Ed Morrisey, writing at The Examiner, has a great companion piece to the post below about how difficult it is fighting the war on terror while being held to a different standard than that of our enemies and Jay’s post about the difference between Israel and Hezbollah.
We want to see civilians spared the horrors of war, and we push combatants to take all possible steps to achieve that end. The Geneva Conventions have that explicit mandate, and the world should remain constantly — and consistently — vigilant.
Unfortunately, the global community has failed miserably at this task, and this war not only highlights that failure, but springs from it. While the world holds Israel to this standard, things become curiously silent when it’s time to hold Hezbollah responsible for its conduct of war. Hardly a word has escaped from the U.N. or Europe on the 2,500 missiles that have rained down upon Israeli civilians, deliberately targeted by Hezbollah. Those attacks have displaced more than 300,000 civilians, a fact the global community and the mainstream media ignore.
Those who argue that Israel has occasionally violated the Geneva Conventions in its attacks casually ignore the blatant violations of Hezbollah, whose combatants wear no uniform, deliberately hide in civilian populations and fire weapons from residential areas. Hezbollah conducts none of its operations within the rules of war — and yet world leaders and the media never mention it.
Why? Because no one expects terrorists to follow the rules. This is the soft nihilism of low expectations.Read it all.
Huh… sorry, USMC, that one slipped past me.
I’m normally loath to use to use the legal model in the war on terror, but in this case I’d have to apply the “felony homicide” principle: if someone willingly joins a known terrorist group that has the stated purpose of committing acts of terror, then yes, they should be held liable even if they didn’t commit it themselves. Just like if someone is shot and killed in a bank robbery, all the gang is guilty — even the getaway driver who didn’t even have a gun.
I very well could be wrong, and I’m sure I’ll get told by a few dozen that disagree with me, but that’s my first, instinctual thought. It’s the combination of intent, free choice, and accepting of consequences that pulls it all together for me.
Feel free to chime in yourself, Mac, if you are so inclined.
J.
I must have missed Lee’s brilliant response to the question earlier about John Dingell (although it could have just as easily been about countless other spineless Dems).
Lee, since I missed it, can you tell us again how the Dems can take the high road given the comments by your leaders such as Dingell?
Bush hasn’t caved, that’s your sanity you see caving.
I admire the Israelis for continuing their fighting in the face of such sheer hatred from the “world community” – you know, the same “world community” that the elitist Left in this nation demand we consult before *ever* defending American interests.
USMC Pilot,
Jay latched onto what I think is the essence of your question. My response is more legalistic, but I’m sure this makes no difference to friends and family of anyone killed by terrorists or the military of a sovreign nation.
Murder is not the same as killing. Murder is a crime, but killing can be justified for reasons of self-defense or defense of your country. If a member of a criminal gang commits murder in the commission of a crime, then all the accomplices are guilty of murder under the law. I say accomplices rather then member because someone who belongs to a gang, but doesn’t participate in the crime, maybe because they are in jail, is usually not held responsible for that particular crime.
If terrorism is a criminal action, then any act of killing they commit is murder and all the accomplices are just as guilty as the member or members who commit the act or acts of murder.
For killings in a military action to not be considered murder, the military members must be lawful combatants as defined by international treaty, law or tradition. Generally, to be a lawful combatant you have to be a member of a military that is lawfully constituted and directed by a sovereign nation. That’s not always the case, such as in our own revolutionary war, and that’s were some find room for groups like Hezbollah to fit in. The real test seems to be the intent as Jay mentioned in his comment.
mantis says “You were clearly referring to Lieberman as Congressional Democrats “token Jew”. Nice try at revising that to pretend you are actually familiar with the members of Congress, but it just doesn’t wash.”
MoveOn can endorse an anti-war platform and split the party, loose the Jewish bloc vote, and, consequently, loose seats in Congress. Does that register? Oh, and nobody gives a rat’s ass about how many members of Congress I know. But go Google “Lieberman token Jew” and count the hits. I know the intent of my comment; so can you address MoveOn’s blunder? Didn’t think so.
