babble home
rabble.ca - news for the rest of us
today's active topics


Post New Topic  Post A Reply
FAQ | Forum Home
  next oldest topic   next newest topic
» babble   » current events   » international news and politics   » Remove Hizbollah from the terrorist org list!

Email this thread to someone!    
Author Topic: Remove Hizbollah from the terrorist org list!
Noise
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 12603

posted 21 August 2006 08:13 AM      Profile for Noise     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
CBC as well as 2 headlines on Calgary papers has this story... And all I can say it's about time! Some recognition that calling a group terrorists will hurt diplomatic relations with them (who'da guessed).

quote:
Boris Wrzesnewskyj and Peggy Nash made the comments Sunday during a fact-finding mission to southern Lebanon as Israeli troops continue to withdraw from the region following 34 days of conflict.

From people who have been there and seen what Hizbollah is. The designation of Hizbollah as a terror organization only hurts any reconcill efforts and it's a fantastic step... If they are listened to.


From: Protest is Patriotism | Registered: May 2006  |  IP: Logged
Proaxiom
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 6188

posted 21 August 2006 08:49 AM      Profile for Proaxiom     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
They won't be listened to. The Conservative government won't even entertain the suggestion.

And just to put it out there...

Should removing Hezbollah from the list of terrorist groups require that they first fully renounce the use of terrorism?


From: East of the Sun, West of the Moon | Registered: Jun 2004  |  IP: Logged
Cueball
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 4790

posted 21 August 2006 08:52 AM      Profile for Cueball   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
When did they ever officially endorse "terrorism?" Why should the organization retract something it has not espoused.
From: Out from under the bridge and out for a stroll | Registered: Dec 2003  |  IP: Logged
johnpauljones
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 7554

posted 21 August 2006 08:56 AM      Profile for johnpauljones     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Cueball:
When did they ever officially endorse "terrorism?" Why should the organization retract something it has not espoused.

So just to clarify Cueball because I do not want to put words in your mouth.

You are stating that Hezbollah is neither a terrorist organization nor have they committed acts of terror. Is that correct?


From: City of Toronto | Registered: Nov 2004  |  IP: Logged
Petsy
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 12553

posted 21 August 2006 09:01 AM      Profile for Petsy        Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
Because kidnapping soldiers, knifing and killing Israelis in their own sovereign land are clear acts of terrorism.
From: Toronto | Registered: May 2006  |  IP: Logged
Cueball
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 4790

posted 21 August 2006 09:03 AM      Profile for Cueball   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
The only acts of "terrorism" as it is presently defined of which I think there is any evidence that Hezbollah was involved with was the attacks on Jewish institutions in Argentina. However, I note that Argentinians and South Americans are some of the most antisemitic groups of people in the world, so there may be other supects at large.

This is expecially important to consider in the light of the fact that the presiding judge at the trial of the local suspect acomplices of Hezbollah aquitted them.

What precise acts of "terrorism: are you speaking of. And I don't think driving a explosive laden truck into a US marine compound qualifies as "terrorism" under the rather loose defintions that are current.


From: Out from under the bridge and out for a stroll | Registered: Dec 2003  |  IP: Logged
Patrick W. Walker
recent-rabble-rouser
Babbler # 13078

posted 21 August 2006 09:05 AM      Profile for Patrick W. Walker     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
Well, if it wasn't Hezbollah raining rockets into northern Israeli towns, who was?
From: F'cton NB | Registered: Aug 2006  |  IP: Logged
Cueball
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 4790

posted 21 August 2006 09:11 AM      Profile for Cueball   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
So Israelis are allowed to wantonly drop munitions on Lebanon, while Hebollah is not allowed to respond in kind. The recent attacks against Israel, were in direct response to attacks by Israel on civilian targets in Lebanon. One would have to exert and considerable amount of energy into double think in order to reshape that chronology of events.

This recent fracas began with the capture of two Israeli soliders and was followed by a whole series of Israeli attacks killing numerous civilians, to which Hezbollah responded in kind.

But if those facts are inconvenient to the maintenance of your world view, please feel free to adjust them to something that makes you more comfortable.

[ 21 August 2006: Message edited by: Cueball ]


From: Out from under the bridge and out for a stroll | Registered: Dec 2003  |  IP: Logged
Patrick W. Walker
recent-rabble-rouser
Babbler # 13078

posted 21 August 2006 09:22 AM      Profile for Patrick W. Walker     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Cueball:
[QB]So Israelis are allowed to wantonly drop munitions on Lebanon, while Hebollah is not allowed to respond in kind. The recent attacks against Israel, were in direct response to attacks by Israel on civilian targets in Lebanon. One would have to exert and considerable amount of energy into double think in order to reshape that chronology of events.

Yes, I've heard rumours that the Israeli soldiers were captured and killed in Lebanon, and yes you could say Hezbollah was retaliating for the shelling of the entire Palestinian family on a beach, and yes, Hezbollah made a point of increasing rocket attacks as the "IDF" pressed into Lebanon.

That being said, two wrongs NEVER make a right.

Hezbollah would have gotten much more respect if they had refrained from shelling anything OTHER than IDF personnel and just simply continued to make the IDF look bad.

[ 21 August 2006: Message edited by: Patrick W. Walker ]


From: F'cton NB | Registered: Aug 2006  |  IP: Logged
Catchfire
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 4019

posted 21 August 2006 09:29 AM      Profile for Catchfire   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
I don't understand. Patrick, are you arguing that both HIzbollah and Israel are terrorist groups, or that neither are?
From: On the heather | Registered: Apr 2003  |  IP: Logged
Cueball
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 4790

posted 21 August 2006 09:29 AM      Profile for Cueball   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
Well, I am fine with designating military actions that do not take every possible precaution to avoid civilian casualties terrorist, as long as it is consistently applied. In this case, if the Canadian governement can designate Hexbollah as a terrorist organization, then the IDF (if not Israel itself) should be also be so desginated.

I am fine as long as we are consistent in our defintions.

Is it too much to note that Hexbollah was asking for a cease fire almost from day one, while Israel was stalling with the support of the US for over a week?

As for Hexbollah's operational purposes, it seems to me that the counter shelling (and Israel's inabiliity to halt it through military means) was a significant factor in bringing the Israeli offensive to a halt, and I am not at all sure that they really care that much what we think of them, and how they appear in our eyes.

This in itself is an ominous reprecussion of the willy-nilly application of the "terrorist" designation, as it de facto eliminates diplomaitc channels of conflict resolution, (where such things as ones relative PR position have a great deal of importance,) and forces popular organizations like Hezbollah into a corner where military solutions are the only ones that have political currency.

[ 21 August 2006: Message edited by: Cueball ]


From: Out from under the bridge and out for a stroll | Registered: Dec 2003  |  IP: Logged
mersh
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 10238

posted 21 August 2006 09:31 AM      Profile for mersh     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
quote:
I am fine as long as we are consistent in our defintions.

Well, yes. But this requires considering such things as drafting terrorist lists as political practices in their own right.


From: toronto | Registered: Aug 2005  |  IP: Logged
Cueball
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 4790

posted 21 August 2006 09:34 AM      Profile for Cueball   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
The Conceptual Practices of Power as it were.
From: Out from under the bridge and out for a stroll | Registered: Dec 2003  |  IP: Logged
Proaxiom
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 6188

posted 21 August 2006 09:45 AM      Profile for Proaxiom     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
Nasrallah has advocated the killing Israeli civilians.

If Hezbollah does not support or engage in terrorism, it should have no trouble issuing a clear renunciation.

It is true that most of what Hezbollah has done does not constitute terrorism -- in particular, attacking military targets isn't terror -- and AFAIK it has not claimed responsibility for any terror attacks, but there is a clear association between it and terrorism. Especially in its support for Palestinian suicide bombings.

Whether or not Israel also engages in terrorism is a non sequitor. If it does, then Ms Nash and Mr Wrzesnewskyj can argue the government should be added to the list of terror groups.


From: East of the Sun, West of the Moon | Registered: Jun 2004  |  IP: Logged
Cueball
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 4790

posted 21 August 2006 09:46 AM      Profile for Cueball   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
This last is another good point. Because if Nasrallah's support for Palestinian suicide bombers constitutes a "terrorist" act, then Harper's support for Israel's "measured" response is also a terrorist act.

Will the House of Commons demand that Stephen Harper renounce terrorism, before the House of Commons votes on any more bills he proposes in parlimemt?

[ 21 August 2006: Message edited by: Cueball ]


From: Out from under the bridge and out for a stroll | Registered: Dec 2003  |  IP: Logged
Noise
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 12603

posted 21 August 2006 10:06 AM      Profile for Noise     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
Proaxiom:
quote:
Nasrallah has advocated the killing Israeli civilians.

And the IDF hasn't advocated a policy of killing Lebanese civilians? It's really hard to make a distinction towards Hizbollah that you can't make towards the IDF. Go lookup the atrocities being commited by the IDF in Palestine right now and tell me that by your definiation of terror as applied towards Hizbollah doesn't categorize the IDF as the same. Could we get the IDF to renounce terror? No, because the killing of Palestininians isn't considered terror, only the killing of Israelis is terror (I've seen the exception of Arab citizens on Israeli soil is also declared terror)


quote:
If Hezbollah does not support or engage in terrorism, it should have no trouble issuing a clear renunciation

So renounce the American definition of terror, your definition of terror (or mine for that matter), or the reality there? I think you'll find that all 3 of those definitions are exceedingly different. I'm pretty sure the Bush version would include renouncing Islam.

(In their minds) they are not commiting acts of terror (they are firmly committed to this not being terror), this is responding to the Israeli invasion... Remember next to no rockets hit Israel from Hizbollah pre-invasion). What exactly are you asking to be renounced? If anything the Lebanese have issued a firm renunciation of terror, and a united front against those commiting it... the IDF.

