This whole business about whether or not Hisbawlas hide amongst the people... hey, get over it people! Don't be stupid!

Look inside the USA. There is the undercover cop who hides among people in his own country, to fight the bad guy. There is the FBI agent who is undercover to fight the guy bringing in guns or drugs from some other country.

Look abroad. There is the CIA covert operative who assassinates the bad guy, or steals information about who and what is where and when.

All of these people carry guns, and all of them kill people.

Every time you say "Hizballah hides among civilians" you sound quite foolish. *EVERYONE EVERYWHERE* hides among civilians. It may or may not be hiding. The days when the US and the Brits each stood in straight lines and shot at each other are long gone. Nobody is stupid enough to conduct war that way anymore.

Local cops, FBI, CIA, all of these guys hide out undercover.

So shut up about other people doing it, please.

ubercat wrote:

Lemuel Gulliver wrote:You'll have to spell out how "war is equity" really slowly for me. This is a novel concept.

I win, me make money, me git girl. I lose, me get ass kicked, me suck cock
with toothless mouth.

War. Equity.

Exactly what equity did the people who went up in smoke at Auschwitz get?

Lemuel Gulliver wrote: And, that's why the civilized among us created and abide by the Geneva Rules, which Hezbollah pisses all over by operating in civilian populations. These are laws, and laws are created to account for nature's inperfections.

I don't understand a word of what ubercat's been saying but. . .

the US and its military and Israel and the IDF are currently, both, in flagrant violation of the "Geneva Rules." Despite all the military and structural superiority. So who's this civilized "us"? The post-rock fans of EA forums?

In addition to illegal state violence, the US has used and sponsored terrorism-proper the world-over. The CIA is nothing if not America's Department of War by Proxy.

I don't understand the us/them binary. If you compare the CIA to Hezbollah, the latter is infinitely more democratic and socially responsible.

Andrew L. wrote:

galanter wrote:
Hezbollah didn't start this a couple weeks ago. They started it years ago and are internationally recognized as an illegal terrorist army.

Awesome, except Hezbollah is also a democratically elected political party with, thanks to 2 weeks of US-backed Israeli bombing, unprecedented support across all sub-sets of the Lebanese populace, not to mention growing support in Saudi Arabia and across the M. East. Hezbollah also provides healthcare and schooling to the poor, dispossessed population of S. Lebanon.

Hezbollah works beyond S. Lebanon in a variety of capacities.
Posting as an fyi, not a defense of their actions. We're all here to learn, si.

Andrew, the "Awesome" had me biting my lip.

itchy mcgoo wrote:Hezbollah works beyond S. Lebanon in a variety of capacities.
Posting as an fyi, not a defense of their actions. We're all here to learn, si.

Cheers. I didn't mean to imply it only operates in S. Lebanon, just that, as I understand it, that is where the bulk of its work is done. And, pre-this shit, where most of its popular support rested.

Andrew L. wrote:I don't understand a word of what ubercat's been saying but. . .

What a relief! Seriously, I thought I was missing something or become the only one to take this as a matter worthy of serious attention.

Andrew L. wrote:So who's this civilized "us"? The post-rock fans of EA forums?

Primarily. But probably not on weekends.

Andrew L. wrote:the US and its military and Israel and the IDF are currently, both, in flagrant violation of the "Geneva Rules." Despite all the military and structural superiority.

I'm no international law expert, and I can't even claim a thorough reading of the Geneva Convention, which I glossed over here, so I can't really say what we may or may not be in violation of. However, if you're suggesting the US and Israel cares as little about human life as Hezbollah and such organizations, I disagree. US and Israeli troops don't use women and children as shields, and that was my main point. This gets back to what I suggested above with my comparison of Hezbollah to a 19th Century political machine. Just like Tammany Hall, say, Hezbollah polices the people, makes sure the heat's turned on, gets people a living wage, makes sure people get to school or a doctor, and in return all they ask for is those peoples' political support. What's wrong with that you say? The problem is that you're free to disagree with Hezbollah's politics, if you're willing to go without any of those services and occassionally put up with a broken knee or raped daughter. And even if you go along with them, you might have a 500 pound bomb coming through your ceiling. These are not the widespead operational tactics of either the US or Israeli regimes.

