind are "terrorists" has been criticised by many human rights groups and the International Committee of the Red Cross (ICRC) who in a 30 July statement on the IDF's attack on Qana said:

Issuing advance warning to the civilian population of impending attacks in no way relieves a warring party of its obligations under the rules and principles of international humanitarian law. In particular, the principles of distinction and proportionality must be respected at all times... The ICRC once again urgently calls for a distinction to be drawn at all times between civilians and civilian objects on the one hand, and military objectives on the other. All necessary precautions must be taken to spare civilian life and objects and to ensure that the wounded have access to medical facilities." 82.29.227.171 00:21, 5 August 2006 (UTC)

It is important that we state both sides of the story. If we have to mention the HRW report on Israel then we must be fair and highlight that the Hezbollah’s actions is also considered “serious violations of international humanitarian law” by the HRW. We must be careful that this article does not become one sided. Omarthesecound 11:39, 5 August 2006 (UTC)
 * This is the article about Qana airstrike. It is not the article about the HRW view of the parties in conflict. We list here HRW statement about this particular incident. Wikipedia has other articles about the conflict in general 2006 Israel-Lebanon conflict, and International reactions to the 2006 Israel-Lebanon conflict to which this content can be added.--Wedian 12:40, 5 August 2006 (UTC)
 * To keep this part of the article NPOV, I suggest we remove the HWR statement completely.Awsert 13:07, 5 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Is that to keep the article NPOV or to push the point of view of only one side of the story. You don't seem to mind the use of HRW statements in general or the use of the same HRW statement to estimate the number of victims in the introduction of the article .--Wedian 15:47, 5 August 2006 (UTC)
 * It is to keep this section NPOV. Please assume good faith -- Awsert 16:17, 5 August 2006 (UTC)
 * The first word in assume good faith is "assume." That means that, in the absence of contrary evidence, you believe that an editor is acting in good faith.  As soon as you have contrary evidence, though, you don't need to AGF any more.  As others said, edit histories don't lie. --Jaysweet 17:31, 5 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Please "Comment on content, not on the contributor". Comments on the contributor is not helpfull! Awsert 17:48, 5 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Show me where I commented on the contributor in that last statement. I commented on Wikipedia policy, not about anyone in particular.  --Jaysweet 17:58, 5 August 2006 (UTC)
 * I aggree with Awsert; there is alraedy a whole section about the Human Rights Watch. It does look POV 196.207.36.130 16:34, 5 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Human Rights Watch are speaking for the victims of the attack. So far their POV is not represented in the article very well.  There are apologies from IDF, some condemnation, and thats it.  Not balanced at all.  As for assuming 'good faith' why should anyone?  Edit histories do not lie. 82.29.227.171 16:44, 5 August 2006 (UTC)
 * To assume good faith is a fundamental principle on Wikipedia. Awsert 16:55, 5 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Until investigation of edit history proves bad faith, misleading edits, and a campaign to distort. Thanks for pointing that out. 82.29.227.171 17:15, 5 August 2006 (UTC)
 * My apologies if my words seemed like a personal attack. I guess i'm not very comfartable to see a number of single purpose accounts who have just joined wikipedia to edit this article only and who show greater familiarity to wikipedia than most newcomers.--Wedian 17:22, 5 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Apology accepted, could we please get back to discuss the article:) Awsert 17:37, 5 August 2006 (UTC)

2006 Qaa airstrike
Added this article and linked to it here. 82.29.227.171 16:41, 5 August 2006 (UTC)

Statement from Yesha Rabbinical Council
This is another piece of info that might as well be put in flashing text, cuz it keeps disappearing and re-eappearing. :p Anyone want to comment? I'm not intimately familiar with how prominent this council is in Israeli society. I would say, if this is a really important group over there, it's worth including their reaction. Otherwise, it just seems like a way to discredit Israel by making them look particularly unrepentant. :shrug: I don't know enough about it to have an opinion, but revert wars always bug me anyway :) --Jaysweet 17:05, 5 August 2006 (UTC)


 * Whether they are an important group or not. This specific statement has been covered by many websites and agencies. The Saudi Embassy has also reacted to these statements. 62.163.161.226 17:22, 5 August 2006 (UTC)


