Middle East Crisis: Who Backs an Immediate Cease Fire? [Archive]

DeviousJ

07-22-2006, 08:39 PM

Yes, because the UN resolutions stopped North Korea, Iran, Iraq, Hezbollah, Hamas, Al-Qaeda and others. I've been coming to this site for quite a while but am just so sick of people posting this garbage. The UN is a worthless organization.

I think it is funny that you are calling for a ceasefire, as if all the problems will just go away. NEWS FLASH! There was a ceasefire since 2000 that resulted in Hezzbollah and others firing rockets into Israel on an almost daily basis. What did the UN do? They passed more resolutions. The FACT is that Israel could throw all of their weapons into the ocean tomorrow and we would have the next Holocaust.

I am wondering if you posted such postings over the past few years when the rockets were flying into Israel killing people left and right. I wonder if you posted things about how horrible Hezzbollah and Hamas were blowing up busses filled with children? Or the countless people who have been kidnapped and beheaded (go ahead do a YouTube search to watch that). Israel has every right to do this. They won't stand back and watch organizations slaughter their people while the rest of the world watches again or while Lebanon allows Hezbollah to launch attacks on Israel. They learned after WWII that like then the US and UK will help the Jewish people while the rest of the world prays for their destruction. You people either don't know your history or side with the terrorists.

Yep, Israel has every right to send wave after wave of airstrikes into cities, destroy neighborhoods and rack up the civilian casualties at an alarming rate. Israel has every right to attack a country with such intensity that nations begin evacuating their citizens (I don't remember people being evacuated from Israel). Israel has every right to (quote) "turn back the clock in Lebanon by 20 years", which if you need it spelling out means doing so much damage to civilian and economic infrastructure that it will take them 20 years to even get back to where they are today, not exactly the same thing as 'stopping Hizbollah'. This is a country that has been under occupation by Syria for decades, and has only just regained its independence, and before they can even get on their feet this happens.

But hey, you're justifying Israel's actions by comparing them to the atrocities committed by terrorist groups, and that's about the only point I agree with you on - they are pretty much equivalent. Except of course, Israel wants to everyone to believe that when it bombs and fires rockets into towns and kills hundreds of innocent civilians, it's somehow different to terrorist groups who do the same thing.

Nice 'everyone hates the jews/siding with the terrorists' angle though. By all means continue to support their pounding of towns and cities and innocent civilians with their incredibly powerful military. Here's a newsflash for you though: IT WON'T WORK. If you think an extremist militia is going to give up because the enemy tries to destroy their country then you must be insane. The way to disarm a resistance force is through diminishing national support for their cause (clue: Israel bombing people ain't helping) and through the government. All this is doing is making people more determined to fight Israel. And of course the real victims end up being innocent civilians who have nothing to do with the fighting. But we can only worry about the jewish ones right? The holocaust means they're more important

Corganist

07-22-2006, 09:35 PM

the US won't stop being an aggressor state just because it votes against what both Iran and North Korea do.
I agree. And by the same token, merely siding with Israel doesn't make the US an aggressor state.

has it ever struck you as odd that during all the UN votes about an issue relating to Israel, it's usually everybody else on one side and the US and Israel on the other? why is that?

It does strike me as odd. But it strikes me as even odder that people don't seem to look at the situation objectively, and instead seem to appeal to things like pretty pictures of flags to somehow make their point. Just because a majority of countries made up in no small part of tiny island countries and tinhorn dictatorships favor a certain course of action doesn't mean that the people on the other side are wrong. Maybe a cease fire is the right way to go, and maybe its not...but that question can't and shouldn't be answered by saying "we've got more flags on our side of the picture than you do." Especially when some of those countries who are supposedly carrying the torch for peace are actually the ones instigating the whole affair.

talk show host

07-22-2006, 10:31 PM

Especially when some of those countries who are supposedly carrying the torch for peace are actually the ones instigating the whole affair.

Yeah this is true, at least America isn't making any attempt to hide being an aggressor state stirring up shit. :rolleyes:

Corganist

07-22-2006, 10:43 PM

Yep, Israel has every right to send wave after wave of airstrikes into cities, destroy neighborhoods and rack up the civilian casualties at an alarming rate. Israel has every right to attack a country with such intensity that nations begin evacuating their citizens (I don't remember people being evacuated from Israel). Israel has every right to (quote) "turn back the clock in Lebanon by 20 years", which if you need it spelling out means doing so much damage to civilian and economic infrastructure that it will take them 20 years to even get back to where they are today, not exactly the same thing as 'stopping Hizbollah'. This is a country that has been under occupation by Syria for decades, and has only just regained its independence, and before they can even get on their feet this happens.
So what is Israel supposed to do, sit and quietly put up with Hezbollah operating out of Lebanon and intruding into Israel for however long it takes for Lebanon to "get on their feet"? How long would that be? Its not like they just ran out Syria a couple days ago or something like that.

But hey, you're justifying Israel's actions by comparing them to the atrocities committed by terrorist groups, and that's about the only point I agree with you on - they are pretty much equivalent. Except of course, Israel wants to everyone to believe that when it bombs and fires rockets into towns and kills hundreds of innocent civilians, it's somehow different to terrorist groups who do the same thing.
Do you really think Israel intentionally targets civilians? I don't mean to ask if you think they're being too reckless with collateral damage. I mean to ask if you think they act in the full understanding and intention that their actions will probably kill lots of innocent people and they do nothing to mitigate that. I think that is a very difficult notion to support, even if its true. And it seems to me that you're all too quick to make the leap that when Israel does something bad "they're just as bad as the terrorists," while at the same time bending over backwards other times to minimize the actions of terrorists as being somehow legitimate. (Like your characterizing the kidnapping of an Israeli soldier as "capturing an enemy soldier" in another Israel thread a while back.)

Nice 'everyone hates the jews/siding with the terrorists' angle though. By all means continue to support their pounding of towns and cities and innocent civilians with their incredibly powerful military. Here's a newsflash for you though: IT WON'T WORK. If you think an extremist militia is going to give up because the enemy tries to destroy their country then you must be insane. The way to disarm a resistance force is through diminishing national support for their cause (clue: Israel bombing people ain't helping) and through the government. All this is doing is making people more determined to fight Israel.
Just once I would like someone to prove this whole notion that negotiating with terrorists makes them go away, and that fighting them somehow makes them multiply. People offer it as though its some kind of incontrovertible fact that certain classes of people are somehow drawn to terrorism and violence like moths to a flame, and that all anybody has to do is blow out the candle and everything will be hunky-dory. Can you give me some examples of where this grand strategy has worked?

And of course the real victims end up being innocent civilians who have nothing to do with the fighting. But we can only worry about the jewish ones right? The holocaust means they're more important
Dude...you're coming off a little hysterical here. The Holocaust has nothing to do with this, and I find it a little strange, to say the least, that you chose to bring it up so randomly. It doesn't matter who we're talking about, jewish or otherwise, the point is that its bad that any innocent people have to die...but that doesn't mean that one side of the conflict should have to take one for the team and let its own people get blown up randomly just for the sake of keeping the total body count low. Every country has to do right by its own people instead of holding some results oriented mindset that says "well if we don't do anything, dozens of our citizens will be killed... and if we do do something we might kill hundreds of some other country's people. Obviously our people are just gonna have to bite the bullet and get over the random terrorist attacks."

DeviousJ

07-22-2006, 11:08 PM

So what is Israel supposed to do, sit and quietly put up with Hezbollah operating out of Lebanon and intruding into Israel for however long it takes for Lebanon to "get on their feet"? How long would that be? Its not like they just ran out Syria a couple days ago or something like that.

Clearly what they're supposed to do is start bombing major population centers in Lebanon

Do you really think Israel intentionally targets civilians? I don't mean to ask if you think they're being too reckless with collateral damage. I mean to ask if you think they act in the full understanding and intention that their actions will probably kill lots of innocent people and they do nothing to mitigate that. I think that is a very difficult notion to support, even if its true. And it seems to me that you're all too quick to make the leap that when Israel does something bad "they're just as bad as the terrorists," while at the same time bending over backwards other times to minimize the actions of terrorists as being somehow legitimate. (Like your characterizing the kidnapping of an Israeli soldier as "capturing an enemy soldier" in another Israel thread a while back.)

Yeah, I really think they know full well that a lot of people will get killed, and it doesn't take a genius to work out that that's what's going to happen. But generally I don't think they say 'let's go out and kill some civilians'. You brought this up in the other thread and made out that that was the difference between Israel and terrorists - that the terrorists intentionally kill civilians but Israel kills them while pursuing some other goal, and that this meant Israel was not as bad. I look at it a different way - terrorists intentionally killing civilians is obviously evil, but you have to recognize that they are at least aware of the worth of these people in making them targets. Israel doesn't even seem to factor it in, and its sheer disregard for human life in its operations is - to me - even more disturbing.

And what the hell, 'bending over backwards' to legitimize terrorist actions? Just because I consider one thing worse doesn't mean the other is peachy keen. And capturing an enemy soldier is about as close to legitimate warfare as you're likely to get from a terrorist faction

Just once I would like someone to prove this whole notion that negotiating with terrorists makes them go away, and that fighting them somehow makes them multiply. People offer it as though its some kind of incontrovertible fact that certain classes of people are somehow drawn to terrorism and violence like moths to a flame, and that all anybody has to do is blow out the candle and everything will be hunky-dory. Can you give me some examples of where this grand strategy has worked?

IRA

Dude...you're coming off a little hysterical here. The Holocaust has nothing to do with this, and I find it a little strange, to say the least, that you chose to bring it up so randomly. It doesn't matter who we're talking about, jewish or otherwise, the point is that its bad that any innocent people have to die...but that doesn't mean that one side of the conflict should have to take one for the team and let its own people get blown up randomly just for the sake of keeping the total body count low. Every country has to do right by its own people instead of holding some results oriented mindset that says "well if we don't do anything, dozens of our citizens will be killed... and if we do do something we might kill hundreds of some other country's people. Obviously our people are just gonna have to bite the bullet and get over the random terrorist attacks."

Did you read what I quoted?

celluloid_love

07-22-2006, 11:29 PM

You guys know that most of the civilians that have been killed in Lebanon are there supporting Hezbollah and housing rockets, right?

kiwi

07-23-2006, 07:14 AM

house those rockets

house 'em good

phaedrus

07-23-2006, 10:22 AM

Corganist, Master of the Straw Man

TuralyonW3

07-23-2006, 10:30 AM

now that's what I call a sticky situation

phaedrus

07-23-2006, 10:31 AM

You guys know that most of the civilians that have been killed in Lebanon are there supporting Hezbollah and housing rockets, right?
yeah, all 375 of them. especially the women and children.

i still wonder why Israel was so dumb to agree to a prisoner swap in 2004. what a bad precedent to set.

DeviousJ

07-23-2006, 03:19 PM

Oh hey, awesome

http://www.nytimes.com/2006/07/22/world/middleeast/22military.html

U.S. Speeds Up Bomb Delivery for the Israelis
By DAVID S. CLOUD and HELENE COOPER
Published: July 22, 2006

WASHINGTON, July 21 — The Bush administration is rushing a delivery of precision-guided bombs to Israel, which requested the expedited shipment last week after beginning its air campaign against Hezbollah targets in Lebanon, American officials said Friday.

The decision to quickly ship the weapons to Israel was made with relatively little debate within the Bush administration, the officials said. Its disclosure threatens to anger Arab governments and others because of the appearance that the United States is actively aiding the Israeli bombing campaign in a way that could be compared to Iran’s efforts to arm and resupply Hezbollah.

The munitions that the United States is sending to Israel are part of a multimillion-dollar arms sale package approved last year that Israel is able to draw on as needed, the officials said. But Israel’s request for expedited delivery of the satellite and laser-guided bombs was described as unusual by some military officers, and as an indication that Israel still had a long list of targets in Lebanon to strike.

Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice said Friday that she would head to Israel on Sunday at the beginning of a round of Middle Eastern diplomacy. The original plan was to inc<fuck>lude a stop to Cairo in her travels, but she did not announce any stops in Arab capitals.

Instead, the meeting of Arab and European envoys planned for Cairo will take place in Italy, Western diplomats said. While Arab governments initially criticized Hezbollah for starting the fight with Israel in Lebanon, discontent is rising in Arab countries over the number of civilian casualties in Lebanon, and the governments have become wary of playing host to Ms. Rice until a cease-fire package is put together.

To hold the meetings in an Arab capital before a diplomatic solution is reached, said Martin S. Indyk, a former American ambassador to Israel, “would have identified the Arabs as the primary partner of the United States in this project at a time where Hezbollah is accusing the Arab leaders of providing cover for the continuation of Israel’s military operation.”

The decision to stay away from Arab countries for now is a markedly different strategy from the shuttle diplomacy that previous administrations used to mediate in the Middle East. “I have no interest in diplomacy for the sake of returning Lebanon and Israel to the status quo ante,” Ms. Rice said Friday. “I could have gotten on a plane and rushed over and started shuttling around, and it wouldn’t have been clear what I was shuttling to do.”

Before Ms. Rice heads to Israel on Sunday, she will join President Bush at the White House for discussions on the Middle East crisis with two Saudi envoys, Saud al-Faisal, the foreign minister, and Prince Bandar bin Sultan, the secretary general of the National Security Council.

The new American arms shipment to Israel has not been announced publicly, and the officials who described the administration’s decision to rush the munitions to Israel would discuss it only after being promised anonymity. The officials inc<off>luded employees of two government agencies, and one described the shipment as just one example of a broad array of armaments that the United States has long provided Israel.

One American official said the shipment should not be compared to the kind of an “emergency resupply” of dwindling Israeli stockpiles that was provided during the 1973 Arab-Israeli war, when an American military airlift helped Israel recover from early Arab victories.

David Siegel, a spokesman for the Israeli Embassy in Washington, said: “We have been using precision-guided munitions in order to neutralize the military capabilities of Hezbollah and to minimize harm to civilians. As a rule, however, we do not comment on Israel’s defense acquisitions.”

Israel’s need for precision munitions is driven in part by its strategy in Lebanon, which inc<fucks>ludes destroying hardened underground bunkers where Hezbollah leaders are said to have taken refuge, as well as missile sites and other targets that would be hard to hit without laser and satellite-guided bombs.

Pentagon and military officials declined to describe in detail the size and contents of the shipment to Israel, and they would not say whether the munitions were being shipped by cargo aircraft or some other means. But an arms-sale package approved last year provides authority for Israel to purchase from the United States as many as 100 GBU-28’s, which are 5,000-pound laser-guided bombs intended to destroy concrete bunkers. The package also provides for selling satellite-guided munitions.

An announcement in 2005 that Israel was eligible to buy the “bunker buster” weapons described the GBU-28 as “a special weapon that was developed for penetrating hardened command centers located deep underground.” The document added, “The Israeli Air Force will use these GBU-28’s on their F-15 aircraft.”

American officials said that once a weapons purchase is approved, it is up to the buyer nation to set up a timetable. But one American official said normal procedures usually do not inc<sake>lude rushing deliveries within days of a request. That was done because Israel is a close ally in the midst of hostilities, the official said.

Although Israel had some precision guided bombs in its stockpile when the campaign in Lebanon began, the Israelis may not have taken delivery of all the weapons they were entitled to under the 2005 sale.

Israel said its air force had dropped 23 tons of explosives Wednesday night alone in Beirut, in an effort to penetrate what was believed to be a bunker used by senior Hezbollah officials.

A senior Israeli official said Friday that the attacks to date had degraded Hezbollah’s military strength by roughly half, but that the campaign could go on for two more weeks or longer. “We will stay heavily with the air campaign,” he said. “There’s no time limit. We will end when we achieve our goals.”

The Bush administration announced Thursday a military equipment sale to Saudi Arabia, worth more than $6 billion, a move that may in part have been aimed at deflecting inevitable Arab government anger at the decision to supply Israel with munitions in the event that effort became public.

On Friday, Bush administration officials laid out their plans for the diplomatic strategy that Ms. Rice will pursue. In Rome, the United States will try to hammer out a diplomatic package that will offer Lebanon incentives under the condition that a United Nations resolution, which calls for the disarming of Hezbollah, is implemented.

Diplomats will also try to figure out the details around an eventual international peacekeeping force, and which countries will contribute to it. Germany and Russia have both indicated that they would be willing to contribute forces; Ms. Rice said the United States was unlikely to.

Implicit in the eventual diplomatic package is a cease-fire. But a senior American official said it remained unclear whether, under such a plan, Hezbollah would be asked to retreat from southern Lebanon and commit to a cease-fire, or whether American diplomats might depend on Israel’s continued bombardment to make Hezbollah’s acquiescence irrelevant.

Daniel Ayalon, Israel’s ambassador to Washington, said that Israel would not rule out an international force to police the borders of Lebanon and Syria and to patrol southern Lebanon, where Hezbollah has had a stronghold. But he said that Israel was first determined to take out Hezbollah’s command and control centers and weapons stockpiles.

Mayfuck

07-23-2006, 03:23 PM

:noway:

Effloresce

07-23-2006, 03:51 PM

I'm sorry, but the large amount of innocent people suffering because of this is far more important than a couple soldiers that are missing. I do not say this to sound careless towards them; it is horrible what they have gone through, but for all we know they are dead, and even if they are not... all of this destruction is not worth it. Condi Rice acts like we must keep fighting them until they're completely gone; that is not going to fucking happen. There needs to be a cease fire, and there needs to be a cease fire now. Besides, you can still actively search for your soldiers without blowing the everlovin' shit out of every target in sight.

celluloid_love

07-23-2006, 05:23 PM

yeah, all 375 of them. especially the women and children.

i still wonder why Israel was so dumb to agree to a prisoner swap in 2004. what a bad precedent to set.

most

most

most

most

most

most

most

most

most.

celluloid_love

07-23-2006, 05:23 PM

house those rockets

house 'em good

stop following me around Jack

Corganist

07-23-2006, 06:30 PM

Clearly what they're supposed to do is start bombing major population centers in Lebanon
Maybe, maybe not. But regardless, I don't see how "waiting until Lebanon gets back on its feet" is a viable option for Israel. There's probably an appropriate middle ground in there that's a lot closer to the "take action" side of things than the "sit around and take it up the ass until Lebanon decides to help out" side.

