Oh yeah? (who is “bound” by international law?)
The International Red Cross has said that Israel’s response in Lebanon violates the “proportionality” principle of the Geneva Conventions (see this for my views on proportionality). The group has also issued the following statement about the terrorist group Hezbollah:
Hezbollah fighters too are bound by the rules of international humanitarian law, and they must not target civilian areas.
I’m sorry, but what’s the International Red Cross been smoking?
Earth to International Red Cross: Hezbollah is a terrorist organization. They exist to target civilians.
Furthermore, there’s a general principle involved, one that should be readily apparent to anyone with a modicum of sense:
To be “bound” by a certain law, one (or both) of two things need to be true: (1) the “bound” entity has to agree to the authority of those administering the law; (2) the authority has to have the power of enforcement over that entity.
The International Red Cross has neither over Hezbollah at this point. The only way it would get that power–and it could never obtain #1, only #2–is by a military defeat of Hezbollah, a capture of its leaders, and the act of subsequently bringing them before an international tribunal.
And, of course, to defeat Hezbollah would require a response the International Red Cross already has already condemned as violating the principles of proportionality, since Hezbollah is well aware of the value of hiding behind civilians, and does so purposely and frequently. So, how in heaven’s name would any international court ever get authority over Hezbollah, except to try them in absentia? And a fat lot of good that would do, except as meaningless theater.
I’m wondering: has any Islamic terrorist ever been successfully tried under international law for violating the Geneva Conventions? None comes to mind–the only trials I can think of, such as those of Richard Reid or the 1993 WTC bombers, are national rather than international. (I can’t say, however, that I’ve done an exhaustive search, so please feel free to offer any such international cases in the comments section, if you can find them.)
The remark by the International Red Cross about Hezbollah being “bound” by the Conventions made me think of a popular comeback when I was a kid. When someone would say, I’m gonna make you do it, the usual retort was Oh yeah? You and what army?
Somehow I think that’s exactly what Hezbollah would say.
Between the Red Cross and Kofi Anan taking a strong stand, hizbullah is having second, serious thoughts about targeting Israeli towns. I believe they have some genuine remorse over their rash actions in fact and this necessary for negotiations to be affective.
Fighting a new war in the old way is a tragic mistake that many still have not learned to avoid.
When the Red Cross makes it a priority to visit Israelis held captive by Hizbollah (that has never occured), then I’ll be impressed with the Red Cross.
The Red Cross Hypocrisy is just stunning.
“I’m sorry, but what’s the International Red Cross been smoking?”
High octane anti-Semitism. the same stuff they have been mainlining for years.
“It isn’t whether you win or lose; it’s whether you kill Jews.”
In case you missed this question I just wanted to repost it:
Neo, I have a question about HaloScan if I may — Q: The only way to see old blogger comments and new HaloScan comments is to get the premium service?
I registered with HaloScan, but then I disabled it because my blog wasn’t showing the old blogger comments.
Or is this fixed by inserting the Haloscan code into your blogger template manually rather than automatically?
Personally, Neo, I’m actually glad they said what they said about Hezbollah being bound. I’m tired of people only applying legal standards to one side and saying of terrorists depradations “Well, they’re terrorists. It’s expected”. Or, “Of course I condemn them, but…”. No “buts”, dammit. Saying “but” gives them a free pass, and I cannot stand that. I understand that nothing can actually be done to enforce Hez’s compliance with the GC, but at least someone’s actually holding a terror group up to the same standards as others. Even if it is merely a verbal statement without actual coercive power. It may not be much, but finally, someone’s done it!
