ISRAEL - IRAN - SYRIA - HAMAS - HEZBOLLAH - WWWIII?

Setanta is of course 100% correct in pointing out that support from Fox isn't exactly desirable in terms of legitimizing one's argument...

Cycloptichorn

0 Replies

Maybe the two of you could get a talk show on air america. Perhaps call it "I think I am smarter then everyone else and prove it with unnecessary and unwanted attacks on my opponents."

0 Replies

That's hilarious coming from you, McWhitey--given that you have described me as hateful, and have said you believe that hatred for the Shrub is the only thing that gets me out of bed and going in the morning.

There are few members here who so consistently attack other members here on a personal basis through the use of invidious characterizations as you, McWhitey.

In fact, the point is not about intelligence, it is about being well-informed. Fox has consistently demonstrated that she is ill-informed, and then she attempts to suggest that Ican't corroborates his opinion (by claiming that he provides "collaborative" evidence). In fact, Ican't spams this and other threads here with long opinion pieces from conservative mouthpiece organs--as opposed to proving any of his points. I can see, though, why people such as you and Fox consider using another person's opinion of support one's own opinion is conclusive.

0 Replies

revel wrote:

...
In legal terms the Lebanese citizens are civilians unless they belong to a militant group such as Hizbollah even if they do nothing to stop Hizbollah. Ican has no authority to change their status as civilians.That is simply a fact.

I agree that "Ican has no authority to change their status as civilians" and "that is simply a fact." But individual citizens do have the authority to change their own status by their own actions.

Lebanese citizens belong to the militant group Hezbollah when they support that militant group by knowingly hosting that militant group. The Lebanese citizens who take that action thereby change their status from that of innocent civilians to that of guilty civilians, who aid and abet the killing of non-killers. Such guilty civilians are killers, too.

Hezbollah consists of dkonks (i.e., deliberate killers of non-killers). The Lebanese citizens who are supporters of Hezbolla are sodkonks (i.e., supporters of deliberate killers of non-killers). Sodkonks invite their own deaths as long as they continue to host dkonks. They do not have just cause for complaint when some of them are killed when dkonks in their midst are deliberately killed.

None of the foregoing is true because I say it is true. None of the foregoing is false because you say it is false. All of the foregoing is true because it is an accurate description of reality.

By the way, as a practical matter, Israelis cannot successfully defend their own lives against their would be killers, if they were to prohibit themselves killing their would be killers, when their would be killers are in the midst of their hosts, who will be killed when their would be killers are killed.

0 Replies

No, it is not an accurate statement of reality. It ignores that Hezbollah is the most powerful, heavily-armed organization in the Lebanon. The Christian militias, including the Maronite militia who were previously the most powerful paramilitary group in the Lebanon, are no longer powerful enough to effectively oppose Hezbollah in the Lebanon. Neither the police nor the army of the Lebanon are powerful enough to oppose Hezbollah.

So Ican't wants to condemn the Lebanese because they don't, essentially, attempt suicide by attacking the strongest, most heavily-armed group in the Lebanon. I guess by that criterion, if heavily armed drug dealers took over his neighborhood, and he desisted from interfering with them because he is unarmed, the police would be justified in blowing him away in an attempt to get the drug dealers. Oh yeah . . . that's great logic.

For once, Ican't, you could attempt to educate yourself. Why don't you go off and do some careful reading about the Phalange, the Maronites, the Christian Militias, the Lebanese Front, the Lebanese National movement, the Syrian occupation at the invitation of the Lebanese government, the Muslim Brotherhood, the Syrian Social Nationalist Party--all of which existed prior to the foundation of Hezbollah.

In short, why don't you learn what the hell has gone on and is going on in the Lebanon before you shoot your mouth off. Your simple minded acronyms provide telling evidence that you don't know what you are talking about.

0 Replies

FreeDuck wrote:

ican711nm wrote:

However, suppose I had supported Iraq in the Iraq-Iran war. Then I would have been culpable for that. But suppose I subsequently realized my error and thereafter stopped support of deliberate killing of non-killers and did not & do not deliberately kill non-killers. Obviously, thereafter, I would not be culpable for doing any of that.