I look at it a different way - terrorists intentionally killing civilians is obviously evil, but you have to recognize that they are at least aware of the worth of these people in making them targets. Israel doesn't even seem to factor it in, and its sheer disregard for human life in its operations is - to me - even more disturbing.
Why don't you seem to think they factor it in? That's what I'm not understanding. Israel has this sheer disregard for human life based on what? Body counts? Sadism? Are you really saying that Israel dropping a bomb in a neighborhood is more morally objectionable than the terrorists creating a reason for Israel to drop the bomb there in the first place? You seem to be saying its evil for the terrorists to set up shop among civilians, but by doing so they're showing more concern for the civilians lives, and by extension have less moral culpability than Israel does when they decide to accept the consequence risk the terrorists have created. That's a little unfair don't you think?

And what the hell, 'bending over backwards' to legitimize terrorist actions? Just because I consider one thing worse doesn't mean the other is peachy keen. And capturing an enemy soldier is about as close to legitimate warfare as you're likely to get from a terrorist faction
That's my point. It would be close to legitimate if the terrorists actually did "capture an enemy soldier," but that isn't what happened. You don't "capture" people by making a raid across the border, attacking a convoy unprovoked, and then carrying the survivors away. What these guys did wasn't close to legitimate at all.

IRA
Got a link?

Did you read what I quoted?
Sure, but I thought you'd be above fighting hysterics with hysterics, thats all.

Lie

07-23-2006, 08:11 PM

I absolutely must request that DeviousJ and Corganist stop with the cheerful sarcasm and use of phrases like "hunky-dory" and "peachy keen."

MrPantyFAce

07-24-2006, 12:36 AM

i dont know much of whats going on but i think jewish women can be really hott (that second t isnt a typo..i mean hot with two t's)

Eric Blair

07-24-2006, 12:41 AM

You guys know that most of the civilians that have been killed in Lebanon are there supporting Hezbollah and housing rockets, right?
What's your source on this celluloid love? Did you ask their corpses?

Tchocky

07-24-2006, 01:25 AM

Just once I would like someone to prove this whole notion that negotiating with terrorists makes them go away, and that fighting them somehow makes them multiply.

There's nothing to negotiate. Conservative Islam wants all Jews out of Israel. Until they leave, the fighting will not stop. All the Israelis have to do is give up, hand their territory over to Hamas, and leave. It's that simple...

and that hard.

celluloid_love

07-24-2006, 01:41 AM

What's your source on this celluloid love? Did you ask their corpses?

Just my friend in the IDF.

Future Boy

07-24-2006, 02:04 AM

What's your source on this celluloid love? Did you ask their corpses?

They died wearing their "I <3 Hezbollah" burqas.

talk show host

07-24-2006, 02:19 AM

You guys know that most of the civilians that have been killed in Lebanon are there supporting Hezbollah and housing rockets, right?

Corganist, you know that thing you do where you try and make everyone provide concrete evidence for everything they say? Well here's a justified opportunity for you, let's see you go to work. ^

Eric Blair

07-24-2006, 02:31 AM

Just my friend in the IDF.
Oh, the Israeli Defence Force

Sorry :rolleyes:

celluloid_love

07-24-2006, 02:37 AM

fuck off Eric Blair you troll

Eric Blair

07-24-2006, 02:39 AM

oh, okay

talk show host

07-24-2006, 02:39 AM

fuck off Eric Blair you troll

fuck off celluloid_love you idiot

Eric Blair

07-24-2006, 02:40 AM

Listen, I'm not trying to be a dick, but I don't think you can completely trust the IDF given the circumstances.

celluloid_love

07-24-2006, 02:56 AM

Listen, I'm not trying to be a dick, but I don't think you can completely trust the IDF given the circumstances.

If you're not trying to be a dick, then fine. I was pretty much being sarcastic anyway.

Just off news footage and stuff it seems most of the people who hung around (instead of getting the fuck out like most people) were supporting Hezbollah [because Hezbollah supported them.] I mean, it's their own fault/stupidity if they yell out 'we support Hezbollah till we die!' and then get bombed.

Eric Blair

07-24-2006, 03:01 AM

Oh right,

But yeah, it's not like Israel are just bombing military camps, they are bombing everywhere. These people who are "hanging around" live there, and with Israel saying any 4WD is a legitimate target for their strikes and strafing main roads, travelling is extremely hazardous anyway, and I don't blame some people for not wanting to leave their homes.

On the bigger picture, the way I see it, is that Hezbollah =/= Lebanon, and I don't think the opinion that the U.N is ineffective is any reason to condone this collective punishment. Really, what Israel is doing is nothing short of a war crime, (which is certainly a contentious comment to make, but that's how I see it).

Tchocky

07-24-2006, 03:33 AM

Hezbollah =/= Lebanon

Hezbolla is the closest thing Lebanon has to a legitimate ruling body, given their connection to Syria and the fact that Lebanon is basically a puppet state of Syria at this point.

Eric Blair

07-24-2006, 03:41 AM

That's not really true. Hezbollah do make up a small part of the government with other parties such as Amal, but as many people have already pointed out, Hezbollah have very little support amongst the people. Secondly, while the president is pro-Syrian, the majority of the coalition government is anti Syria and has been since Syrian troops pulled out last year.

Even if you were right Tchocky, that is absolutely no reason to bomb the fuck out of Lebanon. Billions of dollars of damage has been done and a large number of civillians have been killed. Over what? Two soldiers. Now, I feel for the soldiers, but come on, what Israel is doing is inexcusable.

Starla

07-24-2006, 05:47 AM

These people live for this shit, and they want to fight. Let them have their war.

talk show host

07-24-2006, 05:52 AM

what a retarded thing to say

Starla

07-24-2006, 08:09 AM

Andrew_Pakula

07-24-2006, 08:50 AM

Corganist

07-24-2006, 09:04 AM

Corganist, you know that thing you do where you try and make everyone provide concrete evidence for everything they say? Well here's a justified opportunity for you, let's see you go to work. ^
I'd like to see proof of what he's claiming just as much as anyone. But its not as though he's claiming anything more unsupported than the stuff that other people have been offering in this thread suggesting Israel is blowing up civilians for sport. Frankly, both sides of the debate are falling a little short in the proof department from what I can see.

DeviousJ

07-24-2006, 10:32 AM

If you're not trying to be a dick, then fine. I was pretty much being sarcastic anyway.

Just off news footage and stuff it seems most of the people who hung around (instead of getting the fuck out like most people) were supporting Hezbollah [because Hezbollah supported them.] I mean, it's their own fault/stupidity if they yell out 'we support Hezbollah till we die!' and then get bombed.

Holy shit you were serious

DeviousJ

07-24-2006, 11:03 AM

Maybe, maybe not. But regardless, I don't see how "waiting until Lebanon gets back on its feet" is a viable option for Israel. There's probably an appropriate middle ground in there that's a lot closer to the "take action" side of things than the "sit around and take it up the ass until Lebanon decides to help out" side.

Exactly, there's an appropriate middle ground which is not 'shoot rockets into cities and kill lots of innocent people'

Why don't you seem to think they factor it in? That's what I'm not understanding. Israel has this sheer disregard for human life based on what? Body counts? Sadism? Are you really saying that Israel dropping a bomb in a neighborhood is more morally objectionable than the terrorists creating a reason for Israel to drop the bomb there in the first place? You seem to be saying its evil for the terrorists to set up shop among civilians, but by doing so they're showing more concern for the civilians lives, and by extension have less moral culpability than Israel does when they decide to accept the consequence risk the terrorists have created. That's a little unfair don't you think?

Hahaha, you're not even attempting to disguise your little logical backflips anymore. This is progress. Let's rephrase that without begging the question shall we: "Are you really saying that Israel dropping a bomb in a neighborhood is more morally objectionable than the terrorists firing rockets into an Israeli neighborhood?" They're both targetting civilian neighborhoods, knowing that innocent people will be killed - but based on this the terrorists are supposed to be 'evil', and Israel is supposed to be 'not evil'. Israel also has a massively powerful military that it's putting to good use in bombing Lebanese towns and cities. Israel has a track record of showing little restraint and destroying buildings whether or not people are still in them. Israel - again - promised to 'turn the clock back in Lebanon 20 years'. That, my man, is a threat against the population of Lebanon, not Hizbollah, and that constitutes state terrorism.

And we were talking about Israel's attacks vs Hizbollah's attacks, not where Hizbollah is located. If you want to change the subject then say so, don't pretend you have no idea what we're talking about :confused:

That's my point. It would be close to legitimate if the terrorists actually did "capture an enemy soldier," but that isn't what happened. You don't "capture" people by making a raid across the border, attacking a convoy unprovoked, and then carrying the survivors away. What these guys did wasn't close to legitimate at all.

Uh, they attacked an enemy convoy and captured surviving soldiers. Exactly what's illegitimate about that? Sure it's not something you'd want to happen, but armed conflict rarely is. And it doesn't count as terrorism when it's just the military involved, sorry

Got a link?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Provisional_Irish_Republican_Army#End_of_the_armed _campaign

Sure, but I thought you'd be above fighting hysterics with hysterics, thats all.

Oh man

Corganist

07-24-2006, 12:26 PM

Hahaha, you're not even attempting to disguise your little logical backflips anymore. This is progress. Let's rephrase that without begging the question shall we: "Are you really saying that Israel dropping a bomb in a neighborhood is more morally objectionable than the terrorists firing rockets into an Israeli neighborhood?" They're both targetting civilian neighborhoods, knowing that innocent people will be killed - but based on this the terrorists are supposed to be 'evil', and Israel is supposed to be 'not evil'.
I don't know, but I think a definite case can be made for that idea. What you conveniently leave out of the discussion is the that Israel is ostensibly not bombing neighborhoods merely for the sake of bombing neighborhoods. They at least purport these bombings to be targeted strikes on Hezbollah targets that just happen to be located in civilian neighborhoods. As noted elsewhere in the thread, that claim may or may not be true...and proof either way is not forthcoming right now. My question is simply why, given that ambiguity, you still choose to hold out that Israel is not just equally bad as the terrorists, but actually worse? I could understand you not giving them the benefit of the doubt. I'm loath to do it myself. But the view you're putting forth really just defies the bounds of reason. There's no way to know right now whether Israel is acting in bad faith with their strikes, but the one thing we do know right now is that Hezbollah definitely has no legitimate reason to be firing rockets into Israel. Given that, I can't see how you can be so matter of fact in playing Israel off as the really bad guys here.

Israel also has a massively powerful military that it's putting to good use in bombing Lebanese towns and cities. Israel has a track record of showing little restraint and destroying buildings whether or not people are still in them. Israel - again - promised to 'turn the clock back in Lebanon 20 years'. That, my man, is a threat against the population of Lebanon, not Hizbollah, and that constitutes state terrorism.
You're free to say what you will about the actual methods Israel is undertaking, that's all fair game. But pulling out this quote as some kind of evidence of Israel's ill intent is a bit of a stretch. Its not like they announced that their unequivocal aim is to turn the clock back in Lebanon. They just said it was something they would do if the kidnapped soldiers weren't released. I mean really, are we going to seriously entertain the idea that one country saying "Hey, other country, we think you've wronged us. Make it right or we'll bomb the shit out of you." is "state terrorism" now? Oh man.

Uh, they attacked an enemy convoy and captured surviving soldiers. Exactly what's illegitimate about that? Sure it's not something you'd want to happen, but armed conflict rarely is. And it doesn't count as terrorism when it's just the military involved, sorry
Newsflash: Hezbollah is not the military. Just because terrorists attack a military convoy, it doesn't mean the attack isn't terrorism.

DeviousJ

07-24-2006, 01:09 PM

I don't know, but I think a definite case can be made for that idea. What you conveniently leave out of the discussion is the that Israel is ostensibly not bombing neighborhoods merely for the sake of bombing neighborhoods. They at least purport these bombings to be targeted strikes on Hezbollah targets that just happen to be located in civilian neighborhoods. As noted elsewhere in the thread, that claim may or may not be true...and proof either way is not forthcoming right now. My question is simply why, given that ambiguity, you still choose to hold out that Israel is not just equally bad as the terrorists, but actually worse? I could understand you not giving them the benefit of the doubt. I'm loath to do it myself. But the view you're putting forth really just defies the bounds of reason. There's no way to know right now whether Israel is acting in bad faith with their strikes, but the one thing we do know right now is that Hezbollah definitely has no legitimate reason to be firing rockets into Israel. Given that, I can't see how you can be so matter of fact in playing Israel off as the really bad guys here.

I explicitly said, a few posts up, that I don't think they generally attack civilians for the sake of attacking civilians. Of course even if they were, they wouldn't say it - they'd say that they were aiming for legitimate targets, obviously. And like you said, there really is no evidence whatsoever of that being the case. But what there is evidence of is massive damage to civilian neighborhoods, infrastructure, and an escalating death toll. Surely even you must recognize that there comes a point where a line is crossed, where the intent of an action cannot justify the consequences - for a simple example beyond that line, if Israel were to nuke the whole of Lebanon today (effectively wiping out Hizbollah) that would clearly be unjustifiable. I believe that the actions they're executing now are beyond that line, that they can't justify the amount of force being used and the devastation being wrought on the general population, and a lot of people in the international community agree. That's the disregard for human life.

You're free to say what you will about the actual methods Israel is undertaking, that's all fair game. But pulling out this quote as some kind of evidence of Israel's ill intent is a bit of a stretch. Its not like they announced that their unequivocal aim is to turn the clock back in Lebanon. They just said it was something they would do if the kidnapped soldiers weren't released. I mean really, are we going to seriously entertain the idea that one country saying "Hey, other country, we think you've wronged us. Make it right or we'll bomb the shit out of you." is "state terrorism" now? Oh man.

Hizbollah is not Lebanon. Threatening the population of a country with retribution for something a terrorist group did is terrorism, yes. And that quote speaks volumes about Israel's approach - these things don't just slip out casually, and the intention is being borne out by the results so far. This was an official statement of intent by the top level of the IDF, you seem to very casual in dismissing it as 'banter' or something. You might want to read up on the definitions of terrorism

Newsflash: Hezbollah is not the military. Just because terrorists attack a military convoy, it doesn't mean the attack isn't terrorism.

Uhhh whether an act is considered terrorism depends on the target - the IDF are the military, therefore it isn't terrorism. Again, go and read something about it

Corganist

07-24-2006, 02:21 PM

I explicitly said, a few posts up, that I don't think they generally attack civilians for the sake of attacking civilians. Of course even if they were, they wouldn't say it - they'd say that they were aiming for legitimate targets, obviously. And like you said, there really is no evidence whatsoever of that being the case. But what there is evidence of is massive damage to civilian neighborhoods, infrastructure, and an escalating death toll. Surely even you must recognize that there comes a point where a line is crossed, where the intent of an action cannot justify the consequences - for a simple example beyond that line, if Israel were to nuke the whole of Lebanon today (effectively wiping out Hizbollah) that would clearly be unjustifiable. I believe that the actions they're executing now are beyond that line, that they can't justify the amount of force being used and the devastation being wrought on the general population, and a lot of people in the international community agree. That's the disregard for human life.
So in your mind, the only thing that puts Israel on lower moral ground than Hezbollah is the fact that they do more damage and kill more people? So I assume that if Hezbollah were to become more effective killers the pendulum would swing and you'd turn the brunt of your disapproval back to them, right? That seems an awfully strange way of approaching things. It all but guarantees that you always hold the big countries who respond to terrorism, in good faith or not, in lower moral standing than the terrorists who initiate things unless the terrorists manage to pull off some spectacular 9/11 type attack. It seems awfully simplistic just to ignore the necessary subjective moral aspect and instead replace it with a scoreboard.

Hizbollah is not Lebanon. Threatening the population of a country with retribution for something a terrorist group did is terrorism, yes. And that quote speaks volumes about Israel's approach - these things don't just slip out casually, and the intention is being borne out by the results so far. This was an official statement of intent by the top level of the IDF, you seem to very casual in dismissing it as 'banter' or something. You might want to read up on the definitions of terrorism
Apparently everything is terrorism these days...

Uhhh whether an act is considered terrorism depends on the target - the IDF are the military, therefore it isn't terrorism. Again, go and read something about it
...except for actual terrorism.

I guess now you're gonna tell me that the truck bomb that killed those 200 Marines in Beirut back in 1983, or the attack on the USS Cole, etc. were "close to legitimate" military exercises too. There's a difference between attacking a military target as part of established hostilities and attacking for no strategic reason a target that happens to be military. Attacking a bunch of guys driving around their own country, or sleeping in a barracks, etc. doesn't suddenly become warfare just because the victims have patches on their arm.

DeviousJ

07-24-2006, 05:50 PM

So in your mind, the only thing that puts Israel on lower moral ground than Hezbollah is the fact that they do more damage and kill more people? So I assume that if Hezbollah were to become more effective killers the pendulum would swing and you'd turn the brunt of your disapproval back to them, right? That seems an awfully strange way of approaching things. It all but guarantees that you always hold the big countries who respond to terrorism, in good faith or not, in lower moral standing than the terrorists who initiate things unless the terrorists manage to pull off some spectacular 9/11 type attack. It seems awfully simplistic just to ignore the necessary subjective moral aspect and instead replace it with a scoreboard.

Well that depends on how they 'respond' now doesn't it. I think Israel should be held to a higher standard since they're (apparently) a legitimate, law-abiding state with a powerful military and intelligence service. Nobody's replacing anything with a scoreboard, but you seem to want to ignore the actual magnitude of destruction involved and claim it's somehow irrelevant. That is a *huge* part of whether an attack is being done in 'good faith'

Apparently everything is terrorism these days...

...except for actual terrorism.

I guess now you're gonna tell me that the truck bomb that killed those 200 Marines in Beirut back in 1983, or the attack on the USS Cole, etc. were "close to legitimate" military exercises too. There's a difference between attacking a military target as part of established hostilities and attacking for no strategic reason a target that happens to be military. Attacking a bunch of guys driving around their own country, or sleeping in a barracks, etc. doesn't suddenly become warfare just because the victims have patches on their arm.

Yeah, there's also a difference between attacking a target that's military and terrorism. Seriously, look it up - it's even a law thing, you like law. 'Terrorism' doesn't mean 'bad stuff I don't like' unfortunately. Although it tends to be thrown around that way a lot for propaganda purposes, so I can see why you might be confused. So you're correct, those two incidents weren't terrorism.

talk show host

07-24-2006, 07:50 PM

Hardly. This is their war. If they want to fight each other over their twisted religious ideals, let them. This goes back ages. I can't support anything that has to do with these people's inability to evolve past their own bullshit.