As far as proportionality? Well, that’s not a simple agree/disagree stance with me, oddly enough. I don’t think the IRC is properly evaluating the situation but, well… I do wish that Israel would’ve found a way to discern between Hezbollah and non-sympathetic Lebanese who’d be more than happy to see them go away. Then again, Shiites are the largest single religious block there and tend to be Hez supporters, so I’m not sure that’s an achievable task. Plus it’s not really fair to put that burden on the Israelis who must concern themselves with their own survival. Plus, pure military force is a blunt instrument, not a surgical scalpel, so it’s hard to apply it against such a division. I’m not as sanguine as most in saying the Lebanese should’ve thrown Hezbollah out earlier; that’s civil war territory, plus they might have lost. Hezbollah may be controlled by Iran, but there it’s composed of Lebanese. On the other hand, I’m not sure I agree with those who say that the burden is on Israel to distinguish between Hezbollah and non-Hez-sympathetic fighters, especially given their integration in Lebanese society; again, Hezbollah members in Lebanon are Lebanese. So this was already a messed up issue before we get to any issues of proportionality. Which by the way is a whole other rant of mine: It seems to be mistakenly interpreted by too many as the maintenance of untenable situations with consistent but “low” death rates to avoid the higher rates that attempts at actual resolution would entail. In other words, better five thousand dead in 10 years with no end in sight than 1000 in a month to end the problem.
Okay, I’m starting to go stream-of-consciousness… Bottom line: Is killing Hezbollah worth also making Lebanon a real enemy again? I keep going back and forth over that, especially since it can be applied it to my own support of America in Iraq. I don’t see how Israel can avoid the fight, but part of me wonders if they could’ve actually gotten the Lebanese military to help by restricting attacks to the southern “Hezbolland” part of the country. But another part of me calls that wishful thinking; again, Hezbollah is part of the society, not segregated to the south.
I’m still working through my thoughts.
nyomythus: I had someone install the Haloscan comments for me. But I believe it was done manually into the template.
“How many divisions does the Pope have?”
Joseph Stalin
I honestly never thought that the International Red Cross would Jump the Shark, but they have. Agendas to the right of us, agendas to the left of us, and ownerless agendas running around loose yapping. And, that doesn’t even take in account the “Hidden Agendas” skulking around in the bushes.
If I ever started a paving company, I would call it “Good Intentions Paving” and then bid on the road to hell. I’m expecting the scales to fall from the eyes of Hezbollah “Real Soon, Now”.
Winston CHurchill is not my favorite historical figure, but as a voice to guide us in the times upon us, he was brutally sane. No, not “we shall fight on the beaches….”; rather, this:
http://www.globalresearch.ca/articles/CHU407A.html
It’s a memo from him to his military advisors directing them to investigate employing poison gas against German cities. I’ll quote a few tidbits:
“It is absurd to consider morality on this topic when everybody used it in the last war without a word of complaint from the moralists or the Church. On the other hand, in the last war bombing of open cities was regarded as forbidden. Now everybody does it as a matter of course. It is simply a question of fashion changing as she does between long and short skirts for women…One really must not be bound within silly conventions of the mind whether they be those that ruled in the last war or those in reverse which rule in this….I do not see why we should have the disadvantages of being the gentleman while they have all the advantages of being the cad. There are times when this may be so but not now… I quite agree that it may be several weeks or even months before I shall ask you to drench Germany with poison gas, and if we do it, let us do it one hundred per cent. In the meanwhile, I want the matter studied in cold blood by sensible people and not by that particular set of psalm-singing uniformed defeatists which one runs across now here now there. Pray address yourself to this….”
So spake St. Winston. Sometimes the angels must do unspeakably cruel things, so let’s get on with it.
Thank you Neo for the tip on HaloScan!
The people running the International Red Cross have been corrupt for years. What was once a great humanitarian organization has today become an ideological organization unable to distinguish between good and bad, other than the simple deduction that what ever America does is bad. They condemned the way the U.S. was treating prisoners in Guantanamo Bay; by showing respect for their [so-called] religion, giving them good healthy food, clean water, bedding, clothing, and an ocean breeze – all of this is so inhumane ohhhh – as compared to summarily beheading your captives. The International Red Cross needs to lay off the French wine and clear their conscious.