Andrew L. wrote:In addition to illegal state violence, the US has used and sponsored terrorism-proper the world-over. The CIA is nothing if not America's Department of War by Proxy.

This gets back to my war is really unfair thesis. It's dirty business. I suspect it comes down to something like 'at what point can we not afford to be gentlemen'? It'd be nice if we could just duke it out fair and square-style, but those days are past us.

Andrew L. wrote:I don't understand the us/them binary.

Fair question. I guess what I mean by 'us' are the people who value human life and attempt to do so with our policies. And the EA people. I'm not convinced Hezbollah does truly have concern for the welfare of their people when they run what are effectively military operations out of the basements of peoples' houses. If we didn't, then why do we not save a bunch of money and just use 'dumb' bombs, or use our soldiers as suicide bombers?

And to quickly address Scott's observation, I'd submit that the FBI and undercover cops are undercover among civilians because they are there to police civilians themselves, not fight foreign miltary. The CIA is undercover to fight against what may or may not be regular military. It's a distinction worth making.

Lemuel Gulliver wrote:And to quickly address Scott's observation, I'd submit that the FBI and undercover cops are undercover among civilians because they are there to police civilians themselves, not fight foreign miltary. The CIA is undercover to fight against what may or may not be regular military. It's a distinction worth making.

I agree completely with what you said here, and I did try to separate the in-country and out-of-country. I tried to make it clear that the local cops and FBI would be acting in-country against domestic or foreign bad guys, and the CIA is (or at least *should be*) out-of-country acting against foreign bad guys.

But the overall point of course is that on every level, both locally *and* out of country, the US forces are gonna hide amongst the locals. Only an idiot would not. And also, they have guns and they kill people in one fashion or another.

If anybody wants to say that all these various american forces have the interest of their fellow man at heart (which I find to be likely, for maybe about half of the forces, if even that many) and that Hezbollah does not have the interest of "their peoples" at heart, you can go ahead and say it. You will never make an informed statement about such matters; it is NOT POSSIBLE. Nobody can ever make an informed statement about that without knowing the inner thoughts and intentions of the FBI, CIA, IDF, Hezbollah, etc, *ALL OF THEM*. And you don't. You just plain don't.

So let's just not use that "hiding among civilians" as the explanation for how Hezbollah are the bad guys. Cause it just sounds stupid. Because *EVERYBODY* does it, including whatever side one thinks are the good guys.

Lemuel Gulliver wrote:

ubercat wrote:

Lemuel Gulliver wrote:You'll have to spell out how "war is equity" really slowly for me. This is a novel concept.

I win, me make money, me git girl. I lose, me get ass kicked, me suck cock
with toothless mouth.

War. Equity.

Exactly what equity did the people who went up in smoke at Auschwitz get?

Far less then zero. And the families also. Kinda' the whole point.

Lemuel, what you say about Hezbollah's tactics of coercion and consent sounds very plausible to me. (As a sidenote: this is also, historically, how American capitalism has worked. Sell your labour to someone else (who determines the conditions of your labour), or starve. Join an imperial army to finance your education, etc.)) Meanwhile, the charges of "hiding among civilians" are not necessarily appropriate, according to journalists familiar w/ the organization.

As for the Geneva Convention. Israel's violations are already well-documented on this thread. America's most recent ones would include Abu-Ghraib and Guantanamo, the rapes and murders of Iraqi civilians by US marines, and, most generally, non-compliance with the Geneva Conventions of 1949 and the Hague Regulations of 1907 in regard to the economic assets, resources and reconstruction of Iraq.

Meanwhile, the "duke-it-out fair and square" talk is an appeal to a time that has never existed. Whether of rivalry or conquest, direct or by proxy, imperialist warfare has dominated modern history. This means generals sending out the poor to kill one another.

