IDF hacks in to Hezbollah TV signal, displays pics of Hezbollah corpses

[sabra]

Beirut, LEBANON: A TV grab taken from Hezbollah's al-Manar TV shows the alleged body of a Hezbollah fighter 01 August 2006. Israel hacked today into the television station of Hezbollah, emblazoning images on the screen showing pictures of corpses and claiming that the Shiite militant group's leader Hassan Nasrallah was a liar. Text in Arabic reads on top: "This is the photograph of the body of a member of Hezbollah's special forces" followed by "there is a large number of corpses like this one on the ground and Nasrallah is hiding this truth."

[uppityperson]

1. And this is supposed to help?

Seems inflammatory to me, maybe that is the point?

[sabra]

5. the other side of the war (propaganda)

[uppityperson]

19. Showing Hezbullah that they are getting killed as a caution or to rile up

Propaganda indeed. Thanks again for your continuing to post all these news articles. As much problems as there have been on DU recently, this is one of the main reasons I use it right now, thank you.

[rockymountaindem]

2. Psychological warfare always facinates me

This is a pretty big score, IMHO. Hacking into the other side's propaganda to display what *you* want the enemy to see; that's a home run.

[azurnoir]

21. I'm not so sure

in this case, this may well backfire on the Israeli's, that is if their intent was too scare Hezbollah into submission. Not to mention the fact if there are large amounts of corpses why aren't they shown on the video. This says more about Israels computer skills than anything else.

[rockymountaindem]

28. I don't think the intent is to scare Hezbollah

I think the intent is threefold. 1) to show the Lebanese people that Hezbollah isn't invincible. 2) Nasrallah is lying to them and 3) don't hang around with Hezbollah fighters.

[manic expression]

41. If I was Lebanese

That would make me want to fight Israel and likely join Hezbollah. People have tried to use those tactics before, Germans left people dead on the streets to intimidate people, and it only emboldened the resistance.

[chimpymustgo]

29. That's some sick, evil shit. Terror - in keeping with the carnage campaign

What do the hell do they expect to accomplish. Sheer terrorism.

[rockymountaindem]

55. Like this?

That's a propaganda leaflet dropped by British forces over German positions in WWII. It shows photos of women and children who turned up in the London morgue, but who the leaflet says were killed by British bombing raids. The red stamp across the front says "Stop!", as in "stop the war and your children and mothers will stop being killed by the RAF". Germany army psychologists said these leaflets were the hardest to combat against. By all accounts they were very bad for German morale.

[Solo_in_MD]

94. The Germans in WWII was a modern nation, so it would impact

the morale of their troops. The Hezbollah is quite happy living in the 13th century under the Sharia which endorses amputation and stoning. Pictures like those would simple inspire the fanatics among them to new heights.

yeah, I have strong feelings about the Islamofascists and won't apologize for them. Any one who thinks they are the equivalent of the Jerry Falwell etc, doesn't have a clue about how bad life under the sharia is.

[Renew Deal]

3. Now that's textbook propoganda

It's pure nasty, but it's right out of the Art of War.

[HiFructosePronSyrup]

4. That would be a war crime.

How many does that make it now?

[DemocratSinceBirth]

6. How Would This Particular Act Be A War Crime?

eom

[HiFructosePronSyrup]

9. Taking photographs of the dead...

and showing them to the public is a war crime.

You hear about it all the time whenever there's film of dead U.S. troops making the rounds.

[DemocratSinceBirth]

I Thought That Applied To Prisoners So They Wouldn't Be Humiliated

eom

[HiFructosePronSyrup]

13. Prisoners and the dead.

So the dead wouldn't be humiliated.

[breakaleg]

7. If this is true, then Israel is truely dispicable!

They are no better than the people they attack and kill every day.

From where I sit, they are all down there in the gutter together.

[cali]

17. It's pretty dumb

and not pretty, but man I'd like to see that kind of outrage about the killings on tape of westerners and others in Iraq, or that kind of outrage about the endless run of far more despicable things that American troops are doing in Iraq. Hell, the news that American troops were ordered to kill all males of military age is far more outrageous than this. I don't support Israel in this horrifying attack on Lebanon, but I can't help but be surprised that Israel's actions have elicited more outrage over the past few weeks than the truly despicable American actions in Iraq. Projection, mayhaps?

[DemonFighterLives]

95. Good answer

It is a sickness that needs treatment.

[Scurrilous]

8. The people of Lebanon...

...have been watching news of civilian deaths for weeks. I doubt a few dead fighters will shock them.

