« Green for greens | Main | Lebanese Website: Hezbollah Responsible for Qana Deaths »

The Soft Nihilism of Low Expectations

Ed Morrisey, writing at The Examiner, has a great companion piece to the post below about how difficult it is fighting the war on terror while being held to a different standard than that of our enemies and Jay's post about the difference between Israel and Hezbollah.

We want to see civilians spared the horrors of war, and we push combatants to take all possible steps to achieve that end. The Geneva Conventions have that explicit mandate, and the world should remain constantly -- and consistently -- vigilant.

Unfortunately, the global community has failed miserably at this task, and this war not only highlights that failure, but springs from it. While the world holds Israel to this standard, things become curiously silent when it's time to hold Hezbollah responsible for its conduct of war. Hardly a word has escaped from the U.N. or Europe on the 2,500 missiles that have rained down upon Israeli civilians, deliberately targeted by Hezbollah. Those attacks have displaced more than 300,000 civilians, a fact the global community and the mainstream media ignore.

Those who argue that Israel has occasionally violated the Geneva Conventions in its attacks casually ignore the blatant violations of Hezbollah, whose combatants wear no uniform, deliberately hide in civilian populations and fire weapons from residential areas. Hezbollah conducts none of its operations within the rules of war -- and yet world leaders and the media never mention it.

Why? Because no one expects terrorists to follow the rules. This is the soft nihilism of low expectations.

Read it all.


TrackBack

Listed below are links to weblogs that reference The Soft Nihilism of Low Expectations:

» Mike's Noise linked with "How Do We Fight?"

Comments (74)

Sssh, Lorie! If you let thi... (Below threshold)
Jay Tea:

Sssh, Lorie! If you let this get out, people are gonna figure out we're all on Karl Rove's payroll, and we just got our latest set of talking points! I dunno about you, but The Shaggin' Wagon's in the shop for some major work, and I NEED that money!

Oh, crap... this isn't an e-mail, is it?

NEVER MIND, EVERYBODY!!

J.

Awwww, come on, everyone kn... (Below threshold)
Faith+1:

Awwww, come on, everyone knows civilian casualities don't count of they are Joooooossssss. (/sarcasm).

It the same attitude I see from my liberal neighbor and her rants about "dolphin safe tuna". I pointed out how dolphin safe tuna is all about image and not about the substance. After all, she weeps for the dolphin cuz they are so cute and pretty---but doesn't give a shit about the poor tuna fish...

and none of this was predic... (Below threshold)
Lee:

and none of this was predictable?

It was, and is, as is the Bush adminstration going soft and bowing to international pressure to negotiate for a cease fire.

Isn't 'negotiations' just a... (Below threshold)

Isn't 'negotiations' just another phrase for "We'll just wait and see what happens"?

Seems to me like the only two who can 'negotiate' are Israel and Lebanon/Hezbollah. Any other 'negotiation' is simple jerking off. It feels good, doesn't do a damn thing, and usually has a messy aftermath.

Lee,It wa... (Below threshold)
Mac Lorry:

Lee,

It was, and is, as is the Bush adminstration going soft and bowing to international pressure to negotiate for a cease fire.

From CNN: “President Bush said Monday there could be no cease-fire until Hezbollah was reined in and international borders respected, reiterating the U.S. stance on the conflict.”

I’m thinking that what’s predictable is your anti-Bush rhetoric.

I hope Bush stays fast, Mac... (Below threshold)
jdavenport:

I hope Bush stays fast, Mac Lorry, but if I had to bet, I'd go with Lee's prediction.

I also agree with Lee's "negotiation" comment, with the caveat the we at least try to pressure Syria and Iran so that the "negotiation" is actually between two, and only two, nation-states.

Ed Morrisey goes on to say ... (Below threshold)
Mac Lorry:

Ed Morrisey goes on to say in his Examiner piece that "If the world wants to live without terrorism, it needs to stop enabling terrorists with disproportionate criticism of civilized nations that wage war within established limits."

That change is not going to happen until large numbers of right thinking people start holding the terrorist enablers responsible for their support.

Well, MacLorry, what's also... (Below threshold)
Lee:

Well, MacLorry, what's also predictable is that some conservatives let themselves be blinded to the truth.

(link not available, but this is being widely reported)

JERUSALEM (UPI) - U.S. Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice said Monday she believes a cease-fire can be reached this week to end the hostilities between Israel and Hezbollah.

Before leaving Jerusalem for Washington, Rice spoke of "an emerging consensus" for a cease-fire package, CNN reported.

The package would include international peacekeepers in southern Lebanon and a prohibition against armed groups of any other kind where the international force is deployed, Rice said.

It would also include an international embargo against the delivery of weapons to anyone in Lebanon other than to the Lebanese government and the international peacekeeping force.

Rice has waffled and flip-flopped. She's already convinced Bush (or he's convined her) that it is time to negotiate for a cease fire. This is abasolutely the wrong move - 100% wrong in my opinion.


more about the Bush/Rice su... (Below threshold)
Lee:

more about the Bush/Rice surrender - I mean "cease fire".

(a continuation of the article quoted above)

Lebanon would work to disarm Hezbollah, with the United States and other countries providing money and training to the Lebanese army so it can prevent future Hezbollah attacks on Israel.

She said the United States would present the plan to the U.N. Security Council this week.

A senior administration official traveling with Rice said the terms of the cease-fire and the deployment of the peacekeeping force would happen "near simultaneously" once the Security Council passes the resolution, CNN said.

Lee,It’s also pred... (Below threshold)
Mac Lorry:

Lee,

It’s also predictable that some liberals wouldn’t know the truth if it bit them in the ass.

Bush said “there could be no cease-fire until Hezbollah was reined in and international borders respected.”

Rice adds detail, which is her job, by saying “The package would include international peacekeepers in southern Lebanon and a prohibition against armed groups of any other kind where the international force is deployed”

“It would also include an international embargo against the delivery of weapons to anyone in Lebanon other than to the Lebanese government and the international peacekeeping force.”

That means Hezbollah is “reined in and international borders respected”.

Take your anti-Bush blinders off.

Mac Lorry, you know I'm on ... (Below threshold)
jdavenport:

Mac Lorry, you know I'm on your team. In general, Lee bothers the heck out of me.

