Christian Anti-Syrian Lebanese MP Killed

[JerrySeinfeld]

Is it just me, or is the UN anti-American, anti-Israel bias starting to look pretty weak in the face of more continued agression by Hezbollah and the rest of the Jihad....

[White Doors]

Is it just me, or is the UN anti-American, anti-Israel bias starting to look pretty weak in the face of more continued agression by Hezbollah and the rest of the Jihad....

Come on, the IDF did this to make Hezbollah, Iran, Syria look bad.

[betsy]

While this Christian Pro-Western Minister was being assassinated....Kofi Annan was endorsing getting Iran and Syria to help in Iraq!

The wolf and the fox...together....in the chicken house!

The UN really is more than pathetic! This is like watching a Monty Python movie!

But, a dark comedy!

Surreal!

[JerrySeinfeld]

While this Christian Pro-Western Minister was being assassinated....Kofi Annan was endorsing getting Iran and Syria to help in Iraq!

The wolf and the fox...together....in the chicken house!

The UN really is more than pathetic! This is like watching a Monty Python movie!

But, a dark comedy!

Surreal!

It's becoming clear the UN is an organization run by thugs.

What other organization in the world would welcome a holocaust denying armageddon-planner to address it's general assembly and take photo-ops with the secretary general?

At this point it appears that it's become so fashionable to hate the USA, or GW Bush, that countries (wrongly) find themselves supporting jew-hating, armageddon-loving dictatorial thugs.

Or as Peter Mansbridge (mistakenly?) said in an interview recently: "Can we put Iraq back together again?" (as if to imply that wish to go back to the hunky-dory days of good old Saddam Hussein).

[Cameron]

Links people, gotta back up the banter.

[Black Dog]

A link

Lebanon lurched closer to a fresh round of sectarian bloodletting yesterday with the assassination of its industry minister, Pierre Gemayel, a member of the country's most powerful Christian family and a leading opponent of Syrian influence.

The killing shook Lebanon's already beleaguered government and sent tremors across the Middle East, further complicating attempts to find a regional solution to the Iraq war. The Bush administration, under rising pressure to negotiate with Syria and Iran, yesterday hinted at the responsibility of both countries' governments, accusing them of trying destabilise Lebanon.

While this Christian Pro-Western Minister was being assassinated....Kofi Annan was endorsing getting Iran and Syria to help in Iraq!

Which puts him on the same page as Tony Blair and the Bush administration (opening up talks with Syria is expected to be one of the recommendations of the Baker commission studying Iraq).

Issues like this make it easy to separate the realists from the rookies. The former know that negotiations and diplomacy are value-neutral: that is, talking to someone because you want something from them is not the same as endorsing them.

[Higgly]

The most credible journalist when it comes to Lebanon is Robert Fisk who lives in Beirut and has covered it since the days of the civil war and the first Israeli invasion. He's not yet clearly pointing fingers at anybody. Here's what he has to say.

[jbg]

Issues like this make it easy to separate the realists from the rookies. The former know that negotiations and diplomacy are value-neutral: that is, talking to someone because you want something from them is not the same as endorsing them.

Value neutral?

This is a clip from a New York Times article from, I believe, 1976 from which I've typed excerpts. If anyone wants to read article, I've attached PDF. Or I'll send it to you on request.

Not a long time ago I finished giving a course about Nazi German to 100 Harvard undergraduates....In years past, I used to teach the course from a straight historical perspective.....But this time, I decided on a new approach. I called the course "Moral Dilemnas in a Repressive Society: Nazi Germany...."

"Guilt by diffusion" extended to the Pope, the Roman Catholic Church, the German Protetsants, the Social Democratic Party (for not resisting sooner), the members of the German resistance (for resisting too late), President Roosevelt (for appeasing Germany during the 1930's) and the Allies (for bombing Hamburg and Berlin and Dresden in the 1940's).

Reading these (the students') papers I recalled echoes of the same "blame games" played out in the German dramas of Rolf Hochhuth and the memores of Albert Speer; I wondered how such games came to the minds of a few American students....

Some day soon I'll be teaching the same course again. But not in the same way....This is my next assignment. Now I'm through teaching no-fault history.

no_fault_history.pdf

[jbg]

Apparently, as this National Post article (link) points out, some groups seem compelled to resolve their differences by force, by bullet rather than by ballot.

Should Israel have to "negotiate" with this kind of scum?

[Black Dog]

Value neutral?

This is a clip from a New York Times article from, I believe, 1976 from which I've typed excerpts. If anyone wants to read article, I've attached PDF. Or I'll send it to you on request.

