Harper is ruining our ability to act as an honest broker.

[gerryhatrick]

There seems to be some confusion about the objections to Harpers handling of the Mid-East crisis.

The rightwing pundits are spreading the lie that those opposed to how Harper has handled things want to treat Hezbollah and Israel as moral equals.

The truth is that most Canadians wish for something else. They want our government to point out and condemn ALL of the suffering, the Lebanese suffering and the Israeli suffering. They want our government to point out that Israeli bombs have spilled 30,000 tonnes of oil into the Sea, causing an environmental disaster. They want out government to request Israel to not target anymore oil storage facilities on the coastline. They want our government to ask Hezbollah to stop shooting rockets while we also ask Israel to stop air raids and tank shelling.

Starting to see it? THAT is being an honest broker. Being willing to critisize both sides harshly in a fair and open manner.

It DOESN'T mean that we give credance to Hezbollah or take their side. We're concerned with Lebanese civilians and Israeli civilians.

The fact is Israel has most of the power in this war. They have the real fire power and they can choose how much it escalates. Because of this, they need to hear all of the harsh truths about their actions.

Instead, Harper has given 100% support to Israel. Anything they do is A-OK with him. That's not being a friend to Israel or a leader of Canada.

Israel needs to be reminded that if it destroys a nation of 4 million to wipe out a terrorist organization of a few thousand then they will pay a terrible price down the road.

That is a fair statement. An honest evaluation that could be made by an honest broker. Instead we have a man who simply repeats that Israel has a right to defend itself and Hezbollah has caused all of this. Not only is that uneccessary to repeat, but it's not fair and honest. Israel controls it's actions, they can not all be blamed on Hezbollah. They are not free from responsibility for what they choose to do.

[Leafless]

It DOESN'T mean that we give credance to Hezbollah or take their side. We're concerned with Lebanese civilians and Israeli civilians.

Why don't you get over it?

Any conflict or war between countries there will always be civilian casualties.

You should thankful it is not worse than it is regarding civilian casualties.

[Leader Circle]

There seems to be some confusion about the objections to Harpers handling of the Mid-East crisis.

The rightwing pundits are spreading the lie that those opposed to how Harper has handled things want to treat Hezbollah and Israel as moral equals.

The truth is that most Canadians wish for something else. They want our government to point out and condemn ALL of the suffering, the Lebanese suffering and the Israeli suffering. They want our government to point out that Israeli bombs have spilled 30,000 tonnes of oil into the Sea, causing an environmental disaster. They want out government to request Israel to not target anymore oil storage facilities on the coastline. They want our government to ask Hezbollah to stop shooting rockets while we also ask Israel to stop air raids and tank shelling.

Starting to see it? THAT is being an honest broker. Being willing to critisize both sides harshly in a fair and open manner.

It DOESN'T mean that we give credance to Hezbollah or take their side. We're concerned with Lebanese civilians and Israeli civilians.

The fact is Israel has most of the power in this war. They have the real fire power and they can choose how much it escalates. Because of this, they need to hear all of the harsh truths about their actions.

Instead, Harper has given 100% support to Israel. Anything they do is A-OK with him. That's not being a friend to Israel or a leader of Canada.

Israel needs to be reminded that if it destroys a nation of 4 million to wipe out a terrorist organization of a few thousand then they will pay a terrible price down the road.

That is a fair statement. An honest evaluation that could be made by an honest broker. Instead we have a man who simply repeats that Israel has a right to defend itself and Hezbollah has caused all of this. Not only is that uneccessary to repeat, but it's not fair and honest. Israel controls it's actions, they can not all be blamed on Hezbollah. They are not free from responsibility for what they choose to do.

How many more useless threads are you going to put on here about the same topic? You just want to bash Harper for the same BS reasons, give it up! Your time was back in the sixties... go get in your VW bus and head for Woodstock, we are tired of your same pathetic rants.

[Argus]

There seems to be some confusion about the objections to Harpers handling of the Mid-East crisis.

The rightwing pundits are spreading the lie that those opposed to how Harper has handled things want to treat Hezbollah and Israel as moral equals.

The truth is that most Canadians wish for something else. They want our government to point out and condemn ALL of the suffering, the Lebanese suffering and the Israeli suffering.

Because, like, that would make it all stop, right?

No, of course not. Even you don't believe our condemnation would have any affect. So why?

