I guess this is a sort of poll...

[j2k4]

Just a quick question on that point:

Why doesn't Lebanon just give outright sanction to Hezbollah, claim them as another state militia, and send their army in to augment the Hezbollah fighting force?

Are they afraid to they might ill-effect Hezbollah's free-floating, 'we-don't-answer-to-anybody' ('cept Iran) status?

Sounds like a dispute of ownership, to me...

I believe it would be illegal for the Lebanese Government to do this under their own constitution.. Just because the US/UK Governments have no quelms about breaking the US/UK Laws at will, doesnt mean everyones like that.

I have pointed out that there are strict percentages of ethnic background throughout the Lebanese Government and Military, whereas Hezbollah are purely Shi'ite Muslims.


In the entire world, there are only 6 countries that count Hezbollah as a "Terrorist" organisation.

The USA, Israel and UK are 3 of them (and the UK was a recent addition, but may well change again when Parliament re-convenes).

Every other country recognises it as a legitimate Resistance Organisation..

Guess this is another moment of "we is right and everyone else is wrong".

So, then-

Apart from those six, if the rest of the world is afflicted with anti-U.S. (and U.K.) sentiment, then we are obviously wrong, eh?

Upon comprehensive self-examination and review, I find that I don't mind, and am further disposed to say the majority suffers a horrible misapprehension.

I daresay Hezbollah has had no interaction whatsoever with 90% of the countries you've mentioned; we, on the other hand, have had, beginning with a little incident back in 1982, which earned them our emnity.

Now, as to today's situation:

You say Lebanon is constitutionally forestalled from recognizing Hezbollah, yet we see that Hezbollah carries the fight.

Do you suppose the official Lebanese government has an understanding by which it is assured Hezbollah's more aggressive tendencies will be only outward-directed?

Do you suppose the official Lebanese government is functionally subservient to Hezbollah?

Further, do you suppose the official Lebanese government withholds sanction (the constituional aspect, it must be admitted, could be amended easily, yes?) out of some faint hope for their own future, which future they'd prefer not to include Hezbollah, or the tyranny of Syria and Iran?

If you too perceive an agenda in my questioning, I respectfully request you stow that particular impression.

[vidcc]

Did l say that? yes

Originally Posted by Ava Estelle

What do we do with the terrorists? We stop creating situations where 'terrorism' is seen as a people's only hope. Someone mentioned earlier about punishing them; how do you punish someone who is in the right? That's not punishment, you punish someone who has done wrong, when you punish people who feel they are fighting for a just cause you only add to their ranks, and their anger, and their resolve.

l was giving you their point of view, and pointing out that to THEM they are in the right, and that when you punish people who believe they are right you are, to THEM, oppressing them further.

just because they "feel they are fighting for a just cause" doesn't mean they are, And even if their cause is right that doesn't justify their tactics. By your logic anyone can justify anything to escape justice. They lose a lot of any genuine grievance when they target civilians (this goes for both sides) or indiscriminately blow up planes as an example, filled with people of all nations, people (including children) that have nothing to do with their grievence.

Is it OK for that foreign military to launch attacks against neighbouring countries against the will of the people?
And in the case of Saudi Arabia, where there is no legitimate government, just a puppet regime kept in power by the US military, do the people have any rights at all in your eyes?

Yes the people do have rights, or at least should have. If they don't want US bases in the country they should go after the Saudi regime....not flight *** filled with innocent people.

So which ones do you agree with? And what rights do you grant them? What if their "legitimate grievances" are with the US government, what is legitimate, in your eyes, for them to do?

Protest.
Protest in the streets. Protest in the markets. Protest wherever a voice can be heard. Make their own government realise the will of the people. There are some parts of the world where that is risky, but without a voice sounding how would that change?

Until we drop this attitude that WE are always right, and THEY are always wrong, there will always be conflict in the world, we need to clean up our own back yards before we inflict our 'solutions' on the rest of the world.

This latest episode in Lebanon, with the US refusal to call for a ceasefire, whilst dead women and children are recovered from bombed houses has been a public relations disaster for the US, if only they had the guts to stand up to Israel.

I thought I made it clear

As you can see by my original post I agree that we need to address the causes, I do feel we have a bad foriegn policy, I don't think we are innocent, but to suggest that any society just "lay down and take it" when planes are flown into buildings or when pubs are blown up is unacceptable.

In no way do I think we had a good foriegn policy under any other administrations but I think we have an administration now that is making things worse. I think going into Iraq was a huge mistake, is our enemies best recruiting tool and the handling has emboldened our "enemies" because they can see we don't have it under control.
I think we would serve our own interest better if we took a more neutral approach to the Israel situation.
I think Israel has overstepped the mark. But then so has Hezbullah. I think they feed off each other willingly and innocent peole are caught in the middle.
I think our own interest would be better served if we didn't prop up one regime that is as bad as the ones we want to remove or have already removed.
I think there are many things in our foriegn policy that are purely selfish and have no balance between our interests and the interests of those directly targetted.