Sorry, I dozed off at yet another tiresome and inapplicable appeasement reference.

Apparently, as this National Post article (link) points out, some groups seem compelled to resolve their differences by force, by bullet rather than by ballot.

Should Israel have to "negotiate" with this kind of scum?

If they want any kind of peace: yes.

[scribblet]

The most credible journalist when it comes to Lebanon is Robert Fisk who lives in Beirut and has covered it since the days of the civil war and the first Israeli invasion. He's not yet clearly pointing fingers at anybody. Here's what he has to say.

Is it called "Fisking the News"

Hezbollah has said it will bring down the Lebanese gov't if their demands are not met, wonder how much of a hand Hezbollah has in this.

[JerrySeinfeld]

Value neutral?

This is a clip from a New York Times article from, I believe, 1976 from which I've typed excerpts. If anyone wants to read article, I've attached PDF. Or I'll send it to you on request.

Sorry, I dozed off at yet another tiresome and inapplicable appeasement reference.

Apparently, as this National Post article (link) points out, some groups seem compelled to resolve their differences by force, by bullet rather than by ballot.

Should Israel have to "negotiate" with this kind of scum?

If they want any kind of peace: yes.

Peace now or peace later?

Wait - forget it - Hezbollah, Iran, Syria and the Jihad won't allow for either.

[Rue]

Value neutral?

This is a clip from a New York Times article from, I believe, 1976 from which I've typed excerpts. If anyone wants to read article, I've attached PDF. Or I'll send it to you on request.

Sorry, I dozed off at yet another tiresome and inapplicable appeasement reference.

Apparently, as this National Post article (link) points out, some groups seem compelled to resolve their differences by force, by bullet rather than by ballot.

Should Israel have to "negotiate" with this kind of scum?

If they want any kind of peace: yes.

Blackdog I say this with utmost respect, I always wonder with people who advocate sitting down to dialogue with terrorists-really understand just what it is they are saying. Do you?

Blakdog the point is we all agree there must be dialogue-but it is in my opinion very naive of you to think you can sit and dialogue with a terrorist until they first say-I will recognize your right to exist and not shoot at you. What you are suggesting is that a reasonable person would sit down with someone who says I am going to kill you as soon as I get a chance. That makes no sense. In fact it is absurd. More to the point

a sovereign state hasa moral responsibility to protect its citizens from terror. This is why it first has to put down conditions stating for it to be able to dialogue with a group, that group must be legal and not breaking any laws or be actively engaged in crime or terror.

It is up to Hamas and Hezbollah and every other terrorist group to put down their guns and missiles before they can expect anyone to dialogue with them.

I doubt very much a person who came into your home and murdered your family, and then demanded they be allowed to kill you-would be someone we would expect you to sit down with and talk to as long as he keeps holding his gun and demands he be allowed to kill you while he points the gun at you.

Dialogue can only come about when people first state they will not engage in terrorism and that is precisely what the IRA did to be able to sit and dialogue-they made a very real effort to distance themselves from

the terror they once engaged in.

Hamas and Hezbollah have made it clear they are not interested in dialogue. That is precisely why Mr. Abbas can not reign them in and precisely why Hezbollah allies with the Syrian intelligence to kill peaceful politicians or why Hamas kills as many Palestinians if not more then it does Israelis.

Do you see Hamas attempting to sit down with Mme. Arbour and tell her they will obey the law?

Don't hold your breath.

[scribblet]

IMHO this is part of Hezbollah's campaign of murder and intimidation, they are getting ready to make their move to take over Lebanon.

I wonder where the handwringers are who wanted to restrain Israel from dealing with them.

[Black Dog]

Blackdog I say this with utmost respect, I always wonder with people who advocate sitting down to dialogue with terrorists-really understand just what it is they are saying. Do you?

I'm not talking about haveing a chat with terrorists. I'm talking about states like Iran and Syria and political entities like Hizbullah, all of which have something to offer and something to gain.

Blakdog the point is we all agree there must be dialogue-but it is in my opinion very naive of you to think you can sit and dialogue with a terrorist until they first say-I will recognize your right to exist and not shoot at you. What you are suggesting is that a reasonable person would sit down with someone who says I am going to kill you as soon as I get a chance. That makes no sense. In fact it is absurd. More to the point

a sovereign state hasa moral responsibility to protect its citizens from terror. This is why it first has to put down conditions stating for it to be able to dialogue with a group, that group must be legal and not breaking any laws or be actively engaged in crime or terror.

And what happens if those conditions are not able to be met?