[breakaleg]

10. If any other westernized nation did this, they'd be condemned.

[Renew Deal]

11. You're assuming they won't be.

This looks like breaking news.

[breakaleg]

20. I guess the difference is, if another country did it, they might at

least show a little remorse or regret. We won't see that with Israel as they seem not to care what the international comminunity thinks.

[nadinbrzezinski]

25. Correct me if I am wrong but have we shown regret

over I don't know... showign the bodies of Hussein's sons? How about showing Hussein on Teevee?

Nope, go cry me a river.

By the way, before you scream this is a violatiion, but one that I fear in the new age of war on terror will probably change... and not cover subnational groups that are non recogmized as legal comatants by the world community... I suspect that will sooner rather than later... despicable yes, by the way.

[Name removed]

32. Deleted message

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

[nadinbrzezinski]

33. I'm not , just stating a fact

it is a war crime, but given what is going on, I highly suspect that we will see a similar change in International law in the next ten years as we saw after WW II...

By the way, have we apologized yet, and has Sanches been remitted to the Hague for showing both the bodies of Hussein's kids and Hussein.

Undwerstandng does not mean support, and lack of knee jerk reaction comes from years of work in the field.

[chimpymustgo]

36. That was repulsive and reprehensible too. But why don't we deal with

THIS thread. We covered that pretty thoroughly here when it happened.

Be here now. Now - when Israel is inflicting collective punishment and ETHNIC CLEANSING in Lebanon.

[nadinbrzezinski]

39. are you filing with the Hague now

and can you prove your charges? If you cannot, then don't even go there.

Terms such as war crimes are easy to bandy about... but very hard to prove

by the way, if you cannot, they fall under hearsy, I'll wait for the report from the ICRC to come out, when it innevitably comes out ok.

[chimpymustgo]

43. Cold blooded. Sad. eom

nt

[nadinbrzezinski]

46. Ten years of actually dealign wth this crap

on a real basis and doing interviews and knowing how the process works. So are you going to file? Hell when is HRW going to file? I know the lebanese governemnt has.

By the way, you confuse cold blood for ACTUAL KNOWLEDGE of how this works. And screaming war crimes, which this has the primary looks of one, does not necessarily make it so

[HiFructosePronSyrup]

47. The proof is right there in the OP.

It's easy to prove that war crimes happened. The problem is that people know they're war crimes but pretend it didn't happen because it suits their political agenda.

Sort of like the Iranian Pres. denying the Holocaust. Obviously he knows it happened, he's just pretending it didn't because of politics.

[nadinbrzezinski]

50. And if you read down you'd see that in this

particular case I called it a violation of the conventions, but all other screams of war crimes are not there, and if all these photos cannot show faces... the claim grows a little weaker, though not by much.

The other statement I made is that the Conventions do need revision to account for current conditions, just as they did in 1945, but spin this any way you want to

[chimpymustgo]

52. You're the one spinning. This is gross, evil, unconscionable.

By any moral standard.

[nadinbrzezinski]

54. First problem you have

there are no morals in wars... War is the most amoral act ANY state actor gets involved in. Now we can talk ethics, and is this ethical? No, or not nesseraily... if it saves lives on both sides you can make a case that it was (which is the case made for Hiroshima)... if it does not or increases deaths on both sides, then you can say it wasn't.

Now the other question you must ask is, is this legal under the Conventions of War?

No.. but since they left identifiers off, as in faces, there might be some wiggle room. I am sure International Lawyers will look at this the same way I am looking at this as well.

Will this be changed? Mark my words it will, the first precedents of doing precisely this were set by the US.

Sorry if I sound like a lawyer, but the first thing you learn when dealing with the real article is not to have a knee jerk reaction.

But if you think there is morality in war, that is your first problem...

Stick to hollywood morality plays if you think that is the case.

[The Stranger]

66. No, that is not correct. War is governed by the law of war, and it

inherently contains ethics and morals. No one -- even those who engage in war -- is above the law.

Let the wheels of justice turn slowly if they must, but let them turn.

[nadinbrzezinski]

69. Ethics yes, morals no

I used to enforce these things for ten years, and there are no morals in warfare.. a nice fiction if you wish to hold on to it.

As to justice in war it has all to do with ethics, not morals

Those norms also change with events and time... for instance the first geneva convention only contemplated ground warfare and front lines, barely a peep on POWs in there, by 1900 we had the laws of the seas added to it, and the pretense of not sinking neutral or commercial shipping in war. Though still frowned upon, after both WW I and WW II everybody knows that if a blockade is declared, you do not enter those waters at the risk of being sunk.

