Community Messageboard: Re: I know that feeling well. ;) by Legolas

Back to Messageboard

Post New Thread

Help

Stats

Rules

Re: I know that feeling well.

Legolas Send a noteboard - 06/02/2011 02:15:20 AM

It seems more like Lebanons Hezbollah exists by the threat of more violence like their seizure of the capital, assassination of the President in concert with Syria (with which we shouldn't confuse Lebanon) and repeated, often successful, attempts to start bloody civil wars between Islamic terrorists and secular authority. So, OK, maybe they have bikinis, but let's not pretend they're some sort of beacon of peaceful secular democracy. Bottom line is an Islamic terrorist group assassinated the secular executive thanks to its decades of aid from supposedly secular Syria and even though that's been proven beyond doubt they STILL managed to take control of the government, not by the "grace" of Christian "allies" but due to their utter exhaustion.

While we're correcting factual errors: Rafiq Hariri was a former PM, having resigned months before his murder, not the president. And Hezbollah was not a factor in the outbreak of the big Lebanese civil war of 1975-1990, as it was only created in the eighties. So I'm not really sure which "successful attempts to start bloody civil wars" you are talking about.

Lebanon is a very complicated country, and hardly anyone has clean hands if you look back at the civil war (for all that people like to blame Sabra and Shatila on Israel, it was the Christian phalangists who did the actual killing). Do stop trying to oversimplify.

Of course not; it merely aided an Islamic terror groups Presidential assassination as part of years of military occupation in Lebanon (again, it's funny how all the critics of Israeli occupation in Palestine shrug off Syrian occupation of an internationally recognized sovereign state, even when it involves assassinating that states president). If it looks, walks and quacks like a duck....

So it did (well, ignoring your factual errors). Far from me be it to say Syria's regime is a pleasant one. All I'm trying to do here is pointing out how much more complicated the Middle East is than you make it out to be, and how wrong and sometimes dangerous your oversimplified generalizations are.

Sure, they're all occurring in dictatorships, but they aren't occurring in all dictatorships, are they? Just the secular pro-Western ones; apparently Iranians don't mind brutal repression (except for the one police shot in the head a couple years ago for protesting). Sure, some of the protesters are liberal even by Western standards, but don't try to tell me they're the vanguard because we both know better. There's strong reason to believe the MB is simply biding their time until they can take advantage of a power vacuum created by popular uprisings to which they don't mind lending aid since they know they can exploit them later.

You claim not to have forgotten what happened in Iran, but it sure looks like you have. So, once again: the Iranians tried popular uprisings too. As I said, there are a number of reasons why they were less successful than the Tunisians and hopefully the Egyptians.

And you'll note I wasn't trying to tell you that they were the vanguard, I was telling you that the majority was as always inbetween the two extremes. Not that you seem to read my posts, I really don't know why I bother...

The proof is in the pudding; if Tunisia and Egypt form free democratic governments I'll be the first to applaud, but that strikes me as a naïve hope founded on the notion that the US supported Mubarak because we're evil SOBs who like other evil SOBs. The truth is that Mubarak represented the US and many others making the best of a bad situation. If you want to say we had no business supporting any of the various brutal thugs contending for control of a foreign state I'll agree, but the truth is, one reason--IN ADDITION TO geopolitical ones--we did so was because since bloodshed couldn't be prevented supporting Mubarak meant less bloodshed than supporting any of his opponents. I see little real evidence that's changed, just a lot of wishful thinking.

The US supported Mubarak because they could sell him weapons and because he played nice with Israel, knowing full well that he was a SOB repressing his people. Just like they've supported plenty of other SOBs in the past, Saddam among them. I'm not some wide-eyed idealist who thinks an omelette can be made without breaking eggs, but I do think that when you do ugly things for good reasons, you should be man enough to admit you've done ugly things - and to live with the consequences.

Reply to message

/Media: Guardian's take on funny Americans' take on Egypt Camilla - 03/02/2011 09:32:52 PM 1136 Views

I think you should replace "Fox" by "funny Americans".

