Hezbollah urges supporters to stand firm in face of U.S. sanctions

[bristolboy]

3 minutes ago, Morch said:

 

The only nonsense spewed on this topic comes from you and the other Hezbollah fan.

 

Your argument is based on a false, misleading presentation. Both of the articles you linked paint a more complex picture than what your are trying to market. Some European countries were for it, some against, some partially so. Basically, you do not approve of the outcome, hence decide it is questionable. Put another way - if some of the Europeans countries advocated against designating Hezbollah as a terrorist organization, and their refusal would have swayed or prevented other nations seeing it otherwise from taking action, you'd have no issues with this.

 

There was no claim that Hezbollah's designation as a terrorist organization is universal, only that it is wide. The view of Hezbollah as a terrorist organizations is prevalent among Western countries. On the other hand, among the countries overtly upholding Hezbollah legitimacy, one can find such names as North Korea, Russia, China, Iran, Syria and Venezuela. Personally, I tend to prefer the world view associated with the former group. There is no requirement for a universal majority, regardless of your nonsense. And no one needs to get back to you. 

 

Your inane deflections regarding Syria and Saudi Arabia are dully noted. So is your habit of derailing topics by going off on tangent whenever you can't make a decent point.

 

To briefly answer this nonsense, and perhaps a wider issue - an organization being designated terrorist is not an absolute construct. Other countries may see things differently. Some here seem confused as to it being an instance of "my opinion is as good as yours". It isn't. The planes of reference are different. While you and the other Hezbollah fan lamely attempt to highlight supposedly moral questions, the point actually made is of a more "practical" nature.

 

There is no absolute, higher authority which makes undisputed pronouncements on such things - unless one is into religion or poorly arguments as you two. Countries are not required to be pure as snow, or free from all sin in order to make such decisions. There weren't even claims that they are anything of the sort. There is no higher agency to judge everyone equally - your personal views on these matters aren't anything of the sort.

"The only nonsense spewed on this topic comes from you and the other Hezbollah fan.

And where have I said anything that would qualify me as a fan of Hezbollah. Stop lying.

 

"Basically, you do not approve of the outcome, hence decide it is questionable."

Ascribing motives again?. It's always been my opinion that mind readers are charlatans. 

 

My reasons for questioning the classification were clear. And once again let me explain to you why the comparison between Syria and Saudi Arabia was not a deflection. The EU changed its collective mind in the wake of Hezbollah intervention on behalf of Assad. Hezbollah turned the tide. The Europeans were angry.That was the big factor. They specifically cited Hezbollah's support for Assad's government as proof of its support of terrorism. As I pointed out,  that support does not constitute terrorism. But if it does, then US support for the Saudi campaign in Yemen should also be counted as terrorism. But in fact, neither are terrorism. The difference in judgement being that in one case a hugely powerful nation is pushing hard to get that pronouncement made, whilst in the other not. It was roughly 2400 hundred years ago that a certain historian wrote about what war does to language: "Words had to change their ordinary meaning and to take that which was now given them." Nothing much has changed since.

 

And once again, stop making things up. No one said countries have to be as pure as snow. And since that is not the case, their pronouncement should be taken with a hefty grain of salt.

And you seem to want to have it both ways. On the one had, you wrote that it's not illegitimate for a country to pressurize others to come round to its point of view. On the other, you claim it's the view of western countries that Hezbollah is at least in part, as though this judgement was a matter of a common understanding and shared values. You want it both ways.

[Morch]

9 minutes ago, dexterm said:

I wrote "It's very easy to unthinkingly put labels on people or groups. One man's terrorist is another man's freedom fighter" Iran has done it, Turkey did it last week but somehow their labelling countries as terrorist is invalid, but US and EU's is not.

 

Then you argue for a page of posts.
"It is actually not "very easy" to be labeled a terrorist organization." because "Officially designating an organization as "terrorist" is a whole different ball game - there are legal requirements for the designation to be applied"

 

I ask what are those legal requirements. You won't or can't tell me. You try  to fob me off with: "you'll have to make do with the answer above."

 

Only to finally admit "Countries may create laws to designate organizations as terrorist. Any country may do so."

Which is exactly what I argued. It's very easy to call people and countries terrorists. Any country may do so.

 

So when confronted with this contradiction, you resort to mindreading and outright denial. 
"No, this isn't "exactly what you said", and certainly not what was meant and posted". 

Very hard to argue against outright denial, calling black white. You are trolling.