[ 21 August 2006: Message edited by: Noise ]


From: Protest is Patriotism | Registered: May 2006  |  IP: Logged
Centerfield
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 13025

posted 21 August 2006 10:25 AM      Profile for Centerfield        Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
quote:
Speaking at a graduation ceremony in Haret Hreik, Nasrallah announced on October 22, 2002: "if they [Jews] all gather in Israel, it will save us the trouble of going after them worldwide. The New York Times qualifies this as "genocidal thinking", whereas the New York Sun likens it to the 1992 Hezbollah statement, which vowed, "It is an open war until the elimination of Israel and until the death of the last Jew on earth." Michael Rubin qualifies his goal as genocide too, quoting Nasrallah ruling out "co-existence with" the Jews or "peace", as "they are a cancer which is liable to spread again at any moment."The Age quotes him like so: "There is no solution to the conflict in this region except with the disappearance of Israel."

Despite declaring "death to Israel" in his public appearances, Nasrallah said in an interview to The New Yorker, "at the end of the road no one can go to war on behalf of the Palestinians, even if that one is not in agreement with what the Palestinians agreed on." When asked whether he was prepared to live with a two-state settlement between Israel and Palestine, he said he would not sabotage what is a Palestinian matter.

In another interview with the Washington Post, Nasrallah said "I am against any reconciliation with Israel. I do not even recognize the presence of a state that is called "Israel." I consider its presence both unjust and unlawful. That is why if Lebanon concludes a peace agreement with Israel and brings that accord to the Parliament our deputies will reject it; Hezbollah refuses any conciliation with Israel in principle.".


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hassan_Nasrallah


Is this really what the NDP wants to stand behind.
I would like to here what Ed Broadbent has to say.

[ 21 August 2006: Message edited by: Centerfield ]


From: Ontario | Registered: Aug 2006  |  IP: Logged
Cueball
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 4790

posted 21 August 2006 10:32 AM      Profile for Cueball   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
Michelle, this poster continuously posts unattributed copyright material to this board without so much as a link for us to devine the source or the veracity of the statements contained therein. Not only is this, I think, a violation of the copyright of the original authors but a disingenous means of pursuing debate by posting unattributed, and unsourced material that more or less could be construed as slander, unless estabished as having a source.
From: Out from under the bridge and out for a stroll | Registered: Dec 2003  |  IP: Logged
Proaxiom
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 6188

posted 21 August 2006 10:33 AM      Profile for Proaxiom     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
I didn't mean renouncing a word under any given definition. If Hezbollah were to sincerely say it opposed the deliberate targeting of civilians under any circumstances, then certainly that would greatly strengthen the case for removing it from the list of terrorist groups.

As for Israel, I still think this is a separate question, since even if the IDF is engaging in terrorism, two wrongs don't make a right.

And I'll ask, since I honestly don't know the answer, to what extent does Israel attack Palestinian civilians, as opposed to killing civilians collaterally while attacking militants?


From: East of the Sun, West of the Moon | Registered: Jun 2004  |  IP: Logged
Cueball
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 4790

posted 21 August 2006 10:36 AM      Profile for Cueball   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
Sorry to interupt. Michelle there is a complaint on this thread.
From: Out from under the bridge and out for a stroll | Registered: Dec 2003  |  IP: Logged
Michelle
Moderator
Babbler # 560

posted 21 August 2006 10:37 AM      Profile for Michelle   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
Sorry, just noticed it now.

Yes, Centrefield, first of all, if you're going to quote something, link to where it comes from. Secondly, do not quote full articles as that is a copyright violation.

Thanks.


From: I've got a fever, and the only prescription is more cowbell. | Registered: May 2001  |  IP: Logged
Cueball
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 4790

posted 21 August 2006 10:39 AM      Profile for Cueball   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Proaxiom:
I didn't mean renouncing a word under any given definition. If Hezbollah were to sincerely say it opposed the deliberate targeting of civilians under any circumstances, then certainly that would greatly strengthen the case for removing it from the list of terrorist groups.

As for Israel, I still think this is a separate question, since even if the IDF is engaging in terrorism, two wrongs don't make a right.

And I'll ask, since I honestly don't know the answer, to what extent does Israel attack Palestinian civilians, as opposed to killing civilians collaterally while attacking militants?


Personally, I reject the whole idea that organizations themselves, should be made illegal by definition. I am in favour of an approach where individuals of organizations are directly liable for the activities of those organizations directly as indivduals for their own criminal behaviour.

I think the idea that an "organization" itself is illegal by defining it as "terrorist" is essentially totalitarian.

[ 21 August 2006: Message edited by: Cueball ]


From: Out from under the bridge and out for a stroll | Registered: Dec 2003  |  IP: Logged
Cueball
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 4790

posted 21 August 2006 10:41 AM      Profile for Cueball   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Michelle:
Sorry, just noticed it now.

Yes, Centrefield, first of all, if you're going to quote something, link to where it comes from. Secondly, do not quote full articles as that is a copyright violation.

Thanks.


This is continous and repeated behaviour. And the quoted pieces usually amount to a list of things that reflect negatively on Arabs without attribtion to a source.


From: Out from under the bridge and out for a stroll | Registered: Dec 2003  |  IP: Logged
Proaxiom
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 6188

posted 21 August 2006 10:47 AM      Profile for Proaxiom     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
I wonder if you'd apply the same logic to corporations who commit environmental crimes. Let's see if this logic fits: if just a few people in a company dump toxic chemicals into a river, only those people should be punished, not the entire corporation.

----------

Update on the story:
Hezbollah won't be dropped from terror list, Day says

Interesting:

quote:
Liberal MP Borys Wrzesnewskyj denied reports that he called for Hezbollah to be dropped from the terror list, but said the mission to Lebanon would have been aided if the delegates were able to have met with Hezbollah officials.

quote:
“Let me make it as clear as I can,” Ms. Nash said. “We spoke to leaders of the [Lebanon's] oppositions parties who said they felt it was important that Hezbollah be drawn into the democratic process and they supported continuing that process. I think that's important. I'm not here to say whether Hezbollah should or shouldn't be a terrorist organization; our government has made that decision. It's not the point of the mission.”

From: East of the Sun, West of the Moon | Registered: Jun 2004  |  IP: Logged
Noise
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 12603

posted 21 August 2006 11:29 AM      Profile for Noise     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
For interest sake... Instead of comparing the 2, lets focus on what Removing the Hizbollah from a terrorist org list would have for impacts.

Part of the problem in defining Hizbollah is it has certain wings and divisions. The Political/humanitrarian division is in pretty stark contrast to it's military wing, and from what I've seen (the CBC does provide some backup in the article linked in first post) there is some power struggle between the militant side and the polictical movement of Hizbollah. The unfortunate side is labelling the Hizbollah as terrorists (which the military side can be argued that it is a terror organization, although disputable as we've seen above), is ultimately granting more strength and support for the military wing and not nessicarily the political/social services wing.

Removing Hizbollah from the Terrorist org list would be a step towards legitimizing the political/social wing of Hizbollah. From a purely theorectical standpoint, the approach does have some degree of merit. Hizbollah isn't going away despite Israeli/American interests, and ultimately the solution is to integrate them fully into the central Lebanese gov't... Removing Hizbollah from the list so that Hizbollah can deal with other countries on a political level (instead of no dealings whatsoever) would be a step in that direction.

Continual labelling as a terrorist organization ultimately fuels the militant section of the Hizbollah and ignores it's political side. Supporting it's political side and moving it towards integration within a stronger central Lebanese Gov't is the only forseeable solution to the entire crisis that I can see. However, thats not to ignore Palestine and the root cause of the issue.

My analysis of it atleast.


Proaxiom:

quote:
to what extent does Israel attack Palestinian civilians, as opposed to killing civilians collaterally while attacking militants?

Hard to make a call on that as at one point in time the IDF labelled all of Southern Lebanon terrorists... There seems to be little differentiation between military and civilian targets, they are all terrorists anyway. That family that were vacationing on a beach (long before this Lebanon_Israel war occoured), was a family vacationing on a beach that was shelled by IDF off shore artillery. I'm pretty sure the children in that family weren't terrorists... Apparently the IDF wasn't so sure.

eddited to add:

quote:
as opposed to killing civilians collaterally while attacking militants?

Focus on that for a second as I think it's important to grasp a lil concept here... In many cases there is absolutely no distinction between the 2 (military/civilian). Hizbollah's core that it rellied on for the first portion of the war are whats known a village reservists... Civilians within villages who take up arms to prevent invasions. Are they military or civilian?

Perhaps this once again requires the clarification of what Hizbollah truely is. Theres a tendancy within the west to classify Taliban/AQ/other Jihadists as the same as Hizbollah. In AQ's case, the population (in Afghan) are hostile towards Taliban (it's the civilians providing alot of information to the coalition). Taliban soldiers are very distinct as opposed to an Afghan civilian.

This is in pretty stark contrast within Lebanon and the Hizbollah. Hizbollah are operating at (last poll saw was a couple weeks ago admittadely, but I doubt much changed) with as high as 90% of the civilian support. So in many cases Hizbollah citizens and Hizbollah militants are the same thing (and vice versa). The IDF along with the American media will let you think theres a distinguishable difference between the 2. If Israel said they were at war with the population of lebanon, we'd see a much different response from the international community. Instead, its exceedingly important to perpetuate the info that 'they are only at war with Hizbollah', while destroying the whole of Lebanon's infrastructure.

[ 21 August 2006: Message edited by: Noise ]


From: Protest is Patriotism | Registered: May 2006  |  IP: Logged
unionist
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 11323

posted 21 August 2006 11:45 AM      Profile for unionist     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Patrick W. Walker:
Well, if it wasn't Hezbollah raining rockets into northern Israeli towns, who was?

It was God. Showing what side He is really on.


From: Vote QS! | Registered: Dec 2005  |  IP: Logged
Joel_Goldenberg
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 5647

posted 21 August 2006 11:46 AM      Profile for Joel_Goldenberg        Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Cueball:

This is continous and repeated behaviour. And the quoted pieces usually amount to a list of things that reflect negatively on Arabs without attribtion to a source.


