A question about the soldiers that were "kidnapped"?

[kentuck]

I read somewhere the other day that they were "kidnapped" near one of the first towns that Israel captured when they invaded Lebanon? Has anyone else read that? Were they "kidnapped" in Lebanon or in Israel? Does it make a difference? Were they "kidnapped" or were they captured?

[DemocratSinceBirth]

1. It Would Make A Huge Difference

But they were on the right side of the Green Line when they were "kidnapped", "captured", or "abducted".

[Richard Steele]

2. The initial reports said they were INSIDE Lebanon when captured.

This all changed within a few hours; now the official story is that they were
NEAR the border, but on their own side.

And: CIVILIANS are 'kidnapped'; soldiers are CAPTURED.

[TahitiNut]

15. A tank, with markings of their unit, was found disabled by an IED

... inside the Lebanese border. There are conflicting claims regarding this being an indication that the soldiers were captured during an IDF incursion. While one might conclude that the very presence of the tank is a "footprint" of a precipitating incursion, the IDF claims that the tank was disabled during a reactive/responsive IDF foray into Lebanese territory.

It's yet another example of conflicting explanations/rationalizations. Pick 'em.

[cali]

3. Last night on Charlie Rose

P.M. Siniora said that H'zbollah crossed into Israel to capture the soldiers. Furthermore, in the weeks since the capture/kidnapping/whatever, H'zbollah has not denied the reports that they crossed into Israel.

[Totally Committed]

4. From what I understand, they were CAPTURED in Lebanon...

"Kidnapped" implies they were taken against their will while still in their own country on patrol or taken from their barracks or whatever. From what I've read and been told, they were on patrol in Lebanon, and TAKEN PRISONER -- as all SOLDIERS are when they are captured by the enemy.

I feel, as always with Neo-Cons, language is being exploited here to get as much sympathy and absolve one side of any responsibility. "Kidnapped" soldiers garner more sympathy than "Captured" soldiers. And soldiers that are "being held" by the other side garner more sympathy than those who have been "Taken Prisoner". The implication is that they did nothing wrong and were kidnapped, rather than being in the wrong place at the wrong time and taken prisoner by a real enemy in a combat situation.

That's what I think is happening here. I think they are simply taking a page from Rove and using language to control a situation and escape responsibility for being in a place they shouldn't have been, and looking like an aggressor.

TC

[cali]

7. It defies logic

by anyone who knows anything about that border that a handful of Israeli soldiers in lightly armored vehicles would be "on patrol" in Lebanon. And if it's true that tthey were captured in Lebanon, how is it that H'zbollah hasn't broadcast that? - this is a highly media savvy organization. And why has the P.M. clearly stated that H'zbollah crossed into Israel to conduct the Operation?

I hate revisionist history whatever side it's from, and I condemn heartily Israel's bombing of and invasion into Lebanon, but this business of trying to depict H'zbollah as innocent lambs, without providing any evidence, is just absurd.

[Totally Committed]

11. I am NOT trying to depict Hezbollah as "innocent lambs"!

They are no such thing. I have (as I have said often) both Israeli friends and family, as well as friends in Lebanon who are all very dear to me. I absolutely condemn what is happening to the civilians there on BOTH SIDES. I am telling you that actual people there on the ground have told me they believe those soldiers were taken prisoners in S. Lebanon. Do I think they know for sure? Not sure, but got the same answer from a number of them.

I think BOTH Hezbollah AND Israel are wrong in this whole thing at this point. I think Israel has the right to defend herself, but there is a question of proportionality. I think Hezbollah needs to stop mixing in with the general population as a military ploy. It's cowardly, cynical, and obviously kills more Lebanese civilians in the long run.

But, I will NOT be an apologist for EITHER SIDE, either. I call it as I see it.

TC

[Waya]

29. Hezbollah HAS broadcast that.......

.....and so did CNN around 4:30 am on the day this all started. They showed the map where the Soldiers were captured which clearly showed the spot to be inside Lebanon - around 2.5 miles into Lebanon, actually.
That map disappeared from the CNN website and the news cast shortly after and has never been seen again.

[Name removed]

30. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[cali]

36. If H'zbollah broadcast it, you

should be able to braodcast a link. It's that simple.

[Igel]

9. The reports--all of them--are based on

what Lebanese police said in a village near Israel.

They weren't there. They're not eyewitnesses.

