Prove to me that Hezbollah is a terrorist organization

[nicky g]

[ 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.

[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.

[nicky g]

[ QUOTE ]
[ 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.

[/ QUOTE ]

It is perfectly reasonable to argue about the extent of Hizballah's links with the Lebanese government and the consequent complicity of the Lebanese government. But that doesn't relate to whether or not it is a terrorist organisation. Saying it isn;t a terrorist organisation doesn't mean it must be part of government or vice versa.

[ QUOTE ]
If so, Israel has the right to react to the attacks as they have done.

[/ QUOTE ]

It has the right to respond proportionately. What it has done is out of all proportion to what was done to it and has massively escalated the situation (unless your a pro- Israeli, in which case bombing all of Lebanon and killing 100 plus people in response to an attack on soldiers is fine, but firing in Haifa is tantamount to nuclear war).

Hizb Allah wouldn't exist in such a powerful form if it weren't for Israel. Israel spent 18 years occupying parts of Lebanon and Hizba Allah were the only people that proved capable of resisting the occupation and eventually making them leave, garnering massive support and power for themselves in the process. People fear that removing them and replacing them with the mostly ineffectual Lebanese army would leave Lebanon defenceless once again, just as when Israel made PLO fighters leave Beirut and then, in spite of its own and international (US) assurances, sent in its Falangist allies to slaugter hundreds of unprotected civilians in the Palestinian refugee camps.

[vulturesrow]

[ QUOTE ]
It is perfectly reasonable to argue about the extent of Hizballah's links with the Lebanese government and the consequent complicity of the Lebanese government. But that doesn't relate to whether or not it is a terrorist organisation. Saying it isn;t a terrorist organisation doesn't mean it must be part of government or vice versa.


[/ QUOTE ]

Agreed, which is why I said the question of their status as a terrorist organization is a moot one at this point in time.

[ QUOTE ]
It has the right to respond proportionately. What it has done is out of all proportion to what was done to it and has massively escalated the situation (unless your a pro- Israeli, in which case bombing all of Lebanon and killing 100 plus people in response to an attack on soldiers is fine, but firing in Haifa is tantamount to nuclear war).


[/ QUOTE ]
I've been quite busy at work so honestly my knowledge of the chronology of the various events is a bit spotty. So I am to bow out of that particular question for the time being.

[ QUOTE ]
Hizb Allah wouldn't exist in such a powerful form if it weren't for Israel. Israel spent 18 years occupying parts of Lebanon and Hizba Allah were the only people that proved capable of resisting the occupation and eventually making them leave, garnering massive support and power for themselves in the process. People fear that removing them and replacing them with the mostly ineffectual Lebanese army would leave Lebanon defenceless once again, just as when Israel made PLO fighters leave Beirut and then, in spite of its own and international (US) assurances, sent in its Falangist allies to slaugter hundreds of unprotected civilians in the Palestinian refugee camps.

[/ QUOTE ]

I find this to be a bit of a red herring. The only real relevance is to shed some light on why the Hezbollah still has a lot of support. But Im not sure it speaks to the question of Israel's response to the attacks.

[nicky g]

[ QUOTE ]
Hizb Allah wouldn't exist in such a powerful form if it weren't for Israel. Israel spent 18 years occupying parts of Lebanon and Hizba Allah were the only people that proved capable of resisting the occupation and eventually making them leave, garnering massive support and power for themselves in the process. People fear that removing them and replacing them with the mostly ineffectual Lebanese army would leave Lebanon defenceless once again, just as when Israel made PLO fighters leave Beirut and then, in spite of its own and international (US) assurances, sent in its Falangist allies to slaugter hundreds of unprotected civilians in the Palestinian refugee camps.



I find this to be a bit of a red herring. The only real relevance is to shed some light on why the Hezbollah still has a lot of support. But Im not sure it speaks to the question of Israel's response to the attacks.


[/ QUOTE ]

I mentioned it in the context of demands that because the Lebanese government hadn't dealth with Hizb Allah/removed it, it should be held responsible and targetted. Its difficulty in dealing with Hizb Allah in large part a consequenece of the long occupation and Hizb Allah being the sole group to effectively resist it.

[NapHead]

[ QUOTE ]
Hizb Allah denies involvement in the Argentina episodes. They were also more than ten years ago

[/ QUOTE ]

So everything that happened more than 10 years ago is irrelevant? What about 5 years? Is that irrelevant too? Not surprisingly your posts defy logic. Were the Argentinian attacks terrorism? Yes/No?

[ QUOTE ]
I don;t see how the attack on the marine barracks, a military target of a country that was intervening in the conflict increasingly on behalf of one side, can be considered a terrorist attack.

[/ QUOTE ]

The marines were in Lebanon as part of a multinational force to oversee the evactuation of the PLO. As with vitually every one of yours posts, you seriously need to go back and reread the history. Unless you want to claim that it was more than 10 years ago. A few facts:

On Aug 28, 1983 - a full year after the Marines had been in Lebanon - a combat outpost manned by 30 Marines and Lebanese Army troops east of Beirut International Airport came under attack. Marines returned fire for the first time.

On August 31, 1983 after Moslem shelling of the US embassy, Marines return fire.

September 19, 1983 - Two American warships fire rounds to help Lebanese Army troops retain hold on the village of Suq al Gharb. How dare the Americans intervene on the side of the Lebanese. Don't they know whose country this is? Oh wait...

You also forgot to mention the "non-terrorist" attack on the French barracks that killed 58.

[ QUOTE ]
But Hizballah's record is overwhelmingly one of military involvement with the Israeli army and it not in my view primarily a terrorist organisation even if it has arguably been involved in some terrorist-type atrocities.

[/ QUOTE ]

All I can say to the above statement is....Wow.

Nasrallah has repeatedly argued that the US is the cause of all Lebanon's woes. In his words, "death to America is not a slogan. Death to America is a policy, a strategy and a vision.". Thankfully it is only a matter of time before Hezbollah is swept up in the dustbin of history.

[Psycho Boy Jack]

if what u say is right, then An official governament politic clan attacking militaries of their nrighboors, it's a war declaration.
War has began, and i think israel is imply answering to it rather than letting its soldiers being rapped and killed.

[steve9789]

Prior to 9/11 hezbollah had killed more Americans than any other terrorist organization.

2/2/04 Interview with Ambassador Black

See the third question of the Q & A section.

[SNOWBALL]

[ QUOTE ]
Prior to 9/11 hezbollah had killed more Americans than any other terrorist organization.

2/2/04 Interview with Ambassador Black

See the third question of the Q & A section.

[/ QUOTE ]

The attack on the marine barracks in 82 wasn't terrorism.

[C0pernicus]

What was it if not terrorism?

from that bastion of hawks, CBS news