posted
OSC Know Thy Enemy Essay It never ceases to amaze me how clearly OSC sees things, from the repitition of falsehood to create 'truth' in our media to the historical context of the fight we are in.
I once shocked everyone by characterizing a group that has not kept a single treaty with Isreal, that has activly engaged in staged news stories of Isreli atrocities, that broadcast claims that the United States Military was not even in Iraq when we were in Bagdahd, a people that I have hundreds of personal experiences with them telling whatever falsehood benefited them the most and then changing that story to another lie without a hint of hesitation or shame when caught, I had the audacity to characterize them as dishonest and recommended that they not be trusted or believed. Hmmmm
Perhaps it is the campaign of lies by the Left that makes liberals so sensitive to pointing to deception as political practice. Yet they must have some grudging respect for truth since they know that the best way to attack the Right is to accuse it of deception over and over at great cost and with no measurable pattern of deception uncovered.
I am puzzled to be here agreeing with the host of this board knowing that the loudest and most prolific members despise his insights and consider them to be foolish or at best mistaken. I think this is a strange place for so many liberals to wash ashore.
quote:I once shocked everyone by characterizing a group that has not kept a single treaty with Isreal
So can you explain either 1) when Egypt broke the Camp David accord OR 2) when Egypt stopped being an Arabic country?
quote:I am puzzled to be here agreeing with the host of this board knowing that the loudest and most prolific members despise his insights and consider them to be foolish or at best mistaken. I think this is a strange place for so many liberals to wash ashore.
I'm trying to think who's louder and more prolific than I who despises his insights.
quote:I think this is a strange place for so many liberals to wash ashore.
Did you catch OSC's immigration essay?
Posts: 26071 | Registered: Oct 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Bean Counter: It never ceases to amaze me how clearly OSC sees things, from the repitition of falsehood to create 'truth' in our media to the historical context of the fight we are in.
I once shocked everyone by characterizing a group that has not kept a single treaty with Isreal, that has activly engaged in staged news stories of Isreli atrocities, that broadcast claims that the United States Military was not even in Iraq when we were in Bagdahd, a people that I have hundreds of personal experiences with them telling whatever falsehood benefited them the most and then changing that story to another lie without a hint of hesitation or shame when caught, I had the audacity to characterize them as dishonest and recommended that they not be trusted or believed. Hmmmm
No offense, BC, but I disagree with your characterization of what upset people. I agree that the propaganda put out by Arab states and belligerent Arab groups is almost universally untrue. But going from that to saying that Arabs themselves are liars is just dumb. It's a nutty comment that you'd see as racist if said about any other ethnic group.
It's why I disassociated myself from those comments. For crying out loud, dude, there's enough real blame here that you don't have to indulge in racist hyperbole.
Posts: 12266 | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Since one cannot know every individual, in any encounter with any member of a distinct recognizable group it is an absolutely survival imperative to use what you know about that group in general from experience as a guide to immediate interaction. In other words you gotta play the odds until you know the facts.
All I have ever recommended is that anybody dealing with Arabs remember the facts that build a reputation rather then extending the benefit of the doubt as if no facts exist.
As for why the Right seems more honest, I think it is a matter of constituency, the Left seems perfectly content to "tell lies of necessity to those 'hiker-billies' on the Right" just to achieve the overall agenda of political 'enlightenment' that they believe in. People on the Right consider honesty and forthrightness to be positive traits, they see unnecessary complexity for what it is, an attempt too blind or conceal from one the core truths.
I'm not talking about simple minded truths, I am talking about core truths tested and parsed down with Occam's Razor by long hard won human experience. Values that act as a touchstone for the Right while the Left has embraced a cultural relativism that resembles nothing so much as the core of Crowley's Satanism "Do what thou Wilt" If you want it how can it be wrong?
posted
Who is the representative of your "distinct recognizable group," Muhammad Ali, with whom I attended grade school, or Bin Laden? You, my friend, are being racist. That is what we call people who "remember the facts that build a reputation" when these "facts" are, in fact, a serious of grotesque racial stereotypes.
"People on the Right consider honesty and forthrightness to be positive traits, they see unnecessary complexity for what it is, an attempt too blind or conceal from one the core truths." Unlike the Left, the Center or Liberals, all of whom base their lives on systematic dishonesty in a desperate bid turn the world into Satanists? I must wonder how John Locke, John Stewart Mill or Voltaire would react to your allegations. They, like I, would probably be amused. But then, we Liberals have funny senses of humor based on our great love of dishonesty.