And I do think its possible that the whole cease-fire thing is a game. However, look at the substance of your positions:

Mac Lorry: "Rice adds detail, which is her job, by saying “The package would include international peacekeepers in southern Lebanon and a prohibition against armed groups of any other kind where the international force is deployed”

There was already a prohibition, and "international peacekeepers". Didn't work. Perhaps it could with the right peace keepers, but I haven't been able think of any.

Mac Lorry: “It would also include an international embargo against the delivery of weapons to anyone in Lebanon other than to the Lebanese government and the international peacekeeping force.”

Oil for Food. Need I say more. Multinational embargoes DO NOT WORK.

MacLorry,empahsis ... (Below threshold)
Lee:

MacLorry,

empahsis added: "Bush said “there could be no cease-fire until Hezbollah was reined in and international borders respected.”"

Yes, but the cease fire will occur before Hezbollah is "reigned in", before the borders are secure, before all of that is in place, dumbass.

jdavenport:Actuall... (Below threshold)
hermie:

jdavenport:

Actually the 'international peacekeepers' were just UN stooges, who are more used to raping teenaged girls, facilitating genocides, and helping Hizbollah attack and kill Israelis.

Now now everyone. Don't be ... (Below threshold)
jhow66:

Now now everyone. Don't be so hard on "pucker puss" (lee lee). Everyone knows he is nothing more than a appeasing asskisser.

It must be so nice to be le... (Below threshold)
Jay Tea:

It must be so nice to be lee. No matter what Bush says or does, or will do, it's gonna be wrong. His comments virtually write themselves.

Bush is sending mixed signals right now. lee's interpretation is one way of taking it. The other would be to encourage Hezbollah to keep fighting, to stand strong, and hold stil long enough for Israel to continue pounding the shit out of them.

I'm not saying that's the case. But it is a valid interpretation of events, and it's uncolored by lee's "Chimpy BushHitler i$ EEEVIL!!!!" mental disorder.

J.

I guess Lee is ready to aba... (Below threshold)
LoveAmerica Immigrant:

I guess Lee is ready to abandon the Dem party since one of their major politicians cannot be even against the Hez terrorists. I don't know what name-calling he will use for the Dems given his foul language.

http://hughhewitt.townhall.com/g/36ff802a-1990-42fc-ac28-557d1d0ddeb3

The National Security Collapse of the Democratic Party
Posted by Hugh Hewitt | 12:49 PM

I have already posted on Democratic Congressman John Dingell's extraordinary equivocation about the nature of Hezbollah: "I don't take sides for or against Hezbollah; I don't take sides for or against Israel."

Both Dean Barnett and I have posted on the decision of Demcoratic leadership in both House and Senate to make the November campaign a referendum on cutting-and-running from Iraq.

The New York Times on Sunday endorsed Joe Lieberman's challenger and Kossputin's creation Ned Lamont because of the senator's support for the war.

Now RawStory reports on Congresswoman Lynne Woolsey's "The Iraq War Powers Repeal Act of 2006," which has, incredibly, garnered 22 co-sponsors.

Incredibly, the Democratic Party's commitment to national security has collapsed. It is absurd to even argue the case. If Democrats regain power in either House, they will oblige the country to retreat across a broad front in the war with Islamic jihadism, weakening Israel in the process, emboldening Iran even beyond that country's already extraordinary fanaticism, and committing the country to --at best-- a fortress America approach. When, as would inevitably happen, a jihadist government obtained WMD, the country would not be able to return to the battlefield, and those WMD would inevitably find a use somewhere in the world.

The country is confronted with the Iran/Syria/Hezbollah threat, and with a new threat in Somalia, and the Democrats want to retreat and hope for the best.

Lee,Yes, ... (Below threshold)
Mac Lorry:

Lee,

Yes, but the cease fire will occur before Hezbollah is "reigned in", before the borders are secure, before all of that is in place, dumbass.

You said that the "Bush administration going soft and bowing to international pressure to negotiate for a cease fire." Yet Bush is reiterating his original position that "there could be no cease-fire until Hezbollah was reined in and international borders respected."

Rice is laying out the details to do just that while Hezbollah is being "reigned in" by Israeli bombs and shells. You can tell Hezbollah is being obliterated, not because Israel says so, but because Iran and Syria have already called for a cease fire. Not long ago the Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad was calling for the destruction of Israel, so you know that if Hezbollah was winning or even holding it’s own, he would not have called for a cease fire.

With the "reigned in" part well on it’s way, the crux of your argument is that Bush is going soft if combatants are required to stop shooting before an international force occupies the ground along the southern border of Lebanon. That’s just dumb, but completely predictable. You have your anti-Bush blinders on so tight they are cutting off the blood to your shriveling brain.

hermie: "Actually the 'inte... (Below threshold)
jdavenport:

hermie: "Actually the 'international peacekeepers' were just UN stooges, who are more used to raping teenaged girls, facilitating genocides, and helping Hizbollah attack and kill Israelis."

No argument from me. Still, I'm finding it difficult to formulate a coalition force that would not

A) Be of a make-up unacceptable to the middle-east "street", which in this case does actually matter
B) Bow to political pressure after taking a few losses
C) Be compromised from the get go

Which is why I hope Jay is right: We give cover to Israel by being all talk. Pretty much, we duplicate the U.N.'s favorite tactic. This could actually work. It has been working, with the primary question being whather Israel has moved agressively enough. Whether they are actually destroying Hezb Allah assets.

I cannot think of any military/politcal combinations that can move in and enforce the cease-fire.

No one really wants to do it.

Mac, The liberals/D... (Below threshold)
LoveAmerica Immigrant:

Mac,
The liberals/Dems are simply anti-Bush. They are taking whatever position convenient simply to criticize Bush no matter what. At least, a more decent member (which is a small minority on the left now) of the left can see it

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/07/27/AR2006072701222.html

Pander and Run

By Peter Beinart
Friday, July 28, 2006; Page A25

After years of struggling to define their own approach to post-Sept. 11 foreign policy, Democrats seem finally to have hit on one. It's called pandering. In those rare cases when George W. Bush shows genuine sensitivity to America's allies and propounds a broader, more enlightened view of the national interest, Democrats will make him pay. It's jingoism with a liberal face.

jdevenport, You ha... (Below threshold)
LoveAmerica Immigrant:

jdevenport,
You have a good point. The international force that "volunteer" to do it doesn't look too exciting (France, Indonesia, and Turkey). France envoy just claimed that Iran is a stabilizing force in the ME. Talk about the worst kind of pandering, the French hasn't disappoint.