BUT NONE OF THIS MAKES THE DELIBERATE KILLING OF UNCONNECTED INNOCENT PEOPLE RIGHT.

[lynx]

You say Lebanon is constitutionally forestalled from recognizing Hezbollah, yet we see that Hezbollah carries the fight.

Do you suppose the official Lebanese government has an understanding by which it is assured Hezbollah's more aggressive tendencies will be only outward-directed?

Do you suppose the official Lebanese government is functionally subservient to Hezbollah?

Further, do you suppose the official Lebanese government withholds sanction (the constituional aspect, it must be admitted, could be amended easily, yes?) out of some faint hope for their own future, which future they'd prefer not to include Hezbollah, or the tyranny of Syria and Iran?

Do you think your own constitution would be so easily changed if, for instance, someone suggested that the Jewish lobby had far too much influence?

Hezbollah as a political party represents a reasonably large section of Lebanese society, although up until recently they had almost no legal status. Imagine what the reaction would be if you suggested that blacks could have no political representation in your own government. A few decades back you would probably have been applauded.

[j2k4]

You say Lebanon is constitutionally forestalled from recognizing Hezbollah, yet we see that Hezbollah carries the fight.

Do you suppose the official Lebanese government has an understanding by which it is assured Hezbollah's more aggressive tendencies will be only outward-directed?

Do you suppose the official Lebanese government is functionally subservient to Hezbollah?

Further, do you suppose the official Lebanese government withholds sanction (the constituional aspect, it must be admitted, could be amended easily, yes?) out of some faint hope for their own future, which future they'd prefer not to include Hezbollah, or the tyranny of Syria and Iran?

Do you think your own constitution would be so easily changed if, for instance, someone suggested that the Jewish lobby had far too much influence?

Hezbollah as a political party represents a reasonably large section of Lebanese society, although up until recently they had almost no legal status. Imagine what the reaction would be if you suggested that blacks could have no political representation in your own government. A few decades back you would probably have been applauded.

The Jewish lobby has plenty of influence, and nobody has complained too loudly.

Blacks have influence, and are gaining more every day.

I seriously doubt whether either group would take up arms against another country, unless they were part of our regular forces.

A "few decades back" would put us in the eighties; you think a person proposing 'no representation for blacks' would have garnered applause?

What fucking planet do you live on, and what fucking blog are you reading now?

[lynx]

The Jewish lobby has plenty of influence, and nobody has complained too loudly.

Blacks have influence, and are gaining more every day.

Then why do you complain about a similar effect with regard to Hezbollah in Lebanon?

I seriously doubt whether either group would take up arms against another country, unless they were part of our regular forces.

Perhaps not directly, but they've certainly advocated and financed Israel to do just that.

A "few decades back" would put us in the eighties; you think a person proposing 'no representation for blacks' would have garnered applause?

We have to use your definition that "a few" equals 2? Or could it mean 5? Or maybe 6 or 7? There were plenty of people around in the fifties who were proposing exactly that.

Your policy of reading opinions isn't doing you any favours, since you only seem to take notice of those that reinforce a distorted view of the world.

[Ava Estelle]

Yes the people do have rights, or at least should have. If they don't want US bases in the country they should go after the Saudi regime....not flight *** filled with innocent people.

So are you saying that when a country like the US props up an illegitimate regime, and supplies them with the weapons and intelligence to supress their own people, that the US should remain blameless, just because that same regime invited them? So if you're in a schoolyard protecting the bully, you're not a fault, just the bully?

Protest in the streets. Protest in the markets. Protest wherever a voice can be heard. Make their own government realise the will of the people. There are some parts of the world where that is risky, but without a voice sounding how would that change?

Where do you think that would have got the Palestinians? Would it have stopped the West Bank being occupied?

...but to suggest that any society just "lay down and take it" when planes are flown into buildings or when pubs are blown up is unacceptable.

l suggested no such thing. But the fact still remains that ten times the number of innocent civilians were killed in the post 9\11 assault on Afghanistan, how do you think they feel about it? Or the relatives of the 100,000 people killed as a result of Bush's foray into Iraq? They're the ones fighting us. They don't hate our freedoms, they hate what we do to them, and the contempt we show for their lives. How would you like the victims of 9\11 described as 'collateral damage'?

[j2k4]

I seriously doubt whether either group would take up arms against another country, unless they were part of our regular forces.

Perhaps not directly, but they've certainly advocated and financed Israel to do just that.

Israel is an ally, however, NOT an agent of the United States of America, and you do not and cannot make your case.

A "few decades back" would put us in the eighties; you think a person proposing 'no representation for blacks' would have garnered applause?

We have to use your definition that "a few" equals 2? Or could it mean 5? Or maybe 6 or 7? There were plenty of people around in the fifties who were proposing exactly that.

