I question everything, including what I can observe for myself first person, because I know I am able to misconstrue just about anything, its the nature of this apparatus we are all endowed with. In science there are very few facts, mostly hypothesis and theories. In human created culture, even theories are hard to come by. So that's why I question. That you ask why, rhetorically, I am guessing implies you don't see a need to the way I do. As I've said before, you make up your world in your mind, and I make up mind. The way things go when we share words, I can't even imagine how we could ever compare notes.
So? Go ahead and question everything. I will instead have a base on previous works. Instead of reinventing the tire, I will assume that the "theory" of round objects work better under a moving object.
I think this shows your lack of understanding of science. It is easy to create a theory, I have a theory that middle class Americans choose their Giffen Good and thus emphasize the opposite product to purchase. See that was easy, now the hard part would be to prove it (sort of like in geometry it was expected to learn the proofs). Yes I agree that I don't see the way you do. Although I have adapted, I see little ability for you to comprehend beyond your core beliefs.
There is also another theory that those that have had loving and caring parents when they were young are more likely to be trusting of others. Not that they are gullible but trust others and the world around them. That is being held and cared for when young lead to greater degrees of self-confidence later in life. And even to a degree those secure individuals were less likely to become authoritarian.
Your question of which of your two options is more dangerous already has it's answer implied in the framing of question, for you. But for me, it's not a question I ask, so one I won't answer, because I think it's false dilemma. I'm not concerned with which is more dangerous. I'm concerned with finding ways to end violence.
The answer I believe could take on both choices and as such I asked it. Even in a debate I could stand behind either side. In a utopian world yes, we would all eat granola and the sheep will lie down with the lion. But that is for another life and not this one. But I wonder if you were concerned about ending violence for the last 6 years in Israel from Hezbollah's attacks.
So I'm guessing here, but it appears you don't seem to see that your government's providing arms to kill civilians of a [sovereign] nation, which is against our own laws, as being a problem then. That's one thing I'm concerned about, the breaking of the laws of our own nation. I consider the rule of law important to prevent a barbaric state of affairs.
Though I can see how it is a problem with you. Is this another case where you will say that you think all laws have equal value to you? Are you becoming the legalist here?
Watch out we are becoming a barbaric state of affairs. I just saw 3 people jaywalking, my neighbor smokes some strange looking cigarettes, countless speeders on the road, my wife's bike was stolen 3 times, I even took off early on Friday work. And I guess let us not talk about Clinton.
So no I don't consider it a problem, at least not as much as the violating laws that Hezbollah has done.
You suggest that I criticize the support given the Shi'ites in Lebanon by Syria and Iran. I don't see where my doing that would change anything for you and your position about the support of your government for this fiasco. I see some issues that could raise questions about the breaking of any of the laws in Lebanon for a group of people, the Shi'ites of Lebannon, who are poor and have little backing from their central government, who then accept financial and military help whereever they can get it to rebuild from the destruction caused by the occupation of Israel for so many years, to deal with the poverty, and to fend off a state which has occupied their lands and taken a large number of their people prisoner. Yes, there is a UN resolution that has been ignored, I say, then, that must be an acceptable necessity for some states in the world; since Israel has ignored some 60 or so and nothing is done about it, and Lebanon has ignored this one, it must be important for Lebanon that it has ignored it by not disarming the Hizbullah as 1559 requires, perhaps because it could not provide the adequate defense for its southern boundary in case Israel decided it needed the Litani river or something. That Israel is willing to attack and invade Lebanon isn't even a serious question. I know only one thing for sure and that's that I don't know enough to make a decision about it one way or another. I'm keeping my mind open and reading everything I can find about it.
I have not suggested as such. I only stated a fact, that you have not refuted. Yes we are now concerned about the poor. And from all the posts, they are not as downtrodden as you imagine they are. Others have suffered from the hands of Syria and you do not acknowledge as such.
Hezbollah provides no defense for a country that has not asked for it nor wants it. If Hezbollah was not there then the Government of Lebanon could have defended the border. They (Hezbollah) had a choice and they choose not to help the government out and only wanted to help themselves. Yes, that is one open mind (on one side).
And lastly nothing indicates that this war was nothing more than a war between a terrorist organization and a nation state of Israel.