From the camera.org (Committee for Accuracy in Middle East Reporting in America) website, which includes original sources:

"The widening arena of Hezbollah’s attacks stemmed from Nasrallah’s perception that Jews anywhere are legitimate targets. In fact, Nasarallah has said:

If they (Jews) all gather in Israel, it will save us the trouble of going after them worldwide. (Daily Star, Oct. 23, 2002)

Shiite scholar Amal Saad-Ghorayeb analyzed the anti-Jewish roots of Hezbollah ideology in her book Hezbollah: Politics & Religion. In it, she quotes Hassan Nasrallah describing his antipathy toward Jews:


If we searched the entire world for a person more cowardly, despicable, weak and feeble in psyche, mind, ideology and religion, we would not find anyone like the Jew. Notice, I do not say the Israeli. (New Yorker, Oct. 14, 2002)

[ 21 August 2006: Message edited by: Joel_Goldenberg ]

[ 21 August 2006: Message edited by: Joel_Goldenberg ]


From: Montreal | Registered: May 2004  |  IP: Logged
sgm
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 5468

posted 21 August 2006 12:04 PM      Profile for sgm     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
quote:
And the quoted pieces usually amount to a list of things that reflect negatively on Arabs without attribtion to a source.

Centrefield's source this time appears to be a section of the Wikipedia entry on Nasrallah.

The entry's section is a good example of some of perils of relying on Wikipedia without checking souces.

For instance, the phrase "The New York Times qualifies this as 'genocidal thinking'" is a touch misleading, since the source of the phrase 'genocidal thinking' is a book review by Elena Lappin published in the _New York Times_ (and so not really the view of the _Times_ itself, then).

In a review titled 'The Enemy Within,' Lappin critically responds to a claim by her subject author that Islam teaches respect for Jews. To counter the claim, Lappin produces the Nasrallah quote and says it qualifies as 'genocidal thinking.' She apparently thinks that's enough evidence to refute her author's claim about Islam teaching respect for Jews.

I think it's a bit of a leap from Lappin's rather illogical reply to her subject author to the Wikipedia article's claim on the authority of the _New York Times_ that Nasrallah is guilty of 'genocidal thinking.'

It would be more honest for the Wikipedia entry to say that "Author Elena Lappin has qualified this as 'genocidal thinking'."

[ 21 August 2006: Message edited by: sgm ]


From: I have welcomed the dawn from the fields of Saskatchewan | Registered: Apr 2004  |  IP: Logged
Proaxiom
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 6188

posted 21 August 2006 12:12 PM      Profile for Proaxiom     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
The trouble with the political wing vs militant wing is that we are not neutral on terrorism as an acceptable tactic. The terrorist group list doesn't exist because we want to refrain from supporting terrorism, it exists because we actively oppose its use.

If a group has both a political wing and a militant wing engaged in terrorist activity, we can't decide to support the former and not support the latter, because it is still tantamount to supporting terrorism. It would be like giving money to the Sinn Fein when the IRA when they were blowing up Englishmen. It's true that the political wing should not be discouraged (and politicians who are not involved in militant activity obviously shouldn't be punished themselves), but unless the two groups dissociate, you can't be sure money given to the political wing isn't buying arms.

Hence my suggestion that Hezbollah shouldn't be removed from the list until it is clear that they are no longer supporting terrorism.

quote:
Civilians within villages who take up arms to prevent invasions. Are they military or civilian?

Military. If you are carrying arms and you get killed, you are most certainly not a civilian casualty.

Put another way, if someone is trying to kill you, then your primary objective in killing him is not to create fear. It's to prevent him from killing you.

I agree with you that Hezbollah is very different from Al-Qaeda. Unlike the latter, Hezbollah could actually continue to exist while completely renouncing terrorism.


From: East of the Sun, West of the Moon | Registered: Jun 2004  |  IP: Logged
unionist
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 11323

posted 21 August 2006 12:32 PM      Profile for unionist     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
This is such an asinine discussion.

"Terrorist" is just a swear word. Everyone knows that "one person's terrorist is another person's freedom fighter".

It is not a legal term in international law.

The United Nations maintains no list of "terrorist" organizations.

Calling someone "terrorist" is akin to calling them "bastards". You do it when you've run out of ways to win an argument.

War crimes and crimes against humanity are a different story. They are banned and punishable by international law -- whether they are committed by "bastards" or by "really really nice white people".

So keep debating all you like about whether Hezbollah is terrorist. Just find some time to figure out how it held off Israel's armed might for a month and secured the admiration of the vast majority of Lebanese and many others around the world. Then figure out what we "nice people" should do about that.


From: Vote QS! | Registered: Dec 2005  |  IP: Logged
Noise
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 12603

posted 21 August 2006 12:33 PM      Profile for Noise     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
quote:
still tantamount to supporting terrorism
Yes, you are very right with that Proaxiom... Is there a degree or polciy out there that would recognize Hizbollahs political wing in an attempt to legitimize it and merge it into the Lebanese gov't without supporting it's military wing?.

Mind you, thats aside from the reverse arguement that supporting the IDF's efforts within Lebanon, by the same measure, is supporting terrorism as well.

quote:
Military. If you are carrying arms and you get killed, you are most certainly not a civilian casualty.

How about not carrying arms, but giving food and water to people who are? What about one storing 20 odd katushyas in their basement for a militant to come collect at a later time... Is that a civilian? If you live in southern Lebanon and get taxed - some of which goes to fund Hizbollah - are you finacially supporting a terrorist organization (and therefore become a target via the definition of supporting a terrorist organization)? How about a teacher at a Hizbollah school or doctor at a Hizbollah hosiptal? Factory worker for a factory that supplies Hizbollah with goods (everything from a sugar refinery, fruit pickers, and actual weapon warehouse setups... Each were targetted eqaully)?

As you can see, the line for differentiation blurrs quickly... The IDF pretty much considers all above terrorism and has targetted such... Lebanon will consider much of this civilian deaths, while under American/IDF policy they are terrorists who deserved their deaths.


added for unionist (and eddited my word choice above):

quote:
This is such an asinine discussion.
snip
So keep debating all you like about whether Hezbollah is terrorist.

Heh, it's only self-assinine (is that a word) in your case unionist. You've found your realization, but many haven't... This debate is fundamental in leading people to similar conclusions, and hopefully USEFUL policy comes from it, as opposed to the useless rhetoric.

[ 21 August 2006: Message edited by: Noise ]


From: Protest is Patriotism | Registered: May 2006  |  IP: Logged
unionist
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 11323

posted 21 August 2006 01:02 PM      Profile for unionist     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Noise:

Heh, it's only self-assinine (is that a word) in your case unionist. You've found your realization, but many haven't... This debate is fundamental in leading people to similar conclusions, and hopefully USEFUL policy comes from it, as opposed to the useless rhetoric.


I understand your point, and I realize that I'm exaggerating my argument, but I still think the debate is rigged.

When the weak and oppressed resort to violence, it's easy to throw the "terrorist" word around. When it's the mighty and powerful using uniformed troops and laser-guided weapons, it doesn't seem to fit. To debate the terrorism question is to do the state terrorists a favour by ignoring the more fundamental ones: Whose cause is just? And which side are you on?


From: Vote QS! | Registered: Dec 2005  |  IP: Logged
unionist
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 11323

posted 21 August 2006 01:05 PM      Profile for unionist     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Proaxiom:

I agree with you that Hezbollah is very different from Al-Qaeda. Unlike the latter, Hezbollah could actually continue to exist while completely renouncing terrorism.

Question: What about the Taliban? Are they terrorist?


From: Vote QS! | Registered: Dec 2005  |  IP: Logged
Noise
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 12603

posted 21 August 2006 01:16 PM      Profile for Noise     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
quote:
When the weak and oppressed resort to violence, it's easy to throw the "terrorist" word around. When it's the mighty and powerful using uniformed troops and laser-guided weapons, it doesn't seem to fit.

Thats incredibly insightful... Heh, I've never taken this line of thought prior. I guess when first world nations write the doctrine that conventional war abides by, they are going to include provisions that make hamper lesser devloped militaries and their actions. When you write the conventions regarding military combat, of course you are going to write it in a style that benefits yourself.

The word terrorist and terrorism is ultimately an invention of the American media war machine to ensure it's democratic populace is pacified during a time of war... It's strange how the rest of the western world has started using the American medias term that was used to justify war to the American populace, not theirs ^^


quote:
Hezbollah could actually continue to exist while completely renouncing terrorism.

I'm still unsure what you'd want to hear Hizbollah renounce here either... They've obviously renounced the terror thats been caused in Southern Lebanese cities and towns if thats what your suggesting... But I know your not. Are you asking them to renounce the American version of terrorism (in which case, I beleive you're asking Hizbollah to renounce Islam)? Or is it all about a bit of lip service thats needed?

[ 21 August 2006: Message edited by: Noise ]


From: Protest is Patriotism | Registered: May 2006  |  IP: Logged
Proaxiom
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 6188

posted 21 August 2006 01:30 PM      Profile for Proaxiom     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
Noise:
quote:
As you can see, the line for differentiation blurrs quickly...

You have to draw different lines for what should constitute a legitimate target in war, and what constitutes a terrorist. Your example of a civilian taking up arms to defend his homeland -- he is a legitimate target, but not a terrorist.

There has already been a great deal of debate trying to draw the lines you are talking about. It basically comes down to necessity. Did I have to kill the person giving food and water to my enemy? Probably not. I probably could have taken him prisoner if I my objective it to deprive the enemy of that service. On the other hand, one can argue that infrastructure destruction is necessary in a combat setting, because refraining from doing it would put one's own troops at a disadvantage.

I understand there is a lot of leeway for interpretation, but it comes down to what can be justified as military necessity, and what can't. Yes, the IDF's 'necessity' blanket will be very large and Lebanon's very small; the rest of us are left to come to our own conclusions.

unionist:

quote:
Everyone knows that "one person's terrorist is another person's freedom fighter".

