the EU was pretty clear about it - they had more than enough evidence to designate Hezbollah as a terrorist organization but they did not want to do it for political reasons. They still officially consider one of Hezbollah's leaders a terrorist. Russia was pretty clear about it - their list only includes terrorist organizations that threaten russia. and yeah you're right, the usual suspects - the US, Canada, Israel, the Netherlands, the UK, Australia, I'd rather be in this company than in yours with Hugo Chavez, Fidel Castro, Bashar al-Asad, Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, Nazrallah, Arafat and sheik Yassin. Did I miss anyone else whose opinion you use to validate yours?
Everything is so straight ahead in your little world, huh? You must be a lazy fucker. And btw... from your comments, it's clear that you've never travelled internationally. ----------------------------------------------------------------- bsmeter shuffles down the street, picking cigarette butts out of the gutter and eating them. He sees a cloud in the sky, a man on a bicycle, two young people in love. "It's the JEWS!!! It's the GODDAMN JEWS!!!" he screeches. Then he defecates in his pants.
So your point is that Hezbollah is not a terrorist organization? Hm, car bombs into peace keeper barracks, car bombs into embassies, kidnappings, lobbing unguided missiles towards population centers, these things do not qualify Hezbollah as a terrorist organization to you? Ya know you can't fool all the people all the time, but dumbasses like you can fool yourself everytime.
"lawmakers in the European Parliament last year passed a resolution by 473 votes to eight calling Hizballah a terrorist group and calling for "all needed measures to put an end to the terrorist activities of this group." Any decision to add Hezbollah to the European Unionâs list of terror organisations must be taken unanimously by the 25 EU members states but some governments argue against treating as a terrorist group an organization that is involved in the Lebanese political system. In other words there are "some governments" in the EU who claim that terrorism is not the only thing Hezbollah does and that's sufficient for this idiot SA to conclude that they are "Freedom Fighters".
. Claywilk: So your point is that Hezbollah is not a terrorist organization? Hm, car bombs into peace keeper barracks, car bombs into embassies, kidnappings, lobbing unguided missiles towards population centers, these things do not qualify Hezbollah as a terrorist organization to you? **************** August 2, 2006 SouthAmerica: Remember him? âMenachen Volfovich Begin (August 16, 1913 â March 9, 1992) - head of the Zionist underground group the Irgun, Nobel Peace Prize laureate and the first Likud Prime Minister of Israel.â If you know a little history â Menachen Begin also did similar stuff in the past to the British and the Palestinian people in that area of the world. I rest my case. .
. August 2, 2006 SouthAmerica: The mainstream media from around the world including countries such as Israel, Canada, China, India, UK, Australia â they all refer to Hezbollah as guerrillas, or Hezbollah fighters - Hezbollah is part of the Lebanese resistance force. Only people who are misinformed or who want to spread misinformation would call Hezbollah a terrorist organization. ******************** Salon - JERUSALEM âHezbollah Rocket Hits West Bankâ August 2, 2006 Hezbollah guerrillas fired more than 300 rockets from Lebanese border towns into northern Israel on Wednesday, Lebanese security officials said, including one that hit the West Bank for the first timeâ¦.. ****************** The Hindu â India August 2, 2006 âLebanese officials report 300 rockets fired at Israel since dawnâ Beirut, Aug. 2 (AP): Hezbollah fighters have fired more than 300 rockets toward Israel since dawn on Wednesday, Lebanese security officials reported. Israel medics said one of the rockets hit near the town of Beit Shean, the deepest rocket strike into Israel so far. Israeli police and rescue services put the total number of rockets much lower, saying at least 84 were fired by Hezbollah at towns across northern Israel. The reports said at least seven people were wounded. An AP corespondent in the southern Lebanese hilltop hamlet of Bourj al-Mulouk, near the border village of Kfar Kila, reported seeing at least two dozen outgoing rockets flying overhead and landing in northern Israel. The reporter said the rockets appeared to have been fired from the area between Khiam and Marjayoun. Israeli artillery was returning fire, the reporter said, with a shell falling about every two minutes. ****************** âHezbollah rocket hits deepest into Israelâ Daily News & Analysis, India â August 2, 2006 JERUSALEM: A rocket fired by Hezbollah guerrillas on Wednesday struck near the Israeli town of Beit Shean, almost 70 km (45 miles) from the border with Lebanon ... ******************** Herald Sun - Australiaâs biggest selling newspaper âHezbollah bombards Israelâ August 3, 2006 HEZBOLLAH guerillas have fired at least 206 rockets into Israel, their most intense one-day barrage of the conflict, killing one person and wounding many others. One rocket slammed into a house on a kibbutz near the city of Nahariya, close to the Lebanese border, killing a 52-year-old man as he was riding his bicycle. Police said 123 other people were treated for a variety of injuriesâ¦â¦ ***************** âRecord number of rockets slam into northern Israelâ People's Daily â China August 3, 2006 Lebanon's Hezbollah guerrillas fired a record number of more than 190 rockets on northern Israel so far on Wednesday after a relative lull in rocket attacks for two days, local media reported. It marked the biggest single-day barrage from Lebanon since Israel launched its offensive against Hezbollah on July 12. â¦More than 1,900 rockets have hit northern Israel since the start of the fighting. According to the Health Ministry, 1,733 people have been treated at hospitals throughout the north, mostly for shock and anxiety attacks. Of that number, 98 people remain hospitalized, 10 in serious condition, 36 in moderate condition and 52 with light injuries. Source: Xinhua .
