Just say 'no'.

[Skeptic]

Telling it like it is (http://www.gloria-center.org/gloria/2010/04/just-say-no).

[Zep]

Say "No"...to what, exactly?

Yes, I read the piece. It has a number of points. How about picking the one you are referring to and illuminating it for us?

[The Fool]

Say "No"...to what, exactly?

Yes, I read the piece. It has a number of points. How about picking the one you are referring to and illuminating it for us?
I think its just say no to deviating from what has not worked in the past....Very popular among "skeptic" and the rest of the Israeli racist extreme right.

[quixotecoyote]

I think its just say no to deviating from what has not worked in the past....Very popular among "skeptic" and the rest of the Israeli racist extreme right.

The link is about refusing to help promote the idea that Hizballah is moderate.

They don't seem very moderate to me. Why is saying that enough for you to classify me as racist extreme right?

[The Fool]

The link is about refusing to help promote the idea that Hizballah is moderate.

is that what you see? who is pushing the idea that hizbollah is moderate?


They don't seem very moderate to me. Why is saying that enough for you to classify me as racist extreme right?
It would take more than you thinking Helbollah is not very moderate. I don't think they are particularly moderate myself.

The article is about resisting any change from the failed approach...The constant need to remain in fear and crisis that the far right wing of israeli politics (and "skeptic") is addicted to.

[quixotecoyote]

is that what you see? who is pushing the idea that hizbollah is moderate?

Well, gee. Given that's the point of the article, maybe you should read it and find out.

[Skeptic]

"Racist", "extremist", and "right-wing" have become, through overuse, meaningless: they mean in effect "anybody who disagree with whatever ignorant policy self-declared 'progressives' are pushing right now", in this case, rapprochement with Hizbullah.

[The Fool]

Well, gee. Given that's the point of the article, maybe you should read it and find out.
well, Gee. Maybe you could quote me the words from the article where it is proposed by someone (anyone?) that Hizbollah is moderate?


The racist extreme right of Israel demands that no measures short of war be considered with anyone they view as enemies.....this is a long failed strategy. Now that someone has alternate ideas these sort of articles preaching doom and gloom if there is deviation from the failed path pop up from time to time. Parrots for the cause like "skeptic" then repost them here. Nothing much changes.

[The Fool]

"Racist", "extremist", and "right-wing" have become, through overuse, meaningless: they mean in effect "anybody who disagree with whatever ignorant policy self-declared 'progressives' are pushing right now", in this case, rapprochement with Hizbullah.
thats right son.....war is the way forward. If things are not going well its because you have not killed enough arabs lately.



anyway...who cares. It looks like the world is starting to wise up and realise you will simply have to have change imposed on you.

[quixotecoyote]

well, Gee. Maybe you could quote me the words from the article where it is proposed by someone (anyone?) that Hizbollah is moderate?


Here's where I come in. I have received a letter asking me personally to help with a research project. I have spoken to well-informed people who tell me that the statements I am about to quote are accurate. It is highly possible that the link with the Obama Administration is exaggerated, but this indeed does come from the White House's favorite think tank.

While not mentioning the names of those involved they are known for supporting the idea that Hizballah is really quite moderate. The letter says that this is a project for the Center for American Progress and that the results "will be presented to senior U.S. policymakers in the administration."

I am asked to participate by giving my opinions on how the United States can deal with Hizballah "short of engagement" and "would Israeli leaders see benefit in the U.S. talking with Hizballah about issues which are of crucial importance to Israel?"

Answer to first question: Oppose it in every way possible.

And yeah, I know.

Anyone who doesn't agree with you is a racist warmonger, so you can save the invective.

[The Fool]

And yeah, I know.

Anyone who doesn't agree with you is a racist warmonger, so you can save the invective.
so what have you got? Someone making an unsubstantiated claim that they have been asked to provide advice.....To the US government!!!

"I am asked to participate by giving my opinions on how the United States can deal with Hizballah "short of engagement" and "would Israeli leaders see benefit in the U.S. talking with Hizballah about issues which are of crucial importance to Israel?"

He claims to have received a letter? Are the words he quotes in this letter?

