oh man, a guy that plays with swords and watches anime thinks I'm a moron

7/20/2006 8:24:46 AM

no, you're a moron because you cant successfully negotiate an educated argument without resorting to any one of a number of logical fallacies, such as the /ad hominem/ above.

7/20/2006 11:57:58 AM

the real morons are the only people even considering that Hezbollah could possibly be a "legitimate army"

7/20/2006 11:59:50 AM

Hezbollah is so far the only army who has ever defeated an Israeli army on the battlefield. they're a military organization, they use military weapons, and they strike at military targets.

i cant help it if youre a dumbass dopesmoker with a hardon for Rush Limbaugh.[/ad hominem]



[Edited on July 20, 2006 at 12:06 PM. Reason : ]

7/20/2006 12:05:58 PM

Using military weapons does not make you a military organization. Meeting the standards of a legitimate resistance group as defined by international agreement does.

Quote :

"Under the Geneva Conventions, the definition of "combatant" stipulates not only that the person belong to a regular armed force, wear a uniform or distinctive sign or symbol, and openly bear arms; it also says that "combatants" serve under the command of someone who is responsible for the actions of their subordinates, and who operates in compliance with the laws of war. Commanders need control over their subordinates. Legal commentaries agree that an internal system of penal discipline is a pre-requisite for ensuring compliance with the laws of war within a military force."

[Edited on July 20, 2006 at 12:14 PM. Reason : ]

7/20/2006 12:13:17 PM

yeah, most legitimate armies are Iranian proxies setup in terrorist states...yeah...I can't help you cant see that because you have a hardon for Al Franken

7/20/2006 12:18:29 PM

There are way too many political man-love hard-ons going on right now.

7/20/2006 12:23:42 PM

Quote :

"Meeting the standards of a legitimate resistance group as defined by international agreement does."

It's kind of unfair to enforce international law on this group when Israel does not comply with it.

7/20/2006 12:23:56 PM

this thread is a perfect example of why soap box is so full of shit

7/20/2006 12:25:44 PM

yep and it's also a perfect example of how it's your fault

[Edited on July 20, 2006 at 12:26 PM. Reason : ]

7/20/2006 12:26:13 PM

Quote :

"It's kind of unfair to enforce international law on this group when Israel does not comply with it."

I'm not really "enforcing" anything, or putting any value judgements on being a non-legitimate military force. Someone asked a question that I guess they thought didn't have a concrete answer, but it did, so I offered it. Hezbollah is not a legitimate combatant force. The IDF, for whatever else it may be or do, is.

7/20/2006 12:28:15 PM

^^haha its my fault that 4 pages worth of people think hezbollah is a legitimate army?

7/20/2006 12:28:59 PM

Quote :

"It's kind of unfair to enforce international lawconstitutional limits on this groupthe police when Israelthe criminals doesdo not comply with it."

7/20/2006 12:29:20 PM

its kind of hard to give geneva convention rights to terrorists when they dont...oh wait

7/20/2006 12:31:22 PM

Legitimate fighting force doesn't have a concrete defintion. There are certain standards that can provide definitions, but that's not the same thing as a concrete definition.

I could consider a kid with a slingshot a legitimate fighting force, this may not fit the UN standard for a fighting force, but I can still consider it nonetheless.

7/20/2006 12:31:53 PM

would you consider a terrorist organization a legitimate army?

cause nobody with any sense would

7/20/2006 12:34:00 PM

I wouldn't consider it either way because I find them being or not being a "legitimate army" irrelevant. A side being or not being a legitamate army does not neccesarily justify one side or the other. It's totally irrelevant to a position being justified.

For example, the Native Americans wouldn't be considered by most a "legitmate army". This doesn't neccesarily justify the the other people fighting them. Simply because they don't have uniforms and such is completely irrelevant to the justification of us taking their land.

7/20/2006 12:39:09 PM

hell, when we fought the british, they didn't consider us a "legitmate army".