 * Can you give examples of some reputable sources that are covering this in detail? Also, can you source the reaction of the Saudi Embassy?  Those would be important things to see.  As it is right now, the source you add is just a short blurb of what they said on YNetNews.  It looks to me like the Council issued a press release and YNetNews reprinted it, and that's that.  More prominent sources covering this issue might help.
 * In the meantime, I'll check the Wikipedia article you linked to... --Jaysweet 17:24, 5 August 2006 (UTC)
 * hehehe, I can see why you removed the link to the Wikipedia article in a later edit. On the contrary, I think the Wikipedia article on the Council makes them sound pretty minor ;)
 * Still, if the Saudis were that ticked off, it might still be newsworthy. Can you provide a source for that claim? --Jaysweet 17:27, 5 August 2006 (UTC)
 * I don't think it's the same council. 62.163.161.226 17:31, 5 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Aren't many point made on this page being backed by press releases? Then surely that quote from Ynet, a well known press agency in Israel, can be used too.

62.163.161.226 17:29, 5 August 2006 (UTC)
 * This article is not a science subject thus according to Wikipedia you may use a press release. The fact there is one means that the council enjoys a certain amount of attention. 62.163.161.226 17:37, 5 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Actually, I entirely disagree with your last statement. Heck, my band could issue a press release if we wanted to, but nobody would read it :)  I'm fine with sourcing a press release if you can convince me the council is more than just some random anti-Arab cranks.  (and they may very well be, I just don't know enough about Israeli politics to say..)
 * Better yet, though, as I said, if the Saudis are pissed about the statement, that is really newsworthy. If you can find a source that the Saudi embassy has reacted to the comment, that would be really great! --Jaysweet 17:41, 5 August 2006 (UTC)
 * I gave you a link. The Saudi Embassy reported prior to the attacks a condemnation of a statement made by that council, another similar statement. Note there is a big difference between your band and AP, AFP et cetera. Thanks to that we accept press releases made by these bureau and not those who are made by your band. 62.163.161.226 17:46, 5 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Here is a link which proves that this council is influential:

62.163.161.226 17:50, 5 August 2006 (UTC)


 * Ah yes, my sincere apologies, I missed the link. :)  So that other people don't miss it as well, here is the link showing the Saudi Embassy's reaction.  Well, thanks for providing that.  I still do not have a strong opinion either way on the inclusion of this detail.  I would like to hear from other editors. --Jaysweet 17:56, 5 August 2006 (UTC)


 * I believe they are cranks, there are a lot more influential politicians making the same claims in more veiled terminology. 82.29.227.171 17:16, 5 August 2006 (UTC)
 * I agree, remove statement for now Awsert 18:27, 5 August 2006 (UTC)


 * Restored the info. It comes from the english version of Ynet website which is owned and operated by the notable Yedioth Ahronoth of the Yedioth Group, Israel's largest media company. Note that Ynet is one of the most visited Israeli news websites. -- Szvest 19:23, 5 August 2006 (UTC) Wiki me up&#153;


 * I do not dispute the fact, but I do not belief this statement is part of the Israeli Position. If it is please ref a source which states it is. Awsert 19:30, 5 August 2006 (UTC)


 * It is very relevant though i know it is an unofficial statement. I've just created a sub-section for that reason. -- Szvest 19:36, 5 August 2006 (UTC) Wiki me up&#153;


 * What does it have to do with the Qana airstrike? I'm not clear on that. This probably belongs in the 'targeting of civilian areas' article where you can make a case for its inclusion based on the influence this group exercises in Israeli society 82.29.227.171 20:10, 5 August 2006 (UTC)


 * They're not an important group. Yesha is an acronym for the Hebrew names of the occupied territories, so the Yesha Council is the council of settler representatives (see also ) and the Yesha Rabbinical Council is the council of settler rabbis.  I suppose that they can be said to represent the 150,000 or so settlers, but whoever has been calling them the "powerful Yesha Rabbinical Counsel" on the main page can't possibly verify that characterization.  The only time they show up in news stories that I can find prior to the current conflict is when they oppose (unsuccessfully) Israel's various pull-outs.  TheronJ


