Language is a funny old thing, isn't it? I've put "terrorism" in inverted commas, while Dick sees fit to isolate "fighter". I've stated my reasons, but I'm not sure what point Dick is making. In the reports I read, the Israeli's themselves use the word fighter (or guerrilla).

Dick, are you saying that Hezbollah guerrillas shouldn't be called fighters (that this noun perhaps confers too much dignity) even though the word seems about as succinct a description as one could reasonably wish, something we might even unanimously agree on? Whatever else Hezbollah may or may not do, their fighters certainly...well, er, fight. I don't imagine Israeli soldiers on the front line would argue with this. I could understand your objecting to 'freedom fighter' or 'heroic martyr', but nobody here is using these terms.

Call this hair-splitting if you like, but misuse of language (or scare-quotes) always makes me wince.

[This message has been edited by Mark Granier (edited August 09, 2006).]

Dick's point was that the Hezbollah fighters were trained in Iran. I don't think the use of quotes around "fighter" is particularly relevant to what he said.

But to follow your tangent, though I think you are right that "fighter" didn't have to be in quotes because it can mean, quite literally, someone who fights, regardless of the justice of the fight, there are, in fact, senses of the word that would not necessarily apply to a Hezbollah combatant. According to Wikepedia, "Combat violence can be unilateral, whereas fighting implies at least a defensive reaction." So using quotes around the word may be interpreted to mean that the speaker disclaims any notion that the Hezbollah is acting defensively.

This is consistent with my sense that "fight" is quite often, though not necessarily, used with a slight connotation of virtue. We fight for our rights. We fight for freedom. We fight disease. We fight prejudice. We fight hunger. Yes, the word has broader meanings, but my own sense is that there is, indeed, often a tinge of virtue implied by the use of the word "fight."

When Al-Quaeda destroyed the WTC, it was violent, but it wasn't a "fight." We fight terrorism, but we generally don't think of terrorists as "fighting" us when they attack.

Anyway, Dick was making a different point, I take it. Whatever you call the Hezbollah-nik, he was financed by Iran.



[This message has been edited by Roger Slater (edited August 09, 2006).]

So? Sorry, Roger, I still don't get it. It's not as though Dick put "Lebanese fighter" or "Hezbollah fighter" in inverted commas, though even if he had it would still look peculiar.

I agree, broadly, with the first sentence. The second I have problems with, namely the following:

Firstly, who is 'we'? You? The US (including all its allies)? All right-thinking citizens? Who do you presume to speak for?

Secondly, to begin a sentence by declaring "We fight terrorism.." is to start on a false note. It sounds phony, a politician attempting to appeal to the crowd, as if 'we' all spoke the same language and 'terrorism' is as solid and definable a target as the Twin Towers. Whereas we all know by now (don't we?) that life, alas, just ain't that simple.

Thirdly, which kind of attack (and which kind of 'terrorist') are you talking about? If a Hezbollah 'terrorist' shoots an Israeli soldier at relatively close range, is that not 'fighting'?

By "we fight terrorism" I was not referring to anyone in particular, but was giving an example of how I felt the word "fight" is most commonly used. I was speaking for no one, not even myself. I was merely illustrating a usage, that's all. And the "terrorism" I was speaking of was also indeterminate, not referring to Hezbollah, Al Quaeda, Chechnan rebels, right-wing militias in Oklahoma, or anyone else.

But I think you know that, just as I think you know that "fighter," broad as it is, has the sorts of connotations that I mentioned, and which may call for quotation marks by one who desires to disclaim those connotations.

And by the way, I certainly hope that someone is fighting terrorism, though I have no first hand knowledge. And if you want to avoid understanding my point by questioning my definition of "terrorism," let me withdraw the word and simply say that I hope that someone is fighting to prevent a nuclear bomb from being detonated on the orders of some guy who lives in a cave and counts among his hobbies videotaping the beheading of foreign journalists. Yes, terrorism is broader than that, but I need not wish for everything at the same time.