 

That US and EU call Iran and Hezbollah terrorists does not make it a fact. It all boils down to what I also said above. Because some countries have more clout than others they can make the mud they throw stick, and use the mud as the basis for sanctions.

 

I'd ask you to stop trolling, if I thought it would register. All of your made up nonsense argument and talking points were previously addressed. That you keep rehashing them while ignoring replies doesn't change facts or supports your position. Once again:

 

Neither Turkey's Erdogan making a political statement, nor your posting some vehement comment are on par with countries officially designating Hezbollah a terrorist organizations. Erdogan's words were not supported, nor followed by any meaningful steps, nor were they addressed in any legal sense. Your own words on this forum carry no actual weight, nor convey any official or legal meaning.

 

On the other hand, countries that did designate Hezbollah as a terrorist organization did so in accordance with their respective  relevant legal procedures, officially communicated their positions, and their decisions do carry actual, prescribed consequences.

 

Erdogan's words might be valid from his point of view, but they do not amount to the same thing, nor did they carry a similar effect.

 

 

As for your bogus "legal requirements" argument - same BS on pretty much each and every topic. Demand "evidence", even when it's obvious, then either deny or ignore it when presented. Whether you like to acknowledge it or not, countries do have legal standards as to defining and designating what and who they consider terrorist. That you somehow expect that all the legal details and arguments involved would be presented here  is nothing more than trolling. If you wish to pretend that "modern western style democracies" operate without legal systems on some topics, but setting them up as a positive example on others - go ahead, doesn't do your credibility any service.

 

It should also be noted that you haven't bothered to present any actual support for your wild assertions, but keep making bogus demands of others.

 

And always with the twisting of words - there was no "admission", no "contradiction", and no "mind reading". This is just the usual way you cover lame argumentation. You are the one asserting that the designation of the Hezbollah as a terrorist organization is not based on fact. You haven't demonstrated anything of the sort. Hence the argument that the designation is based on "mud", is purely your invention.

 

[sanemax]

37 minutes ago, bristolboy said:

The Europeans were angry.That was the big factor. They specifically cited Hezbollah's support for Assad's government as proof of its support of terrorism.

The E.U. placed Hezbollah on their list of terror organisations in 2013 , after Hezbollah carried out a terror attack in Bulgaria in 2012

[dexterm]

22 minutes ago, Morch said:

 

I'd ask you to stop trolling, if I thought it would register. All of your made up nonsense argument and talking points were previously addressed. That you keep rehashing them while ignoring replies doesn't change facts or supports your position. Once again:

 

Neither Turkey's Erdogan making a political statement, nor your posting some vehement comment are on par with countries officially designating Hezbollah a terrorist organizations. Erdogan's words were not supported, nor followed by any meaningful steps, nor were they addressed in any legal sense. Your own words on this forum carry no actual weight, nor convey any official or legal meaning.

 

On the other hand, countries that did designate Hezbollah as a terrorist organization did so in accordance with their respective  relevant legal procedures, officially communicated their positions, and their decisions do carry actual, prescribed consequences.

 

Erdogan's words might be valid from his point of view, but they do not amount to the same thing, nor did they carry a similar effect.

 

 

As for your bogus "legal requirements" argument - same BS on pretty much each and every topic. Demand "evidence", even when it's obvious, then either deny or ignore it when presented. Whether you like to acknowledge it or not, countries do have legal standards as to defining and designating what and who they consider terrorist. That you somehow expect that all the legal details and arguments involved would be presented here  is nothing more than trolling. If you wish to pretend that "modern western style democracies" operate without legal systems on some topics, but setting them up as a positive example on others - go ahead, doesn't do your credibility any service.

 

It should also be noted that you haven't bothered to present any actual support for your wild assertions, but keep making bogus demands of others.

 

And always with the twisting of words - there was no "admission", no "contradiction", and no "mind reading". This is just the usual way you cover lame argumentation. You are the one asserting that the designation of the Hezbollah as a terrorist organization is not based on fact. You haven't demonstrated anything of the sort. Hence the argument that the designation is based on "mud", is purely your invention.

 

I quoted your words in full. I will allow forum members to judge for themselves who is contradicting himself and mind reading. Not going to feed the troll any more.

 

Hezbollah was founded to defend the Shia populations in Lebanon against Israeli aggression, when Israel invaded Lebanon in 1982, and in Syria against ISIS. That does not make them a terrorist organisation. US is using that label as a pretext to warrant sanctions in defense of the usual tail that wags the US dog. 