This Red Cross statement comes from the same planet as European Union Foreign Policy Minister Javier Solana’s recent statement that “the EU didn’t have enough information to determine if Hezbollah was a terrorist organization.”
At its best this is wilful ignorance, at its worst a declaration that these organizations are totally on the terrorist’s side.
Cool comment Arm Chair — my favority was:
Why have the Germans not used it? Not certainly out of moral scruples or affection for us. They have not used it because it does not pay them. The greatest temptation ever offered to them was the beaches of Normandy. This they could have drenched with gas greatly to the hindrance of the troops. That they thought about it is certain and that they prepared against our use of gas is also certain. But they only reason they have not used it against us is that they fear the retaliation. What is to their detriment is to our advantage.
By Geneva Conventions any terrorist captured in civilan cloths could be given a very brief military trial and put up against a post and shot. Summary court marshal and excution was the fate of a number of German saboteurs and terrorist caught during the World War II and years following the war. The Poles and Czechs were hunting down and killing gangs of well armed SS bandits engaged in their personal terror war until the summer of 1947 (two years after the end of the war in Europe).
However, image the Red Cross out cry if Israel followed the letter of the Geneva Conventions and administered summary trials and executions to captured Hezbollah members currently sitting in Israeli jails.
neo-neocon writes: “I’m wondering: has any Islamic terrorist ever been successfully tried under international law for violating the Geneva Conventions?”
Theoretically, those captured in Afghanistan should have been tried by the UN. However, the Bush administration insisted in putting detainees from Afghanistan in Guantanamo Bay, where they’re being detained without due process or trial. (The US Supreme Court has however recently ruled that the Bush administration acted illegally in doing so).
In such matters, the UN is basically a puppet of the US and its allies.
Incidentally, the International Court at the Hague ruled that the USA violated international law for having mined Nicaragua’s harbors during the war against the Sandinistas. The US simply ignored that ruling. The US has no respect for international law — except when it suits it to do so (as in the case of the trial of Milosevic).
Graham,
The Geneva Conventions only provide protections for lawful combatants. Irregulars, pirates, bandits, and terrorists are not lawful combatants by the letter of the convention. As regards to Afghanistan, if the US military had the same code of justice it had in WW2, they could have carried out a summary trial and execution of anyone captured on the battlefield that was carrying a weapon and did not a have a uniform, patch or arm band that linked that person to the Taliban government.
The US military did not go this path for much the same reason that Isreal does not execute captured Hamas and Hezbollah members.
To answer neo’s question, I believe French military tried and excuted a number of North African islamic militants in the 40s and 50s.
Graham,
If there was such a thing as “International Law”, there would be International Policemen wearing International Badges and carrying International Guns.
Since there aren’t we can only conclude that International Law is a collection of aphorisms about proper deportment by States and is it well known that many States have bad manners and even break wind at table.
International Law is a myth with the possible exception of Admiralty Law.
But, tell ya what. How about you go do an experiment. Find an International Judge and swear out and International Warrant in the name of the miscreant of your choice then take it round to the cops and ask them to serve it. Let us know how you make out, OK?
Just have to throw this in for those who might know better. If any of the “Conventions” we have agreed to are considered treaties, then they are the supreme law of the land (Art. VI, US Constitution). Which is why I often don’t like treaties, given the Law of Unintended Consequences or the “Road to hell is paved with good intentions”.
Robert McNamara served on the staff of Curtis LeMay during WWII in the Pacific. He helped devise the US strategy of low-level fire-bombing of Japanese cities. In “The Fog of War” (Erroll Morris’ movie interview with McNamara) he said that had the US lost the war,he would have been tried as a war criminal.
So long as Israel “wins”,they’re safe from prosecution.
When the International Red Cross refused to recognize the Magen David of Israel as a legitimate symbol, as is the Red Crescent, they lost the last shred of credibility. Who cares what they say about anything anymore?