Hezbollah fighters, terrorists, dudes, or whatever you want to call them, are at least sometimes, maybe most of the time, trained in Lebanon. It's easier to have a few hundred Revolutionary Guards in Lebanon than to move the Hezbollah guys to Iran for training; in fact, the hospital hit in the famous "savage" Israeli attack was a known training station according to some reports.

To bring us all up to date... Israel is acting coyly intrigued about the Lebanese offer to send 15,000 guys to the South. They are also holding off on the serious nasty action until the UN has met on their proposal (giving it 2-3 days. Supposedly.)

I don't think Israel goes for a Lebanese force solution. The notion that the Lebanese army will fight Hezbollah to protect the border's integrity strikes me as ludicrous. Lebanon "could not" control Hezbollah before -- how is it they can now? And if they "would not," why would they now -- unless of course the infamous coercive, terrorist, unwarranted, unnecessary, and illegal Israeli actions attached a sufficient penalty to inaction?

I doubt the Lebanese army is the instrument by which Hezbollah will be restrained; I think they know each other too well, and -- especially now -- are much cozier with each other than we may think. And I think that is the way the Israeli government views that prospect as well.

My guess is that Israel isn't going anywhere until there are boots on the ground from an international force, plus flak jackets, lots of ammo, rifles, and the rest. They're not going to be happy with another bunch of "observers."

But I've been wrong before.

Well, back to work - peace love n understanding dudes.

He was casting aspersions on their manhood by his use of sarcastic quotes.

I believe Dick was mocking the self-perceived Hezbollah view by his use of quotes around the word "fighter" just as you were mocking our view of the word "terrorist" by your use of inverted commas. No matter how you slice it, "doubt" comes to mind when a word is somehow isolated from it's companion words.

Media-truth is - one can call himself anything he wants...it's what others consistantly call him that eventually colors the way the world views him.

Lo

[This message has been edited by Lo (edited August 09, 2006).]

Strange as it may sound, I agree with this estimation. Whether the UN actually delivers on it is another point, of course.

As for Hezbollah, I'd suspect they have a few commanders and similar types trained in Iran, but the bulk of the fighters were likely trained (and I use that word lightly) in Lebanon.

As for "fighters" versus "combatants," we're into another "kidnapped" versus "captured" debate here. Yes, the words have shades of meaning, but for the most part are the same.

[quote]Originally posted by Dan Halberstein:

"They {Israelies} are also holding off on the serious nasty action until the UN has met on their proposal (giving it 2-3 days. Supposedly."

You mean we ain't seen nothin' yet?

"I don't think Israel goes for a Lebanese force solution. The notion that the Lebanese army will fight Hezbollah to protect the border's integrity strikes me as ludicrous."

Yes, I agree.

"Lebanon "could not" control Hezbollah before -- how is it they can now? And if they "would not," why would they now -- unless of course the infamous coercive, terrorist, unwarranted, unnecessary, and illegal Israeli actions attached a sufficient penalty to inaction?"

Put the string of adverbs and the adjective in quotes. It's become the fashion. Otherwise these words could be mistaken as your own.

"My guess is that Israel isn't going anywhere until there are boots on the ground from an international force, plus flak jackets, lots of ammo, rifles, and the rest. They're not going to be happy with another bunch of "observers.""

I agree.

Bob

Well, it looks like, to make up for the massacre that didn't actually occur (except for one death), Israel decided to have a real massacre. This one in Beirut:
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article...304923,00.html

From the London Times, caption to the photograph: <cite>Paramedics and rescue workers carry away the body of a young man from a destroyed apartment block in the Shiyah district of Beirut. At least 30 people were killed and about 60 injured</cite>

Moreover, this happened in Beirut. No business about Israel firing at Hezbollah and hitting innocent bystanders. Now She's just killing the innocent bystanders, forget Hezbollah. And people who'd been calling for a ceasefire are now chanting Hezbollah's support.

Forget "evil Israel." This latest act is not just evil but stupid.

Another article on what looks to be the same massacre:
http://sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cg...i040622D99.DTL

Death count is now up to 41, with 15 from the same family.

[This message has been edited by Kevin Andrew Murphy (edited August 09, 2006).]