Hezbollah Won against Israel.

Discussion in 'General Discussion' started by CharlesBHoff, Aug 12, 2006.

Remove all ads!
Support Terra-Arcanum:

GOG.com

PayPal - The safer, easier way to pay online!
  1. Maximus

    Maximus New Member

    Messages:
    1,306
    Likes Received:
    0
    Joined:
    Mar 1, 2006
    Wrong, sorta. They are terrorists, but are also members of the Lebanese government, making them a valid target.
    http://www.aljazeera.com/me.asp?service_ID=10029

    If a 'terrorist' government like hezbollah in Lebanon, hamas in Palistine, or al-queda in Afghanistan becomes the defacto ruling party and has operational control over its infrastructure, how do you differentiate between the two? You dont.

    Regarding the IRA, to my knowledge they weren't part of its government when they were actively involved in resistance to the English, despite sympathetic sources. But here's a question for you; what seperates a Terrorist from a Freedom Fighter, or do you?
     
  2. Frigo

    Frigo Active Member

    Messages:
    2,107
    Likes Received:
    0
    Joined:
    Jan 21, 2006
    Ummm... Killing civilians because of political and/or nationalist motives?
     
  3. Sofokl

    Sofokl New Member

    Messages:
    913
    Likes Received:
    0
    Joined:
    Nov 1, 2005
    Remember the Bible: "With help of God nothing is impossible" (and forbidden :) )

    USA are legal representatives of God :)

    Without those international :thumbup: to Israel and :thumbdown: to Palestine Arabs in 60-90x, I think territory of Israel would have been twice smaller (without W.Bank., G.Strip. and G.Heights.) And about WWI...Israel is too little to divide between countries (and leave some territory to Isarel itself). If I were UN, I would have reduced Jewich agression by dividing Palestine into 12 parts according to Jacob's inheritance. :)
     
  4. Langolier

    Langolier Member

    Messages:
    480
    Likes Received:
    3
    Joined:
    Mar 9, 2003
  5. CharlesBHoff

    CharlesBHoff New Member

    Messages:
    1,328
    Likes Received:
    0
    Joined:
    Sep 10, 2001
    There where IRA men and women in the Irish government under other polital parties name. England unlike America and Israel know it they bombs or fired missile at Irishland the ECU will have to take action against England as Irishland is than member state of the ECU. Plus the Irish Security forces was fairly pro-england against some of the worst IRA plan attrack on english soil.
     
  6. Vorak

    Vorak Administrator Staff Member

    Messages:
    5,828
    Likes Received:
    21
    Joined:
    Sep 15, 2003
    You do know that the IRA declared a ceasefire right?
     
  7. TONGSyaBASS

    TONGSyaBASS Member

    Messages:
    772
    Likes Received:
    0
    Joined:
    Apr 19, 2005
    They are a small minority in the government and don't have much power (via the government). I think the Hezbollah political wing is guilty by association and are probably valid targets. But the thing is, Israel is not bombing 2 government officials, they are bombing everyone and anyone.

    Sinn Féin was the political wing of the IRA. They supported the violence while putting on the pretence of being a legitimate political party (past tense).

    A freedom fighter fights invaders in the freedom fighter's own land.
    A terrorist goes abroad and kills people in the victim's own lands.
    Simplistic yes, but all straight answers are.

    So if Hezbollah fire rockets into Israel they are terrorists and the international community should kick their arses.
    If Hezbollah kill invading Israeli troops in Lebannon then they are freedom fighters. The UN has no right to stop people defending their homeland.
     
  8. MatahChuah

    MatahChuah Active Member

    Messages:
    1,035
    Likes Received:
    0
    Joined:
    Jul 3, 2003
  9. Xz

    Xz Monkey Admin Staff Member

    Messages:
    5,085
    Likes Received:
    4
    Joined:
    May 31, 2003
    You rarely have something contibutive to come with, do you, matah?
     
  10. Langolier

    Langolier Member

    Messages:
    480
    Likes Received:
    3
    Joined:
    Mar 9, 2003
    A terrorist intentionally attacks non-combatants with the express purpose of changing their (the terrorist's) or another nation's or government's policies. A terrorist wears no uniform and does not carry his/her arms openly.

