Skip to main content

View Diary: History vs. Rice vs. Rice (10 comments)

Comment Preferences

  •  Taking out a foriegn army is not terrorism. (0+ / 0-)

    Do you think that, in the United States of America, having ARMED foriegn soldiers on American soil would be tolarated?

    Of course it wouldn't...and if Americans would have blown a foriegn army away...even in the middle of the night, do you think it would be justifyed?  Of course it would.

    The attack on the American soldiers in Lebanon in 1983 is not a terrorist attack.  There was no reason for them to be armed.  Americans were not at war with Lebanon, and Lebanon is a soverign nation.

    Then too, the Nazis called the French resistors 'terrorists' too.

    Oh...and there as no Hamas then.

    Oaths and alleginaces only become valid after being tested in adverstity.

    by Nur Alia Chang on Mon Nov 26, 2012 at 04:32:11 PM PST

    •  Not a fair picture either, I think. (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:

      I agree that the US was foolish to intrude militarily into Lebanese civil strife, but it seems unfair to treat the US forces as an invading army. They were there as part of a Multinational Force to secure Israeli withdrawal from southern Lebanon - a goal they achieved - and to keep peace among the warring Lebanese factions - a task in which they failed miserably. Rather predictably, the US was soon seen - with some justification - as siding with the Lebanese Christians, with tragic results. This should have been foreseen and avoided. But to equate the US presence with the Nazi occupation of France seems unreasonable.
        In any case, debate about whether the attack on the barracks can be called terrorism is beside the point. The intent of the diary was not to justify US military intervention in Lebanon, but to contrast the similar incidents with the Republican's politicization of Benghazi. That thesis is, I believe, beyond dispute.

      "If a nation expects to be ignorant and free, it expects what never was and never will be." - Thomas Jefferson

      by Blue Boomer on Tue Nov 27, 2012 at 07:49:31 AM PST

      [ Parent ]

      •  Please note... (0+ / 0-)

        I posted 'there as no reason for the Americans to be ARMED'.  

        I am sure that the Lebanese were fighting against Americans "helping" the Israelis leave thier soil.

        Again, I am sure that Americans would not take it lightly to have a foriegn ARMED military on thier soil for ANY reason.

        This, in my opinion was not a terrorist attack.

        Then too, I come from a land where 'Americans' were 'helping'.  Maybe this is why I relate to the...well, Lebanese more than the Israelis and thier 'unshakable allies'.

        Oaths and alleginaces only become valid after being tested in adverstity.

        by Nur Alia Chang on Tue Nov 27, 2012 at 06:00:13 PM PST

        [ Parent ]

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

  • Recommended (121)
  • Community (57)
  • Memorial Day (29)
  • Culture (21)
  • Environment (20)
  • Rescued (19)
  • Law (19)
  • Civil Rights (19)
  • Science (18)
  • Marriage Equality (16)
  • Labor (16)
  • Media (15)
  • Elections (15)
  • Education (15)
  • Ireland (14)
  • Trans-Pacific Partnership (14)
  • Economy (14)
  • Republicans (13)
  • Josh Duggar (13)
  • Racism (11)
  • Click here for the mobile view of the site