NationStates Jolt Archive

My question today is pretty simple, since only 6 countries worldwide regard Hezbollah as a 'terrorist' group, and many see it as a legitimate resistance organization, what is your opinion on the group and what do you see them as? My question comes because Hezbollah isn't really like the other brutral insurgent groups in Iraq or elsewhere, they regard women as equal to men (in the Lebanese tradition) and spend millions on social welfare programs in Southern Lebanon and elsewhere, and have their own tv station which isn't really as bias and propagandistic as you might think. Their historical links to Syria and revolutionary Iran are obvious, but it has been noted that the groups acts on it's own these days and is quite a popular political party/movement in Lebanon. So, what do you think?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hezbollah
http://www.manartv.com.lb/NewsSite/News.aspx?language=en

Does the group deliberately plan and carry out acts of extreme, usually fatal, violence agains civilians, including children? If so, it's a terrorist group. This goes for any group committing such acts.

Hezbollah, currently, is a terrorist group. The fact that it does good deeds and cares for it's supporters does not change that; Al Capone did good deeds and helped the city of Chicago financially, but that does not change the fact that he was a murderer and racketeer.

Hezbollah has the potential to be much more, though. I could see Hezbollah nnegotiating on a frank and fair basis with Israel, especially if they dropped some of their more extreme rhetoric. Somehow, I cannot see Hamas in that position.

Does the group deliberately plan and carry out acts of extreme, usually fatal, violence agains civilians, including children? If so, it's a terrorist group. This goes for any group committing such acts.

Actually I was referring to the fact that it doesn't attack it's own people, I believe it only attacks Israeli citizens.

*Only* six countries call them a terrorist organization? Wow, what an endorsement that it wasn't more. :p

Hezbollah, currently, is a terrorist group. The fact that it does good deeds and cares for it's supporters does not change that; Al Capone did good deeds and helped the city of Chicago financially, but that does not change the fact that he was a murderer and racketeer.

Hezbollah has the potential to be much more, though. I could see Hezbollah nnegotiating on a frank and fair basis with Israel, especially if they dropped some of their more extreme rhetoric. Somehow, I cannot see Hamas in that position.

That's basically how I see it too. Hezbollah can become mainstream, potentially, but isn't quite there as it is and doesn't look like it's aiming for legitimacy at the moment, probably the result of current leadership. A reformer might bring them back into the sphere of legitimacy, but that could be a ways off.

Actually I was referring to the fact that it doesn't attack it's own people, I believe it only attacks Israeli citizens.

Civilians and children, if I'm not mistaken. Or do you consider Israelis a separate category and so deserving of such attacks?

*Only* six countries call them a terrorist organization? Wow, what an endorsement that it wasn't more. :p

Well if you'll check article for the countries who do, it pretty much is an endorsement.

Civilians and children, if I'm not mistaken. Or do you consider Israelis a separate category and so deserving of such attacks?

It depends, most of the settlers in the West Bank know the risks and bring their children into the colonies because they believe in a 'Greater Israel' and all that, so they perpetuate the occupation and are legitimate targets as much as the military. The fact is, Israel killed more civilians, but are they regarded as a terrorist state? In such a war I believe the tactics are justified, especially considering Hezbollah only killed about 50 and they were in diversionary attacks.

It depends, most of the settlers in the West Bank know the risks and bring their children into the colonies because they believe in a 'Greater Israel' and all that, so they perpetuate the occupation and are legitimate targets as much as the military. The fact is, Israel killed more civilians, but are they regarded as a terrorist state? In such a war I believe the tactics are justified, especially considering Hezbollah only killed about 50 and they were in diversionary attacks.

So you're saying it's ok to kill children, provided they're Israeli?

So you're saying it's ok to kill children, provided they're Israeli?

No, but what I am saying is that for Hezbollah to respect the laws of war when they know their enemies won't, and to their own detriment is naive in such a war.

Well if you'll check article for the countries who do, it pretty much is an endorsement.

I'm sure you do. ;)

No, but what I am saying is that for Hezbollah to respect the laws of war when they know their enemies won't, and to their own detriment is naive in such a war.