This doesn't mean I don't want there to be peace, but let's just face the facts, it's not going to happen until they can learn to live in peace together, regardless of religious belief/tradition each wants to practice.

So............EVERYONE there is into this religious war? These little kids and civilians getting the holy hell blown out of them are part of this war, in fact it's their war after all, and so we should just stay out?

Like I said, retarded. Yes the governments are part of this shit, no not everyone else is. Therefore we shouldn't just stay out of it huh? Maybe put some pressure on the governments to cut the shit out? Get where I'm going with this?

Effloresce

07-24-2006, 08:48 PM

Don't forget everyone, this is all just plain and simple self-defense.

Hezbollah slapped Israel in the face and then ran off into the bushes, unable to get revenge on those crazy terrorists Israel still angry decides to get its revenge on Hezbollah's civillian friends and family in Lebanon by destroying their homes, injuring and killing them but don't forget, its all just self-defense.
Precisely.

You want revenge? Don't drag innocent people into it. I swear, they're acting like all we need to do is wait a few more months until Hezbollah is completely destroyed. It's not happening.

This is absurd.

Corganist

07-24-2006, 08:52 PM

Well that depends on how they 'respond' now doesn't it. I think Israel should be held to a higher standard since they're (apparently) a legitimate, law-abiding state with a powerful military and intelligence service. Nobody's replacing anything with a scoreboard, but you seem to want to ignore the actual magnitude of destruction involved and claim it's somehow irrelevant. That is a *huge* part of whether an attack is being done in 'good faith'
I never said the magnitude of what's happening is not relevant, but it is only relevant in context with the big picture, not as part of some kind of tit-for-tat exchange. Its really easy to accuse Israel of overreacting if you think the measuring stick of the conflict is something on the level of the kidnapping of a couple soldiers or lobbing a couple rockets into a neighborhood. But I don't really think that Israel is really going through all this trouble just because of a few militants making an incursion across the border, and I suspect you think the same. You know this whole thing didn't just start two weeks ago out of nowhere. Let's just suppose for a second that Israel is acting out of a sincere and true belief that acting on such large scale will save many more innocent Israeli lives in the future than it costs innocent Lebanese lives in the present. Would they still be wrong to act as they are right now were that the case?

Yeah, there's also a difference between attacking a target that's military and terrorism. Seriously, look it up - it's even a law thing, you like law. 'Terrorism' doesn't mean 'bad stuff I don't like' unfortunately. Although it tends to be thrown around that way a lot for propaganda purposes, so I can see why you might be confused. So you're correct, those two incidents weren't terrorism.
Funny that you mention the law. Here's the definition of "terrorism" as adopted in US law, and applied by the US State Department (whose interpretation of the law seems to be the most accepted among US intelligence types.)

No one definition of terrorism has gained universal acceptance. For the purposes of this report, however, we have chosen the definition of terrorism contained in Title 22 of the United States Code, Section 2656f(d). That statute contains the following definitions:

The term "terrorism" means premeditated, politically motivated violence perpetrated against noncombatant/*/ targets by subnational groups or clandestine agents, usually intended to influence an audience.
The term "international terrorism" means terrorism involving citizens or the territory of more than one country.
The term "terrorist group" means any group practicing, or that has significant subgroups that practice, international terrorism.

/*/ For purposes of this definition, the term "noncombatant" is interpreted to in</>clude in addition to civilians, military personnel who at the time of the incident are unarmed or not on duty. For example, in past reports we have listed as terrorist incidents the murders of the following US military personnel: Col. James Rowe, killed in Manila in April 1989; Capt. William Nordeen, US defense attache killed in Athens in June 1988; the two servicemen killed in the Labelle discotheque bombing in West Berlin in April 1986; and the four off-duty US Embassy Marine guards killed in a cafe in El Salvador in June 1985. We also consider as acts of terrorism attacks on military installations or on armed military personnel when a state of military hostilities does not exist at the site, such as bombings against US bases in Europe, the Philippines, or elsewhere.

Notwithstanding that, most of the other legal-type definitions of terrorism I found were pretty non-specific on the whole combatant/non-combatant thing (but a lot of em were off the wikipedia...so there's no telling how accurate some of that info is. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Definition_of_terrorism ), but I definitely wouldn't say its a blanket rule that attacking a soldier =/= terrorism.

celluloid_love

07-24-2006, 11:52 PM

Starla

07-25-2006, 05:36 AM

So............EVERYONE there is into this religious war?

I couldn't say if it were everyone or not. I cannot provide statistics regarding the numbers.

These little kids and civilians getting the holy hell blown out of them are part of this war, in fact it's their war after all, and so we should just stay out?

Yes, we should stay out of it. That doesn't mean I *want* to see innocents getting killed or that I do not care.

Yes the governments are part of this shit, no not everyone else is. Therefore we shouldn't just stay out of it huh? Maybe put some pressure on the governments to cut the shit out? Get where I'm going with this?

It's common knowledge our "leaders" support Israel. (I personally do not. I don't support either side)

Seems hypocritical to me, for our "leader" to demand a cease fire when in turn he has waged war on Iraq. What about the innocents dying every day over there?

and...

If we can't place enough pressure on our govt to pull troops out of Iraq, how the fuck are we going to pressure them to enforce a cease fire on Hezbollah and Israel? And please tell me how we would FORCE them to cease fire? I'm intrigued.

You missed the part in my other post where I said I wanted to see peace, but in reality *I* know it won't be until the people who live there CHOOSE it for themselves. They rather kill each other over their religion and politics than learn to live harmoniously side by side despite their differences.

WE cannot force a people to live the way WE want them to. Haven't we learned this yet with Iraq?

DeviousJ

07-25-2006, 09:45 AM

I never said the magnitude of what's happening is not relevant, but it is only relevant in context with the big picture, not as part of some kind of tit-for-tat exchange. Its really easy to accuse Israel of overreacting if you think the measuring stick of the conflict is something on the level of the kidnapping of a couple soldiers or lobbing a couple rockets into a neighborhood. But I don't really think that Israel is really going through all this trouble just because of a few militants making an incursion across the border, and I suspect you think the same. You know this whole thing didn't just start two weeks ago out of nowhere. Let's just suppose for a second that Israel is acting out of a sincere and true belief that acting on such large scale will save many more innocent Israeli lives in the future than it costs innocent Lebanese lives in the present. Would they still be wrong to act as they are right now were that the case?

You're right, this is a long-running conflict with a history of aggression from both sides, so don't try and paint it like Israel is only now reacting to attacks after decades of austerity. As part of the big picture, this campaign is still massively disproportionate - AND the people who are really suffering are the ordinary Lebanese people, not the terrorists. Even if Israel were acting in good faith (let's revisit that 'bomb Lebanon back 20 years' comment shall we), the idea that they can somehow kill hundreds of innocent people and destroy homes as some kind of insurance policy is incredibly tenuous, and isn't even borne out by intelligence, results, or even a basic knowledge of the region and how resistance movements work. There are alternatives, and they are better alternatives

Funny that you mention the law. Here's the definition of "terrorism" as adopted in US law, and applied by the US State Department (whose interpretation of the law seems to be the most accepted among US intelligence types.)

Notwithstanding that, most of the other legal-type definitions of terrorism I found were pretty non-specific on the whole combatant/non-combatant thing (but a lot of em were off the wikipedia...so there's no telling how accurate some of that info is. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Definition_of_terrorism ), but I definitely wouldn't say its a blanket rule that attacking a soldier =/= terrorism.

So you agree that attacking a military patrol on the border and capturing armed soldiers doesn't fall under the banner of terrorism, cool. This is unprecedented progress!

DeviousJ

07-25-2006, 10:02 AM

He's right...

*cue "lol you just said that most of the civilians who died were staying in Beirut out of stupidity and support for a terrorist organisation, why the hell would I listen to you" comment*

Except that no one can prove that wrong...

Yeah, they should just go to a hotel or something. Oh hey, did you also know that many people are fleeing towns and villages (after Israel dropping leaflets telling them to get out) and being killed in their cars as Israel fires rockets at the escaping vehicles?

Check it out
http://www.nytimes.com/2006/07/24/world/middleeast/24tyre.html?fta=y
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article/0,,251-2282992,00.html

celluloid_love

07-25-2006, 10:35 AM

Dumbasses. Should have left when they were told to.

DeviousJ

07-25-2006, 10:48 AM

You are trolling right? Let us know so we can laugh along too

celluloid_love

07-25-2006, 10:56 AM

yes.

DeviousJ

07-25-2006, 10:58 AM

Well that's a relief. Let's all get milkshakes

Andrew_Pakula

07-25-2006, 03:58 PM

Breaking News: An Israeli air raid struck a United Nations observation post and killed four U.N. observers in southern Lebanon, according to Lebanese security sources.

I guess they must have been part of Hezbollah's infrastructure right?

TuralyonW3

07-25-2006, 04:05 PM

DeviousJ

07-25-2006, 04:10 PM

I just saw that on CNN. Of course it won't be on foxnews.

Well actually it's their lead story on the fox news website, if that counts for anything

TuralyonW3

07-25-2006, 04:14 PM

Well actually it's their lead story on the fox news website, if that counts for anything

:hanging:

talk show host

07-25-2006, 09:54 PM

I couldn't say if it were everyone or not. I cannot provide statistics regarding the numbers.

I'd hazzard at a guess that the kids losing their familes or their own lives aren't too keen. Just an idea.

It's common knowledge our "leaders" support Israel. (I personally do not. I don't support either side)

Seems hypocritical to me, for our "leader" to demand a cease fire when in turn he has waged war on Iraq. What about the innocents dying every day over there?

and...

If we can't place enough pressure on our govt to pull troops out of Iraq, how the fuck are we going to pressure them to enforce a cease fire on Hezbollah and Israel? And please tell me how we would FORCE them to cease fire? I'm intrigued.

You missed the part in my other post where I said I wanted to see peace, but in reality *I* know it won't be until the people who live there CHOOSE it for themselves. They rather kill each other over their religion and politics than learn to live harmoniously side by side despite their differences.

WE cannot force a people to live the way WE want them to. Haven't we learned this yet with Iraq?

You're missing my point. Israel is a different situation from Iraq in that America (+ others) provide weaponary to allow this crap to keep going. If the UN got it's shit together it could impose all kinds of sanctions which puts pressure on the countries invloved to try other solutions. Just because I'm saying America should get involved doesn't mean I'm advocating they invade and impose the great myth of western democracy on the region. No one was a bigger critic of the shit shambles in Iraq then I, so please don't make the mistake of thinking I advocate those types of measures at all. They can live however the fuck they want, I just don't think it's ok to stand back while people who don't have any say or choice die because of what's going on.

Corganist

07-26-2006, 12:57 AM

You're right, this is a long-running conflict with a history of aggression from both sides, so don't try and paint it like Israel is only now reacting to attacks after decades of austerity. As part of the big picture, this campaign is still massively disproportionate - AND the people who are really suffering are the ordinary Lebanese people, not the terrorists. Even if Israel were acting in good faith (let's revisit that 'bomb Lebanon back 20 years' comment shall we), the idea that they can somehow kill hundreds of innocent people and destroy homes as some kind of insurance policy is incredibly tenuous, and isn't even borne out by intelligence, results, or even a basic knowledge of the region and how resistance movements work. There are alternatives, and they are better alternatives
If we're assuming Israel is acting in good faith we're assuming that their goal is to kill terrorists, not kill people and destroy homes. You still keep setting up the straw man that Israel is killing innocent people on purpose even when we're being hypothetical! Enough. At any rate, I still think getting into this talk about proportionality of response is silly because again, its pretty much just a self fulfilling prophecy. The established country is always going to be the bully in your view of things. If someone's kid gets stung by a bee, and the parent finds the beehive and destroys it I can just see you saying "Well, that was disproportionate."

So you agree that attacking a military patrol on the border and capturing armed soldiers doesn't fall under the banner of terrorism, cool. This is unprecedented progress!
Read what I quoted in that post again. It is terrorism if it occurs if there's not a state of military hostilities at the site. As far as I know, Israel was not in a state of military hostilities when the soldiers get kidnapped.

Starla

07-26-2006, 01:41 AM

You're missing my point. Israel is a different situation from Iraq in that America (+ others) provide weaponary to allow this crap to keep going. If the UN got it's shit together it could impose all kinds of sanctions which puts pressure on the countries invloved to try other solutions. Just because I'm saying America should get involved doesn't mean I'm advocating they invade and impose the great myth of western democracy on the region. No one was a bigger critic of the shit shambles in Iraq then I, so please don't make the mistake of thinking I advocate those types of measures at all. They can live however the fuck they want, I just don't think it's ok to stand back while people who don't have any say or choice die because of what's going on.

Point taken.

Trotskilicious

07-26-2006, 04:48 AM

One of the reasons Israel is being so agressive is because they know thanks to the Zionist lobby in America, that the U.S. will always have their back. If they didn't have guaranteed American support, I strongly suggest that they would persue other avenues against Hezbollah.

DeviousJ

07-26-2006, 07:33 AM

If we're assuming Israel is acting in good faith we're assuming that their goal is to kill terrorists, not kill people and destroy homes. You still keep setting up the straw man that Israel is killing innocent people on purpose even when we're being hypothetical! Enough. At any rate, I still think getting into this talk about proportionality of response is silly because again, its pretty much just a self fulfilling prophecy. The established country is always going to be the bully in your view of things. If someone's kid gets stung by a bee, and the parent finds the beehive and destroys it I can just see you saying "Well, that was disproportionate."

I'm the one setting up a straw man? I've said several times in this thread that I generally don't think Israel is killing innocent people for the sake of it, it's more that they don't care, and you insist on ignoring that and pretending I said something else. And dude, you were the one who suggested "Israel is acting out of a sincere and true belief that acting on such large scale will save many more innocent Israeli lives in the future than it costs innocent Lebanese lives in the present". Do I need to underline the part of that which says 'trade off Lebanese deaths and destruction as part of some tenuous insurance policy'? And hey guess what - a country doesn't have to go beat the shit out of a weaker country just because it can

And your bee analogy would be disproportionate, what the hell are you talking about? One bee stings a kid and the entire colony is wiped out? You don't seem to have a grasp of even basic concepts here. The difference, though, is that most people wouldn't care if the bees were wiped out, but oh wait we're talking about innocent human beings here there is a slight difference

Read what I quoted in that post again. It is terrorism if it occurs if there's not a state of military hostilities at the site. As far as I know, Israel was not in a state of military hostilities when the soldiers get kidnapped.

Hahaha, oh god. This is amazing. I've been wanting to say 'doublethink' for a while now but it seemed too tacky and clichéd, but there's no other phrase that covers it. This all has to be some kind of joke. You're holding two contradictory beliefs at the same time and just trotting out whichever one suits your argument at the time - I mean I've seen it before but this is probably the most blatant example. Tell me more about the lack of hostilities on the Israeli-Lebanon border, and also how "this whole thing didn't just start two weeks ago out of nowhere."

Starla

07-26-2006, 07:35 AM

Looks like Bush is giving Israel their "two week notice". (note: I destest fox news)

NABATIYEH, Lebanon — The United States has given Israeli forces between 10 and 14 days to finish dealing Hezbollah "a strategic blow," a senior Israeli Foreign Ministry official told FOX News, as both Israeli forces and Hezbollah guerrillas continued to volley rockets across the Lebanon-Israel border.
While admitting that the Israeli Defense Forces (IDF) is working at a "slow pace," the official insisted the plan was constructed out of concern for human life.

"We could do it much faster if we would be willing to inflict high civilian casualties," the official said. "The decision was made to move in a methodical, slow way."

Israeli troops sealed off a Hezbollah stronghold and warplanes killed six people in a market city in southern Lebanon on Tuesday, while Beirut was pounded by new airstrikes. Guerrillas fired rockets at northern Israel, killing a girl, as the two-week-old crisis showed no signs of letting up, despite frantic diplomatic efforts.

Journalists covering the conflict were warned Tuesday by Hezbollah in Tyre, Lebanon, not to tape or broadcast live the source of outgoing rocket attacks, for fear of having guerrilla positions discovered by Israeli forces.

A second senior official told FOX News the IDF would need "another 10 days or so" to finish the job against Hezbollah. He continued to say that the U.S., European nations and moderate Arab nations that Israel is "doing the dirty job" for everyone in its attacks on Hezbollah.

(snip)
President Bush expressed concern for the civilians killed and harmed by Israeli bombs, but stopped short of calling for an immediate cease-fire that might not last.

"I support a sustainable cease-fire that will bring about an end to violence," Bush said.

Read it's entirety here Source (http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,205378,00.html)

DeviousJ

07-26-2006, 07:42 AM

If the UN got it's shit together it could impose all kinds of sanctions which puts pressure on the countries invloved to try other solutions.

The (or a) big problem with the UN is the veto system, I reckon. Usually when the UN fails to act it seems to be because one of the veto states has some kind of 'special relationship' with the target of the action. There's absolutely no way the US is going to allow the UN to impose sanctions on Israel unless things change drastically, and even then it's not a sure thing

Trotskilicious

07-26-2006, 10:56 AM

it's more that they don't care, and you insist on ignoring that and pretending I said something else.

Hey, he's a republican. That's their whole game!

Corganist

07-26-2006, 05:40 PM

I'm the one setting up a straw man? I've said several times in this thread that I generally don't think Israel is killing innocent people for the sake of it, it's more that they don't care, and you insist on ignoring that and pretending I said something else. And dude, you were the one who suggested "Israel is acting out of a sincere and true belief that acting on such large scale will save many more innocent Israeli lives in the future than it costs innocent Lebanese lives in the present". Do I need to underline the part of that which says 'trade off Lebanese deaths and destruction as part of some tenuous insurance policy'?
My bad. I think I just misread you. But I would say that I don't really agree with your characterization of my hypothetical you quoted there as "trading off Lebanese deaths" as insurance. That still makes it sound like Israel is purposefully trying to buy its safety with innocent Lebanese blood instead of (again, purely as part of the hypothetical) making a good faith effort to do what it thinks needs to be done for its own people with as little collateral damage as possible. Maybe you don't mean it to sound that way. So like I said, my bad.

But the point of the whole "maybe Israel is acting in good faith" argument was just meant to bring the subjective aspect of this stuff to the forefront and try and get you away from this "bigger explosions = badder people" mentality you've been showing.

And hey guess what - a country doesn't have to go beat the shit out of a weaker country just because it can
Are there any circumstances that would justify a stronger country attacking a weaker country in your book? I mean, sure, no one has to go bomb the shit out of a weaker country just because they can...but does that they can't do it at all or that they have to hold themselves to some kind of "only kill as many their people as they of killed ours" rule?

