Which civilised civilians? The ones who allow terrorists to hide among them? What Democracy? The one run by terrorists (de facto) because the "democratically elected" government cannot or won't control them?
Which civilised civilians? The ones who allow terrorists to hide among them? What Democracy? The one run by terrorists (de facto) because the "democratically elected" government cannot or won't control them?
geni
Anti-homeopathy illuminati member
- Joined
- Oct 14, 2003
- Messages
- 28,209
The marronites. The druze. heh even the sunni for once.
The evidence that they do is somewhat limited.
It isn't run by terroists. It just has certian limits on it's activities in southen lebabon. The situtation is harly unique even in todays world.
a_unique_person
Director of Hatcheries and Conditioning
I guess Israel had plenty of prisoners to exchange, but Hizbullah had none.
peptoabysmal
Illuminator
- Joined
- Sep 27, 2002
- Messages
- 3,466
Yeah, they do that quickly. On the other hand:
Terrorism? What's That?
The UN appears to suffer from the same malady of being incapable of defining terrorists.
Lest I be brought to task with some antiquated UK textbook, let me say that most modern dictionaries contain a line similar to: "esp. illegal violence or destruction perpetrated on civilian populations" in their definition of terrorism.
I would say that the place to draw the line in the sand is where civilians are deliberately targeted for maximum damage, which is in contrast to collateral damage.
I think Hezbollah is more aptly described as a guerrilla warfare organization at this point. In fact, since Hezbollah is not part of the government of Lebanon, would it be fair to say that Hezbollah is an occupying guerrilla army supported by Syria and Iran?
pipelineaudio
Philosopher
- Joined
- Feb 23, 2006
- Messages
- 5,092
Wrong
a_unique_person
Director of Hatcheries and Conditioning
And what was Hezbollah created in response to? The invasion of Southern Lebanon. What did that invasion achieve? Absolutely nothing, except the creation of Hezbollah. What has the present invasion achieved? Still nothing. Israel doesn't seem to be too smart about defending itself.
Mycroft
High Priest of Ed
- Joined
- Sep 10, 2003
- Messages
- 20,501
It was also formed with the purpose of transforming Lebanon into an Iranian style Muslim state.
It should also be noted that the Israeli invasion of Lebanon was not the only catalyst for the formation of Hezbollah, but that Iranian funding and Iranian desire to spread their Shia ideology played a crucial role.
Not at all true. They broke the back of the PLO in southern Lebanon ultimately forcing it out of Lebanon. Denial of Lebanon to the PLO as a military base is very likely what forced them to begin to seek political solutions.
I agree it hasn’t achieved enough.
zenith-nadir
Illuminator
- Joined
- Feb 3, 2004
- Messages
- 4,482
Hezbollah was created to destroy Israel and kick all western influences out of Lebanon - see: American and French peacekeepers. And we both know beyond all resonable doubt that Israel invaded Lebanon previously because the PLO - not Hezbollah - was attacking Israel from Lebanon. It's so well documented that even you cannot deny it.
Wrong again. The invasions in '78 & '82 suceeded in getting Arafat and the PLO kicked out of Lebanon and exiled to Tunis. Freeing Lebanon from the PLO state-within-a-state and ending PLO shelling and raids of northern Israel.
Wrong again. This invasion succeeded in exposing Hezbollah for the Iranian proxy that they are. It also has the potential to free Lebanon from yet another foreign-sponsored militia who has created a state-within-a-state there. It also will make Hezbollah think twice about crossing into Israel to kill people.
The problem a_u_p is not Israel's invasion, which came, if you remember, after Hezbollah crossed the Israeli border and killed 8 soldiers and kidnapped two others. The problem is Hezbollah, islamofacism and countries such as Iran and Syria.
Today in the Mideast, there are three places where militias operate freely within states: Iraq, Gaza and Lebanon. In all three cases, the militias receive political, economic and military backing from Iran.
Those are the problems, not Israel's response to the problems.
p.s. Personally I do not believe Lebanon will free itself from Hezbollah because I truely believe Prime Minister Fuad Seniora is so far up Hassan Nasrallah's butt that the Lebanese government will never disarm Hezbollah. Mark my words.
HeavyAaron
Graduate Poster
- Joined
- Nov 15, 2005
- Messages
- 1,208
Well that's not really what matters, is it? It only matters if the people with the power to make the decisions are better off.
Sure, I agree. Now provide evidense that those locked up ARE reformed. If not or we don't know, the safest option is to keep them locked up. They aren't citizens, so they have no rights for eventual release.
My favorite definition of government is the organization which has the monopoly on the use of force. They may very well meet this definition for some subset of Lebonon. But I'm being kind by not recognizing them as such. If they ARE to be recognized as operating as an official arm of the Lebonese government, then Lebonon has committed acts of war and needs to be toppled.
Those statements are not in contradiction.
They have different values. So? That is an excuse for blackmail? Taking advantage of the fact that Israel cares more about the lives of its people? That's the dumbest argument I've heard in some time. Blackmail is not okay. It's yet another "black mark" against the terrorist thugs.
Aaron
geni
Anti-homeopathy illuminati member
- Joined
- Oct 14, 2003
- Messages
- 28,209
Well the Israelis get their troops back and get some space in their prisons.
No you made the claim they were not. You back that up.
Cool under that defintion there is perhaps a grand total of one goverment on the planet and it runs NK.
Maybe but you would need to provide evidence that they are anything other than yesterdays resistance fighters.
It isn't often I hear the freemarket (suppy and demarnd and all that stuff) described as blackmail.