BTW, Israel itself is worki... (Below threshold)
LoveAmerica Immigrant:

BTW, Israel itself is working towards a cease-fire themselves albeit under different conditions. Fairly realistic assessment here. We all know that Is has widened the ground offensive.

http://www.haaretz.com/hasen/spages/745131.html
"We are at the beginning of a political process that in the end will bring a cease-fire under entirely different conditions than before," Olmert said.

He said there was no cease-fire yet because Israel was still working to limit Hezbollah's strength. Hours earlier, the security cabinet decided to widen the ground offensive in Lebanon.

"Every additional day is one that erodes the power of this cruel enemy. Every additional day, the Israeli army reduces their ability to fire and also their ability to strike in the future.

"We have said we would agree to a cease-fire once we know with certainty the conditions in the field will be different than those that led to the eruption of this war."

He said that Israel was at the start of a political process that would result in a cease-fire. On Monday, the prime minister rejected calls for a cease-fire, saying that the fight against Hezbollah would continue until the country was free of the threat of rockets from Lebanon.
...
Senior officers assessed on Monday that the damage sustained by Hezbollah is far greater than originally believed. They said many of the organization's senior commanders have been killed or wounded.

According to Israeli estimates, Hezbollah still has about 9,000 Katyusha rockets

"He said that Israel was... (Below threshold)
Lee:

"He said that Israel was at the start of a political process that would result in a cease-fire. On Monday, the prime minister rejected calls for a cease-fire, saying that the fight against Hezbollah would continue until the country was free of the threat of rockets from Lebanon."

We all know that Bush and Rice are ironing the white flag as we speak. Bush bowed to international pressure over the international outrage of Qana, recalled Rice, and is now readying the terms of surrender -- I mean "Negotiation".

Bush's vow to stay the course and back Israel has crumbled. Apologists are already blaming liberals for Bush's latest foreign affair debacle, but then they surrendered to terroism a long time ago, so it is no surprise that the right-wing blame machine is already throwing mud at liberals -- it's all they can do without any vicotries to point to!

Bush stood up to terrorism only to be roundly spanked by Hezbollah in the court of international public opinion alll of which was predictable and avoidable.

What a shame, what a crying shame - for a few minutes there he almost looked like a U.S. President.

Lee, The fact on th... (Below threshold)
LoveAmerica Immigrant:

Lee,
The fact on the ground is that Is just widened its ground offensive. Bush can call it off now, but he didn't.
What a shame, what a crying shmae - for a few minutes there Lee almost looked like a sane decent leftist!
BTW, using your own standard, can we agree that the Dem is in the toilet wrt national security now?

Bush stood up to t... (Below threshold)
SCSIwuzzy:
Bush stood up to terrorism only to be roundly spanked by Hezbollah in the court of international public opinion...

Which says more about the worthlessness of international public opinion than it does about Pres. Bush, Lee.

Lee,We al... (Below threshold)
Mac Lorry:

Lee,

We all know that Bush and Rice are ironing the white flag as we speak. Bush bowed to international pressure over the international outrage of Qana, recalled Rice, and is now readying the terms of surrender -- I mean "Negotiation".

More liberal wishfull thinking and spin. Bush stated weeks ago when pressured by international otutrage that it was premature to call for a cease fire; that Israel needed time to degrade Hezbollah. Bush never said there would be no cease fire as you keep trying to imply. Working out the details of an eventual cease fire is exactly what Bush and Rice should be doing, rather than leaving it up to the French or UN. Your entire rant is based on conditions you made up. Just another predictable phony argument.

Speaking of World opinion. ... (Below threshold)
LoveAmerica Immigrant:

Speaking of World opinion. It is no wonder that the "pander and run" liberals/dems are so beholden to world opinion.
http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2006/08/post_18.html
'World Opinion' is Worthless

Wall Street Journal ran a f... (Below threshold)
Red Fog:

Wall Street Journal ran a front page story today about MoveOn splitting the libs with their anti-war myopia and have gone against lib congressional strategy by not endorsing Lieberman, their token jew. Lee and his ilk will always be on the wrong side of the door: if Condi negotiates a cease fire, she's soft, but if she doesn't, she's killing babies. The good news is that this double standard is starting to backfire back home as the midterm elections approach.

Somewhere, sometime:<... (Below threshold)
jdavenport:

Somewhere, sometime:

Lee: Young one, observe this piece of truth.

Apprentice: Ooh, that's cool. That is truth.

Lee: Now watch as I attach the truth to this huge pile of shit. Then the shit will be improved by the truth.

Apprentice: Sensei Lee, I can't find the truth anymore. Everything is just brown and smelly.

Lee: Ah, grasshopper, you still suffer from False Conscience. That pile of shit is the truth, it is your perception that is warped. Perhaps more time in room 101 will benefit.

SCSI-- "Which says more ... (Below threshold)
Lee:

SCSI-- "Which says more about the worthlessness of international public opinion than it does about Pres. Bush, Lee."

I find it hard to agree that it is worthless when it obviously created enough pressure for Bush to back off from his "stand firm with Israel" resolve. Having the British fold and demand a cease fire appears to be the straw that broke his resolve.

I disagree with his move, and think we should have stood firm, but that's just one Democrat's view of things - you guys can continue apologizing and making excuses for Bush's surrender.... feel free.

MacLorry: "Bush stated weeks ago when pressured by international otutrage that it was premature to call for a cease fire; that Israel needed time to degrade Hezbollah. Bush never said there would be no cease fire as you keep trying to imply."

Bush resisted international pressure for a cease fire until -- he folded. The Israeli PM was saying just a day or two ago that there would be a shift to a ground war which would last for "several weeks" -- so that's the stand by Israel that Bush is ignoring with his latest move towards a cease fire.

Israel says there more to do, Bush says it's time to cut and run. Yes, that counts as abandoning Israel in their efforts to finish the job.

