Understanding the 30s: a new Serenity Prayer
Victor Davis Hanson has written a compelling piece on the current moral malaise in the West and its pernicious effects. It’s a topic many of us have been hammering home lately, although Hanson–as usual–says it especially well.
Hanson makes a point I’ve thought about many times recently, which is that previously it seemed difficult to understand how so many people of the 1930s could be blind to what was happening in Germany–what it meant, what it would lead to, and why it was so important to stop Hitler before his power had grown.
How could they have not seen, not known? Ah, we would have been so much smarter than they were, if faced with the same circumstances!
But lately, along with Hanson, I’m having no difficulty imagining the mindset of the 30s, and how it must have felt to watch, as Churchill put it, The Gathering Storm.
And I keep thinking of the poet William Butler Yeats’s masterpiece “The Second Coming” (written in 1919 after World War I), which presciently foretold the events of the 30s, as Yeats himself acknowledged. I’ve quoted it before, I’m quoting it now, and I probably will quote it again, with emphasis on two especially important and famous lines:
Turning and turning in the widening gyre
The falcon cannot hear the falconer;
Things fall apart; the centre cannot hold;
Mere anarchy is loosed upon the world,
The blood-dimmed tide is loosed, and everywhere
The ceremony of innocence is drowned;
The best lack all conviction, while the worst
Are full of passionate intensity.
Perhaps those two lines expresses a common truth of human nature, one that comes to the fore when a terrible danger is building: those doing the threatening are passionate and intense, and the majority of those reacting are confused and in denial. For who among us wants to face a truth so harsh, to look true evil in the eye and understand that to fight it will require great suffering on the part of innocent people?
But evildoers (in Bush’s famous and much-maligned phrase) don’t care about the anguish of innocents–although they pretend to, if it suits their propaganda purposes. Whereas the enemies of evil do care, and very much.
That’s part of what gives many of those who would combat evil their lack of conviction: the need, at times, to fight fire with fire, to kill to prevent worse killing from happening, is something that is very difficult for compassionate people to accept.
It’s almost as though we need a new version of the Serenity Prayer:
God grant us the serenity to change those things that can be changed with talk and diplomacy, the courage to fight for those things that require it, and the wisdom to know the difference.
Hanson conflates Hezbollah with Al Queda/Taliban.
Researching my own comments on other threads here, I’ve found more interesting, rigorous essays by reading the sources cited by the wikipedia entries for both Hezbollah and Hassan Nasrallah.
The Washington Post article is a good place to start. It’s recent and is critical of Hezbollah while differentiating it from other Islamist movements.
anon,
These are differences without distinctions, and in the long run, don’t amount to a hill of beans. Hair splitting exercises designed to engage in endless chatter.
These are differences without distinctions, and in the long run, don’t amount to a hill of beans. Hair splitting exercises designed to engage in endless chatter.
From the Washington Post article:
Nevertheless, Nasrallah has only disdain for bin Laden and the Taliban. In April, an al-Qaeda cell in Lebanon tried to assassinate him. And the late al-Qaeda chief in Iraq this spring condemned the Shiite movement as an “enemy of the Sunnis” — ironically, in hindsight — for protecting Israel by preventing Palestinian attacks from Lebanon. “The worst, the most dangerous thing that this Islamic revival has encountered . . . was the Taliban,” Nasrallah told me. “The Taliban state presented a very hideous example of an Islamic state.”
It’s gang warfare with a common goal. So, no, in the end, there is no real difference between Al Qaeda ,Hamas and Hezballah.
Yes anon, they are different. Degrees of Terrorism? SO what?
I suggest you put down the Washington Post, sloooowy back away, and go find a copy of “Six Days of War: June 1967 and the making of the modern Middle East” by Michael Oren. What you will find is that in 1948 the Arabs had their differences (this is after they had gone through a rather strong flirtation with Hitler by the way), in 1956 they had their differences, in 1967 they had their differences and they still have them today. Through all those years their “differences” included trying and at times succeeding in assasinating each other, as well as almost always changing governments through violent means (my, there’s just SO much to admire about the Arab world and the religion of “peace). But what they shared in all those years and now is a joint hatred and stated goal to rid the world of Israel. They also talked much about the evil Imperial US as well. Nothing has changed, other than the size of their weapons, and the ones they really, really want to get. These clowns haven’t even changed their shorts in 50 years. They deserve NOT to be understood, nor to be placated, but to have all out war waged against them by the West until as with the Nazis, they are little more than a fringe element capable only of having annoying hairdos and showing up at parades holding signs.
The Ku Klux Klan helped build schools, hospitals, and orphanages for disadvantaged rural (white Protestant) communities, too.
Were they not a terrorist organization? Did any civil rights activists try to draw a distinction between their “military” and “political” wings?
That’s the difference between the 50’s era liberal activists, now labelled “neocons,” and the neo-liberal “progressives.”
The tyrants and terrorists of the Middle East are just like the mafia. There is always strife and rivalries within the various families and between them as well. But, on the whole they are all on the same side and often cooperate, obviously when their interests converge. If HB and AQ were the two groups left standing would they fight each other, of course. But when it comes to their views on Israel and Western Civilization in general there is little difference between them.