    A freedom fighter or rebel wears a uniform and carries his/her weapons in the open. A freedom fighter or rebel fights the armed military personel of an occupying power.

    The distinction is very clear. "One man's freedom fighter is another man's terroris," is completely false.

    Durring the American revolution the colonial army or militia were not terrorists. The colonial army wore uniforms and followed standard military protocal, as did the militia. They did not attack civilians. (Note: the militia had no uniforms but they often fought on the open field next to colonial regulars and most importantly: they did not conceal their weapons)

    Now compare this with an insurgent in Iraq who's strategy for warfare involves blowing up markets and mosques as well as abducting un-armed civilians off the street. and from their homes. with the intent of executing them. A terrorist wearing civilian clothes with a bomb under his shirt is clearly different from a rebel fighter who wears a uniform and holds a visible AK-47/M16.

    The fact that anyone in the West could be sympathetic/foolish/naive/stupid enough to miss this distinction is frightening.
     
  11. Grossenschwamm

    Grossenschwamm Well-Known Member

    Messages:
    7,630
    Likes Received:
    4
    Joined:
    Feb 21, 2006
    Most people are too stupid (or naive) to understrand the difference. As far as they can tell, ANYONE who "looks the part" is a terrorist, regardless of whether or not they have a weapon (concealed or otherwise) and regardless of their personal intentions.
    There's no getting around how little people can comprehend.
     
  12. TONGSyaBASS

    TONGSyaBASS Member

    Messages:
    772
    Likes Received:
    0
    Joined:
    Apr 19, 2005
    That may be a generalised dictionary definition but it really doesn't apply to this situation.

    Judge these facts by the criteria you have just given:

    Hezbollah wear uniforms and parade through the streets carrying weapons allowing everyone to see and film them.
    Hezbollah fight the armed forces of Israel.

    Hezbollah want to change the policies of Israel (to the point of having the country disbanded).
    Hezbollah intentionally attacks non-combatants (just as Israel do).

    Also by your definition a freedom fighter must be a soldier who carries a weapon.
    To me "freedom fighter" includes those who use unarmed espionage or peaceful means e.g. the Dalai Lama is called a freedom fighter but I've yet to see him shooting the Chinese.

    I disagree. What if many people like the "evil oppressor"?
    What if 60% of the population hate the leader?
    What if it is only 40% who hate him?
    What percentage of support does a freedom fighter need to be "legitimate"?
    There are a tiny percentage of people in Britain who truly hate Tony Blair and wish him dead. How many people have to believe this to officially make Tony Blair an evil tyrant?
    It's entirely subjective and there is no clear line.
     
  13. Blinky969

    Blinky969 Active Member

    Messages:
    4,132
    Likes Received:
    0
    Joined:
    Jul 8, 2003
    There is an actual dfinition of a freedom fighter. And one for a terrorist. Both are not members of a state run government, they're instead paramilitary, and both fight to either erect their own government, or at least depose or change someone else's.

    A freedom fighter focuses primarily on hard targets. They don't blow up buses full of tourists and children. The thought that Hamas members can be considered freedom fighters by subjectivity is bullshit. They kill children and senior citizens even more often than they blow up the military.

    Freedom fighters, fighting for freedom, are usually also free. They establish themselves in a loosely democratic structure. They have a chain of command, and yet they are not autocratic in the ways that a terrorist organization is.

    Terrorist organizations don't give a damn who they blow up, they're not fighting for anything other than their own power. Civilians are expendable if it makes them stronger, or at least look stronger. They also have a rigid totalitarian hierarchy, where the more respected and favored terrorists pretty much have the right to kill their inferiors without retribution. Most don't, unless there is a reason, but that's how the organization is sructured.

    Freedom fighters CAN use passive means, just like a terrorist could use passive means to achieve their goals. Al-Queda has espionage opperatives. Not every terrorist has a turban and an AK.

    The other differentiating factor between terrorists and freedom fighters is that freedom fighters, for the most part, are rational in their expectations. They want to overthrow a government, or set up their own, all logical goals. The complete destruction of an entire people? That's irrational, and that's the rhetoric of quite a few organizations, Hamas, Hezbollah, and Al-Queda all included.

