Archived material Access restricted Article
Rantburg

Today's Front Page   View All of Sat 10/28/2006 View Fri 10/27/2006 View Thu 10/26/2006 View Wed 10/25/2006 View Tue 10/24/2006 View Mon 10/23/2006 View Sun 10/22/2006
1
2006-10-28 Syria-Lebanon-Iran
Rice: Hizbullah must choose between terror and politics
Archived material is restricted to Rantburg regulars and members. If you need access email fred.pruitt=at=gmail.com with your nick to be added to the members list. There is no charge to join Rantburg as a member.
Posted by Fred 2006-10-28 00:00|| || Front Page|| [11139 views since 2007-05-07]  Top

#1 But how will they soar with the vultures with only one wing?
Posted by .com 2006-10-28 00:45||   2006-10-28 00:45|| Front Page Top

#2 Obviously Hezbollah should not disarm as that is precisely the kind of domination in Lebanon that Israel seeks and has sought for decades. (Those being the decades that made Hezbollah a natural response and inevitable reality.)

The state within a state is unique although the criticism of Hezbollah on these grounds is not.

Rice did not elaborate because she was farting. One does not elaborate on a fart. Who could believe Rice would utter any such statement without it being thoroughly contrived!

But wait! Do not I hear a faint reproach in those final comments? And a reproach against a dear and valuable friend no less!

As for Syria, as if it is a threat to Lebanon at the present juncture. As if Lebanon need be wary of Syria! Laughable.

Rice has invaluable contributions to make in her position as Secretary of State. There are still opportunities for her to make some.
Posted by HighVoltage 2006-10-28 01:37||   2006-10-28 01:37|| Front Page Top

#3 Lol. Wow, wotta loooooooad.
Posted by .com 2006-10-28 01:48||   2006-10-28 01:48|| Front Page Top

#4 Obviously Hezbollah should not disarm as that is precisely the kind of domination in Lebanon that Israel seeks and has sought for decades.

What exactly is Israel going to do with its domination of Lebanon? Force them to make enough drugs to deal with your neurotransmitter imbalances?
Posted by gorb 2006-10-28 04:04||   2006-10-28 04:04|| Front Page Top

#5 Or else what Condi... the US will stop Israel again in the next offensive before the spoils of war are won?!
Posted by smn 2006-10-28 04:22||   2006-10-28 04:22|| Front Page Top

#6 gorb nailed it.
Posted by trailing wife 2006-10-28 09:35||   2006-10-28 09:35|| Front Page Top

#7 The state within a state is unique although the criticism of Hezbollah on these grounds is not.

Bullshit. I call you out, you patently obvious, hypocritical idiot.

The standard definition of a state is that it have a monopoly on force within its borders. Regardless of whether it is called a revolution, insurgency, or invasion, it happens when another military force, with a separate chain of command, exists within the recognized border of a nation. Ya lefties seemed happy enough when skinhead and white power militias within the United States were brought to heel, and YOU would have had a field day if a paramilitary organization freely operated out the united states was attacking mexicans within Mexico as a pre-emptive measure to prevent Illegal Immigration, AND the US Government acted the way the Lebanese government acts with regard to Israel if Mexico (rightly, in such a case) invaded the United States to stop said attacks. EVERY NATION has a right to stop such cross-border attacks by employing cross-border counter-measures when the host nation is unwilling or unable to stop such attacks. Indeed, the host nation IS RESPONSIBLE if it is found to be covertly supporting such attacks in order to establish deniability. Support takes all kinds of forms, and in this case, an implied assertion that an attack on Hezbollah is an attack on Lebanon, while loudly denying that there is an organizational link between Lebanon's government and Hezbollah.

This is wanting your cake and eating it too, and thus it is not surprizing that those who believe that such is possible, and that the world owes them a living and respect, apart from what one does, supports Hezbollah.

Hezbollah, by the day, does not fulfill the Geneva convention conditions for legitimate state-less prisoners of war. Although they have a chain of command, they do not wear a distinctive insignia and boast about deliberately targeting civilians.