The story gets dragged out by people who need to know the "real truth".

In this case, Hezbollah and Siniora and the Israelis are all obviously lying.

Now, why exactly Hezbollah needed to mount the battery of katyusha fire that served as the distraction, and why the police didn't mention the dead IDF on the Israeli side of the border or the tank that was killed when it crossed into Lebanon, who knows?

Oh. Wait. They weren't eyewitnesses.

Most plausible scenario: They heard rumors that Hezbollah had two Israelis. Hezbollah's the resistance. They must have resisted. Accusing them of aggression would be bad; being ignorant of what went on would be bad; accusing the Israelis of being victims would be bad.

Only outcome commensurate with the requirements that the truth had to meet: the IDF were on the Lebanese side of the Green Line. Hezbollah good, Lebanese victimized, Israelis bad, police all-knowing.

[Karmakaze]

10. Here is another thing they never tell you about...

thanks to Israeli press censorship:

Here is a UN report covering the period 2 July 2005 to 20 January 2006:

3. In a serious breach of the ceasefire, Hizbollah launched an attack across the Blue Line on 21 November. The exchange began with heavy Hizbollah mortar and rocket fire from a number of locations against several IDF positions close to the Blue Line in the eastern sector of the UNIFIL area of operation. Simultaneously, a large group of Hizbollah fighters infiltrated Ghajar village and launched an assault on the Mayor's office and the IDF position inside the village, south of the Blue Line, which was vacant at the time. This was followed by an attempt to attack the main IDF position on the eastern outskirts of the village. Four Hizbollah fighters were killed during the exchange of small arms fire with IDF. There was significant damage to civilian property in the village and one civilian resident was wounded.

http://domino.un.org/unispal.nsf/9a798adbf322aff38525617b006d88d7/2a066c47641b5b6d852570fc00782a27!OpenDocument

Note the bolded statements. Oh my, is the IDF using the innocent civilians of Ghajar as human shields?

Want to see how this press censorship works? Read this:

Israel also announced that troops had established a fortified position in Ghajar, a region in southern Lebanon.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=364&topic_id=1817500&mesg_id=1818610

Once again note the bold word. Region? It is not a region, it is a VILLAGE. But not when the IDF is announcing that it is setting up military positions. Suddenly it is just a vague "region".

[msmcghee]

16. This is astounding.

The UN report you reference explicitly says that "Hizbollah launched an attack across the Blue Line on 21 November." I think the poster is trying to imply that there is something wrong with the IDF being inside the village that was attacked.

As if there is no difference between defensive patrols being located in towns close to a disputed border where enemy are known to infiltrate across to attack civilians - and locating and firing missiles from inside a populated village so that Israel would be forced to attack those positions in order to quell the missile fire.

I think what this shows is the "religious" nature of the beliefs that many here have that Hezbollah are the brave freedom fighters of Lebanon - protecting Lebanon from the cunning IDF who only want to kill Lebanese civilians. Note that in this report the Hizbollah attacked the mayor's office.

Like many "religious" myths there is no amount of reason or logic that can penetrate your emotional needs to believe in your preferred version of reality. All facts will be twisted in that service. I used to think that people on the left had a bit of an advantage in terms of their ability to use reason and rationality to overcome strong emotional beliefs that make them feel good.

Posts like this one - and this whole Israel / Hezbollah matter - show me otherwise. We can be just as irrational as the RW when our "sacred" beliefs are at stake.

[Karmakaze]

20. Total bullshit, and you know it.

"As if there is no difference between defensive patrols being located in towns close to a disputed border where enemy are known to infiltrate across to attack civilians"

Utter bullshit. They infiltrate across to attack IDF positions. The media simply isnt allowed to TELL you the attack was on an IDF POSITION in the village of Ghajar.

So the news report will say:

"Hizbullah crossed the border and attacked the village of Ghajar, resulting in the wounding of an Israeli civilian"

rather thean the truth which would be:

"Hizbullah crossed the border and attacked IDF positions in the village of Ghajar, resulting in the wounding of an Israeli civilian"

Notice how the story is very different when you leave out the fact that the IDF were there.

Need more proof? How about this article:

Although we should not romanticise Hizbullah, equally we should not be quick to demonise it either: unless there is convincing evidence suggesting it has been firing on civilian targets. The problem is that Israel has been abusing very successfully its military censorship rules governing both its domestic media and visiting foreign journalists to prevent meaningful discussion of what Hizbullah has been trying to hit inside Israel.

