IS Hezbollah a terrorist org?

[rachamim18]

Dexter: Integrated after they offered fealty to the state. They gave up their formal power structure. They turned in all arms. They were issued Haganah uniforms and ranks, as well as serial numbers. Is it difficult to fathom then?


Plastic: I do not agree with you. Terrorism is usually defined as the deliberate useof violence against non-combatants in order to achieve political ends. America, France, and so on do not even come close although those two did have cases of it early on.


I do see major problems in every political system as well and would love to beable to start from scratch.

 

[Plastic Bathmat]

Plastic: I do not agree with you. Terrorism is usually defined as the deliberate useof violence against non-combatants in order to achieve political ends. America, France, and so on do not even come close although those two did have cases of it early on.

Nicaragua, Beirut in the 1980s, Al Shifa in Sudan, Cuba, Colombia, Vietnam..... I could go on. You are aware the US is the only country to have been condemned by the World Court for international terrorism? You are aware the US is officially committed to a doctrine of 'low intensity warfare', the definition of which aligns pretty much exactly with the US Code's definition of terrorism (hence why the US aren't very keen to pin an official definition on what they class as 'terrorism')? France, the UK et al's involvement is slightly more controversial as they've not actually been done for anything, but there's plenty of evidence linking them to terrorism from Algeria to Indonesia. As for Israel, their actions in Lebanon of late most certainly fall under the definition of terrorism.

I have to say that from what I've read of your posts you seem very intelligent and very on the ball, very right on a number of issues, but also very indoctrinated.

 

[ZAMB]

They are only considered a terrorist org. by Israel, the US, and a very few of their arse-lickers. Even the EU does not consider Hezbollah a terrorist group.

Since we now know that the Israeli army's terrorist offensive on Lebanon was long planned and just waiting for any excuse, would Israel have re-occupied Lebanon if Hezbollah had not been there to stop them?

 

[lobster]

They are only considered a terrorist org. by Israel, the US, and a very few of their arse-lickers. Even the EU does not consider Hezbollah a terrorist group.

Since we now know that the Israeli army's terrorist offensive on Lebanon was long planned and just waiting for any excuse, would Israel have re-occupied Lebanon if Hezbollah had not been there to stop them?

Its ashame its only me and you that have said that.

HERE is the link for anyone who did not see the link the first time i posted it.

 

[moono]

Its ashame its only me and you that have said that.

Oi !

 

[ZAMB]

Perhaps the question we should be asking is "Is Israel a terrorist country?"

To which the answer is YES, and it has been from its inception. They even take pride in how they can commit terrorist acts with impunity [see quote below]

The Israeli defense doctrine, old as Israel itself, considers bombing of civilian targets a means for pressuring “militants” and uncooperative governments. So Israel bombs bridges and villages in South Lebanon, power plants in Gaza, orchards, fields, schools, hospitals, residential neighborhoods, beach barbecue parties, etc. Everything is a legitimate target. Israeli ministers announce publicly that their chief strategy is to cause civilian suffering. Every day sees its Guernica, and the U.N., which proudly displays a reproduction of the painting, is mum in the face of a hundred Guernicas.

To be clear, Israel’s actions fit the very definition of terrorism. Doubly so now, since the bombing campaign is a response to attacks on Israeli soldiers, not civilians. The ever more morally bankrupt “international community” sees nothing, hears nothing, and says nothing. Don’t take my word for it. An aide of the Israeli PM said recently: “We are acting there [in Gaza] in an unprecedented manner; we’re firing hundreds of artillery shells, attacking from the air, sea and land and the world remains silent.”

http://www.dissidentvoice.org/July06/Ash18.htm

 

[CyberRose]

Hizballah deliberately target innocent civilians to further political ends and I think that would fit into most people's definitions of terrorism?

 

[ZAMB]

Hizballah deliberately target innocent civilians to further political ends and I think that would fit into most people's definitions of terrorism?

Israel and the US "deliberately target innocent civilians to further political ends and I think that would fit into most people's definitions of terrorism?"