Hahaha, oh god. This is amazing. I've been wanting to say 'doublethink' for a while now but it seemed too tacky and clichéd, but there's no other phrase that covers it. This all has to be some kind of joke. You're holding two contradictory beliefs at the same time and just trotting out whichever one suits your argument at the time - I mean I've seen it before but this is probably the most blatant example. Tell me more about the lack of hostilities on the Israeli-Lebanon border, and also how "this whole thing didn't just start two weeks ago out of nowhere."
Fine. What military was Israel in hostilities with in that region? Yes, there were tensions in the region because of terrorists making incursions across the border, but if terrorists could ignite "military hostilities" just by sheer virtue of coming across the border and assaulting the first unwitting soldier they see, then the term would be completely meaningless. I doubt the US would have bothered to interpret "noncombatant" in such a way to in</>clude attacks against armed soldiers if "military hostilities" was really given as broad a meaning as you seek to give it.

DeviousJ

07-26-2006, 07:52 PM

My bad. I think I just misread you. But I would say that I don't really agree with your characterization of my hypothetical you quoted there as "trading off Lebanese deaths" as insurance. That still makes it sound like Israel is purposefully trying to buy its safety with innocent Lebanese blood instead of (again, purely as part of the hypothetical) making a good faith effort to do what it thinks needs to be done for its own people with as little collateral damage as possible. Maybe you don't mean it to sound that way. So like I said, my bad.

Look, just stop it. Even when I've said outright that 'I don't generally think Israel targets civilians for the sake of killing civilians' you still twist it around until you're called out on it, then say 'oops looks like we got our wires crossed somewhere down the line!' I said trading off lebanese deaths AS PART OF some tenuous insurance policy. As in 'if we do this action it will make us safer but kill all these people, shall we do it?'

But the point of the whole "maybe Israel is acting in good faith" argument was just meant to bring the subjective aspect of this stuff to the forefront and try and get you away from this "bigger explosions = badder people" mentality you've been showing.

Look, we've been through this ages ago - I explained the whole deal about there being a line you don't cross, and hopefully you agreed (you never actually addressed it) that Israel nuking Lebanon would be BAD. Even if they were acting 'in good faith' and it was the only way they believed they could stop Hizbollah, it would not be acceptable. Claims of 'acting in good faith' are not carte blanche

Are there any circumstances that would justify a stronger country attacking a weaker country in your book? I mean, sure, no one has to go bomb the shit out of a weaker country just because they can...but does that they can't do it at all or that they have to hold themselves to some kind of "only kill as many their people as they of killed ours" rule?

There are actually already rules in place about this stuff, it has been considered before. Humanitarian Law, definitions of legitimate action and war crimes... Also you're switching 'Lebanon' and 'Hizbollah' interchangeably as it suits your argument, the Lebanese military didn't attack Israel so 'their people' refers to Hizbollah personnel, not Lebanese civilians. Hizbollah is a terrorist group, remember? Are you honestly saying Israel has the right to kill a certain number of innocents because a bunch of terrorists went and killed innocent Israelis?

Fine. What military was Israel in hostilities with in that region? Yes, there were tensions in the region because of terrorists making incursions across the border, but if terrorists could ignite "military hostilities" just by sheer virtue of coming across the border and assaulting the first unwitting soldier they see, then the term would be completely meaningless. I doubt the US would have bothered to interpret "noncombatant" in such a way to in</>clude attacks against armed soldiers if "military hostilities" was really given as broad a meaning as you seek to give it.

This is awesome. So one minute you're saying that Israel is justified in bombing the shit out of Lebanon because of all the past hostilities, the next minute you're saying those hostilities are basically a bunch of guys 'making incursions' across the border, not even worth calling 'military hostilities' really! Meanwhile Israel is sending armed patrols along the border to search for missing pets or something - not because there are 'military hostilities' or anything. Yes, surely the US wouldn't have meant to inc<hey>clude attacks against armed soldiers in their interpretation of 'noncombatant', especially since it says the term "noncombatant" is interpreted to incl<dfgdfg>ude in addition to civilians, military personnel who at the time of the incident are unarmed or not on duty, yes clearly armed soldiers are in there, oh wait it says 'unarmed', that means 'not armed' prefix fans. My amazing 'broad definition' also says that armed patrols contain soldiers who are both armed AND on duty, possibly carrying out some sort of patrol!

talk show host

07-26-2006, 09:19 PM

The (or a) big problem with the UN is the veto system, I reckon. Usually when the UN fails to act it seems to be because one of the veto states has some kind of 'special relationship' with the target of the action. There's absolutely no way the US is going to allow the UN to impose sanctions on Israel unless things change drastically, and even then it's not a sure thing

Very true, and this frustrates the hell out of me :dammit:

Corganist

07-27-2006, 06:57 PM

Look, just stop it. Even when I've said outright that 'I don't generally think Israel targets civilians for the sake of killing civilians' you still twist it around until you're called out on it, then say 'oops looks like we got our wires crossed somewhere down the line!' I said trading off lebanese deaths AS PART OF some tenuous insurance policy. As in 'if we do this action it will make us safer but kill all these people, shall we do it?'
You didn't say that whole AS PART OF thing in the first post where you started characterizing my hypothetical as an insurance policy. You said "the idea that they can somehow kill hundreds of innocent people and destroy homes as some kind of insurance policy." Maybe you left out the "part of" part there, but nevertheless I got the wrong impression from it and that impression carried over a couple posts until I figured out what you really meant. You know, sometimes people actually do get their wires crossed.

Look, we've been through this ages ago - I explained the whole deal about there being a line you don't cross, and hopefully you agreed (you never actually addressed it) that Israel nuking Lebanon would be BAD. Even if they were acting 'in good faith' and it was the only way they believed they could stop Hizbollah, it would not be acceptable. Claims of 'acting in good faith' are not carte blanche
I never said that good intentions would give Israel carte blanche, but I'm just trying to see if I can get the "line" that Israel has crossed to move a little bit. Right now it seems like you think they've already crossed that line, good faith or not. And you never really answered the question I posed earlier about whether or not Israel's actions would be justified if they had a good faith belief it was necessary for the safety of its people. I don't want to know whether or not you think they'd be right in that belief, I just want to know if you'd still hold them as the party that's holding the bigger part of the moral blame for what's happening.

There are actually already rules in place about this stuff, it has been considered before. Humanitarian Law, definitions of legitimate action and war crimes... Also you're switching 'Lebanon' and 'Hizbollah' interchangeably as it suits your argument, the Lebanese military didn't attack Israel so 'their people' refers to Hizbollah personnel, not Lebanese civilians. Hizbollah is a terrorist group, remember? Are you honestly saying Israel has the right to kill a certain number of innocents because a bunch of terrorists went and killed innocent Israelis?
No, I'm just trying to wrap my head around this idea of proportionality you keep talking about. It seems like you're telling me that because Israel is fighting Hizbollah, any attack Israel makes upon Hizbollah in Lebanon is automatically disproportionate if it kills or harms innocent Lebanese people. How could Israel respond to Hezbollah at all if that were the case?

This is awesome. So one minute you're saying that Israel is justified in bombing the shit out of Lebanon because of all the past hostilities, the next minute you're saying those hostilities are basically a bunch of guys 'making incursions' across the border, not even worth calling 'military hostilities' really! Meanwhile Israel is sending armed patrols along the border to search for missing pets or something - not because there are 'military hostilities' or anything.
So by that logic, the southwest United States is an area where military hostilities are taking place. Afterall, Bush sent the National Guard down there. Obviously soldiers on patrol near the border = state of military hostilities.

Yes, surely the US wouldn't have meant to inc<hey>clude attacks against armed soldiers in their interpretation of 'noncombatant', especially since it says the term "noncombatant" is interpreted to incl<dfgdfg>ude in addition to civilians, military personnel who at the time of the incident are unarmed or not on duty, yes clearly armed soldiers are in there, oh wait it says 'unarmed', that means 'not armed' prefix fans. My amazing 'broad definition' also says that armed patrols contain soldiers who are both armed AND on duty, possibly carrying out some sort of patrol!
Did you not read the other part I so helpfully put in bold type in that passage? Its kinda important.

We also consider as acts of terrorism attacks on military installations or on armed military personnel when a state of military hostilities does not exist at the site, such as bombings against US bases in Europe, the Philippines, or elsewhere.

DeviousJ

07-28-2006, 11:12 AM

You didn't say that whole AS PART OF thing in the first post where you started characterizing my hypothetical as an insurance policy. You said "the idea that they can somehow kill hundreds of innocent people and destroy homes as some kind of insurance policy." Maybe you left out the "part of" part there, but nevertheless I got the wrong impression from it and that impression carried over a couple posts until I figured out what you really meant. You know, sometimes people actually do get their wires crossed.

You're right, I didn't say it the first time, but I did the second time when I was clarifying things - and yet you still claimed I was making it sound like that, even though you'd actually quoted me saying 'as part of' and were responding to that quote. I can understand the initial confusion I guess but holy shit

I never said that good intentions would give Israel carte blanche, but I'm just trying to see if I can get the "line" that Israel has crossed to move a little bit. Right now it seems like you think they've already crossed that line, good faith or not.

Well we've been over this. Everything they're doing is showing a lack of this 'hypothetical good faith' you keep trumpeting - you do know we're actually talking about a real, ongoing situation and not a hypothetical one right? Here's an example of that 'good faith' from another thread: <a href="http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/middle_east/5219360.stm">
"All those now in south Lebanon are terrorists who are related in some way to Hezbollah"</a>. It's sickening

And you never really answered the question I posed earlier about whether or not Israel's actions would be justified if they had a good faith belief it was necessary for the safety of its people. I don't want to know whether or not you think they'd be right in that belief, I just want to know if you'd still hold them as the party that's holding the bigger part of the moral blame for what's happening.

If you want to spin off into these tangential hypothetical situations then you're going to have to say specifically what you mean by 'necessary for the safety of its people' - are you talking about everyone in Israel dying, or 50%, or what? Because it's all relative to that line

No, I'm just trying to wrap my head around this idea of proportionality you keep talking about. It seems like you're telling me that because Israel is fighting Hizbollah, any attack Israel makes upon Hizbollah in Lebanon is automatically disproportionate if it kills or harms innocent Lebanese people. How could Israel respond to Hezbollah at all if that were the case?

Uh no, that would be called 'an attack'. It's a 'disproportionate attack' when the damage to innocents is in excess, when there are far more civilian deaths than Hizbollah ones, when entire city blocks are razed with the intention of destroying a small weapons cache, when the ends don't come close to justifying the means. It's not as though these extremes are the only way of dealing with Hizbollah to any degree, and we've already been over this

So by that logic, the southwest United States is an area where military hostilities are taking place. Afterall, Bush sent the National Guard down there. Obviously soldiers on patrol near the border = state of military hostilities.

Did you not read the other part I so helpfully put in bold type in that passage? Its kinda important.

Tell me why Israel started this military action out of the blue again? You seem to be avoiding talking about it now. Shame all these 'military hostilities' sprung out of nowhere!

You know it doesn't exactly harm your credibility to concede that you were wrong on a point - definitely not as much as contradicting yourself over and over when it's pointed out to you. 'Military hostilities near the Israel-Lebanon border? As if!!'

Corganist

07-28-2006, 01:09 PM

Well we've been over this. Everything they're doing is showing a lack of this 'hypothetical good faith' you keep trumpeting - you do know we're actually talking about a real, ongoing situation and not a hypothetical one right? Here's an example of that 'good faith' from another thread: <a href="http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/middle_east/5219360.stm">
"All those now in south Lebanon are terrorists who are related in some way to Hezbollah"</a>. It's sickening
I keep bringing up the "hypothetical good faith" situation because I keep getting the vibe that you would think Israel is the bad guy in this thing no matter what, not because I think that they're really necessarily acting in good faith. You said that what Israel's disregard for human life is "more disturbing" than the acts of the terrorists they're fighting, and you've backed that up pretty much only with the fact that Israel has caused a lot of damage and death and therefore they've "crossed the line." I am willing to say that you might be right in saying Israel has crossed the line, but it all depends on what Israel is trying to accomplish. You, on the other hand, seem to be saying that it doesn't matter what they're trying to accomplish; if the proportion of innocent people killed to terrorists killed gets above a certain point, Israel automatically turns into the bad guy. I think its an overly simplistic view of things to assign moral blame in a situation like this based solely on a numbers game, and you seem to agree with that...but at the same time you don't seem amenable to considering any other factors in the equation.

I don't want to know if you think Israel is really acting in good faith. I don't even know if I think that. I just want to know whether or not you think that it would matter if they were. If it does, then I don't see how you could be so quick to equivocate Israel's actions to terrorism.

If you want to spin off into these tangential hypothetical situations then you're going to have to say specifically what you mean by 'necessary for the safety of its people' - are you talking about everyone in Israel dying, or 50%, or what? Because it's all relative to that line
I think the standard I used in an earlier post was to the effect of "saving more innocent Israelis than innocent Lebanese." So let's go with that.

Uh no, that would be called 'an attack'. It's a 'disproportionate attack' when the damage to innocents is in excess, when there are far more civilian deaths than Hizbollah ones, when entire city blocks are razed with the intention of destroying a small weapons cache, when the ends don't come close to justifying the means.It's not as though these extremes are the only way of dealing with Hizbollah to any degree, and we've already been over this
But like I asked earlier, isn't it almost always going to be the case that anytime Israel wishes to strike Hezbollah that they run the risk of causing "excess" damage to civilians just because of Hezbollah's very nature of hiding amongst civilians and whatnot?

Tell me why Israel started this military action out of the blue again? You seem to be avoiding talking about it now. Shame all these 'military hostilities' sprung out of nowhere!

You know it doesn't exactly harm your credibility to concede that you were wrong on a point - definitely not as much as contradicting yourself over and over when it's pointed out to you. 'Military hostilities near the Israel-Lebanon border? As if!!'
What point was I wrong on? You're the one who said an attack is not terrorism if the victims are soldiers, and suggested the the law backed you up. So I posted the law on how terrorism is defined according to US law and how its interpreted, and it clearly backs up my assertions. Remember what we're talking about here: terrorists coming into Israel and attacking Israeli soldiers before the current conflict started. Israel's soldiers weren't engaged in hostilities on the Lebanon border before the soldiers got kidnapped. Does that mean that it wasn't an area of tension? No, but tension does not equal hostilities.

Again, if terrorists could create a state of "military hostilities" just by attacking any group of armed soldiers it sees and by virtue of that take themselves out from under the definition of terrorism we're working under here, it'd render the interpretation of the law utterly meaningless. I admit I get out on a limb with some things, but I'm on pretty solid ground here. I think you might want to take your own advice about conceding a point.

DeviousJ

07-28-2006, 02:44 PM

I keep bringing up the "hypothetical good faith" situation because I keep getting the vibe that you would think Israel is the bad guy in this thing no matter what, not because I think that they're really necessarily acting in good faith. You said that what Israel's disregard for human life is "more disturbing" than the acts of the terrorists they're fighting, and you've backed that up pretty much only with the fact that Israel has caused a lot of damage and death and therefore they've "crossed the line." I am willing to say that you might be right in saying Israel has crossed the line, but it all depends on what Israel is trying to accomplish. You, on the other hand, seem to be saying that it doesn't matter what they're trying to accomplish; if the proportion of innocent people killed to terrorists killed gets above a certain point, Israel automatically turns into the bad guy. I think is an overly simplistic view of things to assign moral blame in a situation like this based solely on a numbers game, and you seem to agree with that...but at the same time you don't seem amenable to considering any other factors in the equation.

I'm not interested in establishing a hypothetical framework of how I would view Israel if X and Y were true, I'm talking specifically about what's happening now and what's happened in the past as a precedent. and you're saying I might be right that Israel has crossed the line, so you're tacitly agreeing that there *is* a line, that there is some point beyond which the costs of actions cannot be justified. Ignoring hypothetical possibilities, and focusing on this conflict (and past actions, if you want to talk about precedent for my opinion) I personally believe that Israel is not acting on good faith and has crossed the line - and this is based on things we've been over before in this thread: threats, results and analysis of the attacks, targetting fleeing civilian convoys, that statement that 'anyone remaining in Southern Lebanon must be a terrorist' (they're talking about razing villages to make things easier for themselves, obviously trying to pre-empt the civilian casualties) etc etc. If you want to disagree with these reasons and argue that they *are* acting in good faith then fine, but it's completely pointless to divert to some hypothetical 'well hey imagine if this were the case' scenario where this good faith is a given. Make another thread if you want to talk about the pure philosophy of war.

I don't want to know if you think Israel is really acting in good faith. I don't even know if I think that. I just want to know whether or not you think that it would matter if they were. If it does, then I don't see how you could be so quick as to equivocate Israel's actions to terrorism.

I wouldn't, and it would make me less critical to a degree, but again there are limits and ramifications and responsibility to consider. Again this is hypothetical and we've spent long enough on this tangent.

But like I asked earlier, isn't it almost always going to be the case that anytime Israel wishes to strike Hezbollah that they run the risk of causing "excess" damage to civilians just because of Hezbollah's very nature of hiding amongst civilians and whatnot?

Well that depends - when Israel was killing Palestinian militants by hitting cars with rockets, at least they only tended to kill 1 or 2 innocent bystanders. What's happening now is way beyond that - have you seen just how much destruction there is? 'Excess' is beyond that line we both agree exists. And like I keep saying, there are other ways to deal with terrorists, I even gave you a link to where diplomacy disarmed a major terrorist group and there are other examples.

What point was I wrong on? You're the one who said an attack is not terrorism if the victims are soldiers, and suggested the the law backed you up. So I posted the law on how terrorism is defined according to US law and how its interpreted, and it clearly backs up my assertions. Remember what we're talking about here: terrorists coming into Israel and attacking Israeli soldiers before the current conflict started. Israel's soldiers weren't engaged in hostilities on the Lebanon border before the soldiers got kidnapped. Does that mean that it wasn't an area of tension? No, but tension does not equal hostilities.

You said that the initial attack and soldier capture was a terrorist act. I told you it wasn't, then you posted a definition of terrorism that backed me up. You're obviously fully aware of this, because you're twisting in the wind like crazy trying to claim that there were no hostilities in the area, despite earlier claiming there were to justify Israel's massive campaign. You're full of shit, and you know it. Constant rocket attacks, incursions, suicide bombers, mines being laid by Hizbollah on the Israeli side, a mine-clearing vehicle being blown up by a rocket, a previous prisoner-taking incident... these are the kinds of things you were talking about I assume, which somehow don't qualify as 'military hostilities' while justifying a massive Israeli bombing campaign. Do tell what qualifies as 'tensions' and what qualifies as 'military hostilities', since you've picked this completely nebulous point of that definition to cling to.

