The Middle East Continues...

[GePap]

Originally posted by notyoueither
As obviuosly truthful as your very next statement.

Wait, were did the Iraqi chemical weapons end up? Syria, wasn;t it?

Time and time again your statements or predictions about the ME have proven off the mark.

Too bad they already have gained peace by convincing neighbours that the military was no longer an acceptable option, depending on who you read.

This crap again? :sigh:

Israel negotiated peace with Egypt and Jordan. Neither signed peace under the gun. Egypt for example not only got back all its territory, but billions in US dollars a year. Israel will only get peace with the rest of its neighbors through negotiations.

As far as effectiveness is concerned, this isn't over yet. I hope it is, and if my hope is confirmed Israel's recent actions will force real changes in Lebanon. If my hopes are dashed, which is likely, it is only a matter of time before this begins anew because I don't expect a Hezbollah leopard to change its spots.

And if Israel attacks again, they only legitimize Hizbullah more. After all, Hizbullah is "the resistance."

So, Saudis chose to fly across the big pond and hurl themselves at buildings while wrapped in airplanes because they feel the Saudi state is illegitimate?

Actually, YES. AQ is one of the biggest enemies of the House of Saud, who views the monarchy as illegitimate for bringing infidels into the Holy Land.

And AQ being practically part of the Taliban government sponsored these 'NGO' actions because they were unhappy with the legitimacy of the government of Afghanistan?

The Taliban was not recognized by any but three other states as the legitimate government of Afghanistan. And since the Taliban viewed themselves as an Islamic state, they fit the notion of legitimate governance backed by AQ.

You have just called the government of Lebanon illegitimate and asserted that Hezbollah are. Why do you care that the neighbour who was the target of the 'legitimate' authority in Lebanon created a state of war between the states and Israel obliged by making war on Lebanon at the invitation of the only 'legitimate' authority in the country?

:sigh: My god....

To answer you "question", Israel's actions were not only ineffective, but the responses and the force used by Israel in respose to the initial Hizbullah action was inappropriate - it was too often indiscriminate, disproportionate, and took too little stock of the lives of civilians.

[notyoueither]

Originally posted by GePap


Wait, were did the Iraqi chemical weapons end up? Syria, wasn;t it?

Time and time again your statements or predictions about the ME have proven off the mark.

Do you have me confused with someone else?

Are you so lame that you need to cling to perceived advantages in years old arguments to prop yourself up?

Too bad they already have gained peace by convincing neighbours that the military was no longer an acceptable option, depending on who you read.

This crap again? :sigh:

Israel negotiated peace with Egypt and Jordan. Neither signed peace under the gun. Egypt for example not only got back all its territory, but billions in US dollars a year. Israel will only get peace with the rest of its neighbors through negotiations.

Yes, this crap.

You have yet to explain what led states who wanted Israel wiped off the map to make peace.

Of course negotiations were required, Duh! However, what led to the acceptance of negotiations? Was it a sudden change in opinion about Israel on the street? Was it that Sadat and Hussein became better human beings? Was it faeries?

As far as effectiveness is concerned, this isn't over yet. I hope it is, and if my hope is confirmed Israel's recent actions will force real changes in Lebanon. If my hopes are dashed, which is likely, it is only a matter of time before this begins anew because I don't expect a Hezbollah leopard to change its spots.

And if Israel attacks again, they only legitimize Hizbullah more. After all, Hizbullah is "the resistance."

But wait, you say Hezbollah is already legitimate.

Which is it? Are Hezbollah the legitimate power in S Lebanon, and hence legitimate in making acts of war on a foreign power, or are they not?

Apparently, according to you the local chapter of the Bangor, Maine NRA would be legitimate in invading New Brunswick to 'free the people' from their evil, gun-controlling government.

So, Saudis chose to fly across the big pond and hurl themselves at buildings while wrapped in airplanes because they feel the Saudi state is illegitimate?

Actually, YES. AQ is one of the biggest enemies of the House of Saud, who views the monarchy as illegitimate for bringing infidels into the Holy Land.

What does that have to do with the price of Walmart on the NYSE?

Their own government is illegitimate, therefore they are legitimate in the use of force... against a completely different country!