 

The sanctions will probably affect Iran's economy... no denying that, as the Hezbollah also acknowledges in the OP. It's the label of terrorist I regard as meaningless and take with a ton of salt.

[Morch]

23 minutes ago, bristolboy said:

"The only nonsense spewed on this topic comes from you and the other Hezbollah fan.

And where have I said anything that would qualify me as a fan of Hezbollah. Stop lying.

 

"Basically, you do not approve of the outcome, hence decide it is questionable."

Ascribing motives again?. It's always been my opinion that mind readers are charlatans. 

 

My reasons for questioning the classification were clear. And once again let me explain to you why the comparison between Syria and Saudi Arabia was not a deflection. The EU changed its collective mind in the wake of Hezbollah intervention on behalf of Assad. Hezbollah turned the tide. The Europeans were angry.That was the big factor. They specifically cited Hezbollah's support for Assad's government as proof of its support of terrorism. As I pointed out,  that support does not constitute terrorism. But if it does, then US support for the Saudi campaign in Yemen should also be counted as terrorism. But in fact, neither are terrorism. The difference in judgement being that in one case a hugely powerful nation is pushing hard to get that pronouncement made, whilst in the other not. It was roughly 2400 hundred years ago that a certain historian wrote about what war does to language: "Words had to change their ordinary meaning and to take that which was now given them." Nothing much has changed since.

 

And once again, stop making things up. No one said countries have to be as pure as snow. And since that is not the case, their pronouncement should be taken with a hefty grain of salt.

And you seem to want to have it both ways. On the one had, you wrote that it's not illegitimate for a country to pressurize others to come round to its point of view. On the other, you claim it's the view of western countries that Hezbollah is at least in part, as though this judgement was a matter of a common understanding and shared values. You want it both ways.

 

"Lying" how? This is hardly the first topic we've discussed Hezbollah, whether on your current handle or the previous one. Your positions are pretty constant - rejecting negative views, defending or excusing actions, no criticism. IMO, that's good enough to assert you being a Hezbollah fan. Otherwise, some might suspect you're just arguing for argument's sake.

 

And not "ascribing motives" - simply breaking down your "arguments" into actual meanings, and asserting that at its base, this is what they amount to.

 

Your "explanation", as pointed out already, rests on faulty, if not outright misleading assertions. You allege that the EU "changed its collective mind" - the truth is (as seen even in the articles you linked) that there was no unity of mind on this to begin with - some countries were supportive of designating Hezbollah as a terrorist organization earlier than you claim. You disregard relevant information which doesn't fit your narrative - Hezbollah actions in Europe, the Hariri assassination investigation findings, and a rich history of involvement in other forms of misdeeds.

 

That you "point out" something does not constitute terrorism, isn't particularly compelling. Countries may have a different take on this, and there is no imperative to accept your personal point of view. Also, while politicians may issue statements about this or that country being "terrorist", actually designating whole countries as such isn't common. The same goes for national armies. Different rules apply - whether you like to accept it or not.

 

Both you and the other Hezbollah fan partly base your criticism on attacking the moral value of designating Hezbollah a terrorist organization, following supposed similar actions by these countries, or their supposed failure to equally address other supposed instances. Nothing made up about pointing this out.

 

Both ways how? Countries sharing  a general outlook, does not necessarily mean they fully agree on each and every instance. It is legitimate to try and convince (in your rendering "pressurize") others that "common understanding and shared values" do apply to this or that instance. Just another bogus "argument" in a long series of such. 

[Morch]

11 minutes ago, dexterm said:

I quoted your words in full. I will allow forum members to judge for themselves who is contradicting himself and mind reading. Not going to feed the troll any more.

 

Hezbollah was founded to defend the Shia populations in Lebanon against Israeli aggression, when Israel invaded Lebanon in 1982, and in Syria against ISIS. That does not make them a terrorist organisation. US is using that label as a pretext to warrant sanctions in defense of the usual tail that wags the US dog. 

 

The sanctions will probably affect Iran's economy... no denying that, as the Hezbollah also acknowledges in the OP. It's the label of terrorist I regard as meaningless and take with a ton of salt.

 

Doubt the world cares much how you regard things. That you equate your personal point of view with that of the many countries designating Hezbollah a terrorist organization doesn't amount to much.

 

That you choose to adopt an extreme one-sided narrative, ignoring any input bearing negatively on Hezbollah is pretty much how your roll on other topics as well. No surprises there, and not much credibility either.

 

Dabbling in pseudo historical revisionism is all very well, but doesn't change facts.