7/20/2006 12:40:43 PM

^that would have been a better example for me to expand on

7/20/2006 12:41:46 PM

Quote :

"I could consider a kid with a slingshot a legitimate fighting force, this may not fit the UN standard for a fighting force, but I can still consider it nonetheless."

Well, yes, you certainly can do that. In fact I wholeheartedly encourage you to slam your head into that wall all day long, and as many other walls as you can find, too. The Geneva conventions have been around since 1864, and in that time the world has pretty much managed to agree on who qualifies as an army and who doesn't. Given the choice between one of the oldest and most important formal standards in international law, and the rantings of Kris, known for making the most bizarre twists and interpretations of fact necessary to support his position, I know who I'm gonna run with.

Quote :

"A side being or not being a legitamate army does not neccesarily justify one side or the other."

I agree wholeheartedly. That does not mean there is no merit in determining their legitimacy, though.

[Edited on July 20, 2006 at 12:45 PM. Reason : ]

7/20/2006 12:43:58 PM

Quote :

"I wouldn't consider it either way because I find them being or not being a "legitimate army" irrelevant"

irrelevant? have you read the thread title? its 100% relevant

7/20/2006 12:45:54 PM

relevant to what I care about, I was explaining what I thought because you asked me

my earlier responses were a little more specific to the topic in the title

Quote :

"Well, yes, you certainly can do that."

The fact that I can do that invalidates your claim that there is one concrete standard definition. It remains subjective.

[Edited on July 20, 2006 at 12:49 PM. Reason : ]

7/20/2006 12:47:23 PM

well my overall point in this thread was that its pathetic that there is this much discussion and this many opinions validating hezbollah as potentially being a legitimate army

7/20/2006 12:49:48 PM

It's within reason to consider them a legitmate army. They are loosely affialiated with the government. Many probably would consider Haganah and HaShomer and others legitimate armies, and they didn't really even have a defned country at the time.

7/20/2006 12:53:36 PM

Argument from personal incredulity.

Sometimes known as argument from ignorance.

7/20/2006 12:56:19 PM

How so?

I haven't claimed anything to be true or false, which is a fundemental requirement to the arguement from ignorance.

7/20/2006 12:58:53 PM

Quote :

"They are loosely affialiated with the government"

they are affiliated with Iran

and they operate out of southern Lebanon

7/20/2006 1:25:09 PM

Quote :

"Perpared, perhaps, but they figured invading Kyushu, or even the threat of it, would be enough."

Quote :

"That's certainly not at all what U.S. policymakers thought. The whole point of invading Kyushu was to get the Japanese to surrender."

Now you're just making unsubstantiated generalizations about what a group of people thought 60 years ago.

Quote :

"You realize we only lost around 300,000 men in all of WWII, right?"

Only? The actual figure is over 400,000.

Quote :

"They were prepared to go through with the invasion of Kyushu because they didn't think it would cost that many American lives (25,000 or so, maybe) and because it'd make Japan surrender sooner."

25,000? Thats ridiculous. The invasion of the small island of Okinawa alone cost 12,500 american lives at the hands of 100,000 japanese defenders. There were ten times that many troops in Kyushu by the fall.

Quote :

"I'm only arguing against the rather insane lengths y'all traditionalists go to justify dropping the a-bombs."

So its insane to think that the use of the atomic bomb was justified?

Quote :

"The idea that Truman had a clear choice between killing 200,000 people or killing millions of people is ridiculous."

Who said that it was a clear choice? It was a total war and use of the bomb was in line with the strategy of every nation involved in the conflict. They could have just as easily destroyed the two cities with firebombing (which was more effective anyway) as they had done with so many others.

I'm realizing more and more that you have no grasp of the subject.

7/20/2006 2:48:57 PM

The argument that the use of the A-bomb was a significant choice for Truman at all is ridiculous.