I guess what I mean by 'us' are the people who value human life and attempt to do so with our policies. And the EA people. I'm not convinced Hezbollah does truly have concern for the welfare of their people when they run what are effectively military operations out of the basements of peoples' houses. If we didn't, then why do we not save a bunch of money and just use 'dumb' bombs, or use our soldiers as suicide bombers?

Look into the demographics of the US military and the soldiers who die for US geopolitical hegemony. Look at the carpet bombing and biological warfare visited on Vietnamese villages, and then look at the demographics of the US soldiers who died there. (The US remains the only nation to have dropped not one, but two hydrogen bombs on a civilian population. I'll take kamikazes and suicide bombers over nuclear warfare, every time.)

Aren't you a grad student, or something? Check out some Chomsky or something. You seem deluded to me. I don't have time to hold anyone's hand through a brief history of American class-war. The US imprisons a greater percentage of its population than any other nation-state on the planet, and a greater proportion of blacks than S. Africa did under Apartheid.

bleh.

From the point of view of today's individual, yes. From the point of view of the long term, almost certainly not. It might be better to lose 100's today disarming Hezbollah than 1000's later when they grow even bigger and stronger.

It takes remarkable indifference to human suffering to explain away the deaths of what is fast approaching a thousand dead Lebanese as a precaution against Hezbollah's possible destruction of more people.

Seriously, who is served by this war, Israel, Lebannon, or Iran?

I can see why you believe that Iran, by which I assume you mean the Iranian government while under the leadership of Islamic radicals, will be served by what's going on in Lebanon if you believe that the "distraction" in Lebanon is the only or even the best way that Iran can develop nuclear weapons quickly and that possession of the bomb will somehow turn Iran bloodthirsty. The last few decades have so far shown that states with nuclear weapons exercise restraint with those weapons rather than excess. Even the one state that has actually used them hasn't since. The fact of the matter in any case is that we shouldn't allow the destruction of Lebanon on the presumption of what the Iranian government will do with the bomb. It's anybody's guess, and they will develop it sooner or later. And yes, I can agree with the neocons that when countries agree not to use weapons it's certainly no guarantee that they won't sell them to other countries for other wars. Who wouldn't agree with this? It's remarkable to think that both sides in the second world war showed such restraint in using the chemical weapons of the first world war, until you realize how many both sides afterwards sold to people like Saddam Hussein.

If by "Iran" you mean the Iranian people, then you're even further off course in thinking they'll be served by the public relations Israel is doing for Hezbollah. The far from extreme Time magazine did a story this past week on the indifference of ordinary Iranians to events in Lebanon. In the last two weeks the Iranian government has of course pushed for a boycott of all things American, but Iranian consumers are ignoring it. If anything, the mainstream Iranians the Time correspondent came across reveal, with some ethnic superiority, their displeasure of Arabs and Arab problems -- only a few dozen Iranians have so far pledged their lives to Hezbollah (although the number is sure to grow). As someone on here as said, Iran is on the road to recovery. That's a long road after fifty years of abuse by the British, the Americans (under the guidance of men of another generation with devastatingly bad foresight like Kermit Roosevelt, Jr.), the Shah, and radical Muslims.

God bless you and God damn you, Electrical Audio website. i have to get back to my life. To the defenders of Israel's latest actions on here (I am assuming there is more than one), pull out pen and paper and draw two columns, one labeled Colonial Successes, the other Colonial Failures. I think you will quickly find that only where rampant disease and genocidal tendencies destroyed the indigenous populations has colonialism worked in the long run for the colonizer. In any case you'll need at least a second sheet for the failures column. Israel admittedly fits in as a strange sort of colonizer. Maybe Israelis today are more like the descendants of the white Dutch and British colonizers in South Africa at the end of the twentieth century. Maybe then there should be a third column for colonial projects that opted for truth and reconciliation. The shortest column of all, for sure, but the only hopeful place in the long-term for Israel and the surrounding Arab world.