But you said a failure to do anything to stop them makes civilians culpable. You didn't do anything to stop them.

Legally, one who knowingly hosts a murderer, is an aider and abettor of that murderer, and is therefore also a murderer, albeit a lesser degree of murderer.

Legally, one who unknowingly hosts a murderer, is not an aider and abettor of that murderer, and is therefore not a murderer of any degree.

My crime at the time of the Iraq-Iran war ignorance. What was your crime at that time?

I assume that neither of us knowingly or unknowingly hosted members of Saddam's regime.

0 Replies

You didn't say anything about "knowingly" earlier. So, do you ask the inhabitants of the house you bombed whether they support Hezbollah before or after you bomb it? There's no court or judge here to decide whether a civilian is "guilty" of hosting or aiding the enemy. You either target them or you don't. Deliberately targeting civilians in order to achieve a political outcome is the definition of terrorism.

Ican, the fact of the matter is that, according to international law, non-combatants are not to be targeted and are not "guilty" of anything in terms of the conflict itself. I suppose an argument could be made for cases where militants were literally hiding inside a civilian home, be we all know that the level of civilian casualties and the targeting of the infrastructure went way beyond that. In addition, Hezbollah was targeting the Israeli military, so it's not really accurate to call them killers of non-killers. But in the end, ican, your assertions mean nothing because we have laws that define civilians and what protections they are entitiled to, and as much as you and the terrorists would like to strip them of their protections by attempting to assign them some collective guilt for their situation, you cannot.

0 Replies

But Setanta, you are hateful. As well as spiteful, mean and bitter. If you are not giving some historical diatribe, you are filling your posts with inane comments, like "McWhitey" for example. You haven't seemed to be able to move past junior high school and your inability to post without making some sort of juvenile insult or jab attached just proves it.

It's gotten old and is making you irrelevent.

0 Replies

No one here is "relevant" to anyone else. I call you McWhitey because you said you preferred that to McCaucasian, which you said was too formal. All of that grew out of your assertion that you are Caucasian. It's call satire.

You claim that i am hateful--but i say that i'm no more hateful than you show yourself to be with your inferential assertion that Cyclo and i consider ourselves to be "smarter" than Fox and Ican't. I pointed out specifically that Ican't does not support his opinions, as Fox claims he does, because he spams threads with long opinion piece diatribes from conservative organs.

But you haven't addressed that. Rather, you have attempted to focus on what you claim are my character defects.

Your point of view is seriously warped by the fact that you almost never venture outside the political forum, and remain supremely ignorant of what goes on in 95% of the threads here.

Basically, McWhitey, you're just a one trick pony. Whining about my behavior just provides evidence of your inability to resolve the pot and kettle conundrum.

0 Replies

McGentrix wrote:

You haven't seemed to be able to move past junior high school and your inability to post without making some sort of juvenile insult or jab attached just proves it.

Must have been a junior high with academical teachings better than at most of the colleges and universities some here claim to have attended.

0 Replies

old europe wrote:

ican711nm wrote:
However, if I had known, I would NOT have supported it; I would have tried in whatever manner acceptable to me to stop US government support of Iraq.

I'm curious about this bit here. What exactly does "whatever manner acceptable to you" stand for.

Does it mean you would have organized an armed revolt and marched on Washington? Does it mean you would have organized a demonstration and held up signs in front of the White House? Or does it mean you would have voted for the opposition party and candidates?

I do not know now all or any I would have done then. However, based on my subsequent behavior, I expect, I would have opposed all those who supported Saddam's regime: by at least the use of my letters, posts, phone calls, and votes.

One thing I am sure, I would not have supported Saddam's regime by hosting members of Saddam's regime, because doing that would have made me culpable for the crimes of Saddam's regime.

Likewise, what can the Lebanese do to stop Hezbollah? What is acceptable for them? Should they take up arms and shoot everyone who claims allegiance with Hezbollah? Or should they go out on the street and organize a demonstration against Hezbollah? Or would it be sufficient to vote for someone other than Hezbollah in the parliamentary elections?