"Hmmm-- one bomb and one plane vs. thousands of bombs and hundreds of planes?

Oh, and we just spent a freaking fortune on developing the thing."


To debate THE DECISION OMG takes the "decision" completely out of context.

7/20/2006 3:10:19 PM

Quote :

"The fact that I can do that invalidates your claim that there is one concrete standard definition. It remains subjective."

Hardly. You can consider all sorts of things to be true that are patently false, and vice versa, and if you want to play in fairyland that's your business. You can run around saying that "donut" means something different from its concrete meaning, just as you are doing with "legitimate army" now.

7/20/2006 3:28:56 PM

Quote :

"You can consider all sorts of things to be true that are patently false, and vice versa, and if you want to play in fairyland that's your business."

But I can consider them a legitimate army without it being false.
There are certain standards that have been created to translate across governments, but the invention of these does not invalidate what I consider them.

It's subjective.

7/20/2006 3:36:36 PM

Quote :

"How so?"

Your position that there is no definition for legitimate fighting force--or at least no definition other than your own--is an argument from incredulity. Just because you refuse to believe or acknowledge the de facto and de jure definition as written in the Geneva Convention, does not mean that that definition does not exist or is invalid.

7/20/2006 4:14:32 PM

Quote :

"no, you're a moron because you cant successfully negotiate an educated argument without resorting to any one of a number of logical fallacies, such as the /ad hominem/ above. "

yeah, fuck me for responding to someone calling me a moron

stfu toolbag

7/20/2006 4:47:06 PM

Quote :

"hell, when we fought the british, they didn't consider us a "legitmate army"."

True, though at the time there was no real standard set for such a thing.

Quote :

"There are certain standards that have been created to translate across governments, but the invention of these does not invalidate what I consider them."

It's essentially a definition. You might as well say that the word "donut" refers to a manatee, because, "Well, just because Webster created a certain standard to translate across all English speakers, that doesn't invalidate what I think."

Although I don't put it past you for a second to say that all definitions are subjective, too.

7/20/2006 4:53:10 PM

Quote :

"Just because you refuse to believe or acknowledge the de facto and de jure definition as written in the Geneva Convention, does not mean that that definition does not exist or is invalid."

I'm not saying that it's invalid, but simply that it cannot reflect everyone's opinion of what a "legitimate army" is.

Quote :

"True, though at the time there was no real standard set for such a thing."

There may not have been one written down, but people still had an idea of what they though a "legitimate army" is.

Quote :

"You might as well say that the word "donut" refers to a manatee, because, "Well, just because Webster created a certain standard to translate across all English speakers, that doesn't invalidate what I think.""

I'd just suggest that you use your own arguement agianst what people consider to be an attractive woman. This arguement more resembles that scenario moreso than donuts and manatees/

7/20/2006 5:15:39 PM

Quote :

"I'm not saying that it's invalid, but simply that it cannot reflect everyone's opinion of what a "legitimate army" is."

What does opinion have to do with a definition? Again, this is an argument from incredulity: your personal opinion does not and cannot be accepted as a definition, especially when one already exists.

Regardless, you have said that definitions are subjective. How do you expect to have an argument with anyone if you are unwilling to accept a definition? Without a basis for argument, there can be no argument.

7/20/2006 5:51:26 PM

ive got a ? for you guys.....
do you think it is a good strategic decision to knock out Iran's nuclear facilities now?

If we continue to wait, and the UN passes a resolution that doesn't do a damn thing, then we could potentially see Iran with a nuclear weapon. Then, Israel would probably not be able to defend itself without at least threatening nuclear retailiation if it was attacked. I say do it now, the whole region is fucked anyways. Clean out the potential nuclear threat. Don't destroy infrastructure, just make strategic strikes on their facilities and buy us a couple of years more time.

7/20/2006 5:58:26 PM

Let Israel do it.

