Talk:2006 Qana airstrike

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by 196.207.37.228 (talk) at 19:51, 30 July 2006 (→‎It doesn't add up). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Jump to navigation Jump to search

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]
I suggest renaming to "2006 bombing of Qana".--Wedian 14:37, 30 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
First and second Qana massacres--TheFEARgod 14:14, 30 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Are you stupid? Massacre? Hezbollah is shooting rockets out off places like this on purpose; the fault is on their hands, not Israel's. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.178.127.74 (talk • contribs)
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)[reply]

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)[reply]

Category

I recently added Category:War crimes 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).[reply]

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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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 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)[reply]

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)[reply]

It doesn't add up

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

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.

[1] [2]

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)[reply]
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)[reply]
Who dicides what is a reliable source
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:2006_Qana_airstrike&oldid=66729018"