And AQ being practically part of the Taliban government sponsored these 'NGO' actions because they were unhappy with the legitimacy of the government of Afghanistan?

The Taliban was not recognized by any but three other states as the legitimate government of Afghanistan. And since the Taliban viewed themselves as an Islamic state, they fit the notion of legitimate governance backed by AQ.

But AQ certainly recognised the Taliban as legitimate. Why then act out in other countries in such a way as to bring the destruction of the Taliban government?

:sigh: My god....

You don't invoke Him nearly as gracefully or reasonably as Ben does.

To answer you "question", Israel's actions were not only ineffective, but the responses and the force used by Israel in respose to the initial Hizbullah action was inappropriate - it was too often indiscriminate, disproportionate, and took too little stock of the lives of civilians.

Why?

The 'legitimate' power in S Lebanon started a hot war. The Israelis were a good deal less disporportionate than the level of force available would have allowed them to be.

I might hazard that the israelis were positively restrained in their response to an act of war by the 'legitimate' power in Lebanon.

What it all boils down to is that Israel is wrong, no matter what the case is. The country should go away and stop bothering you. That's what is amounts to, doesn't it?

[Flip McWho]

It's always interesting how the same people square of in these types of threads and nobody will ever give ground.

Intellectual masturbation

[notyoueither]

*fap, fap, fap*

[GePap]

Originally posted by notyoueither
Do you have me confused with someone else?

Are you so lame that you need to cling to perceived advantages in years old arguments to prop yourself up?

I am pointing out that you have a poor track record with knowing what the hell is going on in the ME. NOthing has changed in that respect over the past few years.

Yes, this crap.

You have yet to explain what led states who wanted Israel wiped off the map to make peace.

Of course negotiations were required, Duh! However, what led to the acceptance of negotiations? Was it a sudden change in opinion about Israel on the street? Was it that Sadat and Hussein became better human beings? Was it faeries?

Last time I looked, after the 1973 war Saddat stayed in power and Golda Meir got the boot. While Israel was in the end militarily successful vs. Egypt on the field, the bloody cost for Israel, the fact the Isarelis needed emergency materials form the US, and the fact that the Egyptians had crossed the Suez Canal were seen as vcitories in Egypt and failures of the IDF. Saddat then went into the peace negotiations from a position of political strength.

Also, let me in on a basic little secret (actually not a secret at all, but something you seems blind to): Israel is an excuse for most Arab states. They fate Israel as a symbol, but at the end of the day for example the rulers of Egypt have better things to do, like, well, rule Egypt. Same for Jordan. And they all have their little constest of leadership in the Arab world. When Saddat came to power in 1968 IIRC he could have asked for peace after the humiliating 1967 defeat. He didn;t, he planned for the next war, and he got what he wanted. 1973 is not seen as a defeat in Egypt, not like you think it is. Its hard to claim "deterrence" when the other guy does not think he lost.

But wait, you say Hezbollah is already legitimate.

Which is it? Are Hezbollah the legitimate power in S Lebanon, and hence legitimate in making acts of war on a foreign power, or are they not?

Hizbullah is seen as legitimate by the Shiites of southern Lebanon. The people of southern Lebanon see what hizbullah did vs. Israel as a legitimate act of resistance. That is all that matters politically.

Apparently, according to you the local chapter of the Bangor, Maine NRA would be legitimate in invading New Brunswick to 'free the people' from their evil, gun-controlling government.

AARGH! wrong, a wall would be less dense.

THERE IS NO SUCH THING AS TRUE LEGITIMACY! LEGITIMACY IS A FICTION, AN OPINION PEOPLE HOLD. THERE IS NOTHING FUNDAMENTAL OR OBJECTIVE THAT BESTOWS LEGITIMACY UPON ANYTHING!!!

Anyone who claims legitimacy must have a reason to claim it. Any group trying to govern must give a reason for its legtimacy. Israel for example claims it legtimacy on a couple of pillars:
1. Zionism, or the notion of Jewish nationalism, which is essentially tied to the notion of national self-determination
2. A series of documents and agreements amongst world powers and world organizations that bestowed land for a Jewish national state.