In general my position is that all violence is to be avoided. So I am critical of all sides for resorting to violence when there are other options -- and I believe there are always other options. I don't know anything about this instance of Iran bombing a sovereign state you mentioned, so I haven't had a chance to say one way or another, and for you to accuse me of not making a comment about something I don't even know about is ludicrous. But I assure you it's unlikely I condone it.
Yes one option is that Israel just kept waiting and suffering the attacks of Hezbollah on a semi-regular basis. Allowing Hezbollah to get bigger and ‘badder’ weapons. After providing the basic information, it does not look like you looked it up or "read" my posts on such information.
Your characterization of the danger for one while characterizing the other as terrorists is one way of seeing the world, I suppose. I don't see blaming in that way. Both sides participate in the violence, in this case, one side is far stronger militarily than the other. My position is to look for positive, [non-violent] solutions. Your obvious error is to assume I condone any violence. I keep hoping that some day with enough usage of the term you'll come to understand what I mean when I point out how you've set things up in your mind in binary opposites.
Yes that is the definition of asymmetrical warfare. But it is asymmetrical in both directions. The big ones are thus to take constant barrages and not do anything about it.
Maybe not condone violence, but in our towers (woods), we can feel safe to ignore violence that does not fit into your worldviews.
One solution is to have Hezbollah disarm and join the Lebanese Army for those that want to defend Lebanon.
What dilemma? The dilemma of becoming a criminal state in attacking another state that harbors criminals? A terrorist is a criminal. Calling a terrorist an enemy is a grammatical reconstruction but doesn't change the reality that the terrorist breaks laws of a given nation and commits criminal acts.
LOL. How many times must I tell you that the dilemma is a non-state actor that wants to have the rights of a nation state but without the responsibilities? Of course I guess by your rules is that any state that attacks terrorists is a criminal state. I would say that the criminal state was Syria by supporting terrorists in other states. You don't see any Hezbollah attacks coming from Syria, do you?
That has been your reconstruction about terrorists being criminals. So you explain it. So who are the police that will enforce those laws that you feel they committed?
Out of what ideas did you manage to create that sentence? I'm trying to imagine what it suggests. Was there some point in history when all the people in the world got together and decided to create nation states in order to minimize conflicts? I don't know where you came up with that or what it is supposed to imply about controlling international criminal behavior today. There is and has been all kinds of organized criminal behavior going on that nations have had to deal with, as douglaslee pointed out yesterday on the other thread -- the Mafia, the pirates, the illegal immigrants, etc. The "terrorist" is another name for another variation on that theme.
Well, I doubt that you are interested in where it comes from, so I will not provide them. I suppose that this means you want to go back to Empires, because one of those two structures will be around for some time.
Aside from the definitional aspect of the act that set things in motion, Israel attacked a nation state, targeted and killed its civilians, destroyed its infrastructure. Since I don't follow your statement about the dilemma that nations now face, I'm not sure if this is the right way to ask this, but how does not being able to deal with a non-state actor "as effectively" legitimize that? It seems to me there were plenty of options available to Israel at the time. Now there are possibly far less. Now all of Lebanon, even the factions that were against the Hizbullah and could have helped in smoothing out the process, have been traumatized and it's not clear what direction things will go. Wouldn't it have been better to work on developing better relationships between the two countries? Help strengthen the flawed democratic central government of Lebanon, get help from the U.S. or other neutral sources to build up Lebanon's weak military and provide the Shi'ite faction in southern Lebanon with the social services and support it needed that ended up being provided by Hizbullah with support they had available from Iran and Syria?
Nope, they attacked a known terrorist organization that was occupying territory that was not theirs to begin with. I have not legitimized anything but you have legitimized Hezbollah attacks on civilians then they have less weapons and have not invested in defensive capabilities.
Here's where we get down to the [mainstream] position you reflect. Someone has defined Hizbullah as "terrorists" and you accept it. I don't. Hizbullah is a militia of approximately 5000 full time and 10000 reserves and a part of a religious/political faction consisting of approximately 40 percent of the total population of Lebanon. They have been accepting funding from Iran and Syria, including military weapons and training, much like the abusing spouse of whatever gender you want to pick, Loganthor picked male, on the other side of the border. Your characterization is the mainstream one, of course, that's the obvious position you taken by exclusion and your own system of definitions. There is plenty of evidence that I've uncovered now to indicate it may not be the way things really are. So I question simply your apparent unquestioning adherence to your position.