“QUESTION –
If a member/s of a terrorist group commits an act of murder, is the entire group guilty, or just the ones who do the killing?”
If a person or group wants to kill you, you should assume them all to be guilty before you get killed. It’s that survival instinct at the base of our brain stem … that liberals don’t have.
MoveOn can endorse an anti-war platform and split the party, loose the Jewish bloc vote, and, consequently, loose seats in Congress. Does that register?
Let’s see if this gets through, I understand what you are saying. I think you are wrong. Do you really believe that because MoveOn endorses another Democrat in the Connecticut Senate race the majority of American Jews will no longer vote for Democrats? Or, possibly more realistically, that that majority will shrink but still stay a majority? Or even more realistically, that just the Connecticut Jewish population will either vote for Lieberman as an independent or sit the vote out rather than vote against the Jewish candidate?
I think a race between an independent Lieberman and Lamont would certainly split the Jewish vote, and pretty much the rest of votes, in Connecticut. The effect this will have on the Jewish vote nationwide? Zilch.
I’ll bet you that MoveOn’s endorsement of Lamont at most will have a negligible effect on the Jewish vote, certainly not enough to swing any Congressional races. Thus I don’t believe it is a blunder at all, and have addressed it.
What I’m curious about is why you seem to believe it is somehow wrong to have a primary challenge, or is just because the central issue to this challenge is support for Bush’s foreign policy? Would you be up in arms if a Republican challenged and entrenched Senator in the primary, say like Specter or Chafee, primarily on an issue such as immigration or Iraq? Do you believe such a challenge would split the Republican party, turn certain voting blocs towards the Democrats, and thus lose seats in Congress? Finally, and I’m just curious, this in no way is meant to invalidate your opinion, but do you even know any Jews? You don’t seem to.
I love that question! Mine is not an educated answer. I am not a lawyer or much up on military rules, but I will just speak from common sense. the first thing that occured to me was of conspiracy. It seems to me that joining a terrorist organization, especially one on record advocating murder of innocent life, is joining in a conspiracy to commit murder. I think I will post this one on the front page.
mantis,
Consider: Lieberman supports the war in Iraq and Israel, I believe, is attacking Hezbollah to draw Islam’s attention away from the U.S.-Iraqi conflict. If the U.S. withdraws from Iraq, Israel is doomed.
WSJ article: “[Reid and Schumer] urged leaders of MoveOn … not to oppose Lieberman’s primary race. The lawmakers warned that the group’s opposition could jeopardize a safe seat vital to a Senate takeover.” MoveOn snubbed them and endorsed anti-war candidate Lamont anyway.
To answer your questions: I certainly support primary challenges on either side of the aisle. That’s democracy hard at work and that is why MoveOn, with 3.2 million members and a six-fold increase from five years ago according to the WSJ article, can influence this critical primary and unseat Ol’ Joe Lieberman, loose the shot at a Senate majority, and alienate voting Jews all over the U.S. that recognize Democrats don’t support Israel if they elect and/or endorse a pull-out of Iraq lawmaker and/or agenda.
Yes, I know lots of Jews, some of whom are close friends, sex partners, and business associates. Is this another test about who I know? Trust me, nobody here cares. Now, mantis, do you have a life? Tell the truth.
Consider: Lieberman supports the war in Iraq and Israel, I believe, is attacking Hezbollah to draw Islam’s attention away from the U.S.-Iraqi conflict. If the U.S. withdraws from Iraq, Israel is doomed.
So many things wrong with this statement. First, Israel attacked Hezbollah to draw attention away from Iraq? What makes you believe this? Do you really believe that Israel’s actions have less to do with their ongoing conflict with Hezbollah terrorists and more to do with some vague Iraq strategy? And what does it mean to draw Islam’s attention away from Iraq? Where exactly is “Islam’s” attention located? Have you not noticed that the fighting in Iraq has turned into a sectarian civil war? Do you think that bombing Lebanon will for some reason cause Iran to no longer support Iraqi Shia? Why?