"Left that makes liberals." Liberalism, as a political philosophy, deserves a capital letter. It also deserves not to be grouped with a totally unrelated political philosophy.
Posts: 1332 | Registered: Apr 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:I am puzzled to be here agreeing with the host of this board knowing that the loudest and most prolific members despise his insights and consider them to be foolish or at best mistaken. I think this is a strange place for so many liberals to wash ashore.
Yep, 'cuz we liberals only wish to associate with people who agree with us, and, you know, we can't abide anyone who fails to agree with us in lockstep conformity on every view.
Really, BC, it's no secret that I don't agree with OSC on a great many things, but I also recognize that he knows a lot more about history than I do. I also recognize that he probably isn't writing for me, and that he probably doesn't care much what I think of some or all of his views.
He is also an incredibly gracious person and his wife is, if anything, even moreso. There is much to be admired and emulated there.
If there is one thing I wish everyone could learn from their time at Hatrack, it is that it is possible for opposing viewpoints to be rooted in something TRUE and valid, and that ascribing motives for the holding of those viewpoints is almost always a source of error, confusion, and needless argument.
I'd also like it if people could learn to avoid deliberately antogonizing others.
But I suspect your response will be something along the lines of me needing to learn those particular lessons too. And you'd be right to say it.
But my imperfections (and those of others) don't necessarily mean that everyone should just ignore the good lessons they might learn from the interactions here.
I would also appreciate it if you, personally, would stop trying to pass yourself off as an expert on Arab peoples. You have a perspective to share, but really, your personal experiences are drawn from a type of interaction that practically begs for exactly the kind of behavior you keep reporting. And instead of examining why the people in Iraq might not wholly trust US servicemen, you point to their behavior as a character flaw in them.
BC, from the persona you have displayed here, I would approach you as if you had nothing like my best interests in mind, and would lie to you as a matter of policy simply because I wouldn't trust your motives. And I live in a society that specifically protects me by law from whatever abuses might pop into your head. How much more likely is it that people whose country is making tenuous steps away from utter lawlessness to approach people in uniform with a high degree of caution.
And really, if the truth be told, skepticism over US forces as liberators is a historic lesson that probably others wish they had learned before having their countries or their efforts scuttled. Talk to the Magyar revolutionaries in Hungary, for example.
Buddying up to US troops in Iraq would seem like a dangerous proposition.
And given how at least some of those troops view the average Iraqi (should I quote you for example), I can't blame them for a bit of deception, dishonesty and distrust.
Posts: 22497 | Registered: Sep 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
Pel....how old are you again? It couldn't have been THE Muhammad Ali I am thinking of, not if you are 17.
BC, I think the fact that your best intellectual tool is Occam's Razor proves my point. . . you are not too bright. You understanding of OR is completely flawed if you think it is a good tool for social examination and evaluation.
You carry a gun at all times, and talk to people who are probably related to someone who has died in a US attack recently. Of course they don't trust you. I don't, and I still have a job, running water, and a police force in place to protect me from jackasses like you.
Anyone wanted to see how obviously superior you are just has to look here to see how much you really care about the truth. You care so much about it that you advocate killing people so that your "version" of events will be unchallenged in court. Plain and simple, you disgust me.
THAT is the attitude that makes people dislike you, BC. It is also the reason that a lot of people fear Bush and Company...because at times it feels like they do that fairly often....take out the opposition regardless of the actual truth.
I don't care for a lot of liberal stances myself. I have actually voted fairly conservative in my local election more often that not, despite what you may think. The liberal viewpoint has it's flaws, to be sure, but your claim that the Right is more honest by it's very nature is laughable....if it wasn't so damn sad.
On a personal level, I'll hang out with a tree hugger rather than a moron with a gun any day.
Guess which one you are. Even without a gun.
Posts: 15082 | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Kwea:BC, I think the fact that your best intellectual tool is Occam's Razor proves my point. . . you are not too bright. You understanding of OR is completely flawed if you think it is a good tool for social examination and evaluation.
