Saudi Arabia says Lebanon declares war, deepening crisis

[ilostmypassword]

1 minute ago, Morch said:

 

What you "suspect" has nothing to do with my views, or what I was aiming at. Since this was discussed more than once, doubt that you weren't aware of it, and yet chose to go for the inane comment.

 

Countries have different labels for what they define as "terrorism". This may cover very different things. Many Middle Eastern countries construe "terrorism" as covering quite a bit of political dissent, whether or not involving outright violence. Like your sidekick on this topic, you seem to get confused between my posts and those made by another. May want to revisit previous posts for context, not quite what you're on about.

 

You gave an answer as to why you focus on Saudi Arabia, which I still find irrelevant and contrived. As for stressing one not being denial of the other - that's not an accurate description of your posts. The lack of reference to Iran's role in Lebanon's politics makes anything you post on the issue bizarre. Minimizing Iran's role in this, whereas the reality is anything but, likewise makes your position peculiar, to put it mildly.

Now that you've told us what other countries construe as terrorism, (the Saudis include atheism as terrorism) why don't you share with us your definition of terrorism? Or is this more of your Humpty Dumptyism? Words meaning whatever you want them to whenever you want them to?

" Nitpicking would be ignoring the comment made about there being differing definitions of "terrorism" used, and acknowledging their political connection." 

Just for fun, here's the FBI's definition of terrorism:

I think it and the example it gives corresponds to the secular western idea of terrorism.

Terrorism Definitions 

International terrorism: Perpetrated by individuals and/or groups inspired by or associated with designated foreign terrorist organizations or nations (state-sponsored).
--for example, the December 2, 2015 shooting in San Bernardino, CA, that killed 14 people and wounded 22 which involved a married couple who radicalized for some time prior to the attack and were inspired by multiple extremist ideologies and foreign terrorist organizations.

 

[Morch]

4 minutes ago, ilostmypassword said:

Now that you've told us what other countries construe as terrorism, (the Saudis include atheism as terrorism) why don't you share with us your definition of terrorism? Or is this more of your Humpty Dumptyism? Words meaning whatever you want them to whenever you want them to?

" Nitpicking would be ignoring the comment made about there being differing definitions of "terrorism" used, and acknowledging their political connection." 

Just for fun, here's the FBI's definition of terrorism:

I think it and the example it gives corresponds to the secular western idea of terrorism.

Terrorism Definitions 

International terrorism: Perpetrated by individuals and/or groups inspired by or associated with designated foreign terrorist organizations or nations (state-sponsored).
--for example, the December 2, 2015 shooting in San Bernardino, CA, that killed 14 people and wounded 22 which involved a married couple who radicalized for some time prior to the attack and were inspired by multiple extremist ideologies and foreign terrorist organizations.

 

 

You are not "us".

 

What does my supposedly existing definition of terrorism got to do with the comments made? That is, other than serve as another way for you to obfuscate and derail the topic. What I posted was about how different countries define things, with the point being that using the term doesn't always mean what people have in mind. That you try to spin it in a lame attempt to cover that you do not have any real insight to contribute is not unexpected.

 

The incessant dissection of single words, while attaching dreamed up interpretations seems to be a core element in your posts. On almost each and every topic, you engage in petty arguments over minute details and definitions, many of which have little bearing on the topic or are germane to points made. If this was about trying to showcase that fabled "on topic focus", then guess you failed.

[ilostmypassword]

24 minutes ago, Morch said:

 

You are not "us".

 

What does my supposedly existing definition of terrorism got to do with the comments made? That is, other than serve as another way for you to obfuscate and derail the topic. What I posted was about how different countries define things, with the point being that using the term doesn't always mean what people have in mind. That you try to spin it in a lame attempt to cover that you do not have any real insight to contribute is not unexpected.

 

The incessant dissection of single words, while attaching dreamed up interpretations seems to be a core element in your posts. On almost each and every topic, you engage in petty arguments over minute details and definitions, many of which have little bearing on the topic or are germane to points made. If this was about trying to showcase that fabled "on topic focus", then guess you failed.

Well, if terrorism can mean atheism as it does in Saudi Arabia then it's meaningless. But the conversation was about Hesbollah and what it means for that organization to be called terrorist. . And I think that there's a pretty common understanding in the west of what terrorism is and what is isn't and it doesn't mean atheism. But if you're going say terrorism is pretty much whatever multiple players want it to mean, then we are back to Humpty Dumpty and you're right in the thick of it.