7/20/2006 5:59:44 PM

Quote :

"I'd just suggest that you use your own arguement agianst what people consider to be an attractive woman."

Attractiveness is, by definition, an issue of preference. Legitimacy is, by definition, an issue of legal recognition.

7/20/2006 6:00:32 PM

Quote :

"If we continue to wait, and the UN passes a resolution that doesn't do a damn thing, then we could potentially see Iran with a nuclear weapon. Then, Israel would probably not be able to defend itself without at least threatening nuclear retailiation if it was attacked."

I'm having trouble seeing how that's our problem. Maybe if and when it becomes something of an issue, we'll deal with it if we have to.

Quote :

"Attractiveness is, by definition, an issue of preference. Legitimacy is, by definition, an issue of legal recognition."

But then it becomes a matter of which laws.

7/20/2006 6:06:39 PM

Quote :

"But then it becomes a matter of which laws."

Given that the overwhelming majority of the world seems to buy into the Geneva Conventions, I'm inclined towards it.

Or, if you really want to be a jerk about it, since we buy into the Geneva Conventions, it doesn't much matter what you think about it since the law of the land is that Hezbollah is not legitimate. Now, you might think that's a bullshit law of the land, but that doesn't mean we haven't boiled things down to a nice, simple definition.

7/20/2006 6:10:16 PM

Quote :

"Given that the overwhelming majority of the world seems to buy into the Geneva Conventions, I'm inclined towards it."

Ok, but why should that incline me towards it?

Quote :

"since we buy into the Geneva Conventions, it doesn't much matter what you think about it since the law of the land is that Hezbollah is not legitimate"

The geneva conventions definately aren't "the law of the land". If they were Israel would be subject to violation of article 3 right now.

Quote :

"that doesn't mean we haven't boiled things down to a nice, simple definition"

I could boil morality down to 2 words. That doesn't mean you have to comply to my morality.

7/20/2006 6:52:19 PM

why dont we turn that place into a glass factory

7/20/2006 6:53:47 PM

humanity

7/20/2006 6:57:28 PM

Quote :

"The geneva conventions definately aren't "the law of the land"."

"The law of the land" isn't necessarily abided (just ask hippies about the Bill of Rights), but the Geneva Conventions are still it most places and in this country specifically.

Quote :

"I could boil morality down to 2 words."

I don't doubt it, but morality (just like "legitimacy," in a different sense from how we're using it here) is subjective. We are using "legitimate army" here in lieu of more technical language, but that language has a very specific definition.

7/20/2006 7:01:12 PM

Quote :

""The law of the land" isn't necessarily abided"

If it's not followed or enforced, it's not really a law, it's almost more like a convention between a few people.

Quote :

"I don't doubt it, but morality (just like "legitimacy," in a different sense from how we're using it here) is subjective."

I'd say legitimacy in the context of this discussion is as well, thus why I made the analogy.

Quote :

"We are using "legitimate army" here in lieu of more technical language, but that language has a very specific definition."

If you don't specify what definition or group of rules you plan using, wouldn't you say it kind of leaves it open to interpretation?

7/20/2006 7:06:30 PM

The informed position is quite straightforward, really: Hezbollah is NOT the official Lebanese Army--and if you don't believe me, you need to look that shit up. Moreover, some members of Hezbollah’s leadership ARE listed as terrorists, particularly in Europe.

7/20/2006 8:01:40 PM

It's also kind of unfair to judge the whole group by the actions of some of it's members. I mean some enlisted soliders have done some pretty bad shit, that by no means makes the whole US armed forces a bunch of assholes. I can't say how apologetic the other members or the group as a whole are or aren't, I don't know. But openly denouncing the attack of innocent civilians by it's members would push it a long way towards getting around this kind of stuff.

7/20/2006 8:32:08 PM

^^ right on

7/20/2006 9:16:58 PM

[Edited on July 21, 2006 at 12:21 AM. Reason : ]

7/21/2006 12:18:37 AM