Yeah, true, but bullying braggarts who are only armed with the Razor tend to be self-correcting, in evolutionary terms. Posts: 6316 | Registered: Jun 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote: BC, from the persona you have displayed here, I would approach you as if you had nothing like my best interests in mind, and would lie to you as a matter of policy simply because I wouldn't trust your motives. And I live in a society that specifically protects me by law from whatever abuses might pop into your head. How much more likely is it that people whose country is making tenuous steps away from utter lawlessness to approach people in uniform with a high degree of caution.
This just shows you to be dishonest. If you approached me in this manner I would file you away and react accordingly the nest time I met a Scopatz.
posted
Without this thread turning into another attack on BC...OSC's article is pretty scary.
I'm only 21--and I would have to call myself liberal. OSC clearly knows more about the situation in Iraq than I do. He also believes Bush is a great president.
My qualms:
1. I've watched Bush's speeches. I don't like listening to him. He sounds like a liar and a deciever. He's a terrible public speaker and he doesn't sound intelligent. However, his use of religious rhetoric seems to sway most of the country to his side. This is what I've observed apart from the rampant Bush-hating in the media (which I do disagree with wholeheartedly--I don't find it funny and it sure doesn't help anything)
2. I don't believe in the war on terror. It's a phantom war--like a war on immigration, crime, or drugs. They're perpetual wars that can never be won.
So why do we have to be involved in the Middle East? Why is it our responsibility? Iraq didn't attack us--neither did Afganistan. Terrorists did. Not countries.
Hey, maybe I'm wrong. Just another brainwashed product of liberal colleges. But that's the way I see it.
Posts: 1314 | Registered: Jan 2006
| IP: Logged |
posted
With Afghanistan, at least, the government of Afghanistan was openly allied with a terrorist organization who attacked us, and wouldn't cease that alliance after 9-11 and we demanded it. Pretty simple situation there.
Posts: 17164 | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
Bush is a good speaker in his element, I think he is too humble or lacks the confidence that would allow him to go out and be extemporaneous on most occasions so he has writers who take up his points but force him into a style he is not comfortable with. I have seen him look terribly uncomfortable and perfectly at home and it does not seem to be a question of the importance of the speech, it seems more to depend on Bush's level of distraction at the event. Many things tug at the President's attention.
Where you can see his greatness most keenly is in his instinctive understanding of what our place must be in the world and his determination to drive us forward. He is a steady hand on the reins at a time when we must drive forward relentlessly. Any man who has had to lead or who has been led can tell you how important it is to move with determination, purpose and focus. You cannot run a dog-sled, let alone country without those things.
quote:I'm not talking about simple minded truths, I am talking about core truths tested and parsed down with Occam's Razor by long hard won human experience. Values that act as a touchstone for the Right while the Left has embraced a cultural relativism that resembles nothing so much as the core of Crowley's Satanism "Do what thou Wilt" If you want it how can it be wrong?
Hey, hold up a second, champ! In that other thread, you made contemporary Liberalism out to be, essentially, pacifistic and eugenicist fascism.
Completely ignoring the contrived paradox of this prior claim, I have to note that it is not only incompatible with itself, but is also incompatible with your new characterization of liberalism.
Which is it going to be, man? You have to pick one. They're either constrained by collective mores like pacifism and the subjugation of genetic liberties to the State, or they aren't constrained by these mores, instead living by an axiom of purely self-serving autonomy. You've described them both ways, so we deserve a prompt correction and clarification.
Please explain this terrible internal contradiction inherent to your scathing assessment of the Left! I would hate, even for a second, to have to assume that you are engaging in flights of ridiculous hyperbole and livid, tactless generalization!
I'm sure you can fit in your answer sometime during your busy schedule of train-wrecking threads about other people's personal tragedies.
Posts: 15421 | Registered: Aug 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:They're either constrained by collective mores like pacifism and the subjugation of genetic liberties to the State, or they aren't constrained by these mores, instead living by an axiom of purely self-serving autonomy.
Liberals waffle, remember? They do whichever one is polling better at the time. Posts: 37449 | Registered: May 1999
| IP: Logged |
posted
"t couldn't have been THE Muhammad Ali I am thinking of, not if you are 17. " No, it is just an extreamly common name.
Posts: 1332 | Registered: Apr 2005
| IP: Logged |
Your reactions to the people of Iraq are, for the time you are in that country, very relevant.
Given the attitudes you've expressed, I don't see that any of them should trust you to do anything good.