Another example the conventions did not consider were civilians or their needs that closely until AFTER WW II, and in particular one result of that war was the prohibition to remove populations from war zone by force. Do I wish this could be done now if it saved lives... pragmatically one side of me says yes, realistically I know that you cannot, thank the nazis for that one.

But at no time do morals enter the equation... and I expect in the next ten years to see incredible changes in those conventions to accommodate JDAMS, human shields (though addressed they are just partially addressed) and irregular forces. After all, under the current conventions, strictly speaking if Israel captures a Hisbollah fighter, since they mostly do NOT wear a uniform or form part of a nationally recognized army, they can be shot on the spot. The same can be said for multiple irregular movements around the world. By the by, did I mention some of these irregular forces are our favorite Mercs such as Black Water?

[The Stranger]

64. No, that is not correct. We condemn war crimes when we see them, and the

proof is there for all to see. There is no special proof that must be made. When they file the indictments, they will likely have this as an exhibit.

And it is not hearsay -- you can wait for whatever you want -- we won't.

[nadinbrzezinski]

70. And lawyers will tell you that you can wait for all you want

or condemtn what YOU PERCEIVE to be a warcrime, things that perchance should be, but are not.

In this case it is a violation, but as I have stated, amazingly enough they left themselves some wiggle room.

[The Stranger]

78. It is right there posted for all the world to see.

Who am I to believe -- you or my lying eyes?

[nadinbrzezinski]

79. Yuor lying eyes do not undwestand how this works

and since there are no faces... it is technically NOT a war crime (that is the wiggle room they left thmselves) ... and the precedent is there... Iraq---US... Hussein.. clear enough for you?

This is the way crimes work, your perception of a murder does not necesarily make it so... that is why WE HAVE COURTS, and the same applies to the Internatiaal Arena, so I will wait for the Hague on this one.

Sorry, no knee jerk here, but after all I have an idea of HOW THIS WORKS.

On the outset it SEEMS to be one... but seems is NOT necesarily the case.

[cali]

53. Why is it being brought up on this thread

because one poster claimed that other countries wouldn't do such a thing, and that if they did, they'd express regret; a claim that is simply not true. Such a claim deserves an answer.

[Solo_in_MD]

92. Citation please

Not saying it isn't but would like a reference in the International Accords

[breakaleg]

40. well..

you say these "subnational groups that are non recognized as legal combatants by the world community". I don't know that I agree with that reference.

I know the US and Israel views Hezbollah that way, but the world does not. They are a resistance organization defending a foreign invastion. It's my understanding that all people have a right to resist invasion or occupation.

[nadinbrzezinski]

42. tell me of ONE countrry that has recognized them

as required under International law? I will refer to you to the status that both the Sandinistas and the Frente Farabundo Marti had when tbose wars ended.. and economic support does not recognitoon mean either.

[Bretttido]

88. These acts are very different.

The bodies of Husseins sons, Sadam Hussein, and Al Zarqawi were shown to say, "Look, we're not lying, these individual POWERFUL figures were killed / captured." Showing photos of the nameless dead is very different.

[nadinbrzezinski]

90. Not when nasralla has been claiming that

no fighters have been killed... in the function of propaganda they are the same... and technically violations... though as I keep saying, given the Isralis did not show faces they have a little wiggle room...and the American precedent

[sabra]

12. I believe the US Army has a propaganda division in Iraq

[Marie26]

16. Do you remember

when the US proudly displayed the bodies of Hussein's dead sons? Or Zarquawi?

[Jacobin]

76. Th US has done it multple times in IraqNam

Uday and Qusay, dragged through the streets and pictured all over the media.

Also, the last 'big fish' Zarkawi, they put the pic of his dead body all over the damned news.

Yes, these are violations of the Geneva Conventions, which of course do not bind the Idiot In Chief of America

[nadinbrzezinski]

84. That is the precedent

the wiggle rooom... do you see a face in the photos> I don't... so technically they gave themselves soem wiggle room

[nadinbrzezinski]

14. I know what they are doing

psycologically, but this IS a violation of the Conventions.

(And if effective I fear it will spread)

[KoKo]

60. C-Span showed the entire Nasrallah video a little while ago...and

it was interesting to watch...but he basically said the Israeli Army were fools...and Ohmert was not Sharon but a bloodthirsty fool said the IDF was overstating their victories, yadda, yadda. So, I guess this was Israel's response to him questioning their competency. :shrug:

Lots of Propaganda and Posturing on both sides, now. :-(

[nadinbrzezinski]

61. There is a halo of good news now

that means we are close to that ceasefire... this is posturing on both sides and it happens every time

Bad news, combat will get down right viscious until a second before the ceasefire comes to effect

[ewagner]

15. Hezbollah uses M-16s?

Don't we sell those to Israel?