"I have spoken to well-informed people who tell me that the statements I am about to quote are accurate. It is highly possible that the link with the Obama Administration is exaggerated, but this indeed does come from the White House's favorite think tank"

appears not...its something else he has heard from "well-informed people"

so where is the link to people saying Hizbollah is "moderate"?

here it is. He believes that the un-named "well informed people" who he has been told said the above also believe the following...

"While not mentioning the names of those involved they are known for supporting the idea that Hizballah is really quite moderate."

no....don't mention the names that would spoil the suspense...

This guy appears to get letter from people but he doesn't know who they are...or at least the people who tell him they know who they are won't tell him who they are.

This is indeed powerful evidence. I hope he never gets a letter from a Nigerian prince asking for his bank account details...

so your reply to a request to show who has said Hizbollah is moderate is "well-informed people"

can I sell you a car?

you really should closly inspect the wheels on "skeptic's" band wagon before you jump on board.

another epic fail...are you sure you want to sign up?

[Chaos]

"Racist", "extremist", and "right-wing" have become, through overuse, meaningless: they mean in effect "anybody who disagree with whatever ignorant policy self-declared 'progressives' are pushing right now", in this case, rapprochement with Hizbullah.

You mean, like "leftist", "liberal" and "progessive" have become, through overuse, meaningless, because in effect they mean "anybody who does not agree with ´Skeptic´" in political matters?

[Undesired Walrus]

You mean, like "leftist", "liberal" and "progessive" have become, through overuse, meaningless, because in effect they mean "anybody who does not agree with ´Skeptic´" in political matters?

No, because he's a 'Skeptic'.

[HansMustermann]

And yeah, I know.

Anyone who doesn't agree with you is a racist warmonger, so you can save the invective.

Actually, it doesn't seem to say that. The actual proposal he's saying "no" to, is talking to the Hezbollah. The part about people thinking the Hezbollah is moderate is just the author's ad-hominem: he picks on the idea of talking to the Hezbollah by attributing some patently ridiculous mode of thinking to those who proposed it. It's a textbook illustration of the "ad hominem circumstantial" fallacy.

But again, the thrust isn't "say no to the idea that the Hezbollah is moderate". The thrust is simply "say no to talking with the Hezbollah."

The part about Hezbollah being moderate is just a way to say, basically, "pah, look how stupid and uninformed are those who proposed this." It's no different from saying, basically, "some people proposed we talk to the Hezbollah, but, bah, I happen to know some of them run around with underpants on their head and pencils up their nose. Do you really want to listen to such people?" But it's not the point to say "no" to. It's just the main fallacy.

So basically... I don't know how to say this nicely, but make sure you've read and understood it before posting such snark aimed at whoever disagreed with _you_. It seems to me like The Fool's assessment is right, yours is wrong, and being snarky won't change that.

[Chaos]

Actually, it doesn't seem to say that. The actual proposal he's saying "no" to, is talking to the Hezbollah. The part about people thinking the Hezbollah is moderate is just the author's ad-hominem: he picks on the idea of talking to the Hezbollah by attributing some patently ridiculous mode of thinking to those who proposed it. It's a textbook illustration of the "ad hominem circumstantial" fallacy.

But again, the thrust isn't "say no to the idea that the Hezbollah is moderate". The thrust is simply "say no to talking with the Hezbollah."

The part about Hezbollah being moderate is just a way to say, basically, "pah, look how stupid and uninformed are those who proposed this." It's no different from saying, basically, "some people proposed we talk to the Hezbollah, but, bah, I happen to know some of them run around with underpants on their head and pencils up their nose. Do you really want to listen to such people?" But it's not the point to say "no" to. It's just the main fallacy.

So basically... I don't know how to say this nicely, but make sure you've read and understood it before posting such snark aimed at whoever disagreed with _you_. It seems to me like The Fool's assessment is right, yours is wrong, and being snarky won't change that.

So those people think Hisbollah is moderate the way Democrats voted in favor of Death Panels, right?

[HansMustermann]

So those people think Hisbollah is moderate the way Democrats voted in favor of Death Panels, right?