Osama bin Laden, February 23, 1998:
The ruling to kill the Americans and their allies— civilians and military— is an individual duty for every Muslim who can do it in any country in which it is possible to do it, in order to liberate the al-Aqsa Mosque and the holy mosque [Mecca] from their grip, and in order for their armies to move out of all the lands of Islam, defeated and unable to threaten any Muslim.
Interview With Sheikh Hassan Nasrallah, CNN, March 16, 2003
MACVICAR: You talked about how during the days when American forces were in Beirut, people in the southern suburbs screamed “Death to America.” You went on to say, now with U.S. forces back in the region, “Death to America” was, is and shall remain our slogan, and not merely a slogan but a policy. How does Hezbollah intend to implement that policy?
NASRALLAH: in that same speech, I said, we don’t mean death to American people but death to the U.S. project in the region. We don’t want to kill. We did not launch attacks on U.S. grounds. We don’t want to kill Americans.
Tatter–
Good point.
Another example of a terror organization providing social services would be Mao Zedong’s revolutionaries fighting the western backed government in China.
Just because people make free handouts to gain public support doesn’t mean they don’t have malevolent motivations.
“We don’t want to kill Americans.”
A terrorists lying to the infidel again. Few have forgotten about the 241 American PEACEKEEPERS the Hezb’Allah slaughtered in 1983 — with Iranian funding and organization btw.
Nasrallah can lie to the Europeans, but he isn’t convincing anyone here.
(this is after they had gone through a rather strong flirtation with Hitler by the way),
Source?
neo: care to address the total implosion of Iraq that’s taken place while the world is focused on Israel/Lebanon? The fact that the vaunted administration of Al Maliki doesn’t run outside the Green Zone? Pace and Abizaid agreeing that Iraq “may be slipping towards a civil war” — LOL? The fact that the U.S. is deploying thousands more troops to Baghdad from other still-hostile parts of the country in an effort to avoid a last-chopper-out-of-Saigon scenario? The U.S. report in the last week that corruption in the Iraqi government is so bad that one single Iraqi official is believed to have stolen ONE BILLION DOLLARS?
The Iraq farce is over. Bush and his neocon puppetmasters lost. Iraq lost, big time. If there’s a winner, it’s Iran — and the Kurds are going to come out pretty good. The only question remaining about the U.S. withdrawal is: How humiliating will it be? How politically disastrous for the neocons and the poor misguided lapdogs (e.g. Blair) who followed them?
This Israel/Hezbollah thing is a sideshow. Iraq remains. (Along with the real central problem in the Middle East, the Israel/Palestine question).
(this is after they had gone through a rather strong flirtation with Hitler by the way),
Source?”
Its basic history, Yhamir. You should know it, claiming to be so knowledgeable of history. Of course, you seem to discount or even ignore any information which does not fit in with your propaganda.
Tell you what; if I can find numerous sources, let’s say 5, showing you the Arab affiliation and even direct cooperation with the Nazis, will you admit publically that you are wrong, for all here to see, and apologize?
I’ll even include some non-web sources for you, if you like.
Anon and ‘bird are just here acting out their illness. Let’s not feed the trolls. I believe Neo’s post was about changing the Serenity Prayer to something a little more pro-active in combating evil. And, with the exception of the trolls, I think we all can agree that Islamic terrorism and threats are evil.
Moral relativism, ad hominem arguments and straw men are all our opponents, the allies of evil have to offer here. They are collaborators. My hope is that enough of them eventually cross the line to more active measures so that they can take long dirt naps or spend time in healthy country settings, breathing bracing air and doing honest work.
The Ku Klux Klan helped build schools, hospitals, and orphanages for disadvantaged rural (white Protestant) communities, too.
Damn! I copied that bit but wanted to post it into my message. That’s a complete mistake. Maybe neo or some other helpful person — senescentwasp, are you there? — will tell me how to erase an accidental post like that one.
Anyway, what I intended to do after pasting that comment into my post, was to say: “I’m too lazy to look that up: would you please provide references for your proposition that the KKK was at least partly a benevolent society helping out those poor downtrodden southern whites.
I’m not denying what you say is true; but please provide backup. Did you know that the first soup kitchens for the poor in Depression-era Chicago were set up by Al Capone?
Ah screw this, life is short. And screw you, senescentwasp.
Can anybody please recommend an online community where left and right have respectful conversations?
Not me. But please keep trying. I don’t know of any others; if you find one that’s more polite and respectful of honest debate, please let me know.
Debate aside, I enjoy agitating the mouthfrothers.
Incidentally, I should say that apart from neo’s recent decision to cut me off because I posted three consecutive messages, unanswered, in a three-quarter-of-an-hour period in the middle of the night — a decision since, apparently, rescinded — I find neo’s posts a model of reason (though she’s completely politically misguided). She herself is a reasonable person and not in the least offensive (though she and I have different political opinions). She can’t be held responsible for the weirdos her position attracts.
“And screw you, senescentwasp.”
Jeez, anonymous. I’m sure the wasp’s comments were made with the best intentions.
Can’t we all just get along?
And can we all recognize sarcasm when we read it?
Just in case.
(this is after they had gone through a rather strong flirtation with Hitler by the way),
Source?