[nadinbrzezinski]

18. They use whatever they can get their paws on

including M-16s

[Karmadillo]

30. Paws?

nt

[nadinbrzezinski]

34. Hands

and there are PLENTY of M-16s in the world weapons trade... it is the most common weapon quite possibly after the AK in world circulation... just far less known

[jonnyblitz]

35. yeah, arabs are subhuman, didn't you know?

:sarcasm:

[nadinbrzezinski]

44. If you confuse a manater of speach

wtith what you think it is not my fault

:sarcasm:

[chimpymustgo]

58. That little racist crack tells us all we need to know.

That's why the carnage is just perfectly fine.

:barf:

[nadinbrzezinski]

59. no it does not

if paws are to you a racist crack that is your problem
Reality is that this group will do all it can to get their HANDS on any weapons in the world trade and if today they can get M-16s, they will (incidentally what do you think they do wiht the M-16s of troops they have killed or captured?)

[The Stranger]

67. I was wondering that as well. The implication was that they are subhuman,

having "paws."

[nadinbrzezinski]

72. You perceive what you wnat

the figure of speech in question is used in southern california to refer to people collogially, no racism involved

Or is this use in Wired filled with the same implications you WISH to ascribe to a collogioalism

http://www.wired.com/news/privacy/0,1848,59944,00.html

How about this use in the SF Gate

http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2003/12/07/PKGN03EQ2K1.DTL

How bout this one from Amazon no less?

http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/guides/guide-display/-/2OG08YQ99LC0L/103-1733622-1659842

And I could provide you with many more examples, but if you are so inclined to interpret a commonly used colloquialism the way you are, be my guest... not that I can stop you, nor do I wish to stop you.

[Ignis]

73. Of course that wasn't a racist comment!

Jews have hands, Arabs have paws. What's unclear?

:eyes:

[nadinbrzezinski]

80. Your interpretation, not mine and it speaks volumes about you

I have used that sentence in the context of my nephews I have used that sentence when writing but your context, not mine. If you choose to think it is racist, so be it... I can think of far more daming things to say.

Perhaps we are talking a little self projection here?

[Ignis]

91. Riiiight. It's not a racist comment because you say it isn't?

Let's just suppose that I've called a nephew of mine a "porch monkey" because he likes to swing around on the supports of my front porch. Does this usage somehow magically whitewash the phrase "porch monkey" of any racist overtones? Does this mean I can call my African-American neighbor's children "porch monkeys" because they exhibit similar behaviour? I mean, how could anyone POSSIBLY be so thin-skinned as to take offense to this phrase when used in context?

Another example:
"You know those Israelis--always putting their big noses into other people's business. Why are those Jews so nosy?"

Nothing racist to see here! Please drive through. :banghead:


PS: What is "self projection?" Is it anything like astral projection? :)

[The Stranger]

77. The context, my friend, is damning.

[nadinbrzezinski]

81. read above, will not type twice

but perhaps we are seeing self projection here, since this is a COLLOQuALISM?

[azurnoir]

23. I would think

AK47's would be the weapon of choice, they aren't nearly as problematic as the M-16.

[Solo_in_MD]

93. They aren't the vietnam era M-16s

The current versions and the M-4s are quite reliable. They are also much more accurate, esp if the range is more than 25 yards and I doubt Hezbollah is as proficient with longer range shooting as the IDF. Then again its close quarters fighting, not open fields. Also the 7.62 AK cartridge does have more knock down power that the .223 round of the M-16.

[Nimrod2005]

75. M16 is 100% American, I thought the same thing??? WTF?

[nadinbrzezinski]

82. Captured weapons

and there are plenty of M-16s also in the black market

[earthside]

22. The Israelis are Idiots-If This is True

Did Antonio Lopez de Santa Anna's "victory" at the Alamo in 1836 help him defeat the Texans?

"Remember the Alamo!"

Fallen 'heros' usually inspire greater commitment to the fight, not the opposite.

If Israel is hacking into Hizbollah television to show photos of martyrs ... then they are really, really mixed up and have completely lost their strategic bearings.

Boy, I'm tellin' ya ... there is something really screwy going on in Israel. I just cannot help but be left with the notion that the neocons and Bushites are strongly agitating for an all-out general war in the whole Middle East region.

We all really should be demanding that Bush and Cheney resign, NOW. If this keeps up, a lot of us (humanity) are going to end up dead.