Actually, this is all going around in escalating circles. We don't know who started it, although I suspect the British behavior (which stemmed from deals made by T.E. Lawrence during WWI) in the Palestinian Mandate in the late 40s is one big source of the problem. The Israelis and some Palestinians have indicated a willingness to end the situation, but Hamas and, to a lesser extent, Hezbollah have not been overly cooperative in the matter.

You know that every time Hamas and Hezbollah kill Israelis, the Israelis will retaliate and you know that every time the Israelis retaliate, the others will escalate. You also know that if the Israelis cease hostilities, it won't guarantee that Hamas and Hezbollah will also cease.

Israel is an armed camp, under siege from all sides by people who don't recognize their right to exist. The Palestinians are dispossessed, not necessarily by the Israelis, but just as much by other Arabs who see them as pawns in their war agains Israel.

I hate to say it, but the hostilities will only end when the Muslim countries end them, and they won't do that until they destroy Israel or they, themselves, are destroyed.

Before 2000, Hezbollah MIGHT have had a legitimate case for calling itself a resistance group (one that operated by terrorist tactics, mind you), but that ended.

Before 2000, Hezbollah could claim they were fighting the battle they were founded for. They were founded to kick Israel out of Southern Lebanon. Well, Israel left in 2000. Hezbollah had achieved their stated goal, none of Lebanon was under Israeli control.

They could have stopped. They could have decided to give up attacks, they could have decided to become a real political party, and stick with just that. I still wouldn't like them as a party, I bet most wouldn't, but at least they would be that, a party.

Instead, they decided to keep attacking the nation they no longer had any demand against per their stated reason to exist. They decided to keep attacking Israel with terrorist tactics. From that day, they lost any claim in being called a "resistance" group. They've got nothing to resist, Israel isn't in Lebanon, and Hezbollah is Lebanese.

Before 2000, Hezbollah MIGHT have had a legitimate case for calling itself a resistance group (one that operated by terrorist tactics, mind you), but that ended.

Before 2000, Hezbollah could claim they were fighting the battle they were founded for. They were founded to kick Israel out of Southern Lebanon. Well, Israel left in 2000. Hezbollah had achieved their stated goal, none of Lebanon was under Israeli control.

They could have stopped. They could have decided to give up attacks, they could have decided to become a real political party, and stick with just that. I still wouldn't like them as a party, I bet most wouldn't, but at least they would be that, a party.

Instead, they decided to keep attacking the nation they no longer had any demand against per their stated reason to exist. They decided to keep attacking Israel with terrorist tactics. From that day, they lost any claim in being called a "resistance" group. They've got nothing to resist, Israel isn't in Lebanon, and Hezbollah is Lebanese.

Well 'terrorist tactics' is a bit of a post 9/11 buzzword, the proper term is asymmetrical warfare.

Well 'terrorist tactics' is a bit of a post 9/11 buzzword, the proper term is asymmetrical warfare.

The term "terrorist tactics" has been used since long long long before 9/11 by people who paid attention to the world and didn't receive a sudden wake up call in September 2001.

I think if we are quibbling over the term when what I said is synonymous with what you said, then we are truly missing the point of this conversation.

Well 'terrorist tactics' is a bit of a post 9/11 buzzword, the proper term is asymmetrical warfare.

No, that term is only used by misanthropic sadists who have no regard for human life and view anything which advances their goal, be it torture, mass murder, or whatever, as permissible.

No, that term is only used by misanthropic sadists who have no regard for human life and view anything which advances their goal, be it torture, mass murder, or whatever, as permissible.
Not really, I am sure Hezbollah would use conventional tactics if they had resources, unfortunately they do not.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Asymmetric_warfare

I suspect it depends on who you talk to in the group. Clearly some have committed terrorist activities, but others do not endorse that and only would fight if defending (e.g. against Israel last year).

Hezbollah is not a terrorist group in the traditional sense. Neither can it be called a resistance group any longer because it has continued to attack Israel even after Israeli withdrawal from Lebanon in 2000.

Rather it is an asymmetrical warfare practising combatant group engaging in it's own personal war with Israel, using the country of Lebanon as a shield, in my opinion.

They aren't terrorists, but combatants. In that capacity however, they still ought to be prosecuted for war crimes.

