[vulturesrow]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
I think they are mostly a militia and a political party. They shoot at israeli soldiers that are unlawfully occupying part of southern lebanon, and they run candidates in the lebanese parliament. What's terrorist about that?

[/ QUOTE ]

awesome, now israel is fully justified in destroying the lebanese infastructure since these were acts by part of the lebanese government/parliament.

If these were terrorists acts there was actually an argument for israel's actions being disproportionate. Now you make the argument that this was an attack by lebanon itself.

Do you secretely work for the israeli government press department?

thanks

[/ QUOTE ]

This point should be stressed more. If Hezbollah is not a terrorist organization, then what are they? A legitimate body associated with the government of Lebanon? In that case, Israel, a sovereign nation, was attacked by Lebanon, another sovereign nation, and is completely justified in declaring war on Lebanon until such time as Lebanon stops firing rockets and returns the kidnapped soldiers.

[/ QUOTE ]

THis is completely illogical. Terrorism isn't about whether or not they are part of the state; it's about whether or not their primary methods are the use of violence to terrify civilians in order to achieve political goals. They can be a non-terrorist militia organisation for instance, without being part of the state. Being a non-state armed group does not automatically make that group a terrorist group and being a non-terrorist group does not automatically mean that the group must be part of the state.

If you think them being part of the Lebanese state would give Israel the right to attack Lebanese civilian infrastructure, I presume you think it is Hizb Allah's right to do the same to Israeli civilian infrastructure.

[/ QUOTE ]

This is your typical argument from terrorist supporters who want to have their cake and eat it too.

They don't want their beloved hezbollah (or as hezbollah lovers like to refer to themselves as hizb allah) to be referred to as terrorists because it sounds bad. But they also don't want to acknowledge the fact that hezbollah is part of the lebanese government and is therefore supported by part of the lebanese people.

They basically want to be allowed to bomb israel without israel being able to defend itself. Luckily for you most intelligent people see straight through your pathetic attempts. Nice try though.

[/ QUOTE ]

So you are sticking to the argument that the definition of terrorism depends solely on whether or not the group is part of a state and is not actually about methods? If that's your definition fine, just doesn;t seem to be the one anyone else is using. I'll take note that you're speaking a completely different language to the rest of us.

[/ QUOTE ]

Seems like some issues are being conflated, i.e. I think you are both right to a degree. The question of whether or not Hezbollah is a terrorist organization is moot at this point in time. Are they or are they not supported by the Lebanese government. I would argue that their is much evidence of implicit support and possibly even explicit. If so, Israel has the right to react to the attacks as they have done. If the Lebanese government has made serious, good faith efforts to stop the actions of Hezbollah, then the Israeli actions are unjustified.