 * They are important Theron. We all know the weight of Israeli settlers on the Israeli policy. 150,000 is a very large number considering the size of the Isreali population. -- Szvest 20:26, 5 August 2006 (UTC)


 * While I acknowledge your point on pressure this group might exercise over a leader like Olmert what does it have to do with the Qana airstrike? I'm not saying its unimportant just that this article is about the attack.  It would only become relevant if you could demonstrate that the pilot/mission planners intentionally attacked the civilians and they were influenced by these people.  This information is better placed at the page talking about civilian areas where you can make the case on their influence on government policy in lebanon. 82.29.227.171 20:55, 5 August 2006 (UTC)

This has already been discussed ad naseum in the Israeli-Lebanese conflict thread.

As I've explained there, the council statments have nothing to do with the Qana strike, which is the most relevent point, and secondly, the ynet article is erreneous as the statement was made weeks before. Anyone interested can read the discussion. The statement is completely irrelevent to this article and the person who tried to insert it is pov warring from article to article.

Guy Montag 22:23, 5 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Am I "warring" from article to article? Prove it! You have my IP so you should be able if you speak the truth. Secondly who are you to decide the article is erreneous? Prove it! For now it's your word against a press release from a well known Israeli source. The statement is not irrelevant because it is a response to the Qana attack hence very relevent. 62.163.161.226 22:40, 5 August 2006 (UTC)

I am not about to engage in conversation with someone who doesn't have the common decency to read the talkpage from another thread discussing this same topic. But for everyone else. The statement was made July 12th in response to rocket attacks, and another statement was made after eight Israeli soldiers were killed in Bint Jbeil in response to the outrage of the Israeli government not using the proper force to subdue a terrorist stronghold, and the percieved inability to put the lives of Israeli soldiers above Lebanese civilians. It is in line with a statement made by Prof. Asha Kasser, who wrote the IDF Code of Ethics, and on July 28th told the Jerusalem Post that it may be morally justified to obliterate areas with a high concentration of terrorists, even if civilian casualties result.

This statement has nothing to do with the airstrike or the article. So, stop reinserting this irrelevent nonsense.Guy Montag 23:11, 5 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Professor Asa Kasher 'IDF may be morally justified in flattening terror strongholds' 82.29.227.171 23:26, 5 August 2006 (UTC)


 * Maybe you have not noticed but I am refering to another statement made by that council. I have read the other thread. This is another statement with a clear time stamp. The piece will go back to where it belongs. 62.163.161.226 23:16, 5 August 2006 (UTC)


 * Just to be sure, a quote from that statement "The Yesha Rabbinical Council announced in response to an IDF attack in Kfar Qanna that 'according to Jewish law, during a time of battle and war, there is no such term as 'innocents' of the enemy.'" 62.163.161.226 23:22, 5 August 2006 (UTC)

Yes Ynet has made a mistake. The announcement was made on July 12th. The airstrike was on July 30th. Can the council see the future? Because that would be more relevent news than their press release. Now get a grip and stop reinserting this nonsense. Guy Montag 23:25, 5 August 2006 (UTC)


 * How do you know they made a mistake? How can you be so sure that this quote is part of a previous statement? Please provide some evidence. 62.163.161.226 23:28, 5 August 2006 (UTC)

How can you be sure that it was not part of a previous statement? That's why it wasn't included in the Israel Lebanon article. Guy Montag 23:30, 5 August 2006 (UTC)


 * The onus of proof is upon you. This is a press release published by a renowned Israeli source. No rectification can be found related to that statement. Put it back because you keep deleting it. 62.163.161.226 23:37, 5 August 2006 (UTC)
 * I am not quite sure but these two statements (July 12th on jpost) and  (July 30th on Ynet) seem to have some similarities. Both are mentining the need to ignore christian moralities. Aren't they?--Wedian 23:47, 5 August 2006 (UTC)

Its basically the same statement. There were two statements made. One regarding the beginning of the conflict and the second after Bint Jbeil. This third one is unconfirmed and mirrors the one made on July 12th. No other newspaper picked it up. I suggest leaving it out as in the other article until more sources are found. Even then, I think this statement is completely irrelevent.