For the Palestinians both those reason are illegtimate, because:
1. They aren;t Jews, so what legitimacy does Jewish nationalism have for them?
2. Those powers never followed the notion on national self-determination for the people who were living in that land bestowed to a Jewish homeland (ie. the Palestinians)

The same applies to hizbullah. Hizbullah's legitimacy in southern Lebanon comes from their actions vs. what was seen by the people of southern Lebanon as the utterly illegtimate Israeli occupation and their shared secterian religious beliefs. All this was bolstered by the fact that Hizbullah came to provide most of the basic services that "government" is supposed to provide. Hence for the people of southern Lebanon, Hizbullah is legitmate. Your actual question is nonsensical.

Their own government is illegitimate, therefore they are legitimate in the use of force... against a completely different country!

If that completely different country is the one that arms the regime, and stations troops there to protect it, YES!

But AQ certainly recognised the Taliban as legitimate. Why then act out in other countries in such a way as to bring the destruction of the Taliban government?

The destruction of the Taliban government (or better said, the loss of Taliban control over most but not all of Afghanistan) was a result of actions taken by the US and its afghan allies, not by actiona taken by AQ.

The 'legitimate' power in S Lebanon started a hot war. The Israelis were a good deal less disporportionate than the level of force available would have allowed them to be.

I might hazard that the israelis were positively restrained in their response to an act of war by the 'legitimate' power in Lebanon.

Proportion is based on the actions taken, not the force available. BY your "definition" Hizbullah was retrained because it did launch as m,any rockets as it could into northern Israel and centralIsrael right when they carried out their raid. But that would be a stupid thing to say, now wouldn;t it?

What it all boils down to is that Israel is wrong, no matter what the case is. The country should go away and stop bothering you. That's what is amounts to, doesn't it?

You know what, I am sick of wastng my time at this point trying to make point at your thick skull. Its a wate of time arguing with you. Eli and Siro are FAR more reasonable about the whole thing, and even less biased, as silly as that seems.

So, expect no replies, because if by this point you are incapable of even understading what I am trying to argue, what the **** should I continue?

[notyoueither]

One at a time.

Originally posted by GePap

I am pointing out that you have a poor track record with knowing what the hell is going on in the ME. NOthing has changed in that respect over the past few years.

What exactly can you tell me about my position regarding Saddam and Iraq?

[GePap]

Originally posted by Flip McWho
It's always interesting how the same people square of in these types of threads and nobody will ever give ground.

Intellectual masturbation

Its sort of difficult when one person seems to have a basic problem with reading comprehension!

Since when is saying : X party is more legitimate to the people of a land than Y party the same as saying X Party if THE legitimat power with the power to wage Legitimate acts of war!???

Jesus H. Christ on a cracker.

[DinoDoc]

To claim only states have the legitimacy of using force is to invalidate any and all rebel movements.

Why should I consider this a relevent concern? Rebel movements are by their very nature illegitimate. They aquire legitimacy by winning. I fail to see any value to attaching moral signifigance to the term "legitimacy" in this context especially when it has or at least should have no such connotations.

... and one has to question the decision of the west to limit the ability of the Iraqi state to use force within its own borders to prevent it from eliminating an illegitimate force.

They didn't have to sign the deal. They could have continued the fight.

[notyoueither]

Originally posted by GePap

Yes, this crap.

You have yet to explain what led states who wanted Israel wiped off the map to make peace.

Of course negotiations were required, Duh! However, what led to the acceptance of negotiations? Was it a sudden change in opinion about Israel on the street? Was it that Sadat and Hussein became better human beings? Was it faeries?

Last time I looked, after the 1973 war Saddat stayed in power and Golda Meir got the boot. While Israel was in the end militarily successful vs. Egypt on the field, the bloody cost for Israel, the fact the Isarelis needed emergency materials form the US, and the fact that the Egyptians had crossed the Suez Canal were seen as vcitories in Egypt and failures of the IDF. Saddat then went into the peace negotiations from a position of political strength.

... and knowing that his army had once again had their asses handed to them, despite the careful preparations and equipment to offest Israeli superiority.

Also, let me in on a basic little secret (actually not a secret at all, but something you seems blind to):

let me know what you're rattling on about, and I'll let you in on the secrets that I know.