Legolas - 03/02/2011 09:44:26 PM 770 Views

Pfft. Synonyms. Camilla - 03/02/2011 09:46:42 PM 748 Views

Well, you'll get accusations and sour reactions anyway. Legolas - 03/02/2011 09:50:28 PM 617 Views

Re: Well, you'll get accusations and sour reactions anyway. Camilla - 03/02/2011 09:52:20 PM 777 Views

This is true. We'll just have to leave it to Glenn Beck to provide the poetry, now. *NM* Legolas - 03/02/2011 09:54:59 PM 289 Views

Re: Pfft. Synonyms. Isaac - 03/02/2011 09:51:30 PM 689 Views

Re: Pfft. Synonyms. Camilla - 03/02/2011 09:52:56 PM 709 Views

Re: Pfft. Synonyms. Isaac - 03/02/2011 09:56:34 PM 729 Views

Re: Pfft. Synonyms. Camilla - 03/02/2011 10:18:40 PM 781 Views

Re: Pfft. Synonyms. Scott Blademaster - 03/02/2011 11:46:19 PM 786 Views

That leads to the interesting question of how you define "anti-American". Legolas - 03/02/2011 09:54:13 PM 683 Views

Re: That leads to the interesting question of how you define "anti-American". Isaac - 03/02/2011 10:21:56 PM 741 Views

I watch/listen to Beck like I watch/listen to The Onion. MightyYT - 04/02/2011 07:12:41 AM 693 Views

I think you should replace "funny Americans" with "blowhard pundits who don't deserve time of day" *NM* beetnemesis - 04/02/2011 12:28:22 AM 286 Views

Are people really sure Beck hasnt started drinking again? *NM* Aisha - 03/02/2011 10:54:32 PM 335 Views

Mormon crazy Kool-aid is what he's drinking. *NM* Tom - 04/02/2011 02:11:26 AM 309 Views

I posted earlier with observations on how idiotic Fox is sounding generally on the Egypt situation. Tom - 04/02/2011 02:15:23 AM 862 Views

Yipeeeeee!!! LMAO. *NM* everynametaken - 04/02/2011 02:34:38 AM 303 Views

I saw Guardian use the phrase balanced coverage and stopped random thoughts - 04/02/2011 06:20:31 PM 703 Views

You always do this. Joel - 05/02/2011 01:28:11 AM 723 Views

It is the irony I find funny random thoughts - 07/02/2011 04:03:38 PM 638 Views

That after watching that you think the GUARDIAN'S the one over the top here? Joel - 08/02/2011 04:02:04 PM 581 Views

sorry the Guardian is shit random thoughts - 08/02/2011 04:21:09 PM 676 Views

Maybe, but I'll need evidence; regardless, that's not what this is about, is it? Joel - 08/02/2011 04:48:06 PM 683 Views

I will buy they are both worthless random thoughts - 08/02/2011 05:20:50 PM 792 Views

Oh, is Beck a "socialism fan favor[ing] the violent dicator since he can bring order and subsidies"? Joel - 05/02/2011 08:04:17 AM 845 Views

So you are saying you have a lot in common with Glen Beck? random thoughts - 07/02/2011 04:04:41 PM 782 Views

Not really. Joel - 08/02/2011 03:46:10 PM 748 Views

it is easy to understand why Beck wants to defend Mubarak random thoughts - 08/02/2011 04:23:11 PM 2145 Views

It fits his script. Joel - 08/02/2011 04:47:05 PM 639 Views

really? can you back that statement up? random thoughts - 08/02/2011 05:21:39 PM 609 Views

Glen Beck is my favorite! CaptainHammer - 05/02/2011 07:00:28 AM 700 Views

By the Grace of God, Glenn Beck and Alex Jones do not represent America, or even most of the right. Joel - 05/02/2011 08:30:26 AM 751 Views

Did find this linked article at your link interesting: Joel - 05/02/2011 09:02:44 AM 908 Views

Here's a link for you Floffe - 05/02/2011 06:28:42 PM 953 Views

Interesting comparisons. Joel - 06/02/2011 12:45:29 AM 859 Views

Been over all of this before, so I'll just point out that Lebanon is not Syria.

*NM* Legolas - 05/02/2011 07:20:10 PM 357 Views

Oops....

Joel - 06/02/2011 12:03:27 AM 817 Views

Gah. "Someone is wrong on the internet!", and all that, and I can't resist. Legolas - 06/02/2011 12:34:59 AM 817 Views

I know that feeling well.

Joel - 06/02/2011 01:50:41 AM 684 Views

Re: I know that feeling well.