HeavyAaron
Graduate Poster
- Joined
- Nov 15, 2005
- Messages
- 1,208
Ah, you seem to be confused with the difference between A benifit, verses a net benifit after considering costs.
I don't have to. As long as I don't KNOW they aren't reformed, that's good enough to keep them locked up. The safety is certainly worth the cost of imprisonment.
Burden of proof to release them definately falls on those claiming they are not dangerous to Israel.
Balony. The military and police forces are not privatized in virtually EVERY state.
No I don't.
Then you listen to lies. In a free market all transactions are freely entered into by all parties. Any coersion is by definition not a free market transaction.
Try kidnapping and ransoming off people in your neighborhood and try that out in your court trial.
Even contracts signed under duress are considered void by free market courts because it wasn't a freely entered into transaction.
Aaron
geni
Anti-homeopathy illuminati member
- Joined
- Oct 14, 2003
- Messages
- 28,209
The costs would under normal conditions be limited. It isn't as if it hasn't been done before.
You made the claim you back it up.
They rarely have a manopoly on force. Just ask the IRA. Or ETA. Or the mafia. Or the Triads.
You claimed they were scum you need to provide evidence to back this up.
Isreal is free not the enter into the transation
That would because it was established in 1772 in R. v. Knowles, ex parte Somerset that slavery is not allowed under English common law.
Again Israel is free to chose not to trade. Hammas is aparently under some duress (trade for nothing or we will try and kill you) but they are used to that by now.
HeavyAaron
Graduate Poster
- Joined
- Nov 15, 2005
- Messages
- 1,208
And I hope they've learned from their mistakes.
Well, that would be black market uses of force, wouldn't it?
Fine, you want to get that picky, I'll reduce the strength of my claim, to "We don't know they all aren't scum." Happy?
Obviously. And I'm arguing they shouldn't. That doesn't make it a transaction that is being offered free of blackmail or duress.
Yay! Lots of laws exist to protect the free market.
Hammas? Are we trading groups of thugs here?
Shocking, though, isn't it? Criminals are being threatened with force? Your equivocation between illegal uses of force and legal uses of force do not impress me.
Aaron
geni
Anti-homeopathy illuminati member
- Joined
- Oct 14, 2003
- Messages
- 28,209
Mistakes? I doubt it. The ocupation was over but the jails were still full of people. They would probably have been released anyway at some point.
In that case there is the likes of group 4 and securicor. On a more extream lever there are the likes of Sandline International and Aegis Defense Systems
There are very few groups we don't know that about.
Isreal is free to accept or refuse.
Historicaly the idea of a free market in slaves is far from uncommon.
Criminals legaly that is an interesting one. I am not aware of any court with the logical jursitiction reaching that conclusion.
The problem is though that it is not just Hezbollah being threatened with force is it?
So you appeal to law. Why does the law inherinatly decide morality? That position runs into the problem that since there are different legal systems you have a hard time explaining all the differences.
Hezbollah's action under lebanese law are a matter that is yet to be deiced. Israels actions are of course legal under Isreali law. Under international law Isreal is not allowed to enter lebanese airspace but they have been doing that for long enough for it to become a tradition. Hezbollah is not allowed to shot at Israeli planes but it is not as if they ever hit any.
Elind
Philosopher
Can anyone tell the difference between a post from demon and one by a spokesman from Hizbullah, Hamas, Al Zarqawi (demon says "vive la resistance!!!), or any other islamists?
Elind
Philosopher
He wasn't when demon made the comment of support for his group. I doubt that fact has changed anything however.
Last edited:
Rob Lister
Unregistered
- Joined
- Apr 1, 2004
- Messages
- 8,504
The ironically sad part about that is that it might work.
webfusion
Philosopher
- Joined
- Nov 16, 2004
- Messages
- 9,795
Jackson is in direct communication with the Syrian Ambassador in Washington DC, Iyad Moustapha.
http://www.latimes.com/news/nationw...t,1,7045078.story?coll=sns-ap-world-headlines
While he's at it, maybe get the Syrians to pressure the HAMAS leadership in Damascus to release Cpl. Shalit as well?
http://www.latimes.com/news/nationw...t,1,7045078.story?coll=sns-ap-world-headlines
While he's at it, maybe get the Syrians to pressure the HAMAS leadership in Damascus to release Cpl. Shalit as well?
ZN:
"Today in the Mideast, there are three places where militias operate freely within states: Iraq, Gaza and Lebanon. In all three cases, the militias receive political, economic and military backing from Iran."
Hezbollah's relative victory appears to have you rattled...makes you turn to a little plagiarism eh?
quote:
Iran`s Militia Mayhem
By David Makovsky
New York Daily News, August 14, 2006
...Today in the Mideast, there are three places where militias operate freely within states: Iraq, Gaza and Lebanon. In all three cases, the militias receive political, economic and military backing from Iran...
http://www.washingtoninstitute.org/templateC06.php?CID=962
"Today in the Mideast, there are three places where militias operate freely within states: Iraq, Gaza and Lebanon. In all three cases, the militias receive political, economic and military backing from Iran."
Hezbollah's relative victory appears to have you rattled...makes you turn to a little plagiarism eh?
quote:
Iran`s Militia Mayhem
By David Makovsky
New York Daily News, August 14, 2006
...Today in the Mideast, there are three places where militias operate freely within states: Iraq, Gaza and Lebanon. In all three cases, the militias receive political, economic and military backing from Iran...
http://www.washingtoninstitute.org/templateC06.php?CID=962