Israel is an excuse for most Arab states. They fate Israel as a symbol, but at the end of the day for example the rulers of Egypt have better things to do, like, well, rule Egypt. Same for Jordan. And they all have their little constest of leadership in the Arab world. When Saddat came to power in 1968 IIRC he could have asked for peace after the humiliating 1967 defeat. He didn;t, he planned for the next war, and he got what he wanted. 1973 is not seen as a defeat in Egypt, not like you think it is. Its hard to claim "deterrence" when the other guy does not think he lost.

Oh, this secret!

OK. Here's the secret. Shhhhh!

Egyptians might have felt good about the two days they did well against the Israelis. Unfortunately, the government and the president knew all too well that they got beat, badly, again, despite the preparations and the advantages they initially enjoyed.

Do you know what propaganda means? Sadat knew what the people did not know. Ironic maybe, because that disconnect of reality and belief may be what allowed him to 'go to China', for all the good it did his bullet riddled corpse.

Incidently, Sadat was in favour of peace before '73, and he came from the military. Does that tell you anything?

[notyoueither]

Originally posted by GePap


Its sort of difficult when one person seems to have a basic problem with reading comprehension!

Since when is saying : X party is more legitimate to the people of a land than Y party the same as saying X Party if THE legitimat power with the power to wage Legitimate acts of war!???

Jesus H. Christ on a cracker.

Indeed. Some more basic comprehension and less insults all around would be a good thing.

In the mean time, enjoy your crackers. Would you like some crow with them?

[notyoueither]

Originally posted by GePap

But wait, you say Hezbollah is already legitimate.

Which is it? Are Hezbollah the legitimate power in S Lebanon, and hence legitimate in making acts of war on a foreign power, or are they not?

Hizbullah is seen as legitimate by the Shiites of southern Lebanon. The people of southern Lebanon see what hizbullah did vs. Israel as a legitimate act of resistance. That is all that matters politically.

The legitimacy we're talking about isn't granted by being 'seen' in some community within a community, doofus.

[notyoueither]

Originally posted by GePap

Apparently, according to you the local chapter of the Bangor, Maine NRA would be legitimate in invading New Brunswick to 'free the people' from their evil, gun-controlling government.

AARGH! wrong, a wall would be less dense.

THERE IS NO SUCH THING AS TRUE LEGITIMACY! LEGITIMACY IS A FICTION, AN OPINION PEOPLE HOLD. THERE IS NOTHING FUNDAMENTAL OR OBJECTIVE THAT BESTOWS LEGITIMACY UPON ANYTHING!!!

EXCEPT INTERNATIONAL LAW!

BTW, you are a fan of international law, aren't you?

Anyone who claims legitimacy must have a reason to claim it. Any group trying to govern must give a reason for its legtimacy. Israel for example claims it legtimacy on a couple of pillars:
1. Zionism, or the notion of Jewish nationalism, which is essentially tied to the notion of national self-determination
2. A series of documents and agreements amongst world powers and world organizations that bestowed land for a Jewish national state.

2b. They are a state with international recognition. In fact, THEY WERE CREATED BY THE INTERNATIONAL COMMUNITY! HEZBOLLAH WERE NOT!

This is fun!

For the Palestinians both those reason are illegtimate, because:
1. They aren;t Jews, so what legitimacy does Jewish nationalism have for them?
2. Those powers never followed the notion on national self-determination for the people who were living in that land bestowed to a Jewish homeland (ie. the Palestinians)

Right. You've moved onto the Palestinians. That's where I always assumed this was going.

BTW, what does that have to do with Lebanon?

The same applies to hizbullah. Hizbullah's legitimacy in southern Lebanon comes from their actions vs. what was seen by the people of southern Lebanon as the utterly illegtimate Israeli occupation and their shared secterian religious beliefs. All this was bolstered by the fact that Hizbullah came to provide most of the basic services that "government" is supposed to provide. Hence for the people of southern Lebanon, Hizbullah is legitmate. Your actual question is nonsensical.

Assume I grant the legitimacy of Hezbollah. Why not? They've been elected. They do provide the services of a government. Have fun.