    These words are terms, with definitions. There is a clear line. There is no subjectivity, unless that subjectivity is you arguing whether something was collateral damage or intention. An innocent bystander might be accidently injured or killed in an attack on the military. Hezbollah launches MRLs at Israeli cities. By any legal term, that's endangerment, they must have known this action had a good chance of killing many civilians. The fact that they've carried through with it means they aren't freedom fighters.

    You seem to be onto an innately flawed span of logic. What if 60% of the people hate the leader? What if 40% support the freedom fighters? Who are you gauging, since you aren't a freedom fighter against no one?

    Tony Blair is not a tyrant until he denies the democratic process. If that many people didn't like him, they would vote him out next election. He might be good or evil; it's even possible to have a good tyrant. A tyrant is only a conservative dictator with military backing. He might be a very nice conservative dictator, but he's still a tyrant.

    The definition of freedom fighters have nothing to with openness. They can be very secretive, if only for their own survival. I doubt the freedom fighting groups in Saudi Arabia wear their uniforms in public. The fact is, freedom fighters don't need to be legitimate. The only entities that need 'legitimacy' are nations.

    Nations, cannot be terrorists. They can be imperialistic, militaristic, oppressive, assholes. But they can't be terrorists. Terrorists seek to destroy existing power structures so they can rule. Nations already rule, and could seek to subjugate people to retain rulership, but they aren't terrorists.

    Many freedom fighters follow standard military protocol so that they might retain some sort of dignity and respect when they succeed in their mission. That is not a required distinction for a freedom fighter, but rather an operational choice that many of those organizations make.
     
  14. Maximus

    Maximus New Member

    Messages:
    1,306
    Likes Received:
    0
    Joined:
    Mar 1, 2006
    This isn't true, most militia during the Revolution were rag-tag farmers who used guerrila warfare (learned from the Native Americans) against organized troops. Often they'd attack the enemy and then run away, which was successful against the highly regimented English. I'm sure back in bonny old England they viewed our tactics as cowardly and terrorist in nature, but thats all we had. Also, the militia wasn't a paramilitary group. They didn't know how to march, form lines, or engage the enemy in a standard military fashion. When they did, they usually weren't effective, but were used to strengthen the regular troops.

    Regarding the IRA, they hid in the shadows as Freedom Fighters, trying to resist English occupation of Ireland. They also engaged in terrorist activities when they bombed England itself. Its extremely difficult to draw a clear line. My opinion is it depends on who's side your on, as well as which targets you choose to attack.

    I have to disagree here. In my opinion, any country that blatantly ignores Geneva Convention rules becomes a terrorist, namely the intentional targeting of unarmed non-combatants and anything marked with a red cross/crescent not being used in a combative fashion. The recent conflict between Lebanon and Israel to me was two terrorist states engaging in a territorial battle. Other examples are Palistine, which is run by Hamas, a known terorist group. Afghanistan, when it was run by Al-Queda. And perhaps Iran for its use of WMD on its own peoples, but thats debatable.

    Also, many countries do seek to destroy existing power structures of other nations and supplant them with their own governments. This has been going on since the dawn of time.
     
  15. TONGSyaBASS

    TONGSyaBASS Member

    Messages:
    772
    Likes Received:
    0
    Joined:
    Apr 19, 2005
    My point is that no definition will adequately cover all situations.

    I have never mentioned Hamas. I can't really respond directly since I don't know whether you mean Hamas or Hezbollah.
    But as I was talking about Hezbollah I'll continue to focus on them. You ask the people of Lebanon, who voted Hezbolah officials into power, if they consider Hezbolah to be freedom fighters. They do, you don't. Sounds pretty subjective to me.

    There are so many wild generalisations here it's ridiculous. A lot of it sounds like you have based it on a vague pop culture notion.