Your response to this will obviously determine what I will say next, since I will be able to deduce what passes for your character...
Posted by Ptah">Ptah  2006-10-28 10:39|| http://www.crusaderwarcollege.org]">[http://www.crusaderwarcollege.org]  2006-10-28 10:39|| Front Page Top

#8 aww crap, swapped the italics html. The normal part is the asshat's, and my response is in italics. Apologies to all.
Posted by Ptah">Ptah  2006-10-28 10:40|| http://www.crusaderwarcollege.org]">[http://www.crusaderwarcollege.org]  2006-10-28 10:40|| Front Page Top

#9 One does not elaborate on a fart

and then the troll goes on for four more paragraphs.....
Posted by Frank G">Frank G  2006-10-28 11:50||   2006-10-28 11:50|| Front Page Top

#10 Ptah, I understand the standard definition of a state as entailing a monopoly on violence. This monopoly on violence, however, does not automatically mean that such a state cannot (by definition) itself use this violence in terroristic ways.

Who could disagree with the right of nations to protect its borders but making that point raises the tricky problem of borders. How are we to discuss borders when it is precisely borders (and the nation laying claim to them or continually expanding them through settlements) that are the point of contention?

So, I see the attempt to insist on a state having a monopoly on violence as being an obvious side-stepping of this actual context (as opposed to offering thought experiments in other parts of the world like the U.S. and Mexico, or skinheads or whatever).

Israel, some years ago, was occupying southern Lebanon. It was using its monopoly on state violence to dominate Lebanon and prevent the Palestinians from resisting the occupation from this locale. Hezbollah, resisted this monopoly on state violence and it seems clear that this resistance contributed to Israel's backing off from its occupation of this territory (although there is still Shebaa Farms, and in Syria, the Golen Heights to be disputed as well as resource issues and disputes specific to this region never mind the West Bank and East Jerusalem).

I'm not wanting it both ways. I'm just recognizing the Hezbollah is already part of the political process in a way far more effective than were it to surrender its guns. I appreciate that Israel might wish to render Hezbollah militarily impotent but its reasons for doing so are not so parochial as to prevent cross "border" raids. This isn't just some security issue. Its about land and resources and future ambitions and aspirations. It's about regime change, apartheid and the "New Middle East".

The Israeli attack on Lebanon is hardly an argument against an organization like Hezbollah. Such organizations served Israel's interests well before it declared itself a state. Indeed, they helped ensure this declaration. Such terrorist organizations eventually came into the fold. Some such leaders came to lead the nation. They become national heroes. Perhaps in time the same will happen in Lebanon but to try and define away a legitimate resistance to Israel's actions in lands outside its "borders" (wherever those are) seems intentionally stacked to favour an outcome against interests not those of Israel. And this is why such organizations come to be in the first place.

And this is why Rice is farting in the wind. Politics and terror are not opposing ends of a continuum. They are different aspects of the same process. Both are politics. Israel, the U.S., Hezbollah etc., all understand this. Why are we pretending we don't? Israel and the U.S. have both nakedly used terrorism to further political, economic agendas. So is Hezbollah. Hezbollah's ambitions are far more circumspect and far less damaging than those (as just evidenced) of Israel. Why are they being asked to disarm on the basis of not being Lebanon's sole source of military might, when Israel's use of its monopoly on violence is far more horrific and terroristic than anything Hezbollah has chosen to exercise?
Posted by HighVoltage 2006-10-28 12:00||   2006-10-28 12:00|| Front Page Top

#11 If the Lebanese had any integrity or sovereignty, they wouldn't have allowed foreigners (PLO, Syria, Iran, anyone else who wants to) to exist as an occupying force. The fact that they don't resist indicates they aren't worth listening to when crying over Israeli intervention to stop attacks from across the border. Your lame version of history is a lie. The fact that you persist in the lie makes you an unworthy debater. Buh-bye. Thanks for playing
Posted by Frank G">Frank G  2006-10-28 12:06||   2006-10-28 12:06|| Front Page Top

#12 How are we to discuss borders when it is precisely borders (and the nation laying claim to them or continually expanding them through settlements) that are the point of contention?