OTOH, unlike you, I am expecting the people of Lebanon to live with the consequences of the actions of their 'legitimate' governors. And unlike you, I expect people not make 'nonsensical' arguments about 'disproportionate' responses in a state of war when a few bridges get bombed.

[notyoueither]

Originally posted by GePap
The destruction of the Taliban government (or better said, the loss of Taliban control over most but not all of Afghanistan) was a result of actions taken by the US and its afghan allies, not by actiona taken by AQ.

Wow. You really are far out there and clinging.

Why, pray tell, would the US government have been so concerned about the Taliban government in Afghanistan?

Could it be that AQ was effectively part of that government and that government failed to hand over people involved in the planning and exacution of an attack on the United States?

Are you this dense in reality, or are you just playing for us?

[SlowwHand]

U.N. needs troops to monitor cease-fire

By SAM F. GHATTAS, Associated Press Writer
8 minutes ago

BEIRUT, Lebanon - Israeli commandos raided a Hezbollah stronghold deep in Lebanon on Saturday, engaging in a fierce gunbattle, and the Lebanese government threatened to halt further troop deployments to protest what U.N. officials called a violation of the 6-day-old cease-fire. ADVERTISEMENT



Israel said the raid was launched to stop arms smuggling from
Iran and
Syria to the militant Shiite fighters. An Israeli officer was killed during the raid, and two soldiers were wounded, one seriously.

There were no signs of further clashes, but the flare-up underlined worries about the fragility of the cease-fire as the U.N. pleaded for nations to send troops to an international force in southern Lebanon that is to separate Israeli and Hezbollah fighters.

The office of Secretary-General
Kofi Annan issued a statement later Saturday labeling the operation a violation of the U.N. truce.

A contingent of 49 French soldiers landed in the south Saturday, providing the first reinforcements for the 2,000-strong U.N. peacekeeping mission known as UNIFIL that has been stationed in the region for years. About 200 more were expected next week.

They were the first additions to what is intended to grow into a 15,000-soldier U.N. force to police the truce with an equal number of Lebanese soldiers. France leads UNIFIL and already had 200 soldiers in Lebanon before the reinforcements.

But with Europe moving slowly to provide more troops, Israel warned it would continue to act on its own to enforce an arms embargo on the Lebanese guerrilla group until the Lebanese army and an expanded U.N. peacekeeping force are in place.

"If the Syrians and Iran continue to arm Hezbollah in violation of the resolution, Israel is entitled to act to defend the principle of the arms embargo," Israeli Foreign Ministry spokesman Mark Regev said. "Once the Lebanese army and the international forces are active ... then such Israeli activity will become superfluous."

Defense Minister Elias Murr met with U.N. envoy Terje Roed-Larsen and threatened to halt the movement of Lebanese troops into the former war zone in the south if the
United Nations did not intervene against Israel. That could deeply damage efforts to deploy a strong U.N. peacekeeping force.

"We have put the matter forward in a serious manner and the U.N. delegation was understanding of the seriousness of the situation," Murr told reporters. "We are awaiting an answer."

Israeli Prime Minister Ehud Olmert defended the raid during a phone conversation with U.N. Secretary-General Kofi Annan, saying it was "intended to prevent the re-supply of new weapons and ammunition for Hezbollah," officials said, speaking on condition of anonymity because they weren't authorized to speak publicly on the issue.

The Israeli leader pointed to the importance of the supervision of the Syrian-Lebanese border as well, they said.

The Israeli military also said the raid was launched "to prevent and interfere with terror activity against Israel, especially the smuggling of arms from Iran and Syria to Hezbollah."

The Foreign Ministry spokesman rejected the characterization of the raid as a truce violation, saying the Lebanese army and U.N. peacekeepers must take control of Lebanon's border with Syria to ensure arms don't reach Hezbollah.

"But in the interim, of course, we can't have a situation where endless amounts of weaponry arrive for Hezbollah, so we are forced to act in response to this violation," he said, warning that further incursions could occur.

A statement issued by Annan's spokesman later Saturday said that the U.N. chief spoke with both Lebanese Prime Minister Fuad Saniora and Olmert about the fighting. "The secretary-general is deeply concerned about a violation by the Israeli side of the cessation of hostilities," it said.