Again, if terrorists could create a state of "military hostilities" just by attacking any group of armed soldiers it sees and by virtue of that take themselves out from under the definition of terrorism we're working under here, it'd render the interpretation of the law utterly meaningless. I admit I get out on a limb with some things, but I'm on pretty solid ground here. I think you might want to take your own advice about conceding a point.

And conversely, if a group could arbitrarily decide the 'start of a conflict' and claim that anything prior to that was an act of terrorism it would also render the definition meaningless. Your whole argument seems to hinge on that small print, the 'exceptions to the rule' which basically says 'oh it's also terrorism if we consider that to be the case'. We could (and should) have an entire thread dedicated to states' individual interpretations of terrorism and how they're turned to cover attacks by them against us, but it doesn't matter - the idea that there was no state of military hostilities on the Israel-Lebanon border is totally ludicrous. Nobody is that stupid

Corganist

07-30-2006, 03:32 AM

I'm not interested in establishing a hypothetical framework of how I would view Israel if X and Y were true, I'm talking specifically about what's happening now and what's happened in the past as a precedent. and you're saying I might be right that Israel has crossed the line, so you're tacitly agreeing that there *is* a line, that there is some point beyond which the costs of actions cannot be justified. Ignoring hypothetical possibilities, and focusing on this conflict (and past actions, if you want to talk about precedent for my opinion) I personally believe that Israel is not acting on good faith and has crossed the line[/i]
That's fine and all, but I still don't see where you've even come close to justifying the idea you so boldly put forth earlier that what Israel is doing is more disturbing than what Hezbollah does. I mean, sure, I agree that there's a "line" a country can cross in responding to attacks against it, but that line is not measured in quantifiable terms like people killed or buildings destroyed. That's what I'm trying to get across, but you for some reason keep swatting that point away by telling me it doesn't matter here. You seemingly won't even indulge a hypothetical world where Israel might not be acting with a totally reckless disregard for human life. The only reason I'm pressing the point is because you're so strongly holding out against Israel for what's going on, and barely giving Hezbollah their fair share of the blame. Instead we get stuff like "Oh sure, the terrorists target civilians on purpose....but that just shows they know the value of civilian lives!" and "Kidnapping = capture!" I'm just trying to get you to be a little more even-handed here, and you seem resistant to it for some reason.

Let me ask you this: Do you personally believe Hezbollah has crossed the "line" when it comes to their dealings with Israel?

You said that the initial attack and soldier capture was a terrorist act. I told you it wasn't, then you posted a definition of terrorism that backed me up. You're obviously fully aware of this, because you're twisting in the wind like crazy trying to claim that there were no hostilities in the area, despite earlier claiming there were to justify Israel's massive campaign. You're full of shit, and you know it. Constant rocket attacks, incursions, suicide bombers, mines being laid by Hizbollah on the Israeli side, a mine-clearing vehicle being blown up by a rocket, a previous prisoner-taking incident... these are the kinds of things you were talking about I assume, which somehow don't qualify as 'military hostilities' while justifying a massive Israeli bombing campaign
I never said there were military hostilities in the area. I suggested that maybe the scale of Israel's response may have had more to do with the long running nature of the terrorist threat they've been facing than it did the particular kidnapping of the two soldiers. Somehow you've twisted that into me saying there were military hostilities in the area. What the hell?

And conversely, if a group could arbitrarily decide the 'start of a conflict' and claim that anything prior to that was an act of terrorism it would also render the definition meaningless. Your whole argument seems to hinge on that small print, the 'exceptions to the rule' which basically says 'oh it's also terrorism if we consider that to be the case'. We could (and should) have an entire thread dedicated to states' individual interpretations of terrorism and how they're turned to cover attacks by them against us, but it doesn't matter - the idea that there was no state of military hostilities on the Israel-Lebanon border is totally ludicrous. Nobody is that stupid
Oh come on. If someone had said two months ago, "Given the military hostilities on Israel's northern border, I think Israel should invade Lebanon," you would have rightly said "WTF? What military hostilities?"

Really man, it'd be one thing if you just disregarded the terrorism definition I provided, or if you disagreed with the US's inclusion of attacks on armed soldiers outside military hostilities in their interpretation of the law. Reasonable minds can differ on things such as the definition of terrorism. But you seem to be at least grudgingly accepting the legitmacy of the definition for the purpose of argument and saying that it supports your point. That'd be well and good if that point wasn't the exact opposite of what the law actually says. Either accept what it actually says, or disregard it...but if you do the former then you have to come to terms with the fact that under the terms given, the kidnapping of the soldiers was a clear terrorist act and nothing more.

DeviousJ

07-30-2006, 12:14 PM

That's fine and all, but I still don't see where you've even come close to justifying the idea you so boldly put forth earlier that what Israel is doing is more disturbing than what Hezbollah does. I mean, sure, I agree that there's a "line" a country can cross in responding to attacks against it, but that line is not measured in quantifiable terms like people killed or buildings destroyed. That's what I'm trying to get across, but you for some reason keep swatting that point away by telling me it doesn't matter here. You seemingly won't even indulge a hypothetical world where Israel might not be acting with a totally reckless disregard for human life. The only reason I'm pressing the point is because you're so strongly holding out against Israel for what's going on, and barely giving Hezbollah their fair share of the blame. Instead we get stuff like "Oh sure, the terrorists target civilians on purpose....but that just shows they know the value of civilian lives!" and "Kidnapping = capture!" I'm just trying to get you to be a little more even-handed here, and you seem resistant to it for some reason.

Funny how you cut off your quote at the exact point I explained my reasons for believing they've crossed the line. So indulge me here, tell me exactly how this line *is* measured since I've already given you my reasoning.

Let me ask you this: Do you personally believe Hezbollah has crossed the "line" when it comes to their dealings with Israel?

Obviously. But that doesn't excuse Israel's actions and their magnitude, and they're meant to be a legitimate state, not a terrorist organization.

I never said there were military hostilities in the area. I suggested that maybe the scale of Israel's response may have had more to do with the long running nature of the terrorist threat they've been facing than it did the particular kidnapping of the two soldiers. Somehow you've twisted that into me saying there were military hostilities in the area. What the hell?

So the long-running nature of the terrorist threat (rocket attacks, incursions, bombings, laying mines) also doesn't count as 'military hostilities'? I helpfully provided you with a list of actual recent military hostilities occurring on the Lebanon-Israel border and you still want to deny it. You'd swear the world is banana-shaped rather than admit you're wrong in the face of reason. No wonder you're going to be a lawyer

Oh come on. If someone had said two months ago, "Given the military hostilities on Israel's northern border, I think Israel should invade Lebanon," you would have rightly said "WTF? What military hostilities?"

No I wouldn't, because I'm not completely ignorant. I might have said 'why the hell would that justify invading Lebanon' which is a completely different thing.

Really man, it'd be one thing if you just disregarded the terrorism definition I provided, or if you disagreed with the US's inclusion of attacks on armed soldiers outside military hostilities in their interpretation of the law. Reasonable minds can differ on things such as the definition of terrorism. But you seem to be at least grudgingly accepting the legitmacy of the definition for the purpose of argument and saying that it supports your point. That'd be well and good if that point wasn't the exact opposite of what the law actually says. Either accept what it actually says, or disregard it...but if you do the former then you have to come to terms with the fact that under the terms given, the kidnapping of the soldiers was a clear terrorist act and nothing more.

Yeah I accepted the general definition, but I don't give a lot of weight to the caveat you're clinging to, which is about as grudging as it gets. You're ignoring the actual objective definition of terrorism in there and relying entirely on the subjective 'hey, it's also terrorism if we say there were no military hostilities at the site at the time' footnote. Where's the precise definition of 'military hostilities' you're relying on here? Because this attack isn't listed as one of the examples. You're arbitrarily (and completely in the face of reason) deciding that the situation on the border was one of 'tensions' but not 'military hostilities', and using that completely tenuous assertion you've decided 'hey, this is DEFINITELY terrorism'. If you have any case for this at all, it's an incredibly weak one - which of course means that the case for it NOT being terrorism is an incredibly strong one.

Let's shift a gear here shall we - and no ignoring this question, I want answers: Assuming you're actually right that the situation on the border prior to the attack/capture didn't amount to 'military hostilities', then it's pretty clear that there were DEFINITELY no military hostilities in Beirut and other cities in Lebanon. As constant deadly exchanges between Hizbollah and the IDF were not enough to escalate things to a state of widespread military hostilities (including on the border, and in cities like Beirut), therefore you'll agree that Israel's attacks on these cities are clearly acts of terrorism, on a massive scale. Yes?

Corganist

07-31-2006, 03:48 PM

Funny how you cut off your quote at the exact point I explained my reasons for believing they've crossed the line. So indulge me here, tell me exactly how this line *is* measured since I've already given you my reasoning.
There's lots of factors, and most of them we don't have nearly enough facts about to be apportioning much blame. Whether Israel thinks its striking legitimate Hezbollah targets, whether Hezbollah is hiding and operating in civilian areas, whether Israel is being diligent in making sure their intelligence is correct before bombing something, etc. The key factor in where the line is drawn is that its subjective. And that goes doubly so when you're making comparisons between two groups. On the one hand we have Israel, who have been blowing up shit left and right, and may or may not be doing it with good reason. Then you have Hezbollah, who have been blowing up less shit, and are definitely doing it for no good reason. Maybe one's not worse than the other, but all the same you can't just look at a picture of a razed cityscape or a dead kid and automatically say "Well, whoever did that is obviously the bad guy."

So the long-running nature of the terrorist threat (rocket attacks, incursions, bombings, laying mines) also doesn't count as 'military hostilities'? I helpfully provided you with a list of actual recent military hostilities occurring on the Lebanon-Israel border and you still want to deny it. You'd swear the world is banana-shaped rather than admit you're wrong in the face of reason. No wonder you're going to be a lawyer
You didn't give me a list of military hostilities. You gave me a list of incidents of Hezbollah coming into Israel and blowing shit up and attacking people. Terrorist acts don't become military hostilities just because they happen a lot. You haven't given any indication that Israel's military was actively engaged in any kind of action on the northern Israeli border when these attacks occurred. Them just being there doesn't count. Its their country, and they have a right to be there. And if anything, the only reason they had to be there at all was to protect against terrorist attacks. Again, you can't play the game where the terrorists attack on the border so often that the military has to get called out, and then once the military shows up, it suddenly becomes military hostilities and the terrorists are free to operate as they see fit under a sort of legitimacy.

Yeah I accepted the general definition, but I don't give a lot of weight to the caveat you're clinging to, which is about as grudging as it gets. You're ignoring the actual objective definition of terrorism in there and relying entirely on the subjective 'hey, it's also terrorism if we say there were no military hostilities at the site at the time' footnote. Where's the precise definition of 'military hostilities' you're relying on here? Because this attack isn't listed as one of the examples. You're arbitrarily (and completely in the face of reason) deciding that the situation on the border was one of 'tensions' but not 'military hostilities', and using that completely tenuous assertion you've decided 'hey, this is DEFINITELY terrorism'. If you have any case for this at all, it's an incredibly weak one - which of course means that the case for it NOT being terrorism is an incredibly strong one.
Man, you've just been a shell of yourself during this debate. I'm really disappointed in you, seriously. "Your argument is weak, so therefore mine has to strong"? Is this what you're reduced to? Why have you just abandoned all rationality for the cause of justifying the actions of Hezbollah? Why jump through all these hoops to try and play the kidnapping of the Israeli soldiers in a semi-positive light? Its not as though calling the kidnapping a terrorist act automatically makes Israel's response proportionate and acceptable, so I don't understand why you're bending over backwards to play up Hezbollah's actions as being even close to some sort of legitimate act. This is what has vexed me the entire thread. If you want to say Israel are bad guys, I think that's a tenable position. Maybe further than I'd go at the moment, but defensible. But the disconnect for me is occuring with this "Hezbollah are bad, but not that bad" sentiment. I just don't get it.

And you accuse me of acting completely in the face of reason? I've at least provided some proof that somewhat backs up my assertions. You may not like the law I provided, or the extra caveats that have been read into it. That's fine. But as long as we're working under that definition and those caveats, the only ground you've got to stand on is "Oh, of course there were military hostilities in Northern Israel! That's just a given!" and you back it up not with any military actions in the area....but with the existence of constant terror attacks. That is a little irrational my friend.

Let's shift a gear here shall we - and no ignoring this question, I want answers: Assuming you're actually right that the situation on the border prior to the attack/capture didn't amount to 'military hostilities', then it's pretty clear that there were DEFINITELY no military hostilities in Beirut and other cities in Lebanon. As constant deadly exchanges between Hizbollah and the IDF were not enough to escalate things to a state of widespread military hostilities (including on the border, and in cities like Beirut), therefore you'll agree that Israel's attacks on these cities are clearly acts of terrorism, on a massive scale. Yes?
Not unless we're going to say that Hezbollah is an illegitimate target for the Israeli military to strike. If that's the case, then apparently no organized military can ever fight back against terrorist groups. Keep in mind, the existence of military hostilities only matters as far as determining whether an attack is terrorism if someone attacks an armed member of the military. Hezbollah is not the military. That doesn't mean that Israel's response might not be improper for other reasons, but it won't be because what they are doing fits under the definition of terrorism we're using.

Bolly!!

07-31-2006, 03:59 PM

Sometimes, as I read up on the news, I get struck by a single piece of subcontent within a story. I note that President Bush places the blame for the war going on over there right where it belongs: squarely on the shoulders of Hezbollah and Syria. At the same meeting, Russian President Putin also spoke on Israel’s actions:

Putin said it was unacceptable to try to reach political goals through abductions and strikes against an independent state. “In this context we consider Israel’s concerns to be justified,” he said.

At the same time, he said, “the use of force should be balanced.”

Is anyone else struck by the irony that the President of Russia is suggesting that a sovereign nation whose territory was invaded and whose citizens were kidnapped by an outside force should not strike back with everything they’ve got? Considering Russia’s responses to invasions, I’m thinking Putin wouldn’t be content with sending over a lightly armed diplomatic corp were it Russia and not Israel that was the target of such actions. Say, perhaps, if it were Chechen terrorists instead of Hezbollah?

DeviousJ

07-31-2006, 04:33 PM

Man, this is gonna be brief

There's lots of factors, and most of them we don't have nearly enough facts about to be apportioning much blame. Whether Israel thinks its striking legitimate Hezbollah targets, whether Hezbollah is hiding and operating in civilian areas, whether Israel is being diligent in making sure their intelligence is correct before bombing something, etc. The key factor in where the line is drawn is that its subjective. And that goes doubly so when you're making comparisons between two groups. On the one hand we have Israel, who have been blowing up shit left and right, and may or may not be doing it with good reason. Then you have Hezbollah, who have been blowing up less shit, and are definitely doing it for no good reason. Maybe one's not worse than the other, but all the same you can't just look at a picture of a razed cityscape or a dead kid and automatically say "Well, whoever did that is obviously the bad guy."

Well it's lucky I didn't do that then, isn't it.

And I see you don't actually have any way of measuring this line beyond waving your hand and saying 'oh, it's uh subjective'. And yet you said that 'Israel may have crossed the line' - since you don't seem to have any way of reasoning that I'm assuming you meant it as yet another truism.

You didn't give me a list of military hostilities. You gave me a list of incidents of Hezbollah coming into Israel and blowing shit up and attacking people. Terrorist acts don't become military hostilities just because they happen a lot. You haven't given any indication that Israel's military was actively engaged in any kind of action on the northern Israeli border when these attacks occurred. Them just being there doesn't count. Its their country, and they have a right to be there. And if anything, the only reason they had to be there at all was to protect against terrorist attacks. Again, you can't play the game where the terrorists attack on the border so often that the military has to get called out, and then once the military shows up, it suddenly becomes military hostilities and the terrorists are free to operate as they see fit under a sort of legitimacy.</yellow>

Right right, circular argument time - it's terrorism if there are no military hostilities, and there are no military hostilities if it's terrorism. Got it.

Man, you've just been a shell of yourself during this debate. I'm really disappointed in you, seriously. "Your argument is weak, so therefore mine has to strong"? Is this what you're reduced to? Why have you just abandoned all rationality for the cause of justifying the actions of Hezbollah? Why jump through all these hoops to try and play the kidnapping of the Israeli soldiers in a semi-positive light? Its not as though calling the kidnapping a terrorist act automatically makes Israel's response proportionate and acceptable, so I don't understand why you're bending over backwards to play up Hezbollah's actions as being even close to some sort of legitimate act. This is what has vexed me the entire thread. If you want to say Israel are bad guys, I think that's a tenable position. Maybe further than I'd go at the moment, but defensible. But the disconnect for me is occuring with this "Hezbollah are bad, but not that bad" sentiment. I just don't get it.

So you don't have this definition of 'military hostilities' you're hanging your entire argument on, and you're reduced to arbitrarily extending the given examples to includ<hey>e this one so you can claim it's not excluded as per the formal definition. I understand.

And you accuse me of acting completely in the face of reason? I've at least provided some proof that somewhat backs up my assertions. You may not like the law I provided, or the extra caveats that have been read into it. That's fine. But as long as we're working under that definition and those caveats, the only ground you've got to stand on is "Oh, of course there were military hostilities in Northern Israel! That's just a given!" and you back it up not with any military actions in the area....but with the existence of constant terror attacks. That is a little irrational my friend.

Proof that there were no 'military hostilities' in the area? Because that's what you need to provide to make this fall under your own definition of terrorism. I must have missed this proof, please to be repeating it here thanks. You can bold it to make it extra obvious.

Not unless we're going to say that Hezbollah is an illegitimate target for the Israeli military to strike. If that's the case, then apparently no organized military can ever fight back against terrorist groups. Keep in mind, the existence of military hostilities only matters as far as determining whether an attack is terrorism if someone attacks an armed member of the military. Hezbollah is not the military. That doesn't mean that Israel's response might not be improper for other reasons, but it won't be because what they are doing fits under the definition of terrorism we're using.