It is up to Hamas and Hezbollah and every other terrorist group to put down their guns and missiles before they can expect anyone to dialogue with them.

Disarmamaent and a cesation of the hostilities would be a subject for discussion, not a prerequsiste. Did thr IRA give up their weapons before negotiating? The ANC? Has anyone?

I doubt very much a person who came into your home and murdered your family, and then demanded they be allowed to kill you-would be someone we would expect you to sit down with and talk to as long as he keeps holding his gun and demands he be allowed to kill you while he points the gun at you.

Silly analogies are the basis of silly policy.

Dialogue can only come about when people first state they will not engage in terrorism and that is precisely what the IRA did to be able to sit and dialogue-they made a very real effort to distance themselves from the terror they once engaged in.

Wrong. The IRA agreed to cease terrorism after they were included in the dialogue.

The PIRA ultimately called an indefinite ceasefire in 1994 on the understanding that Sinn Féin would be included in political talks for a settlement. When this did not happen, the IRA called off its ceasefire from February 1996 until July 1997, carrying out several bombing and shooting attacks. After its ceasefire was reinstated, Sinn Féin was admitted into the "Peace Process", which produced the Belfast Agreement of 1998.

-PIRA

Hamas and Hezbollah have made it clear they are not interested in dialogue.

The same goes for Israel. So we (or rather, they) are at an impasse. Unless the status quo is acceptable, that means someone has to take a big step forward. Since you clearly don't anticipate Hizbulah or Hamas doing so, who does that leave?

[JerrySeinfeld]

Blackdog I say this with utmost respect, I always wonder with people who advocate sitting down to dialogue with terrorists-really understand just what it is they are saying. Do you?

I'm not talking about haveing a chat with terrorists. I'm talking about states like Iran and Syria and political entities like Hizbullah, all of which have something to offer and something to gain.

Blakdog the point is we all agree there must be dialogue-but it is in my opinion very naive of you to think you can sit and dialogue with a terrorist until they first say-I will recognize your right to exist and not shoot at you. What you are suggesting is that a reasonable person would sit down with someone who says I am going to kill you as soon as I get a chance. That makes no sense. In fact it is absurd. More to the point

a sovereign state hasa moral responsibility to protect its citizens from terror. This is why it first has to put down conditions stating for it to be able to dialogue with a group, that group must be legal and not breaking any laws or be actively engaged in crime or terror.

And what happens if those conditions are not able to be met?

It is up to Hamas and Hezbollah and every other terrorist group to put down their guns and missiles before they can expect anyone to dialogue with them.

Disarmamaent and a cesation of the hostilities would be a subject for discussion, not a prerequsiste. Did thr IRA give up their weapons before negotiating? The ANC? Has anyone?

I doubt very much a person who came into your home and murdered your family, and then demanded they be allowed to kill you-would be someone we would expect you to sit down with and talk to as long as he keeps holding his gun and demands he be allowed to kill you while he points the gun at you.

Silly analogies are the basis of silly policy.

Dialogue can only come about when people first state they will not engage in terrorism and that is precisely what the IRA did to be able to sit and dialogue-they made a very real effort to distance themselves from the terror they once engaged in.

Wrong. The IRA agreed to cease terrorism after they were included in the dialogue.

The PIRA ultimately called an indefinite ceasefire in 1994 on the understanding that Sinn Féin would be included in political talks for a settlement. When this did not happen, the IRA called off its ceasefire from February 1996 until July 1997, carrying out several bombing and shooting attacks. After its ceasefire was reinstated, Sinn Féin was admitted into the "Peace Process", which produced the Belfast Agreement of 1998.

-PIRA

Hamas and Hezbollah have made it clear they are not interested in dialogue.

The same goes for Israel. So we (or rather, they) are at an impasse. Unless the status quo is acceptable, that means someone has to take a big step forward. Since you clearly don't anticipate Hizbulah or Hamas doing so, who does that leave?

I'd say roughly 25% of people in the west will ALWAYS be against war or force, no matter what. They would have been against force against the Nazi's as well. So let's determine where you stand, Black Dog.

BD I have an honest question for you. At what point WOULD you advocate the use of force or war?

Let's say the world "engages" "hezbollah" in "dialogue". Let's set aside the obvious pitfals we saw in the past when Arafat wouild say one thing to us in English and quite another to the palestinians in Arabic back home.

But again, let's say we engage in your "diplomacy". Now let's say we reach an agreement. ie. No rockets fired into Israel in exchange for (insert concession here).

Or maybe "stop attacking Israel if Israel pulls out of Gaza" (sic). Or "let's have peace if Israel pulls out completely of south lebanon" (sic).