I wonder if the IRC might not also apply the criteria to Hamas?
And, more importantly, apply the criteria to those EU states supplying money to Hamas — supplying money to war criminal orgs.
But the lack of enforcement is the big missing part of not-quite “international law”. My suggested solution:
A NATO like Human Rights enforcement group.
Now, perhaps even less — get the US to pay the Indian Army to become peacekeepers. US training, supplied, equiped, paid for — bodies from democratic India. About 100 000 of them, to occupy each and every S. Lebanon village, to end Hezbollah domination.
The UN, successor to the League of Nations, illustrates precisely the quote from, of all people, Karl Marx–that “History repeats itself, first as tragedy, second as farce.”
To look to these Muslim-dominated malevolent clowns, hands out to collect their winnings like Inspector Renault in Casablanca, for any fair or effective solution to this problem is touchingly naive.
“where (detainees are) being detained without due process or trial. (The US Supreme Court has however recently ruled that the Bush administration acted illegally in doing so).”
Let’s be fair about that characterization: First, the attempts at conducting tribunals were attempts to provide due process through a trial. The authority to actually detain Hamdan and others like him was not questioned at all, so the ruling wasn’t about his captivity. What the case was about was the tribunal itself. What the ruling covered was the actual authority of the Executive branch of government to create “Special Military Commisions”. The President can go to Congress and clarify or get outright authorization to conduct trials by Military Commisions, which effectively fixes the problem the Supreme Court identified. Justice Kennedy came right out and said it:
“Hamdan’s military commission exceeds the bounds Congress has placed on the president’s authority [under law and the Uniform Code of Military Justice prescribing court martial procedures]. Congress can change them….”.
People are ignoring the fact that the rulings contain language saying that the Executive branch must get legislative “clarification” on it’s tribunal authority to properly conduct such trials. So in essence, the court was saying “Try again, this time with Congress”. Illegal? In that Bush didn’t get authorization from Congress, yes. But the act of military tribunals was not labeled as verboten itself, nor was there any issue of the detainment of captives like Hamdan.
I think you can get Hizbollah to agree to proportionality if you kidnap their members and hold them hostage. But you’d have to carry out the threat in a realistic and comparable fashion to how Hizbollah carries out threats on their hostages.
senescent wasp says: “But, tell ya what. How about you go do an experiment. Find an International Judge and swear out and International Warrant in the name of the miscreant of your choice then take it round to the cops and ask them to serve it. Let us know how you make out, OK?”
Umm… wasn’t that, precisely, what was done in the case of Slobodan Milosevic’s war crimes trial at the Hague?
I think you can get Hizbollah to agree to proportionality if you kidnap their members and hold them hostage. But you’d have to carry out the threat in a realistic and comparable fashion to how Hizbollah carries out threats on their hostages.
Actually, a proportional response would be to kidnap a few mid-level Syrian officals. Kill them and send their heads back to Baby Assad with the promise that kidnappings/Syrian heads in the mail will continue until Hezbollah is reined in and Israeli hostages are returned.
I’d guess that Assad wouldn’t report this to the press or the UN, because doing so would make him look weak to the Arab world.
Since he and his officials are weak, and since they are easier targets than Hezbollah, he might also agree to negotiate.
Midlevel officials and the financial wing of terror support are the easiest targets in this war. We rarely take advantage of that, and we should.
ElMondoHummus: Is killing Hezbollah worth also making Lebanon a real enemy again?
Let’s see: The Lebanese either approved, passively condoned or were afraid to stop the rockets going into Israel from their territory. They have an extralegal terrorist militia which the Lebanese government apparently cannot or will not control. Terrorists come and go at will through their borders and have total freedom to operate inside Lebanon. Hezbollah is even in the parliament and in the official “army.” With all respect, ElMondo, that’s the behavior of a country that is a “real enemy” already.