[metisdead]

Some off topic posts and the replies have been removed. Please don't try continue to hijack the topic into discussions of other incidents. 

[tonbridgebrit]

Okay, let's get back to the topic.

Washington has decided to put sanctions onto Iran, and Hezbollah is saying that it will stand firm, against the sanctions. How about we try to get Washington to change it's mind, and srap the sanctions ?

Why should we try to get Washington to scrap the sanctions ?

Well, Hezbollah are fighting against ISIS. The Islamic terrorist atrocities done in Europe and America have been done by ISIS, or they were inspired by ISIS. Hezbollah has not carried out terrorist activity in Europe and America. And almost none of the terrorist activity in Europe and America was inspired by Hezbollah.


Let's accept that the real enemy is ISIS, let's hit the enemy, and hit them hard. Why on earth should we fight those who are hitting the enemy ? Why on earth are we fighting people, people who are not harming us ? Bearing in mind that they're fighting against our real enemy.

[Sir Dude]

Lebanon is slowly falling into the grip of this theocratic fascist religious outfit and Nasrallah is nothing more than a fire & brimstone cleric preaching hate and trouble. It will kick off in that area with Israel as they cannot find a solution to live in peace...not in either of their nature while religion dictates both sides moves and positions. Too many nutjobs on all sides now everyehere...strife is on the way. If I have the money in the near future then I'd move to New Zealand which is nicely far away from all the future hot-spots and inevitable conflict that is on the way. Must look into it sometime.

[bristolboy]

4 hours ago, Morch said:

 

"Lying" how? This is hardly the first topic we've discussed Hezbollah, whether on your current handle or the previous one. Your positions are pretty constant - rejecting negative views, defending or excusing actions, no criticism. IMO, that's good enough to assert you being a Hezbollah fan. Otherwise, some might suspect you're just arguing for argument's sake.

 

And not "ascribing motives" - simply breaking down your "arguments" into actual meanings, and asserting that at its base, this is what they amount to.

 

Your "explanation", as pointed out already, rests on faulty, if not outright misleading assertions. You allege that the EU "changed its collective mind" - the truth is (as seen even in the articles you linked) that there was no unity of mind on this to begin with - some countries were supportive of designating Hezbollah as a terrorist organization earlier than you claim. You disregard relevant information which doesn't fit your narrative - Hezbollah actions in Europe, the Hariri assassination investigation findings, and a rich history of involvement in other forms of misdeeds.

 

That you "point out" something does not constitute terrorism, isn't particularly compelling. Countries may have a different take on this, and there is no imperative to accept your personal point of view. Also, while politicians may issue statements about this or that country being "terrorist", actually designating whole countries as such isn't common. The same goes for national armies. Different rules apply - whether you like to accept it or not.

 

Both you and the other Hezbollah fan partly base your criticism on attacking the moral value of designating Hezbollah a terrorist organization, following supposed similar actions by these countries, or their supposed failure to equally address other supposed instances. Nothing made up about pointing this out.

 

Both ways how? Countries sharing  a general outlook, does not necessarily mean they fully agree on each and every instance. It is legitimate to try and convince (in your rendering "pressurize") others that "common understanding and shared values" do apply to this or that instance. Just another bogus "argument" in a long series of such. 

"Lying" how? This is hardly the first topic we've discussed Hezbollah, whether on your current handle or the previous one. Your positions are pretty constant - rejecting negative views, defending or excusing actions, no criticism. IMO, that's good enough to assert you being a Hezbollah fan. Otherwise, some might suspect you're just arguing for argument's sake.

 

Another tired ploy of yours is alleging what was said in previous discussions in other threads. Anybody can pull a cheap trick like that. I have said nothing here that marks me as a fan of Hezbollah. If you can produce evidence that shows me to be one from this thread or any other, , fine. Otherwise you’re just making empty allegations. Anyone can play that cheap and self-indulgent game.

 

“And not "ascribing motives" - simply breaking down your "arguments" into actual meanings, and asserting that at its base, this is what they amount to.”

Really, you're not ascribing motives?  Let me repeat to you what you wrote and then I'll break it down for you so you can finally understand what it is you said

"Basically, you do not approve of the outcome, hence decide it is questionable." 