You conveniently forget the context within which Israel occupied part of Lebanon: continued attacks on Israel that were based there. If you are keen on legalities, then acknowledge as well the UN resolutions that Lebanon accepted but never fulfilled.

And -- your argument would be a bit more persuasive if you didn't resort to childish playground taunts about farting.
Posted by lotp 2006-10-28 12:06||   2006-10-28 12:06|| Front Page Top

#13 Funny, the amp meter's pegged at zero, yet there's this steady clackity-clack staccato. Mebbe Sparky just likes typing victimology myths, peddling lame notions of heroic resistance -- or mebbe it just likes the sound.

I think it's an open circuit.
Posted by .com 2006-10-28 12:21||   2006-10-28 12:21|| Front Page Top

#14 Seems like there's a lot of that emanating from Toronto these days.
Posted by lotp 2006-10-28 12:27||   2006-10-28 12:27|| Front Page Top

#15 One does not elaborate on a fart

and then the troll goes on for four more paragraphs.....

It's called logorrhea.
Posted by Nimble Spemble 2006-10-28 12:51||   2006-10-28 12:51|| Front Page Top

#16 HighVoltage

With such a nym, either he thinks he's smarter than everyone else, or he thinks he's going to be an electrical engineer. Hopefully the former -- if the latter some people are going to be in serious danger in a few years. Whereas if he just thinks he's smarter... well, the realization will only be privately painful, and is a normal part of the process of becoming an adult.

For HighVoltage: Nations at peace do not allow their residents, whether citizen or alien, to attack across their borders. Nations that do so allow, are either de facto or de jure at war, and when war comes back at them, they have no business complaining.

To put in simpler and more personal terms: when you tell the hockey forward, the one with only two teeth, that he's ugly, and he punches you in the nose, kicks you in the knee, and checks you into the nearby tree with the branch stub precisely at groin level, how surprised are you going to be, really? And then, when the case comes before the judge (you are going to sue him for overreacting, right?), it turns out that you were the one who loosened the screws on the blade of his hockey skate, causing it to fall off just as he took the slap shot that would have sent the team to the Stanley Cup instead of the doghouse, not to mention breaking his arm so badly he may never play anything again... well you see my point.

It was the United Nations that originally established Israel's borders. It was the UN once again that determined that Israel had indeed withdrawn completely from Lebanon in 199-whatever, the Shebaa Farms being Syrian territory. The Arab countries, including Lebanon, refused to accept the situation and went to war openly four times (1948, 1956, 1967, 1973) and less openly thrice (the Lebanon situation, and the Palestinian Intifadas I and II), losing each time. World custom since the time homo sapians began to wage war is that when a country starts a war and loses, its borders are rearranged (think of Germany after WWI and WWII, Canada which once upon a time owned Maine, Mexico...). That the Arabs refuse to accept this is why they keep starting wars and losing.

I am not at all hopeful that this information will open your eyes. Actual facts rarely impact minds such as yours. Only please do the world a favour and stick to philosophical endeavors, rather than those that might actually result in harm to others should your philosphy about red and green wires intersect with things that go boom.
Posted by trailing wife 2006-10-28 12:59||   2006-10-28 12:59|| Front Page Top

#17 Bam!

/Emeril
Posted by .com 2006-10-28 13:13||   2006-10-28 13:13|| Front Page Top

#18 I'm still waiting for my answer as to what Israel was going to do once it "dominated" Lebanon . . . .
Posted by gorb 2006-10-28 13:57||   2006-10-28 13:57|| Front Page Top

#19 And wait you shall! One cannot demand, one cannot schedule, glorious intellectual serendipity!

Inspiration must be given time to develop on its own. I'm sure a pean, a bubbly burp of fermented brilliance, is only a moment away.