Legolas - 06/02/2011 02:15:20 AM 843 Views

Re: I know that feeling well.

Joel - 08/02/2011 04:46:07 PM 762 Views

America shouldn't take the blame for Fox! That's Rupert Murdoch's, the Aussie's, fault! *NM* newyorkersedai - 06/02/2011 03:16:04 AM 319 Views

Back to Messageboard

Post New Thread

Help

Stats

Rules

Reply to Message

Subject

Formatting

Smiley Codes

Body

<quote id="189675">
<quote id="189673">It seems more like Lebanons Hezbollah exists by the threat of more violence like their seizure of the capital, assassination of the President in concert with Syria (with which we shouldn't confuse Lebanon) and repeated, often successful, attempts to start bloody civil wars between Islamic terrorists and secular authority.  So, OK, maybe they have bikinis, but let's not pretend they're some sort of beacon of peaceful secular democracy.  Bottom line is an Islamic terrorist group assassinated the secular executive thanks to its decades of aid from supposedly secular Syria and even though that's been proven beyond doubt they STILL managed to take control of the government, not by the "grace" of Christian "allies" but due to their utter exhaustion.</quote>
While we're correcting factual errors: Rafiq Hariri was a former PM, having resigned months before his murder, not the president. And Hezbollah was not a factor in the outbreak of the big Lebanese civil war of 1975-1990, as it was only created in the eighties. So I'm not really sure which "successful attempts to start bloody civil wars" you are talking about.

Lebanon is a very complicated country, and hardly anyone has clean hands if you look back at the civil war (for all that people like to blame Sabra and Shatila on Israel, it was the Christian phalangists who did the actual killing). Do stop trying to oversimplify. 
<quote id="189673">Of course not; it merely aided an Islamic terror groups Presidential assassination as part of years of military occupation in Lebanon (again, it's funny how all the critics of Israeli occupation in Palestine shrug off Syrian occupation of an internationally recognized sovereign state, even when it involves assassinating that states president).  If it looks, walks and quacks like a duck....</quote>
So it did (well, ignoring your factual errors). Far from me be it to say Syria's regime is a pleasant one. All I'm trying to do here is pointing out how much more complicated the Middle East is than you make it out to be, and how wrong and sometimes dangerous your oversimplified generalizations are. 
<quote id="189673">Sure, they're all occurring in dictatorships, but they aren't occurring in all dictatorships, are they?  Just the secular pro-Western ones; apparently Iranians don't mind brutal repression (except for the one police shot in the head a couple years ago for protesting).  Sure, some of the protesters are liberal even by Western standards, but don't try to tell me they're the vanguard because we both know better.  There's strong reason to believe the MB is simply biding their time until they can take advantage of a power vacuum created by popular uprisings to which they don't mind lending aid since they know they can exploit them later.</quote>
You claim not to have forgotten what happened in Iran, but it sure looks like you have. So, once again: the Iranians tried popular uprisings too. As I said, there are a number of reasons why they were less successful than the Tunisians and hopefully the Egyptians.

And you'll note I wasn't trying to tell you that they were the vanguard, I was telling you that the majority was as always inbetween the two extremes. Not that you seem to read my posts, I really don't know why I bother...
<quote id="189673">The proof is in the pudding; if Tunisia and Egypt form free democratic governments I'll be the first to applaud, but that strikes me as a naïve hope founded on the notion that the US supported Mubarak because we're evil SOBs who like other evil SOBs.  The truth is that Mubarak represented the US and many others making the best of a bad situation.  If you want to say we had no business supporting any of the various brutal thugs contending for control of a foreign state I'll agree, but the truth is, one reason--IN ADDITION TO geopolitical ones--we did so was because since bloodshed couldn't be prevented supporting Mubarak meant less bloodshed than supporting any of his opponents.  I see little real evidence that's changed, just a lot of wishful thinking. </quote>
The US supported Mubarak because they could sell him weapons and because he played nice with Israel, knowing full well that he was a SOB repressing his people. Just like they've supported plenty of other SOBs in the past, Saddam among them. I'm not some wide-eyed idealist who thinks an omelette can be made without breaking eggs, but I do think that when you do ugly things for good reasons, you should be man enough to admit you've done ugly things - and to live with the consequences. 
</quote>

Link title

Link url

Send notification emails?

Username

Password