 

So you allege that because I did not approve of the outcome, I decided it was questionable. That sounds like ascribing a motive to me. I think I've made the case pretty clearly that much what they allege to be evidence of terrorism, isn’t' that at all. Just because you support an evil regime, that doesn't make you a terrorist. Any more than U.S. support of the disgraceful Saudi campaign in Yemen makes the Unites States a terrorist power. Unless you’re a certified mind-reader, keep motivations out of it. Once again, you seem to want to go outside the text to make unsupported and unsupportable allegations. And when things aren’t going well for you, you make it personal. Keep intentions and motivations out of it.

 

Your "explanation", as pointed out already, rests on faulty, if not outright misleading assertions. You allege that the EU "changed its collective mind" - the truth is (as seen even in the articles you linked) that there was no unity of mind on this to begin with - some countries were supportive of designating Hezbollah as a terrorist organization earlier than you claim. You disregard relevant information which doesn't fit your narrative - Hezbollah actions in Europe, the Hariri assassination investigation findings, and a rich history of involvement in other forms of misdeeds.

 

Now you’re just playing silly word games. There’s a difference between individual nations having an opinion and an entire organization. That’s what was obviously meant by “collective mind ”And as for disregarding evidence, until I brought it up, you didn’t utter a peep about the pressure the United States was bring to bear for many many years to get most of the Europeans to change their minds. I brought up the historical context of that change.. Obviously it had to do with Hezbollah intervening on Assad’s behalf. Assad’s a monster, yes. But does that make supporting him terrorism?, No.

 

That you "point out" something does not constitute terrorism, isn't particularly compelling. Countries may have a different take on this, and there is no imperative to accept your personal point of view. Also, while politicians may issue statements about this or that country being "terrorist", actually designating whole countries as such isn't common. The same goes for national armies. Different rules apply - whether you like to accept it or not.

 

As for different meanings of terrorism, true, some countries do have a different meaning for terrorism. I believe the Saudis defined atheism as terrorism. Another failed attempt at evasion on your part.

Actually we agree in some way. That’s why the government of Syria is not terrorist. Nor is the government of Saudi Arabia. Both are committing great evil. But evil is not synonymous with terrorism. So to assist either of them in their respective campaigns is not terrorism. Whether done by Hezbollah or by the USA.

 

“Both you and the other Hezbollah fan partly base your criticism on attacking the moral value of designating Hezbollah a terrorist organization, following supposed similar actions by these countries, or their supposed failure to equally address other supposed instances. Nothing made up about pointing this out.”

Of course if you can prove I’m a Hezbollah fan, go to it. Otherwise, stop lying.

I don’t base my criticism on the moral value. I base it on the misuse of language. Here’s an observation from a certain historian made about 2400 years ago about how words change their meaning in a time of war: : "Words had to change their ordinary meaning and to take that which was now given them “

 

Both ways how? Countries sharing  a general outlook, does not necessarily mean they fully agree on each and every instance. It is legitimate to try and convince (in your rendering "pressurize") others that "common understanding and shared values" do apply to this or that instance. Just another bogus "argument" in a long series of such. 

I’m not the only one who called what the US did applying pressure.Allow me to quote you:

"What you fail to grasp, or perhaps "conveniently ignore" is that political pressure is not illegitimate - and is often a central part of what's known as "diplomacy". That you object to certain countries having interests, promoting interests or having enough leverage is not particularly interesting or relevant"

 

[Morch]

 

@bristolboy / @ilostmypassword

 

Guess some posters have trouble formatting posts in a way conductive to discussion. Wouldn't be your first time exhibiting such behavior.

 

Pointing out that issues were discussed on many a previous topics, with both posters and views not altering much is not a "ploy", or a "cheap trick" but a fact. Can anybody claim this? Sure. But do you deny that when I make these claims they are not correct? We never had similar exchanges in the past?

 

As for being a Hezbollah fan - deflect all you like: even just taking this topic, your posts read like a defense of Hezbollah's good name, character and actions. Playing "cheap and self-indulgent" games or "ploy" would aptly describe your habit of denying the obvious and derailing topics with inane requests for "evidence" which are readily available. When these are produced, even more off tangent petty arguments are raised. So far, the "empty allegation" are made by yourself, both with regard to my posts and the topic's subject matter.

 

And no, asserting that IMO, you decide the outcome is questionable because you do not approve, is not "ascribing motives", but analyzing the "arguments" you presented. That's how I consider what they amount to. You don't like it? Come up with better arguments. There's no real need to spin this as some irrelevant made up construct, but see previous comment about going off tangent and derailing topics. You are the one making it about "mind reading", not me.

 

And "playing silly word games"? Coming from you? Seriously? This is, after all, part and parcel of your argumentative posting style. This one's no different. Nothing of substance to add, hence going on the offense with nonsense claims.