I live in northern Israel in the Arab city of Nazareth. A week into the war we were hit by Hizbullah rockets that killed two young brothers. The attack, it was widely claimed, was proof either that Hizbullah was indiscriminately targeting civilians (so indiscriminately, the argument went, that it was hitting fellow Arabs) or that the Shiite militia was so committed to a fanatical war against the Judeo-Christian world that it was happy to kill Nazareth's Christian Arabs too. The latter claim could be easily dismissed: it depended both on a "clash of civilisations" philosophy not shared by Hizbullah and on the mistaken assumption that Nazareth is a Christian city, when in fact, as is well-known to Hizbullah, Nazareth has a convincing Muslim majority.

But to anyone living in Nazareth, it was clear the rocket attack on the city was not indiscriminate either. It was a mistake -- something Nasrallah quickly confirmed in one of his televised speeches. The real target of the strike was known to Nazarenes: close by the city are a military weapons factory and a large military camp. Hizbullah knows the locations of these military targets because this year, as was widely reported in the Israeli media at the time, it managed to fly an unmanned drone over the Galilee photographing the area in detail -- employing the same spying techniques used for many years by Israel against Lebanon.

Jonathan Cook: War of Media Deception

[eyl]

31. Something you apaprently don't know about Ghajar

the Blue Line (the Israeli-Lebanon border) runs through Ghajar, splitting it into two. The outpost there is to prevent attempts to infiltrate the border through the village.

[Igel]

34. I have found that having a decent set of maps

frequently settles any number of questions that I have. Before I ask them. Usually.

Too bad most of the maps I've found have too large a scale (although a few UN maps and some road maps are damned handy).

[Lefty48197]

26. Hezbollah is not the official military of Lebanon

They are nothing more, or less, than a gang of murderers.

[Missy M]

5. I also read the soldiers were captured near one of the first...

towns Israel took over when they invaded Lebanon. It was confusing because Israel has always claimed Hezbollah crossed into Israel. At this point it is hard to know who to believe. Either way the destruction of Lebanon should not be the answer.

[Oversea Visitor]

6. Control of news important

Only one side stroy get told.
All control.
One in control get their story told.
Why so surprise.
You mean the American reporter in Iraq can just report what they want and not what the US goverment want.

[cali]

14. Yes,

American reporters who aren't lazy network asses can report what they want. Maybe you should try reading some JOhn Burns, Dexter Filkins or Edward Wong.

[msmcghee]

18. Of course, you could just read the UN report.

But that might not support your preferred version of reality, would it?

http://domino.un.org/unispal.nsf/9a798adbf322aff38525617b006d88d7/2a066c47641b5b6d852570fc00782a27!OpenDocument

I recommend every member of DU interested in this situation actually read this report with an open mind.

[nadinbrzezinski]

22. I have, thank you

and yes I concluded this a while ago.. this place has entered the same kind of bizarro world the rw has been in for a while... and this will only make the left more
no less, more dysfunctional

[Missy M]

23. No need to attack me, I just mentioned I read the same...

thing the OP wrote about. How do you know what my preferred version of reality is. I do know what is going on and the destruction of Lebanon is not the answer. If you prefer their destruction then that is your version.

[FlavaKreemSnak]

8. Israel was doing a military operation in Lebanon

so it doesn't really make a difference.

[DemocratSinceBirth]

12. Link Please

eom

[DemocratSinceBirth]

13. duplicate

eom

[msmcghee]

19. You are completely wrong.

Does that make any difference to you?

[treestar]

17. No wonder we can't figure out who started it

There is a deliberate attempt by both sides to make it confusing.

In fact on the Hezbollah side there is a deliberate attempt to make themselves look aggressive and daring.

What are they trying to prove, exactly? That these rocket attacks can really "drive Israel into the sea?" Are they out of their minds, really thinking they can do something about it? If they have a complaint about something, why don't they bring it to the international community before firing rockets at civilians?

I'm sick of both sides.

[DemocratSinceBirth]

21. You Make Great Points...

I have said ad infinitum and ad nauseum that this isn't some manichean struggle between the forces of light and the forces of darkness, but the partisans on both sides want to hear none of it.