[MrPrax]

24. If the IDF and Mossad are hacking

into al-Manar TV to catapult their propaganda,then we can assume they are 'hacking' into other information streams, no?

[DemocratSinceBirth]

26. I Heard Hezbollah Fighters Communicate Via Cellphone

Doesn't seem very secure.

[MrPrax]

27. Osama used a satelite phone?

or so I read...but that wouldn't be very secure either...and apparantly very difficult to trace.

I also heard that people generally get this type of information from the Internet through stories written by the NSA?

[Igel]

31. It's counterpoint to what al-Manar's been reported to be

airing.

Videos of missiles being fired and rah-rah Hezbollah footage, showing brave troops in training, in formation, and shooting (presumably at targets). Lots of martial music in the background and chants of "Death to Israel".

With lots of shots of dead civilians being held up and mourned over. More "Israelis as killers of women and children", whereas the Hezbollah men are valiant warriors. They want to die to as human sacrifice to Nasrallah, to make their mas proud.

In the news, the dead Hezbollah people are objects of pride, of near celebration. Rah-rah. Posters saying they're martyrs.

This shows dead valiant warriors. Presumably all the Hezbollah supporters are cheering how wonderful it is they're dead. Or maybe not. And that's the purpose, I'd think.

Propaganda versus propaganda. If you can't shut it down, subvert it.

On edit: I wonder if they showed any of the faces of the dead. If you can't ID them, the claims of war crimes are weak.

On second edit: To remove an errant apostrophe.

[nadinbrzezinski]

37. Corect they are weak

[Marie26]

48. Honestly, I can't see

how this is a war crime. Despicable, yes.

[nadinbrzezinski]

51. If you can identify any of these fighters by the photos

it is a clear war crime... for you are not allowed to show prisoners or the dead...

It is exposing them to ridicule to use the particular phrase.

If you cannot identify them, the claim grows weaker, but watch as the world screams war crime.

now WHEN Israel gets a call from Geneva... since they are signatories... I can bet their lawyers will use our use of POWs durng the war, and showing of Hussein's kids and Hussein as valid precedent to basically tell Geneva.. hey you did not call them on that, precedent has been set.

[DemocratSinceBirth]

38. Context-Not Spin.

In past Arab-Israeli conflicts and even internecine Arab conflicts the Arabs would emphasize their dead in the hope of making them martyrs or shahids. In this conflict Nasrallah is using the media, and more specifically Hezbollah's own television station, to emphasize the damage he has inflicted on the Israelis while diminishing the damage being dealt to his forces.

The Israelis are trying to dispel Nasrallah's followers of the notion that this is happening.

[nadinbrzezinski]

49. Corect, thi is pure propaganda in a new front in the war

I was wondering how long would it take the Israelis to go there... that said, can it be defended? I don't know yet

[Tom Yossarian Joad]

45. Gee, Was Vlad The Impaler booked this weeK?

[Scurrilous]

56. Video of Hezbollah POW at ynetnews link:

http://www.ynetnews.com/articles/0,7340,L-3286267,00.html

[riverwalker]

57. Shin Bet psych-ops

They were the ones (some people say) who taught the Abu Ghraib interogators how best to humilate Arab males, as well.

[k_jerome]

62. are these the same "some people" that say...

Israel was involved in 9/11?

[burythehatchet]

63. you think elements of the US were involved?

[k_jerome]

65. no. nt.

[burythehatchet]

68. Are you completely certain?

[newyorican]

71. They dont look like cilivians to me...

n/t

[w4rma]

85. That's because they are not civilians. There were about 60 or so Hez

soldiers killed in addition to the hundreds of civilians killed.

The ratio is about 10 to 1. Probably the number is more like 100 Hez killed and 900 civis killed, now.

[newyorican]

89. Was commenting because...

I have heard, repeatedly, that Hezbollah fighters don't wear uniforms and blend into the civilian population.

[Nimrod2005]

74. Hack into the signal show a body or two? how dumb...Do people think no Hiz

boallh people died at all?

[nadinbrzezinski]

83. that has been the spin

this is the kind of propaganda acceleration that usually precedes jokeying for power on final cease fires. Something up, and unfortunately more of this and harder will happen before all guns fall silent, (for the moment)

[fuzzyball]

86. This is NOTHING compared to suicide bombers exploding bombs

in crowded buses and public places causing killing
and maiming of innocent civilians. And have you noted
that the islamo-whatever send their youngsters to explode
themselves and the mullah's never volunteer to be
the martyrs?

[bridgit]

87. also true, welcome to du, fuzzyball...

:hi: