IS Hezbollah a terrorist org?

[ZAMB]

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?

As I said, they were defending their country. Most of those killed by Hezbollah were soldiers, whereas Israel were carpet bombing civilian areas, and targetting ambulances, UN observers, people they had told to leave their homes etc. As for targetting, Israel were the ones with the sophisticated weapons - the so-called 'smart' bombs, weren't they??

 

[CyberRose]

As I said, they were defending their country. Most of those killed by Hezbollah were soldiers, whereas Israel were carpet bombing civilian areas, and targetting ambulances, UN observers, people they had told to leave their homes etc. As for targetting, Israel were the ones with the sophisticated weapons - the so-called 'smart' bombs, weren't they??

Forget about Israel! This thread is whether Hizballah is a terrorist organisation!

I agree completely with what you say about Israeli actions but they are irrelevant when considering whether Hizballah is terrorist. The two are mutually exclusive, yet you seem to take the position that if Israel are terrorist then Hizballah cannot be terrorist and it simply does not work like that. You are also now using a quantitive method of defining terrorism (ie Hizballah did not kill as many innocent civilians as Israel therefore they are not terrorist). You are also falling into the trap that moono and George Galloway have criticised the media for by only using this current conflict and not acknowledgeing that the conflict is decades old. In that time Hizballah have carried out many more attacks against innocents.

The thread question is not "who is more of a terrorist - Israel or Hizballah" but "is Hizballah a terrorist organisation" and the fact that they have deliberately targetted innocent civilians suggest the answer is yes (ish, as I will explain below).

You need to consider whether you agree with their means, not their ends. Because I don't think many on here will disagree with Hizballah's ends (ie to force Israel out of Lebanon) but (some of) the means they have used to achieve those ends have involved the deliberate targetting of innocents which imo is something that can never never be justified...

Now I have deliberately tried to shy away from saying Hizballah is a terrorist organisation and have instead stated they use terrorist methods (ie targetting innocent civilians) yet this is not the only tactic they use (probably not even the main tactic) and they are involved in politics and social programs so even tho they have and do use terrorist tactics to say that they are a "terrorist organisation" (which to me implies that is their primary raisin d'etre) would be to somewhat distort the truth. Maybe we should refer to them as a social, political, resistance group that occasionally engages in terrorist activities?

 

[moono]

You are also falling into the trap that moono and George Galloway have criticised the media for by only using this current conflict and not acknowledgeing that the conflict is decades old.

It's you that's in the trap. The solution to this conflict lies , in its entirety, within the relevant legislature, treaty and agreement which is only as old as the United Nations. Sixty years.

There is absolutely no refuge for Zionist scoundrels in the mists of which ancient robed and bearded twit lived where, or said what, in relation to the Middle East. Grow up.

 

[ZAMB]

Now I have deliberately tried to shy away from saying Hizballah is a terrorist organisation and have instead stated they use terrorist methods (ie targetting innocent civilians) yet this is not the only tactic they use (probably not even the main tactic) and they are involved in politics and social programs so even tho they have and do use terrorist tactics to say that they are a "terrorist organisation" (which to me implies that is their primary raisin d'etre) would be to somewhat distort the truth. Maybe we should refer to them as a social, political, resistance group that occasionally engages in terrorist activities?

What is it that you think resistance movements do? Not resist? Would you prefer that they waited for Israel's next preplanned attack and then sat with their hands folded saying 'Oh, we can't possibly fight back, because people might think we're terrorists'?

All war, like it or not, uses terrorist methods to some extent. Whether they should be labelled 'terrorist' or not, IMO, mostly comes down to intent - are they invading another country or defending their own?

 

[ska invita]

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

--- your in denial.

Israel deliberately targeted civilian infastructure - a war crime - not my words but those of endless human rights organsiations including the UN. even bombing bridges and highways is considered a war crime, uner these circumstances. Over a hundered bridges destroyed...

I respect that you wish to defend the rights of ISrael in this matter, I appreciate your emotion. Don't let it cloud your better judgement, you strike me as an intelligent poster, keen to read and learn.

The next step is to always keep an open mind and never stop to think critically, even if that leads you to unfavourable conculsions about those who you support.

- crucially, dont let patriotism blind you to the crimes of states - including those states you support.

Bottom line: its not collateral damage but deliberate attacks on civilian infastructure for strategic ends.

That is why Israeli officials now fear travelling abroad in case they get arrested for commiting war crimes:
http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?file=/news/archive/2006/09/04/international/i115146D84.DTL

 

[Plastic Bathmat]

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

Please keep up - my mention of the agricultural co-ops and medical clinics was in reference to the US bombing of Nicaragua, which you stated is of no consequence cause only a 'brief' was issued, not in relation to Israel.

Also, do you read things properly?