Oh, of course. We need to, once again, climb onto that pedestal, wrap ourselves in nobility, look sadly out at those foolish, unenlightened folk, and preach to them of how full of joy and splendor their lives would be if only they were as peaceful and righteous as us. You need to reinforce to yourselves that you are better than them, that you are wiser and more restrained, calmer, and more studied, more civilized, while at the same time, being wonderfully sensitive to their cultural concerns.

Don't you think it's unfair that international map makers don't put a glowing halo around Canada on every map?

Starting to see it? THAT is being an honest broker.

Uh, no, that's being a useless, prattling, preaching self-righteous hypocrite.

An honest broker is someone others respect and come to in order to help them negotiate an end to their problems. We have never been an honest broker, because no one really respect us. Our international positions have always been taken with an eye to the ethnic electorate, and how much money our influential corporations have invested somewhere. Thus we are ferocious defendants of human rights - unless there are ethnic votes or money to lose. Hypocrites, in other words.

And who are the countries that actually have influence there? Why, the US and France, at the moment, neither of whom straddles fences, both of whom have been pretty obviously siding with one side or the other.

Israel needs to be reminded that if it destroys a nation of 4 million to wipe out a terrorist organization of a few thousand then they will pay a terrible price down the road.

So you actually think the moaning, self-righteous, peace-loving lefties in Canada, have ANYTHING to tell Israel about strategic thinking and how they might best defend themselves?

That is a fair statement. An honest evaluation that could be made by an honest broker.

No, it's collosal gall from nobodies who are uninvolved, who face no threat, are far away, and who know virtually nothing about the situation.

[watching&waiting]

If we were to look at this as something more close to home and near to our own way of life. For example: What if the FLQ from in Quebec were to become an active terroist group who lobbed rockets across the Quebec border into Ontario, and were not actively being stopped by the quebec government, and after a while Onario decided enough was enough and started going after sites along the border that were being used as launch sites. Would you be more inclined to side with the people of Quebec or the people of Ontario? This is much the same as the situation is for us here in Canada when we look at the problems over in Lebanon.

I do not thinki it is a hard decision to side with Israel in this as they have themselves turned the other cheek many many times. The very unstable nature of the Lebanon govenments are more then a small factor in all the troubles they have there. What is needed is a term of stable overseeing for that country, to rebuild and get back to a stable life without the constant banter of death to Israel of the terroists.

[jbg]

I think there are enough neutral countries in the world, morally and otherwise. Canada does not have to be one of them.

As much as you find it hard to believe. Harper's right on this one.

[gerryhatrick]

How many more useless threads are you going to put on here about the same topic?

Piss off troll.

[newbie]

There seems to be some confusion about the objections to Harpers handling of the Mid-East crisis.

The rightwing pundits are spreading the lie that those opposed to how Harper has handled things want to treat Hezbollah and Israel as moral equals.

The truth is that most Canadians wish for something else. They want our government to point out and condemn ALL of the suffering, the Lebanese suffering and the Israeli suffering. They want our government to point out that Israeli bombs have spilled 30,000 tonnes of oil into the Sea, causing an environmental disaster. They want out government to request Israel to not target anymore oil storage facilities on the coastline. They want our government to ask Hezbollah to stop shooting rockets while we also ask Israel to stop air raids and tank shelling.

It DOESN'T mean that we give credance to Hezbollah or take their side. We're concerned with Lebanese civilians and Israeli civilians.

Thanks for the voice of reason and compassion, sadly lacking in the right-wing camp.

[gnam]

Hey guys... just a thought...

Since this whole Isreal-middle east thing isn't working out so well, I thought maybe everyone could get together and arrange to have the Israeli state moved. Doing so would, in fact, be no more arbitrary an action than the decision, taken not too long ago, to create the Israeli state where it now stands. Additionally I have a geat location in mind that I think the israelis will like.

While the location I'm thinking of doesn't boast the same number of of Judeo-Christian historical sites, there are some geographical similarities. There is a coast line, and the climate is not unsimilar to that of the current Israeli state... and the overall land mass in question is not so different from one place to the other. Additionally there are still some very valuable natural resources in the new area.