[Morch]

42 minutes ago, ilostmypassword said:

Well, if terrorism can mean atheism as it does in Saudi Arabia then it's meaningless. But the conversation was about Hesbollah and what it means for that organization to be called terrorist. . And I think that there's a pretty common understanding in the west of what terrorism is and what is isn't and it doesn't mean atheism. But if you're going say terrorism is pretty much whatever multiple players want it to mean, then we are back to Humpty Dumpty and you're right in the thick of it.

 

Waffle. Quote a bit out of context, inject an interpretation of your  own making, develop it into a faux side argument. Rinse, repeat. That's what so many of your posts are about. If you're still having trouble with what I posted, go back and read them posts in context, again.

[ilostmypassword]

Just now, Morch said:

 

Waffle. Quote a bit out of context, inject an interpretation of your  own making, develop it into a faux side argument. Rinse, repeat. That's what so many of your posts are about. If you're still having trouble with what I posted, go back and read them posts in context, again.

This started out when I said Hezbollah was mainly an social welfare group and a militia.  Terrorism was a small part of what it is. You said differently. So I began to do a search of terrorists incidents  tied to Hezbollah on wikipedia. Wikipedia cast a very wide net including everything from white supremacists to people upset with the IMF. that said, the overwhelming majority were groups or indviduals with ties to or inspired by Sunni terrorists. Not one terrorist incident tied to Hezbollah in the first 3 months of 2017.  Your response was that terrorism has many meanings depending on the country!  I pointed out that Saudi Arabia defines atheism as terrorism. I further pointed out that such criteria are nuts and a version of Humpty Dumptyism where terrorism can mean whatever you want it to. By the criteria of the FBI Hezbollah  looks like it hasn't committed a terrorist attack in years. And even if it has, they are very few and far between. So I think I'm justified to say that Hezbollah is mostly a social welfare organization and a milita. (I use the word militia and not "army" because someone once objected to that usage on the count that an army is a military organization under government control which Hesbollah decidedly is not) The point is that your criteria are so loose as to be meaningless. I'm going go with what westerners commonly understand terrorism to mean and not what some Islamic dictatorships mean which is essentially whatever they strongly disapprove of.. The data overwhelmingly show that terrorism as understood in the West plays a very small part in what Hezbollah now is. Though perhaps, being Shiites, that makes them apostates which I'm guessing also qualifies them to be terrorists in the eyes of the Saudis.

 

[Morch]

13 minutes ago, ilostmypassword said:

This started out when I said Hezbollah was mainly an social welfare group and a militia.  Terrorism was a small part of what it is. You said differently. So I began to do a search of terrorists incidents  tied to Hezbollah on wikipedia. Wikipedia cast a very wide net including everything from white supremacists to people upset with the IMF. that said, the overwhelming majority were groups or indviduals with ties to or inspired by Sunni terrorists. Not one terrorist incident tied to Hezbollah in the first 3 months of 2017.  Your response was that terrorism has many meanings depending on the country!  I pointed out that Saudi Arabia defines atheism as terrorism. I further pointed out that such criteria are nuts and a version of Humpty Dumptyism where terrorism can mean whatever you want it to. By the criteria of the FBI Hezbollah  looks like it hasn't committed a terrorist attack in years. And even if it has, they are very few and far between. So I think I'm justified to say that Hezbollah is mostly a social welfare organization and a milita. (I use the word militia and not "army" because someone once objected to that usage on the count that an army is a military organization under government control which Hesbollah decidedly is not) The point is that your criteria are so loose as to be meaningless. I'm going go with what westerners commonly understand terrorism to mean and not what some Islamic dictatorships mean which is essentially whatever they strongly disapprove of.. The data overwhelmingly show that terrorism as understood in the West plays a very small part in what Hezbollah now is. Though perhaps, being Shiites, that makes them apostates which I'm guessing also qualifies them to be terrorists in the eyes of the Saudis.

 

 

"You said differently."

 

I have no idea is specifically referred to. Seems like you are either misinterpreting something I posted, or confusing my posts with another poster's (possibly Craig's). As for the rest of your tirade....thanks for making the point made previously.