"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.

Erm - you said LIC wasn't terrorism, and I'm replying to what you've written here rather than the disjointed thinking that seems to be going on in your head.

It is often of lengthy duration and extends from diplomatic, economic and psychological pressure to terrorism and insurgency.

And just cause it doesn't explicitly state it's "employed against non-combatants and/or their institutions at will?" doesn't mean it isn't. Do you know what the word 'tacit' means? Governments don't actually have a good track record at telling the truth you know.

As for your claim that Israel isn't xenophobic because of the merry spectrum of countries Israelis have come from, America has a larger spectrum of national origins than anywhere else and yet it's the most xenophobic country on Earth. That argument is once again baseless garbage.

As for your claim you're superior because you're in an 'army', it counts for nothing. "Operates according to international norms and practices"? Now I know you're not being serious..... The UN has condemned Israel for pretty much every action it's ever engaged in and the only reason you've gotten away with it is because of the mighty power of the US veto, or because you've ignored any calls to desist. Did you happen to see the list of the countries who were against the ceasefire in Lebanon? US, UK, Israel. Aye mate - that's certainly an international consensus. To be fair I can see how you've reached that decision - given it's the only consensus you tend to have (not even the UK most of the time, either) it's understandable that Israelis might come to that conclusion......... If we're getting technical about it Iran operate according to international norms and practises far more than you do - they've certainly had less UN resolutions passed against them, and that's pretty much the only benchmark we can go on. Would you agree that they're justified in blowing the crap out of Israel because they're 'in an army' too? Somehow I doubt it. And at least I'm sticking up magazine snippets - I've yet to see you back your arguments up with anything.

I don't believe in sticking up for terrorism, and I don't think that Hezbollah is some magnificently benificent, hard done by organisation. Unlike you (and, unfortunately, too many others), however, I oppose terrorism an all sides, rather than hypocritically decrying it when it's directed against me and supporting it unreservedly when it's directed against others.

 

[rachamim18]

ZAMB: "Most of the people killed by Hezbollah were IDF." Only after the conflict started, because the IDF weere mere feet from them. What about prior to that? What aboput the event that sparked the whole conflict?


"Defending their country." From WHAT??? They crossed into Israel murdered 6 soldiers, kidnapped 2 more. What are you talking about?

"Israel carpet bombed." Please learn what the term means, then revisit the subject cause Israel has not carpet bombed any part of Lebanon.

"Targetting ambulances." YES. A grand total of three owned by Hezbollah affiliated religious groups whp use them to ferry weapons and wanted men. Those hits were the objective, and the objective was supported by bonafide information.

"Targeting UN Observers." No, not true. Tartgetting one UNIFIL post that was complicit in the murder of 3 Israeli citizens in 2000.


"Israeli smart bombs." As technologically advanced as any arsenal may be, they are still subject to many variables. You cannot control conditions to make them optimum for every operation. In any regard, at least Israeli weaponry can be efficiently aimed. Hexbollah just points their missles south and hope to hit a Jew. Very sad, not to mention a breach of International Law for which they have been soundly condemned by Amnesty, DSF, HRW, and a few others.

"Israel's preplanned attack." Whatever are you on about? When has Israel ever been trying to attack Lebanon? Other than declared wars, it has never once led an incursion into Lebanon. All Israel wants are secure borders with a secure and lasting peace. Not too much to ask for.


CyberRose: If Hezbollah's "ends" were merely to force Israel from Lebanese soil they would have disbanded, or at least change their direction in 2000 when Israel fuully withdrew. Oh, and if they throw that Sheba'a nonsense asa rationale, even the UN says its bogus.

Your attempt at offering a new description is ludicrous. A blah,blah,blah, group that SOMETIMES engages in terrorist activites? IF it engages in terror, it is a terrorist. No amount of social welfare programs or political activism changes this.You kill innocents with no regard to anything but your narrow agenda, it does not matter when you offer free immunisations.

 

[moono]

You kill innocents with no regard to anything but your narrow agenda, it does not matter when you offer free immunisations.

How many innocent Palestinians have the IOF killed this month alone ?

 

[Plastic Bathmat]

Terrorism? Nope.

Sums Israel (and you) up. Revenge.... The fact you seem to think 'revenge' is justified shows why your country is going to continue having the crap blown out of it. As the saying goes - an eye for an eye and the whole world goes blind. I'm pretty sure most Palestinians and militant Lebanese also don't believe that what Hamas or Hizbollah do is terrorism, and give exactly the same arguments you do but from another perspective when challenged about it. You're 2 sides of the same coin, that's the really sad thing. There is there is no 'battle of cultures'. The only battle is between very small groups of people who hold great power in their relevant 'cultures' trying to push forward their own agendas at the expense of everyone else, and saps like you allow them to do so.