Hezbollah is not a terrorist group in the traditional sense. Neither can it be called a resistance group any longer because it has continued to attack Israel even after Israeli withdrawal from Lebanon in 2000.

Rather it is an asymmetrical warfare practising combatant group engaging in it's own personal war with Israel, using the country of Lebanon as a shield, in my opinion.

They aren't terrorists, but combatants. In that capacity however, they still ought to be prosecuted for war crimes.
In that case so should a whole lot of Israeli generals.

In that case so should a whole lot of Israeli generals.

Hezbollah is a heinous, duplicitous terrorist organization. Behind a façade of legitimacy lies a dark, putrid core of abhorrent violence and rampant extremism. Not only does it feel no compunction for the senseless death of civilians, but it actively perpetrates ghastly attacks against such people, whose only crime is being Israeli. Women and children are ruthlessly slaughtered to quench the organization's implacable thirst for blood. All moral considerations are extinguished in the face of such evil. Refusing to categorize this vile entity as terrroist in nature would validate and justify its execrable butchery.

In that case so should a whole lot of Israeli generals.

Yes. There are elements of the IDF that should be scrutinised by an international tribunal.

Hezbollah is a heinous, duplicitous terrorist organization. Behind a façade of legitimacy lies a dark, putrid core of abhorrent violence and rampant extremism. Not only does it feel no compunction for the senseless death of civilians, but it actively perpetrates ghastly attacks against such people, whose only crime is being Israeli. Women and children are ruthlessly slaughtered to quench the organization's implacable thirst for blood. All moral considerations are extinguished in the face of such evil. Refusing to categorize this vile entity as terrroist in nature would validate and justify its execrable butchery.

Lol, not going to reply to this.

It depends, most of the settlers in the West Bank know the risks and bring their children into the colonies because they believe in a 'Greater Israel' and all that, so they perpetuate the occupation and are legitimate targets as much as the military.
I would laugh if it wasn't so disgusting. By that logic the Albanians who lived in Kosovo were legitimate targets too. And that applies to any given number of genocide victims.

So I suppose to answer your questions:

1) Are they a resistance group? Not anymore, since there's no more Israeli occupation of their land to resist.

2) Are they a terrorist group? Well, since they attack civilians in order to scare them and thus achieve some goal, they are.

3) Are they a legitimate political party? Yep, they're that too.

4) And finally, is Nasrallah an anti-semite? Most definitely.

I guess Hezbollah would be diet-terrorism...

They don't hate Jews...they hate Zionism...

Hezbollah has declared that it distinguishes between Zionism and Judaism. Hezbollah MP Abdallah Qussayr stated that "Hezbollah has never been against religions. Hezbollah supports all religions, it supports interfaith dialogue, and it has no problem with any religion. Hezbollah considers Zionism to be the enemy, not the Jews as a people or a religion."[34] Hezbollah's official web site marks a distinction between "Zionist ideology" and Judaism. It likens Zionism to "the concept of creating 'Israel' by the use of force and violence, by stealing the Arabs’ lands and killing Palestinians."

and seem to promote women's rights

In keeping with Lebanon’s generally secular and egalitarian culture, Hezbollah recognizes and promotes women’s rights (in the mold of the Western liberal tradition) somewhat more strongly than do other groups associated with Islamic jihad, or for that matter than does Iran, Hezbollah’s self-proclaimed "model and example."......However, Hezbollah’s inclination towards secular liberal values should not be overstated. For example, its official stance on homosexuality hews close to traditional religious teachings

Then I found this too...

After the September 11, 2001 attacks, Hezbollah condemned Al Qaeda for targeting the civilian World Trade Center, but remained silent on the attack on the The Pentagon, neither favoring nor opposing the act.Hezbollah also denounced the Armed Islamic Group massacres in Algeria, Al-Gama’a al-Islamiyya attacks on tourists in Egypt,[122] and the murder of Nick Berg.[123] Nasrallah, in a 2006 interview with the Washington Post, condemned violence against American civilians: “[I]f there are American tourists, or intellectuals, doctors, or professors who have nothing to do with this war, they are innocent, even though they are Americans, and it is forbidden."