Guy Montag 00:05, 6 August 2006 (UTC)

A quick google for Yesha Rabbinical Council returns nothing but comments/reports of this quote. Nothing else. Since the only thing this organisation seems at all notable for is saying this, I don't really see any point in including the quote here other than making Israel look bad. And, frankly, Israel's doing a good enough job of that itself already so my view is that the quote should be dropped Jacob 03:09, 6 August 2006 (UTC)
 * He, Guy, kept deleting my justified and backed-with-facts addition. Then why do you give me that message about reverting and why did you delete that particular statement? Your comment in that thread seems to biased as you say Israel is doing a good job. How is that relevant? And how relevant is your google search? Ynet is a well known bureau in Israel. That statement has been issued (period), it is relevant and people have the right to know it. It has been agreed that council is well known in Israel and has much influence. See the thread. Please put it back. 62.163.161.226 12:22, 6 August 2006 (UTC)
 * You misunderstand. The reliability of Ynet is not under dispute. Guy has made the well argued point that the article you are referring to is not a response to the Qana strike, and therefore doesn't belong in this article. Secondly, there is debate as to whether this group is notable or not. There are plenty of religious groups in any country - why is this one notable, apart from making Jews (since you've put it under the heading 'religious response') sound like they approve of the slaughter of civilians? Do any major Jewish groups support this? The fact that only ynet has picked it up seems like no other news source considers them notable. And while I can't speak for Jacob, I think you've also misunderstood him - he was actually criticising Israel, not supporting them. --Iorek85 12:47, 6 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Actually, the reliability of Ynet is under dispute. This article by Ynet clearly states that this statement was issued in response to Qana airstrike on July 30th. I think what Guy suggests is that it was the same statement issued on July 12th  which -if true- would question the credibility of Ynet. If these were 2 different statements, then i think it may be relevant to the Qana airstrike. The only issue here would be the weight and notability of this group.--Wedian 13:41, 6 August 2006 (UTC)

International reactions to the 2006 Qana airstrike
I'm not sure if i should mention this here but i'll say it anyway. There is currently an Afd regarding the International reactions to the 2006 Qana airstrike. You can vote here. Most votes are either to keep it or merge back to this article. As editors of this article, i thought you would be interested to vote .--Wedian 23:58, 5 August 2006 (UTC)

IDF video (again)
I just fixed this again for the 3rd or 4th time.

Lets be clear; the IDF video of rockets being fired that they released after Qana showed 2 things:
 * a rocket launcher outside and to the SW of a town the IDF identified as Qana. Thats right, even in their own video they dont show the laucher inside the town.
 * the video then showed footage of what the IDF claimed were rocket launchers parking up inside buildings in an unidentified town. Thats it.


 * Note* the video did not say that the town where the vehicles were parking was Qana- it just left that to the imagination. You can bet your ass they would've said it if it were the case. It is an old trick. The JPost may say thats what the video shows but watch it for yourself and look see if the area where the trucks are parking up is identified.

Not even in their own statement after the 'investigation' was completed did the IDF say Qana housed rocket launchers. The said only that they had information it did, information which they themselves admit, was 110% wrong. 82.29.227.171 23:30, 6 August 2006 (UTC)


 * How can information be 110% wrong? Guy Montag 06:18, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

Its an idiomatic expression. If you are going to attempt sarcasm, at least try to sound smart and witty.--Cerejota 06:37, 7 August 2006 (UTC)


 * Please provide a source that they admit it was wrong. – Smyth\talk 16:30, 7 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Smyth -> from statement on summary:"The IDF operated according to information that the building was not inhabited by civilians and was being used as a hiding place for terrorists. Had the information indicated that civilians were present in the building the attack would not have been carried out" 82.29.227.171 17:49, 7 August 2006 (UTC)


 * That's not what I asked you to source. You claimed the IDF admitted that Qana contained no rocket launchers, but your reference is not inconsistent with that very building having been used. – Smyth\talk 18:16, 7 August 2006 (UTC)
 * You are right Smyth I apologise. I stated 2 things in that final sentence:
 * that IDF claimed to have information that Qana housed rocket launchers- they never claimed that
 * that this ficticious information the IDF possessed, (that Qana housed rocket launchers), was admitted by them to be wrong.
 * I of course meant that they admitted the information they had that Qana contained terrorists was wrong. 82.29.227.171 18:43, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