 

[London_Calling]

It's label init, Labels just lead to slagging, and slagging distracts from the issues.

The agenda is the ding.

 

[FruitandNut]

Is Hamas a terrorist organization?

They both build schools and hospitals for their community and fight off foreign invaders. Sound like heroes to me.

Ask the question: - 'Just where does the money and supplies come from?' - Out of their own pockets? - I don't think so!

They ain't 'heroes', they are playing politics.

Fire off a few Katushas at the Israeli border towns and villages and incur the wrath of the IAF and IDF. Then go, 'there, there' to the poor old Lebanese 'civilians', talk about the nasty Israelis; then offer concern and the help that is indirectly afforded by others' oil dollars.

 

[moono]

#40

You clearly have no concept of the hell that Zionism has delivered to Lebanon and the region in general. Any resistance to the Israelis is to be applauded.

 

[ZAMB]

Ask the question: - 'Just where does the money and supplies come from?' - Out of their own pockets? - I don't think so!

They ain't 'heroes', they are playing politics.

They do not get aid to anything near the extent that Israel gets aid from the US - you could ask this question if they were on anything near a level playing field, but, as it is, as far as money and arms are concerned, it's more like a mountain of difference, with Hamas and Hezbollah near the bottom. I think it's admirable that Iran is helping the Lebanese with money to rebuild - given that the chances of the perpetrators of these war crimes in Lebanon and Gaza will ever be forced to pay reparations. Even if there is a judgement against them, they'll probably follow the US example with Nicaragua - the people there are still waiting for the $17,000,000,000 they were awarded in reparations.

Meanwhile, back in the USA, a year after Katrina, the victims are still getting little or no help from their own govt. which is funnelling millions in cash and armaments to Israel. Do you not think this is the height of hypocrisy, giving millions in aid to another country to make war while ignoring the US citizens who were hit by a natural disaster? You would think that the US politicians who are stupid enough to still support the Iraq war would at least put the people of their own country above the Israeli war machine in their priorities, and cause an outcry at this - but it has yet to happen and I don't hold out any great hopes.

So who exactly is 'playing politics' here?

 

[rachamim18]

Bathmat: "Low intensity" has nothing at all to do with terrorism. That is wishing and hoping but not even coming close. If you would like, on what grouynds do you see this analogy?

As for condemnation, it was a brief. Briefs are nonsense and mean nothing in a court of law when you vcome down to it.

Please also explain how Israeli actions in Lebanon compare to terrorism. Assymetrical warfare is in way,, shape, or form anything at all to do with "terrorism." Please cut through the rhetoric and get to the facts. Thanks in advance.

ZAMB: The EU DID consider Hezbollah a terrorist organisation but ammended that designation once Hezbollah entered the legitamate political process hoping that this would encourage Hezbollah to fully integrate themselves into the Lebanese political community.

The EU however contravened their very own guidelines by not insisting that Hezbollah disarm before gaining this redesignation. The EU gambled thinking that with assimilation this would be a natural evolution, and lost badly, hence their reluctance to make the same mistake with HAMAS.


Your link quoting some "Israeli Defence Doctrine" is fully a fabrication. I hope you are aware of that. No such strategy has ever existed on any level.

Israeli mimisters regularly announce that their aim is to cause civilian suffering? Please oiffer just a single example from a mainstream source. Thanks.

Israel and the US DO NOT deliberately target non-combatants foir ANY reason. Offer an example if you wstill wish to make that claim.

 

[rachamim18]

ZAMB: You really should do your research. Care to tell us how much Fatah ghets annualy just from Arabia? Hint: It was enough to buy Suha Arafat off for her new husband in Tunisia to a tunbe of 220 million annually. The money is staggering. You do not seem to have a clue.


What does a natural disaster in America have to do with the subject at hand? Sigh....Please keep it on track.

 

[CyberRose]

Israel and the US "deliberately target innocent civilians to further political ends and I think that would fit into most people's definitions of terrorism?"