 

In case your comprehension is genuine, here's another try - describing Hezbollah solely as a terrorist organization is incorrect. This has to do with the other functions it fulfills and other activities undertaken. On top of that, definitions of what constitutes terrorism differ between countries, and may sometimes be representations of  political agenda, rather than a universally accepted norm. All of this doesn't mean that Hezbollah isn't a terrorist organization, it is. It's just that it is also other things - such as a political party, a social organization, and a military outfit (army, militia or whatever). The relative part each activity or "hat" takes of the whole was not the focal point of my posts - but rather something injected by yourself and others.

 

Now that this is out of the way (hopefully), perhaps you'll find another faux side issue to further derail the topic.

[observer90210]

Some more juicy arms deals for the global weapons superstar dealing nations !!!!....

 

...fight boys, please fight amongst yourselves !!!....... we will provide you with all the toys you need with a good discount !!

[craigt3365]

14 hours ago, ilostmypassword said:

Actually, it's you who needs to do it. Even on that website you referred to the last reference to a Hezbollah terrorist attack was in 2012. And this is a major part of what they do?

 

According to that websited the last terrorist episode on the part of Hezbollah was alleged to be a 2012 attack on a bus in Bulgaria. Compare that to what Sunni organizations do. And you seriously maintain that a big part of Hezbollah's activities are terroristic?  If so, they are displaying a remarkable incompetence in that field compared to their work in social welfare and military activity. 

Probably been too busy with fighting in Syria to do anything else the past few years. LOL.

 

At least you are now aware of their global terrorism.  Remember the one they botched here in Bangkok in 2012?  Probably not.  Lovely group doing such great charitable work. LOL

 

http://www.washingtoninstitute.org/policy-analysis/view/hezbollahs-transnational-organized-crime

 

Quote

 

Hezbollah's Transnational Organized Crime

In a speech last December, Nasrallah categorically denied charges that Hezbollah is involved in drug trafficking, money laundering, and other crimes, challenging his accusers to "Bring me the evidence!" That has now been done, in case after case, with ample evidence from American and European law enforcement agencies.

 

 

[ilostmypassword]

22 hours ago, craigt3365 said:

Slow down.  We're both against SA's involvement in Lebanon.  But Hezbollah is way more active there than SA.  To the detriment of that country.  Hopefully, you can see that.

 

But both are bad and need to leave. 

 

LOL.  How many times have I said that?

I can't believe you said "Both are bad and need to leave." again. And what's worse you actually follow it up with  "How many times have I said that?" Even though most of us haven't been to Lebanon, we have somehow mastered that fact that Hezbollah is composed of Lebanese. 

[Morch]

1 hour ago, ilostmypassword said:

I can't believe you said "Both are bad and need to leave." again. And what's worse you actually follow it up with  "How many times have I said that?" Even though most of us haven't been to Lebanon, we have somehow mastered that fact that Hezbollah is composed of Lebanese. 

 

Hezbollah "leaving" is obviously not going to happen as they are Lebanese. As for their patrons and their arms stockpile, that's another story. Even if all countries meddling in Lebanon would agree to cease doing so, the problem of having an armed organization operating outside of central government authority will remain, as will the potential for coercion by violence vs. other factions.

[ilostmypassword]

On 11/10/2017 at 1:36 PM, craigt3365 said:

2.5% is terrible.  Especially for a country that was growing at 8%.  Economics don't seem to be your strong suit. LOL

 

Be careful with your references.  No personal attacks.  You know better.

 

Lebanon is not a country most would like to visit.  It ain't easy.  But I enjoyed my trip.  Most difficult country I've ever been for driving a car.

The point is it was growing and going higher. In a positive directions. And for a country that's been through so much, and in that part of the world it's great. It's certainly a lot better than a shrinking rate of growth. And as I pointed out, who cares about your opinion about whether Lebanon is or isn't a country most would like to visit. I'll go with the World Bank's opinion over yours.

[ilostmypassword]

5 hours ago, Morch said:

 

Hezbollah "leaving" is obviously not going to happen as they are Lebanese. As for their patrons and their arms stockpile, that's another story. Even if all countries meddling in Lebanon would agree to cease doing so, the problem of having an armed organization operating outside of central government authority will remain, as will the potential for coercion by violence vs. other factions.