The other problem is your assertion that withdrawing from Iraq dooms Israel. How do you figure? Please fill out the rest of the chain of events that starts with withdrawal from Iraq and ends with Israel’s “doom”. Btw no Democrat that I’ve heard has said we should pull all of our troops from Iraq and leave them to self-destruct (there are various plans to remain in the north, bring in international peacekeeping forces, etc).
alienate voting Jews all over the U.S. that recognize Democrats don’t support Israel if they elect and/or endorse a pull-out of Iraq lawmaker and/or agenda.
This is what confuses me and is why I asked if you know any Jews. First of all, American Jews oppose the Iraq war, even moreso than the general population. They have from the beginning. What makes you think that a loss for Lieberman equals not only a vote against Israel (Iraq=Israel?), but that this sentiment will spread nationwide for the midterms? Internal polling shows support among Connecticut Jews to be 50-41, for Lamont!
If the majority of Connecticut Jews, who have voted for Lieberman consistently, now support his Democrat opponent, how the hell do you figure that a) they think Iraq=Israel? b) they support the Iraq war, and c) voting for Lamont will alienate them from, well, themselves?
Anyway, I don’t believe you know many Jews because you apparently think they overwhelmingly support the Iraq war, and you think they will turn on Democrats for trying to withdraw from that war. Here’s the truth: The majority of American Jews are Democrats, and the majority of American Jews oppose the Iraq war. You hypothesis is based on so many false premises it simply falls apart.
And yes, I certainly have a life, not that it’s relevant.
mantis,
Let me state emphatically that I support Israel. There’s plenty of sand out there for displaced Palestinians.
I didn’t say most Jews aren’t Democrats and against the Iraqi conflict. Don’t infer to confuse, mantis. You fail to understand that Islam is primarily focused on erradicating Israel. Ask a native Iraqi, Middle Eastern Muslim, or Jew why Islam hates the U.S. and the answer will nearly always be our support of Israel. Just try it.
Do you think the new Israeli leadership is not watching the U.S.-Iraqi conflict and strategizing from that persepctive? They are a country surrounded by combatents in a long struggle for survival and will do what they must to assist the U.S. trying to assist them through the establishment of a rational democracy at the heart of the region (Iraq!). Consider: Why did the U.S. enter into WWII and then enforce the creation of Israel? Was there any other reason to enter this WW by the U.S.? Was it to increase the import of cuckoo clocks from the Black Forest and bankrupt England? No. Hitler killed Jews and we came to Europe and erradicated him like we are erradicating Saddam and his kind. Same situation; different generation of stand-up Americans. World police? Maybe.
Jews in Conn voting for Lamont is only the tip of a big mistake brought to the Dems by radical and arrogant MoveOn.org. I doubt powerful Jews influencing U.S. foreign policy like Rupert Murdoch spend much time reading the NYT or watching CNN-CBS-ABC …. Finally, I’m sorry to hear your life is not relevant … were you aborted with a vacuum by your beloved political party? Ouch.
mantis,
Btw no Democrat that I’ve heard has said we should pull all of our troops from Iraq and leave them to self-destruct (there are various plans to remain in the north, bring in international peacekeeping forces, etc).
—————————————————
mantis is here to spin for the Dem. Finally he slipped it out even though he wasn’t honest enough to admit it.
Anyway, more intellectually honest Dem could see through the dishonesty of the Dems
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/07/27/AR2006072701222.html
Pander and Run
By Peter Beinart
Friday, July 28, 2006; Page A25
…
It is that Americans think Democrats stand for nothing, that they have no principles beyond political expedience. And given the party’s behavior over the past several months, it is not hard to understand why
Wow, you just go off the deep end, don’t you? We fought in WWII because Hitler killed Jews? Are you serious? Do you know any history whatsoever? Do you even know what happened on 12/7/41? Do you realize this country was rabidly anti-semitic before and during WWII? That in 1938 a large majority of people in this country felt that Jews “are different and should be restricted” or deported outright?