Yhamir | 08.05.06 – 7:35 pm | #
From the Book I cited, which won the Los Angeles Time Book Prize in History, got positive reviews from the NY Times, Philadelphia Inquirer and Atlantic Monthly.
If you simply type in “Arabs and Hitler”, you’ll get plenty of hits.
Gee that was easy…next?
What could there possibly be to debate across the line that has already been drawn in the sand?
No one here is in the undecided category and that is where the struggle will take place. Rallying the faithful, convincing the undecideds and rousing the comatose from in front of their TV’s for periodic nose counting is where the real action takes place.
I’m retired and my political work in my congressional district is in a lull before, if the polls are accurate, we stand a chance of electing a Republican to the district for the first time in 35 years. I like to smite the unrighteous hip and thigh just to keep the invective machine running.
Debate? Two doors down on the right, room’s full of talkers and slackers, none of them with a clue. Me? I like Neo’s writing and use it to work on potential “Changers” like Neo was. Very effective too.
Come again? This time in English?
You need to learn to use simple, straightforward, unambiguous sentences, like: “Senescentwasp, I think you’re a stupid asshole.”
That’s the kind of punch prose that gets your message across.
punchy.
It’s not my fault if you are an ill educated lout. If the bigger words are hard for you use define(word) in Google. For your first lesson try looking up “facile”. My message to you ‘bird, is quite simple ESAD. Tip for the learning impaired; it’s an acronym, and not for “Empire State Association of the Deaf”.
“Ill educateod lout? If that’s aimed at me, I’ll disregard the missing hyphen and assure you that I’m not ill; educated though I may be, I deny being a lout.
I’m sorry, but “ESAD” is an acronym unknown to me. If you’re a member — just a guess — is it “Empire Association of the Dim”?
“Ill educated lout”? If that’s aimed at me, I’ll disregard the missing hyphen and assure you that I’m not ill; educated though I may be, I deny being a lout.
I’m sorry, but “ESAD” is an acronym unknown to me. If you’re a member — just a guess — is it “Empire State Association of the Dim”?
That’s what I meant. I’ve really got to proofread my stuff before hitting “Publish” — people might think I’m ill-educated.
You made four grammatical mistakes in your three-line message, but that’s better than you sometimes do. (If a donkey only flies for a short distance, you don’t ridicule his flying ability).
Hey, senescentwasp, let’s let bygones be bygones and let’s not talk about your ignorance and stupidity — let’s talk about your Administration’s catastrophic failure in Iraq.
What’s that, wasp? I’m sorry, you’ll havd to speak up.
have to speak up. Damn! Somebody tell me how to remove a post.
I’m quite serious. Right-clicking doesn’t do it. How do I remove a post I’ve made?
bird:
Try not making a post in the first place; we’ll all feel a whole lot better.
Hehe. Tequila, you can’t remove or edit a post. This isn’t blogger.
“Tell you what; if I can find numerous sources, let’s say 5, showing you the Arab affiliation and even direct cooperation with the Nazis, will you admit publically that you are wrong, for all here to see, and apologize?”
Absolutely Weary.
Show me 5 sources -web and otherwise.
Thank you.
If you all could have two commenters that you’d rather not read, out of the 3, which would you choose?
The 3 being me, Senescent, and Tequila.
That’s easy, Yguy: you and Senescent.
So I can’t remove a post? OK. Thanks.
Why is Israel using Israeli civilian areas as staging areas? Why is Israel endangering Israeli civilians, the very thing for which Hezbollah is criticized?
By Jonathan Finer, Molly Moore and Edward Cody
Washington Post Foreign Service
Sunday, August 6, 2006; 7:54 AM
KFAR GILADI, Israel, Aug. 6 — Ten people, most of whom appeared to be Israeli reserve soldiers, were killed Sunday afternoon when a barrage of Katusha rockets fired by Hezbollah militants landed in a parking lot where the troops were gathered near this kibbutz on Israel’s northernmost tip, according to witnesses at the scene.
Gidon Giladi, the son of the founder of the kibbutz and a member of the emergency response team, raced to the scene after hearing the rockets land.
Giladi said Israeli reservists, who were preparing to move into Lebanon, used the parking lot just outside the yellow kibbutz gates as a staging area.
‘bird, when your parents tried to discipline you did you simply tune them out too? You don’t do too well with limits and consequences, do you? Grew up a “wild child” or are you reacting to an over repressive parent? I bet your attention getting behavior is the center of your life.
I also bet your life is a mess. Wouldn’t want to be you. Such a waste of oxygen.
Don’t feed the trolls, wasp. If people want to feed the trolls and attack them personally, that’s fine. If they want to ignore them in favor of better things to say and do, that’s fine too. What’s not fine is trying to be on sides of the fence at the same time, wasp. Wasp, you talk about not feeding the trolls, but are you talking to yourself?
ymar, pot, kettle, black.
“Why is Israel using Israeli civilian areas as staging areas? Why is Israel endangering Israeli civilians, the very thing for which Hezbollah is criticized?”
Adam, that would be interesting if Katusha rockets were actually guided in some way to a target.
Human rights watch(as well as other human rights organizations)had this to say about the “human shields” defense Israel pathetically uses to legitimize war crimes against Lebanon and Gaza.