 

Let's try again - your rendition of things relies on focusing almost exclusively on US "pressure" and Hezbollah's involvement in  the Syrian Civil War. There is no imperative to adopt your point of view. That you misrepresent and co-opt European views doesn't make your arguments more credible or valid. That you somehow expect me to represent your own point of view as a feature of my arguments is bizarre. That you decree "obviously" doesn't make it so. And from this you jump to a the "argument" about support for Assad (or other regimes) being "terrorism" or not. I don't see that you've made your point to begin with, nor that it's going anywhere much - just your usual way of ever expanding discussions. Please, stop misrepresenting and twisting my words - we are not in agreement the way you claimed. And honestly, I don't care if you want to spin your mumbo jumbo as word games or faux moralizing.

[dexterm]

45 minutes ago, Morch said:

 

Are you deflecting, trolling, or just not keeping up with your own nonsense posts?

 

Two major sets of sanctions. One directed against Iran (and which the EU got issues with reintroducing), the other targeting Hezbollah, which Europe got less (or no) issues with.

 

As far as I can tell, you're one of the posters constantly referencing Iran, and muddying the waters regarding sanctions (just a couple of examples):

 

https://www.thaivisa.com/forum/topic/1039957-hezbollah-urges-supporters-to-stand-firm-in-face-of-us-sanctions/?page=3&tab=comments#comment-13022533

 

https://www.thaivisa.com/forum/topic/1039957-hezbollah-urges-supporters-to-stand-firm-in-face-of-us-sanctions/?page=3&tab=comments#comment-13023003

When caught red handed writing a falsehood that Iranian sanctions are not part of a package directed at Hezbollah also as clearly stated in the OP,  please try to desist from your usual denial cliches.

 

So lets try again. 

You write:"Two major sets of sanctions. One directed against Iran (and which the EU got issues with reintroducing), the other targeting Hezbollah, which Europe got less (or no) issues with."

 

Reread the OP. Can you see your EU red herring mentioned there, that you seem so keen to introduce? Can you see two sets of sanctions? just to obfuscate that the UN sanctions against Hezbollah are somehow different from Trump's whole proposed new deal laundry list.

 

Trump has for months been threatening to ditch the Obama P5+1 deal.
"Mr Trump has long complained that the accord - signed by the US, Iran, Europe, Russia, China and Germany - does nothing to halt Iran's support for militant groups in the region such as Hezbollah."
http://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-43885027

 

So he ditches the JCPOA deal, and introduces new demands for a new deal re denuclearisation and conditions involving Iranian operations in the rest of the Middle East including Hezbollah and threatens new sanctions. (the ones in the OP that for some bizarre reason you want to separate).

Pompeo enunciated his 12 point demands in full.

US vows ‘strongest sanctions in history’ on Iran, will ‘crush’ terror proxies
'This is just the beginning': Laying out strategy after exiting nuke deal, Pompeo says Iran must come clean about nuclear program, stop threatening Israel, leave Syria, halt terror.

US Secretary of State Mike Pompeo said the Trump administration is preparing to impose “the strongest sanctions in history” on Tehran after withdrawing from the Iran nuclear deal earlier this month, as he laid out a laundry list of demands for a new treaty.

https://www.timesofisrael.com/pompeo-vows-strongest-sanctions-in-history-against-iran/

 

Who do you think Pompeo is referring to by Iranian proxies?..pray do tell.

[metisdead]

Posts bickering over irony have been removed.  

 

A post with bungled up quotes has been removed. 

[bristolboy]

8 hours ago, Morch said:

 

@bristolboy / @ilostmypassword

 

Guess some posters have trouble formatting posts in a way conductive to discussion. Wouldn't be your first time exhibiting such behavior.

 

Pointing out that issues were discussed on many a previous topics, with both posters and views not altering much is not a "ploy", or a "cheap trick" but a fact. Can anybody claim this? Sure. But do you deny that when I make these claims they are not correct? We never had similar exchanges in the past?

 

As for being a Hezbollah fan - deflect all you like: even just taking this topic, your posts read like a defense of Hezbollah's good name, character and actions. Playing "cheap and self-indulgent" games or "ploy" would aptly describe your habit of denying the obvious and derailing topics with inane requests for "evidence" which are readily available. When these are produced, even more off tangent petty arguments are raised. So far, the "empty allegation" are made by yourself, both with regard to my posts and the topic's subject matter.