And yes, that's something you Republicans are obviously haveing difficulty accepting - that Bush failed again - but he's abandoning Israel's side and bowing to pressure. That the reality.

"World Opinion is Worthless" until it makes the Republicans cut and run. It's a disgrace.

Lee, It is good tha... (Below threshold)
LoveAmerica Immigrant:

Lee,
It is good that you seem to agree that the "pander and run" Dems are in the toilet wrt national security.
Is just widened the ground offensive and if Bush really caved he can stop it now. You simply cannot accept the reality that the Dems are simply pandering and running from the terrorists. So all you can do is to project that onto Bush to soothe your conscience that you have to support a "pander and run" party while spouting the opposite rhetoric.

LeeIt's a disgrace.<... (Below threshold)
LoveAmerica Immigrant:

Lee
It's a disgrace.
-------------------------
A perfect description of the "pander and run" Dems. It is a disgrace that they continue to pander and run for the upcoming election. I hope you abandon this disgraceful party (by your own standard).

Lee,The 'short bus... (Below threshold)
Red Fog:

Lee,

The 'short bus' is here to take you home.

"Sssh, Lorie! If you let... (Below threshold)
WhizTool:

"Sssh, Lorie! If you let this get out, people are gonna figure out we're all on Karl Rove's payroll..."


That brings to the wingnuts who use the term "Rovian" in their peep-show-booth-scrubbing brand of satire / mockery.
By all means you should RUN with it -what comes to mind with the mention of Rove? Fat, bald, unmarried, mendacious & evil -pandering to a knuckle-dragging base?

Yeah, that sounds about right.

Wall Street Journal ran ... (Below threshold)
mantis:

Wall Street Journal ran a front page story today about MoveOn splitting the libs with their anti-war myopia and have gone against lib congressional strategy by not endorsing Lieberman, their token jew.

Token Jew, eh? What about Russ Feingold, Dianne Feinstein, Herb Kohl, Charles Schumer, Ron Wyden, Barbara Boxer, Frank Lautenberg, and Carl Levin? 9 of 44 Democratic Senators are Jewish. That's 20%. There are 2 Republican Senators who are Jewish, by the way (about 3.5%). Why don't you talk about tokens some more.

Stupid beyond comprehension.

So we will end up with anot... (Below threshold)
Lee:

So we will end up with another UN resolution, like its 2004 counterpart Resolution 1559 (which was passed and implemented under the watchful eyes of the current Republican adminstration) and it will call for several things none of which will be backed up and enforced by the US.

Bolton is as worthless as Danforth, but at least Danforth had the balls to resign in a stand for his principals. Regardless, like Resolution 1559 we wil have a resolution that the Republicans can ignore.

GWOT my *ss, the Republicans just don't give a sh*t unless it they think it can help them gain Jewish votes. Pathetic...

mantisStupid beyond ... (Below threshold)
LoveAmerica Immigrant:

mantis
Stupid beyond comprehension.
-----------------------------------
Typical mantis 's cheap shot against fellow AMerican he disagreed with. I am surprised that mantis didn't use this kind of language wrt the corrupt UN while he claimed he didn't apologize for them. More nitpicking to score a cheap point. Typical liberal tactic now. Cannot contest the big point, so they have to nitpick to score a cheap point.

LeeSo we will end up... (Below threshold)
LoveAmerica Immigrant:

Lee
So we will end up with another UN resolution, like its 2004 counterpart Resolution 1559 (which was passed and implemented under the watchful eyes of the current Republican adminstration) and it will call for several things none of which will be backed up and enforced by the US.
----------------------------------------------------
If you are intellectually honest you know that this time Bush let the Is loose at least for a couple weeks already. Hez will not be in the same shape they were in 2004. You also know that Bill Clinton and madame albright will not let Is fight for more that a few days.

If you are that angry, you should abandon the "pander and run" Dem party.

Lee,Israe... (Below threshold)
Mac Lorry:

Lee,

Israel says there more to do, Bush says it's time to cut and run. Yes, that counts as abandoning Israel in their efforts to finish the job.

If Bush had actually said "it's time to cut and run" then you would have a point. But that's not what he said and having Rice establish the groundwork for an eventual cease fire is good politics. Your recent rants are based entirely on your hallucinations. Take your anti-Bush blinders off, straighten up and get some oxygen to your brain.

Lee, THanks for adm... (Below threshold)
LoveAmerica Immigrant:

Lee,
THanks for admitting finally that the UN is useless. Using mantis terminology, the liberal left is "stupid beyond comprehension" for beholding to such a corrupt and useless organization.

Mac, Good point and... (Below threshold)
LoveAmerica Immigrant:

Mac,
Good point and if we use the tactic mantis is using we would say "stupid beyond comprehension".

Mantis,Lieberman was... (Below threshold)
Red Fog:

Mantis,
Lieberman was/will be the lib's token Jewish presidential candidate - remember? You've got to spell it out in capitals with crayon for these kids. Bye-bye Jewish bloc vote ... now whose stupid beyond comprehension? Why, yes, it's mantis by a nose as Lee trips on his face and eats horse shit.

Faith+1, are you saying tha... (Below threshold)

Faith+1, are you saying that palestineans are cute and cuddly while the israelis are just freakin' tuna fish?

Lee/field-negor says "GWOT ... (Below threshold)
Red Fog:

Lee/field-negor says "GWOT my *ss, the Republicans just don't give a sh*t unless it they think it can help them gain Jewish votes. Pathetic..."

But libs do care? How?

Jews don't need Republican pandering to know how to vote. They are focused on supporting Israel, pin head. I hear a giant sucking sound and its the Jewish vote.

But when it comes to the black vote, the NAACP regularly calls Condi a house n*gger. Have you got an example of any Republican pandering to Jews in such an race-baiting way? Time to take the padding out of the room and let you beat yourself to a pulp tonight, Lee. You too, mantis, if you don't eat all the horse shit on your plate.

Lieberman was/will be th... (Below threshold)
mantis:

Lieberman was/will be the lib's token Jewish presidential candidate - remember?