Wiki also says they're accused of War Crimes, recognized as a terrorist group by several nations....

So I am standing by my earlier statement...they're "diet-terrorism"
They seem somewhat good and bad at the same time......

Hezbollah, currently, is a terrorist group. The fact that it does good deeds and cares for it's supporters does not change that; Al Capone did good deeds and helped the city of Chicago financially, but that does not change the fact that he was a murderer and racketeer.

Hezbollah has the potential to be much more, though. I could see Hezbollah nnegotiating on a frank and fair basis with Israel, especially if they dropped some of their more extreme rhetoric. Somehow, I cannot see Hamas in that position.

Totally seconded.
Hezbollah has immediately condemned the recent bomb attack on the UNIFIL forces. This shows that (most) Hezbollah is made of reasonable people - that is, candidates for peace talks.

Terrorist groups CAN evolve into something different. It has happened for (most of) IRA, hasn't it?

Before 2000, Hezbollah MIGHT have had a legitimate case for calling itself a resistance group (one that operated by terrorist tactics, mind you), but that ended.

Not really. They lost their right to be considered freedom fighters when they bombed an Argentinian synagogue in 1994, and there are reports that they were behind a suicide attack on Salman Rushdie..

The fact is, Israel killed more civilians, but are they regarded as a terrorist state? In such a war I believe the tactics are justified, especially considering Hezbollah only killed about 50 and they were in diversionary attacks.

Your rank and shameless hypocrisy never ceases to amaze (and amuse) me. Only ten days ago, you were saying that any military strike on Iran would entitle Iran to respond in any way they liked, even to the point of levelling Tel Aviv. To quote (http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showthread.php?p=12776307&highlight=iran+aviv#post12776307):

If Israel strikes first, no matter how minor the attack is, Iran is entitled to respond in any way it wishes. Are you stupid or something, do you honestly think the Iranian people are going to sit there take it while Israel bombs them, well, do you? No, they would respond with all the military strength they have, and they would be justified in doing so. If Israel tried to destroy Natanz, they deserve to have Tel Aviv leveled.

Isn't this interesting? AP would support Iran in killing the 3 million civilians in Tel Aviv if Israel attacked a military target in Iran, but Israel's killing of about 1,000 Lebanese civilians in response to Hezbollah's attacks on Israeli civilians and military personnel is completely unjustified. I'm sure this blatant double standard won't surprise anyone who's read many of AP's posts and I'll be surprised if he replies to this message, but I hope this'll give lurkers some idea of his credibility.

I suspect it depends on who you talk to in the group. Clearly some have committed terrorist activities, but others do not endorse that and only would fight if defending (e.g. against Israel last year).

They would not have had to defend against Israel if they had not crossed the border and kidnapped an Israeli soldier.

You stop being able to say "don't hurt me" when it is your own damn fault.

It depends, most of the settlers in the West Bank know the risks and bring their children into the colonies because they believe in a 'Greater Israel' and all that, so they perpetuate the occupation and are legitimate targets as much as the military. The fact is, Israel killed more civilians, but are they regarded as a terrorist state? In such a war I believe the tactics are justified, especially considering Hezbollah only killed about 50 and they were in diversionary attacks.
Not sure why you're talking about west bank settler children in the context of Hizballa. The northern kibbutzes and towns in Israel proper are the ones that face attacks from Hizballa (and the golan, which is formally emancipated into Israel). They too know the danger of living where they live; that doesn't mean that killing them is in some way fair game.

Big time terrorist group with serious Iranian backing.

Hezbollah has immediately condemned the recent bomb attack on the UNIFIL forces. This shows that (most) Hezbollah is made of reasonable people

A) It does not show anything about MOST Hezbollah members, it shows something about the small number of people at the top who make public statements.

B) It does not necessarily even show them to be reasonable people, it may very well just show them to be something that we all know, great at propaganda. They demonstrated that quite well multiple times over the summer.

BTW for clarity, the recent deplorable attack on UNIFIL was perpetrated by the Palestinian Fatah Al-Islam group that was recently targeted by the Lebanese Army in it's shelling of Palestinian refugee camps.

Stupidly enough, Al-Islam tried to justify the attack by claiming UNIFIL had shelled a refugee camp.

