1 Dead, 2 injured in SpecOps raid on Baalbek

El_Machinae said:
Do you find the Saddam/Rumsfeld picture to be any evidence? I would think not. For the exact same reason that people should discount the Saddam/Rumsfeld picture, people should discount this one.

RMSharpe's use of this picture would only be appropriate if he thought the Rumsfeld/Saddam picture was evidence of an alliance too. I'm assuming he doesn't.

At best it, it was dishonest of him.

PS: I've never seen the Rumsfeld/Saddam picture, I'm just working with your example. I've certainly rolled my eyes at that picture of Bush holding the Saudi Prince's hand, and at the people who read more into it than political circumstance.

You are kidding right? Neomega has that pic as his avatar: http://forums.civfanatics.com/member.php?u=12056 and every single time a thread gets going about WMD in Iraq, it gets put in that thread. I truly find it quite hard to believe that you have never "seen" it in this forum.

Again....whats good for the goose, is good for the gander. If the use of one is valid...then the use of the other is as well.
 
But you don't actually find their use legitimate, do you? If you don't find it legitimate when they use it, why would you find it legitimate when you use it? Two wrongs don't make a right. You find both uses of the photos valid to show collusion?

(And I'd never seen that picture before! Even if I saw his avatar (I thought it used to be a symbol?), I cannot really recognize the people without your help)
 
El_Machinae said:
But you don't actually find their use legitimate, would you? If you don't find it legitimate when they use it, why would you find it legitimate when you use it? Two wrongs don't make a right.

(And I'd never seen that picture before! Even if I saw his avatar (I thought it used to be a symbol?), I cannot really recognize the people without your help)

Well, I would say that Annan's pic with the leader of a para-military group defined as a terrorist organization by a handfull of countries not very smart.

The photo of Rummy and Saddam turned out to be not very smart as well - but about 7 years after that.

The point is, when the Rummy/Saddam pic was taken, we were taking Iraq's side in the Iraq/Iran war. Does the picture of Kofi Annan with the leader of Hezbollah indicate the same? I think that point is very, very debateable.
 
Saddam Hussein, like him or not, was a head of state. I've got the picture of FDR and Churchill meeting with Stalin, or the picture of Nixon and Mao.
 
Rumsfeld/Saddam pic illustrates a certain degree of hypocrisy - 'yes, i'll shake your hand now, but in a few years me and all my friends will denounce you as evil and invade your country to get rid of you.'

Annan/Nazrallah (that is him isn't it?) just shows political expediency, as far as I know Kofi Annan hasn't declared war on Hezbollah.

That kinda makes the two different in my view.
 
MobBoss said:
The point is, when the Rummy/Saddam pic was taken, we were taking Iraq's side in the Iraq/Iran war. Does the picture of Kofi Annan with the leader of Hezbollah indicate the same? I think that point is very, very debateable.

Then how exactly would you propose negotiating a ceasfire?
 
The Rumsfeld pic is not in and of itself proof of anything. It's REFERENTIAL. It is used to refer to the infamous arms deals between Reagan-era America and Iraq, as well as the blind eye the US administration turned to Saddam's atrocities.

Neither of those facts (that we sold them weapons, or that we sent a diplomatic mission* there right after the gas attacks to specifically reassure them that our diplomatic status would not change) are disputed.

Whatever connection sharpe was trying to draw between the two people in HIS photo he will similarly have to back up with cold hard facts.

*EDIT: though this mission was not the one shown in the picture, but happened about five years later - something those who cite the photo sometimes mix up.
 
I have no problem with admitting the photo is five or six years old. The fact that he met with the head of a terrorist group says nothing about the man other than that he is a slimeball that cannot be trusted and should, if anything, be expelled from the United States.

I personally find it nauseating that we have the United Nations in New York, where the lowest of scum can come to the greatest city on earth and trash this country on behalf of their wretched governments. If the UN has such distaste for this land, perhaps they'd be better off in one of the countries they idealize so much - "Palestine?"
 
Pontiuth Pilate said:
The Rumsfeld pic is not in and of itself proof of anything. It's REFERENTIAL. It is used to refer to the infamous arms deals between Reagan-era America and Iraq, as well as the blind eye the US administration turned to Saddam's atrocities.

"Infamous" arms deal? WTH are you talking about? We only sold them a bunch of unarmed helicopters...and not that many compared to arms sales from France or Russia.

Infamous....thats laughable.

blackheart said:
Then how exactly would you propose negotiating a ceasfire?

