The Bright Side?
 

Yes, Israel could _perhaps_ assassinate Nasrallah, or other senior Hezbollah leaders in Lebanon or Syria, although it would be terribly difficult and terribly dangerous for those involved.

I bet they'd have done it already if they really thought they could. It also would not provide anything resembling even a medium-term solution to the problem.

Israel cannot quietly eliminate Hezbollah and/or its advisors from the Iranian Revolutionary Guards. That's what they are trying to do. The strategy is fraught with peril, and the deaths of innocents, but it is not insane. Perhaps better for Israel -- and Israeli civilians -- in the long-run than permitting the status quo to continue.

S_A_M

The Bright Side?
 

Again, to clarify, my comments were addressed to Hamas in
Gaza.

Although I will take a moment to address your point about assasination being "terribly difficult and terribly dangerous." The assassins would be either IDF or Mossad. Either way, they would be military men who knowingly and voluntarily undertook to risk their lives fighting in defense of their country. The same cannot be said for Lebanese, Palestinian, or Israeli civilians currently caught in the artillery war.

I realize it's quite fashionable to consider Arabs to be less than human and not deserving of the measure of respect for human life that is normally professed by you and Sidd. I've never really been a slave to fashion.

Fact vs. Allegatoin
 

You don't "cite to the evidentiary record"?

Lebanon a fait "Boom?"
 

Which one is that? (Serious question.)

Fact vs. Allegatoin
 

Maybe he works in small claims court- I know a lot of my Pawn Shop cases are there and there isn't really a formal evidentiary record.

Fact vs. Allegatoin
 

It's possible, but surely you would agree that it's not what's usually meant when someone asks for a cite.

And if someone asks you for an evidentiary cite, and you respond with, e.g., hearsay, no one would say, "that's inadmissible -- I asked for a cite."

A citation identifies where material can be found; it doesn't suggest that material is, e.g., admissible.

Lebanon a fait "Boom?"
 

Translation: "Dianne, I'm up for a pegging if you're game."

Lebanon a fait "Boom?"
 

At the moment it's Lebanon. Sure, the government's a long way away from even being able to administer the entire country. However, it's a democratically elected government that's anti Syria and seems committed to achieving some measure of independence from the Arab hegemony. It ain't much, but it's more than we've ever had before.

The Bright Side?
 

MAYBE Israel could devote a few years and the lives of some its best agents to killing individual Hamas members, in the sort of killings you see "Hit Man - Silent Assassin".

And maybe not.

And in any event, that is an enormous cost. If I am an Israeli general, I would prefer to have my best agents trying to figure out where the Iranian bomb facilities were, or where the Hezbollah Frog missiles are, or when the next big suicide attack is coming. And I'd rather use a rocket attack or bombing run to take out the Hamas leaders.

Because, let's face it -- the Palestinians have not exactly applauded Israel when it has killed its enemies in exactly the way that you propose. Instead, such killings have simply brought new recruits to the cause. And because they are painless for the people who might not personally volunteer for suicide attacks, they only increase support for the militants who do.

And yes -- civilians will die, including some who do not support the militants. That is very sad, and unfortunately inevitable when military men -- including Palestinian militants -- put their fighters, their bases, and their weapons in civilian areas.


As for the suggestion that, by advocating for Israel's right to defend itself, I treat Arabs as "less than human," I would only suggest that you go fuck yourself.

Personally, I think the problem is that Hamas and Hezbollah treat Arab civilians as less than human (perhaps that is not particularly, when one of their main backers is not an Arab state) by using them as shields.

Fact vs. Allegatoin
 

Maybe in your practice. Not in mine. I do a lot more fact-lawyering these days.



Maybe in your practice. Not in mine. For example, I have often written something to the effect of "plaintiffs fail to cite any admissible evidence for their proposition that...."



Sure. It just depends on the context. That is why, perhaps, comparing discussions on this board to what we do in our practice is a mistake.

The Bright Side?
 