 

And no, asserting that IMO, you decide the outcome is questionable because you do not approve, is not "ascribing motives", but analyzing the "arguments" you presented. That's how I consider what they amount to. You don't like it? Come up with better arguments. There's no real need to spin this as some irrelevant made up construct, but see previous comment about going off tangent and derailing topics. You are the one making it about "mind reading", not me.

 

And "playing silly word games"? Coming from you? Seriously? This is, after all, part and parcel of your argumentative posting style. This one's no different. Nothing of substance to add, hence going on the offense with nonsense claims.

 

Let's try again - your rendition of things relies on focusing almost exclusively on US "pressure" and Hezbollah's involvement in  the Syrian Civil War. There is no imperative to adopt your point of view. That you misrepresent and co-opt European views doesn't make your arguments more credible or valid. That you somehow expect me to represent your own point of view as a feature of my arguments is bizarre. That you decree "obviously" doesn't make it so. And from this you jump to a the "argument" about support for Assad (or other regimes) being "terrorism" or not. I don't see that you've made your point to begin with, nor that it's going anywhere much - just your usual way of ever expanding discussions. Please, stop misrepresenting and twisting my words - we are not in agreement the way you claimed. And honestly, I don't care if you want to spin your mumbo jumbo as word games or faux moralizing.

It may be that these subjects have been discussed in other threads. But the problem is that you characterize these threads in a way that's favorable to you and unfavorable to me. Why should anyone believe your characterization that you offer without proof. It's a cheap and dishonest trick..

 

How low do you plan an going? Very low apparently if your reply  to my comment about you "playing silly word games resort."  is anything to go by.Clearly you were caught out and instead of replying to the substance  you make it personal. I explained in detail why your comment was a silly word game and all you can do in reply is to make a personal insult. When someone resorts to this, it means they've got nothing substantive to back it up.

 

I guoted your own comment a where you specifically state that using diplomatic pressure is legitimate, and all you can do is complain that I'm twisting your words. Prove that I was. Don't just make an empty assertion. If you don't want your quotes to be used against you, don't make them in the first place. Once they're out there, you don't get to own them anymore. And what exactly did I distort about this:

"What you fail to grasp, or perhaps "conveniently ignore" is that political pressure is not illegitimate - and is often a central part of what's known as "diplomacy". That you object to certain countries having interests, promoting interests or having enough leverage is not particularly interesting or relevant"

It may be legitmate, in the sense of it not being illegal, for a nation to apply pressure to arrive at a certain conclusion, but it hardly conduces to confidence in judgements arrived at by said pressure. 

 

Edited May 28, 2018 by bristolboy

[Morch]

 

@dexterm

 

There was no "falsehood", unless you are referring to your  own misleading presentation. Usually, when you make such accusations, it amounts to you either being misinformed or trying to force a warped interpretation on things.

 

There are sanctions against Hezbollah.

There are sanctions against Iran.

 

The recent reintroduction of US sanctions against Iran, also aims to target Iran's regional activities (such as supporting proxy organizations like Hezbollah). But in effect, the "new" sanctions discussed in the OP are essentially an expansion of previous, standing sanctions against Hezbollah. Since the sanctions against Hezbollah came into effect, they were augmented several times. Most times to include more actions, bodies or persons to which sanctions are applied. For all the bluster, the OP is not much different.

 

The EU's position is relevant to demonstrating that there are two sets of sanctions. The EU strongly disapproves of the US reintroduction of sanctions on Iran. But when it comes to sanctions targeting Hezbollah, there are no such objections. The fact is that the EU got its own sanctions in place, targeting Hezbollah. On top of that, there is a long standing international (as in UNSC) arms embargo targeting Hezbollah (which Syria and Iran often violate). Again, no real objections to this one either.

 

The point made is that the "new" sanctions on Hezbollah, aren't "new". They are simply an extension of previous, standing sanctions. That the Trump administration needs to present them as "new", rather than acknowledging that in effect, these were already in place, with some of the major legislation taking place during Obama's term.