Basically, it sounds to me as if you are saying:
"you people are beneath contempt, but trust me because I'm a US soldier and I am here to fix your miserable country. Oh, and by the way, your religion is false, and I am of the opinion that everything you say and do is directed at the eventual overthrow of everything I hold dear."
Does this about sum it up, or have I left something out?
Posts: 22497 | Registered: Sep 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
You know... if you speak in terms of Left vs. Right, I suspect you don't really know thy enemy at all.
Posts: 8120 | Registered: Jul 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
No, It would better be expressed as "I am of the opinion that everything you say or do is a lie motivated by self interest" Would express it better, except the part where I felt "I will still try to make something out of this garbage dump because I am following a Commander and Chief that obviously sees some value in your worthless hides, and I will be as kind and gentle about it as I am expected to be even though my job would be a lot easier if I could just beat the truth out of you and find out where the people holding your peace and prosperity hostage are shacked up..."
That would describe it better...except my feeling about their personal hygiene, work ethic, personal courage, parenting and treatment of spouses, which I have expressed in the past.
posted
I think it's a "Commander-in-Chief," for the record.
Also, given that a significant portion of Hatrackers aren't American, I think less boasting about manifest destiny and Bush would be in order. Not everyone is in favour of America ruling the world, or even policing it.
Posts: 2849 | Registered: Feb 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
Boasting? I was opening my heart and sharing, is that not what Liberals think will solve all our problems? Wait maybe what the world needs is self discipline enough to keep you from following its dangerous impulses? Naa... Party on dudes...!
quote:Originally posted by Bean Counter: I am puzzled to be here agreeing with the host of this board knowing that the loudest and most prolific members despise his insights and consider them to be foolish or at best mistaken. I think this is a strange place for so many liberals to wash ashore.
BC
Obviously all kinds of nasty things "wash ashore" here at Hatrack.
Thanks for having an open mind. Posts: 9912 | Registered: Nov 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Bean Counter: Boasting? I was opening my heart and sharing, is that not what Liberals think will solve all our problems? Wait maybe what the world needs is self discipline enough to keep you from following its dangerous impulses? Naa... Party on dudes...!
BC
"Opening your heart" is one thing you have NEVER done here. You come into everything with an agenda, you never seem to give an effort to learn from anyone else here, you never contribute to any dialogue in a meaningful way.
I say dialogue, because I think you contribute to long strings of your own thoughts punctuated by we little people with our insignificant little opinions. This isn't an open heart. Just because you say what you believe doesn't mean you are prepared to HEAR what other people believe and try, just TRY to respond meaningfully to how other people feel.
Your heart isn't open. Your mind isn't open. Your mouth is open, and I wish it was like the rest of you.
Posts: 9912 | Registered: Nov 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Boasting? I was opening my heart and sharing, is that not what Liberals think will solve all our problems? Wait maybe what the world needs is self discipline enough to keep you from following its dangerous impulses? Naa... Party on dudes...!
BC
You contradict yourself in nearly every sentence. The world needs self-discipline to keep others from doing something?
You do not understand your enemy, especially relative to liberals. Liberals do not believe that "sharing'n'caring" is the proper course for everything. They DO believe that self-discipline (in a way) is achieved through education, experience, and verifiable information from knowledgable sources. An actualized individual can adapt these experiences into a plan of action to address new challenges.
I think conservatives like yourself believe that discipline is very important. (Both discipline/control from an authority figure--e.g. your dedication to the causes championed by Mr. Bush even if you don't agree with them-- and self-discipline, which is the ability for a grown-up to transform the instruction about what is right/wrong he received from a parent/leader/moral authority into a steadfast moral code that he can live by, avoiding those "dangerous impulses.") Correct me if I'm wrong, please.
This ideology is dangerous, I think, because of the fallibility of the moral authority. I think that your trust/confidence in Mr. Bush is misplaced, and nearly the entire world would agree with that. This ideology lends itself to broad generalizations (e.g. arab hygiene) based in a view of the world with a few dozen less shades of gray. That's why you reject liberals as waffling share-n-carers, because you badly misunderstand the way their whole life is structured.
quote:Perhaps it is the campaign of lies by the Left that makes liberals so sensitive to pointing to deception as political practice. Yet they must have some grudging respect for truth since they know that the best way to attack the Right is to accuse it of deception over and over at great cost and with no measurable pattern of deception uncovered.