As for most of the current residents of my proposed location for a new Isreali state... well, they aren't really of much consequence. They could, for the most part be dispersed to the surrounding countryside, or the Isrealis could keep them if they wanted. Additionally, most of the current residents are Christians who haven't had to deal with any real persecution or violence anywhere near their homes in quite some time now. The likelihood of the new Isreal finding it necessary to engage in the kind of ugly mass murder campaigns they are currently embroiled in would probably be a thing of the past. The christians in this area are more or less docile sheep when faced with anything but a TV screen featuring the visage of Osama Bin Laden or a homosexual. In both of those cases the current residents tend to froth at the mouth and hurl obscenities at anyone within spittle showering range. All the same dealing with these folks should be a walk in the park for the Israelis.

The Israelis could also free up a large chunk of their defense budget since the high tech anti-terrorist gadgets and trinkets in use in the Middle east would be unnecessary for dealing with the christians. Rather, a system of deterents could be put in place (the current residents of this area already make extensive use of a system of deterents for maintaing existing racial and class stratifications, thus they should prove quite receptive to this kind of a control mechanism). For example, should any of the dispalced residents of the area take it into their heads to shoot at, bomb, kidnap or frighten the Isrealis in any way, public executions of those responsible, or members of their group (re: Christians) could be publicly executed... nothing fancy... maybe crucifixions, or perhaps public lion feedings with christians as the main course might do the trick. Flayings and lashings ought to work for lesser offences.

In any case, those in the middle east would probably be much better off were we all to get on board with such an undertaking.

What does everyone think?... should we move Israel to Texas??

It would be a win-win situation for everyone involved... no more daily violence for Israelis and arabs in the middle east and no more Texas.

How's that for a bit of honest brokerage??

heh... I should be Prime Minsiter... heellooo nobel peace prize!

[Hicksey]

Hey guys... just a thought...

Since this whole Isreal-middle east thing isn't working out so well, I thought maybe everyone could get together and arrange to have the Israeli state moved. Doing so would, in fact, be no more arbitrary an action than the decision, taken not too long ago, to create the Israeli state where it now stands. Additionally I have a geat location in mind that I think the israelis will like.

While the location I'm thinking of doesn't boast the same number of of Judeo-Christian historical sites, there are some geographical similarities. There is a coast line, and the climate is not unsimilar to that of the current Israeli state... and the overall land mass in question is not so different from one place to the other. Additionally there are still some very valuable natural resources in the new area.

As for most of the current residents of my proposed location for a new Isreali state... well, they aren't really of much consequence. They could, for the most part be dispersed to the surrounding countryside, or the Isrealis could keep them if they wanted. Additionally, most of the current residents are Christians who haven't had to deal with any real persecution or violence anywhere near their homes in quite some time now. The likelihood of the new Isreal finding it necessary to engage in the kind of ugly mass murder campaigns they are currently embroiled in would probably be a thing of the past. The christians in this area are more or less docile sheep when faced with anything but a TV screen featuring the visage of Osama Bin Laden or a homosexual. In both of those cases the current residents tend to froth at the mouth and hurl obscenities at anyone within spittle showering range. All the same dealing with these folks should be a walk in the park for the Israelis.

The Israelis could also free up a large chunk of their defense budget since the high tech anti-terrorist gadgets and trinkets in use in the Middle east would be unnecessary for dealing with the christians. Rather, a system of deterents could be put in place (the current residents of this area already make extensive use of a system of deterents for maintaing existing racial and class stratifications, thus they should prove quite receptive to this kind of a control mechanism). For example, should any of the dispalced residents of the area take it into their heads to shoot at, bomb, kidnap or frighten the Isrealis in any way, public executions of those responsible, or members of their group (re: Christians) could be publicly executed... nothing fancy... maybe crucifixions, or perhaps public lion feedings with christians as the main course might do the trick. Flayings and lashings ought to work for lesser offences.

In any case, those in the middle east would probably be much better off were we all to get on board with such an undertaking.

What does everyone think?... should we move Israel to Texas??

It would be a win-win situation for everyone involved... no more daily violence for Israelis and arabs in the middle east and no more Texas.

How's that for a bit of honest brokerage??

heh... I should be Prime Minsiter... heellooo nobel peace prize!

I have a better idea. An even swap: Quebec for Israel.

[scribblet]

I think there are enough neutral countries in the world, morally and otherwise. Canada does not have to be one of them.

As much as you find it hard to believe. Harper's right on this one.

Of course he's right, and he's made a pretty good/sly move in appointing a liberal to be a middle east advisor though. This MP is going to have to quit the caucus maybe even jumpt ship.

There is no equivocating here when it comes to supporting or not supporting terrorists.