It would be necessary but not sufficient to vote for someone other than Hezbollah in the parliamentary elections. In addition, each Lebanese citizen should have sought to get the Lebanese government in general, and the Lebanese military/police in particular (including the local police), to prevent the hosting of Hezbollah ordnance and militia.

I think we should be able to expect the same "manner of resistance" from you that you expect from the Lebanese civilians, don't you think so?

YES! If I were to learn that Hezbollah and its ordnance were in my country, I would do whatever I think would most effectively work to rid my country of Hezbollah. In fact, I now am ardently supporting the monitoring of all forms of communications to detect if and when Hezbollah et al are operating in my country. Yes, I am and have been willing to sacrifice that part of my privacy until that end were to be or is achieved.

0 Replies

Hezbollah has never won more than 10% of the Parliamentary vote in the Lebanon. Although Hezbollah claims to represent the Shi'ites of the Lebanon, the fact that more than 40% of Lebanese are Shi'ite, and Hezbollah has only ever gotten 10% is stark evidence that not even all Lebanese Shi'ites support Hezbollah. Hezbollah has been financially supported by the Persians and the Syrians. Hezbollah's operational stronghold is in the southeast, near the Syrian border. Hezbollah has been able to maintain a larger, more heavily armed force than the Lebanese police forces and military combined, thanks to Persian and Syrian support, and proximity to the Syrian border.

The fact that Ican't seems to be unware of these facts is evidence of the extent to which his ignorance beggars the opinions which Fox seems to so highly value.

0 Replies

Setanta wrote:

No, it is not an accurate statement of reality. It ignores that Hezbollah is the most powerful, heavily-armed organization in the Lebanon.

Yes, it is an accurate statement of reality. You ignore the fact of reality that at that time--and for a long time after--Hezbollah started trucking in its rocket ordnance into Lebanon, Hezbollah was not "the most powerful, heavily-armed organization in ... Lebanon." Consequently they could have been stopped and evicted and not hosted long before they commenced firing rockets into Israel.
...
by that criterion, if heavily armed drug dealers took over his neighborhood, and he desisted from interfering with them because he is unarmed, the police would be justified in blowing him away in an attempt to get the drug dealers. Oh yeah . . . that's great logic.

That's a great distortion of my actual position.

Here's what you should have written:

By that criterion, if ican knowingly hosted heavily armed drug dealers in his neighborhood, and failed to report them to the local and federal police, the police would be justified in blowing him away while attempting to get the drug dealers. Yes, . . . that's sound logic.

...

0 Replies

My apologies--according to the Wikipedia article, Hezbollah has 14 of the 128 seats in the Lebanese parliament. That is more than 10%--although it is less than 11% of the total.

Also, once again according to Wikipedia, Shi'ites constitute 50% of the Lebanese population, rather than 40%, as i had written. This, however, just makes more forcefully the point that not even the Shi'ites politically support Hezbollah proportionately to their population.

Ican't badly needs to educate himself.

0 Replies

Quote:

By that criterion, if ican knowingly hosted heavily armed drug dealers in his neighborhood, and failed to report them to the local and federal police, the police would be justified in blowing him away while attempting to get the drug dealers. Yes, . . . that's sound logic.

Sorry, you don't 'host' someone just because they live in the same area as you.

And who are they going to report to (in Lebanaon)? It isn't as if the gov't doesn't know that Hezbollah is there. How much action has to be taken by a Lebanese citizen in order for you to consider them 'not guilty of harboring?'

Also, you are incorrect in your knowledge of the Law; not reporting a crime is not cause for being murdered by the police, even if your presence makes it inconveinent for them.

Cycloptichorn

0 Replies

ican711nm wrote:

Yes, it is an accurate statement of reality. You ignore the fact of reality that at that time--and for a long time after--Hezbollah started trucking in its rocket ordnance into Lebanon, Hezbollah was not "the most powerful, heavily-armed organization in ... Lebanon." Consequently they could have been stopped and evicted and not hosted long before they commenced firing rockets into Israel.