He'd rather be pegged by Dianne. Why do you begrudge the old coot that one reasonable desire?

Lebanon a fait "Boom?"
 

Has the Lebanese government even paid lip-service to the notion that Hezbollah should not have an army inside the counry?

Fact vs. Allegatoin
 

If the word "cite" meant "citation to admissible evidence" then you wouldn't often write something to the effect of "plaintiffs fail to cite any evidence for their proposition that...." You would just write, "plaintiffs fail to provide a cite for their proposition that." But we both know that wouldn't make any sense. What you mean is that the plaintiffs don't have admissible evidence, not that they don't have a cite.

Fact vs. Allegatoin
 

I think the problem here, is that Ty is arguing with spanky as if Spanky carefully chooses his words. when you read spank's post you have to look at the forest, not the trees.

Fact vs. Allegatoin
 

I wouldn't say admissible evidence, I would say no evidence. You really are giving the other side's case a boost doing it your way. If it isn't admissible why would you raise it to the judge?

If you want to email your briefs to me I'll give you more constructive criticism

Caption, please
 

Caption, please
 

"I was nervous when you started. schroeder told me Clinton gave him a neck rub once and afterwards the Chencellor had to get his suit jacket cleaned"

Caption, please
 

"Getting Down To The Short Strokes"

Fact vs. Allegatoin
 

and on this board what does the word mean?............

Cite please? Penske was asking for rules of law?

228-10

The Bright Side?
 

Perhaps instead of suggesting I go fuck myself you might wish to inquire of yourself why it is that you are applauding the same conduct by Israel vis. a vis. not distinguishing between combatants and civilians that ou condemned when the US did the same in Iraq? If you can find a way to reconcile the two, I will withdraw my comment.

The Bright Side?
 

Because the reasons for invading Iraq did not justify the terrible cost of civilian deaths. We had not been attacked by, from, or with the material support of Iraq.





But your question is rather interesting: I treat Arabs as less than human because I am more critical of an operation that causes Iraqi deaths than I am of one that causes Palestinian deaths? Hmmm.....

The Bright Side?
 

Okay, pass the lube.

Lebanon a fait "Boom?"
 

quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Originally posted by Tyrone Slothrop
I don't disagree, but my point is that in the long run, Israel needs reasonable governments running its neighbors, not discredited radicals. It's not like they can move to a better neighborhood.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------


I agree with your analysis that Israels actions have destabilised moderate regimes with the result of less moderate regimes being in power in the Middle East. The only thing I would point out, is that moderate regimes tend to become more democratic and although democratic middle east regimes may be better for the world they may not be better for Israel.

98% of the Arabs (and at least 90% of the people of the Middle East) are for the destruction of Israel. So truely democratic regimes in the Middle East are going to be for the destruction of Israel. If we are successful in creating a Democratic regime in Iraq my guess is that it will be hostile to Israel. And even if there is a democratic revolution in Iran that regime will be hostile to Israel.

So from the Israeli perspective tryrannical regimes that are afraid of losing power and are afraid for their own lives might be better regimes for Israel to deal with. This analysis cleary does not work with Hamas, because they are less democratic and more hostile to Israel, but then again Hamas may represent the true feelings of the Palestinians better.

I believe a truly democratic regime in Egypt would be more hostile to Israel. Egypts current government, Israel can work with, because it wants to hold on to power and sees the futility of fighting Israel, but I don't think the Egyptian people see that or will ever see that. a

That is why I see it Israel is pretty much screwed no matter what it does. So maybe the best thing it can do is just focus on protecting its people and not focusing on the regimes in power.

Lebanon a fait "Boom?"
 

I think they will still keep on fighting even if they are given a piece of their homeland.

Lebanon a fait "Boom?"
 

There is an argument that Arab anti-Semitism and anti-Israel feeling is an outlet for frustration with Arab governments, and is encouraged as such by those governments to divert attention from their failings. A truly democratic government might find less need to stir the pot, and its citizens might find more fulfillment in progress than in railing against Israel.