Yes, but this thread is whether or not Hizballah is a "terrorist" organisation and I pointed out that some of it's means can be defined as terrorist

 

[CyberRose]

You clearly have no concept of the hell that Zionism has delivered to Lebanon and the region in general. Any resistance to the Israelis is to be applauded.

I'm sorry but I refuse under any circumstances to applaud the deliberate targetting of innocent civilians. It is the most dispicable crime I know (and yes before you start, that sentiment applies to Israel/US/UK/etc as well)

 

[moono]

I fully understand your stance and I agree with you. Some means of resistance are not praiseworthy, it's true. Resistance in general however should be applauded and allowances should be made for the defenders who have to endure watching their own innocent citizens being murdered by aggressors.

How far would you yourself be driven under such circumstances ?

 

[lobster]

What does a natural disaster in America have to do with the subject at hand? Sigh....Please keep it on track.

A country who does not care about its own people is surely wrong.
Putting a allies war ahead of its own people that are suffering is wrong.

 

[lobster]

Your link quoting some "Israeli Defence Doctrine" is fully a fabrication. I hope you are aware of that. No such strategy has ever existed on any level.

Israeli mimisters regularly announce that their aim is to cause civilian suffering? Please oiffer just a single example from a mainstream source. Thanks.

Israel and the US DO NOT deliberately target non-combatants foir ANY reason. Offer an example if you wstill wish to make that claim.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/middle_east/5299938.stm

To any human with morals thats causing civilian suffering.

 

[Plastic Bathmat]

Bathmat: "Low intensity" has nothing at all to do with terrorism. That is wishing and hoping but not even coming close. If you would like, on what grouynds do you see this analogy?

As for condemnation, it was a brief. Briefs are nonsense and mean nothing in a court of law when you vcome down to it.

Please also explain how Israeli actions in Lebanon compare to terrorism. Assymetrical warfare is in way,, shape, or form anything at all to do with "terrorism." Please cut through the rhetoric and get to the facts. Thanks in advance.

First paragraph - erm, it is:

LIC [Low Intensity Conflict] is a limited politico-military struggle to attain political, military, social, economic or psychological objectives. It is often of lengthy duration and extends from diplomatic, economic and psychological pressure to terrorism and insurgency. LIC is generally confined to a specific geographical area and is often characterized by limitations of armaments, tactics and level of force. LIC involves the actual or contemplated use of military means up to just below the threshold of battle between regular armed forces.

Source - Field Circular "low-Intensity Conflict",FC 100-20, U.S. Army Command and General Staff College, Fort Leavenworth/Kansas, May 30, 1986, p.V.


2nd paragraph - oh, it's a 'brief', sorry. It might mean nothing in a 'court of law', but at the time the World Court was the closest thing to the ICC, and the only international court in existence. Funny how the US oppose the ICC too - you'd figure if they were actually for 'justice' they'd support it. But no. Gee, a Zionist using semantics over moral reasoning? And I'm getting caught up in rhetoric? Pfffft.
Edit - just given this one a bit more thought. As far as I'm concerned that statement sums your attitude up perfectly. If you're that much of an amoral twerp you're willing to get bogged down in legal semantics rather than moral argument you're no better than those from Hezbollah you feel superior to. Wouldn't mean anything in a court of law? Who gives a shit? Do you really lack that much ethical guidance that you don't perceive the advocated bombings of civilian institutions such as agricultural co-ops and medical clinics and the subsequent large numbers of civilian deaths as wrong, simply because a court wouldn't hold it up? And which courts? I know the Israeli press is very xenophobic (been there on numerous occassions), but there's actually an entire planet out there with lots of different countries and lots of different legal systems - precisely the reason the World Court was established in the first place.

As for your 3rd paragraph, I'm not even going to bother replying to that. No point arguing with folk like you. At all. You have an opinion, and it ain't shifting, no matter what evidence is thrown in your face. Your arguments are baseless garbage, nothing more - if you don't think targeting random cars and trucks simply cause they were on the road at the time (oh, that's right - leaflets were dropped, so that's you on the moral highground), or the massive, intentional damage to infrastructure - or the bombing of a UN base after they'd asked Israel to stop numerous times for God's sake - doesn't count as terrorism you're even more indoctrinated than I first thought.