    Fact: Terrorist cells tend to be organic and not rigid hierarchies. Some men get together, talk about some stuff, come up with some bad ideas, encourage each other to do it.
    Most of what I am saying is based on the work of Marc Sageman so I'm not just spouting opinions.
    Here's a brief summary of some of his work: http://www.bbc.co.uk/sn/tvradio/program ... bers.shtml

    I think my point is quite simple and obvious. I'll give an expanded version:
    If several years ago a small group of men put a bomb in Saddam's palace would they be freedom fighters or terrorists? Keep in mind that innocent civilians work in the palace. Saddam was an oppressive tyrant, right? Well if you asked the Marsh-Arabs the answer would have been a firm yes. But what if you asked the elite of society? They probably wouldn't have had many complaints.
    So these bombers who try to blow up Saddam are obviously freedom fighters if you ask the Marsh-Arabs. But then they are obviously terrorists if you ask the people who like Saddam or the people who who are concerned about 8 butlers, 12 maids and 17 security guards also being blown apart.

    Democracy doesn't stop evil oppressive regimes.
    If 90% of the voters vote for a leader who oppresses 10% of the population, what can that 10% do within the democratic system?
    They could become freedom fighter or terrorists. Which one they are depends whether you ask the 10% or the 90%. As I said, highly subjective.

    Is this in response to something?
     
  16. DarkFool

    DarkFool Nemesis of the Ancients

    Messages:
    4,006
    Likes Received:
    5
    Joined:
    Jan 28, 2005
    First off, I want to note that when I looked at Vorak's counter, it was 666 hours until he's been here one year.Thank you, and have a nice day. You know, all this talk of war makes me think of "Lords of War" w/Nicholas Cage, when he's talking about how his favorite wars are between groups of "Freedom Fighters" because neither side cares about civilians, and, therefore, uses more bullets. I personally believe the only difference between freedom fighters and terrorists is that terrorists cre nothing for anyone or anything except their own goals, and freedom fighters carry a cause that's supported by a majority of the public. I think that if we have Bush for much longer as a president we're going to start'ving problems with Freedom Fighters.
     
  17. Blinky969

    Blinky969 Active Member

    Messages:
    4,132
    Likes Received:
    0
    Joined:
    Jul 8, 2003
    My explanation of a terrorist group was fairly indulged upon. However, a small group dynamic is far from comparable to the entirety of the group, at least in the case of a terrorist organization. Intergroup relations, however, are often very cutthroat. If a subordinate to Osama fucks up, or acts against Osama, he gets shot. He doesn't get demoted, or have his pay docked. He disappears. That was my point.

    My nations cannot be terrorists comment was referencing something I apparently misread from your first post on this page, I thought you called Israel a terrorist. Strictly by definition, a terrorist nation cannot exist, because they have other terms to describe that. Don't mistake me, a nation can behave in just as vile a manner, its just called something else. Just like techically, anyone who has killed in self-defense is a killer or by accident, but only someone who killed in cold-blood in a murderer.

    A country that defies the Geneva Convention is both breaking international law and also a highly respected treaty signed with many powerful nations. They are not technically terrorists, but the leaders of the state may be brought to trial by the U.N. and face war crimes charges.

    The definition of terrorist is precise, just like the definition of genocide, and there's little room for interpretation. Genocide, for example, is the killing of a group of people with the preconceived intent to kill off all or the majority of the population due to ethnic, tribal, cultural, religious, or racial identity.

    This means the Holocaust was a genocide, but the crisis in Darfur may not be one. A horrific retaliation by a brutal government, for sure, but unless the government is acting on a plan to eliminate most, if not all, of the blacks in the south, then it isn't a genocide. If not, then its a mass killing that's trying to be justified as suppressing revolt. Neither is really better than the other, after all, a body bag is a body bag, but the definitions are different.

    As I said, your logic is flawed in asking for percentages. If 90% of the country supports oppressing the other 10%, then either the freedom fighters or the terrorists will come from the 10%. The difference is if the rebels attack the government to free them from oppression, or the general population. One makes them freedom fighters, and the latter makes them terrorists.

    Your proof that the definition of terrorist is subjective relies upon a perception, and the allowance of that perception as evidence relies upon the idea that the definition of terrorist is subjective. Logic that needs itself to be accepted as fact before it can be proved as fact is faulty logic.

    Bear with me. The definition of terrorist is not subjective, Hamas (only used them as a parallel example) and Hezbollah attack civilians as well as the military, and they do it willfully. They are terrorists. People who sympathize with the groups might call them freedom fighters, for lack of a better word, because they don't want to construe the negative connotation, but for now I'll presume that as intelligent human beings we can call a spade a spade.