In spite of everyone knowing it, it's wrong. Freedom fighters target oppressive forces. Terrorists target innocent civilians. There's a pretty big distinction there.

quote:
Question: What about the Taliban? Are they terrorist?

I don't know. If they are, it's not because they attack ISAF or Afghan army units. They also kill Afghan civilians. It depends on what their motives are for doing this. If they're killing people in an attempt to intimidate villages into supporting the Taliban, then I think that qualifies as terrorism.


From: East of the Sun, West of the Moon | Registered: Jun 2004  |  IP: Logged
Jacob Two-Two
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 2092

posted 21 August 2006 01:39 PM      Profile for Jacob Two-Two     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
More and more, I find the free pass given to "unintentional" deaths to be logically flawed. Truely accidental deaths as the result of military operations are one thing, but arial bombardments undertaken to destroy infrastructure and weaken resolve, with the full awareness of the many fatalities that are inevitable, are not truely "unintentional". No, civilians are not targetted, per se, but their deaths are accepted as part of the operation before the ink is dry on the battle plan. It's like me saying, "I knew you'd die when I burned your house down, but I didn't do it specifically to kill you, so I'm not really a murderer".

These attacks are as terrorist as any bomb in a shopping mall. Does the bomb become less terrorist if I drop it on the mall from a hang glider instead of walking it through the front door? The Israeli forces blew up roads that people were driving on. What twisted logic concludes that this is not targetting civilians? The point of arial bombardments is clearly, in part, to demoralise the enemy (it never works, but that's another issue) through fear. "Shock and Awe". This is terrorism, plain and simple.

And for those who say that it doesn't matter what other people do when assessing what Hezbollah is, you would be right on a personal level of your own moral judgements, but not in the house of commons. For our legislative body to declare a group a terrorist organisation, it has to do so consistently across the board. Law that is applied selectively is illegitimate law. It has no validity. Consistency is a fundamental part of any legal system, without which it ceases to function properly. You have all the leeway in the world to be a hypocrite, if it suits your fancy, but the law cannot have any room to do the same.


From: There is but one Gord and Moolah is his profit | Registered: Jan 2002  |  IP: Logged
Cueball
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 4790

posted 21 August 2006 01:40 PM      Profile for Cueball   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Joel_Goldenberg:
If we searched the entire world for a person more cowardly, despicable, weak and feeble in psyche, mind, ideology and religion, we would not find anyone like the Jew. Notice, I do not say the Israeli. (New Yorker, Oct. 14, 2002)
[ 21 August 2006: Message edited by: Joel_Goldenberg ]

Well, you may very well feel this way, but if you are going to assert such things, I like to see linked quotes and sourced material. Otherwise, it is merely you denouncing someone.

I really just can't fathom how you guys can't use the snappy little "URL" button at the bottom of post entry display. It always makes it look like you are hiding your source, as if it embarrassses you.

But I guess if it comes from a completely biased site such as CAMERA I see why you would want to not expose that.

[ 21 August 2006: Message edited by: Cueball ]


From: Out from under the bridge and out for a stroll | Registered: Dec 2003  |  IP: Logged
Michelle
Moderator
Babbler # 560

posted 21 August 2006 01:46 PM      Profile for Michelle   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
Cueball, the way you quoted Joel was exceptionally dishonest. It was very clear in his post that he was quoting someone else and not saying that himself. Knock it off.
From: I've got a fever, and the only prescription is more cowbell. | Registered: May 2001  |  IP: Logged
Cueball
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 4790

posted 21 August 2006 01:52 PM      Profile for Cueball   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Proaxiom:
I wonder if you'd apply the same logic to corporations who commit environmental crimes. Let's see if this logic fits: if just a few people in a company dump toxic chemicals into a river, only those people should be punished, not the entire corporation.

In fact holding the indivduals accoutable for their environmental crimes has been an essential aspect of lobbying around environment issues, as environmentalists think it is too easy for persons responsible for coporate mismanagement and criminal behaviour to hide behind a coproations special legal status. I wish you guys would read up on stuff before shooting your mouths off in your feeble attempts to disassemble arguements you don't like.

This kind of behaviour makes it look like you really are merely coming up with "clever" deabting points, baased on your own ideological predisposition, without regard to validity of the opposing view.


From: Out from under the bridge and out for a stroll | Registered: Dec 2003  |  IP: Logged
farnival
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 6452

posted 21 August 2006 01:57 PM      Profile for farnival     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Proaxiom:
unionist:

quote:
Everyone knows that "one person's terrorist is another person's freedom fighter".

In spite of everyone knowing it, it's wrong. Freedom fighters target oppressive forces. Terrorists target innocent civilians. There's a pretty big distinction there.


so Proaxiom, by your own definition, i could slot Hezbollah (lebanese citizens) into the "freedom fighter" role as one would be hard pressed to not acknowlege the IDF actions as "oppressive" given the disproportion of resources available to both sides. and by your definition that terrorists target innocent civilians, then i would say that the IDF and by extension, all Israeli citizens (by dint of mandatory military service) would be terrorists given the results of the assault on south lebannon, and the occupied territories, which were essentially collective punishment.

so...Hezbollah according to proaxiom must be freedom fighters and the IDF (all israelis) must then be terrorists.

[ 21 August 2006: Message edited by: farnival ]


From: where private gain trumps public interest, and apparently that's just dandy. | Registered: Jul 2004  |  IP: Logged
Cueball
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 4790

posted 21 August 2006 01:57 PM      Profile for Cueball   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Michelle:
Cueball, the way you quoted Joel was exceptionally dishonest. It was very clear in his post that he was quoting someone else and not saying that himself. Knock it off.


Oh I thought he was summarizing his opinion of Nasrallah. I misread it.

Yet still the point remains, that a lot of stuff that gets bandied about the internet amounts to hearsay, somone wuoting someone quoting someone, so as far as possible it is great to find actual sourced material and link to it.

I ALWAYS DO THIS, and if I can't find a source I don't post the information.


From: Out from under the bridge and out for a stroll | Registered: Dec 2003  |  IP: Logged
Noise
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 12603

posted 21 August 2006 02:00 PM      Profile for Noise     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
quote:
On the other hand, one can argue that infrastructure destruction is necessary in a combat setting, because refraining from doing it would put one's own troops at a disadvantage.

So is Israel at war with a terrorist organization or all of Lebanon then? IDF (and the US) has very much claimed morale high-ground based on the former. Though thats getting away from the topic and has been well discussed

quote:
For our legislative body to declare a group a terrorist organisation, it has to do so consistently across the board. Law that is applied selectively is illegitimate law. It has no validity. Consistency is a fundamental part of any legal system, without which it ceases to function properly.

Is their much history behind elected gov'ts being declared terrorist orginzations? I'm curious if theres any legal predacessors to that and how they were handled.

Perhaps for arguements sake, it'd be good to get the candian parliments version of what constituates a terrorist organization up here.


From: Protest is Patriotism | Registered: May 2006  |  IP: Logged
Cueball
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 4790

posted 21 August 2006 02:00 PM      Profile for Cueball   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
I am prefectly willing to accept that this guy Nasrallah is a perfectly dispicable human being. But then, if this is so easy to prove, why is it impossible to link to anything other than established Zionist sites, if there is any link at that is, which usually there is not.

It really just makes it all look like a lott of chatter.

My favourite example of this was the time I read a very authorative sounding exposision in Judeaoscope quoting a non-existant Lebanese Prime Minster, who was fictionally also the oly Christian Arab secretary General of the Arab League, (no Lebanese have evern been SG of the Legue of Arab States) decrying the Arab attempt to "drive the Jews into the sea" in 1948.

This stuff just circulates, and sometimes, as in the case I am describing is completely fictional, ivolving fictional Arabs saying thigs that are also obviously fictional, and it seems it just gets quoted again and again through broke telephone of rumour for ever and ever, and accepted as fact by the gullible.

So we are saaying some pretty nasty things about Nasrallah here but I'd like to see some original sources.

[ 21 August 2006: Message edited by: Cueball ]


From: Out from under the bridge and out for a stroll | Registered: Dec 2003  |  IP: Logged
lucas
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 6446

posted 21 August 2006 02:09 PM      Profile for lucas     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
"...Personally, I reject the whole idea that organizations themselves, should be made illegal by definition. I am in favour of an approach where individuals of organizations are directly liable for the activities of those organizations directly as indivduals for their own criminal behaviour...."

Taking this to the extreme... The Nazi Party had all kinds of programs which built hospitals, roads, schools. They had programs for children that met on the weekends where they sung songs and went for hikes in the woods. They had programs for seniors which delivered them food to their homes. They strived for 0% unemployment and ensured all had enough food to eat and a roof over their heads. Sound like pretty nice folks those Nazis. Of course there were quite a few that did some pretty horrible things, but most, on balance, were pretty nice folks and should not be painted with the same brush as the genocidal wing of the party.

Right?


From: Turner Valley | Registered: Jul 2004  |  IP: Logged
Cueball
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 4790

posted 21 August 2006 02:12 PM      Profile for Cueball   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
The Nazi's were very big fans of making organizations illegal, in and of themselves. Meaning of course that one could be arrested and sent to camp merely for what one believed, even if one never did anything unlawful or illegal.

Thanks for bringing them up. I was thinking of them specifically when I penned the statement you have quoted.

[ 21 August 2006: Message edited by: Cueball ]


From: Out from under the bridge and out for a stroll | Registered: Dec 2003  |  IP: Logged
Centerfield
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 13025

posted 21 August 2006 02:26 PM      Profile for Centerfield        Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 

[ 19 January 2007: Message edited by: Centerfield ]


From: Ontario | Registered: Aug 2006  |  IP: Logged
johnpauljones
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 7554

posted 21 August 2006 02:26 PM      Profile for johnpauljones     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Cueball:
The Nazi's were very big fans of making organizations illegal, in and of themselves. Meaning of course that one could be arrested and sent to camp merely for what one believed, even if one never did anything unlawful or illegal.