“In a report released Thursday, it accuses Israel of “a systematic failure to distinguish between combatants and civilians,” and of “serious violations of international humanitarian law.”
Kenneth Roth, executive director, writes: “We’ve all heard the Israeli government blame Hezbollah for the large number of civilian deaths. Hezbollah is placing its troops and matériel in the villages, the argument goes, so what can Israel do? …
“The problem with this … is that it doesn’t correspond with our research on the ground. Hezbollah has placed its troops and matériel near civilians, and sometimes civilians may have died as a result. But Human Rights Watch has investigated the circumstances of roughly half of the civilian deaths caused by Israeli bombing, and time after time it was clear that there was no Hezbollah around.
“So why is Israel bombing indiscriminately?
“Judging from the comments of its senior military officials, part of the reason is that, having issued evacuation warnings for southern Lebanon, Israel now assumes anyone left in that area is a combatant.
“But that is not factually correct: many people have been compelled to stay because they are old, infirm, unable to afford exorbitant taxi fares, or unwilling to risk travel on roads where many civilians have died. Many simply don’t want to leave their homes and possessions.
“But it is also not legally correct under the laws of war: Israel is to be commended for issuing warnings, but warnings do not absolve it of the duty to continue at all times to distinguish between civilians and combatants in launching attacks.
“If that were not true, Hamas might `warn’ all settlers to leave the settlements and treat those who remained as fair game for attack. Particularly disturbing is that there are some cases … in which the circumstances of the attack suggest that civilians were deliberately targeted. Clear civilian targets were attacked with no military justification. That is a war crime.””
Moderated political debates here: americasdebate.com
Trolls always come out on weekends and get banned on Monday.
It costs a lot to go off and combat evil, as we have found to our sorrow in Iraq. Before we start World War N, we need to evaluate what it is we want to accomplish, and how we are to go about doing so. No matter how evil the intentions of the Islamists may be, they lack the ability to send forth armies against the nations who would be fighting this war. Certainly they can try to launch terrorist attacks, but they can do that whether or not they’re attacked. Meanwhile, the great evils of the Soviet Union and Communist China were stopped without resort to war, except for proxy battles in which the forces of good fared only indifferently. And whether one is a member of the “best” or the “worst” is seldom clear without the benefit of hindsight.
“Human rights watch(as well as other human rights organizations)had this to say about the “human shields” defense Israel pathetically uses to legitimize war crimes against Lebanon and Gaza.”
I got as far as “Human Rights Watch” and knew there was no reason to read further. Only an idiot believes anything those clowns say. Only an idiot…
What, everything isn’t sweetness and light over on the right-hand side of the spectrum? Do I detect a note of disharmony between Yguy and Wasp?
Thanks for your thoughtful psychoanalysis, ‘Wasp. It’s as accurate as most of your posts.
Please, Yguy and ‘Wasp, I’ll forgo this tiresome personal sniping if you will. Let’s just talk about the stupidity of your Bozo in Chief and the total failure of U.S. policy in Iraq.
Well, if I’m walking on the edge of being banned, it’s about to get tougher for neo to eject me. I’m leaving Europe tomorrow for a short vacation in Canada before I take up a new post in either Singapore or Hong Kong, so my ISP is going to bounce around a bit in the coming weeks.
Though Singapore or Hong Kong seems more likely, I’m considering offers from Las Vegas, NYC, and Washington D.C. — gasp! the belly of the beast! — so we’ll see. Hey, Yguy, ‘Wasp, et al, maybe we’ll be neighbours!
We’re working on it ‘bird. Your IP varies so the next option is to contact your main ISP and see if you are in violation of their Terms Of Services (TOS).
The polite thing to do would be to understand that you are not wanted and go. You start out OK and eventually, because of your illness, you go off the deep end with obscenity and overt provocation. It’s clear that you are only interested in disruption and provocation as well as the “look at me” thing. Sad you are.
Show me 5 sources -web and otherwise.
Thank you.”
I show you 5 sources and you will do what, Yhamir? I want you to type it out yourself so we have no misunderstanding here. I want your guarantee you’ll own up.
When I caught you in a patently blatant lie in a previous thread, you ignored it.
I want to make sure you don’t repeat the performance and waste my time.
Neo was talking about a lack of conviction and our inability to recognize what much be fought for.
Isn’t this something that could be discussed calmly between “sides”?
It seems to me that it can’t, and the reason that it can’t is that the party of nuance is full of absolutists. There isn’t *room* for people to have different opinions because the right answer is so obvious. And so critical.
Could we agree on this statement… Some things are suited to resolution through negotiation and diplomacy while other things require the force of arms.
Yes? No?
Perhaps the difference is the belief that things are fragile vs. the belief that things are robust.
Or maybe it’s a combination. A discussion has to allow that different opinions can be held without dire consequences. If that’s not possible then it’s not possible to tolerate other opinions because not only must those opinions be wrong (and your opinions right) they must also be dangerous. How can people who disagree have a conversation if the ideas of the other person are considered actively dangerous?
And how can a discussion about the use of arms go on constructively if there is no agreement than war can *ever* have a good result or that war is *ever* necessary? In that case there is no point at all in talking about specific cases. People who favor war in this case might be persuadible that other means could be effective, but that’s only if the argument is actually case specific.