It has nothing to do with the legitimacy of the target, it's all about whether or not there was 'a state of military hostilities' at the site - as stated in your precious addendum - which was absolutely not the case in the towns and cities attacked by Israel. You yourself said that 'terrorist attacks' are not enough to create a state of military hostilities (I put in yellow for you all special-like). And I got a laugh out of 'Hizbollah is not a military force' - so are they civilians or police or what? Please consult a dictionary before coming out with some bullshit answer.

If you want an easier example, the US invasion of Iraq. Not a site of military hostilities, it was their country and they had a right to be there, and yet the US went in and attacked the Iraqi army. That's terrorism by your definition (again relying on that caveat - I'm seeing a pattern here)

DeviousJ

07-31-2006, 04:41 PM

Corganist

07-31-2006, 06:40 PM

And I see you don't actually have any way of measuring this line beyond waving your hand and saying 'oh, it's uh subjective'. And yet you said that 'Israel may have crossed the line' - since you don't seem to have any way of reasoning that I'm assuming you meant it as yet another truism.
I meant it just like it sounded. I'm not convinced Israel hasn't crossed the line. The things you've brought up certainly are suggestive that they have. I haven't denied that at all. But I'm not willing to make the leap in logic that you're making where Israel not only has crossed the line, but have done so more egregiously than Hezbollah has. And I don't see what you think you're going to accomplish by having me say I don't know exactly where the line is. You don't know where it is either. It seems the only difference between you and I is that I know there's more to whether or not they've crossed the line than the scale of the body counts and destruction.

Right right, circular argument time - it's terrorism if there are no military hostilities, and there are no military hostilities if it's terrorism. Got it.
No. There are no military hostilities if there are no military hostilities. Simple as that.

So you don't have this definition of 'military hostilities' you're hanging your entire argument on, and you're reduced to arbitrarily extending the given examples to includ<hey>e this one so you can claim it's not excluded as per the formal definition. I understand.
There is no real definition of what military hostilities means, but its not like its a concept you can really fudge around with much if you're arguing in good faith. Clearly the term suggests that it requires hostilities (ie. overt acts of war) involving the military. I don't think its all that arbitrary to assume that the military involvement in the hostilities at least be active involvement instead of them just happening to be in a place where they become passive victims of an attack. Otherwise we'd live in the Bizarro world where any person can get a group of buddies together and create a state of military hostilities down at their local military base or recruiting center. The version of things you're putting forth just doesn't make any real world sense.

Proof that there were no 'military hostilities' in the area? Because that's what you need to provide to make this fall under your own definition of terrorism. I must have missed this proof, please to be repeating it here thanks. You can bold it to make it extra obvious.
I don't need to prove a negative. You're the one who's acting like only an idiot can deny there was a state of military hostilities in the area when these acts occurred. Surely you've got something to back that up other than "well, terrorists attacked the place a lot."

It has nothing to do with the legitimacy of the target, it's all about whether or not there was 'a state of military hostilities' at the site - as stated in your precious addendum - which was absolutely not the case in the towns and cities attacked by Israel. You yourself said that 'terrorist attacks' are not enough to create a state of military hostilities (I put in yellow for you all special-like). And I got a laugh out of 'Hizbollah is not a military force' - so are they civilians or police or what? Please consult a dictionary before coming out with some bullshit answer.

If you want an easier example, the US invasion of Iraq. Not a site of military hostilities, it was their country and they had a right to be there, and yet the US went in and attacked the Iraqi army. That's terrorism by your definition (again relying on that caveat - I'm seeing a pattern here)
I don't know how I missed this earlier, but you don't have to rely on the caveat to the definition at all when you're not dealing with a "subnational group or clandestine agent". If its a nation performing the action in question, they're automatically outside of the definition of terrorism we're using here. Hezbollah, on the other hand, pretty much epitomizes the term "subnational group," wouldn't you agree?

DeviousJ

08-01-2006, 04:55 PM

I meant it just like it sounded. I'm not convinced Israel hasn't crossed the line. The things you've brought up certainly are suggestive that they have. I haven't denied that at all. But I'm not willing to make the leap in logic that you're making where Israel not only has crossed the line, but have done so more egregiously than Hezbollah has. And I don't see what you think you're going to accomplish by having me say I don't know exactly where the line is. You don't know where it is either. It seems the only difference between you and I is that I know there's more to whether or not they've crossed the line than the scale of the body counts and destruction.

What am I going to accomplish? I stated an opinion that you had a problem with, I gave you my reasoning for that opinion, and you've argued against those reasons with hypothetical alternative scenarios and by telling me 'the line is subjective'. No shit, so what? You've done nothing to convince me that Israel actually is acting in good faith, neither has Israel, so this whole attempt to debate it with me is going nowhere. You'll have to suck it up and accept it I'm afraid

No. There are no military hostilities if there are no military hostilities. Simple as that.

Right, so military hostilities can't begin unless they already exist. I hear you loud and clear

There is no real definition of what military hostilities means, but its not like its a concept you can really fudge around with much if you're arguing in good faith. Clearly the term suggests that it requires hostilities (ie. overt acts of war) involving the military. I don't think its all that arbitrary to assume that the military involvement in the hostilities at least be active involvement instead of them just happening to be in a place where they become passive victims of an attack. Otherwise we'd live in the Bizarro world where any person can get a group of buddies together and create a state of military hostilities down at their local military base or recruiting center. The version of things you're putting forth just doesn't make any real world sense.

Haha, appeals to good faith. 'Come on, work with me here!' So you don't have a definition for it and your reliance on it basically falls completely flat. What you've hopefully noticed (although it might be too much to ask, I know) is that you have a fairly formal objective definition of terrorism, with a footnote attached that is entirely subjective and undefined. Relying on it makes the whole definition worthless because it says 'and anything else we want to call terrorism' - it even says 'we consider', hardly a statement of fact. Oh, and check this out:

It should be noted that 22 USC 2656f(d) is one of many U.S. statutes and international legal
instruments that concern terrorism and acts of violence, many of which use definitions for
terrorism and related terms that are different from those used in this report. The interpretation
and application of defined and related terms concerning terrorism in this report is therefore
specific to the statutory and other requirements of the report, and is not intended to express
the views of the U.S. Government on how these terms should be interpreted or applied for any
other purpose. Accordingly, there is not necessarily any correlation between the
interpretation of terms such as “non-combatant” for purposes of this report and the meanings
ascribed to similar terms pursuant to the law of war (which encapsulates the obligations of
states and individuals with respect to their activities in situations of armed conflict). 

Man that is concrete. Clearly this was terrorism without a shadow of a doubt

I don't need to prove a negative. You're the one who's acting like only an idiot can deny there was a state of military hostilities in the area when these acts occurred. Surely you've got something to back that up other than "well, terrorists attacked the place a lot."

Yeah you do need to prove a negative, because that's what your entire argument hinges on - you're relying on an exception to a specific definition, and since the rules for that exception are not explicitly outlined it comes down to pure speculation when claiming that something is covered by it. If you want to use it to prove something was a terrorist act, you have to prove the criteria are met, which you haven't. That document is intended to define what terrorism is, not what it isn't. The burden of proof is on you.

I don't know how I missed this earlier, but you don't have to rely on the caveat to the definition at all when you're not dealing with a "subnational group or clandestine agent". If its a nation performing the action in question, they're automatically outside of the definition of terrorism we're using here. Hezbollah, on the other hand, pretty much epitomizes the term "subnational group," wouldn't you agree?

You're right, and I do agree. So it's safe to say, then, that you recognize that something being 'terrorism' by this definition has less to do with the actual actions being carried out and more to do with the status of the agents as either national or subnational? As in - basically - it's not based objectively on what happened, but subjectively on who did it. The definitions used by the US (and many other states) have been rejected and revised over and over until they've taken a form which cannot be shown to cover their own actions, and those of their allies. If you're looking for an honest and impartial definition of terrorism, this ain't it.

Corganist

08-01-2006, 07:38 PM

What am I going to accomplish? I stated an opinion that you had a problem with, I gave you my reasoning for that opinion, and you've argued against those reasons with hypothetical alternative scenarios and by telling me 'the line is subjective'. No shit, so what? You've done nothing to convince me that Israel actually is acting in good faith, neither has Israel, so this whole attempt to debate it with me is going nowhere. You'll have to suck it up and accept it I'm afraid
Its not been my goal to try and convince you Israel is acting in good faith. I think I've made it clear that I'm still fairly unsure of that myself. And I don't really have a problem with your opinion so much. I was just wondering why you seem to hold that opinion so strongly. Its one thing to think Israel isn't doing right in this whole affair, but its quite another to heap the majority of the blame and condemnation on them based on what we know. I didn't see any reason at the beginning of the thread that you should have come out so strongly with your opinion. I still don't now. I just find it strange because usually when we disagree on things I at least see where you're coming from or where you're going wrong, but I'm just a bit at a loss on this one as to what's making you jump to such decisive moral judgments so soon. The hypotheticals were not really to change your mind. They were just to feel you out a bit. I don't think it worked though.

Haha, appeals to good faith. 'Come on, work with me here!' So you don't have a definition for it and your reliance on it basically falls completely flat. What you've hopefully noticed (although it might be too much to ask, I know) is that you have a fairly formal objective definition of terrorism, with a footnote attached that is entirely subjective and undefined. Relying on it makes the whole definition worthless because it says 'and anything else we want to call terrorism' - it even says 'we consider', hardly a statement of fact.
That's all a fair accessment, but it would have held much more weight in my mind if you hadn't already tried to appropriate the definition and its footnote to your own ends and tried to make out that it supported your view. It seems like now that all that you've got left to cling to is that there isn't a formal definition of self-explanatory term like "military hostilities," you then finally fall back to the "that definition is no good anyway" argument.

Man that is concrete. Clearly this was terrorism without a shadow of a doubt
I never said that the defintion was perfect. Let's not forget how we even came to be discussing any of this. You claimed that the fact that the victims of an attack are soldiers automatically removes the attack from being considered an act of terrorism as a matter of law. So I provided a legal definition and interpretation that said otherwise, acknowledging that the interpretation was what seemed to be the most common way the law is read by many in the US and nothing more. You then took it and said "Oh look, it supports what I think!" Only now, when that idea has been shot full of holes do you complain about how less than "concrete" the interpretation is. We could have saved a page or two of thread if we had just disposed of that issue early on. (And I would have moved on to one of the many other definitions of terrorism that would have inclu</>ded the attacks in question. :D )

Yeah you do need to prove a negative, because that's what your entire argument hinges on - you're relying on an exception to a specific definition, and since the rules for that exception are not explicitly outlined it comes down to pure speculation when claiming that something is covered by it. If you want to use it to prove something was a terrorist act, you have to prove the criteria are met, which you haven't. That document is intended to define what terrorism is, not what it isn't. The burden of proof is on you.
But its not pure speculation to know whether or not military hostilities were occurring in Northern Israel at the time, is it? Afterall, you said someone would have to be ignorant to deny it. Surely you can more easily prove that Israel's military were actively involved in hostilities than I could prove that they weren't. Hostilities either exist or they don't, and if they exist then there should be evidence that proves it. They're not the sort of thing that occur unnoticed. ("We were in a state of hostilities with Hezbollah? Whoulda thunkit?") Absent that evidence, my burden is met: there was an attack, on armed soldiers, not during a time of military hostilities. You're free to dispute that by telling me that there was no attack, or there were military hostilities. But that's your burden to bear, not mine.

You're right, and I do agree. So it's safe to say, then, that you recognize that something being 'terrorism' by this definition has less to do with the actual actions being carried out and more to do with the status of the agents as either national or subnational? As in - basically - it's not based objectively on what happened, but subjectively on who did it. The definitions used by the US (and many other states) have been rejected and revised over and over until they've taken a form which cannot be shown to cover their own actions, and those of their allies. If you're looking for an honest and impartial definition of terrorism, this ain't it.
Again, a fair view...but its still awfully late in the game to be falling back on this as an argument after all the others have been exhausted.

DeviousJ

08-01-2006, 10:22 PM

Its not been my goal to try and convince you Israel is acting in good faith. I think I've made it clear that I'm still fairly unsure of that myself. And I don't really have a problem with your opinion so much. I was just wondering why you seem to hold that opinion so strongly. Its one thing to think Israel isn't doing right in this whole affair, but its quite another to heap the majority of the blame and condemnation on them based on what we know. I didn't see any reason at the beginning of the thread that you should have come out so strongly with your opinion. I still don't now. I just find it strange because usually when we disagree on things I at least see where you're coming from or where you're going wrong, but I'm just a bit at a loss on this one as to what's making you jump to such decisive moral judgments so soon. The hypotheticals were not really to change your mind. They were just to feel you out a bit. I don't think it worked though.

Well like I said, you've not really addressed my reasoning so that probably explains why you haven't got anywhere with it. I'm not talking about a hypothetical scenario, and if you wanted to talk about my assessment of this actual current situation then you should have just focused on that.

That's all a fair accessment, but it would have held much more weight in my mind if you hadn't already tried to appropriate the definition and its footnote to your own ends and tried to make out that it supported your view. It seems like now that all that you've got left to cling to is that there isn't a formal definition of self-explanatory term like "military hostilities," you then finally fall back to the "that definition is no good anyway" argument.

Like I keep pointing out, the definition minus that footnote is explicit and supports what I was telling you, that it wasn't a terrorist act. Only the footnote suggests the possibility that it would be classed as an exception, but you don't actually have any proof that that's the case, so there's no reason to believe it (or anything else for that matter) falls under this group of exceptions. 'Military hostilities' clearly isn't self-explanatory, since you apparently don't think hostilities between military units qualifies. As it stands without a definition of what they are, the only people who can tell you if something falls under this subjective footnote are the people who wrote it. And I've said that footnote was ridiculous from the start.

I never said that the defintion was perfect. Let's not forget how we even came to be discussing any of this. You claimed that the fact that the victims of an attack are soldiers automatically removes the attack from being considered an act of terrorism as a matter of law. So I provided a legal definition and interpretation that said otherwise, acknowledging that the interpretation was what seemed to be the most common way the law is read by many in the US and nothing more. You then took it and said "Oh look, it supports what I think!" Only now, when that idea has been shot full of holes do you complain about how less than "concrete" the interpretation is. We could have saved a page or two of thread if we had just disposed of that issue early on. (And I would have moved on to one of the many other definitions of terrorism that would have inclu</>ded the attacks in question. :D )

See above

But its not pure speculation to know whether or not military hostilities were occurring in Northern Israel at the time, is it? Afterall, you said someone would have to be ignorant to deny it. Surely you can more easily prove that Israel's military were actively involved in hostilities than I could prove that they weren't. Hostilities either exist or they don't, and if they exist then there should be evidence that proves it. They're not the sort of thing that occur unnoticed. ("We were in a state of hostilities with Hezbollah? Whoulda thunkit?") Absent that evidence, my burden is met: there was an attack, on armed soldiers, not during a time of military hostilities. You're free to dispute that by telling me that there was no attack, or there were military hostilities. But that's your burden to bear, not mine.

Ever heard the phrase 'absence of evidence is not evidence of absence'? You're arguing it should be covered by that footnote, it's up to you to prove that that is the case - not for me to prove that it isn't. Things aren't automatically terrorism until they're proven otherwise.

Again, a fair view...but its still awfully late in the game to be falling back on this as an argument after all the others have been exhausted.

This only relates to whether or not state terrorism is covered - it has nothing to do with whether or not the initial Hezbollah attack was terrorism or not. I'm just trying to point out to you that the definition you're using has been specifically written to subjectively inc<fdg>lude and exclude acts and agents at will, which diminishes its usefulness as an objective definition. You keep clinging to the subjective part because that 'oh and here are some other things that we're going to say are terrorism even though they don't fall under the definitions' section is the only part that doesn't outright exclude this act. Until you can show me this definition of 'military hostilities' there's no reason to assume it falls under this nebulous list of exceptions. I want you to show me this formal definition of 'military hostilities'. I'd like to see it, because I'd like to see this definition of terrorism (and others) become less indistinct. But I don't believe it exists. Show me

Corganist

08-03-2006, 03:35 AM

Well like I said, you've not really addressed my reasoning so that probably explains why you haven't got anywhere with it. I'm not talking about a hypothetical scenario, and if you wanted to talk about my assessment of this actual current situation then you should have just focused on that.
Well, I don't really have any problem with the reasoning you've given. That's why I haven't addressed much of it. I just don't think that the reasons you've given have added up to enough to support the strength of your opinion. Its one thing to look at the circumstantial evidence availiable and say "You know, Israel may not be able to justify the scale of their actions here." That's a perfectly reasonable position to take based on what we know. But you're doing something different, basically saying "You know, Israel definitely cannot justify their actions here, and therefore they're just as bad if not worse than the terrorists." I don't think its a matter of bad reasoning that's gotten you to make that leap, because you seem to be willing to hold largely the same view even if we eliminate a lot of the variables about Israel's intentions and the like (ie. the hypothetical situation you hated so much). I'm just wondering why that is.

Like I keep pointing out, the definition minus that footnote is explicit and supports what I was telling you, that it wasn't a terrorist act. Only the footnote suggests the possibility that it would be classed as an exception, but you don't actually have any proof that that's the case, so there's no reason to believe it (or anything else for that matter) falls under this group of exceptions. 'Military hostilities' clearly isn't self-explanatory, since you apparently don't think hostilities between military units qualifies. As it stands without a definition of what they are, the only people who can tell you if something falls under this subjective footnote are the people who wrote it. And I've said that footnote was ridiculous from the start.
Huh? Where did I say hostilities between military units didn't apply under the definition of military hostilities? They clearly do. But don't even tell me you're elevating Hezbollah fighters to the level of a military unit now. How much more undue credit are you going to give them? And if you're going to start treating them as a legit military unit, then when are you going to start holding them to the same level of scrutiny in their actions that you're holding Israel?

And the footnote is not subjective at all. If you don't think it counts as part of the definition, fine, but don't pretend like it can mean different things to different people. Its about as clear and specific as it gets. I might be the last person in the world to criticize someone for playing games with words, but at least when I do it I do it where its plausible to do so. :)

Ever heard the phrase 'absence of evidence is not evidence of absence'? You're arguing it should be covered by that footnote, it's up to you to prove that that is the case - not for me to prove that it isn't.
Yeah, I've heard that phrase. People use that sort of reasoning as justification for believing in God. Is that really the sort of thing you're going for here? You know full well that its near impossible to prove a negative, and I think its a little intellectually dishonest of you to suggest that I have to. What you're doing is akin to a telling a prosecutor to prove a murder defendant didn't act in self defense after he's proven all the elements of murder. Sure, if the defendant acted in self defense, then he's not guilty of murder as per the definition and exceptions set out in the law...but its still the defendant's burden to prove that defense. Here, your defense to the charge that the kidnapping of the soldiers was a terror attack is that there was a state of military hostilities at the time. It up to you to prove that, because all of the other necessary elements of terrorism exist absent that defense.