No, that's not an accurate statement of reality. The other Lebanese militias voluntarily disarmed in the settlement of the civil war, or were partially (and largely) disarmed by Lebanese police forces. Hezbollah never disarmed, nor cooperated with Lebanese police forces, and refused to do so as long as Israel occupied the Shebaa Farms, and held Lebanese citizens in their prisons. You just make this **** up.

Quote:

That's a great distortion of my actual position.

Here's what you should have written:

By that criterion, if ican knowingly hosted heavily armed drug dealers in his neighborhood, and failed to report them to the local and federal police, the police would be justified in blowing him away while attempting to get the drug dealers.

No, that's a lie. Your position, to which i referred, was embodied in this statement of yours, which is an exact quote:

Quote:

Lebanese citizens belong to the militant group Hezbollah when they support that militant group by knowingly hosting that militant group. The Lebanese citizens who take that action thereby change their status from that of innocent civilians to that of guilty civilians, who aid and abet the killing of non-killers. Such guilty civilians are killers, too.

You completely ignore that the Lebanese have been functionally unable to deal with and disarm Hezbollah, and that they have never willingly hosted Hezbollah, which was the burden of your false claim.

Once again, you demonstrate conclusively that you know nothing of the history of the Lebanon and of Hezbollah.

0 Replies

FreeDuck wrote:

You didn't say anything about "knowingly" earlier.

Yes I did, multiple times. Read with more care!
...
Deliberately targeting civilians in order to achieve a political outcome is the definition of terrorism.

Yes, and that is exactly what Hezbollah did. Israel, on the other hand to defend its citizens, deliberately targeted Hezbollah in the midst of Lebanese citizens who were knowingly hosting Hezbollah, and did in fact kill some of those Lebanese Hezbollah hosters.

Ican, the fact of the matter is that, according to international law, non-combatants are not to be targeted and are not "guilty" of anything in terms of the conflict itself.

Hezbollah was the target. The target was in the midst of those who knowingly hosted Hezbollah in their midst. So many of the hosters were also killed. I bet that frequently, Israel was not sure where all of Hezbollah was located, so they targeted Hezbollah where they wrongly thought Hezbollah was located. I would expect no less from Israelies desperately trying to protect their citizens.

None of this would have happened had Hezbollah not fired its rockets into Israel after the Israeli military invaded Lebanon to retrieve the soldiers Hezbollah captured. And Israel would not have invaded Lebanon had Hezbollah not killed Israeli soldiers and captured Israeli soldiers.
...

Hezbollah was targeting the Israeli military, so it's not really accurate to call them killers of non-killers.

You are wrong! Hezbollah targeted Israeli citizens with its rockets after killing some Israeli soldiers and capturing others.

But in the end, ican, your assertions mean nothing because we have laws that define civilians and what protections they are entitiled to, and as much as you and the terrorists would like to strip them of their protections by attempting to assign them some collective guilt for their situation, you cannot.

You are wrong again. All of that you asserted means nothing. It is clear that Israel has the legal right to defend its citizens against those trying to deliberately kill them in whatever way the Israelies--not you--think will be effective.

Quote:

UN CHARTER Article 51
Nothing in the present Charter shall impair the inherent right of individual or collective self-defense if an armed attack occurs against a Member of the United Nations, until the Security Council has taken measures necessary to maintain international peace and security. Measures taken by Members in the exercise of this right of self-defense shall be immediately reported to the Security Council and shall not in any way affect the authority and responsibility of the Security Council under the present Charter to take at any time such action as it deems necessary in order to maintain or restore international peace and security.

Since the UN did nothing to prevent Lebanon from hosting Hezbollah and its rocket ordnance, and did nothing to prevent Hezbollah firing its rockets at Israeli citizens, Israel's government was required by its own citizens to act in Israel's own self-defense.

0 Replies

That pile of horsie dung falls down for two reasons. The first is that you have not demonstrated (and cannot demonstrate) that the Lebanese "host" Hezbollah--no more than you would be responsible for hosting heavily-armed drug dealers who move into your neighborhood in circumstance which you were unable to prevent.