Basically.

[funk de fino]

And yeah, I know.

Anyone who doesn't agree with you is a racist warmonger, so you can save the invective.


Epic fail post # 10

Well done.

[Darth Rotor]

Actually, it doesn't seem to say that. The actual proposal he's saying "no" to, is talking to the Hezbollah. The part about people thinking the Hezbollah is moderate is just the author's ad-hominem: he picks on the idea of talking to the Hezbollah by attributing some patently ridiculous mode of thinking to those who proposed it. It's a textbook illustration of the "ad hominem circumstantial" fallacy.


Hans, it seems that you just described a strawman fallacy. :confused:

Can you help me with the subtle distinction? I think there is one, but at the moment, I can't parse it.

DR

[quixotecoyote]

But again, the thrust isn't "say no to the idea that the Hezbollah is moderate". The thrust is simply "say no to talking with the Hezbollah."

...

So basically... I don't know how to say this nicely, but make sure you've read and understood it before posting such snark aimed at whoever disagreed with _you_. It seems to me like The Fool's assessment is right, yours is wrong, and being snarky won't change that.

You give good advice, but you should also apply it to my original post:

The link is about refusing to help promote the idea that Hizballah is moderate.So yes, the advice is to say no to talking to Hezbollah. It's also to say no to engagement with Hezbollah. It's also to oppose Hezbollah in every way at every opportunity.
Why?

Because Hezbollah are a bunch of thuggish fundamentalist extremists who do not want to play nice and validating/supporting them does not serve any overarching goal while entrenching an oppressive faction. These are not moderates whom it's useful to engage and strengthen. These are the poster children for everything wrong with Islamism.

So to phrase the thrust as "say no to talking with the Hezbollah" only catches one thread of the article, where "say no to the idea that Hezbollah is moderate" captures the idea that the article is saying these are a bunch of wackjobs that we should be opposing, not enabling.

[geni]

You give good advice, but you should also apply it to my original post:

So yes, the advice is to say no to talking to Hezbollah. It's also to say no to engagement with Hezbollah. It's also to oppose Hezbollah in every way at every opportunity.
Why?

Because Hezbollah are a bunch of thuggish fundamentalist extremists who do not want to play nice and validating/supporting them does not serve any overarching goal while entrenching an oppressive faction. These are not moderates whom it's useful to engage and strengthen. These are the poster children for everything wrong with Islamism.

Which in the real world means sod all. We've worked with worse in the past and will do again in future. Hezbollah exist and control a decent chunk of southern lebanon. The aplication of force by the strongest regional power hasn't solved the problem. They present a threat to the rest of lebanon so ingoring them isn't a valid solution either. In short circumstances dicate that we have to talk to them. Well that or nuke them and I'm not sure how Isreal would react to being hit by a bunch of fall out.


So to phrase the thrust as "say no to talking with the Hezbollah" only catches one thread of the article, where "say no to the idea that Hezbollah is moderate" captures the idea that the article is saying these are a bunch of wackjobs that we should be opposing, not enabling.

Moderate is a relative term. In that they appear to have some awareness of the the real world and will sometimes go for non-trivial lengths of time without attacking Israel they can be considered somewhat more moderate than the other groups around.

In any case what Hezbollah is right now is only part of the issue. What it can become long term is also of importance.

[quixotecoyote]

Which in the real world means sod all. We've worked with worse in the past and will do again in future. Hezbollah exist and control a decent chunk of southern lebanon. The aplication of force by the strongest regional power hasn't solved the problem. They present a threat to the rest of lebanon so ingoring them isn't a valid solution either. In short circumstances dicate that we have to talk to them. Well that or nuke them and I'm not sure how Isreal would react to being hit by a bunch of fall out.


What would you like to say to them?

Moderate is a relative term. In that they appear to have some awareness of the the real world and will sometimes go for non-trivial lengths of time without attacking Israel they can be considered somewhat more moderate than the other groups around.


True. And hilarious.

In any case what Hezbollah is right now is only part of the issue. What it can become long term is also of importance.

I believe both the article and myself referred to that as one of the consequences of legitimizing them.

