I know I am going to regret this, but here I post again :

Firstly, the term “baiting” is a quote from Maj. Mark Lilly of the Air Force 46th Expeditionary Reconnaissance Squadron in the article on cbsnews.com mentioned earlier in the thread. Baiting is a word which has a very limited scope and that scope, under these circumstances, is synonymous with provocation. I would be interested to find out whom you think is ‘misusing’ the term.

I know who used the term (I did read the article), and I consider Maj. Lilly’s use of it to be misleading, or at the very least it seems to be confusing you. By baiting, he meant that they were sending up an aircraft with Stingers which the Iraqis wrongly believed to be unarmed. Hence the baiting, since the Iraqi pilot would’ve been less cautious.

Secondly, the issue is not that the Predator shot at the MiG, the issue was that, according to the public info available, they went looking for trouble – which definitely exceeds their mandate. If the USAF was using F-16s to provoke an Iraqi reaction, I would still have an issue with their irresponsible behaviour.

Thirdly, while the USAF did use Predators on legitimate missions within the NFZ, there is nothing in the article that suggests that this particular Predator was just flying along minding its own business (see my first point about baiting). So, what evidence is currently available would seem to suggest that they were doing more than just patrolling the NFZ. In fact, if they were just minding their own business, why not emphasize the fact, and add fuel to the fire that was GWB’s war effort?

I’m sorry, I don’t see the difference. Iraqi aircraft were not allowed to fly in the NFZ, whereas Coalition aircraft were. Just by being airborne in that area, let alone firing upon a Coalition aircraft, the Iraqi pilot was committing an illegal act and the Coalition had the right to shoot him down.

It actually doesn’t matter at all whether this aircraft was conducting aerial reconnaissance or not, since A) The Iraqis wouldn’t have known either way and B) Coalition fighter aircraft conducted counter-aircraft patrols every day, what difference does it make it a Predator conducts a similar patrol?

Look, in the end it all boils down to a few simple facts: The Predator, as a Coalition aircraft, had every right to be in the NFZ whether it was patrolling, conducting surveillance or ‘baiting’. The Iraqi aircraft was not permitted to be airborne within the NFZ, nor was it permitted to fire upon a Coalition aircraft. Does it not seem awfully silly to you to be complaining about Coalition ‘baiting’ as if those poor Iraqi pilots just couldn’t help themselves? (“But look Sir, they’re flying in the NFZ, clearly they’re baiting us and we must break international law and our ceasefire obligations to attack their planes!”) There is, quite simply, no evidence at all that the US did anything wrong or immoral here, as opposed to the illegal actions of the Iraqi Air Force.

Well, since by definition it was a no-fly zone, the rules of engagement allowed Coalition aircraft to shoot down any Iraqi Air Force aircraft violating it, which sounds quite close to wartime aerial ROEs to me.

Regardless, the Iraqi MiG fired on the Predator first, initiating hostilities. Under those circumstances, the Predator’s operators had every right to fire back in the defence of their aircraft. How exactly were the rules of engagement breached?

Ok, this is officially getting ridiculous. A dubious tabloid outlet makes a near-impossible claim, which even the Cuban and Venezuelan governments, for all their usual bluster and egotistical bull**** won’t support, and yet you still believe there’s something plausible in the story? Trust me, if a US F-16 strolled into Cuban airspace and got shot down it would be a huge international incident (for reference see Gary Powers).

And you’re unbelievably paranoid (not to mention in the grip of conspiracy theorists) if you believe that the US will use Castro’s illness to mount an invasion of Cuba. What exactly would they gain by it? Cuba’s no longer the security threat it was during the ’60s, rendering any need for offensive action moot. Besides, Castro’s impending death makes actually makes any action even more unlikely, since it weakens his regime’s grip on power and hastens Cuba’s inevitable move to multiparty democracy and liberty. All the US needs to do is maintain the pressure and sit back to watch the regime slowly crumble.

I can’t believe we’re even discussing all this as if it’s in the realm of possibility. So please excuse me, I’m about to go outside to see if I can spot any black helicopters, UFOs and hopefully even Elvis Presley.

I don’t believe either Israel or the French troops in UNIFIL would deliberately fire upon the other, there’s just no rational reason for them to do so. All those here who claim Israel’s thinking of dropping bombs on the French should take some time out and ask themselves just what it would attain from such a rash act. The answer, simply, is nothing.

In contrast, bombing a UNIFIL position is the last thing Israel would want to do. We all saw the massive outcry when the IDF mistakenly attacked that one UN post, and that was during a war when confusion and stress are mitigating factors. Nobody would give Israel the benefit of the doubt if it just attacked a couple UN soldiers out of the blue for no apparent reason.

Rather, I think it’s the politicians in New York, not the troops in Lebanon, that are blowing this out of proportion. The guys on the ground could well be just as mystified as we are, if history is any guide. For some reason, the UN is trying to divert all negative attention onto Israel, focusing on Israel’s overflights as a terrible violation of 1701’s provisions while remaining mute (and actionless) on Hezbollah’s regeneration.