First of all, how does being nominated for Vice President make you a token? In any case that wasn't what you were referring to, was it? Let's check:

Wall Street Journal ran a front page story today about MoveOn splitting the libs with their anti-war myopia and have gone against lib congressional strategy by not endorsing Lieberman, their token jew.

You were clearly referring to Lieberman as Congressional Democrats "token Jew". Nice try at revising that to pretend you are actually familiar with the members of Congress, but it just doesn't wash. As far as losing the Jewish vote, don't bet on it. On second, thought, want to bet on it?

"What is the 'new' Middle E... (Below threshold)
Mac Lorry:

"What is the 'new' Middle East? They mean by democracy, human rights? Is that what’s happening in Lebanon, in Palestine? There is something wrong," Lahoud told FOX News in an exclusive interview after meeting with Iran's Foreign Minister Manouchehr Mottaki in Beirut.

He also said Lebanon needs Hezbollah to protect the nation from Israel.

“You know what it means to finish with Hezbollah? It means Lebanon would go back to the past before the resistance, that Israel can go into Lebanon whenever it wants to, and no one will bother her,” Lahoud told FNC.

There you have it, Lebanon has finally dropped any pretense of Hezbollah being anything but an extension of Lebanon’s military. Lebanon committed an act of war when its elite Hezbollah unit crossed into Israel and kidnapped two Israeli solders. That makes all of Lebanon a legitimate target.

As far as losing the Jewish... (Below threshold)
LoveAmerica Immigrant:

As far as losing the Jewish vote, don't bet on it. On second, thought, want to bet on it?
--------------------------------------------------
Again, I hope that the American Jewish community will wake up to the fact that the Dems are against one Jewish senator who is strong on national defense and willing to work with Bush on behalf of Israel.

The rest are simply "pander and run" as Peter Beinart obseverd.

Mantis is simply trying to nitpick to score a cheap point. That 's his typical tactic to hijack a thread.

"As far as losing the Je... (Below threshold)
Lee:

"As far as losing the Jewish vote, don't bet on it. On second, thought, want to bet on it?"

Let me in on that too! The Republicans only want Jewish votes, they don't care about Israel. Look at UN Resolution 1559, passed in February 2004 -- in time for the 2004 elections -- then ignored. Once the Republicans squeezed as many jewish votes as they could milk they abandoned Israel just as they are abandoning Israel now.

LeeOnce the Republic... (Below threshold)
LoveAmerica Immigrant:

Lee
Once the Republicans squeezed as many jewish votes as they could milk they abandoned Israel just as they are abandoning Israel now.
--------------------------------------------------
Thanks for another example of projection: so what you are saying is that since the Dems have the majority of the Jewish votes, they are abandoning Is now?

Jay, Lorie, Kim:A ... (Below threshold)
USMC Pilot:

Jay, Lorie, Kim:

A couple of days ago I posted a comment, which was unfortunately in the middle of a dog fight between LAI and a bunch of our resident moonbats. I would still like for one of you to address it.

QUESTION -

If a member/s of a terrorist group commits an act of murder, is the entire group guilty, or just the ones who do the killing?

USMC Pilot,If Jay,... (Below threshold)
Mac Lorry:

USMC Pilot,

If Jay, Lorie, Kim don't answer your question, then I would like to take a crack at it. Let me know if and when that's ok.

Huh... sorry, USMC, that on... (Below threshold)
Jay Tea:

Huh... sorry, USMC, that one slipped past me.

I'm normally loath to use to use the legal model in the war on terror, but in this case I'd have to apply the "felony homicide" principle: if someone willingly joins a known terrorist group that has the stated purpose of committing acts of terror, then yes, they should be held liable even if they didn't commit it themselves. Just like if someone is shot and killed in a bank robbery, all the gang is guilty -- even the getaway driver who didn't even have a gun.

I very well could be wrong, and I'm sure I'll get told by a few dozen that disagree with me, but that's my first, instinctual thought. It's the combination of intent, free choice, and accepting of consequences that pulls it all together for me.

Feel free to chime in yourself, Mac, if you are so inclined.

J.

I must have missed Lee's br... (Below threshold)
Battsman:

I must have missed Lee's brilliant response to the question earlier about John Dingell (although it could have just as easily been about countless other spineless Dems).

Lee, since I missed it, can you tell us again how the Dems can take the high road given the comments by your leaders such as Dingell?

Bush hasn't caved, that's your sanity you see caving.

I admire the Israelis for continuing their fighting in the face of such sheer hatred from the "world community" - you know, the same "world community" that the elitist Left in this nation demand we consult before *ever* defending American interests.

USMC Pilot,Jay lat... (Below threshold)
Mac Lorry:

USMC Pilot,

Jay latched onto what I think is the essence of your question. My response is more legalistic, but I’m sure this makes no difference to friends and family of anyone killed by terrorists or the military of a sovreign nation.

QUESTION –

If a member/s of a terrorist group commits an act of murder, is the entire group guilty, or just the ones who do the killing?

Murder is not the same as killing. Murder is a crime, but killing can be justified for reasons of self-defense or defense of your country. If a member of a criminal gang commits murder in the commission of a crime, then all the accomplices are guilty of murder under the law. I say accomplices rather then member because someone who belongs to a gang, but doesn’t participate in the crime, maybe because they are in jail, is usually not held responsible for that particular crime.

If terrorism is a criminal action, then any act of killing they commit is murder and all the accomplices are just as guilty as the member or members who commit the act or acts of murder.

For killings in a military action to not be considered murder, the military members must be lawful combatants as defined by international treaty, law or tradition. Generally, to be a lawful combatant you have to be a member of a military that is lawfully constituted and directed by a sovereign nation. That’s not always the case, such as in our own revolutionary war, and that’s were some find room for groups like Hezbollah to fit in. The real test seems to be the intent as Jay mentioned in his comment.

mantis says "You were clear... (Below threshold)
Red Fog:

mantis says "You were clearly referring to Lieberman as Congressional Democrats "token Jew". Nice try at revising that to pretend you are actually familiar with the members of Congress, but it just doesn't wash."

MoveOn can endorse an anti-war platform and split the party, loose the Jewish bloc vote, and, consequently, loose seats in Congress. Does that register? Oh, and nobody gives a rat's ass about how many members of Congress I know. But go Google "Lieberman token Jew" and count the hits. I know the intent of my comment; so can you address MoveOn's blunder? Didn't think so.