Is there verifiable, reliable sources that indepently confirm (not just report) the IDF story? I mean, the IDF is a combatant with a vested interest in the outcome in the conflict, and hence whatever they say is as suspect as whatever Al-Manar says. If we cannot provide that, then this video is unreliable and unverifiable and hence we cannot include it.--Cerejota 06:35, 7 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Human Rights Watch, who investigated Qana on the ground in their August 3rd 50-page report, “Fatal Strikes: Israel’s Indiscriminate Attacks Against Civilians in Lebanon,” said they found no evidence of Hezbollah, quote:"'During site visits conducted in Qana, Srifa, and Tyre, Human Rights Watch saw no evidence that there had been Hezbollah military activity around the areas targeted by the IDF during or just prior to the attack: no spent ammunition, abandoned weapons or military equipment, trenches, or dead or wounded fighters.' Page 4"
 * The attack on Qana is page 32-34 in the report and contains testimony from the victims I will be including in this article.82.29.227.171 17:09, 7 August 2006 (UTC)


 * C, IMHO, there isn't a reliability or verifiability problem with the video. Under WP:RS, and WP:OR the video is a primary source, so no Wikipedia editors should be drawing the conclusion that the villiage pictured is (or isn't) Qana simply from their own observation.  Assuming that a reliable published source has reported on the existence of the video, however, there is no obstacle to saying "The IDF claims that a video of rocket fire shows . . ."  Any other interpretation would mean that we can't report what the two combatants have to say.  Thanks, TheronJ 16:42, 7 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Which is exactly my point. The IDF don't claim either in their video or in their statement on the report that the buildings contained rocket launchers- only that they had information that they did. Information that turned out to be false.  So including the claim that the trucks parking in the video are parking in Qana is not valid because IDF never stated that. 82.29.227.171 17:17, 7 August 2006 (UTC)


 * My 2¢: The video shows Qana (the village is easily identifiable from its layout and topography), and it does show two things:
 * Rockets fired from SW of the town; and
 * The launcher being driven into the town (it is identifiable as Qana) and being stored in the town.
 * Cheers AWN AWN2 16:11, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

Please provide a source that it is identifiable as Qana. – Smyth\talk 16:30, 7 August 2006 (UTC)


 * The town is identifiable? In what way? IDF dont identify the area that launchers park into as Qana.  Here is a satellite view of Qana from google maps


 * Here is image IDF had [[Image:NonFreeImageRemoved.svg]]


 * compare to orientated googlemaps view of town and area


 * After showing the rockets being launched the IDF video breaks the sequence then goes on to show vehicles which it identifies as launchers parking inside buildings. The area the buildings are in is not identified and the IDF do not subtitle the sequence showing parking with "Civilian buildings in Qana" (because they have no footage of launchers being parked in Qana).


 * It is left to the imagination of the viewer to make a connection between the images of rockets firing outside Qana and the following sequence even though no connection exists. Its a propaganda trick. 82.29.227.171 17:00, 7 August 2006 (UTC)


 * Now compare with what Dan Gillerman, Israeli ambassador to the UN said on 30 July: "We will make available to the Security Council a film that shows Hizbullah launching a rocket from right behind a three-storey house: a civilian residence very similar to the one that was hit today in Kafr Qana." The same linguistic slight of hand- he doesnt say that he has video of a rocket being fired from within Qana, only from behind a building very similar to the one destroyed in Qana.


 * These people are trained diplomats, spokespeople, intelligence officers. It is their job to leave little traps like this which the reader, viwer and listener fill in with their own imagination.  This means they get the wrong impression or add 2 + 2 to make 5.  The same slight of hand has appeared in this article. 82.29.227.171 17:56, 7 August 2006 (UTC)


 * Nice, someone had the image for google maps disallowed :) I will just add it to the article so its clear where these rockets were firing from. 82.29.227.171 21:41, 7 August 2006 (UTC) now added here


 * The video shows a vehicle apparently being driven into a house of an unusual U-shape. There is only one such building in the Google maps photo and it isn't the building in the video.  So either the building is new (but the Google is copyright 2006) or the video shows a building somewhere else. --Zerotalk