Interesting comparison.

One must remember that it was not the cons that branded Hezbollah as a terrorist organization but the Paul Martin Liberal government.

Now quick question are you comparing the branding of Hezbollah as a terrorist organization and its subsequent banning by the Liberal Government of Paul Martin to the Nazis and the Nazis making organizations illegal in Nazi Germany?


From: City of Toronto | Registered: Nov 2004  |  IP: Logged
B.L. Zeebub LLD
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 6914

posted 21 August 2006 02:29 PM      Profile for B.L. Zeebub LLD     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Petsy:
Because kidnapping soldiers,

...is not terrorism.

quote:
knifing and killing Israelis in their own sovereign land are clear acts of terrorism.

Knifing, huh? So the knifing I witnessed on the street last month was terrorism? Give your head a shake. Moreover, the question of whether or not the kidnapped soldiers were in Israel or on the Lebonese side of the border has never been answered.

When the IDF kills Lebonese people on their sovereign land, is that terrorism?


From: A Devil of an Advocate | Registered: Sep 2004  |  IP: Logged
Cueball
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 4790

posted 21 August 2006 02:30 PM      Profile for Cueball   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by johnpauljones:
Now quick question are you comparing the branding of Hezbollah as a terrorist organization and its subsequent banning by the Liberal Government of Paul Martin to the Nazis and the Nazis making organizations illegal in Nazi Germany?

Sure.

[ 21 August 2006: Message edited by: Cueball ]


From: Out from under the bridge and out for a stroll | Registered: Dec 2003  |  IP: Logged
Cueball
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 4790

posted 21 August 2006 02:33 PM      Profile for Cueball   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
For instance, I think that killing unarmed persons is a crime in wartime. There is no special need to identify organizations which allow, or promote this activity. What is needed is the prosecutiom of the persons who committed, or authorized the crime itself.
From: Out from under the bridge and out for a stroll | Registered: Dec 2003  |  IP: Logged
Cueball
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 4790

posted 21 August 2006 02:42 PM      Profile for Cueball   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Centerfield:


It's very difficult to determine which are the Zionist sites from the ones that are not.

Is Wikipedia a Zionist site ?

Where can you find sites that are non biased and speak the truth ?

[ 21 August 2006: Message edited by: Centerfield ]


My point is, if you get it from Wikipedia, link to the page. That way we know it comes from Wikipedia, and not say the New York Times, or Le Monde. We all know that Wikipdia can be edited by just about anyone, so we know the status of the source.

But, really, if wikipedia is sourcing the New York Times I am sure it must be possible to find a copy of the original article, or even cases where the entire piece is archived on a secondary site. Whatever.


From: Out from under the bridge and out for a stroll | Registered: Dec 2003  |  IP: Logged
B.L. Zeebub LLD
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 6914

posted 21 August 2006 02:51 PM      Profile for B.L. Zeebub LLD     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by lucas:
"...Personally, I reject the whole idea that organizations themselves, should be made illegal by definition. I am in favour of an approach where individuals of organizations are directly liable for the activities of those organizations directly as indivduals for their own criminal behaviour...."

Taking this to the extreme... The Nazi Party had all kinds of programs which built hospitals, roads, schools. They had programs for children that met on the weekends where they sung songs and went for hikes in the woods. They had programs for seniors which delivered them food to their homes. They strived for 0% unemployment and ensured all had enough food to eat and a roof over their heads. Sound like pretty nice folks those Nazis. Of course there were quite a few that did some pretty horrible things, but most, on balance, were pretty nice folks and should not be painted with the same brush as the genocidal wing of the party.

Right?


If I may jump in, it looks to me like you just wanted an oppurtunity to sing this little song above, because it has nothing to do with Cueball's point.

The point is this (agree or disagree): there is no point making an "organisation" illegal in and of itself, because this turns law enforcement into the enforcement of political ideology.

Rather, we should focus on investigating and punishing the crimes that people commit, regardless of what organisation/ideology they may be affiliated with. So if Sister Mary Joseph of the local Catholic charity commits murder, it's punished the same as Joe Smith of the local chapter of the KKK committing murder. The organisations that these people belong to are irrelevent.

This is connected with the "freedom of speech" argument made in favour of various white supremacists, black supremacists, etc., etc. in the U.S. Funny that if a White man in the U.S. proclaims that all Jews, Blacks and other mud-bloods should be cleansed from the U-S-of-A, his speech is protected, but a Hezbollah supporter is not. That's the point.


From: A Devil of an Advocate | Registered: Sep 2004  |  IP: Logged
B.L. Zeebub LLD
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 6914

posted 21 August 2006 02:51 PM      Profile for B.L. Zeebub LLD     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
Itchy trigger finger...

[ 21 August 2006: Message edited by: B.L. Zeebub LLD ]


From: A Devil of an Advocate | Registered: Sep 2004  |  IP: Logged
Cueball
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 4790

posted 21 August 2006 03:21 PM      Profile for Cueball   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
A note on sources.

This quote "If they (Jews) all gather in Israel, it will save us the trouble of going after them worldwide. (Daily Star, Oct. 23, 2002)" Apparently originates with the Lebanon Daily Star.

This newspaper also once made the claim that former CIA counter-terrorist chief Vince Cannistraro said "We are sure that the Israelis knew that al-Qaeda was planning to do something big in the twin towers and they didn't inform us about it." (Daily Star, Sept. 11)

Make what you will of that.


From: Out from under the bridge and out for a stroll | Registered: Dec 2003  |  IP: Logged
Patrick W. Walker
recent-rabble-rouser
Babbler # 13078

posted 21 August 2006 04:10 PM      Profile for Patrick W. Walker     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by johnpauljones:
One must remember that it was not the cons that branded Hezbollah as a terrorist organization but the Paul Martin Liberal government.

Is there any difference between the Conservatives and the Liberals under Paul Martin? If there were, they were cosmetic.


From: F'cton NB | Registered: Aug 2006  |  IP: Logged
Centerfield
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 13025

posted 21 August 2006 04:20 PM      Profile for Centerfield        Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Cueball:
A note on sources.

This quote "If they (Jews) all gather in Israel, it will save us the trouble of going after them worldwide. (Daily Star, Oct. 23, 2002)" Apparently originates with the Lebanon Daily Star.

This newspaper also once made the claim that former CIA counter-terrorist chief Vince Cannistraro said "We are sure that the Israelis knew that al-Qaeda was planning to do something big in the twin towers and they didn't inform us about it." (Daily Star, Sept. 11)

Make what you will of that.


I think we should ahve an open mind and not be so Anti establishment Imho.

[ 06 December 2006: Message edited by: Centerfield ]


From: Ontario | Registered: Aug 2006  |  IP: Logged
arborman
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 4372

posted 21 August 2006 07:15 PM      Profile for arborman     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Proaxiom:
I wonder if you'd apply the same logic to corporations who commit environmental crimes. Let's see if this logic fits: if just a few people in a company dump toxic chemicals into a river, only those people should be punished, not the entire corporation.

Actually, yes, as long as we went after the people who ordered them to do it, and the people who profited from it as well. It's too easy to focus on a 'corporation', which isn't actually real, rather than the people committing the crimes.

Oh, and I suspect CF won't be here much longer.

[ 21 August 2006: Message edited by: arborman ]


From: I'm a solipsist - isn't everyone? | Registered: Aug 2003  |  IP: Logged
Cueball
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 4790

posted 21 August 2006 07:19 PM      Profile for Cueball   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Centerfield:


Its a conspiracy I tell ya.I don't know who to believe or who is telling the truth anymore.
All these countries saying hezbolla is a terrorist organization and yet there all wrong.
All these Zionist web sites in control of the information makes it very confusing and hard to find the truth.

Btw are the jews engaged in a massive conspiracy to maintain the illusion of a Holocaust to further their political agenda ?

[ 21 August 2006: Message edited by: Centerfield ]


Let me ask you this:

If you assert that your source, The Lebanon Daily Star, is correct in its summary of the statement made by Nasrallah, and you accept this on faith, is not also logical to assert that Vince Cannistraro told them that Israel withheld information on 9/11, and that we also must accept this on faith?

Or is it that you only accept the validity of sources when they confirm the things that you want to believe, (bad things baout Arab leaders almost without fail) but not when they says things that cotradict the fundamental assumptions that support your world view, which is basicly that all Arabs are bad, or so it seems.

[ 21 August 2006: Message edited by: Cueball ]


From: Out from under the bridge and out for a stroll | Registered: Dec 2003  |  IP: Logged
sidra
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 11490

posted 21 August 2006 09:03 PM      Profile for sidra   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
quote:
So Israelis are allowed to wantonly drop munitions on Lebanon, while Hebollah is not allowed to respond in kind -Cueball

Yes Cueball ! Unless you dare think otherwise, in which case you risk breaching the rules of POLITICAL CORRECTNESS pertaining to the Israeli-Arab conflict:

Rule # 1: In the Middle East, it is always the Arabs that attack first, and it's always Israel who defends itself. This is called "Retaliation".


Rule # 2: The Arabs, whether Palestinians or Lebanese, are not allowed to kill Israelis. This is called "Terrorism"

Rule # 3: Israel has the right to kill Arab civilians, this is called "Self-Defense", or these days "Collateral Damage".

Rule # 4: When Israel kills too many civilians. The Western world calls for restraint. This is called the "Reaction of the International Community".

Rule # 5: Palestinians and Lebanese do not have the right to capture Israeli military, not even a limited number, not even 1 or 2. This is called "Kidnapping".

Rule # 6: Israel has the right to capture as many Palestinians as they want (Palestinians: around 10000 to date, 300 of which are children, Lebanese: 1000s to date, being held without trial). There is no limit; there is no need for proof of guilt or trial. This is called "War on Terrorism".