 

[Plastic Bathmat]

Sorry - double post

 

[rachamim18]

NikSativa: "Targeting civilian infrastructure is a war crime." UYm Nik, perhaps you should speak with someone who has served in the armed forces, pick which ever nation you like. It is fundamental to any perp for medium to large scale incursion. It is not a war crime. Infrastructure does not mean schools and hospitals. It means communication facilitiers, media facilities, fuel depots, key roads and bridges, port areas, and the like.

Destroying roads and bridges is not a warcrime. Provide your sources on this because you are 100percent wrong.

Thank you for the compliments but it has nothing at all to do with the truth.


Let me try and explain it simply. Before you get ready to cross a border you want two things. I] You do not want the civilians running around in their daily state of affairs because then the collateral damages will be astronomical. II] You want the opposition rattled and in a state of disarray. You do not want them ready to face you guns blazing. You want to intterupt lines of communication and supply. You also want to neutralise any ground to air threat but that is not infrastructure but rather a closely related set of objectives. I would hope that I had explained it enough by now.

 

[Plastic Bathmat]

NikSativa: "Targeting civilian infrastructure is a war crime." UYm Nik, perhaps you should speak with someone who has served in the armed forces, pick which ever nation you like. It is fundamental to any perp for medium to large scale incursion. It is not a war crime. Infrastructure does not mean schools and hospitals. It means communication facilitiers, media facilities, fuel depots, key roads and bridges, port areas, and the like.

Power stations..........

 

[CyberRose]

It's you that's in the trap. The solution to this conflict lies , in its entirety, within the relevant legislature, treaty and agreement which is only as old as the United Nations. Sixty years.

There is absolutely no refuge for Zionist scoundrels in the mists of which ancient robed and bearded twit lived where, or said what, in relation to the Middle East. Grow up.

 

[CyberRose]

What is it that you think resistance movements do? Not resist? Would you prefer that they waited for Israel's next preplanned attack and then sat with their hands folded saying 'Oh, we can't possibly fight back, because people might think we're terrorists'?

They could attack military personel instead of innocent civilians no?

All war, like it or not, uses terrorist methods to some extent. Whether they should be labelled 'terrorist' or not, IMO, mostly comes down to intent - are they invading another country or defending their own?

No I do not like it, whoever commits these acts. There is no justification for deliberately targetting civilians (and there is nothing to gain from doing so except making your situation worse).

What you seem to be saying is that is is perfectly justifiable for Hizballah to deliberately target innocent civilians because Israel attacked Lebanon?

 

[CyberRose]

CyberRose: If Hezbollah's "ends" were merely to force Israel from Lebanese soil they would have disbanded, or at least change their direction in 2000 when Israel fuully withdrew. Oh, and if they throw that Sheba'a nonsense asa rationale, even the UN says its bogus.

So why don't Israel pull out of the Shebaa Farms and put that theory to the test?

Your attempt at offering a new description is ludicrous. A blah,blah,blah, group that SOMETIMES engages in terrorist activites? IF it engages in terror, it is a terrorist. No amount of social welfare programs or political activism changes this.You kill innocents with no regard to anything but your narrow agenda, it does not matter when you offer free immunisations.

Ok so the same applies to Israel then?

 

[rachamim18]

Bathmat: "Nicaragua." Well, if you are not specific, you certainly cannot expecrt me to know what you are talking about. In fact, Israel has been charged with the almost identical thing in Lebanon, by so called "Activists." In the case of the coop though it was a technical school in Ba'albek. The hospital is in Tyre.


Do I read things properly? Well, I do not like to use it as a crutch but English is my 5th language. I imagine though that I am fluent enough in it. Ad homs are always appreciated.


"Low intensity conflict." If that did appear in your original blurb, I certainly missed it. I suppose though that terrorism COULD be labled thus but then you run the risk of legitamising it as such. I have never heard the two mentioned in the same line of reasoning. I am currently in school and will broach the question at the next opportunity.


America is xenophobic? I have not traveled very widely there but was born and lived my first few years there, as well as most of the past 15 and I have never experienced that. You are spouting opinion as fact and that is a waste of everyone's time.

As for Israel being xenophobic, your comparison to Amnerica is useless. America has just as many nations of origin, that is probably true. Yet, America is how many times larger in area?

An army is superior to a non-sanctioned militant group by virtue of International LAw. Hint: Try arguing it based on fact, not opinion.

UN has spoken against Israel? It sure has in NON-BINDING Resolutions authored by Israel's avowed enemies. Yeah, you must have thought that one out for a long time. Again, provide a case example instead of a third hand generalisation.


"List of nations againt the Cease Fire in Lebanon." Except that those nations were not againt the Cease Fire, just the implementation of it and certain note worthy conditions.