Hezbollah is an illegal, nationless terrorist organization that cannot "retaliate' for anything in any acceptable definition of the term.

Hezbollah has no citizens, no recognition as a nation, no responsibility and represents no one.

This gang of amoral, belligerent, murderous thugs can only lash out, destroy, maim and murder. Hezbollah contribute nothing to civilization nor to any society; their coinage nothing but is anarchy and disruption of peaceful coexistence between nations.

Sovereign nations can retaliate for encroachment on the safety and security of the state or its citizens; Hezbollah can not.

Do people really think that it is reasonable to allow Hezbollah to continue to be funded and armed by Iran, and to continue bombarding Israel with rockets, to tunnel under the border and kidnap Israelis at will and that Israel can continue to exist, but only so long as it accepts constant attack and makes no efforts to defend itself?

[scribblet]

How many more useless threads are you going to put on here about the same topic? You just want to bash Harper for the same BS reasons, give it up! Your time was back in the sixties... go get in your VW bus and head for Woodstock, we are tired of your same pathetic rants.

Agreed, similar tactics to one cagerattler I believe.

[Argus]

Hey guys... just a thought...

A small one, of no consequence, not worth discussing.

[Argus]

Hey guys... just a thought...

Since this whole Isreal-middle east thing isn't working out so well, I thought maybe everyone could get together and arrange to have the Israeli state moved. Doing so would, in fact, be no more arbitrary an action than the decision, taken not too long ago, to create the Israeli state where it now stands. Additionally I have a geat location in mind that I think the israelis will like.

While the location I'm thinking of doesn't boast the same number of of Judeo-Christian historical sites, there are some geographical similarities. There is a coast line, and the climate is not unsimilar to that of the current Israeli state... and the overall land mass in question is not so different from one place to the other. Additionally there are still some very valuable natural resources in the new area.

As for most of the current residents of my proposed location for a new Isreali state... well, they aren't really of much consequence. They could, for the most part be dispersed to the surrounding countryside, or the Isrealis could keep them if they wanted. Additionally, most of the current residents are Christians who haven't had to deal with any real persecution or violence anywhere near their homes in quite some time now. The likelihood of the new Isreal finding it necessary to engage in the kind of ugly mass murder campaigns they are currently embroiled in would probably be a thing of the past. The christians in this area are more or less docile sheep when faced with anything but a TV screen featuring the visage of Osama Bin Laden or a homosexual. In both of those cases the current residents tend to froth at the mouth and hurl obscenities at anyone within spittle showering range. All the same dealing with these folks should be a walk in the park for the Israelis.

The Israelis could also free up a large chunk of their defense budget since the high tech anti-terrorist gadgets and trinkets in use in the Middle east would be unnecessary for dealing with the christians. Rather, a system of deterents could be put in place (the current residents of this area already make extensive use of a system of deterents for maintaing existing racial and class stratifications, thus they should prove quite receptive to this kind of a control mechanism). For example, should any of the dispalced residents of the area take it into their heads to shoot at, bomb, kidnap or frighten the Isrealis in any way, public executions of those responsible, or members of their group (re: Christians) could be publicly executed... nothing fancy... maybe crucifixions, or perhaps public lion feedings with christians as the main course might do the trick. Flayings and lashings ought to work for lesser offences.

In any case, those in the middle east would probably be much better off were we all to get on board with such an undertaking.

What does everyone think?... should we move Israel to Texas??

It would be a win-win situation for everyone involved... no more daily violence for Israelis and arabs in the middle east and no more Texas.

How's that for a bit of honest brokerage??

heh... I should be Prime Minsiter... heellooo nobel peace prize!

I have a better idea. An even swap: Quebec for Israel.

Uhm, no.

[gnam]

I think there are enough neutral countries in the world, morally and otherwise. Canada does not have to be one of them.

As much as you find it hard to believe. Harper's right on this one.

Of course he's right, and he's made a pretty good/sly move in appointing a liberal to be a middle east advisor though. This MP is going to have to quit the caucus maybe even jumpt ship.

There is no equivocating here when it comes to supporting or not supporting terrorists.

Hezbollah is an illegal, nationless terrorist organization that cannot "retaliate' for anything in any acceptable definition of the term.

Hezbollah has no citizens, no recognition as a nation, no responsibility and represents no one.

This gang of amoral, belligerent, murderous thugs can only lash out, destroy, maim and murder. Hezbollah contribute nothing to civilization nor to any society; their coinage nothing but is anarchy and disruption of peaceful coexistence between nations.