 

[ZAMB]

Yes, but this thread is whether or not Hizballah is a "terrorist" organisation and I pointed out that some of it's means can be defined as terrorist

And I'm attempting to point out that the ONLY countries who designate Hezbollah as terrorists are themselves countries which practice terrorism also.
So should I take the word of a government which practices terrorism itself about who should be defined as a "terrorist"?

I don't think so .... I prefer to find out the facts and make up my own mind than to take the word of torturers, murderers, war criminals etc. - and that unfortunately includes the govt. here in the UK.

 

[moono]

First paragraph - erm, it is:



Source - Field Circular "low-Intensity Conflict",FC 100-20, U.S. Army Command and General Staff College, Fort Leavenworth/Kansas, May 30, 1986, p.V.


2nd paragraph - oh, it's a 'brief', sorry. It might mean nothing in a 'court of law', but at the time the World Court was the closest thing to the ICC, and the only international court in existence. Funny how the US oppose the ICC too - you'd figure if they were actually for 'justice' they'd support it. But no. Gee, a Zionist using semantics over moral reasoning? And I'm getting caught up in rhetoric? Pfffft.
Edit - just given this one a bit more thought. As far as I'm concerned that statement sums your attitude up perfectly. If you're that much of an amoral twerp you're willing to get bogged down in legal semantics rather than moral argument you're no better than those from Hezbollah you feel superior to. Wouldn't mean anything in a court of law? Who gives a shit? Do you really lack that much ethical guidance that you don't perceive the advocated bombings of civilian institutions such as agricultural co-ops and medical clinics and the subsequent large numbers of civilian deaths as wrong, simply because a court wouldn't hold it up? And which courts? I know the Israeli press is very xenophobic (been there on numerous occassions), but there's actually an entire planet out there with lots of different countries and lots of different legal systems - precisely the reason the World Court was established in the first place.

As for your 3rd paragraph, I'm not even going to bother replying to that. No point arguing with folk like you. At all. You have an opinion, and it ain't shifting, no matter what evidence is thrown in your face. Your arguments are baseless garbage, nothing more - if you don't think targeting random cars and trucks simply cause they were on the road at the time (oh, that's right - leaflets were dropped, so that's you on the moral highground), or the massive, intentional damage to infrastructure - or the bombing of a UN base after they'd asked Israel to stop numerous times for God's sake - doesn't count as terrorism you're even more indoctrinated than I first thought.

Nothing to add really, just thought it deserved an encore.

 

[CyberRose]

And I'm attempting to point out that the ONLY countries who designate Hezbollah as terrorists are themselves countries which practice terrorism also.
So should I take the word of a government which practices terrorism itself about who should be defined as a "terrorist"?

I don't think so .... I prefer to find out the facts and make up my own mind than to take the word of torturers, murderers, war criminals etc. - and that unfortunately includes the govt. here in the UK.

And is that not exactly what I have done to "make up my own mind"?

And why you can't just come out and say one way or another what your opinion on the matter is instead of all this fannying around I'm not sure...

 

[ZAMB]

And is that not exactly what I have done to "make up my own mind"?

And why you can't just come out and say one way or another what your opinion on the matter is instead of all this fannying around I'm not sure...

What 'fannying around'? I think I have made my opinion perfectly clear - I am not prepared to take the word of govts. which practice terrorism themselves about who is or isn't a terrorist.

 

[CyberRose]

What 'fannying around'? I think I have made my opinion perfectly clear - I am not prepared to take the word of govts. which practice terrorism themselves about who is or isn't a terrorist.

Nobody's asking you to take anyone's word for anything, you've been asked for your opinion yet so far you've only talked about the actions of America or Israel or Britain and skirted round the actual thread topic (and that is what I consider "fannying around")

 

[rachamim18]

Moono:"How far would you be driven?" Let us take the Zionists as a prime example. Begining in 1920 with the total annihilation of two Zionist villages [Metullah and Tel Chai] and lasting until 1936 for a full 16 years these brave men and women offered no response in kind. Evil does not need to be answered with evil.