If I make a promise, aren’t I bound by my word? It would seem so. And that’s a fair approximation of much of intl law. No one is saying the Geneva Convention police will swoop into Israel and arrest anyone – rather, they’re saying Israel is bound in the former sense.
To point out that there’s no external authority that can compel conformity with the conventions is just vacuous. It’s a clear demonstration of your neocon bonafides, at least.
If there was such a thing as “International Law”, there would be International Policemen wearing International Badges and carrying International Guns.
Remember when intl law was first being explored, the legal tradition was shot through with natural law. Intl law is law in that sense: even in the absence of a global police force, intl law is still law (in the same way that I still have a right to life, liberty & the pursuit of happiness even if those things are expressly forbidden me by the current positive law).
So that’s the tradition out of which intl law emerges (excepting the more recent phenomenon of enforceable intl law, such as the WTO rules), and that also makes clear the conceptual affinity between intl law and the institution of promising. They’re norms that ought to be adhered to, even if they can’t be enforced.
“To point out that there’s no external authority that can compel conformity with the conventions is just vacuous. It’s a clear demonstration of your neocon bonafides, at least.”
Or it’s a clear demonstration that the principle of equal justice under the law is meaningless when the law is not enforced equally. How many contracts have you signed that are binding on you but not the other party? [“Here, I’ll give you $200,000 if you give me your house.” “Okay, it’s a deal.” “Thanks for the house.” “Hey! Where’s my $200,000.” “Whatever.”]
So that’s the tradition out of which intl law emerges (excepting the more recent phenomenon of enforceable intl law, such as the WTO rules), and that also makes clear the conceptual affinity between intl law and the institution of promising. They’re norms that ought to be adhered to, even if they can’t be enforced.
Don’t bother, jpe. I think the neocons are opportunists. They’re with the law when it is on their side, but don’t bother with it when it’s not on their side. Hypocrisy, really.
The irony is that they wrap themselves in the cloak of moral superiority.
However, they are making it abundantly clear that that cloak is rather like the emperor’s new clothes, than anything else!
A “law” is a distinct thing from a promise, an obligation, or a “natural right”. At present, in the international arena, “law” is merely mimicking real law (which requires legitimate means of making it, interpreting it, and enforcing it in order to exist as such at all) — in other words, “international law” is at best a facade, at worst a fake. It’s especially a sham when it’s used, without regard to context or circumstance, as merely a propaganda ploy. And when it’s “held up” before both a legitimate, democratically elected government and a terrorist organization that by its very nature is an outlaw — as though both could be held equally “accountable” — it becomes just a sick joke, to be dismissed by reasonable people.
Well, I keep on going back and forth, Grackle. Yes, the government of Lebanon has been utterly remiss. A government must have a monopoly on force within it’s borders. Ben-Gurion realized that during the Altalena incident and did what he had to. While painful, it established the Israeli government’s supremacy over groups within it’s borders.
But, Hezbollah is not the Altalena; it is a far bigger, more entrenched problem. Michael Totten made points about this on his blog:
“There is no alternate universe where the Lebanese government could have disarmed an Iranian-trained terrorist/guerilla militia that even the Israelis could not defeat in years of grinding war. There is no alternate universe where it was in Lebanon’s interest to restart the civil war on Israel’s behalf, to burn down their country all over again right at the moment where they finally had hope after 30 years of convulsive conflict and Baath Party overlordship.”
I keep revisiting the notion that there might have been a way to get the Lebanese involved with ejecting Hezbollah. No one argues the necessity for that to happen, but that doesn’t change the fact that the Lebanese were too weak to do so. What were the alternatives, if any, to help them do so? I keep wondering if such possibilities existed or not. Since it’s an opportunity lost, I don’t know if it was an opportunity exploitable to begin with, but it’s worth noting that there is a great interest in separating a terrorist organization from the population it resides in.