"All such violations of Security Council Resolution 1701 endanger the fragile calm that was reached after much negotiation," said the statement, issued by spokesman Stephane Dujarric.

The White House declined to criticize the raid, noting that Israel said it acted in reaction to arms smuggling into Lebanon and that the U.N. resolution calls for the prevention of resupplying Hezbollah with weapons.

"The incident underscores the importance of quickly deploying the enhanced UNIFIL," White House spokeswoman Jeanie Mamo said.

Roed-Larsen said earlier the Lebanese army has deployed more than 1,500 soldiers in three sectors of the south where Israeli forces have left, and the 2,000 peacekeepers of UNIFIL have set up checkpoints and started patrolling the areas.

The broad outlines of the U.N. cease-fire plan call on Hezbollah to halt all attacks and for Israel to stop offensive operations. It gives Israel the right to respond if attacked, but the commandos were flown in by helicopter and the raid took place far from Israeli troops in southern Lebanon.

Israel did not identify the officer killed in the raid. Hezbollah issued a terse statement saying guerrillas "ambushed" the commando force and suffered no casualties. Lebanese security officials said three guerrillas were killed and three wounded.

The security officials said the commandos flew in by helicopter to a hill outside the village of Boudai west of Baalbek in eastern Lebanon, about 17 miles from the Syrian border. Witnesses said Israeli missiles destroyed a bridge during the fighting.

The officials, who spoke on condition of anonymity because they were not authorized to release information to the media, said the Israelis apparently were seeking a guerrilla target in a nearby school but they had no other details.

Lebanese media speculated that Sheik Mohammed Yazbeck, a senior Hezbollah official in the Bekaa Valley and a member of the group's executive council, may have been the target. Yazbeck is a native of Boudai.

The Israeli army denied it had captured any Hezbollah fighter, and said it had not been the raid's objective.

Overflights by Israeli jet fighters drowned out the clatter of helicopters that flew the commandos into the foothills of the central Lebanese mountains, local Hezbollah officials said.

Using two vehicles also delivered by helicopter, the commandos drove into Boudai and were intercepted by Hezbollah fighters in a field, the officials said. They said the Israelis identified themselves as Lebanese soldiers, but the guerrillas grew suspicious and gunfire erupted.

Israeli helicopters fired missiles as the commandos withdrew and flew them out of the area an hour later, the Hezbollah officials said.

Witnesses reported seeing bandages and syringes at the landing site outside Boudai. The bridge that witnesses said was destroyed was about 500 yards from the landing site.

The area in the eastern Bekaa Valley, 60 miles north of the Israeli border, is a major guerrilla stronghold. Baalbek is the birthplace of Hezbollah, a militant Islamic movement that is supported by Iran and Syria.

Hezbollah, meanwhile, buried 55 fighters Friday and Saturday in Haris, Majdel Silim, Bint Jbail, Deir Qanoun and south Beirut, security officials said. Israel claims it killed hundreds of guerrillas during the war. Hezbollah reported 68 deaths.

U.N. Deputy Secretary-General Mark Malloch Brown said more countries needed to join the peacekeeping force. The U.N. wants to have 3,500 soldiers on the ground by Aug. 28 to help police the truce that took effect Monday and ended 34 days of brutal warfare.

Bangladesh, Indonesia, Italy, France and Finland have promised troops. In an effort to encourage more countries to sign on, Annan said the peacekeeping force would not "wage war" on Israel, Lebanon or Hezbollah militants, addressing a key concern of many countries.

The U.N. and Lebanon's government have said Hezbollah will not be allowed to bring weapons out in public, but have declined to commit to trying to disarm the guerrillas, as called for in a September 2004 U.N. resolution.

[notyoueither]

Originally posted by GePap
Proportion is based on the actions taken, not the force available. BY your "definition" Hizbullah was retrained because it did launch as m,any rockets as it could into northern Israel and centralIsrael right when they carried out their raid. But that would be a stupid thing to say, now wouldn;t it?

Yes, it would be a very stupid thing to say, since if the first act had been the launching of rockets into central Israel, the response of the israelis and the rest of the world would have been decidedly different.