If you think there's no measurable pattern of deception uncovered than you are the one who is deceived and you are the deceiver (whether knowingly or not--i think "not"). Very very badly. Just because we don't yet know the full scale of the deception does not mean that we can not describe and prove concrete events already in our knowledge.
Posts: 1592 | Registered: Jan 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
Perhaps this would be a good time to mention that most people do not wish to see the truth. To believe something, one must first be willing to believe it. The truth, in most cases, is very hard to accept and so most people opt for the easier route.
Posts: 993 | Registered: Jul 2006
| IP: Logged |
posted
So given that you believe the way you do-that you're a violently angry bigot, by your own words-why should Iraqis speak truthfully and cooperate with you specifically again, Bean Counter?
If you were confronted with someone who believed about you, the way you believe about them, don't ask me to believe you would behave any differently if not worse.
Why haven't you been banned again? You're routinely, openly bigoted and hateful. You're routinely rude and insulting to other posters, multiple times in a given week. You do not listen and take seriously anything people aside from yourself say. You frequently lie about religions and groups of people.
You bring nothing to the table. No one's day is brightened or improved by your presence. People do not learn anything from you, other than how not to behave. You delight in heaping contempt and abuse on different-minded people, and boasting about yourself.
Couldn't you just use a mirror?
Edit: I do not speak for everyone, of course. But I have never, not even once, heard someone say something positive about you. There have been some widely disliked people around here, but that has never happened before. If anyone feels differently, by all means help me out-I'm not a fan of not having anything nice to say.
Posts: 17164 | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
Also, I think OSC is sadly wrong about some points in his essay, particularly about civillian casualties.
quote:Since Hezbollah hides among civilians, there is no way Israel can defend itself except by making attacks where civilians are bound to be hurt or killed. This is not a matter that is Israel's to choose. They did not decide to put Hezbollah's military capability entirely in civilian territory. It is Hezbollah that decided to use its own civilians as shields.
So when Israel enters "Lebanese territory" to find and destroy the stockpiles of missiles prepared to strike its cities, it is acting entirely within international law. Every civilian casualty that occurs during this operation is entirely the responsibility of Hezbollah, which decided as a matter of policy to expose its civilians to harm.
If we were in that situation, we would not hesitate for a moment. But for some reason, Israel is expected to show superhuman restraint. Its soldiers are expected never to hurt a civilian on the other side.
If I were in charge of giving the order to drop bombs, shells and rockets on the apartment buildings of thousands of civillians, I would show some pretty damn strong restraint. I do not understand why the US, UK and Israel do not want to call for a cease fire, despite the fact that they are the only three countries in the entire world with that position. A cease fire goes both ways. Considering that the act of aggression that started this war was the capture of two Israeli soldiers inside Lebanon by Hezbollah and not the firing of rockets into civillian areas, I think a cease fire at this point would be at least a step in the right direction.
Hezbollah does not hide among civillians by design, that is where they come from. Civillians that have enough rage at their situation that they want to kill innocents are those who become terrorists. When you wantonly kill innocent civillians, that is terrorism. When a government is responsible for the wanton massacre of civillians, it is state-sponsored terrorism. And when a thousand shells have landed in Lebanon for every Hezbollah rocket fired in this war, it is a pretty shabby excuse for a war.
Terrorism is a tactic, not a people, and it is an evil tactic. It is aggression against a civillian population that breeds terrorism and it is only restraint, fairness and cooperation that can end it.
Apparently our "culture of life" doesn't extend to the Arabs who make their home in south Lebanon, either in OSC's or in Bean Counter's estimation, and that is disappointing. Please work today to stop the fighting and search for a true end to terrorism, which will only come from a plan that cuts out the roots of the terrorist movement. Those roots are not the people who are currently terrorists, they are the conditions that future terrorists are so angry at today. More violence will drive more people to violence, and then the only people who win are those who manufacture bombs and rockets.
Approximately one third of the Lebanese people who have died in this war are children.
Posts: 1592 | Registered: Jan 2001
| IP: Logged |
quote:Hezbollah does not hide among civillians by design, that is where they come from.
Just because they come from an apartment building filled with people does not mean they must operate from there. Unless you believe Hezbollah is stupid, you cannot imagine this hasn't occurred to them.