Patience is golden. ;-)
Posted by .com 2006-10-28 14:38||   2006-10-28 14:38|| Front Page Top

#20 Politics and terror are not opposing ends of a continuum. They are different aspects of the same process

Asshats can't make a salient argument for more than 5 seconds without trotting out their latest version of moral equivalency. Of course they wrap it up in a shiny new package, but the contents still smell like sh*t.

There is good in the world and there is evil. Politics and Terror are not parts of the same process. Politics, since it's inception, however imperfectly realized, is about the betterment of man. Terror is all about the most base of human instincts--- murder, hatred, pride, ignorance and yes, evil. What do they do when trolls are born....gouge their eyes out?
Posted by mcsegeek1 2006-10-28 15:21||   2006-10-28 15:21|| Front Page Top

#21 Patience is golden.

I guess I'll have to wait patiently for the next brainfart, then. :-)
Posted by gorb 2006-10-28 15:23||   2006-10-28 15:23|| Front Page Top

#22 I hope AC drops by, since I consider him the Master of All Things Media, and puts the dog down regards equivalency.

I know we need facts upon which to operate, but publishing or placing the symp and terr view alongside the true analyst, one who lives with fact as it is found, sans spin and cherry-picking, elevates the unthinkable to thinkable for those who are too lazy to apply that critical thinking thingy that lotp notes is Very Important Stuff in another thread. Amen.

This is the negative side of our communications revolution. UNcritical thought rules - and the goobers get equal treatment, thus elevating their spew to the same level as intelligent analysis.

Okay, I'm done. Just wanted to muddy the water point that out. Heh.
Posted by .com 2006-10-28 15:30||   2006-10-28 15:30|| Front Page Top

#23 This blame Islam attitude is really getting old and a bit sophomoric. Islam was just the simple tool used to incite a culture to action. None of this is new; we have lived through it before. You can template WWII to this war and it is very similar.

Hitler rallied the Germans, forever high jacking the Aryan culture. Now the term Aryan is vilified and anyone who speaks of an association with it is considered a racist. Islam is headed down the same road. They are forever, right or wrong, associated with terrorism. They will have to live that down in world history, a sad fact, as I’m sure there are many who believe in Islam that are against the war. Not unlike the Germans who were opposed to the war but too afraid to resist openly.

We called the Blitzkrieg and wolf packs terrorists and horrific. “Rising up from the murky depths to sink unsuspecting ship and then disappearing into the night.” And racing across Europe killing all in their paths. The terrorists used airplanes as missiles to bomb the US. I do believe we tried it three times in WWII to bomb Berlin. Roadside bombs with ambushes are also nothing new. AQ is extremely profesicient at it but again, no a new ambush tactic. The Germans performed horrific experiments against non-humans and exterminated 6 million Jews. Now the radical Islamists are trying to kill all the infidels or non humans, nothing new to recent history again except they are not very successful as of yet. The point here is we are not facing anything new in tactics or ideology in this war.

Saddam was nothing more than the lunatic Mussolini was. A nutcase loudmouth with no real ability to back his radical actions. We took him and his armies in hours. Nevertheless, like taking Mussolini, we did not take the real threat, and we are fighting it there in Iraq today. Like the war in Europe, we are using Iraq as the battleground and not the US, thank god for that. The Saudi’s are remarkably like the French. Just trying to survive and giving way to whoever has the power. They will prove to be pitiful like the French, white flag joke inserted here.

Which leaves me to Israel and Iran. Unless Israel is at risk of falling, we will not get a total war mentality. Like England in WWII, we will get intense when Israel is close to falling. Our real enemy here is not Islam, although I believe it has been derailed to the point of being unrecoverable, like the Aryan race. The real enemy here is Iran. The leadership there has fueled the hate, funded the actions, and provided the leadership required to see this war move forward, and planning the next phases. They are moving toward total war. They are developing the bomb, exporting training and hate across the world, manipulating the Islamic sheep into action against the West, not unlike the Nazis manipulating hate for the Jews.