Not so obvious to some.

[craigt3365]

7 hours ago, ilostmypassword said:

The point is it was growing and going higher. In a positive directions. And for a country that's been through so much, and in that part of the world it's great. It's certainly a lot better than a shrinking rate of growth. And as I pointed out, who cares about your opinion about whether Lebanon is or isn't a country most would like to visit. I'll go with the World Bank's opinion over yours.

As you say, who cares about your opinion and spin on things.  I proved my point.  You're just nitpicking....again.  As your post right above shows.  You've got no understanding as to how damaging it is to have an armed militia in opposition to the nation's official military.  It's beyond obvious.

[ilostmypassword]

1 hour ago, craigt3365 said:

As you say, who cares about your opinion and spin on things.  I proved my point.  You're just nitpicking....again.  As your post right above shows.  You've got no understanding as to how damaging it is to have an armed militia in opposition to the nation's official military.  It's beyond obvious.

As you don't understand I said nothing of the sort.

[Morch]

11 hours ago, ilostmypassword said:

Not so obvious to some.

That would apply to both points made.

[Morch]

11 hours ago, ilostmypassword said:

The point is it was growing and going higher. In a positive directions. And for a country that's been through so much, and in that part of the world it's great. It's certainly a lot better than a shrinking rate of growth. And as I pointed out, who cares about your opinion about whether Lebanon is or isn't a country most would like to visit. I'll go with the World Bank's opinion over yours.

 

The world bank's "opinion" isn't quite what you present, though. Your posts ignore or minimize caveats mentioned, even within the reports your cite.

[Morch]

1 hour ago, ilostmypassword said:

As you don't understand I said nothing of the sort.

 

Lets ignore the elephant in the room then.

[ilostmypassword]

4 minutes ago, Morch said:

 

The world bank's "opinion" isn't quite what you present, though. Your posts ignore or minimize caveats mentioned, even within the reports your cite.

Nor quite how you portrayed it either.

[baboon]

1 hour ago, ilostmypassword said:

As you don't understand I said nothing of the sort.

You know you have the superior argument when your opponent is reduced to deliberately falsifying what you actually said.

[Morch]

46 minutes ago, baboon said:

You know you have the superior argument when your opponent is reduced to deliberately falsifying what you actually said.

 

You really don't want to go there in respect to the poster you replied to.

[Morch]

47 minutes ago, ilostmypassword said:

Nor quite how you portrayed it either.

 

That's one of your nothing statements. I'm not the one who cited the report, you did. I haven't presented anything that directly contradicts it, or that even ignores its content.

 

[baboon]

1 minute ago, Morch said:

 

You really don't want to go there in respect to the poster you replied to.

I was talking arguments, not posters. His were better in my opinion. 

[Morch]

Just now, baboon said:

I was talking arguments, not posters. His were better in my opinion. 

Considering he doesn't have much of argument, that doesn't say a whole lot....

[baboon]

1 minute ago, Morch said:

Considering he doesn't have much of argument, that doesn't say a whole lot....

It says much less about his opponents in that case.

[Morch]

Just now, baboon said:

It says much less about his opponents in that case.

[ilostmypassword]

19 minutes ago, Morch said:

 

You really don't want to go there in respect to the poster you replied to.

Still smarting, huh?

[Morch]

2 minutes ago, ilostmypassword said:

Still smarting, huh?

 

Come again? Your previous derailment effort, whether based misunderstanding or misrepresentation was addressed. Apparently you still don't get it, though. 

[ilostmypassword]

Just now, Morch said:

 

Come again? Your previous derailment effort, whether based misunderstanding or misrepresentation was addressed. Apparently you still don't get it, though. 

What I don't get is why somebody would try to obfuscate about the definition of "terrorism."

[Morch]

2 minutes ago, ilostmypassword said:

What I don't get is why somebody would try to obfuscate about the definition of "terrorism."

Ah, so you're not done derailing this further with your nonsense. Good to see that "on topic focus" in action. To counter, yet again, your ongoing drivel - there was no obfuscation, unless you count your own posts on the matter as such. My post addressed one issue, which you then attempted to developed (based on misunderstanding or  misrepresentation), into something else, while mixing my posts with another poster's, to boot. Keep digging.

[Scott]

What people will get, if they don't stop with the sniping, is a suspension.