Sovereign nations can retaliate for encroachment on the safety and security of the state or its citizens; Hezbollah can not.

Do people really think that it is reasonable to allow Hezbollah to continue to be funded and armed by Iran, and to continue bombarding Israel with rockets, to tunnel under the border and kidnap Israelis at will and that Israel can continue to exist, but only so long as it accepts constant attack and makes no efforts to defend itself?

What do you mean when you say there is no equivocating when it comes to supporting or not supporting terrorists. Also, how do you define terrorist?

Is Hezbollah a terrorist group by virtue of the fact that it is illegal? Many groups that seek to agitate for civil liberties and increased democratic rights in China are illegal. Presumably you do not believe that they are terrorist organizations, though you may feel free to correct me if I am wrong. Nelson Mendela's efforts in South Africa were deemed illegal by the South African State, again, I can only assume that you, being a reasonable and decent human being, would not label the efforts of the Black movement in South Africa as Terrorist. Thus if you agree to this then legality can have no bearing on your definition of a group as a terrorist organization.

Is the fact that Hezbollah has no nation it's defining feature as a terrorist organization? Perhaps, and yet there are a number of instances in which groups of fighters have been nationless or sectarian and have also constituted a legitimate fighting force. Here the Cu Chi Rebels of the Vietnam war come to mind. Technically the people of Cu Chi are Vietnamese. During the war they were neutral with many of their sympathies in the south... until they were carpet bombed by the americans, at which point the came together as their own guerilla force and proceeded to pummell the south using many of the same tactics as Hezbollah. They became Viet Cong fighters by default. In any case the people of Cu Chi cannot be said to have constituted their own nation.

Additionally, the claim that Hezbollah is nationless is debatable to say the least. Even pro US/Israel news networks (CNN) have pointed out that Hezbollah is seen by many in the arab world as La Resistance against israeli occupying forces (those forces that occupied southern lebanon until very recently). Thus Hezbollah can reasonably be said to belong to the arab nation and to represent the interests of at least some members of that nation. Note here that resistance fighters in world war 2 were not taken to represent the views of all Frenchmen at the time. Many French people advocated peaceful co-existence with their German occupiers as a pragmatic survival strategy. Please take note here, I am in no way suggesting that there is any ideological connection between present day Israel and Nazi Germany. I only make the point that Hezbollah does not need 100% backing from the Arab world in order to legitimately claim to represent and belong to that nation.

You say that Hezbollah has no recognition as a nation and yet they legitimately hold seats in the Lebanese parliament (which I might add refutes your claims that Hezbollah has no responsibility and represents no one... two claims which are obviously erroneous due to the definition of what it means to be elected to parliament and hold parliamentary seats) and are recognized as an important group in the region by the entire world at this point... Important enough to bomb UN outposts and civilian filled buildings in hopes of killing a few of Hezbollah's fighters or destroying some rocket launchers.

You say that soverign nations can retaliate against encroachments on the safety of their states and citizens, but Hezbollah cannot. Are you saying that Hezbollah cannot do so because they lack a State? The Kurds in Iraq have no state and retaliate(d) against Iraqi and Turkish attacks alike in their territory and against their citizens. No one (except maybe Iraq and Turkey) considers the Kurds to be a terrorist group. Thus statehood cannot be the criterion by which a group legitimately derives the right to retaliate against attacks on its military and general population. Near as can be told, considering everything discussed thus far, Hezbollah does retain some right of retaliation against anyone who threatens the citizens it represents, its territory, or it's organization.

As for whether it is reasonable for hezbollah to recieve funding and weapons from a state that sees its interests represented in the actions of that group (Iran)... well, Israel recieves weapons and funding from the united states... South Korea recieves funding, weaponry, and a standaing US military prescence, Likewise for Japan. The Kurds (see above) recieve weaponry from the united states and its client states. Thus, either all of these actions are justified (from a given perspective: Western, Arab, Kurdish), or all of them are not. In any case, if the those of us in the west are justified in arming certain groups in order to achieve political ends then we can hardly scoff at the the legitimacy such a practice being undertaken by Iran if that is indeed what Iran is doing. We don't have to like the fact that the Iranians have learned to play our military/political games but we aren't in a position to use such activities in the definition of those we dislike as terrorist, unless we would subject ourselves to the same labelling criteria.