Rule # 7: When you say "Hezbollah", always be sure to add "supported by Syria and Iran". This is called: "Axis of Evil"

Rule # 8: When you say "Israel", never say "supported by the USA, the UK and other European countries", for people (God forbid) might believe this is not an equal conflict. This is called "Helping our Friends".

Rule # 9: When it comes to Israel, don't mention the words "occupied territories", "UN resolutions", "Geneva conventions". This could distress the audience and is called "Anti-Semitism".

Rule # 10: Israelis speak better English than Arabs. This is why we let them speak out as much as possible, so that they can explain rules 1 through 9. This is called "Neutral Journalism".

Rule # 11: If you don't agree with these rules or if you favor the Arab side over the Israeli side, you must be a very dangerous anti-Semite. You may even have to make a public apology if you express your honest opinion like Boris Wrzesnewskyj. This is called "Democracy".


Please learn the proper terminology and logic and use it appropriately to maintain your job; this is called "Equal Opportunity Employment"


From: Ontario | Registered: Dec 2005  |  IP: Logged
Michelle
Moderator
Babbler # 560

posted 21 August 2006 09:31 PM      Profile for Michelle   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Centerfield:
Btw are the jews engaged in a massive conspiracy to maintain the illusion of a Holocaust to further their political agenda ?

Knock off the trolling or find another forum.


From: I've got a fever, and the only prescription is more cowbell. | Registered: May 2001  |  IP: Logged
Stanley10
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 8496

posted 21 August 2006 09:58 PM      Profile for Stanley10     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
Sidra quote:
"Rule # 6: Israel has the right to capture as many Palestinians as they want.."

We don't use "capture" anymore; "detained", as in use by the BBC, is now the operative word. For example, "NATO Special forces detained Hugo Chavez at an aircraft carrier in the Caribbean." You see it’s not as harsh sounding as that other word- sort of like he'll just be a little late for dinner.


From: the desk of.... | Registered: Mar 2005  |  IP: Logged
sgm
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 5468

posted 21 August 2006 10:17 PM      Profile for sgm     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
quote:
All these countries saying hezbolla is a terrorist organization and yet there all wrong.

Actually, I think the point of a number of posters is that the question of what constitutes a 'terrorist organization' (and even 'terrorism') is contestable, as is the related question of whether designating Hezbollah a terrorist organization under Canada's current legislation helps or hinders the quest for peace in the Middle East.

Another important question that arises is whether Canadians (including public figures and Canadian politicians) should be free to challenge or question this or that group's designation as a 'terrorist organization,' either in the abstract sense, or in the concrete sense of being officially so designated under Canadian law.

To take a different example from Hezbollah, consider the Mujahedin-e-Khalq (MEK), which also goes by other names like the People's Mujahedin of Iran (PMOI) and the National Council of Resistance of Iran (NCRI).

According to the US State Department the MEK, "advocates the violent overthrow of the Iranian regime," and so counts as a Foreign Terrorist Organization. It has also been listed as a terrorist entity by the Canadian government.

Nevertheless, this organization classed as 'terrorist' by the Canadian and American governments enjoys its prominent supporters here in Canada, including former Liberal MP David Kilgour, who argues here that the organization is a good one:

quote:
Through the official acceptance that the People’s Mojahedin of Iran (PMOI) and the Iranian Resistance are not terrorist organizations – a view that the Mullahs in Iran would gladly have the world believe – and offering them the full support of the democratic world to carry out their activities, can we promote social and political reforms in Iran.

The website of the Foreign Affairs Committee of the NCRI (National Council of Resistance of Iran) also draws attention to the presence at its sponsored events of people like Stockwell Day, Paul Forseth, David Kilgour and Tarek Fateh, as well as Jason Kenney (neatly planted at a lectern between large posters bearing the images of MEK founders Maryam and Masoud Rajavi).

(In fact, I believe politicians of all parties at one time or another have appeared at MEK/PMOI-organized events, perhaps even without realizing it.)

I don't know what other babblers think about the MEK/PMOI/NCRI and whether it should be called a 'terrorist organization' for its violent actions against the regime in Iran (which regime I am far from defending, btw).

What I do know is that acres of trees will likely be felled in the next few days to harshly denounce those who've called for a re-evaluation of Hezbollah's designation as 'terrorist' under Canadian law, even though no such arboreal slaughter was in evidence back when David Kilgour and the rest were directly and indirectly supporting the Mojahedin-e-Khalq (MEK/PMOI/NCRI), a group accused of terrorism against Iran by Canada and the United States.

And all of this even while Canada had passed legislation making it an offence to "participate in or contribute to, directly or indirectly, any activity of a terrorist group."

What are we to make of that fact, I wonder?

I close by saying that if I've misidentified the groups in question (many have similar names), I'll quickly retract my comments with a full apology.

[ 21 August 2006: Message edited by: sgm ]


From: I have welcomed the dawn from the fields of Saskatchewan | Registered: Apr 2004  |  IP: Logged
siren
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 7470

posted 21 August 2006 10:35 PM      Profile for siren     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
The all party (well, except for the conservative representative who got cold feet) fact finding committee is reasonable to call for being able to talk to Hezbollah.

Hezbollah held off the world's 4th largest military for 5 weeks and are heroes in much of the "Arab" world. The day of the ceasefire the world saw Hezbollah bulldozers helping clear the rubble IDF air strikes caused.

Hezbollah is clearly much more than a "terrorist" organization and I suspect our politicians felt a tad silly not being allowed to talk to the most potent force in Lebanon right now.

But whether or not a government labels an organization "terrorist" depends on the outcome they want. Open dialogue, communication, attempts at a peace process are obviously enhanced by being able to talk to armed combatants. Consider amelioration of the IRA issue in Ireland.


If you want the status quo, you pull a Bush (I) and declare you will never negotiate with terrorists. Harper is not spending 15 billion on the military because he wants an outbreak of world peace.


From: Of course we could have world peace! But where would be the profit in that? | Registered: Nov 2004  |  IP: Logged
Stanley10
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 8496

posted 21 August 2006 10:42 PM      Profile for Stanley10     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
In Feb. 2005, the Iran Policy Committee (IPC) recommended that the US protected ‘Tank Girl Army’(MEK) be dropped from the Foreign Terrorist Organizations list.

Quote by Centerfield:

“All these countries saying hezbolla is a terrorist organization and yet there (sic) all wrong.”

Interesting that the Wikipedia article on Hezbolah only lists four countries, Canada, Israel, U.S. and the kingdom of Netherlands, as designating the whole of that group a terrorist organization. Two more countries, the United Kingdom and Australia, only designate its external organization (whatever that is) as a terrorist entity. It also states, “The EU does not consider Hezbollah, or any group within it, a terrorist organization.” I suppose the other 183 to 188 countries have no opinion, do not agree, don’t care, or havn’t gotten around to making a naughty and nice list.

I’m a little surprised as I thought, like Centerfield, that there was a ‘world consensus’ about the nature of this group- apparently not. Only a few countries seem to have made this decision. Makes one wonder.


From: the desk of.... | Registered: Mar 2005  |  IP: Logged
saga
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 13017

posted 21 August 2006 11:15 PM      Profile for saga   Author's Homepage        Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Proaxiom:
I wonder if you'd apply the same logic to corporations who commit environmental crimes. Let's see if this logic fits: if just a few people in a company dump toxic chemicals into a river, only those people should be punished, not the entire corporation.

----------

Update on the story:
Hezbollah won't be dropped from terror list, Day says

Interesting:


Isn't it a little odd for a Cabinet Minister to tell his MP's in public ... that the party line requires that they lie and deny and obfuscate ... and then they do it... all for the sake of Canada's "credibility" (??) ... pathetic.


From: Canada | Registered: Aug 2006  |  IP: Logged
Proaxiom
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 6188

posted 22 August 2006 05:26 AM      Profile for Proaxiom     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
Jacob Two-Two:
quote:
More and more, I find the free pass given to "unintentional" deaths to be logically flawed. Truely accidental deaths as the result of military operations are one thing, but arial bombardments undertaken to destroy infrastructure and weaken resolve, with the full awareness of the many fatalities that are inevitable, are not truely "unintentional". No, civilians are not targetted, per se, but their deaths are accepted as part of the operation before the ink is dry on the battle plan. It's like me saying, "I knew you'd die when I burned your house down, but I didn't do it specifically to kill you, so I'm not really a murderer".

The pertinent question, then, is why did I burn down your house, if I didn't mean to kill you?

No military in the world is going to accept that it cannot undertake operations that will cause civilian casualties. There are two overriding considerations: was the actual aim of the operation legitimate, and were efforts taken to keep civilian casualties to a minimum? If a military force strikes only targets with clear military value, and takes measures to minimize loss of innocent life, then it is acting within the established rules of warfare.

And that's not terrorism.


farnival:

quote:
so Proaxiom, by your own definition, i could slot Hezbollah (lebanese citizens) into the "freedom fighter" role as one would be hard pressed to not acknowlege the IDF actions as "oppressive" given the disproportion of resources available to both sides. ... Hezbollah according to proaxiom must be freedom fighters and the IDF (all israelis) must then be terrorists.

Hezbollah attacking IDF troops occupying Lebanon = Freedom fighters
Hezbollah attacking IDF troops in Israel when no occupation is taking place = Criminals (but not terrorists)
Hezbollah attacking Israeli civilians = Terrorists

Is that clearer?


Noise:

quote:
So is Israel at war with a terrorist organization or all of Lebanon then? IDF (and the US) has very much claimed morale high-ground based on the former. Though thats getting away from the topic and has been well discussed

In the south, Lebanon qualifies as a failed state, in that the government does not have authority. It's a good question as to how one can justify Israeli strikes in areas where the government does have power (if indeed they were striking there).

Everyone who responded to the corporation/organization thing:
Yes, individuals get punished too, but so does the corporation. It has to be.

