Its funny how no one seems to have any opinions on the murder in Lebanon yesterday.
Its funny how no one seems to have any opinions on the murder in Lebanon yesterday.
Maybe thats because it was the Syrians this time and not the Israelis, interesting though.
"We are never so happy, never so unhappy, as we imagine"
Le Rochefoucauld.
"A smack in the face settles all arguments, then you can move on kid."
My dad 1986.
Le Rochefoucauld.
"A smack in the face settles all arguments, then you can move on kid."
My dad 1986.
Its funny how no one seems to have any opinions on the murder in Lebanon yesterday.
Maybe it's because
At least 35 Lebanese politicians, clerics and journalists have been struck down by assassins in Lebanon's 63 years of independence.
source
At least 35 Lebanese politicians, clerics and journalists have been struck down by assassins in Lebanon's 63 years of independence.
source
Its funny how no one seems to have any opinions on the murder in Lebanon yesterday.
Galbally;468197 wrote: Maybe thats because it was the Syrians this time and not the Israelis, interesting though.
Do you mean, since Syria did it because they want control of Lebanon so they can combine forces against Israel???
Do you mean, since Syria did it because they want control of Lebanon so they can combine forces against Israel???
Schooling results in matriculation. Education is a process that changes the learner.
Its funny how no one seems to have any opinions on the murder in Lebanon yesterday.
koan;468209 wrote: Maybe it's because
At least 35 Lebanese politicians, clerics and journalists have been struck down by assassins in Lebanon's 63 years of independence.
source
I didn't mean the Lebabese themselves, they are understanable angry, or nervous depending on who they are. I was talking more about us lot here, this is just as sinister as what the Israelis often get up to, (with the shelling in the West Bank being that latest exampe of Iraeli unacceptable treatment of Palestianians,) but it doesn't seem to vex people as much for some reason.
At least 35 Lebanese politicians, clerics and journalists have been struck down by assassins in Lebanon's 63 years of independence.
source
I didn't mean the Lebabese themselves, they are understanable angry, or nervous depending on who they are. I was talking more about us lot here, this is just as sinister as what the Israelis often get up to, (with the shelling in the West Bank being that latest exampe of Iraeli unacceptable treatment of Palestianians,) but it doesn't seem to vex people as much for some reason.
"We are never so happy, never so unhappy, as we imagine"
Le Rochefoucauld.
"A smack in the face settles all arguments, then you can move on kid."
My dad 1986.
Le Rochefoucauld.
"A smack in the face settles all arguments, then you can move on kid."
My dad 1986.
Its funny how no one seems to have any opinions on the murder in Lebanon yesterday.
Clint;468219 wrote: Do you mean, since Syria did it because they want control of Lebanon so they can combine forces against Israel???
I'm not sure whether Syria realistically thinks its ever going to really "get" Israel, but they have been used to running Lebannon as a little fiefdom for years and a usefu proxy against Israel n their ongoing dispute about the Golan Heights so I would say its fairly evident that an unstable lebannon suits Syria very nicely, specially now as they are required to help in Iraq and are going to be able to get away with a lot more of this stuff.
I'm not sure whether Syria realistically thinks its ever going to really "get" Israel, but they have been used to running Lebannon as a little fiefdom for years and a usefu proxy against Israel n their ongoing dispute about the Golan Heights so I would say its fairly evident that an unstable lebannon suits Syria very nicely, specially now as they are required to help in Iraq and are going to be able to get away with a lot more of this stuff.
"We are never so happy, never so unhappy, as we imagine"
Le Rochefoucauld.
"A smack in the face settles all arguments, then you can move on kid."
My dad 1986.
Le Rochefoucauld.
"A smack in the face settles all arguments, then you can move on kid."
My dad 1986.
Its funny how no one seems to have any opinions on the murder in Lebanon yesterday.
I've just completed a script over the last few days and other threads have occupied my attention. I have noticed both this incident and the assassinated spy and had shoved to the back of my mind for later thought.
I'll consider it now.
I'll consider it now.
Its funny how no one seems to have any opinions on the murder in Lebanon yesterday.
As first thoughts:
I'm waiting to see what evidence is compiled in both cases.
I've got this split feeling about assassinations in general because they potentially take out one person instead of hundreds. But they are carried out without trial so they are unjust.
I'd like to hear your opinion Galbally.
I'm waiting to see what evidence is compiled in both cases.