Those saying, (as an example), that Iraq is a disaster do not have credibility because there is no indication whatsoever in what they say that they could recognize within the chaos of war a situation that was *not* a disaster. What would “not a disaster” look like? An absence of strife is not realistic. Adhering to a tidy plan when faced with the messy reality that is humanity is a good way to get more of your soldiers killed. A tidy plan carried out in a tidy manner is not realistic.
So a litany of chaos and disaster proves nothing at all and is not persuasive.
At the *very* least, try for historical parallels on reconstruction or civil strife that eventually turned out well.
What situations should be fought for? Is this something that can be discussed productively? Or should the actual situation be ignored in order to discuss the question “should *anything* be fought for?”
Shouldn’t the meeting start with someone standing up and saying my name is X and I’m an Y?
Human Rights Watch has investigated the circumstances of roughly half of the civilian deaths caused by Israeli bombing, and time after time it was clear that there was no Hezbollah around.
Yes, but I wonder just how they conducted the investigations. How is “no Hezbollah around” defined? Would it be “no Hezbollah around” when HRW arrives – hours or days later? And how would HRW determine this – by perhaps interviewing bystanders? Did HRW expect Hezbollah to stick around to be interviewed? Or maybe Hezbollah did stay and were interviewed – but of course did not identify themselves as Hezbollah. Would interviewees be worried what might happen after the HRW investigators left – such as Hezbollah killing them if they tell the truth? Could interviewees be sympathetic to Hezbollah and therefore interested in blaming Israel?
And what is “time and time again”? Twenty percent? Fifty? I think there is a need for HRW to be a bit more specific in these pronouncements.
Furthermore, how did HRW get to these sites? We are being constantly told that civilians cannot get out of these places and are trapped because Israel has bombed the infrastructure – the roads, streets and bridges. Yet HRW can apparently slip in and out of war zones easily enough, just like the photographers, who take copious photos and videos. I wonder why just about anyone who wants to can freely come and go in these war zones except the civilians who live there. Strange.
I wonder, did HRW investigate the Mohamed al Dura incident? If so, did HRW detect that the Mohamed al Dura incident was staged? If HRW hasn’t investigated the Mohamed al Dura incident then I think HRW should. We could use their results to judge how well they conduct investigations in general.
To sum up: I’m suspicious of these investigations, suspect HRW to be tainted with bias and can’t really see how a proper investigation could be conducted in the middle of a war zone during a war.
Grackle,
Take a look at the following page:
http://www.haaretz.com/hasen/spages/746108.html
It’s the website of Haaretz, the Israeli newspaper.
It says very clearly:
“HRW said it based its report on interviews with survivors of attacks, visits to blast sites and information from hospitals, aid groups, Lebanon’s government and the Israel Defence Forces.”
http://www.haaretz.com/hasen/spages/746108.html
‘Wasp, there’s some truth in what you say. Thanks for acknowledging that I “start out OK”. Then, eventually, I allow myself to be dragged down by personal attacks such as yours. I’ll do my best to ignore the pettiness of you and your ilk.
My offense, by the way, appears to be not the content of my messages but the fact that I post three or four in a period of fifteen or twenty minutes. If that’s a violation of the TOS of any ISP on earth, it’ll come as a huge surprise to me.
“Where do they get the right to preach to Israel? European countries attacked Kosovo and killed ten thousand civilians. Ten thousand! And none of these countries had to suffer before that from a single rocket…I’m not saying it was wrong to intervene in Kosovo. But please: Don’t preach to us about the treatment of civilians.”
– Ehud Olmert
“When I caught you in a patently blatant lie in a previous thread, you ignored it.”
Well if you can’t even be honest than we’d be wasting our time.
My comment was “it is Israel who is killing Lebanese civilians.”
That is a blatant lie?
A yes or no will be fine.
Post 5 sources as you claim you can.
You alreadly look a right twit by avoiding your own claim.
I said I would apologize if you can.
Simple. Get on with it. Stop playing games…..
“I got as far as “Human Rights Watch” and knew there was no reason to read further. Only an idiot believes anything those clowns say. Only an idiot…”
So tell us what reasoning, evidence you’d offer for that assertion Mike…..
‘bird,
Since this comment thread has been superceeded and will soon fade away, I’d like to ask you a couple of questions.
You know you’ve been banned and you know that you have taken active measures to evade the ban by morphing your IP. You know that your views do not receive a “welcoming response”. You know that the tactics you use are not appreciated. But yet, you persist.
Why? I’d like to gain some insight into the mind of a troll. Is it a mission? Do you think you will gain converts to your views? Do you seek the negative attention?
BTW, the violations of TOS are rather more than repetitive posting and have been documented.
Yhamir,
Oh, so you want to revisit that lie, now? Hokay.
First, not surprisingly, you misquote yourself. This is what your wrote:
“Hezbollah isn’t killing Lebanese civilians – Israel is.
That is a fact.”
Statement of lie. Then reinforcement of that lie as fact. When I quoted you on this to point out it was a blatant lie, you then went on to affirm it AGAIN with:
“Ha. Only a true psychopath would call that a “blatant lie”.”
Of course, then your tried to change the subject, claiming I said Israel never killed any civilians, and then asking me to prove something I did not say. Typical.