I'll just take it that you're backing off your previous assertion that that there was obviously a state of hostilities in the area when the attack occurred. I don't know why you're being so obtuse about it though.

Things aren't automatically terrorism until they're proven otherwise.
True, but the same goes for whether or not a state of military hostilities exists. Fortunately, military hostilities is not the default state people live in.

This only relates to whether or not state terrorism is covered - it has nothing to do with whether or not the initial Hezbollah attack was terrorism or not. I'm just trying to point out to you that the definition you're using has been specifically written to subjectively inc<fdg>lude and exclude acts and agents at will, which diminishes its usefulness as an objective definition.
And like I said, that's fine to point out, but whether the definition is broad enough to cover state terrorism is really not a make or break issue. We're discussing whether Hezbollah's attack and kidnapping of the Israeli soldiers was a terrorist act. If we were working under a definition that was broad enough to in</>clude Israel's current actions, or the US actions in Iraq, etc. as being terrorist acts...then wouldn't Hezbollah's attack in question easily be a terrorist act? I don't really see what changes in our current debate by using a more expansive terrorism definition.

Until you can show me this definition of 'military hostilities' there's no reason to assume it falls under this nebulous list of exceptions. I want you to show me this formal definition of 'military hostilities'. I'd like to see it, because I'd like to see this definition of terrorism (and others) become less indistinct. But I don't believe it exists. Show me
Like I said before, I don't think any such formal definition actually exists. The closest thing I could find was something relatively unique to American law basically saying hostilities = military actions under a declaration of war or Presidential orders. That's not particularly helpful, but I think its in line with the idea I've been putting forth that a state of military hostilities isn't something that appears out of nowhere the second the bad guys get within sight of some soldiers. There has to be some kind of affirmative steps taken. I don't think "patrolling the border" counts.

DeviousJ

08-03-2006, 01:31 PM

Well, I don't really have any problem with the reasoning you've given. That's why I haven't addressed much of it. I just don't think that the reasons you've given have added up to enough to support the strength of your opinion. Its one thing to look at the circumstantial evidence availiable and say "You know, Israel may not be able to justify the scale of their actions here." That's a perfectly reasonable position to take based on what we know. But you're doing something different, basically saying "You know, Israel definitely cannot justify their actions here, and therefore they're just as bad if not worse than the terrorists." I don't think its a matter of bad reasoning that's gotten you to make that leap, because you seem to be willing to hold largely the same view even if we eliminate a lot of the variables about Israel's intentions and the like (ie. the hypothetical situation you hated so much). I'm just wondering why that is.

You don't have any problem with my reasoning, but you don't think it supports the strength of my opinion? Then you obviously have a problem with my reasoning, since that's the whole basis of my opinion. I'm really happy for you that, again, you're not actually taking a position but saying 'Israel may not be able to justify their actions here but hey, they may be able to as well'. You can throw your truisms around and talk about how reasonable you're being all day for all I care. And Israel being worse than Hizbollah here isn't predicated on not being able to justify their actions, it's also on what those actions and their results are. If I punched a kitten in the face it wouldn't automatically put me up there with Hizbollah through a lack of justification.

Huh? Where did I say hostilities between military units didn't apply under the definition of military hostilities? They clearly do. But don't even tell me you're elevating Hezbollah fighters to the level of a military unit now. How much more undue credit are you going to give them? And if you're going to start treating them as a legit military unit, then when are you going to start holding them to the same level of scrutiny in their actions that you're holding Israel?

Ok, this is just becoming a joke. Armed Hizbollah fighters are not a military force, right. I suppose you've never heard of them referred to as the 'military wing' of the organization, or that you think that the people who call them that don't know what they're talking about. And I've already said that what they're doing is unacceptable.

And the footnote is not subjective at all. If you don't think it counts as part of the definition, fine, but don't pretend like it can mean different things to different people. Its about as clear and specific as it gets. I might be the last person in the world to criticize someone for playing games with words, but at least when I do it I do it where its plausible to do so. :)

Obviously it does mean different things to different people, otherwise why are we disagreeing on whether or not the fighting qualifies? If it's not subjective then where is this objective definition of 'military hostilities'? If it's self-evident then why was there that disclaimer I posted, saying that the definitions in that report were only applicable within that report, implying that they were not universal (and therefore self-evident)?

Yeah, I've heard that phrase. People use that sort of reasoning as justification for believing in God. Is that really the sort of thing you're going for here? You know full well that its near impossible to prove a negative, and I think its a little intellectually dishonest of you to suggest that I have to. What you're doing is akin to a telling a prosecutor to prove a murder defendant didn't act in self defense after he's proven all the elements of murder. Sure, if the defendant acted in self defense, then he's not guilty of murder as per the definition and exceptions set out in the law...but its still the defendant's burden to prove that defense. Here, your defense to the charge that the kidnapping of the soldiers was a terror attack is that there was a state of military hostilities at the time. It up to you to prove that, because all of the other necessary elements of terrorism exist absent that defense.

Haha, nice straw man. It actually means that just because you don't have evidence of something, it doesn't mean you've proven it isn't true. You're trying to prove that there weren't any military hostilities (without being able to provide a definition of what they are - your courtroom trial analogy kinda falls down right there my man), and your proof is you don't have any evidence that there were any. Combine that with the fact that this required 'evidence' is subjectively accepted or rejected by you, because you don't have a formal definition, and you have a whooole lot of pointless conjecture. And pointless conjecture is the not the way to prove that something meets this definition of terrorism. Overruled.

I'll just take it that you're backing off your previous assertion that that there was obviously a state of hostilities in the area when the attack occurred. I don't know why you're being so obtuse about it though.

Whatever makes you feel good - you're wrong though, because you still haven't proved that the conditions were met. If this is you backing out then go for it

True, but the same goes for whether or not a state of military hostilities exists. Fortunately, military hostilities is not the default state people live in.

This is the closest you've come to even starting to define 'military hostilities'. It doesn't actually mean anything, but hey it's a start

And like I said, that's fine to point out, but whether the definition is broad enough to cover state terrorism is really not a make or break issue. We're discussing whether Hezbollah's attack and kidnapping of the Israeli soldiers was a terrorist act. If we were working under a definition that was broad enough to in</>clude Israel's current actions, or the US actions in Iraq, etc. as being terrorist acts...then wouldn't Hezbollah's attack in question easily be a terrorist act? I don't really see what changes in our current debate by using a more expansive terrorism definition.

I never said it was a make or break issue, it was a tangent I went on to get you to realize how subjective the whole definition was, in particular that footnote, and how it completely diluted the meaning of 'terrorism'. If it covered people calling each other 'dumbass' on messageboards then sure, you'd have a broad and inclusive definition of terrorism - but then it would barely mean anything and be a complete joke, even if it did cover a small number of acts which deserved the name. That's why that footnote is stupid - it allows the definition to be arbitrarily manipulated beyond the objective criteria, by letting people interpret intentionally vague language to be as expansive as they like.

Like I said before, I don't think any such formal definition actually exists. The closest thing I could find was something relatively unique to American law basically saying hostilities = military actions under a declaration of war or Presidential orders. That's not particularly helpful, but I think its in line with the idea I've been putting forth that a state of military hostilities isn't something that appears out of nowhere the second the bad guys get within sight of some soldiers. There has to be some kind of affirmative steps taken. I don't think "patrolling the border" counts.

Yeah but it wasn't 'patrolling the border', it was 'patrolling the Israel-Lebanon border during a period of continuous military attacks from both sides' - stop pretending it was some kind of surprise that an attack took place. Regardless, you can't find a formal definition so there's no evidence that that part of the terrorism definition is met. Until you can and until there is, we're down to the other parts of the definition, which are also not met. So it doesn't meet that definition of terrorism. Like I said

Corganist

08-03-2006, 03:42 PM

You don't have any problem with my reasoning, but you don't think it supports the strength of my opinion? Then you obviously have a problem with my reasoning, since that's the whole basis of my opinion. I'm really happy for you that, again, you're not actually taking a position but saying 'Israel may not be able to justify their actions here but hey, they may be able to as well'. You can throw your truisms around and talk about how reasonable you're being all day for all I care.
And you can be as unreasonable as you like. No problem with that. Just as long as you do know you're being unreasonable.

And Israel being worse than Hizbollah here isn't predicated on not being able to justify their actions, it's also on what those actions and their results are. If I punched a kitten in the face it wouldn't automatically put me up there with Hizbollah through a lack of justification.
Wow. So what Israel is doing is akin to punching a kitten in the face in your mind? Just wow. Regardless of that, I still don't see how you keep failing to see how flawed this "justification doesn't matter, only the results" view is. At this rate, the only way Hezbollah can ever become "worse" than Israel under your view is by detonating a nuke in Tel Aviv or something like that. Apparently intentionally targeting Israeli civilians and intentionally putting Lebanese civilians at risk by hiding amongst them is bad...but it only becomes really bad if those actions lead to death on a wide scale. And accidentally/negligently/recklessly killing civilians...is just the same? :think:

Ok, this is just becoming a joke. Armed Hizbollah fighters are not a military force, right. I suppose you've never heard of them referred to as the 'military wing' of the organization, or that you think that the people who call them that don't know what they're talking about. And I've already said that what they're doing is unacceptable.
You're right. This is becoming a joke. I'm sure Hezbollah would love to call their fighters their military wing. And I'm sure people sympathetic to Hezbollah indulge that. But let's judge them by what they do and not what people call them, shall we? These people wear no uniforms, operate out of civilian areas, and focus their attacks largely on civilian targets. But then when they see a target of opportunity that happens to be military, they all the sudden should be viewed as a disciplined and organized fighting force who are conducting strategic military operations? Please stop. This is getting embarrassing.

Obviously it does mean different things to different people, otherwise why are we disagreeing on whether or not the fighting qualifies? If it's not subjective then where is this objective definition of 'military hostilities'? If it's self-evident then why was there that disclaimer I posted, saying that the definitions in that report were only applicable within that report, implying that they were not universal (and therefore self-evident)?
We're only disagreeing on this because you're being obstinate and would rather haggle on the meanings of obvious terms in hopes of using my own definition against me rather than do the sensible thing and just disregard the entire thing completely. I don't believe for a second that you think military hostilities is a term that's ambiguous in any way. And I also don't think that you really believe that the definition/exceptions we've been arguing about are as bad or worthless as you say they are. You've tried too hard to make them work to support your view for you to think they're totally without value.

Haha, nice straw man. It actually means that just because you don't have evidence of something, it doesn't mean you've proven it isn't true. You're trying to prove that there weren't any military hostilities (without being able to provide a definition of what they are - your courtroom trial analogy kinda falls down right there my man), and your proof is you don't have any evidence that there were any.
The analogy holds fine. Killing someone with malice aforethought is murder...unless a defense applies (eg. self defense) and is proven. Attacking an armed soldier or military installation is terrorism...unless its during a state of military hostilities, the existence (not the non-existence) of which can be easily proven.

How, do tell, am I supposed to prove that there was no state of military hostilities at the time? I don't really know what you expect me to give you. There's not going to be any smoking gun pointing to a lack of hostilities in the area. There's no document thats going to say "Northern Israel is most definitely not in a state of hostilities here in early July 2006." However, I'll bet you anything that you can find tons of stuff over the past 2 or 3 weeks that'd tend to show quite clearly that military hostilities have been going on since the soldiers were kidnapped. Its not like its a hard thing to know when the Israeli military actually does get actively engaged in things, is it?

Whatever makes you feel good - you're wrong though, because you still haven't proved that the conditions were met. If this is you backing out then go for it

Again, you seemed quite sure a few posts back that it was an absolute given that there were military hostilities, and that one would have to had been totally ignorant to not know that. And now you're clinging to dear life on the proposition that I should prove they didn't exist. That seems like an awfully big turnaround to me. On the other hand, I haven't backed down any on this.

If it covered people calling each other 'dumbass' on messageboards then sure, you'd have a broad and inclusive definition of terrorism - but then it would barely mean anything and be a complete joke, even if it did cover a small number of acts which deserved the name. That's why that footnote is stupid - it allows the definition to be arbitrarily manipulated beyond the objective criteria, by letting people interpret intentionally vague language to be as expansive as they like.
But really, its not as though the footnote said "We reserve the right to call anything else we don't like that's not mentioned above 'terrorism'." You seem to think that's the implication, but I don't see how you can read that into the language. The footnote set out just a couple of very specific situations and clearly set out what those situations are. I'm sorry, but all these claims that the language is vague just really ring hollow to me. You can read. You know what the words mean. And even if you could fudge around with the term "military hostilities" as much as you seem to think, that would still hardly amount to making the definition of terrorism "as expansive as they like."

Yeah but it wasn't 'patrolling the border', it was 'patrolling the Israel-Lebanon border during a period of continuous military attacks from both sides' - stop pretending it was some kind of surprise that an attack took place. Regardless, you can't find a formal definition so there's no evidence that that part of the terrorism definition is met. Until you can and until there is, we're down to the other parts of the definition, which are also not met. So it doesn't meet that definition of terrorism. Like I said
Well, if all you're going to hang your hat on is the lack of a definition to a simple term that needs no explanation, I guess we'll have to leave it at that. I must say I'm disappointed that you've had to resort to such tenuous reasoning to try to legitimize the actions of Hezbollah of all people in the world. If there's anybody out there who aren't worth sacrificing your credibility for, they'd be near the very top of the list.

DeviousJ

08-03-2006, 05:53 PM

And you can be as unreasonable as you like. No problem with that. Just as long as you do know you're being unreasonable.

And yet you say you don't really have any problem with my reasoning :think:

Wow. So what Israel is doing is akin to punching a kitten in the face in your mind? Just wow. Regardless of that, I still don't see how you keep failing to see how flawed this "justification doesn't matter, only the results" view is. At this rate, the only way Hezbollah can ever become "worse" than Israel under your view is by detonating a nuke in Tel Aviv or something like that. Apparently intentionally targeting Israeli civilians and intentionally putting Lebanese civilians at risk by hiding amongst them is bad...but it only becomes really bad if those actions lead to death on a wide scale. And accidentally/negligently/recklessly killing civilians...is just the same? :think:

Yeah man, Israel is punching kittens!! Does everything go over your head like this?

You seem to think that there would be no extent to which gross negligence could be considered worse than an intentional attack on civilians on whatever scale, like that really simple example I provided at the start of this whole argument: Israel nuking all of Lebanon, killing everyone including Hizbollah. And yet you do believe there's a line, and you even think Israel may have crossed it. So there you go, round and round in circles not actually knowing what stance you're trying to take.

You're right. This is becoming a joke. I'm sure Hezbollah would love to call their fighters their military wing. And I'm sure people sympathetic to Hezbollah indulge that. But let's judge them by what they do and not what people call them, shall we? These people wear no uniforms, operate out of civilian areas, and focus their attacks largely on civilian targets. But then when they see a target of opportunity that happens to be military, they all the sudden should be viewed as a disciplined and organized fighting force who are conducting strategic military operations? Please stop. This is getting embarrassing.

The Islamic Resistance is referred to as Hizbollah's military arm by news organizations and analysts the world over - it doesn't carry a positive or negative connotation, because it's a statement of fact. They are a disciplined and organized fighting force conducting strategic military operations, exactly which part of that are you trying to argue with here? Even your semantic arguments don't make sense. Please define 'military' for me and let's save some time before getting to the comedy

We're only disagreeing on this because you're being obstinate and would rather haggle on the meanings of obvious terms in hopes of using my own definition against me rather than do the sensible thing and just disregard the entire thing completely. I don't believe for a second that you think military hostilities is a term that's ambiguous in any way. And I also don't think that you really believe that the definition/exceptions we've been arguing about are as bad or worthless as you say they are. You've tried too hard to make them work to support your view for you to think they're totally without value.

I told you that there were military hostilities, you said there weren't. We disagree, so the definition clearly isn't 'obvious'. How are you going to convince me there weren't military hostilities without defining what they are? And why should I just 'disregard' your unsupported claims instead of calling you out on them? Oh you'd like that. And I'm not working hard to make them support my view, I'm showing you that they don't support yours. Since we're on opposite sides of this that obviously works in my favor, but the reason I'm doing it is because you brought this up to support your case, and it doesn't. Sorry, but it just doesn't.

The analogy holds fine. Killing someone with malice aforethought is murder...unless a defense applies (eg. self defense) and is proven. Attacking an armed soldier or military installation is terrorism...unless its during a state of military hostilities, the existence (not the non-existence) of which can be easily proven.

Heh no - attacking an armed soldier or military installation is not terrorism... unless it's not during a state of military hostilities. You might want to re-read that definition there sport, again it's defining what is terrorism, not what isn't. And you still haven't provided any criteria used to 'easily prove' the existence of military hostilities - if it's so easy then do it. Do it. DO IT. Oh yeah, you can't. 'Get out of my court Corganist,' says the judge, 'and take your bullshit backwards arguments with you'

How, do tell, am I supposed to prove that there was no state of military hostilities at the time? I don't really know what you expect me to give you. There's not going to be any smoking gun pointing to a lack of hostilities in the area. There's no document thats going to say "Northern Israel is most definitely not in a state of hostilities here in early July 2006." However, I'll bet you anything that you can find tons of stuff over the past 2 or 3 weeks that'd tend to show quite clearly that military hostilities have been going on since the soldiers were kidnapped. Its not like its a hard thing to know when the Israeli military actually does get actively engaged in things, is it?

Hmm, so what you're saying is you can't really prove there was no state of military hostilities, yet you want to prove something is terrorism based on exactly that? Excellent

But we're getting somewhere - you've given me an example of something you would consider military hostilities. So am I to take it that everything in history except the events of the past 2-3 weeks does not qualify as a state of military hostilities? Or is it somehow... more complicated than that?!

Again, you seemed quite sure a few posts back that it was an absolute given that there were military hostilities, and that one would have to had been totally ignorant to not know that. And now you're clinging to dear life on the proposition that I should prove they didn't exist. That seems like an awfully big turnaround to me. On the other hand, I haven't backed down any on this.