[geni]

What would you like to say to them?

I'd like to suggest that they focus on getting syria to formaly cede the shebaa farms to Lebanon (admitedly mostly for the ammusment value but hey).

I would make the case that the use of shows of force within internal lebanese politics legitimizes outsiders getting involved. I might try to make the case that there would be significant encomonic benifits to comming to a long term settlment with Israel. I could make the case that they cannot trust syria.



True. And hilarious.


People who accept ther real world are ultimately people will can deal with over time. Hezbollah have a much stronger case for acting defensively than they do offensively. That can be played on.


I believe both the article and myself referred to that as one of the consequences of legitimizing them.

Legitimizing?? The one group to actualy do some real work for the shia poor of southern lebanon (which is where they draw most of their strength from)? One of the very few islamic groups to have a somewhat passable record against the IDF (Jordanian army is the only other one I can think of that might qualify)? The single most powerful fraction within Lebanon?

Your judgment as to their legitimacy means nothing. To those who matter to them they are legitimate and to everyone else their existance is undeniable.

[Thunder]

NO

[quixotecoyote]

I'd like to suggest that they focus on getting syria to formaly cede the shebaa farms to Lebanon (admitedly mostly for the ammusment value but hey).

I would make the case that the use of shows of force within internal lebanese politics legitimizes outsiders getting involved. I might try to make the case that there would be significant encomonic benifits to comming to a long term settlment with Israel. I could make the case that they cannot trust syria.



That might be worth a few yuks, but it doesn't seem like it would accomplish much.


People who accept ther real world are ultimately people will can deal with over time. Hezbollah have a much stronger case for acting defensively than they do offensively. That can be played on.

Really? How do you see that working?


Legitimizing?? The one group to actualy do some real work for the shia poor of southern lebanon (which is where they draw most of their strength from)? One of the very few islamic groups to have a somewhat passable record against the IDF (Jordanian army is the only other one I can think of that might qualify)? The single most powerful fraction within Lebanon?

Your judgment as to their legitimacy means nothing. To those who matter to them they are legitimate and to everyone else their existance is undeniable.

You seem to be confusing existence with legitimacy. If you want to muck about in Lebanese politics, maybe you could prop up a party who isn't as powerful but is less likely to nod, smile, and then go blow something up.

[Skeptic]

Have you noticed how the same folks who go ape excrement whenever someone in the US government finds a compromise with, say, a Church which displays a nativity scene, suddenly go all "realpolitics" and "understanding" and "we've dealt with worse" and "it doesn't mean anything in the real world" whenever it's a question of the USA dealing with mass-murdering terrorist organizations?

[funk de fino]

Have you noticed how the same folks who go ape excrement whenever someone in the US government finds a compromise with, say, a Church which displays a nativity scene, suddenly go all "realpolitics" and "understanding" and "we've dealt with worse" and "it doesn't mean anything in the real world" whenever it's a question of the USA dealing with mass-murdering terrorist organizations?

They dealt with the IRA too you know. That turned out OK.

[Soapy Sam]

You think?

[DC]

Have you noticed how the same folks who go ape excrement whenever someone in the US government finds a compromise with, say, a Church which displays a nativity scene, suddenly go all "realpolitics" and "understanding" and "we've dealt with worse" and "it doesn't mean anything in the real world" whenever it's a question of the USA dealing with mass-murdering terrorist organizations?

got samples of "those same folks" ?

[HansMustermann]

Hans, it seems that you just described a strawman fallacy. :confused:

Can you help me with the subtle distinction? I think there is one, but at the moment, I can't parse it.

DR

Well, I don't think it's as much a matter of subtle distinction, as technically it's both.

It is a strawman in that it attributes to those people an argument they didn't actually make.

It's an ad-hominem circumstantial because it addresses the main argument via picking on the people that proposed it.

It's not a case of either-or. The two can be done independently. E.g., it would be just a strawman if it then proceeded to address just the strawman. But in this case the strawman is used as a bogus way to discredit the proponents, and then the ad-hominem circumstantial uses that discrediting to extend it over their actual argument. It's a one-two punch basically.