UN Peacekeepers... Shelling a Palestinian refugee camp... The same refugee camps a short while ago UN troops tried to bring in humanitarian aid to before being "accidently" shelled by thier Lebanese Army counterparts... Err...

Hezbollah, currently, is a terrorist group. The fact that it does good deeds and cares for it's supporters does not change that; Al Capone did good deeds and helped the city of Chicago financially, but that does not change the fact that he was a murderer and racketeer.

Hezbollah has the potential to be much more, though. I could see Hezbollah nnegotiating on a frank and fair basis with Israel, especially if they dropped some of their more extreme rhetoric. Somehow, I cannot see Hamas in that position.

My thoughts.

The President believes Hezbollah is clearly a terrorist organization.

The President believes Hezbollah is clearly a terrorist organization.

The President believes in the Rapture and other convenient mythology. This does not tend to grant weight to his suppositions.

Of course AP (a Holocaust denier and anti-semite) tries to defend Hezbollah.

Your rank and shameless hypocrisy never ceases to amaze (and amuse) me. Only ten days ago, you were saying that any military strike on Iran would entitle Iran to respond in any way they liked, even to the point of levelling Tel Aviv. To quote (http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showthread.php?p=12776307&highlight=iran+aviv#post12776307):



Isn't this interesting? AP would support Iran in killing the 3 million civilians in Tel Aviv if Israel attacked a military target in Iran, but Israel's killing of about 1,000 Lebanese civilians in response to Hezbollah's attacks on Israeli civilians and military personnel is completely unjustified. I'm sure this blatant double standard won't surprise anyone who's read many of AP's posts and I'll be surprised if he replies to this message, but I hope this'll give lurkers some idea of his credibility.
AP = one PWND moron

i didnt realize that more than 6 countries KEPT a list of terrorist organizations.

are you sure that the rest of the countries that do arent just behind in list keeping?

they target civilians; they are terrorists.

i didnt realize that more than 6 countries KEPT a list of terrorist organizations.

are you sure that the rest of the countries that do arent just behind in list keeping?

they target civilians; they are terrorists.

Ah, but you forget: anyone you support isn't a terrorist, they're a "freedom fighter" or "noble rebel".

And if you're not directly involved it's better not to choose sides too clearly. After all, the terrorists might win.

Realpolitik sucks, but we have to deal with it anyway.

They are a political and military organization. They are Shiites, so they do not do suicide attacks against civilians, and are not at all as bad as they are often made out to be, or as their oh-so-scawwy "terrorists" listing suggests.

Israel is the bad guy in the israel-Lebanon conflict, by leaps and bounds.

Israel is the bad guy in the israel-Lebanon conflict, by leaps and bounds.

Curious, how did Israel make Hezbollah cross the border and kidnap an Israeli soldier, and then fire hundreds of rockets intentionally targeted at nothing but civilians?

Any organization with a history like Hezbollah that has a freakin gun on it's flag has a long way to go before I no longer consider them terrorists.

My question today is pretty simple, since only 6 countries worldwide regard Hezbollah as a 'terrorist' group, and many see it as a legitimate resistance organization, what is your opinion on the group and what do you see them as? My question comes because Hezbollah isn't really like the other brutral insurgent groups in Iraq or elsewhere, they regard women as equal to men (in the Lebanese tradition) and spend millions on social welfare programs in Southern Lebanon and elsewhere, and have their own tv station which isn't really as bias and propagandistic as you might think. Their historical links to Syria and revolutionary Iran are obvious, but it has been noted that the groups acts on it's own these days and is quite a popular political party/movement in Lebanon. So, what do you think?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hezbollah
http://www.manartv.com.lb/NewsSite/News.aspx?language=en

the answer to your question is pretty simple.
i understand that the us,britain,germany and even the french kill innocents,but do they intentionally do it...the answer is an emphatic no!
do we target women and children in markets and and kids in disco's,i would say no,do they?
do we kill innocents...sure,and why?cause the cowards hide behind women and children,maybe it is the only chance they have,but the fact remains..they are pussies and hide behind women and children.
and that aside..they target women and children,so fuck them..they are shit to me and so is there cause,however noble they think they are,the end does not justify the means.
if you want my respect and support,man the fuck up,attack a base of military people,at least i will respect that,blow up kids and you earn my disdain.
fucking cowardly scum and stupid to boot.
so to answer your query,they are not freedom fighters or revolutionarys,they are retarded cowards that should fight the so called oppressor,but are to chicken shit to do so,so they blow up kids...real tough guys..wtf,it makes me want to go medevil on them.
cowardly and hurts the real cause,so i guess on top of being stupid,they are also assholes.