To be clear: I do not argue that Israel should’ve just sat back and let things continue; it’s a ridiculous assumption to think that the status quo of rockets hitting Israel is better than the alternatives, so I don’t argue Israel’s choice to fight. What keeps bugging me is the possibility there might have been a better way to do it. The US has a Special Forces as well as a Civil Affairs capability for a reason, and part of that reason is to get elements of the local population sympathetic, if not openly on your side. I’m not suggesting that a few Green Beret types could swing segments of Lebanon’s population into a fight with Hezbollah – that’s just impossible – but could there have been a political agreement between the governments, perhaps, to cooperate in eliminating or at minimum disarming that group?
Everyone admits the real enemy is Hezbollah. So the question is, was there a way to get Lebanon in on the fight against them? Neutrality was no longer tenable – allowing an uncontrolled militia free reign to attack a neighbor is practically sanctioning it, regardless of what is said used afterwards – but no one disputes the fact that there were many Lebanese who would have loved to see Hezbollah go.
Post facto questions, though. Whatever possibility could have been exploited has passed.
From The New Republic http://www.tnr.com/doc_posts.mhtml?i=20060731&s=walzer073106
b) Article 28 of the 4th Geneva Convention states:
“The presence of a protected person may not be used to render certain points or areas immune from military operations.”
In other words, even a “legal” soldier, let alone a terrorist, is fair game even if hiding behind a civilian. Ditto for arms stores in apartment buildings, etc. And this presupposes that the limitations of the 4th Geneva Convention even applies in a war against Hezbollah, which arguably it may not (the naifs in the US Supreme Court notwithstanding).
c) Article 29 states:
“The Party to the conflict in whose hands protected persons may be, is responsible for the treatment accorded to them by its agents, irrespective of any individual responsibility which may be incurred.”
In other words, Hezbollah — not Israel — is responsible for what happens to Lebanese civilians in the course of combat.
burdo wrote: “The Party to the conflict in whose hands protected persons may be, is responsible for the treatment accorded to them by its agents, irrespective of any individual responsibility which may be incurred.”
In other words, Hezbollah — not Israel — is responsible for what happens to Lebanese civilians in the course of combat.
Notice the phrase “treatment… by its agents”. When “The Party” refers to Hezbollah, the “it” also refers to Hezbollah. In other words, you may argue that Hezbollah is responsible for the treatment accorded to them [protected persons] by its [Hezbollah’s] agents.
However, nowhere does it follow from this that Hezbollah is responsible for the treatment accorded to them [protected persons] by Israel’s agents, which was your claim.
Hezbollah was formed and exists solely to resist Israeli terrorism/Israeli aggression. Calling them “terrorists” is like calling George Washington and the Continental Army in the 1770s terrorists
Comments like lenny’s are the kind of thing that make me despair and think that we will never win. I mean, comparing a fascist religious movement to George Washington? Hell-o? What’s the problem whit these people? Do they actually believe what they say?
Fact is, organisations like Red Cross, Amnesty and others, tends to “pretend to believe” that terrorist organizations are bound by the same laws that State entities are. They know they aren’t, since their objective is to kill civilians and they are no bound by anythoing, don’t even use a uniform, it’s just a way to criticize those armies who fight against them and that the field is level.
lenny: Calling them [Hezbollah] “terrorists” is like calling George Washington and the Continental Army in the 1770s terrorists.
Yeah, dude! That’s just the way Hitler was too, right? Those Nazis were just resisting Jewish terrorism/aggression!
(Isn’t it amazing what you can do with a few simple words?)
elmondo, what the Lebanese government should have done was start funneling information on Hezbollah members to Israel. The strikes right now would have been much more precisely targeted if they had.
They chose not to, and that decision was a tacit endorsement of Hezbollah’s activities. It may not have been as open an endorsement as the Palestinians’ democratically electing Hamas, but it was an endorsement by the majority of the civilian population of Lebanon nonetheless.
“international law” is at best a facade, at worst a fake.