There is nothing really new in this war except that we still cannot decide who our enemy is. We must go to basics. Tactically we must keep the fight over there, fighting AQ in Iraq, Hezbollah and Hamas in Lebanon and Gaza, and the media and ignorant in the West. We have to keep our operational center of gravity at establishing a civilized Iraq and Afghanistan. Strategically we have to go after Iran. When we do this this war will wind down. The funding, training, equipment, and support for the fighting will dry up.

My personal cut on all this is until Israel is at risk or has fallen we will continue the way we are, muddling through. I am also very afraid when Israel falls it will be nuclear and so will our response. Sorry Fred for the long rant, I just had to get it out once.
Posted by 49 Pan">49 Pan  2006-10-28 18:35||   2006-10-28 18:35|| Front Page Top

#24 Ptah, I understand the standard definition of a state as entailing a monopoly on violence. This monopoly on violence, however, does not automatically mean that such a state cannot (by definition) itself use this violence in terroristic ways.

Ah, the "Try and redefine accepted terms so that we can make the morally unequal equivalent" trick. Jeez, that is so easy to see that one wonders why libs still try to do it.

For your education: The standard term is "monopoly of force", not "monopoloy of violence". "Violence" has negative connotations that "force" does not. YOU CHOSE IT, knowing that negative connotation, and that choice is significant. A perusal of the rest of your post confirmed that you're using the definition to argue that accepted sovereign nations who adhere to domestic laws and international treaties are equivalent, at base, to terrorists, who reject any limits or constraints on their freedom to act any way they please for religious or "freedom fighting" reasons. A strange time to abandon the marxo-liberal belief that religion is the opiate of the people, eh?

An argument that flows from an attempt to confound "legitimate force" with "terrorist violence" by changing a definition succeeds only when both sides accept the changed definition. I do not, so the argument fails.

There IS a difference between having a policy that explicitly targets civilians (terrorism) and a policy that targets terrorists that only incidentally harms civilians. This distinction is embodied in the Geneva Conventions. IT IS FORBIDDEN for armies to situate themselves within a population in such a way that a legitimate attack on that army would inevitably cause civilian casualties (using human shields). International Law is clear on this: there is no free lunch. The attacking army is free to decide whether to attack or forbear, subject to the restriction that the force not be in gross excess of what is necessary to eliminate the MILITARY threat. All civilian casualties are then accounted to the illegally positioned defender. This was the debate surrounding the response of the Israelis during the most recent conflict, mainly because it was a way to deflect attention from the fact that Hezbollah did indeed situate themselves illegally. The fact that there would have been NO civilian casualties if Hezbollah had situated themselves away from the population centers, in accordance to the GCs, was conveniently ignored. As YOU conveniently ignore. Of course, if they had, they'd have been paste, which leads to the obvious conclusion that that was an outcome that would have been unacceptable to you.

I should point out that this sort of behavior is PART of a larger psychic cycle: the terrorists ARE COUNTING ON PEOPLE LIKE YOU TO COMMENT LIKE THAT IN VENUES LIKE THIS. They CANNOT win conventionally, which is WHY they indulge in terrorist tactics. They accept that their enemies will condemn the use of such tactics, but it gives them heart that YOU, and NGOs that should know better, AND other nations, AND the United Nations, choose to look the other way, make mountains out of molehills, move the goal posts in such a way that what was accepted in the past is suddenly, without warning, unacceptable today.

This fabricated outrage is then voiced, in the hopes that Israel and the USA actually ACT as democracies, responsive to pressure THAT TERRORISTS DO NOT HEED. The very fact that Israel STOPPED, is inherent proof that it is NOT of the same sort as Hezbollah. Thus is fulfilled the words of Abraham Lincoln, who observed that democracies either live through all time or die by suicide: terrorists only hope to overcome a democracy is to get aid from within that democracy.