You used the word 'few'; if you were half paying attention to your own intent, perhaps you might have spent a few extra syllables and used 'several' instead, rather than being so sloppy and loose with your words.

Your policy of reading opinions isn't doing you any favours, since you only seem to take notice of those that reinforce a distorted view of the world.

And your reading of blogs and the like serves you?

Don't make me laugh.



Whoops...too late...

[vidcc]

So are you saying that when a country like the US props up an illegitimate regime, and supplies them with the weapons and intelligence to supress their own people, that the US should remain blameless, just because that same regime invited them? So if you're in a schoolyard protecting the bully, you're not a fault, just the bully?

I said we have a bad foriegn policy.

In no way do I think we had a good foriegn policy under any other administrations but I think we have an administration now that is making things worse. I think going into Iraq was a huge mistake, is our enemies best recruiting tool and the handling has emboldened our "enemies" because they can see we don't have it under control.
I think we would serve our own interest better if we took a more neutral approach to the Israel situation.
I think Israel has overstepped the mark. But then so has Hezbullah. I think they feed off each other willingly and innocent peole are caught in the middle.
I think our own interest would be better served if we didn't prop up one regime that is as bad as the ones we want to remove or have already removed.
I think there are many things in our foriegn policy that are purely selfish and have no balance between our interests and the interests of those directly targetted.
BUT NONE OF THIS MAKES THE DELIBERATE KILLING OF UNCONNECTED INNOCENT PEOPLE RIGHT

Where do you think that would have got the Palestinians? Would it have stopped the West Bank being occupied?

They have spoken with a vote and voted for the party that opposes the occupation. Perhaps those that are now "terrorists" will become a government army.

l suggested no such thing.

yes you did . You said we shouldn't punish them because they are right.

But the fact still remains that ten times the number of innocent civilians were killed in the post 9\11 assault on Afghanistan, how do you think they feel about it? Or the relatives of the 100,000 people killed as a result of Bush's foray into Iraq? They're the ones fighting us. They don't hate our freedoms, they hate what we do to them, and the contempt we show for their lives. How would you like the victims of 9\11 described as 'collateral damage'?

I feel I need another repeat......in the same post

In no way do I think we had a good foriegn policy under any other administrations but I think we have an administration now that is making things worse. I think going into Iraq was a huge mistake, is our enemies best recruiting tool and the handling has emboldened our "enemies" because they can see we don't have it under control.
I think we would serve our own interest better if we took a more neutral approach to the Israel situation.
I think Israel has overstepped the mark. But then so has Hezbullah. I think they feed off each other willingly and innocent peole are caught in the middle.
I think our own interest would be better served if we didn't prop up one regime that is as bad as the ones we want to remove or have already removed.
I think there are many things in our foriegn policy that are purely selfish and have no balance between our interests and the interests of those directly targetted.
BUT NONE OF THIS MAKES THE DELIBERATE KILLING OF UNCONNECTED INNOCENT PEOPLE RIGHT

You seem angry, you seem to want to blame someone, anyone, you are ranting and arguing points nobody has has made.
Be careful living with that straw man....they attract rodents and can be a bit of a fire hazard.




Of course you could just be a sad little wind up merchant

[lynx]

Perhaps not directly, but they've certainly advocated and financed Israel to do just that.

Israel is an ally, however, NOT an agent of the United States of America, and you do not and cannot make your case.
Who said it was, the context was about the Jewish influence and actions. Please don't try to misquote me.

A "few decades back" would put us in the eighties; you think a person proposing 'no representation for blacks' would have garnered applause?

We have to use your definition that "a few" equals 2? Or could it mean 5? Or maybe 6 or 7? There were plenty of people around in the fifties who were proposing exactly that.

You used the word 'few'; if you were half paying attention to your own intent, perhaps you might have spent a few extra syllables and used 'several' instead, rather than being so sloppy and loose with your words.
You talk about sloppy posting, yet you try to twist the meaning of every syllable to indicate something other than it's intention. It's pitiful really.

If I had meant the 80's I would have been correct to say a couple of decades. I didn't mean the 80's so I didn't use that term. "Several" can have exactly the same meaning as "a few" (as in a small number) but can also have other meanings. Had I used "several" you would no doubt have nit-picked and claimed I was using another meaning. My use of "a few" was exactly correct, if your think otherwise your understanding of the English language is sadly lacking.

Your policy of reading opinions isn't doing you any favours, since you only seem to take notice of those that reinforce a distorted view of the world.

And your reading of blogs and the like serves you?

Don't make me laugh.



Whoops...too late...

Nice try with the blogs thing, but you've never seen me even come near to quoting from them. Seems a little childish to try to use that argument against me when I've already said that I accept that you don't use them. But I suppose it's just another attempt at diversion since the whole basis of your original point about changing their constitution has collapsed.

[j2k4]

Let us begin, then, with your own equation, i.e.:

'Hezbollah is to Lebanon as Israel is to the United States'

Make your case.

You have plenty of time, as I'm off to do other things for the evening.