"QUESTION – If a mem... (Below threshold)
Red Fog:

"QUESTION –
If a member/s of a terrorist group commits an act of murder, is the entire group guilty, or just the ones who do the killing?"

If a person or group wants to kill you, you should assume them all to be guilty before you get killed. It's that survival instinct at the base of our brain stem ... that liberals don't have.

MoveOn can endorse an an... (Below threshold)
mantis:

MoveOn can endorse an anti-war platform and split the party, loose the Jewish bloc vote, and, consequently, loose seats in Congress. Does that register?

Let's see if this gets through, I understand what you are saying. I think you are wrong. Do you really believe that because MoveOn endorses another Democrat in the Connecticut Senate race the majority of American Jews will no longer vote for Democrats? Or, possibly more realistically, that that majority will shrink but still stay a majority? Or even more realistically, that just the Connecticut Jewish population will either vote for Lieberman as an independent or sit the vote out rather than vote against the Jewish candidate?

I think a race between an independent Lieberman and Lamont would certainly split the Jewish vote, and pretty much the rest of votes, in Connecticut. The effect this will have on the Jewish vote nationwide? Zilch.

I'll bet you that MoveOn's endorsement of Lamont at most will have a negligible effect on the Jewish vote, certainly not enough to swing any Congressional races. Thus I don't believe it is a blunder at all, and have addressed it.

What I'm curious about is why you seem to believe it is somehow wrong to have a primary challenge, or is just because the central issue to this challenge is support for Bush's foreign policy? Would you be up in arms if a Republican challenged and entrenched Senator in the primary, say like Specter or Chafee, primarily on an issue such as immigration or Iraq? Do you believe such a challenge would split the Republican party, turn certain voting blocs towards the Democrats, and thus lose seats in Congress? Finally, and I'm just curious, this in no way is meant to invalidate your opinion, but do you even know any Jews? You don't seem to.

QUESTION - If... (Below threshold)
Lorie Byrd:
QUESTION -

If a member/s of a terrorist group commits an act of murder, is the entire group guilty, or just the ones who do the killing?

Posted by: USMC Pilot

I love that question! Mine is not an educated answer. I am not a lawyer or much up on military rules, but I will just speak from common sense. the first thing that occured to me was of conspiracy. It seems to me that joining a terrorist organization, especially one on record advocating murder of innocent life, is joining in a conspiracy to commit murder. I think I will post this one on the front page.

mantis,Consider: Lie... (Below threshold)
Red Fog:

mantis,
Consider: Lieberman supports the war in Iraq and Israel, I believe, is attacking Hezbollah to draw Islam's attention away from the U.S.-Iraqi conflict. If the U.S. withdraws from Iraq, Israel is doomed.

WSJ article: "[Reid and Schumer] urged leaders of MoveOn ... not to oppose Lieberman's primary race. The lawmakers warned that the group's opposition could jeopardize a safe seat vital to a Senate takeover." MoveOn snubbed them and endorsed anti-war candidate Lamont anyway.

To answer your questions: I certainly support primary challenges on either side of the aisle. That's democracy hard at work and that is why MoveOn, with 3.2 million members and a six-fold increase from five years ago according to the WSJ article, can influence this critical primary and unseat Ol' Joe Lieberman, loose the shot at a Senate majority, and alienate voting Jews all over the U.S. that recognize Democrats don't support Israel if they elect and/or endorse a pull-out of Iraq lawmaker and/or agenda.

Yes, I know lots of Jews, some of whom are close friends, sex partners, and business associates. Is this another test about who I know? Trust me, nobody here cares. Now, mantis, do you have a life? Tell the truth.

Consider: Lieberman supp... (Below threshold)
mantis:

Consider: Lieberman supports the war in Iraq and Israel, I believe, is attacking Hezbollah to draw Islam's attention away from the U.S.-Iraqi conflict. If the U.S. withdraws from Iraq, Israel is doomed.

So many things wrong with this statement. First, Israel attacked Hezbollah to draw attention away from Iraq? What makes you believe this? Do you really believe that Israel's actions have less to do with their ongoing conflict with Hezbollah terrorists and more to do with some vague Iraq strategy? And what does it mean to draw Islam's attention away from Iraq? Where exactly is "Islam's" attention located? Have you not noticed that the fighting in Iraq has turned into a sectarian civil war? Do you think that bombing Lebanon will for some reason cause Iran to no longer support Iraqi Shia? Why?

The other problem is your assertion that withdrawing from Iraq dooms Israel. How do you figure? Please fill out the rest of the chain of events that starts with withdrawal from Iraq and ends with Israel's "doom". Btw no Democrat that I've heard has said we should pull all of our troops from Iraq and leave them to self-destruct (there are various plans to remain in the north, bring in international peacekeeping forces, etc).

alienate voting Jews all over the U.S. that recognize Democrats don't support Israel if they elect and/or endorse a pull-out of Iraq lawmaker and/or agenda.

This is what confuses me and is why I asked if you know any Jews. First of all, American Jews oppose the Iraq war, even moreso than the general population. They have from the beginning. What makes you think that a loss for Lieberman equals not only a vote against Israel (Iraq=Israel?), but that this sentiment will spread nationwide for the midterms? Internal polling shows support among Connecticut Jews to be 50-41, for Lamont!

If the majority of Connecticut Jews, who have voted for Lieberman consistently, now support his Democrat opponent, how the hell do you figure that a) they think Iraq=Israel? b) they support the Iraq war, and c) voting for Lamont will alienate them from, well, themselves?

Anyway, I don't believe you know many Jews because you apparently think they overwhelmingly support the Iraq war, and you think they will turn on Democrats for trying to withdraw from that war. Here's the truth: The majority of American Jews are Democrats, and the majority of American Jews oppose the Iraq war. You hypothesis is based on so many false premises it simply falls apart.

And yes, I certainly have a life, not that it's relevant.

mantis,Let me state ... (Below threshold)
Red Fog:

mantis,
Let me state emphatically that I support Israel. There's plenty of sand out there for displaced Palestinians.