Or "it's 1991 - the UN has THESE conditions to the end of the Iraq war....10 years later you still haven't complied and you're flouting our every attempt to make you comply with our resolution..."

Sorry, I got caught sidetracked talking about examples of how diplomacy miserably fails with irrational violent dictators and quasi-terrorist groups.

Now let's not even get into how diplomacy basically says to terrorist groups "terrorism works - if you blow enough people up, they'll listen."

SO back to the questions: Let's say we engage in your "diplomacy". And lets say we reach an agreement.

My simple question is this: How many times does one side have to flout an agreement before force is necessary in YOUR eyes? Or maybe you're part of the 25%?

[Black Dog]

BD I have an honest question for you. At what point WOULD you advocate the use of force or war?

I would approve the use of force in instances of self-defence and, (and this is an important consideration) in cases of self defence where the use of force is likely to acheive something. For exaple, this past summer, I had no problem with Israel trying to root out Hizbullah rocket launchers. I had a problem with them bombing and blockading the entire country.

The use of force must be proportional, and must have measurable results. Not force for force's sake.

Or maybe "stop attacking Israel if Israel pulls out of Gaza" (sic). Or "let's have peace if Israel pulls out completely of south lebanon" (sic).

Or "it's 1991 - the UN has THESE conditions to the end of the Iraq war....10 years later you still haven't complied and you're flouting our every attempt to make you comply with our resolution..."

Sorry, I got caught sidetracked talking about examples of how diplomacy miserably fails with irrational violent dictators and quasi-terrorist groups.

Hizbullah, to my knowledge, never agreed to a ceasefire in South lebanon. And there was no bilateral agreement on Gaza.

Now let's not even get into how diplomacy basically says to terrorist groups "terrorism works - if you blow enough people up, they'll listen."

Whereas the use of force clearly sends the message that terrorism doesn't work, which is why Israel was able to solve its terrorist problem. Wait...what?

[JerrySeinfeld]

BD I have an honest question for you. At what point WOULD you advocate the use of force or war?

I would approve the use of force in instances of self-defence and, (and this is an important consideration) in cases of self defence where the use of force is likely to acheive something. For exaple, this past summer, I had no problem with Israel trying to root out Hizbullah rocket launchers. I had a problem with them bombing and blockading the entire country.

The use of force must be proportional, and must have measurable results. Not force for force's sake.

Or maybe "stop attacking Israel if Israel pulls out of Gaza" (sic). Or "let's have peace if Israel pulls out completely of south lebanon" (sic).

Or "it's 1991 - the UN has THESE conditions to the end of the Iraq war....10 years later you still haven't complied and you're flouting our every attempt to make you comply with our resolution..."

Sorry, I got caught sidetracked talking about examples of how diplomacy miserably fails with irrational violent dictators and quasi-terrorist groups.

Hizbullah, to my knowledge, never agreed to a ceasefire in South lebanon. And there was no bilateral agreement on Gaza.

Now let's not even get into how diplomacy basically says to terrorist groups "terrorism works - if you blow enough people up, they'll listen."

Whereas the use of force clearly sends the message that terrorism doesn't work, which is why Israel was able to solve its terrorist problem. Wait...what?

It's hard to measure whether force or diplomacy would have worked better when you choose one option over the other - because you can't go back in time to see whether there would have been more or less terrorism as a result of your diplomacy/force.

I DO know that there is an old Arabic saying: a falling camel attracts many knives. Certainly when a major leader of the Iraq insurgency claims the democratic victory in the USA as "a sure victory for the insurgency" - and accounting for the fact that the Dems largely campaigned on the premise of ENDING the US involvement in Iraq, surely an endorsement by the insurgency indicates that they're none too happy with the FORCE they're currently facing.

[Shady]

I had a problem with them bombing and blockading the entire country

Israel didn't bomb the entire country. The bombing was centered around southern Lebanon. However, they did blockade the entire country. You're 1 for 2.

This particular assassination is just another example of Syria's abuse of Lebanon, and it's continued treatment as a vassal state. It's quite a coincidence that the Lebanese assassinated always seem to be anti-Syrian. This is definitely grounds for war, as was the previous assassination. If Lebanon had the capabilities, I would be all for them stomping a mud hole in Bashar Assad. It would be appropriate and justified.

Oh, and the ridiculous notion of "the use of force must be proportional", for lack of a better word, is retarded. So, if missiles are fired into Israel. Israel may only fire missiles back into Lebanon, or some other equivalent of proportionality? That's a recipe for an everlasting conflict, not to mention defying all logic and reason.