Investigations into the incident
The initial investigation into the 'incident' isnt given. Here is it. Funny that the text is not referenced only 2nd hand reports from media. This statement mentions 3 individual sorties on the town in the space of 8 hours. Is this fact mentioned in the article at present? Note* that 3 individual sorties were flown and dropped a payload on what could be 9? 'targets' does not conflict with the final statement summary the IDF issued.
 * 1200hrs - 0100hrs - "attacked the vicinity of the building which was hit. Precise hits of the target were noted"
 * 0200hrs - 0300hrs - 400/500 meters from the building. 3 targets were hit with precision bombs
 * 0730hrs -

From the final statement on Qana we know the 'targets' that night were buildings. So all the 'targets' mentioned above were buildings including the one where the civilians were. From the resident we know they say the building came down after the first attack.

IDF also mention a "control bunker" and that the village was being used as a "storage locations" (conflicts with later HRW investigation): "As I said, the targets were carefully selected, and this village had extensive activity in it. Some of the targets attacked during the night are related to storage locations. Some are related to the command center in the vicinity of this building. Not far from the building attacked yesterday, the building where people not involved in the fighting were killed, another building very close by was attacked two days ago. "

The delay in collapse they speculated on is handled as: "Reports from Lebanon about the [collapsed] building that was hit, the building where there were civilians not involved in the fighting, were received at around 08:00-08:30 AM more or less, after the end of the attack that began at 07:30 AM."

The Hezbollah ordanance conspiracy theory enters the frame with: "The gap between the time of the attack and the time at which the building collapsed is still not clear to us. It can perhaps be attributed to other munitions present in the building that perhaps ultimately resulted in its collapse; we simply do not know at this time and we need to continue to investigate the matter. "

I think that it will be more useful to write up what the IDF said instead of writing up what the media say the IDF said. 82.29.227.171 18:22, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

Hezbollah planted disabled children in basements to die?
Don't want to get into the firestorm of editing this article, but here's a bit of news that puts the entire incident into a different light. French language Lebanese publication, citing an unnamed source in Hezbollah, has claimed that the organization placed a rocket launcher on the roof of the notorious building in Qana to provoke an Israeli attack and brought invalid children inside to serve as victims and blacken Israel's name. Crockspot 18:25, 7 August 2006 (UTC)


 * Belongs in 2006 Qana airstrike conspiracy theories, think the original article is already cited though. 82.29.227.171 18:44, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

Now why should an unnamed source in an unnamed French language Lebanese publication provide a reference source for an encyclopedia? Herne nz

UN report ?
Have read that a preliminary report by the UN have been made. That should be added under "Investigations into the incident" imi2 18:44, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

2006 Shiyyah airstrike
Someone on Hasbara duty should go and insert the latest excuse from the IDF in the article, I couldnt find it, nor the latest announcement of an 'investigation'. Mema435 21:11, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

Allegations that the photos were staged
What are we doing about this? It seems similar to the photo manipulations by the Reuters photographer, but I think it's distinct. I'm also not sure it's just a conspiracy theory that the airstrike has been used as propaganda. --Cdogsimmons 21:16, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

And also, the lead photograph in this article cites as a reference a distinctly biased source, a website set up, it looks, specifically to use pictures of the airstrike as propaganda.--Cdogsimmons 21:21, 8 August 2006 (UTC)


 * Well, neither the section, nor the article, should be called "conspiracy theories". It was called that in order to discredit the allegations, in a strictly POV way. I much prefer something like "Allegations of a hoax" or "Allegations of fakery". That way you could include all three categories (Hezbollah inviting attacks, photo doctoring, photo staging) in one place. Korny O&#39;Near 21:33, 8 August 2006 (UTC)


 * At best they are "claims" and even that gives them too much creedence. The conspiracy theory article lists them all- from the bodies on ice, to the man standing up, to the rocket on the roof, to Mr White T-shirt & Green Helmet and the claims of staging.  If you want to POV fork a "staging of photographs at Qana" article you will need to bring a lot more proof to the table than appears there now or you could start you own blog. Wikipedia is not a blog.  Only reason the conspiracy theory article on Qana exists at all is because of the precedent set by 911- its an article for the debunking/analysis of the claims made, not an article to validate them based on half baked theories cooked up by bloggers. 82.29.227.171 22:35, 8 August 2006 (UTC)