the answer to your question is pretty simple.
i understand that the us,britain,germany and even the french kill innocents,but do they intentionally do it...the answer is an emphatic no!
do we target women and children in markets and and kids in disco's,i would say no,do they?
do we kill innocents...sure,and why?cause the cowards hide behind women and children,maybe it is the only chance they have,but the fact remains..they are pussies and hide behind women and children.
and that aside..they target women and children,so fuck them..they are shit to me and so is there cause,however noble they think they are,the end does not justify the means.
if you want my respect and support,man the fuck up,attack a base of military people,at least i will respect that,blow up kids and you earn my disdain.
fucking cowardly scum and stupid to boot.
so to answer your query,they are not freedom fighters or revolutionarys,they are retarded cowards that should fight the so called oppressor,but are to chicken shit to do so,so they blow up kids...real tough guys..wtf,it makes me want to go medevil on them.
cowardly and hurts the real cause,so i guess on top of being stupid,they are also assholes.
Israel does definitely does target civilians.

Israel does definitely does target civilians.

For the most part, no, they don't. Sadly in war, there is such a thing as collateral damage, which is made worse when your enemy plants military targets inside civilian ones.

For the most part, no, they don't. Sadly in war, there is such a thing as collateral damage, which is made worse when your enemy plants military targets inside civilian ones.

Actually your wrong, amnesty international and the UN bodies have said they directly targeted civilians in the recent Lebanon conflict, and that's not even going through the whole history of the occupying regime.

Actually your wrong, amnesty international and the UN bodies have said they directly targeted civilians in the recent Lebanon conflict, and that's not even going through the whole history of the occupying regime.

Provide a source. Put up or shut up.

Provide a source. Put up or shut up.

http://en.wikinews.org/wiki/Amnesty_International_accuses_Israel_of_%22war_crimes%22_in_Lebanon
http://www.americanchronicle.com/articles/viewArticle.asp?articleID=14196
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2006_Israel-Lebanon_conflict#Allegations_of_war_crimes
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Targeting_of_civilian_areas_in_the_2006_Lebanon_War
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marjayoun_convoy_incident

etc etc...

They don't hate Jews...they hate Zionism...
Except for their leader and their members of course, who hate Jews.

http://www.jeffreygoldberg.net/articles/tny/a_reporter_at_large_in_the_par.php

*cue arguments about how the article isn't credible since it was written by a Jew*

A) It does not show anything about MOST Hezbollah members, it shows something about the small number of people at the top who make public statements.
And since that small number of people at the top is the expression of the majority of Hezbollah, or, at least, their leadership is acknowledged by the majority of Hezbollah...

B) It does not necessarily even show them to be reasonable people, it may very well just show them to be something that we all know, great at propaganda. They demonstrated that quite well multiple times over the summer.
Ok, maybe it is like you're saying: but they're also smart enough to understand that they have to behave as reasonable people. Now, tell me the difference between reasonable people and people who behave like reasonable people.

[url]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marjayoun_convoy_incident

etc etc...


On August 11, following the billeting of IDF in the Lebanese Army base in Marjayoun a convoy of cars carrying Lebanese army, police and civilians was escorted by the UN away from the area. When the UN left the convoy at the town of Hasbaya the convoy was bombed nine times by the IDF resulting in seven fatalities and thirty-six wounded.[16] Head of the Lebanese Red Cross's rescue teams, George Kettaneh, said the convoy had been "deliberately targeted".[17]


I'd say that this qualifies as war crime. Deliberately attacking a civilian convoy that was abandoning an area the IDF told to abandon... It may also constitute an example of terror attack.
Yes, the IDF hasn't behaved better than Hezbollah, at the very least.