I've got this split feeling about assassinations in general because they potentially take out one person instead of hundreds. But they are carried out without trial so they are unjust.
I'd like to hear your opinion Galbally.
Its funny how no one seems to have any opinions on the murder in Lebanon yesterday.
In the matter of assassination in general I found this to be interesting:
While assassination for military purposes has long been espoused — Sun Tzu argued for such in The Art of War, as did Machiavelli in his The Prince — in medieval times, an army and even a nation might be based upon and around a particularly strong, canny or charismatic leader, whose loss could paralyze the ability of both to make war. However, in modern warfare a soldier's mindset is generally considered to surround ideals far more than specific leaders. Theoretically, while the death of a soldier's leader definitely has a detrimental effect on morale, the cause for which they fight is at times strong enough to push through the loss of leadership.
It indicates that any moral attempt to prevent larger scale deaths is not assured of success. In the end, even if the decision to attempt assassination is given a logical set of assumptions it can not be supported as it would then justify all assassinations.
As to why Israel is more criticised for assassination, I would look to the numbers. When Israel made it a policy they declared it an acceptable form of war. By their own standards.
That does not mean it is right and, after a good think through, I have to lean towards the part of me that says it is unacceptable under any circumstances. By any party. I wish that peoples who say they are being oppressed would cease to use the same methods as their oppressors. It would gain them a lot more sympathy.
Then comes the argument as to who started it. It goes well beyond the establishment of Israel. Assassination has been used as a political weapon for a long time. The Art of War even recommends it.
While assassination for military purposes has long been espoused — Sun Tzu argued for such in The Art of War, as did Machiavelli in his The Prince — in medieval times, an army and even a nation might be based upon and around a particularly strong, canny or charismatic leader, whose loss could paralyze the ability of both to make war. However, in modern warfare a soldier's mindset is generally considered to surround ideals far more than specific leaders. Theoretically, while the death of a soldier's leader definitely has a detrimental effect on morale, the cause for which they fight is at times strong enough to push through the loss of leadership.
It indicates that any moral attempt to prevent larger scale deaths is not assured of success. In the end, even if the decision to attempt assassination is given a logical set of assumptions it can not be supported as it would then justify all assassinations.
As to why Israel is more criticised for assassination, I would look to the numbers. When Israel made it a policy they declared it an acceptable form of war. By their own standards.
That does not mean it is right and, after a good think through, I have to lean towards the part of me that says it is unacceptable under any circumstances. By any party. I wish that peoples who say they are being oppressed would cease to use the same methods as their oppressors. It would gain them a lot more sympathy.
Then comes the argument as to who started it. It goes well beyond the establishment of Israel. Assassination has been used as a political weapon for a long time. The Art of War even recommends it.
Its funny how no one seems to have any opinions on the murder in Lebanon yesterday.
Galbally;468197 wrote: Maybe thats because it was the Syrians this time and not the Israelis, interesting though.
Also perhaps because nobody knows for sure it was syria. Just because you think it was syria and would kike it to be does not mean it was. Thanks to israel Lebanon as already destabilised and hezbollah looked about ready to try taking over the government. Assassinating a christian leader would not be a smart move.
In any case the west is not in a position to claim the moral high ground over anything now is it?
Also perhaps because nobody knows for sure it was syria. Just because you think it was syria and would kike it to be does not mean it was. Thanks to israel Lebanon as already destabilised and hezbollah looked about ready to try taking over the government. Assassinating a christian leader would not be a smart move.
In any case the west is not in a position to claim the moral high ground over anything now is it?
Its funny how no one seems to have any opinions on the murder in Lebanon yesterday.
koan;468262 wrote: As first thoughts:
I'm waiting to see what evidence is compiled in both cases.
I've got this split feeling about assassinations in general because they potentially take out one person instead of hundreds. But they are carried out without trial so they are unjust.
I'd like to hear your opinion Galbally.
Obviously all these things have to be taken in the context of the situation of what is generally going on, and neither Syria or Israel are alone in assasinating people they don't like, quite a few IRA operatives were assassinated during the troubles as were British agents, and loyalists, it was interesting that the U.S. congress actually banned assination as an acceptable policy in the 1970s and have had to rethink that whole idea obviously. This kinda links into the Killing of the Russian ex-KGB man as well, my point was I suppose that I was trying to point out that the moral outrage assosciated with when Israel or the U.S. do nasty things seems to be lacking in other cases, so I suppose I am talking about anti-Israel and anti-american sentiments, more than about assassination itself as all governemnts have gotten up to these sorts of things in the past and still do, and I presume will continue to do so.