Oh..I dont know...disarming hezbolla for starters would be a step in the right direction for peace I think.
 
nivi said:
This is realy discouraging, I don't know who to trust anymore.
My sentiments exacly :( Every bit of news out of the ME is so spindizzy it's vormiting it's guts out by the time it reaches me.
 
rmsharpe said:
I have no problem with admitting the photo is five or six years old. The fact that he met with the head of a terrorist group says nothing about the man other than that he is a slimeball that cannot be trusted and should, if anything, be expelled from the United States.

I personally find it nauseating that we have the United Nations in New York, where the lowest of scum can come to the greatest city on earth and trash this country on behalf of their wretched governments. If the UN has such distaste for this land, perhaps they'd be better off in one of the countries they idealize so much - "Palestine?"

:crazyeye: nuff said

EDIT

Sorry that was insensitive.

I must say however to you friend that you are suffering from toxic shock. An allergic reaction to all the poisonous propaganda oozing out of your TV set and your newspapers and magazines. Ann coulter is not your friend she is trying to take over your heart and mind and turn you into drooling kill-happy zealot. (EDIT 2 - she is succeeding). Take a break from it. De tox your soul. Just for a week don't read any propaganda rags, turn off the TV and disconnect your internet connection. Do something unlifting and enlightening. Learn meditation, go to a church or monastry, visit some natural beuty spot or take up tai chi and you will find your mental well being and balance will return.
 
rmsharpe said:
I have no problem with admitting the photo is five or six years old. The fact that he met with the head of a terrorist group says nothing about the man other than that he is a slimeball that cannot be trusted and should, if anything, be expelled from the United States.

I personally find it nauseating that we have the United Nations in New York, where the lowest of scum can come to the greatest city on earth and trash this country on behalf of their wretched governments. If the UN has such distaste for this land, perhaps they'd be better off in one of the countries they idealize so much - "Palestine?"
So just meeting with a terrorist makes you 'a slimeball that cannot be trusted'? I seem to recall some picture of a certain Mr Rumsfeld. you may recall that it was being discussed ooh 2, maybe 3 whole posts ago...
MobBoss said:
Oh..I dont know...disarming hezbolla for starters would be a step in the right direction for peace I think.
How do you disarm a terrorist group without talking to them and getting them to agree to it? Oh that's right you invade your neighbour and kill a thousand civilians trying to kill all the terrorists - 'cos that worked for Israel didn't it. NOT. Maybe you should take a look at Northern Ireland: we talked to people instead of shooting at them over there and it ******* worked. Get your head out of the (blood soaked) sand you complete ******.

You guys are sooo stupid it's unreal.:rolleyes:

Killing doesn't work, talking does.

Moderator Action: Warned for flaming
Please read the forum rules: http://forums.civfanatics.com/showthread.php?t=422889
 
Oh..I dont know...disarming hezbolla for starters would be a step in the right direction for peace I think.

Annan should go and disarm Hezbollah to negotiate a ceasefire?

Isn't Annan's job to talk to people, to learn where the compromise is available? How can he do this without talking to members of a conflict?
 
MobBoss said:
The point is, when the Rummy/Saddam pic was taken, we were taking Iraq's side in the Iraq/Iran war. Does the picture of Kofi Annan with the leader of Hezbollah indicate the same? I think that point is very, very debateable.

The Rumsfeld picture that you're accepting as evidence (I think, you haven't made it clear) is made evidence when put in context. It's supporting evidence that there was a diplomatic exchange, but not much else.

For me to accept the Annan picture as proof of villainhood, I'd need it to be in some type of context. What was the meeting for? What were the results? etc. I asked sharpe if he thought the picture was sufficient for the point he's making; I don't even know if he thinks it is.

You can find it 'debateable' all you want, but you need a bit more context than a shaking of hands. I bet Annan's shaken a billion hands.
 
rmsharpe said:
I have no problem with admitting the photo is five or six years old. The fact that he met with the head of a terrorist group says nothing about the man other than that he is a slimeball that cannot be trusted and should, if anything, be expelled from the United States.

I personally find it nauseating that we have the United Nations in New York, where the lowest of scum can come to the greatest city on earth and trash this country on behalf of their wretched governments. If the UN has such distaste for this land, perhaps they'd be better off in one of the countries they idealize so much - "Palestine?"
Wow, if the UN pisses off this sort of people so much it must be obvioulsy a somewhat good organization. :goodjob:
 
brennan said:
So just meeting with a terrorist makes you 'a slimeball that cannot be trusted'? I seem to recall some picture of a certain Mr Rumsfeld. you may recall that it was being discussed ooh 2, maybe 3 whole posts ago...