Finally, while it is agreed that Israel has the right to defend it's state and citizens, one should keep in mind that Isreal has been fighting with and Killing Lebanese Hezbollah fighters for many years, and vice versa. The issue that seems to have set this most recent conflict in motion is the continued detainment of Lebanese prisoners, many of whom have been detained since the Israeli occupation of Southern Lebanon (Thus reasonably interpreted as POW's). In retaliation, Hezbollah seems to have launched a military operation against an Israeli military target (two Soldiers) in order to gain the leverage necessary to negotiate its demands with Israel, namely, the release of its POW's. In response, Israel has sought to display its ruthlessness on such matters in the region by pulverizing southern Lebanon, as well as any Hezbollah targets that happen to get in the way. At this point one ought to take account of the traditional (pre-9/11... that is, before the word terrorism became the Macarthy era equivalent of the word communism)understanding of the definition of terrorism. Terrorist acts were taken to be acts committed by civilian or paramilitary groups against civilian populations of a given state in order to leverage said state into capitulating to the group's demands. As is well known, Hezbollah is an oganized military and political group that is confined to a specific region. Prior to the current conflict in which civilian casualties have become the order of the day, Hezbollah tageted military servicemen and installations inside its territory, though the point should be made that it consistently threatened to target civilian Israeli areas. In any case, the facts as they stand show that the criteria by which you label Hezbollah a terrorist group are insufficient to make your case.

Thus, if Hezbollah is not a terrorist group then Harper must adopt a new middle east policy in the interest of acting as a responsible broker (since we've decided to use that namby pamby term). Otherwise, it remains to be shown that Hezbollah are, in fact, terrorists and Sciblett as well as his hero Harper have work to do in order to justify their position, and show that Canadian policy in the region is justified.

Or, we could just skip it and forget trying to pretend that Canada is a democracy with interested, intelligent citizens. I say we skip all that, grab a bag of popcorn, sit back, turn on CNN to watch the fireworks eh??

[gnam]

Hey guys... just a thought...

A small one, of no consequence, not worth discussing.

True, and yet fun to write.

[Argus]

Is Hezbollah a terrorist group by virtue of the fact that it is illegal?

No, because it is involved in terrorism.

Many groups that seek to agitate for civil liberties and increased democratic rights in China are illegal. Presumably you do not believe that they are terrorist organizations,

That would depend on how they "agitate".

Nelson Mendela's efforts in South Africa were deemed illegal by the South African State, again, I can only assume that you, being a reasonable and decent human being, would not label the efforts of the Black movement in South Africa as Terrorist.

They certainly were terrorists. Nelson Mandela is an unreformed terrorist.

Is the fact that Hezbollah has no nation it's defining feature as a terrorist organization?

No, the fact it deliberately seeks to murder civilians and sow terror.

You say that soverign nations can retaliate against encroachments on the safety of their states and citizens, but Hezbollah cannot. Are you saying that Hezbollah cannot do so because they lack a State?

Let's just say they'd have more moral authority had they not provoked the encroachment through attacking Israel.

The issue that seems to have set this most recent conflict in motion is the continued detainment of Lebanese prisoners, many of whom have been detained since the Israeli occupation of Southern Lebanon

Do you have any evidence to support this claim? The only name I've heard mentioned, the name of a man Hezbollah demands be released from prison, is Samir Kuntar.

In 1979, Samir Kuntar led a raid that targeted civilians in Nahariya. His group entered the apartment of a young couple, Danny and Smadar Haran. They took Danny and his 4-year-old daughter, Einat, hostage and retreated to the beach. Trapped there, first, according to witnesses, they killed Danny. The murder of her father would be the last scene Einat would see. For then the raiders killed the little girl — by bashing her head against a rock. Back at their apartment, Danny's wife, Smadar, had escaped execution by hiding in the crawlspace above a bedroom with their other daughter, two-year-old Yael. Afraid the child would reveal their hiding place, she had covered Yael's mouth with her hand. When she took her hand away, the mother realized she had smothered her child to death.

[watching&waiting]

Canada is known for doing some hard thinking before supporting countries engaged in wars. We have done so in this case and yes that means we have taken sides. But if you look at the past elections in Lebanon you will see that the People voted in a terrorist party to govern the country. Now, not only did Canada thing long and hard about this, but we did take a stand on it and yes, I believe we took the right stand in opposing any support for the government. After that the Lebanese government tried to re-invent itself into more palettable versions, but it still was a spade is a spade.