You, the UN, and NGOs that should know better, are the instrumental equivalent of the FLEA that is essential in the life cycle of the Black plague to jump from rat to human. Y'all are the MOSQUITO that is essential in the life cycle of Malaria, to enable it to infect humans. Hey, is THAT why NGOs oppose DDT? Solidarity with a soul-brother?

Posted by Ptah">Ptah  2006-10-28 18:43|| http://www.crusaderwarcollege.org]">[http://www.crusaderwarcollege.org]  2006-10-28 18:43|| Front Page Top

#25 "Crustie" is posting from the same IP address as "High Voltage".

We have another 'nym posting from Toronto today too.

FWIW.
Posted by lotp 2006-10-28 19:48||   2006-10-28 19:48|| Front Page Top

#26 Okay, I'm done. Just wanted to muddy the water point that out. Heh

Well aren't you gonna write snarky poetry at him? Why should I be the only one to get the Vogon treatment??
Posted by Shaviting Phinens9082 2006-10-28 20:50||   2006-10-28 20:50|| Front Page Top

#27 Cuz you're the Vogon, hereabouts. All poetry isn't Vogonic, some - like mine - is pure music to the pure of heart. Sheesh, wotta dim bulb.
Posted by .com 2006-10-28 20:53||   2006-10-28 20:53|| Front Page Top

#28 In fact, you make my point, as posted in #22.

Here you are, posting in RB, right alongside normal, thoughtful, people.

Gives you the surface patina of being one of us. Yet you're not.

Le boggle.
Posted by .com 2006-10-28 20:59||   2006-10-28 20:59|| Front Page Top

#29 Point of information: Nobody likes Vogon poetry, not even the Vogons. On the other hand, I like .com's charming bit of doggerel. And, as it happens, I'm qualified to judge.
Posted by trailing wife 2006-10-28 21:55||   2006-10-28 21:55|| Front Page Top

#30  Islam was just the simple tool used to incite a culture to action.

Simple tools for simple minds?
Posted by Redneck Jim 2006-10-28 22:07||   2006-10-28 22:07|| Front Page Top

#31 Ptah, geez thanks for offering an interpretation of my argument. I find it interesting that you interpreted my use of "monopoly of violence" as being a tactic rather than just the way I happened to phrase it and view it. I'm not trying to hide anything. I'm flat out stating that Israel's actions deliberately kill innocent civilians. They know - with certainty - that an onslaught on Lebanon as just occurred will kill innocent civilians. This position means that Israel violates the Geneva Conventions as sure as anyone else who so acts. (This, of course, outside of the fact that the sovereign nations of note have records of not adhering to domestic law nor to international treaties.)

In terms of the distinction you credit me for putting to use in my argument - "legitimate force" vs. "terrorist violence" - following the logic of that above, I'm stating that Israel and Hezbollah both employ legitimate violence and terrorist violence. (Also, an argument does not fail based on whether you accept the terms or not. It just means we can't agree to discuss the topic. Given specific terms either an argument is sound or unsound.)

While I appreciate your discusion of how Hezbollah situated itself, I've read at least one article discussing the opposite (Israelis soldiers situating themselves in populated areas.). Actually, the real responsiblity in terms of bombing population centers lays with Israel when it was Israel that did the bombing. Israel bombed population centers, knowing this would kill many innocent civilians. It bombed targets over the entire country, killing over one thousand. But why? YOU are talking about the rules and definitions of engagement. I am talking about what Israel did to Lebanon for NO GOOD JUSTIFIABLE REASON. Naked, brutal, violence and the right to resist it.

But then you get even more bizarre. You once again construct your own argument and then attribute it to me by ironically, unblushingly, invoking International Law, discussing how Hezbollah ought to stand in the open so Israelis can kill them quick and easy, and then suggest that had they done so this is precisely what would have happened to them. So I guess from the perspective of battle, any organization that did that would be suicidal and stupid beyond belief. It stands then that Hezbollah did what was right and necessary from a military tactics perspective. All this mind you and rejecting your claim that Hezbollah spent its time hiding behind families rather than offering a far stronger military proponent a taste of the violence it so often inflicts upon the surrounding peoples.