And yes I know why many in the Middle East hate the US. What the hell this has to do with Lieberman or the Jewish vote in the upcoming midterms I don’t know, and you seem to have abandoned any attempt to explain it. Now apparently you believe that Rupert Murdoch will cause your predicted split in the Democratic party, costing seats in Congress. Very strange.
Just admit you don’t have a clue what you’re talking about and we’ll be done, k? Your grasp of 20th century history, our current Congress, and American voting trends is pathetic. But you just keep on ignoring my refutations and avoiding my questions, changing the subject to another you are woefully ignorant about. Just stop, you’re embarrassing yourself.
Btw I’m not a member of the Democratic Party, I didn’t vote for John Kerry, I don’t give money to MoveOn or the Democrats, and they certainly are not “beloved” by me. I consider them for the most part bumbling and stupid, but less dangerous than the stupid bumblers currently in power.
Btw I’m not a member of the Democratic Party, I didn’t vote for John Kerry, I don’t give money to MoveOn or the Democrats, and they certainly are not “beloved” by me. I consider them for the most part bumbling and stupid, but less dangerous than the stupid bumblers currently in power.
————————————————–
More intellectually honest liberal disagree with this assessment.
Mantis,
Just admit you don’t have a clue what you’re talking about and we’ll be done, k? Your grasp of 20th century history, our current Congress, and American voting trends is pathetic. But you just keep on ignoring my refutations and avoiding my questions, changing the subject to another you are woefully ignorant about. Just stop, you’re embarrassing yourself.
————————————————
Simply have to resort to personal insults to score cheap point. You are trying to change the subject to personal acquaintance with Jews in order to score cheap point again. The bottom line is that
an intellectually honest person would see that this move against Lieberman will not help the Dems with the Jewish community in the very least. If you think this is a good move for the Dems wrt the Jewish community, then you are delusional.
mantis,
If you wollow between our two-party system, I cannot reason with you. WWII was a complex affair with motives beyond a period Gallop Poll of mixed sentiment toward Jews in the U.S. The arguments I put forth regarding WWII history are not commonly found in Roosevelt bios taken from high school history books that coddle democrats. Sorry, Einstein. Hey, that reminds me, did you know intellectual Jews like Einstein fled German to the U.S. leading up to the war and that Einstein famously warned Roosevelt about Germany’s development of DA BOMB? History is fun: try it. By the way, reactionary ambivalence is a liberal hallmark. Does that help? If not, piss off.
If you wollow between our two-party system, I cannot reason with you.
You can’t reason with anyone, regardless of party affiliation, as you are unreasonable yourself. I do find it humorous that you believe anyone who doesn’t tow the line of a political party is unreasonable. I’ve found the opposite to be true, you represent more evidence to support that.
WWII was a complex affair with motives beyond a period Gallop Poll of mixed sentiment toward Jews in the U.S.
Well, I’m glad you recognize that WWII was complex. Now back up your assertion that we entered the war not to save Europe or because we were attacked or any other myriad reasons, but because we wanted to save European Jews (even though we actively blocked them from seeking refuge here. Look it up, history is fun. Start with Breckinridge Long, Roosevelt’s Sec. of State).
The arguments I put forth regarding WWII history are not commonly found in Roosevelt bios taken from high school history books that coddle democrats.
The argument you put forth was entirely created in your mind, or can you present anything to back it up?
Hey, that reminds me, did you know intellectual Jews like Einstein fled German to the U.S. leading up to the war and that Einstein famously warned Roosevelt about Germany’s development of DA BOMB?
Einstein was living here and teaching at Princeton in 1932. He did not have to flee Germany. History is fun, remember? And yes I’m very aware of Einstein’s letter to Roosevelt. How could all of this possibly pertain to our discussion?
History is fun: try it.
You obviously haven’t had too much of that particular fun.
By the way, reactionary ambivalence is a liberal hallmark.
I’m not ambivalent. I know what I believe, it just doesn’t match the Republicans or the Democrats. What’s wrong with that? Btw, constantly changing the subject and bringing up irrelevant topics is a hallmark of people who don’t know what the hell they’re talking about and can’t argue for shit.