In general moral terms of course extra-judical killings or assinations are not justifyable, but I guess the best you can do is to try and control the actions of your own governent as best as possible through political and legal means to keep as much of a reign on those in power as you can.
I'm waiting to see what evidence is compiled in both cases.
I've got this split feeling about assassinations in general because they potentially take out one person instead of hundreds. But they are carried out without trial so they are unjust.
I'd like to hear your opinion Galbally.
Obviously all these things have to be taken in the context of the situation of what is generally going on, and neither Syria or Israel are alone in assasinating people they don't like, quite a few IRA operatives were assassinated during the troubles as were British agents, and loyalists, it was interesting that the U.S. congress actually banned assination as an acceptable policy in the 1970s and have had to rethink that whole idea obviously. This kinda links into the Killing of the Russian ex-KGB man as well, my point was I suppose that I was trying to point out that the moral outrage assosciated with when Israel or the U.S. do nasty things seems to be lacking in other cases, so I suppose I am talking about anti-Israel and anti-american sentiments, more than about assassination itself as all governemnts have gotten up to these sorts of things in the past and still do, and I presume will continue to do so.
In general moral terms of course extra-judical killings or assinations are not justifyable, but I guess the best you can do is to try and control the actions of your own governent as best as possible through political and legal means to keep as much of a reign on those in power as you can.
"We are never so happy, never so unhappy, as we imagine"
Le Rochefoucauld.
"A smack in the face settles all arguments, then you can move on kid."
My dad 1986.
Le Rochefoucauld.
"A smack in the face settles all arguments, then you can move on kid."
My dad 1986.
Its funny how no one seems to have any opinions on the murder in Lebanon yesterday.
koan;468304 wrote: In the matter of assassination in general I found this to be interesting:
While assassination for military purposes has long been espoused — Sun Tzu argued for such in The Art of War, as did Machiavelli in his The Prince — in medieval times, an army and even a nation might be based upon and around a particularly strong, canny or charismatic leader, whose loss could paralyze the ability of both to make war. However, in modern warfare a soldier's mindset is generally considered to surround ideals far more than specific leaders. Theoretically, while the death of a soldier's leader definitely has a detrimental effect on morale, the cause for which they fight is at times strong enough to push through the loss of leadership.
It indicates that any moral attempt to prevent larger scale deaths is not assured of success. In the end, even if the decision to attempt assassination is given a logical set of assumptions it can not be supported as it would then justify all assassinations.
As to why Israel is more criticised for assassination, I would look to the numbers. When Israel made it a policy they declared it an acceptable form of war. By their own standards.
That does not mean it is right and, after a good think through, I have to lean towards the part of me that says it is unacceptable under any circumstances. By any party. I wish that peoples who say they are being oppressed would cease to use the same methods as their oppressors. It would gain them a lot more sympathy.
Then comes the argument as to who started it. It goes well beyond the establishment of Israel. Assassination has been used as a political weapon for a long time. The Art of War even recommends it.
I agree, from a purely practical standpoint a simple assasination is a far better option that say having to destroy a country to get an enemy, for example if Saddam Hussein had simply been assasinated at some point in the 1990s a lot more Iraqis would probably still be alive today and we wouldn't have that crazy war going on, then again, maybe the resulting turmoil would still have resulted in a terrible civil war. I think we are getting into the realm though where our morality is much more subjective than we usualy care to think, and that most people are usually quite comfortable with the idea of killing people as long as it produces a result that they desire, this is where most Christians seem to loose track of one of the more radical messages of Christianity in that the teachings of Jesus were to turn the other cheek and refute the use of violence in any (any) circumstances, I don't share that view but then I'm not an avowed Christian moralist, or even a pacifist, though I do think that the message is quite a powerful and profound one and is usually overlooked.
While assassination for military purposes has long been espoused — Sun Tzu argued for such in The Art of War, as did Machiavelli in his The Prince — in medieval times, an army and even a nation might be based upon and around a particularly strong, canny or charismatic leader, whose loss could paralyze the ability of both to make war. However, in modern warfare a soldier's mindset is generally considered to surround ideals far more than specific leaders. Theoretically, while the death of a soldier's leader definitely has a detrimental effect on morale, the cause for which they fight is at times strong enough to push through the loss of leadership.