 * I've moved a chunk of this content into the conspiracy theories article. -- ChrisO 23:15, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Why did you move this Chris? It seems like an effort to suppress information.  The fact that photo was altered in no longer in doubt.  The information should be made available in both articles. RonCram 13:51, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

"Conspiracy theories"
The phrase "conspiracy theories", both in this article and in the title of the spinoff article, is highly POV as it implies that the theories are incorrect. See comment by Korny O'Near in previous section. It could be "Allegations of fraud in 2006 Qana explosions", or "Doubts about 2006 Qana explosions." Any opinions? Regardless of what it changes to, it cannot remain as it is. 6SJ7 01:11, 9 August 2006 (UTC)


 * The theories are incorrect, check the article- all been debunked already. Do you have some "proof" to elevate the theories to accusations? Please take it to the talkpage on that article. The only allegation of fraud left standing is that the "emotion" witnessed by the press at Qana was staged. Would be interested to see proof that it was. 82.29.227.171 14:49, 9 August 2006 (UTC)
 * It's your POV that they've all been debunked. 6SJ7 15:46, 9 August 2006 (UTC)
 * ALL been debunked? There's more coming out of the woodwork everyday. Pallywood is producing some fine gems. Have you checked the slideshow from the NY Times? In your opinion, it's been debunked but as anybody can see, the crack is just starting to spread.Yossiea 17:00, 9 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Well, there you go. I frankly think that all statements about this incident should have qualifications and "disclaimers" attached to them, because I really don't know what to believe.  The only thing that is clear to me is that dead children are being used as political pawns by the enemies of Israel, but everything beyond that, such as exactly how and when some or all of them died, remains to be seen.  The point is, "conspiracy theories" is the wrong label, as it makes it sound like some kind of "alien abduction" nonsense.   6SJ7 17:28, 9 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Hold on, im talking about theories like: corpses were removed from Tyre, refrigerated, driven to Qana, then planted in the rubble. Or the theory that one of the rescue workers- "White T-shirt" changed his clothes midway through posing with dead bodies.  Or the theory that corpses in the throws of rigor mortis werent dead at all but really people sitting up with white sheets on them. Those types of conspiracy theories?  Yes I think theyve all been debunked. I placed a disclaimer on the conspiracy theory article earlier explaining to readers that the article probably breaks every rule in the wikipedia book on WP:OR, WP:V, WP:NOT, and WP:RS. Considering the ongoing agitation to have these theories, which have all been debunked, included in an encyclopedia its probably best not to delete the article just yet, and it is notable as being "the first conspiracy theory for the rightwing" to quote the Wash Post. 82.29.227.171 19:24, 9 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Well, the Washington Post can say whatever it wants, but I am not "rightwing" and yet I have been given no reason to disbelieve any of these theories. 6SJ7 21:00, 9 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Parts of the theories have been definitively proven by the German newpaper Zapp. Footage available on 140.180.2.108 18:36, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

New flare-up
Changed this section to "August 6th attack" and also re-edited the wording. CNN did report that the rocket launcher was in the "town of Qana" but if you check the IDF video they released its clearly away from any structure in an area of foliage. Just thought it was worth clarifying. 82.29.227.171 14:49, 9 August 2006 (UTC)
 * For those of us who didn't see the video, it is not clear whether what you are saying here and what the article currently says mean the same thing. "Away from any structure in an area of foliage" and "away from the town" do not necessarily mean the same thing.  Is there a source for how far (in feet or meters) it was from a structure?  In any event, since these are movable rocket launchers, I am not sure how relevant this is to the article, one way or the other.  Where the rocket launcher was on one day has little bearing on where it was days before that.   6SJ7 18:04, 9 August 2006 (UTC)


 * Check the video, its cited in the article and heres a direct link. Its very clearly not near buildings. If you check the map of Qana its a pretty thin strip of buildings in some kind of agricultural area.  The roads/buildings show up in different colors in the first video, and you will notice the color of the foliage is blackish compared to the road which has a heat signature.  Heres some images of the position of the launcher they showed in the 2nd video: A B C.  This is where I would guesstimate the launcher was  based on the terrain.


