Boiling Point

Though I've been quite busy lately and haven't been as in-tuned to news events unfolding on the eastern shores of the Mediterranean, I - like most others - am left perplexed over the situation in the Middle East. Well, I suppose there's always a "situation" in the Middle East, but the new dimensions of the latest horror story take on new significance.

I've been feeling for the ordinary Lebanese citizens - many of whom are no great fans of Hezbollah, mind you - caught in the middle of Israeli jets roaring overhead and Hezbollah lackeys roaming the southern border (and influential posts in government). Not to mention the bizarre thug triangle involving likely behind-the-scenes support from Damascus and Teheran sponsors.

There are plenty of times I support Israeli responses, particularly pinpoint target responses. But the scenes of airports, gas stations and other such targets going up in smoke have made me wonder about the ramifications from all of this. Maybe it's growing up in metro Detroit and knowing Lebanese-Americans [free plug for La Shish... scrumptious dining] that makes me a bit more keenly aware of events in that country. Not sure.

Then again, what are Israel's alternatives? The current bombing campaign that may or may not involve a land invasion, throwing a new battle theater into the already volatile Mideast? Could "getting this all over with, once and for all" be an attractive alternative? What about diplomacy? Targeting attacks against Hezbollah and Hezbollah only? Working through anti-Hezbollah Lebanese through other channels?

I don't know.

I've been catching up a bit on interesting commentary and links via Instapudit, Michael Totten, and came across a bit of a Point-Counterpoint on Samizdata. Good stuff, all of it.

What's to become of the latest round of gunpowder and rubble? Is this another pre-cursor to the 9.0 Richter scale Mideast War that has been proceeded by ugly tremors for the past umpteen decades? Or just another hot spike before the inevitable cool-down where (shaky) cease-fires are bandied about, but not adhered to for longer than x months?

Needless to say, given my inquiry-laden Sunday evening ramble, I'm a bit on the fence and spectating this one. I'm neither strongly pro-X nor anti-X, at least for now.

Time continues on...

:juggle:

Share this

I read something recently

I read something recently which was stated by the Lebanese foreign minister which makes me think Israel now must destroy the Lebanese government. But maybe I am taking the statement out of context, or maybe I am reading too much into it. I'll let you judge for yourself. The URL is:

http://weekly.ahram.org.eg/2006/803/fr5.htm

The quote is:

"The Arab world cannot deny the heroics of Hezbollah and we expect our Arab brethren to take our side," Lebanese Foreign Minister Fawzi Saloukh said on the eve of the meetings.

What the hell? The Lebanese Foreign Minister is praising Hezbollah and treating them as part of "us"? Having done that, the government establishes itself as the ally and protector of Hezbollah.

Constant, What the hell? The

Constant,

What the hell? The Lebanese Foreign Minister is praising Hezbollah and treating them as part of “us"? Having done that, the government establishes itself as the ally and protector of Hezbollah.

You have to remember that Hezbollah has some representatives in the Lebanese government. And in fact the government there in Lebanon is set up to make sure that certain posts are given to the Christian minoritites, some to the Sunnis, and some to the Shiites. So, just because someone in the Lebanese government says something like that doesn't mean that he's saying that with the support of the Lebanese government as a whole or the people of the country.

Fallacy of composition and all that.

~Jon

No one in their right minds

No one in their right minds trusts Qwest.

the " likely

the " likely behind-the-scenes support from Damascus and Teheran sponsors." may not actually exist, and is presently a fabrication/wish of the American/Isreali military-entertainment complex. when you see or read almost anything in the media, its best to start by dismissing it as a lie and work from there. you'll get a lot farther a lot quicker.

I've been feeling for the

I've been feeling for the citizens of Israel, one in four of whom are spending their days and nights in bomb shelters (and wondering when their relatives in the conscription army are going to come home).

A foreign minister is in

A foreign minister is in charge of his government's relations with other countries. That means that he must, in the course of his work, represent his government. If he represents, in what he says and does, only himself, then he cannot establish relationships between *his government* and foreign governments, he can only establish relationships between himself and foreign governments. When an article says, "the foreign minister said suchandsuch", using his title, it is implying that he spoke in the capacity of foreign minister, i.e., as a representative of his government. If the writer does not mean to imply that the statement represented the view of the Lebanese government, the writer should not employ the title.

Jon’s point is that

Jon’s point is that Lebanon is one of those special departures, ergo, the fallacy of composition has been committed

That is nonsense. The government is as capable as any other government of sending out emissaries who speak on its behalf. It is an empirical, not a logical, question whether the foreign minister spoke on behalf of his government. To claim fallacy composition is to claim that it is a logical question whether he spoke on behalf of his government, it is to rule out an empirical investigation.

Jon's point is that Lebanon

Jon's point is that Lebanon is one of those special departures, ergo, the fallacy of composition has been committed, whereas it wouldn't have been for a similar personage in another country, like Rice.

At any rate, why assume animus behind his concluding remark?

Fallacy of composition and

Fallacy of composition and all that.

Wow, you can make your point without adding a stupid remark at the end. Your point is that the foreign minister may have been speaking for himself rather than as a representative of his government. In contrast, when Condi Rice goes out and she speaks on world affairs, she normally speaks as the representative of the American government. If she says something that does not represent the position of the American government then it is upon the American government to make that clear by disowning her remarks. Absent that, then it is reasonable to take her words as representing the position of the American state. That has nothing to do with the fallacy of composition. It is not fallacious to take Condi's words to foreign leaders as representing the official position of the American state. That is the default interpretation. Departures are special.