You remembering all this, Yhamir?
So, yes, Yhamir; claiming Hezbollah is not killing Lebanese civilians is a blatant lie. Now defend it. And don’t change the subject this time.
I’ll get to my sources as soon as we resolve this, AND I get that promise from you to apologize when I do. Remember, you asked for sources that Arabs were flirting with the Nazi regime. When I give them, I want you to admit you were wrong.
Can you handle that, or you want to give up now? You talk about playing games, but that’s all you got. Put up or shut up. I tire of you…
HRW said it based its report on interviews with survivors of attacks, visits to blast sites and information from hospitals, aid groups, Lebanon’s government and the Israel Defence Forces.
I guess the HRW ignored what the “Israel Defence Forces” said, for the IDF’s investigation found just the opposite(as seen in the quote below).
The comments came as the Israel Defense Forces released the results of an investigation into an air strike on a building in the southern Lebanese town of Qana, in which dozens of people were killed. The probe found that the IDF made a mistake, but charges that Hezbollah guerrillas used civilians as shields for their rocket attacks.
Also, I’m wondering: How could the hospitals know that civilian casualties were incurred because the IDF deliberately targeted civilians? How would the hospitals be able to distinguish between deliberately targeted civilians and accidental casualties? Do the wounds look different?
And who were the “aid groups”? Were any of the “aid groups” around the sites when the bombs landed?
As for “Lebanon’s government,” pardon me, but any government that knowingly allows terrorists to become part of the government can’t be trusted to tell the truth.
Lastly, about the “survivors.” Was it perhaps the survivors who made the claim that 52 people were killed that later had to be adjusted down to 28? It’s funny, isn’t it, that when a ‘fact’(52 dead) can be accurately checked, it becomes “revised”.
I repeat: I don’t see how any kind of rigorous, unbiased investigation could possibly be carried out in a chaotic war zone during a war.
Prove than, Weary, that Hezbollah is killing Lebanese civilians(which, incidently, if we’re going to be talking about ‘context’, was said to argue the point that it is Israel who is killing large numbers of civilians(and very little militants in ratio)and not Hezbollah(without precision-guided missles either).
But, if it is a ‘blatant lie’ that Hezbollah is not killing Lebanese civilians than post your proof.
And I didn’t say that you denied Israel kills civilians, either…
You seem to have an ongoing problem with providing evidence for your claims, Dreary.
And this is getting more than a bit boring….
Y:
Then please be bored somewhere else.
Stumbley – I’m not addressing you.
Please mind your own business like a good little troll.
I know, I know – don’t feed the trolls….sorry scentofawasp – my bad…..
Prove than, Weary, that Hezbollah is killing Lebanese civilians”
I will, but first:
(which, incidently, if we’re going to be talking about ‘context’, was said to argue the point that it is Israel who is killing large numbers of civilians(and very little militants in ratio)and not Hezbollah(without precision-guided missles either).
Let’s get your wiggling and wriggling squashed first, Yhamir. Your statement did not mention relative numbers, did it? No.
“”Hezbollah isn’t killing Lebanese civilians – Israel is.
That is a fact.”
No, it did not.
“”Hezbollah isn’t killing Lebanese civilians”
Your words. Live up to them or skulk away. That fact that you are trying to backpeddle says volumes.
“But, if it is a ‘blatant lie’ that Hezbollah is not killing Lebanese civilians than post your proof.
Fine. My next post is long (sorry, Neo) so it is separate.
Hezbollah has a long history of killing Lebanese civilians, but let’s start with recent events.
Murdering Lebanese civilians in cold blood, no trial. Call Amnesty International!
Passengers on board an evacuation ship told medical doctor Boris Buck from the German city of Munich that they had seen members of the Lebanese Shi’ite Hezbollah group or their sympathisers killing 18 Lebanese people during the night.
http://www.news24.com/News24/World/Middle_East/0,,2-10-2075_1974589,00.html
Using Lebanese civilians as human shields, over:
http://www.news.com.au/heraldsun/story/0,,19955774-5007220,00.html
and over:
http://blissstreetjournal.blogspot.com/2006/07/siege-of-mari.html
and over, again:
http://www.ouwet.com/n10452/editorials/free-ain-ebel-from-hezbollah-invasion/
As has been discussed, before, using civilians as human shields is against the Geneva Convention, and doing so makes those using them as such RESPONSIBLE FOR THEIR DEATHS.
Here’s some of both. Shooting people outright, and using them as human shields:
There is plenty of responsibility on both sides for yesterday’s killing of 65 Lebanese civilians sheltered in a building in the southern Lebanese town of Qana by an Israeli air strike. But the lion’s share of responsibility by far falls squarely into the hands of Hezbollah for triggering events whose outcome they did not predict, and for taking the initiative of war without having prepared Lebanon, its army, its civilian population and its government for the consequences of war.
Hezbollah has chosen to drag Lebanon into a war for which it – Hezbollah – has no preparation except for 12,000 rockets and missiles and military guerilla-style operations that are mounted and launched from behind civilians – women, children and the handicapped. It has not prepared the civilian population of Lebanon for a protracted war against Israel. Hezbollah should know – as smart as Hassan Nasrallah says he and his fighters are – that by fighting a war from villages, between houses and buildings, and among civilians who have nowhere to go, it was inviting the death of the very population it claims to be “defending” against the Israeli onslaught.