 * Similar story with the original Qana video the IDF released- they said it was in Qana, JPost etc reported it as such but it was actually a good distance SW. Check the distance away as showing on on the satellite map  and compare to the image from the IDF video in topics above this one.


 * Either way its nowhere near the strip of buildings running northwest to southeast that is Qana and thats not a point made via WP:OR either, no buildings anywhere near it, if there were you could say- "its in Qana". 82.29.227.171 19:06, 9 August 2006 (UTC)


 * First of all, unless I am missing something, it looks to me like the missiles in the second part of the video are coming from at least three distinct points within seconds of each other, so when you say "the launcher" I am not sure what you mean. It looks to me like there are at least three launchers.  As for "nowhere near buildings", that is your interpretation.  By my measurement from the scale on the map, the center of your red circle (what you "guesstimate" as being the site of "the launcher") is only about 400 feet from some of the buildings and about 500 to 600 feet from the edge of the main cluster of buildings to the northeast.  There is another building about 400 feet to the southwest.  Plus, there is some kind of building (it casts a shadow, though a short one) in the circle itself.  That is near buildings, and it could very well be considered "in town."  From some of these buildings I am sure you could see the launcher, not just the flash from the launch which obviously you could see very clearly, but also the launcher itself.  So, you have your interpretation, but the IDF could legitimately have a different interpretation.  6SJ7 19:49, 9 August 2006 (UTC)


 * Sorry I gave you a Bum Steer. Ignore my ramblings about the googlemap image I made, ignore the red indicator. Check the video. The Hebrew in the video means nothing to me but the english text says that the area the 3 rocket launcher were firing from was "Between Qana and Zidkin" "Zidkin" like "kfar Kana" must be an israeli spelling of the towns name in Lebanese, shown on this map as "Zibqin". [[Image:South lebanon Qana locator map.png|right|thumb|305px|Map of South Lebanon showing location of Qana]]
 * Notice 2 things from the map
 * Qana is in direct line of sight with Zidqin, no other towns marked between the two.
 * Zidqin is a significant distance southwest of Qana. Compare the area "between" those 2 places on googlemaps, its miles: Qana & Zibqin.
 * Thats a pretty big area in "between" there that the IDF are saying the rockets were fired from. Add to that the complete lack of buildings shown in the video, the foliage around the launchers (indicated by blackish heat sig), and the lack of specifics in the "IDF interpretation" of where the launchers were placed? id say im pretty convinced those rockets werent fired anywhere near Qana only somewhere between it and Zibqin as the IDF stated in their video. 82.29.227.171 20:45, 9 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Updated the article to describe what the IDF described in their video- "Between Qana and Zidkin". 82.29.227.171 21:01, 9 August 2006 (UTC)


 * Well, you have got me totally confused now about what statement, and by who, you think the video refutes, but at this point, forget it, it's not really worth it. The war is not being fought on Wikipedia, or on Google maps, and I am becoming increasingly of the opinion that Wikipedia should adopt a rule that with exceptions like a famous person dying, no event may be mentioned in any article on Wikipedia until some specified number of days after it happens.  That certainly would have saved a lot of people a lot of work on all these war articles.  Maybe we should give an event time to actually finish happening, and let other people actually get to investigate it and write about it in "reliable sources", before we try to have an encyclopedia article about it. 6SJ7 21:05, 9 August 2006 (UTC)


 * Sorry for getting it wrong, took me a while to work out that the Zibdin they were referring to in the video was a town on a map. 82.29.227.171 21:11, 9 August 2006 (UTC)


 * I'm afraid the "Zidkin" is a transliteration error (probably the Arabic-Hebrew transliteration is different to the Arabic-English one). The place in question is transliterated by the CIA as As Siddiqin and it's a short distance to the southeast of Qana. It's too small to be shown on the UN-derived map reproduced above. The new map I've just added here, which comes from a much higher-resolution source, shows the geographical relationships between the various places mentioned in the article. -- ChrisO 23:06, 16 August 2006 (UTC)