The second problem with that horsie poop is that Israel publicly stated that it held the Lebanon responsible for the actions of Hezbollah in the raid in which two IDF members were snatched, and immediately launched massive airstrikes, which destroyed six highway bridges, in addition to the other damage which was done--before Hezbollah launched missiles at Israel. Both you and Fox have been attempting to peddle that horse poop in this thread, but it just isn't true.

This article from ABC News Online was posted fewer than 24 hours after the two IDF members were taken, and days before Hezbollah launched a single rocket.

Once again, you resort to making up your "facts" to support an argument derived of sublime ignorance.

0 Replies

Setanta wrote:

That pile of horsie dung falls down for two reasons. The first is that you have not demonstrated (and cannot demonstrate) that the Lebanese "host" Hezbollah--no more than you would be responsible for hosting heavily-armed drug dealers who move into your neighborhood in circumstance which you were unable to prevent.

The second problem with that horsie poop is that Israel publicly stated that it held the Lebanon responsible for the actions of Hezbollah in the raid in which two IDF members were snatched, and immediately launched massive airstrikes, which destroyed six highway bridges, in addition to the other damage which was done--before Hezbollah launched missiles at Israel. Both you and Fox have been attempting to peddle that horse poop in this thread, but it just isn't true.

This article from ABC News Online was posted fewer than 24 hours after the two IDF members were taken, and days before Hezbollah launched a single rocket.

Once again, you resort to making up your "facts" to support an argument derived of sublime ignorance.

Not to mention the bombing of an airport critical to the financial infastructure of Lebanon. There was no threat posed to Israel by that airport, and it certainly wasn't being used to supply Hezbollah with further arms and weapons at that time; so why do it?

The oil spill into the gulf, caused by the Israeli airstrikes, btw, had a dramatic effect on the local environment. But I guess those fish and birds were also guilty of harboring Hezbollah, and had it coming; after all, they didn't attack members of Hezbollah en masse with their beaks and flippers to stop them, so they are equally responsible and deserved their fate as well.

Cycloptichorn

0 Replies

ican711nm wrote:

FreeDuck wrote:

Ican, the fact of the matter is that, according to international law, non-combatants are not to be targeted and are not "guilty" of anything in terms of the conflict itself.

Hezbollah was the target. The target was in the midst of those who knowingly hosted Hezbollah in their midst. So many of the hosters were also killed. I bet that frequently, Israel was not sure where all of Hezbollah was located, so they targeted Hezbollah where they wrongly thought Hezbollah was located. I would expect no less from Israelies desperately trying to protect their citizens.

So the Christians were hosting them too? How else do you explain the casualties in Christian neighborhoods? Is Beirut a Hezbollah stronghold?

And even if you would not expect less from the Israelis, international law expects them to attempt to minimize civilian casualties whenever possible. Hezbollah, btw, also had the responsibility to protect Lebanese citizens once fighting commenced, so were they justified too? Hey, the military was the target, right, it's just these darn inaccurate weapons...

Quote:

None of this would have happened had Hezbollah not fired its rockets into Israel after the Israeli military invaded Lebanon to retrieve the soldiers Hezbollah captured. And Israel would not have invaded Lebanon had Hezbollah not killed Israeli soldiers and captured Israeli soldiers.
...

None of this would have happened if Israel had not invaded Lebanon.

Quote:

Hezbollah was targeting the Israeli military, so it's not really accurate to call them killers of non-killers.

You are wrong! Hezbollah targeted Israeli citizens with its rockets after killing some Israeli soldiers and capturing others.

After Israel invaded and killed civilians, right? I refer you to your own argument.

Quote:

But in the end, ican, your assertions mean nothing because we have laws that define civilians and what protections they are entitiled to, and as much as you and the terrorists would like to strip them of their protections by attempting to assign them some collective guilt for their situation, you cannot.

You are wrong again. All of that you asserted means nothing. It is clear that Israel has the legal right to defend its citizens against those trying to deliberately kill them in whatever way the Israelies--not you--think will be effective.

I'm wrong? So we don't have laws that define civilians and what protections they are entitled to?

0 Replies

ISRAEL - IRAN - SYRIA - HAMAS - HEZBOLLAH - WWWIII?

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know