ETA: or basically I guess an easier explanation is that they construct a fancy form of the association fallacy. They associate the actual proposal with the ridiculous strawman, by attributing the strawman to the same person.

[HansMustermann]

You give good advice, but you should also apply it to my original post:

So yes, the advice is to say no to talking to Hezbollah. It's also to say no to engagement with Hezbollah. It's also to oppose Hezbollah in every way at every opportunity.
Why?

Because Hezbollah are a bunch of thuggish fundamentalist extremists who do not want to play nice and validating/supporting them does not serve any overarching goal while entrenching an oppressive faction. These are not moderates whom it's useful to engage and strengthen. These are the poster children for everything wrong with Islamism.

So to phrase the thrust as "say no to talking with the Hezbollah" only catches one thread of the article, where "say no to the idea that Hezbollah is moderate" captures the idea that the article is saying these are a bunch of wackjobs that we should be opposing, not enabling.

Except again nobody said that the Hezbollah is moderate or anything. That's a strawman.

I don't see talking to them as hinging on the idea that they're moderate, nor proving it. Heck, it wasn't even proposed to reach an agreement. Just talk to them.

And I'm sorry, the whole "OMG don't even talk to them" slant seems to me a bit of a ridiculous nutjobbery anyway. At what point did it become normal foreign policy to even refuse to talk to someone? And how would it help? Other than to keep them as that faceless enemy, that is.

[HansMustermann]

Have you noticed how the same folks who go ape excrement whenever someone in the US government finds a compromise with, say, a Church which displays a nativity scene, suddenly go all "realpolitics" and "understanding" and "we've dealt with worse" and "it doesn't mean anything in the real world" whenever it's a question of the USA dealing with mass-murdering terrorist organizations?

I'm not sure what the point is, other than adding your own ridiculous mis-characterization.

[Darth Rotor]

Well, I don't think it's as much a matter of subtle distinction, as technically it's both.

It is a strawman in that it attributes to those people an argument they didn't actually make.

It's an ad-hominem circumstantial because it addresses the main argument via picking on the people that proposed it.

It's not a case of either-or. The two can be done independently. E.g., it would be just a strawman if it then proceeded to address just the strawman. But in this case the strawman is used as a bogus way to discredit the proponents, and then the ad-hominem circumstantial uses that discrediting to extend it over their actual argument. It's a one-two punch basically.
Thanks.

As to Hezbollah, I am not convinced that their political opponents in Lebanon would find them other than extreme. Within that context, however, someone seems to have to be able to cut various deals ... but perhaps due to their stick, not their carrot. :cool:

(They being Hezbollah)

DR

[geni]

That might be worth a few yuks, but it doesn't seem like it would accomplish much.

It would create problems for both Syria and Hezbollah


Really? How do you see that working?


Hezbollah runs a significant a welfare organisation (which is how you get the shia poor onside. Talk to the people in that wing and point out the advantages of spending money on the poor rather than firing Katyusha rockets at Isreal.


You seem to be confusing existence with legitimacy.

No I'm confused as to why you think your idea as to legitimacy means anything.


If you want to muck about in Lebanese politics, maybe you could prop up a party who isn't as powerful but is less likely to nod, smile, and then go blow something up.

Let us know when you find one. The civil war had quite a collection of sides. You can't prop up hezbollah it isn't falling over.

Oh and that tactic is the reason we ended up with a lot of the problems of lebanon in the first place. The french backed the Maronites see.

[funk de fino]

You think?

You think the UK and NI is in a worse situation than it was before?

[quixotecoyote]

It would create problems for both Syria and Hezbollah



Hezbollah runs a significant a welfare organisation (which is how you get the shia poor onside. Talk to the people in that wing and point out the advantages of spending money on the poor rather than firing Katyusha rockets at Isreal.

This seems horribly idealistic and naive to me.


No I'm confused as to why you think your idea as to legitimacy means anything.

Because Hezbollah is the strongest but not the only faction in Lebanon, and the fact that we choose to engage with them rather than another faction gives Hezbollah another edge.



Let us know when you find one. The civil war had quite a collection of sides. You can't prop up hezbollah it isn't falling over.

