Middle East Crisis: Who Backs an Immediate Cease Fire?

[DeviousJ]

Originally Posted by Corganist

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

Originally Posted by Corganist

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

Originally Posted by Corganist

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

Originally Posted by Corganist

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.

Originally Posted by Corganist

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]

Originally Posted by DeviousJ

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 included the attacks in question. )

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]

Originally Posted by Corganist

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.

Originally Posted by Corganist

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.

Originally Posted by Corganist

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 included the attacks in question. )

See above

Originally Posted by Corganist

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.

Originally Posted by Corganist

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 include 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]

Originally Posted by DeviousJ

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 include 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 include 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]

Originally Posted by Corganist

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.

Originally Posted by Corganist

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.

Originally Posted by Corganist

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)?

Originally Posted by Corganist

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.

Originally Posted by Corganist

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

Originally Posted by Corganist

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

Originally Posted by Corganist

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 include 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.

Originally Posted by Corganist

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]

Originally Posted by DeviousJ

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?

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]

Originally Posted by Corganist

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

Originally Posted by Corganist

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?

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.

Originally Posted by Corganist

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

Originally Posted by Corganist

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.

Originally Posted by Corganist

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'

Originally Posted by Corganist

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?!

Originally Posted by Corganist

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!

Originally Posted by Corganist

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.

Originally Posted by Corganist

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]

Warning: This is going to be freaking long.

Originally Posted by DeviousJ

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! 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 include what's going on in Lebanon today. It would include what's going on in Iraq and Afghanistan. It would include the time Israel was occupying Lebanon. It would not include a month ago in Northern Israel. It would not include 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]

Originally Posted by Corganist

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.

Originally Posted by Corganist

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.

Originally Posted by Corganist

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! 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.

Originally Posted by Corganist

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/jd...0724_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."

Originally Posted by Corganist

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

Originally Posted by Corganist

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

Originally Posted by Corganist

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

Originally Posted by Corganist

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 include what's going on in Lebanon today. It would include what's going on in Iraq and Afghanistan. It would include the time Israel was occupying Lebanon. It would not include a month ago in Northern Israel. It would not include 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

Originally Posted by Corganist

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

Originally Posted by Corganist

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

[TheEdgeboy]

ive skimmed through this thread...


Lebanon did not hold up thier end of the bargain by containing Hezbollah, which is the ruling military force in that nation. Isreal had every right to do exactly what they are doing now.

pacifist need to realize something: these Muslim extremist want a Holy War. This has been destined when the "prophet" Mohammad did his first beheading. These elements are now face to face, next door neighbors and there's no turning back now. This has been destined for 1400 years.

Either win the war, or succomb to Muslim extremism. Perhaps Russia and China will back Iran in this fight, but they do so at their own risk of facing the Jihad in their countries. time will tell, that's the way things are lined at present.

[DeviousJ]

So what you're saying is, the way to fight Muslim extremists is to attack a country so violently that the general population begins to support their cause in fighting Israel? This 'war' won't do anything to curb extremism - it won't weaken the ideology, and it's not having any tangible effect on their military capability (the rocket attacks are certainly getting worse). The real victims are the innocent civilians who are seeing their country and their lives torn apart, and nobody else seems to want to help them

[The Omega Concern]

well, we could put our head in the sand and wait till China or North Korea or Al-Queda to drop some bombs in America and kill innocent civilians.

there's no pretty options in this, so pacifist libs in America need to come to grips with what's at stake, cuz I dont think they do around here at all.

[DeviousJ]

Or we could stop being stupid and imagining fantastical scenarios to somehow justify what's happening now as the only option