All Hank, all the time.

[Secret_Agent_Man]

Originally posted by taxwonk
Did you see Munich? Israel knows how to take out targets quietly. They've just decided that "an eye for an eye" is a valid military strategy.

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

[taxwonk]

Originally posted by Secret_Agent_Man
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

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.

[Sidd Finch]

Originally posted by Tyrone Slothrop
Actually Spanky, I'm a litigator and I go to court and shit, and I'm here to tell you that when a judge or another lawyer asks you for a cite, they're usually asking for a citation to a legal authority. When you want evidence, you don't usually ask for a "cite."

Usually it's the bad plaintiffs' lawyers who just make up new rules of English language like you do.

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

[Sidd Finch]

Originally posted by taxwonk
I am also pretty confident that the way to bring about peace is not through attacking and weakening the one government in the region likeliest to ultimately serve as a mediating force in the Arab world.

Which one is that? (Serious question.)

[Hank Chinaski]

Originally posted by Sidd Finch
You don't "cite to the evidentiary record"?

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.

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Originally posted by Sidd Finch
You don't "cite to the evidentiary record"?

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.

[blueballs]

Originally posted by taxwonk
Maybe if you hate me long enough and hard enough, your prayers for your clit to grow into a penis will be answered. Then you can come kick my feeble old ass.

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

[taxwonk]

Originally posted by Sidd Finch
Which one is that? (Serious question.)

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.

[Sidd Finch]

Originally posted by taxwonk
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.

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.

[Sidd Finch]

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

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

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."

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...."

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

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.

[blueballs]

Originally posted by Sidd Finch

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.

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

[Sidd Finch]

Originally posted by taxwonk
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.

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

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Originally posted by Sidd Finch
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...."

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.

[Hank Chinaski]

Originally posted by Sidd Finch
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.

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.

[Hank Chinaski]

Originally posted by Tyrone Slothrop
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.

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