First, there is a lot of intl law that is enforceable (the WTO regime, for instance).
Second, you don’t get to define law. You may not like it, but enforceability by an outside agent just doesn’t make international law any less law. Is it positive law, like the criminal code? No. It’s still considered law, though, for the aforementioned reasons. You can pout about it all you want, and make as many banal comments about global police as you want, and it won’t change that simple fact.
A “law” is a distinct thing from a …”natural right”.
Actually, you sound like a Natural Law theorist, you’re just thick to realize it:
“law”…requires legitimate means of making it, interpreting it, and enforcing it in order to exist as such at all
The upshot of this is that “illegtimate” law isn’t law at all, which is a classic formulation of NL. If I were to articulate the point that you’re clearly unable to, I’d say that enforceablility is a necessary but not sufficient condition of a law. (although it’s strange to think that, say, the rules Saddam promulgated weren’t laws – I shudder to think what happened to people that disregarded the laws of Iraq)
“Hezbollah was formed and exists solely to resist Israeli terrorism/Israeli aggression.”
Really? And the launching of rockets and kidnapping raids into Israel from a nation which is NOT at war with Israel is resisting Israeli aggression/terrorism how?
Or is it that Israel mere existence is a form of aggression? That must be it.
Geneva Convention:
Is an agreement between parties to act in a certain manner toward one another in the conduct of war.
If Party B fails to live up to that agreement in their dealings with Party A, then Party B should no longer expect party A to observe it in relation to you. If that were NOT the case, what would be the motivation for anyone to follow the agreement?
If you are not even a signer of the aggreement, and/or operating completely outside the its parameters, and you are completely and flagrantly violating its basic precepts(ie terrorists), you have absolutely no right to expect treatment under the Convention at any time.
Again, if that is not the case, what is motivation for following it in the first place?
Lenny doesn’t think Hezbollah’s a terrorist organization.
>>this post should upload with an image — I’m not seeing the image in preview. The ‘attach image’ function is active — so let’s see if it works
Really? And the launching of rockets and kidnapping raids into Israel from a nation which is NOT at war with Israel is resisting Israeli aggression/terrorism how?
As the New York Times recognized on July 19, Hezbollah did not start firing rockets into Israeli cities until after the Israeli army began bombing civilian areas of Lebanon.
Hamas had been firing rockets earlier, but Hamas and Hezbollah are completely different organisations.
“but Hamas and Hezbollah are completely different organisations.”
In name only. They are both agents of Iran and Syria, which in turn, are representatives of the Islamic Fascism that is engaging in global war against western civilization. The sooner we in the west recognize this fact, the sooner we can begin to deal with it. Either Islam begins to police itself, ridding the religion of the fanatic nihilist jihadists, or the west crushes Islam. I see no other options available.
I hope for the former. Where is the Islamic Martin Luther?
I suppose this windy discussion is in reality a group therapy session where people talk through their issues until they come to liberating moment of realization.
To take the short cut, Iran and, maybe, those who live there will have to be destroyed. It is the tree of the evils.
stumbley, Hamas is Sunni and Hezbollah is Shia. Completely different organizations.
– just turn me loose on the nothern front, will ya’???
“As the New York Times recognized on July 19, Hezbollah did not start firing rockets into Israeli cities until after the Israeli army began bombing civilian areas of Lebanon.”
Now, something is missing from that timeline, Philharmonic. What would that be?
“Completely different organizations.”
Phil:
Again, in name and composition only. The intent is the same.
“When a nation is at war, many things that might be said in time of peace are such a hindrance to its effort that their utterance will not be endured so long as men fight, and that no Court could regard them as protected by any constitutional right.” – 1st ammendment, scotus, 1919, schenk
.
“The purpose of the Bill of Rights was to give Americans rights that were recognized practically nowhere else in the world at the time. The Framers did not want Americans to have the rights of people in France or the rights of people in Russia or any of the other countries on the continent of Europe at the time; they wanted them to have the rights of Americans.” – Sam Alito
.