It indicates that any moral attempt to prevent larger scale deaths is not assured of success. In the end, even if the decision to attempt assassination is given a logical set of assumptions it can not be supported as it would then justify all assassinations.
As to why Israel is more criticised for assassination, I would look to the numbers. When Israel made it a policy they declared it an acceptable form of war. By their own standards.
That does not mean it is right and, after a good think through, I have to lean towards the part of me that says it is unacceptable under any circumstances. By any party. I wish that peoples who say they are being oppressed would cease to use the same methods as their oppressors. It would gain them a lot more sympathy.
Then comes the argument as to who started it. It goes well beyond the establishment of Israel. Assassination has been used as a political weapon for a long time. The Art of War even recommends it.
I agree, from a purely practical standpoint a simple assasination is a far better option that say having to destroy a country to get an enemy, for example if Saddam Hussein had simply been assasinated at some point in the 1990s a lot more Iraqis would probably still be alive today and we wouldn't have that crazy war going on, then again, maybe the resulting turmoil would still have resulted in a terrible civil war. I think we are getting into the realm though where our morality is much more subjective than we usualy care to think, and that most people are usually quite comfortable with the idea of killing people as long as it produces a result that they desire, this is where most Christians seem to loose track of one of the more radical messages of Christianity in that the teachings of Jesus were to turn the other cheek and refute the use of violence in any (any) circumstances, I don't share that view but then I'm not an avowed Christian moralist, or even a pacifist, though I do think that the message is quite a powerful and profound one and is usually overlooked.
"We are never so happy, never so unhappy, as we imagine"
Le Rochefoucauld.
"A smack in the face settles all arguments, then you can move on kid."
My dad 1986.
Le Rochefoucauld.
"A smack in the face settles all arguments, then you can move on kid."
My dad 1986.
Its funny how no one seems to have any opinions on the murder in Lebanon yesterday.
gmc;468541 wrote: Also perhaps because nobody knows for sure it was syria. Just because you think it was syria and would kike it to be does not mean it was. Thanks to israel Lebanon as already destabilised and hezbollah looked about ready to try taking over the government. Assassinating a christian leader would not be a smart move.
In any case the west is not in a position to claim the moral high ground over anything now is it?
No I am not sure it was "syria" that conducted this operation, though its highly likely, and its a certainty that the syrian security forces were involved in mudering the ex-prime minister of Lebanon last year. However, you mistake my intentions if you think that I would "like" it to be Syria that did this, I am not particularly anti-Syrian no more than I am particularly anti-Israeli, and I am certainly not claiming the moral high ground about anything, which as anyone knows is not a place where any national governemnt can claim to be anywhere in the world. I suppose my opinion is that this whole situation in the Middle East is basically blamed on Israel and that particular propaganda war has been won by the Arab states since the early 80s when Israel invaded Lebannon, and to be fair the Israelis have brought a lot of that on themselves by their actions, but they are by no means the only state responsible for the pretty awful state of that region of the world, and I don't share many Western people's instinctive dislike for Israel, though I certainly don't condone the policies that have used against the Palestianians by Israel either. It just seems that for some reason people in our part of the world have a large amount of animus against Israel, which I don't really share.
In any case the west is not in a position to claim the moral high ground over anything now is it?
No I am not sure it was "syria" that conducted this operation, though its highly likely, and its a certainty that the syrian security forces were involved in mudering the ex-prime minister of Lebanon last year. However, you mistake my intentions if you think that I would "like" it to be Syria that did this, I am not particularly anti-Syrian no more than I am particularly anti-Israeli, and I am certainly not claiming the moral high ground about anything, which as anyone knows is not a place where any national governemnt can claim to be anywhere in the world. I suppose my opinion is that this whole situation in the Middle East is basically blamed on Israel and that particular propaganda war has been won by the Arab states since the early 80s when Israel invaded Lebannon, and to be fair the Israelis have brought a lot of that on themselves by their actions, but they are by no means the only state responsible for the pretty awful state of that region of the world, and I don't share many Western people's instinctive dislike for Israel, though I certainly don't condone the policies that have used against the Palestianians by Israel either. It just seems that for some reason people in our part of the world have a large amount of animus against Israel, which I don't really share.
"We are never so happy, never so unhappy, as we imagine"
Le Rochefoucauld.
"A smack in the face settles all arguments, then you can move on kid."
My dad 1986.
Le Rochefoucauld.
"A smack in the face settles all arguments, then you can move on kid."
My dad 1986.