How do you disarm a terrorist group without talking to them and getting them to agree to it? Oh that's right you invade your neighbour and kill a thousand civilians trying to kill all the terrorists - 'cos that worked for Israel didn't it. NOT. Maybe you should take a look at Northern Ireland: we talked to people instead of shooting at them over there and it ******* worked. Get your head out of the (blood soaked) sand you complete ******.

You guys are sooo stupid it's unreal.:rolleyes:

Killing doesn't work, talking does.

See? I knew people like you always bring up the Rummy/Saddam pic. Thanks for verifying my comment.

As for disarming terrorists, a couple of points.

1. Lebanon isnt Ireland. I would think that obvious. Different cultures, different situations, different solutions.

2. You disarm terrorists by getting the nations that support them with arms to stop doing so. You also put enough troops on the ground to discourage terrorsts from openly running around like they own the country.

3. I dont like being called ******** or stupid but apparently you think it a valid debate tactic. Reported.
 
El_Machinae said:
Annan should go and disarm Hezbollah to negotiate a ceasefire?

Isn't Annan's job to talk to people, to learn where the compromise is available? How can he do this without talking to members of a conflict?

Correct me if I am wrong, but isnt disarming Hezbollah an exact part of the cease fire agreement? I mean, it is part of the UN mission.

I dont think Annan should deal with Hezbollah at all...but rather with Lebanon and Israel. Its time the Lebanese took charge of their own country instead of it being overrun by the terrorist proxies of other nations.
 
MobBoss said:
Correct me if I am wrong, but isnt disarming Hezbollah an exact part of the cease fire agreement?
Since when? People expect Hezbollah to agree to disarm. Nobody has any intention whatsoever of fighting Hezbollah in the streets of Beirut to force them to disarm.


I mean, it is part of the UN mission.
What UN mission?

I dont think Annan should deal with Hezbollah at all...but rather with Lebanon and Israel. Its time the Lebanese took charge of their own country instead of it being overrun by the terrorist proxies of other nations.
Hezbollah is part of the government, remember?
 
Bozo Erectus said:
Since when? People expect Hezbollah to agree to disarm. Nobody has any intention whatsoever of fighting Hezbollah in the streets of Beirut to force them to disarm.

What UN mission?

Hezbollah is part of the government, remember?

This one: http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/14307971/

THE SECURITY COUNCIL, ...

Determining that the situation in Lebanon constitutes a threat to international peace and security;

1. Calls for a full cessation of hostilities based upon, in particular, the immediate cessation by Hizbollah of all attacks and the immediate cessation by Israel of all offensive military operations;

2. Upon full cessation of hostilities, calls upon the government of Lebanon and UNIFIL (The U.N. Interim Force in Lebanon) as authorized by paragraph 11 to deploy their forces together throughout the south and calls upon the government of Israel, as that deployment begins, to withdraw all of its forces from southern Lebanon in parallel;

3. Emphasizes the importance of the extension of the control of the government of Lebanon over all Lebanese territory in accordance with the provisions of resolution 1559 (2004) and resolution 1680 (2006), and of the relevant provisions of the Taif Accords, for it to exercise its full sovereignty, so that there will be no weapons without the consent of the government of Lebanon and no authority other than that of the government of Lebanon;

4. Reiterates its strong support for full respect for the Blue Line (separating Israel and Lebanon);

5. Also reiterates its strong support, as recalled in all its previous relevant resolutions, for the territorial integrity, sovereignty and political independence of Lebanon within its internationally recognized borders, as contemplated by the Israeli-Lebanese General Armistice Agreement of 23 March 1949;

6. Calls on the international community to take immediate steps to extend its financial and humanitarian assistance to the Lebanese people, including through facilitating the safe return of displaced persons and, under the authority of the government of Lebanon, reopening airports and harbors, consistent with paragraphs 14 and 15, and calls on it also to consider further assistance in the future to contribute to the reconstruction and development of Lebanon;

7. Affirms that all parties are responsible for ensuring that no action is taken contrary to paragraph 1 that might adversely affect the search for a long-term solution, humanitarian access to civilian populations, including safe passage for humanitarian convoys, or the voluntary and safe return of displaced persons, and calls on all parties to comply with this responsibility and to cooperate with the Security Council;

8. Calls for Israel and Lebanon to support a permanent cease-fire and a long-term solution based on the following principles and elements:

— full respect for the Blue Line by both parties,

— security arrangements to prevent the resumption of hostilities, including the establishment between the Blue Line and the Litani River of an area free of any armed personnel, assets and weapons other than those of the government of Lebanon and of UNIFIL as authorized in paragraph 11, deployed in this area,
— full implementation of the relevant provisions of theTaif Accords, and of resolutions 1559 (2004) and 1680 (2006), that require the disarmament of all armed groups in Lebanon, so that, pursuant to the Lebanese cabinet decision of July 27, 2006, there will be no weapons or authority in Lebanon other than that of the Lebanese state,