I didn't say most Jews aren't Democrats and against the Iraqi conflict. Don't infer to confuse, mantis. You fail to understand that Islam is primarily focused on erradicating Israel. Ask a native Iraqi, Middle Eastern Muslim, or Jew why Islam hates the U.S. and the answer will nearly always be our support of Israel. Just try it.

Do you think the new Israeli leadership is not watching the U.S.-Iraqi conflict and strategizing from that persepctive? They are a country surrounded by combatents in a long struggle for survival and will do what they must to assist the U.S. trying to assist them through the establishment of a rational democracy at the heart of the region (Iraq!). Consider: Why did the U.S. enter into WWII and then enforce the creation of Israel? Was there any other reason to enter this WW by the U.S.? Was it to increase the import of cuckoo clocks from the Black Forest and bankrupt England? No. Hitler killed Jews and we came to Europe and erradicated him like we are erradicating Saddam and his kind. Same situation; different generation of stand-up Americans. World police? Maybe.

Jews in Conn voting for Lamont is only the tip of a big mistake brought to the Dems by radical and arrogant MoveOn.org. I doubt powerful Jews influencing U.S. foreign policy like Rupert Murdoch spend much time reading the NYT or watching CNN-CBS-ABC .... Finally, I'm sorry to hear your life is not relevant ... were you aborted with a vacuum by your beloved political party? Ouch.

mantis,Btw no Democr... (Below threshold)
LoveAmerica Immigrant:

mantis,
Btw no Democrat that I've heard has said we should pull all of our troops from Iraq and leave them to self-destruct (there are various plans to remain in the north, bring in international peacekeeping forces, etc).
---------------------------------------------------
mantis is here to spin for the Dem. Finally he slipped it out even though he wasn't honest enough to admit it.

Anyway, more intellectually honest Dem could see through the dishonesty of the Dems

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/07/27/AR2006072701222.html
Pander and Run

By Peter Beinart
Friday, July 28, 2006; Page A25
...
It is that Americans think Democrats stand for nothing, that they have no principles beyond political expedience. And given the party's behavior over the past several months, it is not hard to understand why

Wow, you just go off the de... (Below threshold)
mantis:

Wow, you just go off the deep end, don't you? We fought in WWII because Hitler killed Jews? Are you serious? Do you know any history whatsoever? Do you even know what happened on 12/7/41? Do you realize this country was rabidly anti-semitic before and during WWII? That in 1938 a large majority of people in this country felt that Jews "are different and should be restricted" or deported outright?

And yes I know why many in the Middle East hate the US. What the hell this has to do with Lieberman or the Jewish vote in the upcoming midterms I don't know, and you seem to have abandoned any attempt to explain it. Now apparently you believe that Rupert Murdoch will cause your predicted split in the Democratic party, costing seats in Congress. Very strange.

Just admit you don't have a clue what you're talking about and we'll be done, k? Your grasp of 20th century history, our current Congress, and American voting trends is pathetic. But you just keep on ignoring my refutations and avoiding my questions, changing the subject to another you are woefully ignorant about. Just stop, you're embarrassing yourself.

Btw I'm not a member of the Democratic Party, I didn't vote for John Kerry, I don't give money to MoveOn or the Democrats, and they certainly are not "beloved" by me. I consider them for the most part bumbling and stupid, but less dangerous than the stupid bumblers currently in power.

Btw I'm not a member of the... (Below threshold)
LoveAmerica Immigrant:

Btw I'm not a member of the Democratic Party, I didn't vote for John Kerry, I don't give money to MoveOn or the Democrats, and they certainly are not "beloved" by me. I consider them for the most part bumbling and stupid, but less dangerous than the stupid bumblers currently in power.
--------------------------------------------------
More intellectually honest liberal disagree with this assessment.

Mantis,Just admit yo... (Below threshold)
LoveAmerica Immigrant:

Mantis,
Just admit you don't have a clue what you're talking about and we'll be done, k? Your grasp of 20th century history, our current Congress, and American voting trends is pathetic. But you just keep on ignoring my refutations and avoiding my questions, changing the subject to another you are woefully ignorant about. Just stop, you're embarrassing yourself.
------------------------------------------------
Simply have to resort to personal insults to score cheap point. You are trying to change the subject to personal acquaintance with Jews in order to score cheap point again. The bottom line is that
an intellectually honest person would see that this move against Lieberman will not help the Dems with the Jewish community in the very least. If you think this is a good move for the Dems wrt the Jewish community, then you are delusional.

mantis,If you wollow... (Below threshold)
Red Fog:

mantis,
If you wollow between our two-party system, I cannot reason with you. WWII was a complex affair with motives beyond a period Gallop Poll of mixed sentiment toward Jews in the U.S. The arguments I put forth regarding WWII history are not commonly found in Roosevelt bios taken from high school history books that coddle democrats. Sorry, Einstein. Hey, that reminds me, did you know intellectual Jews like Einstein fled German to the U.S. leading up to the war and that Einstein famously warned Roosevelt about Germany's development of DA BOMB? History is fun: try it. By the way, reactionary ambivalence is a liberal hallmark. Does that help? If not, piss off.

If you wollow between ou... (Below threshold)
mantis:

If you wollow between our two-party system, I cannot reason with you.

You can't reason with anyone, regardless of party affiliation, as you are unreasonable yourself. I do find it humorous that you believe anyone who doesn't tow the line of a political party is unreasonable. I've found the opposite to be true, you represent more evidence to support that.

WWII was a complex affair with motives beyond a period Gallop Poll of mixed sentiment toward Jews in the U.S.

Well, I'm glad you recognize that WWII was complex. Now back up your assertion that we entered the war not to save Europe or because we were attacked or any other myriad reasons, but because we wanted to save European Jews (even though we actively blocked them from seeking refuge here. Look it up, history is fun. Start with Breckinridge Long, Roosevelt's Sec. of State).

The arguments I put forth regarding WWII history are not commonly found in Roosevelt bios taken from high school history books that coddle democrats.

The argument you put forth was entirely created in your mind, or can you present anything to back it up?

Hey, that reminds me, did you know intellectual Jews like Einstein fled German to the U.S. leading up to the war and that Einstein famously warned Roosevelt about Germany's development of DA BOMB?