Yes you have heard someone say that Hezbollah is a nice organization against imperialist nations and as such you accept it. I don't. I looked at what they did and thus defined them as terrorists by the acts they do. There has plenty of information I provided that countered your posts and had actual facts and not theories. So I question simply your apparent unquestioning adherence to your position.
I think at this point you are in a position where you need to define terrorism. When we find a political faction in a country that has not been given the full care, services and protection that a central government is supposed to provide, it seems reasonable that they can take it upon themselves to organize and arm themselves against a neighbor that has come across their border, occupied their lands, taken their people away as captives and put them in prison, and damaged their property. That sort of organization that, after twenty some years, has evolved its own militia to protect itself, it's own social services and funding to take care of itself, and now has 14 pm representatives in the central Lebanese government to begin a process of getting its share, does not fit any standard definition of a terrorist. Just because you want to call it a state within a state, does not mean that the Shi'ites have to live by your definition of them. They are facing their own dire problems, and they have every right to determine what they are and how to deal with them.
Are you stupid, or do you have the memory of a snail? I have already defined it in depth and you refused to recognize it. Your problem.
Yes when we find out that one faction was granted special conditions by the central government what should be done. Well luckily they kicked out that government controlled by Syria and did not start the civil war back again. They actually disarmed their militias. Why did Hezbollah not also disarm?
So much for small government!!!
Again, you just like repeating your propaganda. They did not defend or even plan to defend Lebanon. What land did they prevent from Israel taking? They only invited by their actions to get retaliation.
Yes they have dire problems because of what they invited upon themselves. Again you easily forget about colonization of Lebanon by Syria that favored one faction over the others. Most often done by force. Where is your sympathy for that?
You may as well know that your presentation of posts on the Middle East thread was just spam to me. I don't take them as anything representing what you think or don't think about this issue. So you have a lot of work to do if you want to use them in any way in your arguments. Basically, you may think you were doing something but to me it was a waste of your time. I didn't even read them if I didn't see comments. So that argument's gone as far as I'm concerned.
Great a little honesty here. But this contradicts with this: "I'm keeping my mind open and reading everything I can find about it." So it looks like a lie to me. I could care less what you think. So my work is for myself only and definitely not for you that want every post to conform to some set of rules that you change on a whim. Somehow you have delusions of grandeur.
Like I said above, I have explored the cultural situation in Southern Lebanon, and I now have questions about the status quo position you take. I am also fully aware that the more I learn the more I realize I need to learn, and that I will undoubtedly never achieve a state that relieves me of doubt about what I really understand. You don't apparently feel inclined in that direction that’s your prerogative. But at this point you have proven nothing to me. I'm already well aware of the position you choose and from where its formulations are derived.
That's funny! I want the situation to change and change drastically. I think I spelled that out well enough. It sounds like you want the status quo. You want Hezbollah to maintain their militia and to attack Israel when it wants.
Of course I have not proven anything to you..."I didn't even read them if I didn't see comments." Sticking your head in the sand is a sure way not to learn. And lastly, you have no idea where my formulations come from. That is because you have not tried. Cognitive Dissonance.
In other words, you pasted so much on that thread you don't have a clue if you even made such a point or where it might be. At this point I'll have to assume it's just your opinion.
You ignored it last time so no I will not work for you it ignore it again. Just stick your head back into the sand.
Yes, they are both at fault for perpetrating violence. Hizbullah has a perfect right to respond to the dominant and aggressive Israel, even though such response continues the conflict much to the detriment of the population. In my perspective, the U.S. should not be behind either but if it takes any responsibility in the matter, it should try to stop the violence through arbitration.
No, Hezbollah has no rights unless provided by the growing democracy as we defined as Lebanon. It is government’s responsibility to provide for defense. When Hezbollah prevented this happening then it became their fault at the start of the war.
By this time you should have caught on to the notion that "Fox news" is a synonym for right wing slanted news. If you haven't, catch on now.