"Iran operates under International norms much more than Israel does." I would have to ask you then to please qualify that ridiculous comment. LEt us see...Hmmmm.... A liberal democracy that gurantess full and equal rights to ALL its citizens, that does not execute homosexuals, that allows women to dress as they wish versus....IRAN.


"Magazine snippets." I do not provide blurbs because I bring, for the most part, my own OPINION to the table. when I do step into the factual realm I offer items that can easily be Googled in all of 3 seconds. If one still had problems finiding a reputable source and asked me in a civil fashion, I would love to oblige. In fact, I owe Tom US one as I post this.

So,, after all that pseudo-intellectual poseur b.s., am I to surmise that you consider Israel to employ terrorism? Maybe its my poor English again. Thanks for an answer, in advance.

"Revenge." Not so much revenge as much as a message that our blood is not cheap and pity those that make that assumption. See, we dont live in the UK. We have different cultures than you and yours
and thios is how it has been for time immemorial. To quote Sheikh Nasrallah: [translated into English]" If had known that Israel would have responded l;ike this, the kidnapping would have never happened."


As for your social theory that followed in the same post about small groups, yada yada, more than 95% of the Idsraeli public was not only FOR the war but wanted it more agressively handled.

 

[moono]

more than 95% of the Idsraeli public was not only FOR the war but wanted it more agressively handled.

Lying twaddle. 20% of the Israeli public are Arabs.


Should be around 25% before too long.

MKs Jamal Zahalka and Wasal Taha, of the Israeli Arab faction Balad, headed to Damascus on Thursday to meet with the Syrian leadership.

http://www.haaretz.com/hasen/spages/760186.html

 

[lobster]

"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].

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/middle_east/5317252.stm

MAQBULA NASSAR, COMMUNITY WORKER

"Minutes later I got to the scene and saw the blood and the victims," she says. "But that wasn't my main fear. My main fear was that people would discover that I'm an Arab and would direct all their anger against me."

The level of racism towards Arabs during the conflict was intolerable, says Maqbula. She says that Israeli Arabs had far less access to the bomb shelters provided by the Israeli state.

"The war emphasised the discrimination against Arabs that has always been there," she says.

 

[moono]

It's a discrimination born of bad conscience.

 

[Rune]

"Targeting UN Observers." No, not true. Tartgetting one UNIFIL post that was complicit in the murder of 3 Israeli citizens in 2000.

That was 6 years ago. I don't know the details of what happened then, but did Isreal not deal with this at the time?

 

[rachamim18]

Moono: I guess you missed all the Arabs getting their homes blown to bits in northern Israel, and the Arabs dying. Arabs are included in the 95%. Israel's breakdown is around 18 percent for Arabs and they CHOOSE to be Israeli. You might also want to educate yourself to two things you obviously never learned. Hezbollah is a Shia organisation. Although many Sunna in Lebanon are supporting it, most Israeli Arabs [unlike "Palestinians"] abhor Shia, not to mention as I said choosing to be Israeli.


As for 25%, guess again. Israel Proper is much different than Israel and the Territories. Israeli Arabs have significantly lower birthrates than Arabs of surrounding lands, as do most people in advanced socio-economic situations.While currently slightly less than 18%, it is expected to climb to nearly 21% within a decade. I think Zionism is safe and sound Moono.


Lobster: Yes, Israel has an extreme right wing, just like the UK and every other nation. Their actions are against the law and they are prosecuted when apprehended. Pray tell, what did that blurb have to do with a xenophobic press though?

Rune: Aside from lodging diplomatic complaints there wasn't much Israel could do in the interim.

For those that do not know...6 years ago an unarmoured IDF jeep carrying a squad [a squad is 3 soldiers] ran over an IED that was detonated by remote control just as the jeep pul;led up to a gate in the border fence.

Immediately afterwards a group of Hezbollah ran over to the gate and used a second IED to blow the gate off. They then dragged the three occupants to a white car and sped off.

While this was happening Hezbollah filmed the event. More importantly though, so did UNIFIL from the terrace of the villa they used and continue to use overlooking the site. UNIFIL denied even witnessing the event, let alone filming it.

To make a long story short, rumors began swirling that UNIFIL did in fact have a tape, which the UN denied over and over. After mutilated body parts of the soldiers were dumped in wadis in the area, the UN admitted a tape existed but refused to turn it over for fear of damaging their neutrality in the affair. With world Opinion on Israel's side [one of the rare times for sure] the UN finally turned over a copy but with all identifying marks, etc. blacked out.

While people said the soldiers were killed by the initial blast [they were not, at least all of them anyway] they said that UNIFIL impeded the investigation and even aided and abetted the militants. In fact, Hezbollah's own film proved that they did but that is another sordid tale.