Einstein was living here and teaching at Princeton in 1932. He did not have to flee Germany. History is fun, remember? And yes I'm very aware of Einstein's letter to Roosevelt. How could all of this possibly pertain to our discussion?

History is fun: try it.

You obviously haven't had too much of that particular fun.

By the way, reactionary ambivalence is a liberal hallmark.

I'm not ambivalent. I know what I believe, it just doesn't match the Republicans or the Democrats. What's wrong with that? Btw, constantly changing the subject and bringing up irrelevant topics is a hallmark of people who don't know what the hell they're talking about and can't argue for shit.

If not, piss off.

No problem. This is pointless anyway, although I'm interested in what non sequitur you'll come up with next.

mantis,Like Lee, you... (Below threshold)
Red Fog:

mantis,
Like Lee, you get flustered and just refute everything I say as I attempt to address all your add-on accusations. Impossible looser. It's easy to be neutral and avoid life.

/ignore offNo Red ... (Below threshold)
Lee:

/ignore off

No Red Dog - I ignore everything you say (except this) because you are a proven idiot, and I don't waste my time with idiots....

/resume ignore

Like Lee, you get fluste... (Below threshold)
mantis:

Like Lee, you get flustered and just refute everything I say as I attempt to address all your add-on accusations. Impossible looser. It's easy to be neutral and avoid life.

The only thing I've accused you of is ignorance, which you have in spades. You haven't addressed any of my refutations (tacit acknowledgement of their veracity), or answered any of my questions. It may be easy to be neutral (I'm not) and avoid life, but ignorance is bliss, and you must be pretty damned blissful!

mantis: "I'm not ambivalent... (Below threshold)
Red Fog:

mantis: "I'm not ambivalent. I know what I believe, it just doesn't match the Republicans or the Democrats. What's wrong with that?"

mantis' evil twin: "It may be easy to be neutral (I'm not) and avoid life"

So come on out and say what you believe instead of calling me names, mystery man. Are you embarassed or just above it all?

At least Lee admits he wanted to nuke Islam to get Osama. Now the world can giggle at his 'stance' and move along.

Foggy bottoms: So come o... (Below threshold)
mantis:

Foggy bottoms: So come on out and say what you believe instead of calling me names, mystery man.

Foggy bottoms evil twin: Impossible looser.(sic)

I know it may be tough for you to comprehend, but one can disagree with both political parties and still not be neutral. I have opinions that are conservative, I have opinions that are liberal. I'll vote for the best candidate for an office, regardless of his/her party affiliation, or lack thereof. That I don't ally myself with either party does not mean I don't take a position on a particular issue.

Are you embarassed(sic) or just above it all?

I'm not embarrassed by my opinions; if I were would I bother commenting on blogs? If you were to ask me my stance on a particular topic instead of insisting I ally myself with a political party, I would tell you. Too bad your busy avoiding my questions and refutations by introducing non sequiturs rather than dealing with substantive issues.

At least Lee admits he wanted to nuke Islam to get Osama. Now the world can giggle at his 'stance' and move along.

Where exactly is this "Islam" that you say Lee wants to nuke? I can't find it on the map. For the record I don't think we should nuke the mysterious geographic location of "Islam". There, you've got my stance, and I'll stick by it.

I know it may be tough for ... (Below threshold)
LoveAmerica Immigrant:

I know it may be tough for you to comprehend, but one can disagree with both political parties and still not be neutral.
------------------------------------------------
Mantis is not honest enough to admit who he is.
That is the problem with leftist, who pretends to be independent. I looked at Mantis 's actions (in this case, his writing) and not his claims since we know that action is what counts.

Mantis claimed not to be here to spin for the UN or the dems. Yet he is doing exactly. Look at the words he used (stupid beyond comprehension, idiots ....) to describe people he disagree with. Yet I didn't see him use those words wrt the UN for example. I called him on the Dems, then he changed it with a cheap qualifier that he considered the Dems less dangerous than the current bubbling fool in the white house. The people who sucks up to the corrupt and useless UN are "stupid beyond comprehension" and the enablers of more terrorist atrocities using his own terminology.

Mantis is a typical liberal independent who is not honest enough to admit who he is. Mantis is more clever than Lee for sure, but Lee is at least more intellectually honest.

That 's my take, Red Fog.

LoveAmerica,In this ... (Below threshold)
Red Fog:

LoveAmerica,
In this uncensored format, both mantis and lee can say you have not attempted to debate their ascertions and call you stupid or an idiot. Lee relies on lib sound bites with consistent racist undertones. Mantis is using this format to maintain his cover but he's obviously a hardcore liberal stooge with no original thoughts of his own. You have to wonder why they muddle the waters here. Arrogance? Unemployment? Hatred? Maybe a lot of all three.

Thanks for your comment.

If people's lives are what ... (Below threshold)

If people's lives are what you mean by different standards I think those are goods standards to adhere to.
http://www.alierra-software.com




Advertisements









rightads.gif

beltwaybloggers.gif

insiderslogo.jpg

mba_blue.gif

Follow Wizbang

Follow Wizbang on FacebookFollow Wizbang on TwitterSubscribe to Wizbang feedWizbang Mobile

Contact

Send e-mail tips to us:

[email protected]

Fresh Links

Credits

Section Editor: Maggie Whitton

Editors: Jay Tea, Lorie Byrd, Kim Priestap, DJ Drummond, Michael Laprarie, Baron Von Ottomatic, Shawn Mallow, Rick, Dan Karipides, Michael Avitablile, Charlie Quidnunc, Steve Schippert

Emeritus: Paul, Mary Katherine Ham, Jim Addison, Alexander K. McClure, Cassy Fiano, Bill Jempty, John Stansbury, Rob Port

In Memorium: HughS

All original content copyright © 2003-2010 by Wizbang®, LLC. All rights reserved. Wizbang® is a registered service mark.

Powered by Movable Type Pro 4.361

Hosting by ServInt

Ratings on this site are powered by the Ajax Ratings Pro plugin for Movable Type.

Search on this site is powered by the FastSearch plugin for Movable Type.

Blogrolls on this site are powered by the MT-Blogroll.

Temporary site design is based on Cutline and Cutline for MT. Graphics by Apothegm Designs.

Author Login



Terms Of Service

DCMA Compliance Notice

Privacy Policy