“The shepherd drives the wolf from the sheep’s throat, for which the sheep thanks the shepherd as his liberator, while the wolf denounces him for the same act as the destroyer of liberty.” – Abraham Lincoln
.
“No Jew ever blew himself up in a German restaurant.” – Wafa Sultan, Arab American psychologist, secular, free woman.
.
“A thankful heart is not only the greatest virtue, but the parent of all other virtues.” – Cicero
.
Diplomacy is a powerful tool. But it has one key weakness.
The word “No.”
– Ace
Weary_G, Yes, let’s look at the timeline, indeed. Let’s go back a little farther, before Hamas captured the soldier Gilad Shalit, which led to Irael attacking Gaza, which led to Hezbollah capturing two Israeli soldiers, etc.
What do we see when we look back a little farther in the timeline?
As Alexander Cockburn points out in this article http://www.counterpunch.org/ :
“Memory is supposed to stop in its tracks at June 28, 2006.
Let’s go on a brief excursion into pre-history. I’m talking about June 20, 2006, when Israeli aircraft fired at least one missile at a car in an attempted extrajudicial assassination attempt on a road between Jabalya and Gaza City. The missile missed the car. Instead it killed three Palestinian children and wounded 15.
Back we go again to June 13, 2006. Israeli aircraft fired missiles at a van in another attempted extrajudicial assassination. The successive barrages killed nine innocent Palestinians.
Now we’re really in the dark ages, reaching far, far back to June 9, 2006, when Israel shelled a beach in Beit Lahiya killing 8 civilians and injuring 32.
That’s just a brief trip down Memory Lane, and we trip over the bodies of twenty dead and forty-seven wounded, all of them Palestinians, most of them women and children.”
“Now we’re really in the dark ages, reaching far, far back to June 9, 2006, when Israel shelled a beach in Beit Lahiya killing 8 civilians and injuring 32.”
You mean when Palestinian mines blew up, killing and injuring their own?
Let’s go way, way back to when Cain slew Abel. Which one was the Israeli?
Now we’re really in the dark ages, reaching far, far back to June 9, 2006, when Israel shelled a beach in Beit Lahiya killing 8 civilians and injuring 32.
this is a lie.
any and all terrorists should expect to be bombed, esp. if they argue that they are at WAR with the other side. that women and children get killed around them is their fault, either stay holed up, ot take off your mask and come and fight out in the open.
philharmonic: Hezbollah has been firing rockets from time to time into northern Israel for years, I’m not sure, but I think they’ve been doing it since the late 1980s.
For example:
http://www.cnn.com/WORLD/9603/israel_lebanon/30/index.html
A partial overview can be found here:
http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/world/para/hizballah-rockets.htm
Cockburn is hardly a neutral source. He routinely lies and distorts to advance his agenda. It is difficult to believe that any one family such as the Cockburn’s could be Stalinists through the generations. Must be a recessive gene.
Hey Phil,
I’m sorry, but what do those things have to do with Lebanon and Hezbollah again?
You just lectured someone on the completely different organizations which are Hamas and Hezbollah. Now you are going to say that attacks against Hamas in Gaza are justification for Hezbollah to attack from Lebanon?
Sorry, nice try.
“Completely different organizations.”
Phil:
Again, in name and composition only. The intent is the same.
This is an absurd logic.
Both the Russian space organization and NASA were working on developing a spacestation. (I.e. “intent” was the same — to develop a space station).
Does this mean that the Russian space org and NASA suddently became the same organization. Nope.
Please think a little before you type!
Adam, I did think. That’s why there’s an “international” space station, built by cooperation between both the Russians and NASA. You see, sometimes those (i.e., Hezbollah and Hamas) with the same ends (the destruction of Israel ) CAN cooperate, despite seeming differences.
Absurd logic? I think not.
Pingback:International law redux - The New Neo