So why is it that when war starts between Israel and Lebanon that we find ourselves taking the side of the Israelli government? Just how was it not seen coming that the terrorist government of Lebanon who has a view that Isael should be removed from the map, gets into power and of course in short order we find them at war with Israel. Does anyone really think that this came as a surprise? Just as Canada does not support terrorists or governments that are aligned with terrorists, how is it that some people think we should become neutral in our position. I am glad that Harper took this stand, as it is the only stand that allows Canadians the chance to show they are against terrorists not matter where and no matter how they are supported.

The protests here in Canada where Hezbola flags were flying and having Liberal MP marching under thise flags, makes me want to be sure that liberals never again get back to power as they see only opportunity to cause trouble and disrupt a goevrnment not of their own making and will even march under a terroist flag to try and achieve their goals. That type of Canadian is not my kind and while they have the right to do what they wish in this country, it does show just how corrupt the liberal still are. As far as the Lebanese people protesting. I ask why did you leave your country to come to Canada. Are you so willing to support a government that is of a terroist party, and if so, what can we do to make sure we close the hole that this kind of refugee can slip through, as this is not and will never be what Canada is all about.

So yes Canada supports Israel in the fight against a terrorist neighbour who has been lobbing rockets across the border and kidnapping Isaelli soldiers, while Israel tries to turn the other cheek. They let the world try to curb the Lebanese government, and when that failed they have attacked with what I call measured attacks. It is now growing to encompass more and more, but can you blame Israel for wanting to drive back the terrorist rockets so they can not reach the Iraelli towns and villages. While the world hears about civillian casualties in Lebanon, we do not seem to under stand that while the Israelli's have tried to limit civillians, the Hezbola rockets are just loobed into cities and hit what ever they hit killing civillians. These rockets are not even tried to hit military targets just to hit populated areas to cause as much damage as possible. So to all you things Canadians, what side would you support in this?

[gnam]

Is Hezbollah a terrorist group by virtue of the fact that it is illegal?

No, because it is involved in terrorism.

Right... I guess maybe you missed the point. Forgive me if I was unclear. I was attempting to point out that no sufficient definition of 'terrorist' has been given that would condemn Hezbollah as such. They are not terrorists because you say so... so what are the reasons?

Many groups that seek to agitate for civil liberties and increased democratic rights in China are illegal. Presumably you do not believe that they are terrorist organizations,

That would depend on how they "agitate".

Again, What constitutes the terrorist sort of agitation? Would the Canadian historical figure Louis Riel be included in your definition? The Canadian state at the time thought so (they used different language though).

Nelson Mendela's efforts in South Africa were deemed illegal by the South African State, again, I can only assume that you, being a reasonable and decent human being, would not label the efforts of the Black movement in South Africa as Terrorist.

They certainly were terrorists. Nelson Mandela is an unreformed terrorist.

I'm not gonna touch this one...

Is the fact that Hezbollah has no nation it's defining feature as a terrorist organization?

No, the fact it deliberately seeks to murder civilians and sow terror.

On this point I will take your lead and ask your questions: Do you have any evidence to support this claim. The story cited below requires some context. For example, what was Hezbollah's explanation for this action. Concievably, Lebanese civilians might interpret the Israeli leveling of an apartment building filled with women and children in much the same as you are interpreting this action... context my friend.

You say that soverign nations can retaliate against encroachments on the safety of their states and citizens, but Hezbollah cannot. Are you saying that Hezbollah cannot do so because they lack a State?

Let's just say they'd have more moral authority had they not provoked the encroachment through attacking Israel.

Be that as it may, their tactics are hardly uncommon among Israeli or US military startegy... moral authority doesn't seem to be included in their demands in any case.

The issue that seems to have set this most recent conflict in motion is the continued detainment of Lebanese prisoners, many of whom have been detained since the Israeli occupation of Southern Lebanon

Do you have any evidence to support this claim? The only name I've heard mentioned, the name of a man Hezbollah demands be released from prison, is Samir Kuntar.

In 1979, Samir Kuntar led a raid that targeted civilians in Nahariya. His group entered the apartment of a young couple, Danny and Smadar Haran. They took Danny and his 4-year-old daughter, Einat, hostage and retreated to the beach. Trapped there, first, according to witnesses, they killed Danny. The murder of her father would be the last scene Einat would see. For then the raiders killed the little girl — by bashing her head against a rock. Back at their apartment, Danny's wife, Smadar, had escaped execution by hiding in the crawlspace above a bedroom with their other daughter, two-year-old Yael. Afraid the child would reveal their hiding place, she had covered Yael's mouth with her hand. When she took her hand away, the mother realized she had smothered her child to death.