"We're the only three nations" that feel this way is just another way of saying, "Do this because everyone else is doing it." Hardly a persuasive argument.
Israel has had cease fires with its enemies before. They last about as long as American treaties with Indians (now Native Americans) lasted: up until it was time for the Indians to get screwed again.
Just because the final act of aggression which started the war was one thing, does not mean that it is the only thing which must be addressed for a cease-fire.
What Israel is doing is not state-sponsored terrorism, it is attempting to fight an enemy entrenched and dispersed within a civilian population which is willing to spend the lives of its own neighbors to further its cause.
Maybe you would prefer it if Israel did not utilize its military except when only its enemies would be hurt. I am certain that its enemies would prefer that, for it would grant them victory by default.
Posts: 17164 | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged |
quote:Just because they come from an apartment building filled with people does not mean they must operate from there. Unless you believe Hezbollah is stupid, you cannot imagine this hasn't occurred to them.
Like I said, terrorism is a tactic, not a people. It is practiced by people (criminals) who have no official base of operations. Their activity is criminal in every country. This is what chooses their location. The proper way to combat this crime is a police action, not war.
quote:which is willing to spend the lives of its own neighbors to further its cause.
How do you reason that? That seems pretty counterintuitive. What do you believe Hezbollah's cause to be if it is not the betterment of these people's lives? (edit: one of their stated goals IS in fact the destruction of the state of Israel, as the group arose as opposition to the Israeli occupation of southern Lebanon after the 1982 war. They also want the creation of an Islamic state through democratic means--both these are construed as efforts for the betterment of people's lives through the removal of the threat they see from Israel and through the creation of what they believe to be the ideal form of government)
quote:"We're the only three nations" that feel this way is just another way of saying, "Do this because everyone else is doing it." Hardly a persuasive argument.
True, but my point isn't that everybody is doing it, it's that it is the right thing to do. Why not call for a cease fire? The worst thing that can happen is that somebody breaks it.
[ July 24, 2006, 08:10 AM: Message edited by: Nato ]
Posts: 1592 | Registered: Jan 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
I have stayed out of the recent arguments about the current situation in Israel for a number of reasons, but I too cannot let that pass without comment.
Hezbollah knows exactly what they are doing, including where the operate from, and where they go to hide after they launch their missiles.
Posts: 15082 | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged |
But if you call for a cease fire and Hezbollah breaks it, do you really think they'll get that much more public support?
They can only win support in this situation, because the people will view it (whether rightly or wrongly) as a justified resistance.
Posts: 1592 | Registered: Jan 2001
| IP: Logged |
quote:Edit: I do not speak for everyone, of course. But I have never, not even once, heard someone say something positive about you. There have been some widely disliked people around here, but that has never happened before. If anyone feels differently, by all means help me out-I'm not a fan of not having anything nice to say.
Well, if I were hired by a Democratic Party organization to seed viral social marketing to benefit liberal voting strength, I would positively gush over Bean Counter's particular and enthusiastic championing of pro-Right factions.
I would copy his every post, and hand them out in fliers and display them on spreadsheets.
"This man," I would say, "is magnificent. He is our savior. Study him. Know him. By this time next week, I want him used as a model for what we want to associate Conservatism with. Go."
Posts: 15421 | Registered: Aug 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Samprimary: "This man," I would say, "is magnificent. He is our savior. Study him. Know him. By this time next week, I want him used as a model for what we want to associate Conservatism with. Go."
a little lesson in "know thy enemy" for the Democrats?
They certainly could use it, as they don't seem to understand why they keep losing elections and what they need to do to fix it.
Posts: 1592 | Registered: Jan 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
Of course they'll still have support, because people will still criticize Israel for taking action against them which harms Lebanese civilians.
You certainly would for one, and have already.
quote:Like I said, terrorism is a tactic, not a people. It is practiced by people (criminals) who have no official base of operations. Their activity is criminal in every country. This is what chooses their location. The proper way to combat this crime is a police action, not war.
Depending on armament and motivations, criminals can become soldier-criminals or warmongers or warlords or terrorists, not just criminals. Unless you define a criminal as everyone who does something illegal.
It would be nice if Israel engaged in 'police-action' to combat Hezbollah, wouldn't it? Much like acting only when they can guarantee no civilian casualties-something apparently you insist on-it would guarantee only that Hezbollah would continue such attacks, and that Israel would fail to find and stop them.