Maybe in your mind but not mine. I know that anything right of Democracy Now is defined in this category. Even Idymedia must be right wing puppet in your mind. LMAO.
My funny what? Oh, "you're" funny. (Please don't be so conceited as to call attention to other people's poor grammar and misspellings, you'll likely find yourself sitting in a pile of broken glass.)
I've noticed that extreme right wing people tend to identify anything to left of them as socialists. So your broad categorizations of that sort only serve to more clearly identify you. I don't know how Hillary (whoever she is) got into this, or what point you could possibly be making with her. Anyway, this is your issue, not mine, I don't much care. Just note that it merely helps to locate your political position by what you call others different than you. If that's what you want to do then fine. You did it.
I am not conceited, but after being corrected on countless times, I figured you guys can take something back. You are the one in the glass house. You are the one that started the bullshit with the "center around".
And I will say the back to you. By your attacking conservative points of view, clearly shows that you are as socialist as sunrise.
This may come as a huge shock to you, so I recommend you sit down. I don't read everything you write. I never have and I never will.
Fair enough that explains enough that it shows that you have your head stuck in the sand and that you don't want to hear from a variety of views. Cognitive Dissonance.
So no wonder you don't understand my point of view. No wonder that you can come to the same conclusion that everyone has already stated on nearly 20 pages and then even act like you discovered something.
I'm sorry to break this to you, but you['re] the one with the rigid position here. Again, I don't know if we can come to one, but you've got a fairly imprecise definition of terrorist here that I don't find myself inclined to go along with. I've already pointed out the political and cultural complexities and the problems that the 40 percent of the Lebanese population of approximately 3.8 million. I can see that simplifying things in the way you have makes for some very difficult circumstances for negotiating issues with a very large number of people of this sort. For you to define what they can do to defend themselves in this manner doesn't allow them much room to deal with their problems when they have only a weak and fractious democracy behind them. But if that's how you want to go about dealing with the threat of violence and destruction in the world, there isn't much I can do but disagree.
Shit you are stupid. You do not know my position as you do not read my posts and now you present yourself as an expert. Narcissist. Already defined terrorism-look for it if you want.
Nothing I write "indicates" I support anyone who uses violence. You obviously read into what I say and make erroneous assumptions. What I think you are doing is failing to notice that I look at other issues and points of view than the ones you are willing to look at and from that you are making up a conclusion that I agree with something to do with those points of view when they result in violence. Do I need to point out the frame of mind you would need to have to think that way about something you don't know going on in my head? Keeping the mind open to possibilities and not coming to conclusions is how to avoid binary opposition thinking. I merely look at the structure in which the violence is taking place far differently than you, apparently, in order to see if there are possible ways to reassess the dynamics of all the forces involved and find ways to end it.
You're showing your stupidity again. I looked at all sources including your biased ones. While you have clearly stated you failed to read my sources.
That is some good advice, do not come to any conclusions and thus you will avoid binary opposition. But once you have a theory or idea then it can be broke down to its binary opposition components.
Ronald, I don't much care what you address. I fully expect you to be completely unaware of what I think about, what I try to imagine, even after I make an effort to explain it to you, so whatever you address, I doubt if it will be my positions. I don't enjoy taking the effort to respond to you, I don't think you care what I say or think, and I don't feel like I'm exploring anything with you. My interest is to explore ideas and possibilities. I think you are primarily focused on proving yourself right and not much else. Possibly wasting other people's time, yes, that may also be on your agenda too. Who can say, other than I feel I'm wasting mine. And it feels claustrophobic trying to get into your thoughts. ...And for goodness sakes, notice that it doesn't look to[o] smart of you when you make snide comments about other people's use of the language after your last word in that sentence there.
And yes I expect you to never completely be aware of what I think, even when it is easily available for you to examine. Cognitive Dissonance.
No your idea is to explore ideas and possibilities in a certain mindframe and unwilling to think for one second outside your rigid philosophies.
So we compare a typo to a person that can not get his apostrophes correct, no?
You also make statements into questions with just the addition of the question mark, no? Maybe you should try the technique I just used, no? Because you look stupid with question marks used as a way to ask questions that are not framed as such. Thus you can hide behind that it was a question when you made a statement, no?
I do not want you to address me again.