Also, keep in mind that the article clearly states that the IDF has ceased its stupid buzzing of French troops in Lebanon. It has no more a desire to provoke a confrontation than the French do.

It seems few have noticed, but this latest news report says nothing of bombing runs, fake or otherwise. It states that French troops were ready to fire only because IDF fighters had violated Lebanese airspace and were thus in violation of Res 1701, and has modified the description of the original incident from a “bombing run” to simply low-flying. Sounds like somebody’s trying to inject a bit of rhetoric into the dialogue and is beginning to lose steam.

Let me explain what’s happening here: The IDF is preparing for another war with Hezbollah. I know some here have trouble figuring it out, but UNIFIL’s job is actually supposed to be to disarm Hezbollah, assist the Lebanese Army in anti-Hezbollah operations and prevent Hezbollah from re-arming and rebuilding its infrastructure. None of this is happening, instead the French and others in UNIFIL are turning a blind eye to Hezbollah’s revival while issuing threats and complaints about simple IDF overflights. The hypocrisy is mind-boggling, similar to the situation before the recent war in which UNIFIL allowed Hezbollah to build bases right next to its own and then complained when they were bombed in error.

Israel realises that it cannot allow Hezbollah to become the threat it was again, it’s just too risky. Especially with the long-range missiles that the group possesses and the help it gets from Iran and Syria. If UNIFIL won’t do anything about Hezbollah, then sooner or later the IDF is going to have to go in there and do the job properly. This is something nobody really wants, least of all the Israelis, but the available alternative options are dwindling. Remember, peace is not the absence of conflict, but the absence of threat.

Hezbollah is an illegal group and a cancerous tumour in Lebanon’s south. That the UN insists on treating it on equal footing to Israel and Lebanon itself is proof of just how sick and twisted the UN’s thinking has become and how the organisation has lost sight of its original purpose and mandate. It’s a pity, because in the pursuit of peace at all costs they’re just ensuring more bloodshed in the long term.

If you consider holding many detainees without legal process, access to any court, legal counsel or family visits as legal then OK, it is prefectly legal. I assume that American law defines torture, degrading treatment, force feeding, no out-of-cell exercise time and statements extracted under coercion as standard and legal procedures, too.

Yes, perfectly legal. You seem to forget that the international laws of war are quite significantly different to domestic laws. In terms of every relevant international law statute, including the Geneva Conventions, the existence of Gitmo is entirely legal. Remember, “legal” does not mean “something I like”, it means “that which is not forbidden by law”.

Back in 2003 the U.S. military acknowledged that at least three children aged 13 to 15 were among the detainees at Guantanamo. Ahh, is that legal, too? Is that what you normally do to your teenagers? 😎

Yes, it is legal, because none of the international law provisions forbid it. That’s because the drafters of those, unlike you evidently, realised that teenaged children were indeed capable of being dangerous and effective combatants.

Good. Then I suggest that any NAVY SEALS or US ARMY operative who uses a ghilly suit or an AK-47 type rifle in combat be imprisoned or hanged, too. Do we agree here?

Nope. The ghillie suit is still a form of uniform, and underneath the suit the operative wears his standard military uniform. The weapon is irrelevant, as none of the international law treaties mention weaponry as an identifying factor. So long as he’s readily identifiable as a soldier (once out of cover) and he doesn’t use his position to unnecessarily harm or endanger civilians, he’s still entitled to the relevant POW protections.

However, if an American soldier were to undertake a false-flag operation by wearing the uniform of an enemy state and conducting operations in its name, then the affected country would have every right to execute him if he got caught. The rules are universal.

The only thing I really find disturbing is how double standards have became an everyday tool for many otherwise intelligent people here.

There are no double standards here. We don’t know what the Iranian soldiers in this picture are doing, but if they are intending a false flag operation then they are clearly in violation of international law. This would apply to Americans doing the same thing, as it would to a soldier of any other country. Nobody has argued otherwise, so it’s interesting that you would lead to the double-standards conclusion when none are in evidence.

I wouldn’t call it world-beating, but keep an eye on the A-Darter SRAAM being developed by South Africa and now also Brazil. With a 100g airframe tolerance, extreme agility and a reputedly top-class two-colour IR seeker, it might surprise a few people out there. Fortunately, the missile’s inertial guidance unit is from BAE Systems, which precludes the missile’s sale to most unsavoury states, but you never can be sure.

swerve, thanks for that, I’ll admit I wasn’t aware of the Montefiore survey. I’m willing to accept that I may have been wrong on that issue, yet I feel it neither invalidates the rest of my argument nor changes the central issue.

Whatever we think about immigrants, it is NEVER ok to rise up and attack them merely because they are immigrants. In the United States you do not see Americans starting pogroms against Mexican immigrants and we’d be appalled if this did happen. Yet we’re perfectly ok with the idea that Palestinian Arabs had the right to attack the newly-arrived Jewish immigrants because they were “taking land and jobs from Arabs”. Why is that?