Or, they might not. I don't know the area well enough to have a strong view.

Lebanon a fait "Boom?"
 

I believe that there have been calls from Parliament that all militias should lay down their arms (but I could be wrong).

Fact vs. Allegatoin
 

Hank and Sidd are right.

I can't fucking believe you've been arguing with Spanky for so long about whether something is a "cite." A bullshit cite is rarely cited and proves nothing.

Spanky's argument was that Hersh is a bullshit cite. I think you knew this. Agree or not, but don't bust his ass on bullshit.

After all, this is a Very Important Board reserved for Substantive Discussion.

S_A_M

The Bright Side?
 

That argument would only work if Sidd had vigorously condemned the invasion of Afghanistan, but not the operations in Gaza Palestine and Lebanon. Then he would clearly be a pro-Central Asian, anti-Arab fanatic.

S_A_M

Fact vs. Allegatoin
 

\

Borrow some of wonk's lube, will you? I was having a conversation with club about Iranian nuclear facilities, and made the non-controversial observation that they will be hard to bomb. I further observed that the Pentagon was looking at how to using nuclear weapons. Spanky asked for a cite, so I linked to a Seymour Hersh article in the New Yorker -- not a bullshit author, not a bullshit periodical -- discussing the Pentagon pushback. Spanky then got all pedantic about the meaning of the word "cite."

The pedantry was his. I apologize for responding in kind. But who was busting whose ass?

If Spanky thinks Hersh is not credible, he should be able to come up with some reason other than that he relies on anonymous sources. He hasn't yet. And it's not like he's ever suggested that Hersh was wrong about this.

eta: Do you doubt the truth of what Hersh reported?

Fact vs. Allegatoin
 

Yes, but we expect Spanky to start with a semi-reasonable proposition and descend into bullshit. You, my friend, can do better.

The Bright Side?
 

Those who know me know that I have no truck for those fucking Pashtuns. They are always pissing in the river while our people are bathing downstream.*




*One beer for whoever identifies the movie reference first.

Iraqi Death Toll
 

6000 civilian deaths in Iraq -- in May and June alone.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20060718/...iraq_civilians


For club only, I note that this compares with 16,000 murders in the entire US in 2004.



eta: I apologize for citing hearsay.

Iraqi Death Toll
 

If it's hearsay, it's not a cite. Aren't we all clear on that now?

Iraqi Death Toll
 

Apparently not. It's a cite, but depending on the context it may not have much, if any, value.

But I sincerely hope that no one uses the standards that govern on this Board in their practice (unless they are my opposing counsel). The folly comes in discussing one as if it bears on the other. ("When you say "cite, please" you really must mean that you are looking for Ninth Circuit authority because that's what the last judge who talked to me meant.")

Iraqi Death Toll
 

Meeeow!!!

Iraqi Death Toll
 

Shouldn't you be helping Wonk lube up?

Iraqi Death Toll
 

P.S.: Nice job focusing on the little joke at the end, thus saving those who have argued that "the death toll in Iraq isn't all that bad" and "there are more murders here" from having to deal with the substance. Sheesh!


I mean, I'm sure we're all better off discussing the various denotations and connotations of the word "cite," but the whole "Iraq war" thing seemed to be another decent topic for this board.

More on the Iraqi Death toll
 

Jesus.

http://www.cnn.com/2006/WORLD/meast/...ain/index.html


Over 14,000 dead this year. Iraqi government "acknowledges information" suggesting 50,000 dead since the war began 3 years ago.

And I suspect the cycle of mass public slaughter, alternating between Sunni and Shiite, will accelerate.

Is it civil war yet?

Iraqi Death Toll
 

The death toll in Lebanon in the last few days is not that far north of the number of people killed in Iraq, but people are so freaking inured to the massive clusterfuck that is Iraq that it barely registers.

Cue Hank to say it's comparable to Detroit.

Iraqi Death Toll
 

I really don't remember saying anything about Detroit death rate- cite please?