Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Lebanese villagers disarm UN patrol in South Lebanon

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • Lebanese villagers disarm UN patrol in South Lebanon

    In short, early this week a UNIFIL exercise was unfolding in the south of Lebanon.
    some "villagers", more likley Hezbolla aficionados, blocked roads and said that UNIFIL is harming Lebanese security

    Political sh*tstorm arises.

    And today, this:

    Villagers disarmed a French patrol UNIFIL patrol Saturday and attacked them with sticks, rocks and eggs in South Lebanon, in the latest in a string of such incidents, a Lebanese army spokesperson said.

    After the incident, senior Lebanese army officers and a Hezbollah security official met with French UNIFIL officers in the southern village of Toulin in an attempt to defuse tensions between southern villagers and the UN peacekeepers, NOW Lebanon’s correspondent reported.

    The Lebanese army spokesperson said that the residents in the south “disarmed the [UNIFIL] soldiers and briefly took control of their vehicle before the army intervened and made them move away from the patrol.”

    "The arms were returned to UNIFIL and the incident is closed," he also said.
    read more: http://nowlebanon.com/NewsArticleDet...#ixzz0scxYMy66

  • #2
    The above is a direct copy of post one on a thread at MP.net

    http://www.militaryphotos.net/forums...=1#post5050186

    It actually occurred over a week ago.

    Connaught Stranger.

    Comment


    • #3
      From today's Jerusalem Post

      http://www.jpost.com/International/A...aspx?id=181513
      The worst sin toward our fellow creatures is not to hate them, but to be indifferent to them: that's the essence of inhumanity.
      (George Bernard Shaw, Playwright, 1856 - 1950)

      Comment


      • #4
        oh the joys of the Blue Beret!

        feck that for a game of soldiers.

        UN work is pants with pathetic ROE.
        RGJ

        ...Once a Rifleman - Always a Rifleman... Celer et Audax

        The Rifles

        Comment


        • #5
          Originally posted by WES View Post
          With regards the article picture in the link the marks on the windscreen are not caused by bullets, but by rocks and slingshots fired at the vehicle by "civilian" protesters. One French soldier was slightly wounded in the head by such a stone.

          This is clearly an attempt by Hezbollah to flex their muscle in the areas of U.N.I.F.I.L. and adjacent.

          Connaught Stranger.

          Comment


          • #6
            get some NATO troops in there and kick their ass.

            whilst the work the UN do is fantastic - its no good for soldiers.
            RGJ

            ...Once a Rifleman - Always a Rifleman... Celer et Audax

            The Rifles

            Comment


            • #7
              Originally posted by RoyalGreenJacket View Post
              get some NATO troops in there and kick their ass.

              whilst the work the UN do is fantastic - its no good for soldiers.
              I think N.A.T.O. have enough on their plate without getting drawn into this part of the M.E.

              Connaught Ranger

              Comment


              • #8
                Originally posted by RoyalGreenJacket View Post
                oh the joys of the Blue Beret!

                feck that for a game of soldiers.

                UN work is pants with pathetic ROE.
                Who gives a UN forces its mandate (and by extension its ROE)????

                The answer is the Governments of 5 countries (ie the UN Security Council)..... doesn't your Government have a veto on any resolution as a Permanent Member???!!!

                Originally posted by RoyalGreenJacket View Post
                get some NATO troops in there and kick their ass.

                whilst the work the UN do is fantastic - its no good for soldiers.
                There is NATO troops serving with UNIFIL (wearing blue berets)!

                Comment


                • #9
                  Originally posted by Connaught Stranger View Post
                  I think N.A.T.O. have enough on their plate without getting drawn into this part of the M.E.

                  Connaught Ranger
                  i disagree. NATO is a large organisation - only some of it's nations are busy elsewhere - there are plenty of other nations without a lot on their plate who could man up to this.

                  Originally posted by DeV View Post
                  Who gives a UN forces its mandate (and by extension its ROE)????

                  The answer is the Governments of 5 countries (ie the UN Security Council)..... doesn't your Government have a veto on any resolution as a Permanent Member???!!!