If not, piss off.
No problem. This is pointless anyway, although I’m interested in what non sequitur you’ll come up with next.
mantis,
Like Lee, you get flustered and just refute everything I say as I attempt to address all your add-on accusations. Impossible looser. It’s easy to be neutral and avoid life.
/ignore off
No Red Dog – I ignore everything you say (except this) because you are a proven idiot, and I don’t waste my time with idiots….
/resume ignore
Like Lee, you get flustered and just refute everything I say as I attempt to address all your add-on accusations. Impossible looser. It’s easy to be neutral and avoid life.
The only thing I’ve accused you of is ignorance, which you have in spades. You haven’t addressed any of my refutations (tacit acknowledgement of their veracity), or answered any of my questions. It may be easy to be neutral (I’m not) and avoid life, but ignorance is bliss, and you must be pretty damned blissful!
mantis: “I’m not ambivalent. I know what I believe, it just doesn’t match the Republicans or the Democrats. What’s wrong with that?”
mantis’ evil twin: “It may be easy to be neutral (I’m not) and avoid life”
So come on out and say what you believe instead of calling me names, mystery man. Are you embarassed or just above it all?
At least Lee admits he wanted to nuke Islam to get Osama. Now the world can giggle at his ‘stance’ and move along.
Foggy bottoms: So come on out and say what you believe instead of calling me names, mystery man.
Foggy bottoms evil twin: Impossible looser.(sic)
I know it may be tough for you to comprehend, but one can disagree with both political parties and still not be neutral. I have opinions that are conservative, I have opinions that are liberal. I’ll vote for the best candidate for an office, regardless of his/her party affiliation, or lack thereof. That I don’t ally myself with either party does not mean I don’t take a position on a particular issue.
Are you embarassed(sic) or just above it all?
I’m not embarrassed by my opinions; if I were would I bother commenting on blogs? If you were to ask me my stance on a particular topic instead of insisting I ally myself with a political party, I would tell you. Too bad your busy avoiding my questions and refutations by introducing non sequiturs rather than dealing with substantive issues.
At least Lee admits he wanted to nuke Islam to get Osama. Now the world can giggle at his ‘stance’ and move along.
Where exactly is this “Islam” that you say Lee wants to nuke? I can’t find it on the map. For the record I don’t think we should nuke the mysterious geographic location of “Islam”. There, you’ve got my stance, and I’ll stick by it.
I know it may be tough for you to comprehend, but one can disagree with both political parties and still not be neutral.
————————————————
Mantis is not honest enough to admit who he is.
That is the problem with leftist, who pretends to be independent. I looked at Mantis ‘s actions (in this case, his writing) and not his claims since we know that action is what counts.
Mantis claimed not to be here to spin for the UN or the dems. Yet he is doing exactly. Look at the words he used (stupid beyond comprehension, idiots ….) to describe people he disagree with. Yet I didn’t see him use those words wrt the UN for example. I called him on the Dems, then he changed it with a cheap qualifier that he considered the Dems less dangerous than the current bubbling fool in the white house. The people who sucks up to the corrupt and useless UN are “stupid beyond comprehension” and the enablers of more terrorist atrocities using his own terminology.
Mantis is a typical liberal independent who is not honest enough to admit who he is. Mantis is more clever than Lee for sure, but Lee is at least more intellectually honest.
That ‘s my take, Red Fog.
LoveAmerica,
In this uncensored format, both mantis and lee can say you have not attempted to debate their ascertions and call you stupid or an idiot. Lee relies on lib sound bites with consistent racist undertones. Mantis is using this format to maintain his cover but he’s obviously a hardcore liberal stooge with no original thoughts of his own. You have to wonder why they muddle the waters here. Arrogance? Unemployment? Hatred? Maybe a lot of all three.
Thanks for your comment.
If people’s lives are what you mean by different standards I think those are goods standards to adhere to.
http://www.alierra-software.com