[Black Dog]

I DO know that there is an old Arabic saying: a falling camel attracts many knives. Certainly when a major leader of the Iraq insurgency claims the democratic victory in the USA as "a sure victory for the insurgency" - and accounting for the fact that the Dems largely campaigned on the premise of ENDING the US involvement in Iraq, surely an endorsement by the insurgency indicates that they're none too happy with the FORCE they're currently facing.

Ain't that the same guy who taunted Bush as a coward and urged the U.S. to stay in Iraq so his group would have more opportunities to kill American troops?

And really: given the almost daily litany of destruction and death in Iraq, can you really tell me that the U.S. prescence is having any effect at all?

And furthermore: what does that have to do with the subject at hand? Any more to say on why terrorists are so much more swayed by diplomacy than force?

Israel didn't bomb the entire country. The bombing was centered around southern Lebanon. However, they did blockade the entire country. You're 1 for 2.

Beirut and the Bekka Valley are in the south now?

Oh, and the ridiculous notion of "the use of force must be proportional", for lack of a better word, is retarded. So, if missiles are fired into Israel. Israel may only fire missiles back into Lebanon, or some other equivalent of proportionality? That's a recipe for an everlasting conflict, not to mention defying all logic and reason.

You know who's retarded? People who don't know the difference between proportionate and equivalent. Proportionality basically means that the amount of force used (and the resulting destruction) should not be greater than the amount required to acheive the goal. Thus, if Israel's objective was to stop Hizbullah rocket attacks from Southern Lebanon, bombing apartment blocks in Beirut would be a disproportionate use of force. Now, if you wanted to get away from moral issues around the conduct of war, fine. But then you'd have to make the case for the resort to force as being a realistic way to achive your goals and advance your own self-interest.

[jbg]

Value neutral?

This is a clip from a New York Times article from, I believe, 1976 from which I've typed excerpts. If anyone wants to read article, I've attached PDF. Or I'll send it to you on request.

Sorry, I dozed off at yet another tiresome and inapplicable appeasement reference.

Apparently, as this National Post article (link) points out, some groups seem compelled to resolve their differences by force, by bullet rather than by ballot.

Should Israel have to "negotiate" with this kind of scum?

If they want any kind of peace: yes.

Peace now or peace later?

Wait - forget it - Hezbollah, Iran, Syria and the Jihad won't allow for either.

He's mis-spelled "peace". It's "pieces".

[Black Dog]

He's mis-spelled "peace". It's "pieces".

Thought that up all by yerself, didja?

Again: what's your vision for peace in the Middle East?

[jbg]

He's mis-spelled "peace". It's "pieces".

Thought that up all by yerself, didja?

Again: what's your vision for peace in the Middle East?

I'll be honest. Unless people in the Middle East, other than Israel, want peace, there wil never be peace. As Golda Meir, former PM of Israel said to Anwar Sadat on the occasion of his visit to Israel: "We can forgive you for killing our sons. But we will never forgive you for making us kill yours." On another occasion she said, and I may be paraphrasing: "Peace will come to the Middle East only when the Arabs love their children more than they hate ours".

[Higgly]

IMHO this is part of Hezbollah's campaign of murder and intimidation, they are getting ready to make their move to take over Lebanon.

How much do you know about the history of the Gemayels, or any of the other Lebanese factions? You might want to take a little time to brush up. The Gemayels and their Phalange Party have long enjoyed the support of the Maronite Christians in Lebanon as well as Israel. David Ben Gurion plotted to have the Maronites start a revolution so Israel could invade, supposedly in defence of the Maronites and then annex southern Lebanon. It was the Phalange who did Ariel Sharon's dirty work during the massacres of Sabra and Chatila and it is the support of Israel for them that is troublesome to Lebanese Moslems.

It's useful to have a reliable source so you can figure out who the murderers are. I recommend Robert Fisk's 'Pity the Nation'. Probably the most widely cited work on Lebanon, its factions, its civil war and the first Israeli invasion. If you don't have time for that, have a look at the Wikipedia entry for Bachir Gemayel.

[Higgly]

...As Golda Meir, former PM of Israel said to Anwar Sadat on the occasion of his visit to Israel: "We can forgive you for killing our sons. But we will never forgive you for making us kill yours." On another occasion she said, and I may be paraphrasing: "Peace will come to the Middle East only when the Arabs love their children more than they hate ours".

I see. And what did Golda Meir do to further the cause of peace in the Middle East?

My favourite Golda Meir quote came from Abba Eban: "Golda Meir has a vocabulary of 500 words, although she manages to say everything she has to say using only 200."