There's no turnaround here - I still say there were military hostilities, and I've given you my reasons and some examples of hostilities to explain why. You need to show there weren't for it to qualify, because it says "We also consider as acts of terrorism attacks on military installations or on armed military personnel when a state of military hostilities does not exist at the site". Until you can show that condition is met, it doesn't meet the definition. Still that burden of proof hanging over you corgy!

But really, its not as though the footnote said "We reserve the right to call anything else we don't like that's not mentioned above 'terrorism'." You seem to think that's the implication, but I don't see how you can read that into the language. The footnote set out just a couple of very specific situations and clearly set out what those situations are. I'm sorry, but all these claims that the language is vague just really ring hollow to me. You can read. You know what the words mean. And even if you could fudge around with the term "military hostilities" as much as you seem to think, that would still hardly amount to making the definition of terrorism "as expansive as they like."

Yep, very specific situations (the stated bombings in military bases) and then the vague 'extras' section. You know constantly saying 'everyone knows what military hostilities means even if I can't find a definition for it and these things are always defined to prevent ambiguity, jeeeeez!!!' isn't going to make it any more true. It's not expansive to the point of that 'you are a dumbass' example, but it's enough to add any attacks they like by saying 'No. No hostilities there' or 'yep, totally hostilities when that happened' without needing to point to any kind of criteria.

Well, if all you're going to hang your hat on is the lack of a definition to a simple term that needs no explanation, I guess we'll have to leave it at that. I must say I'm disappointed that you've had to resort to such tenuous reasoning to try to legitimize the actions of Hezbollah of all people in the world. If there's anybody out there who aren't worth sacrificing your credibility for, they'd be near the very top of the list.

Man this is real backed-in-the-corner talk. 'You support Hizbollah!!! I have the box of military hostilities but you can't look inside'. Just face it, by this definition the attack wasn't a terrorist one. That doesn't mean they're not a terrorist group, or that they don't commit terrorist acts, it just means that - whoa - it is actually possible for terrorist groups to do things which aren't considered terrorism. Why does that concept get you frothing at the mouth and disappointed in people exactly? Come on, check out objectivity - it's a good place to be

Corganist

08-06-2006, 06:25 PM

Warning: This is going to be freaking long.

You seem to think that there would be no extent to which gross negligence could be considered worse than an intentional attack on civilians on whatever scale, like that really simple example I provided at the start of this whole argument: Israel nuking all of Lebanon, killing everyone including Hizbollah. And yet you do believe there's a line, and you even think Israel may have crossed it. So there you go, round and round in circles not actually knowing what stance you're trying to take.
I'm not trying to take a stance here. You keep wanting me to take up a side or refute your view on things, but I'm not all that interested in doing so....namely because there's a distinct possibility that you could end up being right in the end. But despite that possibility, I'm not going to jump to conclusions without evidence. I agree with you that there does come a point where negligent killing can occur on a scale that will be considered worse than an intentional attack. Israel nuking Lebanon would be a clear example of that...but what's going on now is not even close to that sort of extreme. The main factor to be considered here is that the moral wrongness of an attack that negligently or recklessly kills civilians can be mitigated by the circumstances, whereas it can't be for an intentional attack.

My point all along has been that we don't know enough of the circumstances surrounding Israel's actions to emphatically say that their actions are as bad or worse than Hezbollah's. If Israel is dropping bombs into neighborhoods knowing that it will kill hundreds of civilians and decided that the benefits outweighed the costs, that's one thing. But if they dropped bombs in the neighborhood thinking that most of the civilians had cleared out and that the only people who were left were Hezbollah fighters, that's quite another. But the body count and the destruction will be the same in both situations regardless of Israel's subjective thinking, so those things alone are a poor indicator of moral blame. And sure, there comes a point where the scale of destruction becomes so great that it would be difficult to justify by any amount of subjective good faith, but that would have to be something much closer to your nuke scenario than what's going on now. I think at this point the jury's still out.

The Islamic Resistance is referred to as Hizbollah's military arm by news organizations and analysts the world over - it doesn't carry a positive or negative connotation, because it's a statement of fact. They are a disciplined and organized fighting force conducting strategic military operations, exactly which part of that are you trying to argue with here?
We're still talking about the same guys who have been intentionally shooting rockets into Israeli towns for the last month or so, right? That's some real strategy at work there. Same goes for the brilliant strategy of dressing like civilians and operating out of civilian neighborhoods. With tactics like that, of course we should consider them to be a legitimate organized fighting force! Afterall, news organizations refer to them as such! :rolleyes: Hell, Hezbollah doesn't even consider itself a militia. They prefer to call themselves a resistance movement.

Even your semantic arguments don't make sense. Please define 'military' for me and let's save some time before getting to the comedy
Are we really going to have to get down to haggling over the simple meaning of "military"? For goodness sake's man. It means what every 6 year old kid in the world who's played war on the playground or bought a GI Joe doll thinks it means. It means "armed forces," which itself means the armed forces of a nation and not whatever random group a news organization decides to call military.

I told you that there were military hostilities, you said there weren't. We disagree, so the definition clearly isn't 'obvious'. How are you going to convince me there weren't military hostilities without defining what they are?
Better question: how can you claim there were military hostilities if you don't even know what they are?

And why should I just 'disregard' your unsupported claims instead of calling you out on them? Oh you'd like that. And I'm not working hard to make them support my view, I'm showing you that they don't support yours. Since we're on opposite sides of this that obviously works in my favor, but the reason I'm doing it is because you brought this up to support your case, and it doesn't. Sorry, but it just doesn't.
Let's not forget why I even brought the definition in on things in the first place. You acted as though it was incontrovertible fact that attacking any soldier anywhere could never be an act of terrorism, including things like the Cole bombing or the bombing of the Marine barracks in '83. I brought the definition up to dispute that general truism you offered. Don't pretend like I brought it in as the surefire way to prove that the kidnapping by Hezbollah was a terrorist act, and now you're just turning my reasoning against me. You were the first one to try and apply the defintion to the specific events we're talking about.

Heh no - attacking an armed soldier or military installation is not terrorism... unless it's not during a state of military hostilities. You might want to re-read that definition there sport, again it's defining what is terrorism, not what isn't. And you still haven't provided any criteria used to 'easily prove' the existence of military hostilities - if it's so easy then do it. Do it. DO IT. Oh yeah, you can't. 'Get out of my court Corganist,' says the judge, 'and take your bullshit backwards arguments with you'

DeviousJ: "Your honor, my client is not guilty of murder because it clearly says in the statute that its manslaughter if the act was done in the heat of passion."

Judge: "That's right. Now where's your proof you client acted in the heat of passion?"

DeviousJ: "I don't have any. I'm just going to pretend like I don't even know what 'heat of passion' means. And besides the prosecutor can't prove it wasn't in the heat of passion."

Judge: "Congratulations Mr. J, you just got your client convicted of murder."

But we're getting somewhere - you've given me an example of something you would consider military hostilities. So am I to take it that everything in history except the events of the past 2-3 weeks does not qualify as a state of military hostilities? Or is it somehow... more complicated than that?!
Its not that complicated. Its pretty easy to tell when military hostilities are going on...because usually they happen when a government sends its armed forces somewhere to go fight people. That would incl</>ude what's going on in Lebanon today. It would incl</>ude what's going on in Iraq and Afghanistan. It would incl</>ude the time Israel was occupying Lebanon. It would not incl</>ude a month ago in Northern Israel. It would not incl</>ude right now in the United States, or Canada, or Australia, or anywhere else in the world that may have armed soldiers on duty in some capacity who may be subject to random attack. C'mon, shouldn't it at least be a given that military hostilities occur where a military is being hostile? Your view where mere hostility towards the military somehow counts seems a lot more complicated than that, because as I've said many times, there's no limit as to when and where it could occur.

Man this is real backed-in-the-corner talk. 'You support Hizbollah!!! I have the box of military hostilities but you can't look inside'. Just face it, by this definition the attack wasn't a terrorist one. That doesn't mean they're not a terrorist group, or that they don't commit terrorist acts, it just means that - whoa - it is actually possible for terrorist groups to do things which aren't considered terrorism. Why does that concept get you frothing at the mouth and disappointed in people exactly? Come on, check out objectivity - it's a good place to be
Wow. Now you're claiming to be the objective one? That's my angle! Seems like I was the guy who wouldn't take a position on anything at the beginning of the post. Now I'm not being objective? What a change in events!

Nevertheless, I didn't say you support Hezbollah, but I do think you're being deferential to them past the point of mere objectivity, and not really doing the same for Israel. Whether we throw the attack by Hezbollah on the Israeli soldiers under the terrorism tent or not isn't all that important. The only reason I brought it up is that you seemed to be a lot more willing to characterize the Hezbollah attack as legitimate than you've been as to anything Israel has done. The reason I'm disappointed is because I didn't actually think you'd seriously try to defend that discrepency. I actually just pointed it out in an attempt to shame you into considering what Israel's doing in a more objective light. Mission failed in that regard. Whatever. Whether we use the "t" word or not to describe it, I don't think that there's any understating the fact that Hezbollah's actions in the attack were as completely unacceptable as anything Israel has done since, if not more so.

DeviousJ

08-06-2006, 09:35 PM

I'm not trying to take a stance here. You keep wanting me to take up a side or refute your view on things, but I'm not all that interested in doing so....namely because there's a distinct possibility that you could end up being right in the end. But despite that possibility, I'm not going to jump to conclusions without evidence. I agree with you that there does come a point where negligent killing can occur on a scale that will be considered worse than an intentional attack. Israel nuking Lebanon would be a clear example of that...but what's going on now is not even close to that sort of extreme. The main factor to be considered here is that the moral wrongness of an attack that negligently or recklessly kills civilians can be mitigated by the circumstances, whereas it can't be for an intentional attack.

So you agree that there's a point where Israel's actions could be worse than Hizbollah's, you already agreed that the line may have been crossed, and you don't want to take a stance either way because you're not sure right now. You even think my reasoning may end up being right. So why, exactly, are you arguing with me? Why are you trying so hard to get me to not have an opinion either way, without even addressing any of the ACTUAL REASONS I have for thinking what I do? Look, it's blindingly simple - I'm disgusted with Israel's approach, attitude and actions throughout this whole recent conflict, and there's massive precedent from their past actions to back up my assertions. Hizbollah's targetting of civilians is obviously completely reprehensible as well, but the fact is they haven't committed to this absolute scale of destruction of civilian towns, infrastructure and lives (for whatever reason) whereas Israel HAS. You can say that Hizbollah would if they could, but the fact is that Israel HAS. You keep saying that scale isn't important, but agreeing with that nuke example shows that you realize it is important to some degree. If you want to disagree about the importance of this scale then fine, that's up to you.

My point all along has been that we don't know enough of the circumstances surrounding Israel's actions to emphatically say that their actions are as bad or worse than Hezbollah's. If Israel is dropping bombs into neighborhoods knowing that it will kill hundreds of civilians and decided that the benefits outweighed the costs, that's one thing. But if they dropped bombs in the neighborhood thinking that most of the civilians had cleared out and that the only people who were left were Hezbollah fighters, that's quite another. But the body count and the destruction will be the same in both situations regardless of Israel's subjective thinking, so those things alone are a poor indicator of moral blame. And sure, there comes a point where the scale of destruction becomes so great that it would be difficult to justify by any amount of subjective good faith, but that would have to be something much closer to your nuke scenario than what's going on now. I think at this point the jury's still out.

If the people running this thing are as clueless as you're hypothesizing, they have absolutely no place putting their finger on the button. Shrugging your shoulders and saying 'oops, we thought that was true' is no excuse, because when so many innocent lives hang in the balance you should make damn sure you know what you're doing. But it doesn't matter, you're still operating on this 'good faith' scenario whereas I've already told you that I don't believe it at this stage. That statement saying 'we told everyone to get out, anyone now remaining in southern Lebanon is a Hizbollah member or supporter' directly refutes the example you gave. It's ludricrous, but that's because it's calculated, not naive.

We're still talking about the same guys who have been intentionally shooting rockets into Israeli towns for the last month or so, right? That's some real strategy at work there. Same goes for the brilliant strategy of dressing like civilians and operating out of civilian neighborhoods. With tactics like that, of course we should consider them to be a legitimate organized fighting force! Afterall, news organizations refer to them as such! :rolleyes: Hell, Hezbollah doesn't even consider itself a militia. They prefer to call themselves a resistance movement.

They're doing pretty well at fighting Israel right now and they're firing more rockets than ever, so clearly they are organized and strategic in their operations. Again you've taken some completely neutral term like 'military' and endowed it with some image of good old boys fighting the good fight for their country or something. Whatever you might mean by 'legitimate' they're still a military force, and yes a 'resistance movement' can easily qualify.

Are we really going to have to get down to haggling over the simple meaning of "military"? For goodness sake's man. It means what every 6 year old kid in the world who's played war on the playground or bought a GI Joe doll thinks it means. It means "armed forces," which itself means the armed forces of a nation and not whatever random group a news organization decides to call military.

Why do you need to clarify that 'armed forces' means 'armed forces of a nation' if the two phrases carry the exact same meaning? The answer is that they don't, the latter is a slightly more specific category of the former. And 'armed forces' is a more specific category under the 'military' banner. Wait a second, you just said 'six-year-olds agree with me'. That is probably the worst reasoning I have seen on this board, and that's really saying something. Look, 'military' does not simply mean 'pertaining to the regular army of a nation'. I'm not going to waste any more time arguing over this just because you're personally offended that any parallels could be drawn between Hizbollah and 'the good guys'

Oh wait here, argue with the IDF over it
http://www.janes.com/defence/news/jdw/jdw060724_1_n.shtml
"We should consider that what we are facing in Lebanon is not a militia but rather a special forces brigade of the Iranian Army," a senior defence source said. "They are extremely well trained and equipped and charged with high motivation to continue fighting."

Better question: how can you claim there were military hostilities if you don't even know what they are?

As far as I'm concerned I do know what they are - you disagree with me. Doesn't matter though, because AGAIN I have to point out that you have to prove they didn't exist to show that the condition is met

Let's not forget why I even brought the definition in on things in the first place. You acted as though it was incontrovertible fact that attacking any soldier anywhere could never be an act of terrorism, including things like the Cole bombing or the bombing of the Marine barracks in '83. I brought the definition up to dispute that general truism you offered. Don't pretend like I brought it in as the surefire way to prove that the kidnapping by Hezbollah was a terrorist act, and now you're just turning my reasoning against me. You were the first one to try and apply the defintion to the specific events we're talking about.

So you're backing down now, it's not surefire proof that it was a terrorist act? Because you were pretty damn sure of that up to now. I just like to get clarification on these things. Or are you actually saying that you recognize that it DOESN'T explicitly cover this attack? You're right, that particular definition (actually the 'we also consider/non-combatants*' exceptions section, but you probably don't appreciate the distinction) says that there are occasions where an attack on a soldier is considered terrorism, so I was wrong to make that blanket statement. So now can we get back to what started this and what we've been arguing about this whole time - the fact that this particular attack on these particular soldiers was not terrorism, including by the definition you've been waving around as proof that it was? Because you've been applying that definition to these specific events for quite some time now

DeviousJ: "Your honor, my client is not guilty of murder because it clearly says in the statute that its manslaughter if the act was done in the heat of passion."

Judge: "That's right. Now where's your proof you client acted in the heat of passion?"

DeviousJ: "I don't have any. I'm just going to pretend like I don't even know what 'heat of passion' means. And besides the prosecutor can't prove it wasn't in the heat of passion."

Judge: "Congratulations Mr. J, you just got your client convicted of murder."

Hey thanks, I can use that. Let me just change a few names:

Corganist: "Your honor, the accused is guilty of terrorism because it clearly says in the definition that it's terrorism if the act was done outside of a state of military hostilities."

Judge: "That's right. Now where's your proof the accused acted outside of a state of military hostilities?"

Corganist: "I don't have any. I'm just going to pretend like everyone knows what 'military hostilities' means and that this automatically qualifies. And besides the defense can't prove it was during a state of military hostilities"

Judge: "Congratulations Mr. Corganist, that's the worst case I ever heard."

Cool, surely this will get through to you

Its not that complicated. Its pretty easy to tell when military hostilities are going on...because usually they happen when a government sends its armed forces somewhere to go fight people. That would incl</>ude what's going on in Lebanon today. It would incl</>ude what's going on in Iraq and Afghanistan. It would incl</>ude the time Israel was occupying Lebanon. It would not incl</>ude a month ago in Northern Israel. It would not incl</>ude right now in the United States, or Canada, or Australia, or anywhere else in the world that may have armed soldiers on duty in some capacity who may be subject to random attack. C'mon, shouldn't it at least be a given that military hostilities occur where a military is being hostile? Your view where mere hostility towards the military somehow counts seems a lot more complicated than that, because as I've said many times, there's no limit as to when and where it could occur.

I gave you a list of hostilities, with attacks from both sides (including Israel sending its troops to go fight Hizbollah) so I guess we both agree there was a state of military hostilities. That took long enough

Wow. Now you're claiming to be the objective one? That's my angle! Seems like I was the guy who wouldn't take a position on anything at the beginning of the post. Now I'm not being objective? What a change in events!

Uh, you took a position on whether or not this attack was terrorism straightaway, so no change there my man

Nevertheless, I didn't say you support Hezbollah, but I do think you're being deferential to them past the point of mere objectivity, and not really doing the same for Israel. Whether we throw the attack by Hezbollah on the Israeli soldiers under the terrorism tent or not isn't all that important. The only reason I brought it up is that you seemed to be a lot more willing to characterize the Hezbollah attack as legitimate than you've been as to anything Israel has done. The reason I'm disappointed is because I didn't actually think you'd seriously try to defend that discrepency. I actually just pointed it out in an attempt to shame you into considering what Israel's doing in a more objective light. Mission failed in that regard. Whatever. Whether we use the "t" word or not to describe it, I don't think that there's any understating the fact that Hezbollah's actions in the attack were as completely unacceptable as anything Israel has done since, if not more so.

See, this is why you're not being objective - 'you're not doing the same for Israel!!' It doesn't matter, it's irrelevant as to whether or not this attack was terrorism or not. (This is entirely separate from the whole 'who is worse' thing so don't try to confuse the two). And now we can both be subjective and get to talking about whether the attack was acceptable and man, you know I'm just gonna have to go ahead and disagree with you here - you think attacking a convoy of soldiers on a border patrol (hostilities or no) may even be MORE unacceptable than Israel pounding cities to dust? I mean holy shit, I know you don't think scale matters much but this is ridiculous. No wonder you don't understand the concept of a disproportionate response