Lebanese refugees arriving from the southern villages are telling stories of Hezbollah killing Lebanese villagers who decide to flee, and of literally using their own people as human shields:
“Hezbollah came to Ain Ebel to shoot its rockets,” said Fayad Hanna Amar. “They are shooting from between our houses.” “Please,’’ he added, “write that in your newspaper.” Mr. Amar said Hezbollah fighters in groups of two and three had come into Ain Ebel, less than a mile from Bint Jbail, where most of the fighting has occurred. They were using it as a base to shoot rockets, he said, and the Israelis fired back.
One woman, who would not give her name because she had a government job and feared retribution, said Hezbollah fighters had killed a man who was trying to
I’m not backpeddling moron.
Those are my words. You are the one who brought context into the argument.
And seeing as you see that as important I felt the need to tell you what my intentions were as I wrote it – if that’s not evident. I made a point about Israel’s actions and world perception(that was the context – and the topic, if I’m not mistaken). And no – I didn’t write numbers – I assumed we all know the numbers and so the point would be self evident.
My mistake.
But thats not backpedeling – get on with it…
1)Spies are not civlians(you know that).
2)The human shield argument is quite void of any merit whatsoever – I’ve posted on this before. Regardless – firing missles from territory where there is civilians is not killing civilians. They are Israeli missles that have killed them. Hezollah Katuchyas that kill Israeli civilians are not the result of the Israeli Defense forces being in Israel, they are the result of Hezbollah firing them at Israel. No matter which we you put it – it is an impossiblity to argue that Hezbollah kills Lebanese civilians when they are Israeli missles that are doing it.
I thought you’d try something like that.
You really are a moron, Weary.
Did you fall on you head when you were a child?
“As has been discussed, before, using civilians as human shields is against the Geneva Convention, and doing so makes those using them as such RESPONSIBLE FOR THEIR DEATHS.”
Yes – this is true. Only the Human Shields argument according to the Geneva Convention doesn’t refer to civlians being killed by incoming missles from a foreign army – it refers to the practise of holding a civlian in front of you to use as a ‘shield’ from bullets – a practise used almost solely by the IDF.
Wrong guy, wrong time, Weary.
Now slink back in your hole and come back when you find your brain…..
Goodbye, yammer, uh… conned.
I’m not backpeddling moron.
Ooh, looks like I hit a nerve.
Those are my words.
FINALLY, an admission of some sort!
You are the one who brought context into the argument.
Uh, no I did not, and anyone who wants to go back and look can see that. As for you and me, we know the truth, right Yhamir?
And seeing as you see that as important I felt the need to tell you what my intentions were as I wrote it – if that’s not evident. I made a point about Israel’s actions and world perception(that was the context – and the topic, if I’m not mistaken)…
More lies and obfuscation. You made a plain, but false statement and now you are trying to claim I misinterpreted you? Sorry, but I can read and can anyone who is reading this. Bad luck for you.
1)Spies are not civlians(you know that).
Wow! Not only do do you know, for a fact, that Hezbollah has not killed any civilians, AND you know that all 18 of those people were definitely spies who deserved to die. I guess based on that logic, Israel should just declare every civilian killed as Hezbollah.
Oh, and I like how you ignored the incidents like the bombings. Guess all those Lebanese standings around those American embassies were spies too, huh?
2)The human shield argument is quite void of any merit whatsoever – I’ve posted on this before.
Well, if you posted it, it must be true, nomatter what the Geneva Convention says.
I thought you’d try something like that.
What? Use logic and facts and your very own words against you? Yes, I am a bastard like that.
You really are a moron, Weary.
Did you fall on you head when you were a child?
I’ll take that second and third round of weak insults as proof that I hit that nerve. Sounds sore.
Silly. All you had to do is say, when I first caught you was, “Okay, I overstated that, but…”
But know, you are a zealot just like I had you pegged, and I proved it. You KNOW I proved it to because you’ve gotten quite snippy, have you not.
🙂 Have a nice day, Troll.
Weary, stop shaking the carcass the vile little animal is dead. You killed him. And, he is soon to vanish from here.
He will reappear, probably, since he seem to have either technical help in avoiding filters or those who are paying him give the ability to him.
Wasp,
Thank you, you are right. But, you know, these Trolls are like zombies. You THINK they are dead and then…
😉
Why is Israel using Israeli civilian areas as staging areas? Why is Israel endangering Israeli civilians, the very thing for which Hezbollah is criticized? Adam
Are you saying the Katusha rockets would have been aimed at another target if not for the reservists?
You can’t have it both ways. Katushas don’t have the accuracy to descriminate. IDF weapons have the accuracy, and IDF makes the effort to spare civilians. But Islamic terrorists make sure they fire from locations that maximise the suffering of the Lebanese civilians when the IDF returns fire.
“Wow! Not only do do you know, for a fact, that Hezbollah has not killed any civilians, AND you know that all 18 of those people were definitely spies who deserved to die. I guess based on that logic, Israel should just declare every civilian killed as Hezbollah.”
I’m just going on the post that you provided.