Off the top of my head -- the actual government?

[Skeptic]

They dealt with the IRA too you know. That turned out OK.

Didn't know the IRA's goal was to kill all Britons anywhere. Or that it broadcast claims the British drink the blood of Irish babies. Or engaged in suicide bombing by young men brainwashed to think they'll instantly go to Catholic heaven if they only kill enough Protestants.

Just a few slight differences.

[HansMustermann]

Because Hezbollah is the strongest but not the only faction in Lebanon, and the fact that we choose to engage with them rather than another faction gives Hezbollah another edge.

So, is there an impediment to bringing more than one faction to the talks? It seems to me like nobody asked to back or support the Hezbollah or anything.

[quixotecoyote]

So, is there an impediment to bringing more than one faction to the talks?

The author in the OP was asked specifically about Hezbollah as part of an initiative to engage specifically with Hezbollah. Other factions were not mentioned

[geni]

This seems horribly idealistic and naive to me.

It's divide and rule dressed up pretty. If you think thats idealistic it's probably time to dig out any reports you have on Operation "Kill Every Living Thing" (ah the Revolutionary United Front say what you like about them at least they never pretended to be anything other than the bad guys).


Because Hezbollah is the strongest but not the only faction in Lebanon, and the fact that we choose to engage with them rather than another faction gives Hezbollah another edge.

Most countries are able to engage with more than one group at a time. The historical exceptions tended to get wipped out by europeans in passing.


Off the top of my head -- the actual government?

A bunch of fractions with interesting and bloody pasts (not that lebanon has any other kind) united only in fear of Hezbollah. In any case events have shown that they are already too weak to face Hezbollah and demographic trends are against them. Unless you have a few hundread thousand Maronite and druze kids hidden up your sleeve thats not a problem you can really help to solve.

[Thunder]

Didn't know the IRA's goal was to kill all Britons anywhere.

Nor is it Hamas' or Hezbollah's goal to kill all Jews or even all Israelis.

[Skeptic]

It's divide and rule dressed up pretty. If you think thats idealistic it's probably time to dig out any reports you.

Geni, you're the guy who's suggesting that if the USA acts nice to Hizbullah, it can be convinced to use its money for schools instead of weapons. Whether it's idealistic or not, it's loony, since it will only legitimize Hizbullah while achieving nothing positive.

[DC]

Geni, you're the guy who's suggesting that if the USA acts nice to Hizbullah, it can be convinced to use its money for schools instead of weapons. Whether it's idealistic or not, it's loony, since it will only legitimize Hizbullah while achieving nothing positive.

they do build Schools and hospitals....

[geni]

Geni, you're the guy who's suggesting that if the USA acts nice to Hizbullah, it can be convinced to use its money for schools instead of weapons.

Those in the school building sector would like to have more money to work with. It would be a seriously unique occurence if they didn't.


Whether it's idealistic or not, it's loony, since it will only legitimize Hizbullah while achieving nothing positive.

"legitimize hezbollah" okey how?

[Skeptic]

they do build Schools and hospitals....

And Chavez DID have elections...

And Mussolini DID make the trains run on time...

But that hardly makes Chavez a democrat instead of a dictator, or Mussolini a railway engineer instead of a fascist, or Hizbullah a charity organization instead of a murderous terrorist one.

[geni]

Hizbullah a charity organization instead of a murderous terrorist one.

If hezbollah only carried out their militia activities and didn't go for the social stuff they would be far less of a problem.

[quixotecoyote]

If hezbollah only carried out their militia activities and didn't go for the social stuff they would be far less of a problem.

And if they only carried out their social activities and didn't go for the militia stuff, they would be even less of a problem than that.

[Darth Rotor]

A related story that just cropped up:
The Syrian government has transferred long-range Scud missiles to Hezbollah in a move that threatens to alter the Middle East's military balance, Israeli and U.S. officials alleged.
Jpost, Haaretz, Fox News, and the NZ Herald have stories that Syria has shipped some Scud missiles to Hezbollah.

http://www.foxnews.com/world/2010/04/14/syria-gave-scuds-hezbollah-says/
http://www.nzherald.co.nz/world/news/article.cfm?c_id=2&objectid=10638542

The defence officials, speaking on condition of anonymity because they were discussing a classified intelligence assessment, stopped short of stating unequivocally that Scuds are now deployed in Lebanon.