    Hezbollah does alot of good things inside of Lebanon. They give money and food to the poor, they help with bills. They're still terrorists though. Just like a serial killer that goes and helps in a soup kitchen, they are what they are in both places. English doesn't have a singular phrase for charitable murderer, and neither does Arabic, and so I can forsee many people in the future, for all intensive purposes, misusing the phrase freedom fighter to describe the fighters of Hezbollah.

    As for your example of Saddam, here is my response. Where in the palace did the group bomb, because there are three possible answers. If the group had prior information and knew that the area surrounding where they were bombing was frequented by servants, then they are guilty of willfully causing their deaths. They are terrorists.

    Another possibility is that the group didn't know that the servants would be there, but really should have. Such as they planted a half dozen bombs along the corridor from the kitchen to the study. This parallels Hezbollahs current actions with its missile attacks, causing widespread, unfocused devastation. Through their own gross negligence, they are terrorists.

    Lastly, and just as possibly, the group could have honestly thought Saddam would be where they bombed, and tried to prevent collateral damage, but fucked up. Mistakes happen. They might have laid the explosives wrong, or maybe the ceiling ended up collapsing in a place they didn't anticipate. Whatever happened, the intent was not to harm innocent workers, but instead to kill Saddam or one of his officers, both very not innocent.

    Its an unfortunate side effect of war that sometimes the wrong people die. School classes take trips each year to military bases. If one was present when a base got attacked, it might be a tragedy, but the attack wasn't DIRECTED at them. It was aimed at the military, they were just tragic bystanders that got caught up in the fray.

    I guess my sumation is that the only thing subjective about the definition of terrorist would be where the line of gross negligence is drawn. When should an organization have known they were going to harm and kill civilians. In these cases, however, when Hezbollah is using Cold-War era multiple rocket launchers to bombard Israeli cities, and Hamas is blowing up school buses, you really can't expect anyone to buy that they don't know civilians are going to die. That makes them terrorists.
     
  18. Spuddy

    Spuddy New Member

    Messages:
    1,037
    Likes Received:
    0
    Joined:
    Aug 16, 2006
    I agree, but will counter that the Israeli general staff seem to be terrorists as well. Not for the seemingly indiscriminate bombing of civilian infrastructure, but for the destruction of the UN post at Qana. Incidentally, the same post they destroyed ten years ago, killing a lot of refugees seeking shelter there. So though they only killed four UN troops this time, it's rather hypocritical of them to claim it was "accidental" when they did the same exact thing a decade ago.

    Ah, sod it... I can't formulate things clearly at this ungodly hour (just after eight in the morning) after spending the night out drinking beer. Sorry.
     
  19. TONGSyaBASS

    TONGSyaBASS Member

    Messages:
    772
    Likes Received:
    0
    Joined:
    Apr 19, 2005
    There is mounting evidence that the majority of terrorists belong to small organic cells with little / no contact with other cells and that the CIA is largely just inventing the bogeyman of a well organized, well equipped, well trained Al Qaeda terror network. Although no one, as yet, knows for sure so we'll have to leave this argument at that.

    While I don't agree with some of your points, I can see where you are coming from.

    I think the main problem here is that we are having parallel arguments. You are talking about the dictionary definition of a terrorist whereas I am talking about the real world perception of a terrorist.

    Most of what I said was originally prompted by this phrase:
    So as you can see, this phrase does not refer to a dictionary definition, it refers to a perception. My earlier points all relate to this.
    e.g.
     
  20. Blinky969

    Blinky969 Active Member

    Messages:
    4,132
    Likes Received:
    0
    Joined:
    Jul 8, 2003
    Terrorist is a defined word, and unfortunately English doesn't have a term for a terrorist that gives candy to babies in his homeland, so yes, people in the terrorist's land refer to him by the better, although inaccurate, term of freedom fighter. I know why they do it, and you're right, a person's opinion of a particular group is subjective. That doesn't change what the group is, it just means that certain groups might not want to use the proper words to describe them, for the same reason that people who like Bush call him special, and people who don't call him retarded.

    That said, I will agree to disagree with you.
     
Our Host!