Cueball, you have to make a distinction between punishing organizations and outlawing them. Organizations can be held responsible for acts committed under their authority. You're right that banning them is extreme, and very much a violation of fundamental rights, but who is talking about banning them? Terrorist groups, as far as we know, are not located in Canada and therefore are not within our power to outlaw. I don't know of any group that has actually been banned in Canada. It is within our power to punish groups that engage in terrorism by, for instance, prohibiting contributions to them by Canadians.


From: East of the Sun, West of the Moon | Registered: Jun 2004  |  IP: Logged
arborman
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 4372

posted 22 August 2006 08:04 AM      Profile for arborman     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Proaxiom:
If a military force strikes only targets with clear military value, and takes measures to minimize loss of innocent life, then it is acting within the established rules of warfare.

And that's not terrorism.


Nor is it the IDF. Were you watching the news? Hospitals?


From: I'm a solipsist - isn't everyone? | Registered: Aug 2003  |  IP: Logged
Proaxiom
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 6188

posted 22 August 2006 08:21 AM      Profile for Proaxiom     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
quote:
Nor is it the IDF.

I didn't say it was.


From: East of the Sun, West of the Moon | Registered: Jun 2004  |  IP: Logged
Merowe
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 4020

posted 22 August 2006 08:51 AM      Profile for Merowe     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
In today's Guardian, Alain Gresh:

"True, the initial Hizbullah attack on July 12 on an Israeli patrol led to six deaths and the capture of two soldiers. This was hardly an isolated incident . Skirmishes are commonplace along the Israel-Lebanon border. On May 26, Israel had a leader of the Islamic Jihad assassinated. Lebanese militants are still held in Israeli prisons....

The outcome of the Israeli offensive remains uncertain. Hizbullah is Lebanon's largest political party, with 12 members of parliament. It is deeply rooted in the Shia community, the country's largest, and enjoys enormous prestige for having liberated the south of Lebanon in 2000. It is allied with major political forces, such as General Michel Aoun's Free Patriotic Movement, the Lebanese Communist party, and the Syrian Social Nationalist party. To claim that Hizbullah is a pawn in the hands of Iran or Syria is absurd."

http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/story/
0,,1855411,00.html


From: Dresden, Germany | Registered: Apr 2003  |  IP: Logged
jas
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 9529

posted 22 August 2006 08:58 AM      Profile for jas     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by sidra:


Rule # 1: In the Middle East, it is always the Arabs that attack first, and it's always Israel who defends itself. This is called "Retaliation".


Rule # 2: The Arabs, whether Palestinians or Lebanese, are not allowed to kill Israelis. This is called "Terrorism"

Rule # 3: Israel has the right to kill Arab civilians, this is called "Self-Defense", or these days "Collateral Damage".

Rule # 4: When Israel kills too many civilians. The Western world calls for restraint. This is called the "Reaction of the International Community".

Rule # 5: Palestinians and Lebanese do not have the right to capture Israeli military, not even a limited number, not even 1 or 2. This is called "Kidnapping".

Rule # 6: Israel has the right to capture as many Palestinians as they want (Palestinians: around 10000 to date, 300 of which are children, Lebanese: 1000s to date, being held without trial). There is no limit; there is no need for proof of guilt or trial. This is called "War on Terrorism".

Rule # 7: When you say "Hezbollah", always be sure to add "supported by Syria and Iran". This is called: "Axis of Evil"

Rule # 8: When you say "Israel", never say "supported by the USA, the UK and other European countries", for people (God forbid) might believe this is not an equal conflict. This is called "Helping our Friends".

Rule # 9: When it comes to Israel, don't mention the words "occupied territories", "UN resolutions", "Geneva conventions". This could distress the audience and is called "Anti-Semitism".

Rule # 10: Israelis speak better English than Arabs. This is why we let them speak out as much as possible, so that they can explain rules 1 through 9. This is called "Neutral Journalism".

Rule # 11: If you don't agree with these rules or if you favor the Arab side over the Israeli side, you must be a very dangerous anti-Semite. You may even have to make a public apology if you express your honest opinion like Boris Wrzesnewskyj. This is called "Democracy".


Please learn the proper terminology and logic and use it appropriately to maintain your job; this is called "Equal Opportunity Employment"


Thanks Sidra. I think I'm going to print this out and keep it handy. Ever thought of teaching social studies?


From: the world we want | Registered: Jun 2005  |  IP: Logged
nister
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 7709

posted 22 August 2006 11:15 AM      Profile for nister     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
Hezbollah fighters understand the Katyusha better than we. They launch and hope for a result, but know full well that they are most useful in the same manner as the sirens attached to the Stukas of WW11.

When an IDF pilot launches a Hellfire, he knows full well that he'll get the planned result.

One sows fear, the other sows death certain.


From: Barrie, On | Registered: Dec 2004  |  IP: Logged
Cueball
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 4790

posted 22 August 2006 11:36 AM      Profile for Cueball   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
The manner in which it is being used by Hexbollah is contrary to its intended military purpose, which was as artillery support for ground operations in the manner of artillery. In barrage a batery delivers a large amount impact for a short period of time.

The big advantage is that the launch system is cheap and light. Its disadvantage is that it takes a long time to reload, and so is not capable of sustained rate of fire.


From: Out from under the bridge and out for a stroll | Registered: Dec 2003  |  IP: Logged
siren
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 7470

posted 22 August 2006 12:48 PM      Profile for siren     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
Seems like Cueball channelled the neo cons on this one:

quote:
Tory MP compares Hezbollah to Nazi party
Last Updated Tue, 22 Aug 2006 12:35:55 EDT

CBC News

Despite its political wing, the militant group Hezbollah is a terrorist organization that is comparable to the Nazi party of the 1930s, says Prime Minister Stephen Harper's parliamentary secretary.

Jason Kenney was responding to two MPs who suggested Hezbollah should be taken off Canada's list of terrorist organizations.

"We need to learn the lessons of history," Kenney told reporters Tuesday.

"There was another political party in the past which had support, democratic support — which provided social services which played an important role in the political life of its country in the 1930s — which was also dedicated to violence against the Jewish people."



From: Of course we could have world peace! But where would be the profit in that? | Registered: Nov 2004  |  IP: Logged
Cueball
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 4790

posted 22 August 2006 07:57 PM      Profile for Cueball   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
Again, my point was that it was the Nazi's who went around making organizations illegal, in and of themselves, making all members criminal, whether or not they engaged in criminal activities.

I thought I was channelling Emma Goldman.

[ 22 August 2006: Message edited by: Cueball ]


From: Out from under the bridge and out for a stroll | Registered: Dec 2003  |  IP: Logged
siren
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 7470

posted 22 August 2006 08:07 PM      Profile for siren     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
Oh, sorry cueball. I see you were responding to lucas who did the channeling for Kenney.

Kenney himself seems to be channeling Bush re. "Islamo fascists". And just like the Nazis, Hezbollah can only be defeated through extreme military measures.


Emma Goldman?


From: Of course we could have world peace! But where would be the profit in that? | Registered: Nov 2004  |  IP: Logged
a lonely worker
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 9893

posted 22 August 2006 09:05 PM      Profile for a lonely worker     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
Funny how not one media source is remembering that this is the same Jason Kenney who said Canada should not honour Nelson Mandela because he's a "communist". The last thing they want is to give anyone is the impression this guy has some serious screws loose.

Sidra your 11 points are a definite keeper!!!!!

I am getting completely sick of how our media is refusing to provide any balanced reporting whatsoever.

Once in a while something balanced does come out as this response to an Irwin Cotler article from 4 prominent leaders of the Arab community wrote:

Canada's Mideast policy should be based on international law

quote:
Some people may want to understand "even-handedness" as standing idle and not taking a position, as being passive. Not us. We understand it as taking sides but basing our decision on justice and international law, not on the strength of supporting lobbies.

This brings us directly to the "principle" listed by former justice minister Irwin Cotler in his weekend article in the Saturday Star. Why should the well-being of Israel be rated higher than the well-being of any other nation or state in the world? What kind of racism or favouritism would that be and why would Canada be obliged to base its foreign policy in the Middle East on it?

If we follow the UN resolutions on the Middle East from 1947 to the present (not pick and choose from them like Cotler did, naming some resolutions and ignoring others, or choosing parts of one resolution and ignoring the rest of it) we will find that no country stands in violation of so many UN resolutions as Israel.

UN resolution 194 calls for the right of return of Palestinian refugees. Not one refugee has been allowed to return since 1948. UN resolution 242 calls for Israeli withdrawal from the lands it occupied in the 1967 war; Cotler chooses to write only that this resolution calls for the right of all states in the Middle East to exist within secure and recognized boundaries free from any threats or acts of force.

We do not want a passive, meaningless Canadian foreign policy regarding the Middle East. At the same time we condemn a Canadian position biased toward Israel and against Arabs, or even one biased in favour of Arabs.

We want a Canadian foreign policy that stands firmly in support of international law and the right of all people for self-determination and justice.


Could you imagine the CJC saying they want a foreign policy that doesn't favour the Arabs OR the Israelis?

Of course the Star did damage control and in their official editorial they wrote this:

quote:
Prime Minister Stephen Harper has struck a sensibly balanced stance on Lebanon by boosting Ottawa's aid to more than $30 million and delivering most of it immediately, while declining to commit warships and troops to police a ceasefire that others are better-placed to enforce.

Meanwhile, far from withdrawing or putting away its weapons, Hezbollah continued to function as a militia and embarrassed the Beirut government by distributing $12,000 cash grants to homeless families. That made a mockery of UN resolutions demanding the Lebanese government extend its authority throughout the south to prevent Hezbollah from provoking another ruinous clash.

When the Stockholm conference opens next week, a credible UN force must be on the way. Donors won't pour aid into a war zone.


Editorial: UN must speed help to Lebanon

Of course no mention that Israel must stop driving around eastern Lebanon disguised as Lebanese soldiers in "defensive actions against weapon smuggling" (how come no one's calling them cowards for hiding behind another country's uniform?) or cease all flights over Lebanese airspace. Both of these are in violation of the cease fire. But no, as always, it is Lebanon and Hezbollah's fault while Harper is now "balanced".