Yahoo news and France24 are carrying a story where Syria denies shipping Scuds to Hezbollah.

It's a breaking story, more detail to follow, surely, but if these assertions are grounded in facts, (at this point undetermined) such a change on the ground offers support to the position that talking to Hezbollah simply plays into their hands, and that they are not interested in good faith bargaining.

In an objective note, if they are getting Scuds, Hezbollah looks to be working for a bit more leverage vis a vis the Israelis, in terms of deterrent to Israeli operations against Hezbollah.

What the government of Lebanon thinks about this, or does about this, is what has my interest piqued. Can they not find out the facts of the matter, on their own soil? Scuds aren't small.

DR

[Archer17]

In principle, I'm not opposed to talking with anyone. Regarding this thread's subject I don't think it matters whether we "talk" to Hezbollah or not, they'll do what they want to do either way.

I wouldn't be surprised if the Syrians are shipping Scuds to Hezbollah, it's not like they or Iran would exactly be setting a precedent here.

...What the government of Lebanon thinks about this, or does about this, is what has my interest piqued. Can they not find out the facts of the matter, on their own soil? Scuds aren't small.

DR
I don't think you'll hear too much of anything, let alone any dissent from the Lebanese government if this Scud thing has merit for two reasons. The first is that the conflict with Israel is a subject where all parties in that country are on the same page and second, Hezbollah does what it wants and the Lebanese government remembers what happened the last time (http://www.pbs.org/newshour/updates/middle_east/jan-june08/lebanon_0508.html) they tried to assert any authority vis-a-vis Hezbollah.

[DC]

And Chavez DID have elections...

And Mussolini DID make the trains run on time...

But that hardly makes Chavez a democrat instead of a dictator, or Mussolini a railway engineer instead of a fascist, or Hizbullah a charity organization instead of a murderous terrorist one.

:rolleyes:

[lionking]

A related story that just cropped up:

Jpost, Haaretz, Fox News, and the NZ Herald have stories that Syria has shipped some Scud missiles to Hezbollah.

http://www.foxnews.com/world/2010/04/14/syria-gave-scuds-hezbollah-says/
http://www.nzherald.co.nz/world/news/article.cfm?c_id=2&objectid=10638542



Yahoo news and France24 are carrying a story where Syria denies shipping Scuds to Hezbollah.

It's a breaking story, more detail to follow, surely, but if these assertions are grounded in facts, (at this point undetermined) such a change on the ground offers support to the position that talking to Hezbollah simply plays into their hands, and that they are not interested in good faith bargaining.

In an objective note, if they are getting Scuds, Hezbollah looks to be working for a bit more leverage vis a vis the Israelis, in terms of deterrent to Israeli operations against Hezbollah.

What the government of Lebanon thinks about this, or does about this, is what has my interest piqued. Can they not find out the facts of the matter, on their own soil? Scuds aren't small.

DR
Not only Syria, but Iran as well:

http://www.cbn.com/CBNnews/333543.aspx


Iranian missiles are making their way to Lebanese-based Hezbollah terrorists via Turkey, according to intelligence reports.
The arms shipments are in violation of UN Security Council Resolution 1701, which accompanied the U.N.-brokered cease-fire of the Second Lebanon War in the summer of 2006.

[Darth Rotor]

Not only Syria, but Iran as well:

http://www.cbn.com/CBNnews/333543.aspx

Does this transshipment through their territory appear to be with, or without, the approval of Turkish authorities? :confused:

[Thunder]

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20100426/ap_on_re_mi_ea/ml_israel_palestinians

Looks like Israel has changed its mind. Settlement construction in EJ will be halted.

[Darth Rotor]

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20100426/ap_on_re_mi_ea/ml_israel_palestinians

Looks like Israel has changed its mind. Settlement construction in EJ will be halted.
For now. I doubt this halt will be lasting.

Just a hunch.