I believe Hezbollah's cause has a lot more to do with destroying Israel than it does improving the lives of 'its' people-by the way, are 'their' people's lives improved before, or after, they launch an attack from Lebanese territory, and then flee into a Lebanese population center and use Lebanese civilian transportation routes to maneuver?
Bettering the lives of their people is certainly one of their goals. It is clearly not their first goal.
There are worse things that can happen in a cease-fire. Israeli prisoners getting moved to friendly Iran, for example! You remember them, right? Hezbollah resting and recuperating and preparing for further action, for another. Reinforcements moving in, further fortifying their positions.
It's difficult to take you seriously when you say things like the 'worst' that could happen is that 'someone'-as if it would not most likely be Hezbollah-would break the cease-fire.
So you'll have to come back to the question of why having a cease-fire right now would be the right thing to do, aside from all the cool countries are doing it.
Posts: 17164 | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Rakeesh: Of course they'll still have support, because people will still criticize Israel for taking action against them which harms Lebanese civilians.
You certainly would for one, and have already.
I don't support Hezbollah, although I do criticize the recent actions of Israel as I criticize the entire mindset of the "war on terror." I think terrorism should be combatted as a cooperative policing effort, not as an offensive war.
quote: Unless you define a criminal as everyone who does something illegal.
Ummmm... what is your definition of a criminal if it is not "someone who does something illegal?" Am I missing something?
quote: It would be nice if Israel engaged in 'police-action' to combat Hezbollah, wouldn't it? Much like acting only when they can guarantee no civilian casualties-something apparently you insist on-it would guarantee only that Hezbollah would continue such attacks, and that Israel would fail to find and stop them.
A police action against Hezbollah is necessary, but not from Israel (I doubt the Lebanese people would view that as justice, which is the proper remedy for a crime). Lebanon's government must be heavily assisted in carrying this out (they don't seem to be able to handle it on their own). I think this assistance should arrive in the form of an international presence, in accord with Lebanon's government.
quote:I believe Hezbollah's cause has a lot more to do with destroying Israel than it does improving the lives of 'its' people-by the way, are 'their' people's lives improved before, or after, they launch an attack from Lebanese territory, and then flee into a Lebanese population center and use Lebanese civilian transportation routes to maneuver?
Yeah, they do have some motivations that I certainly don't agree with. (Who would agree with terrorism?), although I think that as their movement sprung up as resistance to what they saw as Israeli-perpetrated atrocities, the anti-Israel element of the Lebanese population is the group they draw their support from.
quote:Bettering the lives of their people is certainly one of their goals. It is clearly not their first goal.
I would agree with you in part. However, I think that they would certainly settle for a great improvement in living conditions, including security (then they would be able to persue the creation of the Islamic state they desire).
quote:There are worse things that can happen in a cease-fire. Israeli prisoners getting moved to friendly Iran, for example! You remember them, right? Hezbollah resting and recuperating and preparing for further action, for another. Reinforcements moving in, further fortifying their positions.
Iran doesn't want to be drawn into this war, although I will remind you that Iran has a mutual defense agreement with Syria, so if Syria is attacked, Iran may enter the conflict. I believe that they do not desire this despite the rhetoric of their President. I will remind you that the only countries that voted against cease fire are Israel, the US and the UK.
quote:It's difficult to take you seriously when you say things like the 'worst' that could happen is that 'someone'-as if it would not most likely be Hezbollah-would break the cease-fire.
I do doubt that Hezbollah would break a cease fire at this point. (Israeli troops should also be withdrawn to the border, now that they have entered Lebanon however). I believe some settling down could occur, and perhaps fighting would not break out again. At the very very least, civillians would have time to escape.
quote:So you'll have to come back to the question of why having a cease-fire right now would be the right thing to do, aside from all the cool countries are doing it.
A cease fire stops civillians on both sides from being killed as long as it lasts. With bridges and roads out, it will be difficult enough for civillians to escape the area.
Posts: 1592 | Registered: Jan 2001
| IP: Logged |
You insist that a cease fire is the wrong choice, partly because you think Hezbollah would certainly be the one to break it. Why do you think Hezbollah would break a cease fire at this point? It would surely cause Israel to continue its bombing/shelling/invading.