Again, moron(I’m not upset in the least Dreary – it’s just that I truly think you are a moron; there’s simply no other explanation)the deal was you show that Hezbollah kills ‘Lebanese civilians’.
You didn’t do that.
But you did demonstrate clearly, for those who could be bothered to follow this nonsense – that you are,
1)a liar
2)stupid
3)a welcher(is that what you yanks would call it? anyway, you get the idea).
How-hum. Another day, another neocon floundering in denial and defeat….
He will reappear, probably, since he seem to have either technical help in avoiding filters or those who are paying him give the ability to him.
Wow wasp.
You are ill mate.
Get some help…..
Look at yammer down here feeding on the dead corpse of a comment thread.
How-hum. Another day, another neocon floundering in denial and defeat….
Yhamir
The theory of the infamous “neocons” is that the Middle East can be transformed by democracy. Perhaps “neocons” are wrong, and democracy won’t work–what then?
We have already established that the leftist approach (Un, shallow diplomacy, etc) doesn’t work.
Pretty much leaves war as the solution.
Be careful what you wish for Yhamir. Perhaps neocons are not your friends (i.e., you may not want democracy in the Middle East), but spineless leftists are not the only contenders to neocons.
WASP, YOU SAID:
‘bird,
Since this comment thread has been superceeded and will soon fade away, I’d like to ask you a couple of questions.
You know you’ve been banned and you know that you have taken active measures to evade the ban by morphing your IP. You know that your views do not receive a “welcoming response”. You know that the tactics you use are not appreciated. But yet, you persist.
Why? I’d like to gain some insight into the mind of a troll. Is it a mission? Do you think you will gain converts to your views? Do you seek the negative attention?
BTW, the violations of TOS are rather more than repetitive posting and have been documented.
senescentwasp | 08.07.06 – 9:23 am | #
‘Wasp, the depth of your ignorance and hatred truly astonishes me. I’m sincere: What in the hell is wrong with you, you twisted psycho?
“You know you’ve been banned” — well, to a certain extent. I gave neo a smart-alecky response to a threat I considered unwarranted — the accusation that I was “spamming” when I posted three or four unanswered messages in the middle of the night over a period of 15 or 20 minutes — and I was indeed banned for a period of a day or two, which I thought was extremely unjust; I attempted to post and was denied access.
I was trying to respond, by the way, to death threats from you. And I should be banned for posting messages too quickly?
I’m sorry that you are not sufficiently educated to spell the word “superseded”, but let’s pass over your ignorance in that respect.
You said: “You know you’ve been banned” — see above — and “you know that you have taken active measures to evade the ban by morphing your IP.”
That’s absolutely untrue. Ask neo, or her sitemaster, or whoever.
‘You know that your views do not receive a “welcoming response”.’
Yes, I know that; my political beliefs are at odds with neo’s, yours, and the majority of the people on this site. That’s the whole point, as far as I’m concerned; I don’t contribute to — or even read — any political blog where people hold my views. This is the only one I participate in! It gives me an opportunity to talk to people who hold different political views than I do! Some of them are morons, some of them are bigots, some of them are reasonable people who deserve consideration. I don’t participate in, and I don’t want to participate in, circle jerks where everybody reinforces their common beliefs. That’s apparently what you want.
“BTW, the violations of TOS are rather more than repetitive posting and have been documented”.
Well, ‘Wasp, over the last couple of years I have lost it and lapsed into obscenity — I would say three or four times. I was embarrassed and ashamed that I allowed that to happen, and I apologised every time. Except, perhaps, the last time, three or four months ago, when I experienced difficulty logging on, and as I said, I thought that I had been bounced for what I ackno
Whoops, my message was cut off somehow. I’ll just leave what I’ve said for now.
Jeez, it’s just now that I realized that I was so angry over Wasp’s blatantly dishonest post that I didn’t type in my name: That’s “tequilamockingbird”.
Does it occur to you, ‘Wasp, that neo wants to talk about Israel and Lebanon, I want to talk about Iraq, and you want to talk about me?
You’re a troll, ‘Wasp. You’re on the majority side, but you’re a troll.
Hey, there’s three messages in ten minutes. Spamming? I think not. But that’s in the eye and the political beliefs of the beholder.
Well, that’s gotta be it. (Pause while I most post this most and see how it’s dated).
Okay, he only had from 5:59 to say that after 7:55 — ban him! That’s five times in a row, with only us to two hours to respond! Who knows, he may be attacking us with free speech even now! Ban him!
Jeez, there I go again — it’s T-e-q-u-i-l-a-m-o-c-k-i-n-g-b-i-r-d. You guys get me so upset I could just spit !
At the end of that message I posted an “opening draft ‘less than’ sign, g, ‘close than’ sign” — I thought it meant “grin”. Does neo take herself too seriously for that? What’s up with that? (Just asking, in the pursuit of truth; far be it from me to flood the site with objectionable messages.)
That’s …
It’s upwards of 2 hours and 15 minutes now that no one but me has posted a message. Is that my fault, and should I be punished?
Oh, well, to hell with it. Over and out; I expect I’ll have more to say — if I’m allowed to, and possibly not all at one time — another time.
Am I being inflammatory and provocative just by posting this message? Yes, I am. Should I be punished for my insolence by banishment? Well, I guess we’ll see.