Many argue that the Zioinist actions you call brutality are in no way evil, me being one of them of course. Let us , for argument's sake say that it is brutality . does lobbing low tech missiles at random somehow protect your brutalised people? Does it lessen their brutalisation? Even Nasrallah himself has said in no less than 4 separate interviews that I have managed to see [how many others have there been?] that he would have never given his o.k. for the abduction/murder had he known what kind of response Israel would have offered up.

Lobster: So you are Amnerican then? This is a Mid-Eastern forum, devoted to Mid-Eastern topics [naturally]. Again, what does an American natural disaster have to do with this?


Then I ask you about proving your claim of some ficticious "Defence Dctrine" and you offer a BBC article on cluster mnumitions and submunitions and their unfortunate innocent victims? What is the connection? Your document is non-existent.

Bathmat: "Low Intensity Conflict." Now here is where you made your mistake. Where in that text book definition does it say "employed against non-combatants and/or their institutions at will?" It does not. They are two very separate doctrines. Similarities mean nothing.


Your ad homs apart, I will respond at length. Do I feel better than those in Hezbollah? DEFINITELY. I am a member of an army, of a legal nation, which operates according to international norms and practices. I do not fire on non-combatants as a course of strategy. In fact I have never done so. We are taught for go that civilian casualties must be minimised at all possible costs. I do not take a pregnant woman in my sights and watch her placenta explode. I do not aim for kids playing in the street. I am not Artillery or Armour but were I, I would not launch unguided armaments into heavily populated areas with no strategy as to objective. I can go on but brevity is served.

 

[ZAMB]

Nobody's asking you to take anyone's word for anything, you've been asked for your opinion yet so far you've only talked about the actions of America or Israel or Britain and skirted round the actual thread topic (and that is what I consider "fannying around")

I thought my opinion was pretty plain - there are terrorists in this war, but they are not Hizbollah - THEY were defending their country.

 

[CyberRose]

I thought my opinion was pretty plain - there are terrorists in this war, but they are not Hizbollah - THEY were defending their country.

Ok, but do you not think that the deliberate targetting of innocent civilians should be classified as an act of terrorism? If not, then how do you define the acts of Israel as terrorism?

 

[rachamim18]

Bathmat: "Bombing agricultural coops and clinics." We have never once aimed for any such buildings. Please research a term called "COLLATERAL DAMAGE."


"Subsequent large numbersof civilian deaths." Yeah, it does suck, doesn't it? See, most adults are mature enough not to take disdparities in numbers and turn them into propaganda. What? We are evil because we are better trained? Equipped? Morale?

Care to comment on Hezbollah;s PUPOSEFUL aiming at RAMABAM Medical Center in Hafia on two subsequient days? HRW did. You might want to read irt before delving into morality.

"The Israeli Press is very xenophobic." Yeah, right, with citizens having been born in well over 180 nations, Guest Workers from 14 nations, you might have a case [sic].

"3rd Paragraph." On the contrary. IF you do produce some facts, as opposed to tired old rhetoric that I can dissect with my eyes closed. Offer a well researched rebuttal instead of magazing snippets.

"Targeting vehichles simply because they were on the road at the time." Wrong again. If vehichles matched an m.o., they matched an m.o. Non-combatants were not onlt notified with flyers but by loudspeaker, tv and radio, ads, and even phone calls. If they esxceeded the allotted time periods and matched the m.o., they were at risk and hate to break it to you, but that is war.

 

[rachamim18]

Bathmat [part II]:"Bombing the UNIFIL Base does not count as terrorism because UNIFIL asked them to stop." Here is where your ignorance comes to fruition. I think that you need to research the year 2000 and then maybe you will understand that situation much better. Terrorism? Nope. Revenhge, or as Thomas Friedman of the Times likes to say, "Hana Rules."