From: Anywhere that annoys neo-lib tools | Registered: Jul 2005  |  IP: Logged
unionist
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 11323

posted 29 June 2008 08:12 AM      Profile for unionist     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
Didn't want to open a new thread:

Israel approves prisoner exchange

quote:
Israel's cabinet has approved a prisoner swap with the Lebanese militant group Hezbollah.

The swap would see the return of the bodies of two Israeli soldiers captured by Hezbollah two years ago.

The Lebanese prisoners to be freed reportedly include Samir Qantar, in jail for murder since 1979. ...

Germany has been trying to broker a prisoner exchange since the war ended.

On 1 June, Hezbollah handed over the remains of five Israeli soldiers killed in the war.

The remains were delivered after Israel released a Lebanese-born man who had served six years in prison for spying for Hezbollah.



From: Vote QS! | Registered: Dec 2005  |  IP: Logged
al-Qa'bong
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 3807

posted 03 July 2008 07:19 AM      Profile for al-Qa'bong   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
quote:
Everyone knows that "one person's terrorist is another person's freedom fighter".
-------------

In spite of everyone knowing it, it's wrong. Freedom fighters target oppressive forces. Terrorists target innocent civilians. There's a pretty big distinction there.


Indeed. Hezbollah began as a response to the military occupation of Lebanon by foreign invaders. Their history is one of fighting the Israeli military, not civilians.

If one is interested, and intellectually more adventurous than clicking on some Wikipaedia article, read Voice of Hezbollah: The Statemnts of Sayyed Hassan Nasrallah (Ed. Nicholas Noe) and check out what Nasrallah says about attacking civilians. He claimed that Hezbollah and Israel had an agreement not to target each others' civilian population, and the only times Hezbollah would launch rockets at civilians were responses to IOF attacks, and that whenever they did resort to this tactic, Hezbollah would stop once the Israelis stopped.

quote:
Hezbollah could actually continue to exist while completely renouncing terrorism.
Bring in an Inquisitor; I hear they're good at getting people to renounce their beliefs.

Just kidding, but since Hezbollah doesn't advocate terrorism, what do they have to renounce?


From: Saskatchistan | Registered: Feb 2003  |  IP: Logged
Frustrated Mess
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 8312

posted 03 July 2008 07:22 AM      Profile for Frustrated Mess   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
I think Hezbollah should renounce terrorism and violence on the very same day as Israel does.
From: doom without the gloom | Registered: Feb 2005  |  IP: Logged
Milagro
recent-rabble-rouser
Babbler # 15319

posted 03 July 2008 07:26 AM      Profile for Milagro        Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
Hezbollah should target as many settler scum as possible and do whatever it takes to repel them from their holy and sacred land. Every settler scum, no matter how old or man or woman armed or not is a valid target, anywhere. The settler scum is attempting genocide on the Muslim peoples, so any retaliation is valid, praise the most holy.
From: UofT | Registered: Jul 2008  |  IP: Logged
Frustrated Mess
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 8312

posted 03 July 2008 07:30 AM      Profile for Frustrated Mess   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
Thank you for that timely reminder that fanatics exist on both sides of every question.
From: doom without the gloom | Registered: Feb 2005  |  IP: Logged
unionist
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 11323

posted 03 July 2008 07:33 AM      Profile for unionist     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
Would some moderator please remove this Mossad agent (Milagro) from our board? Thanks in advance.
From: Vote QS! | Registered: Dec 2005  |  IP: Logged
Ghislaine
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 14957

posted 03 July 2008 07:37 AM      Profile for Ghislaine     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by unionist:
Would some moderator please remove this Mossad agent (Milagro) from our board? Thanks in advance.


Why are you calling him a Mossad agent? He sounds like a Hezbollah supporter. Although, I do agree that he should be removed for those disgusting statements.


From: L'Î-P-É | Registered: Feb 2008  |  IP: Logged
unionist
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 11323

posted 03 July 2008 07:44 AM      Profile for unionist     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Ghislaine:


Why are you calling him a Mossad agent? He sounds like a Hezbollah supporter. Although, I do agree that he should be removed for those disgusting statements.


I'm not going to grace your attack on Hezbollah with a response.


From: Vote QS! | Registered: Dec 2005  |  IP: Logged
Michelle
Moderator
Babbler # 560

posted 03 July 2008 08:19 AM      Profile for Michelle   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by unionist:
Would some moderator please remove this Mossad agent (Milagro) from our board? Thanks in advance.

No kidding. Nice try, Milagro. We've had agents provocateur on babble before.

They get the


From: I've got a fever, and the only prescription is more cowbell. | Registered: May 2001  |  IP: Logged
Pro-Caliphate
recent-rabble-rouser
Babbler # 15325

posted 03 July 2008 08:33 AM      Profile for Pro-Caliphate     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
We will the lead the settler scum to their end. The rivers shall run red, and the sacred land of Palestine will be returned to its rightful owners. We defeated the settler scum in 2006. We will do again. Their streets shall run red. The sharpened knives of vengence will no longer stay sheathed. Praise the most holy.
From: Toronto | Registered: Jul 2008  |  IP: Logged
Caissa
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 12752

posted 03 July 2008 08:38 AM      Profile for Caissa     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
Is the New Moon bringing out all of these posts?

[ 03 July 2008: Message edited by: Caissa ]


From: Saint John | Registered: Jun 2006  |  IP: Logged
Catchfire
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 4019

posted 03 July 2008 08:40 AM      Profile for Catchfire   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
They certainly don't get more creative as time goes on. Unfortunate.
From: On the heather | Registered: Apr 2003  |  IP: Logged
kropotkin1951
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 2732

posted 03 July 2008 08:49 AM      Profile for kropotkin1951   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
Gee isn't it a coincidence that the last banned poster and this idiot have the same writing style. Boy are they ever clever to change their names. Us dumb lefties will never figure it out.
From: North of Manifest Destiny | Registered: Jun 2002  |  IP: Logged
unionist
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 11323

posted 03 July 2008 08:55 AM      Profile for unionist     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
Viagro aka Pro-Cialis or whatever your name is, listen up. I know you had lots of fun at Mubin Shaikh's summer camp, what with the swimming and target practice and singalongs and Timmy's and all. But everyone else has figured out that it was a joke. Are you dense or what??

Please report back to your handlers that your cover is blown. Come back with a new writing style. And better stand-up material. Are the writers back on strike?? Sheesh.


From: Vote QS! | Registered: Dec 2005  |  IP: Logged
oldgoat
Moderator
Babbler # 1130

posted 03 July 2008 09:28 AM      Profile for oldgoat     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
and...


From: The 10th circle | Registered: Jul 2001  |  IP: Logged
Michelle
Moderator
Babbler # 560

posted 03 July 2008 09:30 AM      Profile for Michelle   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
Okay, you win this time, oldgoat. But I will prevail when I return again!
From: I've got a fever, and the only prescription is more cowbell. | Registered: May 2001  |  IP: Logged
al-Qa'bong
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 3807

posted 03 July 2008 10:46 AM      Profile for al-Qa'bong   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
quote:
Why are you calling him a Mossad agent? He sounds like a Hezbollah supporter.

Like hell he does! I'm a Hezbollah supporter, and I don't sound like this.


From: Saskatchistan | Registered: Feb 2003  |  IP: Logged
Cueball
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 4790

posted 03 July 2008 04:08 PM      Profile for Cueball   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Ghislaine:


Why are you calling him a Mossad agent? He sounds like a Hezbollah supporter. Although, I do agree that he should be removed for those disgusting statements.


You really think actual real life Hexbollah supporters sound like that?

I have met a few, and none have ever said anything like that to me ever. You watch too much TV as so does the troll. Here watch this, Planet of the Arabs:

[ 03 July 2008: Message edited by: Cueball ]


From: Out from under the bridge and out for a stroll | Registered: Dec 2003  |  IP: Logged
Catchfire
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 4019

posted 03 July 2008 04:28 PM      Profile for Catchfire   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
Well, he was going pretty good at 'the rivers shall run red." I was hooked! But then he repeated the same construction with "the streets shall run red" and I was all: "wait, both the river and the streets? Something's up. Hizbollah are, above all, realists."
From: On the heather | Registered: Apr 2003  |  IP: Logged
Cueball
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 4790

posted 03 July 2008 04:31 PM      Profile for Cueball   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
The last Hexboallah supporter I talked to wanted to show how a misinterpretation of Jean Baudrillard in the Matrix resulted in the creation of a media landscape that feeds into anti-Muslim prejudice.

[ 03 July 2008: Message edited by: Cueball ]


From: Out from under the bridge and out for a stroll | Registered: Dec 2003  |  IP: Logged
Catchfire
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 4019

posted 03 July 2008 04:34 PM      Profile for Catchfire   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
I could see how in some circles that could be considered an act of terrorism.
From: On the heather | Registered: Apr 2003  |  IP: Logged
contrarianna
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 13058

posted 04 July 2008 10:19 AM      Profile for contrarianna     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
I see there is a continued confusion on what is and what is not terrorism. The following examples may be helpful.

In the recent Lebanese invasion, if Hezbollah had snuck up on a UN observation post, manned by Canadians, and had blown it up, that would be an act of terrorism, plain and simple.
If, on the other hand, Israel had deliberately targeted the same UN post and had blown it up, it would be--unfortunate-- (and WTF were those guys doing there anyway).

I sure this clears things up, please check with Stephen Harper if confusion persists.


From: here to inanity | Registered: Aug 2006  |  IP: Logged

All times are Pacific Time  

Post New Topic  Post A Reply Close Topic    Move Topic    Delete Topic next oldest topic   next newest topic
Hop To:

Contact Us | rabble.ca | Policy Statement

Copyright 2001-2008 rabble.ca