When we reach the point where you use a lot of capital letters I sense a hint of paranoia but who knows. I'm not sure how much terrorists are counting on me to advance their devious tactics by my offering a comment at Rantburg.com. But then, back to the logic of military action: "... they CANNOT win conventionally, which is WHY they indulge in terrorist tactics" .... well then isn't terrorism a rational response? Or are you arguing that if you can't win conventionally you oughtn't develop alternatives? This based on what? Definitions or laws or rules of engagement duly codified to ensure that a weaker resistance force is crushed by a stronger force without the latter having to pay a military, political and/or economic cost?

I sense that your argument - where you've taken the topic - focuses too narrowly on moral equivalence (which to me is a "no brainer") and Hezbollah's tactics for winning (again, given your arguments the rational thing for Hezbollah to do is what it did.). Each side is morally culpable for the innoncent citizens that their bombs, bullets or economic policies cause to die, be wounded, starve to death etc.. Israel doesn't get a "free lunch" Ptah when it comes to killing innocent civilians.

Who would have thought that little old me, NGO's and the U.N. "choose to look the other way, make mountains out of molehills, move the goal posts in such a way that what was accepted in the past is suddenly, without warning, unacceptable today." Not sure exactly where you're going here but I hope you're not longing for the good old days of some kind or another.

Final paragraphs:

Actually, I think you're just losing focus at the end.

One could have fun with it I guess for e.g.,:

-"The very fact that Israel STOPPED, is inherent proof that it is NOT of the same sort as Hezbollah."

Really! Inherent proof you say. What exactly do you believe Israel has stopped? Nothing has stopped. It is still full guns and blazing. Tragically.

-"Thus is fulfilled the words of Abraham Lincoln, who observed that democracies either live through all time or die by suicide: terrorists only hope to overcome a democracy is to get aid from within that democracy."

The implication is that people like me are those aids (what an inflammatory Military Commissions Act way of putting things don't you think?). What it seems clear Lincoln was driving at, however, was that when a democracy begins to reject or overturn its sacred principles and rules such acts are like self inflicted wounds against the nations long term viability. The democracy destroys itself not others destroy the democracy. So it isn't terrorists that are the primary concern when it comes to a democracy. It is the people of the democracy. They aid a democracies death when they do nothing to keep democratic principles alive.
Posted by HighVoltage 2006-10-28 22:15||   2006-10-28 22:15|| Front Page Top

#32 All poetry isn't Vogonic, some - like mine - is pure music to the pure of heart.

That's what I kept telling those fools! What an artist the world has lost in me, but apparently found in you!
Posted by Nero 2006-10-28 22:20||   2006-10-28 22:20|| Front Page Top

#33 So Mr. High Voltage believes it's acceptable for Hizb'allah to defend itself across the border into Israel, but not acceptable for Israel to do the same. In other words, it's the duty of the Jews to commit suicide to suit his compunctions. What a lovely man he is, to be sure.
Posted by trailing wife 2006-10-28 22:20||   2006-10-28 22:20|| Front Page Top

#34 Or he thinks it's ok for a terrorist group to kidnap an "occupier" on Israel's internationally recognized land, but not for Israel to retaliate for that act of war.
Posted by Jules 2006-10-28 22:58||   2006-10-28 22:58|| Front Page Top

23:16 Zenster
23:02 Zenster
07:22 bigjim-ky
23:58 Secret Master
23:48 Zenster
23:46 trailing wife
23:45 trailing wife
23:35 trailing wife
23:29 NoBeards
23:25 cajunbelle
23:24 NWFP Assembly
23:21 Grunter
23:16 Zenster
23:08 Oregonian
23:08 Shaviting Phinens9082
22:58 Jules
22:52 Shaviting Phinens9082
22:40 Atomic Conspiracy
22:27 Zhang Fei
22:25 Darrell
22:24 yawn
22:20 trailing wife
22:20 Nero
22:19 Zenster









Paypal:
Google
Search WWW Search rantburg.com