[Violet_Crumble]

33. I think you both made good points...

Kudos to both of you :)

[Violet_Crumble]

37. self-deleted...

It's not worth the time nor the energy...

[global1]

24. To Use A *Co Excuse - Attribute It To The "Fog of War".....

and lets get on with the fighting.

[Igel]

35. You overlook an important perception.

The lesson of the jihadis in Afghanistan.

You must remember that for many, the actions of the jihadis in Afghanistan so destroyed the moral and strength of the USSR that *they* (and only they) are responsible for the dissolution of the Soviet Union. They strike, they show themselves worthy, and Allah will crush the big baddy in the dar al-harb.

Iraq is the US's Afghanistan, and some jihadis (the ideologues amont them) probably still believe that as a result of what they're doing the US government will fall, US prestige will be reduced, US will lose its power and will disintegrate. Either Lebanon or the WB/Gaza are Israel's Afghanistan.

[Lefty48197]

25. Hezbollah is probably giving them tea and crumpets

in luxury apartments.

[IndianaGreen]

27. Poor Ehud Goldwasser, he is just a pretext for war

just as the 9-11 victims were.

BTW, soldiers are not "kidnapped," they are detained. If anyone was kidnapped, it would have been the Palestinian civilians that Israel kidnapped in Gaza days before the July 12 incident. This war would have been averted had the Olmert government considered a prisoner swap rather than dusting off some old war plans.

And Israel's government pays as much attention to the families of the IDF detainees as ours does to the 9-11 families.

Let's put a human face to this conflict and stop marveling at the TV pictures of explosions, shall we?

Kidnapped soldier's kin: Stop the killing

(CNN) -- Relatives of the two Israeli soldiers kidnapped last week by Hezbollah guerrillas pleaded with their captors to keep them safe, and to offer a sign that they are still alive.

Speaking to CNN from Haifa, Israel, the wife and father of Ehud Goldwasser, 31, and the brother of Eldad Regev, 26, said they have had no contact with the men since they were taken into Lebanon after a cross-border raid by Hezbollah militants July 12. Eight other Israeli soldiers were killed in the clash.

"The army's talking with us and lets us know what (it) knows, and right now, it's not much," Beni Regev said.

The soldiers are both reservists -- both graduate students in civilian life -- who were serving stints of only a few weeks in the Israel Defense Forces. And both should have been home by now.

"The day he was taken, it was his last day," said Karnit Goldwasser, Ehud's wife. "I was waiting for him. I planned his return home, I made him the dessert that he (wanted). Our cats were waiting for him, our dog also." :hug:

http://edition.cnn.com/2006/WORLD/meast/07/20/kidnapped.soldiers/

Let's stop the killings. Let's have a ceasefire! Let's release all the detainess to their families. Let Ehud return to his wonderful family and to his cats and dog!

STOP THE WAR!

[OrechDin]

28. So Hizbolla terrorists crossed into Israel and DETAINED its soldiers,

Not captured/kidnapped/abducted but detained them on Israeli soil and took them into detention on Lebaneese soil ? And when the IDF tank followed to attempt a rescue this was an invasion? A provocation? The 1st act of war?

[Violet_Crumble]

32. Kidnap? Capture? Abducted? Detained? Does it really matter?

I don't really care what anyone wants to call it. The fact of the matter is that the provocation was done by Hezbollah when they mounted a cross-border raid. That most certainly doesn't mean I think Israel has been justified in everything it's done from that point on, in fact I think Israel has lost a lot of sympathy from being the wronged party when it indiscriminately targetted areas where it was clear there were civilians. And very little of what has happened since has been with the aim of getting the troops returned. - Israel's aim has been to destroy Hezbollah, though finding out (again) that Hezbollah are a lot more formidable than the Palestinians are, they have downgraded that to 'disarming Hezbollah'. And even if the provocation was on Israel's part, that wouldn't justify the deliberate attempts by Hezbollah to hit civilian areas in Israel....

[KoKo]

38. Given Bush's "Global WAR on TERRA" it does matter. Doctrine of

Pre-Emptive Strike RULES! It's HIS policy ....so why can't anyone decide that THEY can use AMERICA's RULES to their own advantage? :shrug:

Old Expression: "What's fair for the Goose...is also fair for the Gander."

:shrug:

[Solo_in_MD]

39. IIRC Hezbollah acknowledged they were captured in Israel

and Peres told the press they were in good health