This is a terrible story. As I mentioned above the attacks on civilian targets by Israel have provided equally terrible video footage. Niether action is justified at this stage.

As for the evidence you seek. A simple google search will bring up the names of a number of of lebanese and hezbollah prisoners taken and held by israel over the years. Also, you will undoubtedly stumble across an article (BBC I think) that details Israeli willingness to engage in prisoner exchanges in the past (I can't remeber the guy's name at the moment), thereby setting a precident for these sorts of tactics. Thus Hezbollah's most recent kidnapping can hardly be surprising when Israel has sent the message that it will negaotiate under such conditions.

Anyway As I said, my point is just that this conflict is hardly as cut and dried as the staunch supporters of one side or the other make it out to be. Particularly troublesome is the fast and loose use of the term 'Terror' used to describe evrything one doesn't like. Maybe we could tighten up our use of the term??

[Ricki Bobbi]

That is a great point. There are so many ways to look at this issue it really is a tough thing to do.

Harper's response may not have been nuanced enough for some. That is the only valid objection to his response.

The knee-jerk anti-Israel response is just symbolic of the left's lack of ideas and ability to look at both sides of an issue.

Anyway As I said, my point is just that this conflict is hardly as cut and dried as the staunch supporters of one side or the other make it out to be. Particularly troublesome is the fast and loose use of the term 'Terror' used to describe evrything one doesn't like. Maybe we could tighten up our use of the term??

[Hicksey]

Correct me if I am wrong, but isn't that what the UN is for?

If we still need to do this despite our status in the UN, why do we pay them dues?

[gnam]

Correct me if I am wrong, but isn't that what the UN is for?

If we still need to do this despite our status in the UN, why do we pay them dues?

Isn't 'what?' what the UN is for???

[Hicksey]

Correct me if I am wrong, but isn't that what the UN is for?

If we still need to do this despite our status in the UN, why do we pay them dues?

Isn't 'what?' what the UN is for???

To be an honest broker? Why must we act independently of the UNSC when that's what they are for in the first place? Don't we pay member dues for just such an occasion?

[gnam]

Correct me if I am wrong, but isn't that what the UN is for?

If we still need to do this despite our status in the UN, why do we pay them dues?

Isn't 'what?' what the UN is for???

To be an honest broker? Why must we act independently of the UNSC when that's what they are for in the first place? Don't we pay member dues for just such an occasion?

we must sometimes act independantly of the UNSC because the UNSC is not always an honest broker (niether are we but the idea is that we are supposed to make the effort)... It is run by the most powerful states in the world... incidentally, the fact that they are the most powerful, in many cases, translates to an inability to broker deals that are just for the parties in question because said power ensures that UNSC members often have a vested interest in certain outcomes, not necessarily the best outcomes.

We pay membership dues because while the UN is imperfect it is the only organization of its kind and withdrawing one's membership is thought to be detrimental to a state's legitimacy in international affairs. Incidentally, I'm not entirely convinced that this is the case but it, or something like it, seems to be the logic that motivates us to continue paying dues.

[Hicksey]

Correct me if I am wrong, but isn't that what the UN is for?

If we still need to do this despite our status in the UN, why do we pay them dues?

Isn't 'what?' what the UN is for???

To be an honest broker? Why must we act independently of the UNSC when that's what they are for in the first place? Don't we pay member dues for just such an occasion?

we must sometimes act independantly of the UNSC because the UNSC is not always an honest broker (niether are we but the idea is that we are supposed to make the effort)... It is run by the most powerful states in the world... incidentally, the fact that they are the most powerful, in many cases, translates to an inability to broker deals that are just for the parties in question because said power ensures that UNSC members often have a vested interest in certain outcomes, not necessarily the best outcomes.

We pay membership dues because while the UN is imperfect it is the only organization of its kind and withdrawing one's membership is thought to be detrimental to a state's legitimacy in international affairs. Incidentally, I'm not entirely convinced that this is the case but it, or something like it, seems to be the logic that motivates us to continue paying dues.

So we're standing before the world a bunch of elitists, saying "No, do it our way", with absolutely no ability to back it up short of running to the UN?