— no foreign forces in Lebanon without the consent of its government,

— no sales or supply of arms and related materiel to Lebanon except as authorized by its government,

— provision to the United Nations of all remaining maps of land mines in Lebanon in Israel's possession;

9. Invites the Secretary-General (Kofi Annan) to support efforts to secure as soon as possible agreements in principle from the government of Lebanon and the government of Israel to the principles and elements for a long-term solution as set forth in paragraph 8, and expresses its intention to be actively involved;

10. Requests the secretary-general to develop, in liaison with relevant international actors and the concerned parties, proposals to implement the relevant provisions of the Taif Accords, and resolutions 1559 (2004) and 1680 (2006), including disarmament, and for delineation of the international borders of Lebanon, especially in those areas where the border is disputed or uncertain, including by dealing with the Shebaa farms area, and to present to the Security Council those proposals within thirty days;

11. Decides, in order to supplement and enhance the force in numbers, equipment, mandate and scope of operations, to authorize an increase in the force strength of UNIFIL to a maximum of 15,000 troops, and that the force shall, in addition to carrying out its mandate under resolutions 425 and 426 (1978):

a. Monitor the cessation of hostilities;

b. Accompany and support the Lebanese armed forces as they deploy throughout the south, including along the Blue Line, as Israel withdraws its armed forces from Lebanon as provided in paragraph 2;

c. Coordinate its activities related to paragraph 11 (b) with the government of Lebanon and the government of Israel;

d. Extend its assistance to help ensure humanitarian access to civilian populations and the voluntary and safe return of displaced persons;

e. Assist the Lebanese armed forces in taking steps towards the establishment of the area as referred to in paragraph 8;

f. Assist the government of Lebanon, at its request, to implement paragraph 14;

12. Acting in support of a request from the government of Lebanon to deploy an international force to assist it to exercise its authority throughout the territory, authorizes UNIFIL to take all necessary action in areas of deployment of its forces and as it deems within its capabilities, to ensure that its area of operations is not utilized for hostile activities of any kind, to resist attempts by forceful means to prevent it from discharging its duties under the mandate of the Security Council, and to protect United Nations personnel, facilities, installations and equipment, ensure the security and freedom of movement of United Nations personnel, humanitarian workers, and, without prejudice to the responsibility of the government of Lebanon, to protect civilians under imminent threat of physical violence;

13. Requests the secretary general urgently to put in place measures to ensure UNIFIL is able to carry out the functions envisaged in this resolution, urges member states to consider making appropriate contributions to UNIFIL and to respond positively to requests for assistance from the force, and expresses its strong appreciation to those who have contributed to UNIFIL in the past;

14. Calls upon the government of Lebanon to secure its borders and other entry points to prevent the entry in Lebanon without its consent of arms or related materiel and requests UNIFIL as authorized in paragraph 11 to assist the government of Lebanon at its request;

15. Decides further that all states shall take the necessary measures to prevent, by their nationals or from their territories or using their flag vessels or aircraft,

(a) the sale or supply to any entity or individual in Lebanon of arms and related materiel of all types, including weapons and ammunition, military vehicles and equipment, paramilitary equipment, and spare parts for the aforementioned, whether or not originating in their territories, and

(b) the provision to any entity or individual in Lebanon of any technical training or assistance related to the provision, manufacture, maintenance or use of the items listed in subparagraph (a) above,

except that these prohibitions shall not apply to arms, related material, training or assistance authorized by the government of Lebanon or by UNIFIL as authorized in paragraph 11;

16. Decides to extend the mandate of UNIFIL until 31 August 2007, and expresses its intention to consider in a later resolution further enhancements to the mandate and other steps to contribute to the implementation of a permanent cease-fire and a long-term solution;

17. Requests the secretary-general to report to the council within one week on the implementation of this resolution and subsequently on a regular basis;

18. Stresses the importance of, and the need to achieve, a comprehensive, just and lasting peace in the Middle East, based on all its relevant resolutions including its resolutions 242(1967) of 22 November 1967 and 338 (1973) of 22 October 1973;

19. Decides to remain actively seized of the matter.

Funny...I dont see where Hezbollah is mentioned anywhere in this...do you?
 
Mob, thats great. Now instruct me as to which party is going to step in and battle Hezbollah to make them disarm?

edit: Oh and btw, not talking to Hezbollah is the height of stupidity. How can you possibly hope to bring about a ceasefire, if you only talk to one side?
 
Back
Top Bottom