 

Here are some informative links, detailing various sanctions related to Lebanon (many actually to do with Hezbollah), going way back, long before the Iran Deal was a "thing":

 

http://sanctionswiki.org/Lebanon

 

https://www.sipri.org/databases/embargoes/un_arms_embargoes/lebanon

 

https://www.sipri.org/databases/embargoes/eu_arms_embargoes/lebanon

 

http://webarchive.nationalarchives.gov.uk/20090609011205/http://www.berr.gov.uk/whatwedo/europeandtrade/strategic-export-control/sanctions-embargoes/by-country/Lebanon/index.html

 

https://europeansanctions.com/eu-sanctions-in-force/lebanon/

 

https://www.treasury.gov/resource-center/sanctions/Programs/pages/leb.aspx

 

https://www.treasury.gov/resource-center/sanctions/Documents/13441.pdf

 

https://www.treasury.gov/resource-center/sanctions/Programs/Documents/lebanon.pdf

 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hezbollah_International_Financing_Prevention_Act_of_2014

 

https://www.bscn.nl/sanctions-consulting/sanctions-list-countries

[Morch]

 

@bristolboy / @ilostmypassword

 

Just "it  may be"? How about "done to death"? As for the "problem" you go on about most posters following these topics, their expressed points of view and posting style, remain constant. That you deny or feign ignorance of this is dishonest. That you assert it cannot be referenced, or that it needs to be specifically referenced is bizarre, considering the body of topic in question. It would apply, perhaps, if someone wished to make the opposite point - that a poster held a radically different point of view on previous discussions. There is no requirement to fully rehash and link past topics with each new instance of the same being discussed. Not when positions are generally unaltered. That's simply preposterous.

 

And to get this straight - you making things personal, is legit. You "decreeing" a point was made, is legit. You playing silly word games, is legit. You issuing insults, is legit. Others are expected to fully accept your unsubstantiated premises and point of view, complete with your personal commentary. Gotcha. Do go about "how low", though...apparently you are quite the expert on the matter.

 

No empty assertions were made, other than by yourself. This is how you roll. Derailing each and every topic into petty arguments about minute interpretations. Attaching meanings of your own making to other posters' words, then demands these fake constructs be defended. And before expected "objections", this was pointed out by other posters, numerous times. But again, do go on about "silly word games", "how low" and whatnot.

 

And what you fail to grasp, or pretend to, is that your own convictions as to what "conduces to confidence", or what cherry picked factors played a role, are not undisputed facts. That you treat your posts and such does not mean that they are or that others are obliged to do so.

[bristolboy]

On 5/29/2018 at 12:54 PM, Morch said:

 

@bristolboy / @ilostmypassword

 

Just "it  may be"? How about "done to death"? As for the "problem" you go on about most posters following these topics, their expressed points of view and posting style, remain constant. That you deny or feign ignorance of this is dishonest. That you assert it cannot be referenced, or that it needs to be specifically referenced is bizarre, considering the body of topic in question. It would apply, perhaps, if someone wished to make the opposite point - that a poster held a radically different point of view on previous discussions. There is no requirement to fully rehash and link past topics with each new instance of the same being discussed. Not when positions are generally unaltered. That's simply preposterous.

 

And to get this straight - you making things personal, is legit. You "decreeing" a point was made, is legit. You playing silly word games, is legit. You issuing insults, is legit. Others are expected to fully accept your unsubstantiated premises and point of view, complete with your personal commentary. Gotcha. Do go about "how low", though...apparently you are quite the expert on the matter.

 

No empty assertions were made, other than by yourself. This is how you roll. Derailing each and every topic into petty arguments about minute interpretations. Attaching meanings of your own making to other posters' words, then demands these fake constructs be defended. And before expected "objections", this was pointed out by other posters, numerous times. But again, do go on about "silly word games", "how low" and whatnot.

 

And what you fail to grasp, or pretend to, is that your own convictions as to what "conduces to confidence", or what cherry picked factors played a role, are not undisputed facts. That you treat your posts and such does not mean that they are or that others are obliged to do so.

What is preposterous is your apparent belief that your characterizations of past threads or posters' positions is definitive. Who made you the arbiter of truth in this forum? Not even the moderators lay claim to that august position.

 

And an empty assertion is one in which no evidence is cited to back it up.  Your latest post is mostly just one empty assertion after another. Just allegations of past conduct with no proof. I guess if you haven't got the means to cope with the present discussion,, that's probably your only recourse.. Unless of course your idea of evidence is quotes consisting of 3 words or less. You can't even manage to quote a sentence much less a paragraph?That failure alone indicts you. There's a good reason why  the rules of the forum frown on such a practice. 

 

And you still haven't provided any proof that. as you asserted, I am a fanboy of Hezbollah. I think the only way you'll be able to manage that is if you resort to slicing up a sentence of mine to come up with another quote of 3 words or less. 

[Scott]

I strongly suggest that ALL involved in nonsensical posts cease.   It is completely off-topic.