                  There is NATO troops serving with UNIFIL (wearing blue berets)!
                  agreed Dev - the UN is a fine interim force so long as the other forces don't want to take you on in any capacity.

                  as soon as they do - it's time to bin the UN umbrella and bring out the NATO or National ROE. UN troops no matter where they come from be it NATO or elsewhere are all restricted by a common mandate / ROE.

                  i have experienced this first hand, we did it in Bosnia - our troops were powerless (and even captured) as UN troops but as soon as we switched the same soldiers to IFOR (i was one of them) we were engaging the enemy within minutes and put them back in their cage.

                  there needs to be a fall back to prevent UN troops being overwhelmed like this, and we were fortunate enough to implement this fall back when things turned nasty.

                  i hope the soldiers concerned get an improved mandate / ROE for this escalating situation.
                  Last edited by RoyalGreenJacket; 16 July 2010, 19:55.
                  RGJ

                  ...Once a Rifleman - Always a Rifleman... Celer et Audax

                  The Rifles

                  Comment


                  • #10
                    Originally posted by RoyalGreenJacket View Post
                    i disagree. NATO is a large organisation - only some of it's nations are busy elsewhere - there are plenty of other nations without a lot on their plate who could man up to this.

                    But the question is would they want to get involved in a war in the M.E.its a regional problem and has nothing to do with N.A.T.O. countries as such.

                    Do you think that playing the N.A.T.O. card would scare the combatants in for example Lebanon, and including the Israelis into adopting a peaceful co existence?

                    Never going to happen.

                    Do you really think that any countries Government who are N.A.T.O. members, and who signed its countries military forces up for such involvement at the taxpayers expense would ever see re-election?

                    I dont think so.

                    Once the body-bags start coming home, to the respective countries, there would be massive public outcry.

                    And its not part of the N.A.T.O. mandate / structure to interfere in the Middle-East
                    when no N.A.T.O. member is being involved in the said problem.


                    agreed Dev - the UN is a fine interim force so long as the other forces don't want to take you on in any capacity.

                    Where for example do we see a force in South Lebanon taking on (as in combat) U.N.I.F.I.L.? we don't, what we see is Hezbollah trying to flex its muscles and entrench itself deeper into the hearts of the local population.

                    as soon as they do - it's time to bin the UN umbrella and bring out the NATO or National ROE. UN troops no matter where they come from be it NATO or elsewhere are all restricted by a common mandate / ROE.

                    And risk the countries involved in internal / border dispute - aggression the chance to publicly scream that they sovereignty is being violated and they are being clandestine invaded by NATO for nefarious purpose.

                    i have experienced this first hand, we did it in Bosnia - our troops were powerless (and even captured) as UN troops but as soon as we switched the same soldiers to IFOR (i was one of them) we were engaging the enemy within minutes and put them back in their cage.

                    All depends on where in the world the problem is, NATO has not got free reign all over the globe.

                    there needs to be a fall back to prevent UN troops being overwhelmed like this, and we were fortunate enough to implement this fall back when things turned nasty.

                    Not workable, for the simple reason when the I.D.F. rolled through the U.N.I.F.I.L. area on its Operation Grapes of Wrath, the U.N. quite rightly did NOT engage them, but allowed them to go forward with their mission.

                    Peace-keeping missions are just that, Peace-enforcing are another kettle of fish, and the countries on whose soil the UN Mission is have the legitimate lawful right to ask the UN to remove themselves from their territory

                    As for a fall-back there is one already when U.N.forces are being directly targeted they are to be disengaged and removed from the mission area.


                    i hope the soldiers concerned get an improved mandate / ROE for this escalating situation.
                    Connaught Stranger.

                    Comment


                    • #11
                      Originally posted by RoyalGreenJacket View Post

                      agreed Dev - the UN is a fine interim force so long as the other forces don't want to take you on in any capacity.

                      as soon as they do - it's time to bin the UN umbrella and bring out the NATO or National ROE. UN troops no matter where they come from be it NATO or elsewhere are all restricted by a common mandate / ROE.

                      i have experienced this first hand, we did it in Bosnia - our troops were powerless (and even captured) as UN troops but as soon as we switched the same soldiers to IFOR (i was one of them) we were engaging the enemy within minutes and put them back in their cage.

                      there needs to be a fall back to prevent UN troops being overwhelmed like this, and we were fortunate enough to implement this fall back when things turned nasty.

                      i hope the soldiers concerned get an improved mandate / ROE for this escalating situation.
                      There are 5 countries that decide the mandate (and by extension the ROE) of all UN missions (and it has been the same since the foundation of the UN).... the UK is one of those countries (permanently).

                      So the powerless of the UN to take action in war situations is down to those 5 nations, these are the same 5 nations that are often reluctant to put boots on the ground with UN missions (and in some cases they blame the mandate).

                      Comment

                      Working...
                      X