Hezbollah seems to have a small advantage now, playing the role of the persecuted underdog fighting back. If they broke a cease fire and transformed themselves into the pesky mosquito, they would only expect to be slapped.
Furthermore, what these people saw as violent aggression from Israel is what started the Hezbollah movement, and it is what gives the terrorists strength today. Pretty much, if you play their game, they've already won. Or at least they position themselves for a big comeback later with even broader public support.
Consider how this looks to the Lebanese population for a moment. Israel is bombing their homes, killing civillians en masse there and while they try to flee. I just don't think Israel has the moral high ground necessary to be the police force here. In a cease fire, Lebanon must call in an international presence to help neutralize Hezbollah and negotiate terms with Israel. Israel CERTAINLY has a right to not be hit by rockets, and that must be attained, but it does not have the right to occupy Lebanon. From the point of view of a Lebanese citizen who has seen dozens of innocent civillians die, an Israeli occupation would only incite rage and more terrorism.
I am sympathetic to the needs of the Israeli nation, but I insist that they do not have the moral authority necessary to try to eliminate Hezbollah on their own. The ceasing of terrorist attacks on Israel and the return of the captured soldiers must be negotiated in a cease fire. They are not going to get them back any other way.
edit: I've got to go now... I'll try to check back once later this morning, but I'll likely be unable to give any full responses until tonight or tomorrow. Please do not construe my remarks as any support for Hezbollah. I am merely trying, in the spirit of this thread to understand the motivations of the parties in this conflict and offer what I think I know to you. I strongly believe that this war is unjust and disproportionate and that a cease fire should be immediately called so as to try to negotiate some sort of settlement that at least prevents more wholesale deaths of civillians.
[ July 24, 2006, 09:02 AM: Message edited by: Nato ]
Posts: 1592 | Registered: Jan 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
I'm pretty swamped this morning and afternoon too. What Internet time I've got will probably have to be snuck in between work and school, so I expect I'll be back to this thread mid-afternoon or tomorrow also, so no problem:)
Posts: 17164 | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged |
quote: Hezbollah seems to have a small advantage now, playing the role of the persecuted underdog fighting back. If they broke a cease fire and transformed themselves into the pesky mosquito, they would only expect to be slapped.
Except that the 'pesky mosquito' would be killing Israeli Citizens when it broke whatever cease fire that was brokered. A call for a cease fire and negotiation in this part of the world is identical with a time out to regroup and bring up the reserves. Why should Israel give up the initiative and momentum they have worked hard to create?
quote: Hezbollah does not hide among civillians by design, that is where they come from. Civillians that have enough rage at their situation that they want to kill innocents are those who become terrorists. When you wantonly kill innocent civillians, that is terrorism. When a government is responsible for the wanton massacre of civillians, it is state-sponsored terrorism. And when a thousand shells have landed in Lebanon for every Hezbollah rocket fired in this war, it is a pretty shabby excuse for a war.
Not true, it is a tactic, like using Mosques to fire missiles from, thus forcing Israel to clobber a Mosque, it is a way to create press which is always a secondary consideration to the Islamofacist, a loss can generate a boost in membership if they can spin it right.
We (The US) want Hezbollah destroyed, not intact to regroup and retrench six miles north. It is not in the interest of that objective to call for Israel to cease fire, it is in the interest of that objective to let Israel finish the job, then move in and make sure it stays finished while we help the real Lebanese government rebuild and establish real security.
Sure people are dying in Lebanon, it is a shame they chose to bury their heads in fear and hope that violence would pass them by, (which it does for the majority) instead of taking responsibility and destroying the criminals in their midst, they have let the criminals into the core of their Government where they could paralyze the will of the people. This is just the price of letting someone else clean up a mess that they (all Lebanon) are collectively responsible for.
posted
For those who don't remember the post a while ago that said I'd lock a thread that was out of hand even if it returned to productivity by the time I returned to the computer, this is an example for you of one of those lockings. Again, my apologies to the good apples.
Topic Closed
Printer-friendly view of this topic
![[Wink]](wink.gif)
![[Evil Laugh]](graemlins/evillaugh.gif)
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
" No, it is just an extreamly common name.
![[Big Grin]](biggrin.gif)
![[Roll Eyes]](rolleyes.gif)
![[Frown]](frown.gif)
Terrorism sucks.