Well South America your just a regular Perry Mason ain't ya! Because you say Menachim Begin was a terrorist makes Hezbollah not a terrorist organization? That is not a good example of inductive reasoning, much closer to inverted reasoning. I really don't think Perry would be proud of your case at all. He might say " Isn't it a fact Mr. South America that you don't have a clue about any of your allegations or inuendo? That in fact, you have your head up your ass so far the only thing you know for sure is that you are full of shit?" Pull your head out of your ass and join the winning team, for yourself, your countrymen, and your posterity.
. Claywilk: Because you say Menachim Begin was a terrorist makes Hezbollah not a terrorist organization? *********** August 3, 2006 SouthAmerica: Sorry, I forgot - Menachen Volfovich Begin was a âgood terrorist.â He did it for a âgood causeâ when he did blow up hotels in Palestine and killed a lot of women and children. Every time I hear the name âMenachen Volfovich Beginâ the first thing that comes to mind is that he was a terrorist â a famous Jewish terrorist. That âMenachen Volfovich Beginâ was a terrorist in Palestine it is a historical fact â unless you guys are going to try to âsanitizeâ the history of Jewish terrorism against the British and the Palestinians. Regarding Hezbollah the entire world knows that they are not a terrorist organization. But if it makes you feel better about destroying an entire country - Lebanon - and killing a lot of innocent people: women, children, sick people, senior citizens and so on - then call Hezbollah anything you want. After watching on television what Israel have been doing to the Palestinian people for a long time and now what they are also doing to the Lebanese people - Never again I want to hear another word about the Holocaust. And I know a bunch of people that feels the same way. Any sympathy that a lot of people had for the Jewish people regarding the holocaust are going up in smoke - and going in smoke very fast. Please in the future spare me from all of your sad stories!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! .
. âThe neglected roots of conflict are buried in combustible landâ By DAVID GARDNER Published: August 4, 2006 The Financial Times - UK President George W. Bush and Condoleezza Rice, his secretary of state, repeatedly justified their unwillingness to demand an immediate ceasefire in Lebanon over the past three weeks by the need to deal with what they keep calling "the roots of the problem". Let us take them at their word. Let us clear away the dust, dig out the earth and carefully examine those roots. What that will show is that the US and its allies in the Middle East have demonstrated a steadily diminishing ability to acknowledge the root causes of conflict in the region, let alone the will or ability to deal with them. It needs to be stressed, first of all, as Brent Scowcroft, national security adviser to President George H.W. Bush put it in The Washington Post last Sunday, that: "Hizbollah is not the source of the problem; it is a derivative of the cause, which is the tragic conflict over Palestine that began in 1948." Hizbollah was, in fact, incubated as a result of Israel's 1982 invasion of Lebanon, which was intended to destroy the Palestine Liberation Organisation. Its midwives may have been Iran and Syria - Hizbollah was born in the Iranian embassy in Damascus - but the parents were Israel and a US that declined to restrain its ally until it had nearly razed Muslim west Beirut. Repeated attempts by Israel since then to crush Hizbollah have failed. Indeed, the present onslaught has barely dented the operational capability of the Shia Islamist group. Rather, it has raised it to the peak of its prestige, in Lebanon, in the Arab world and, miraculously, among Sunni Muslims who regard the Shia as idolators and Iranian agents. Hizbollah is an organisation brought to life by unresolved conflict, as are Hamas and its militant allies on Israel's other front. The root cause of that conflict is land: principally the battle between Arab and Jew over how (or whether) to share the cramped and combustible Holy Land. The political and diplomatic failure to pursue and prosecute a resolution to this conf`lict is an astonishing abdication of responsibility, especially towards future generations who will have to deal with steadily more vicious attempts to settle it once and for all. There is no mystery, moreover, as to what the outlines of such a settlement would have to be. The solution lies in the parameters set by President Bill Clinton and in more than two dozen sets of talks between Israelis and Palestinians at Taba in Egypt after the collapse of the Camp David negotiations in 2000; in the subsequent but informal Geneva accord based on these and in the adoption of their essentials by the Arab League at Beirut in 2002. The now poignantly named Beirut peace initiative calls for an end to the Arab-Israeli conflict, with full Arab recognition of - and relations with - Israel in exchange for Israeli withdrawal from all land occupied in the 1967 six-day war. That, above all, means a Palestinian state on almost all of the occupied West Bank and Gaza, with Arab east Jerusalem as its capital, and what the Arab peace plan calls "a just solution" that inevitably means compensation rather than right of return for most Palestinian refugees. As a formula to end the conflict at the heart of the Middle East's chronic instability this has not really been tried. The 1993-95 Oslo accords pointed hesitantly but hopefully in that direction. They expired, however, long before being pronounced dead. They were killed principally by Israel's belief that it could continue to build settlements on Arab land without any reaction from the Palestinians. The biggest expansion of these illegal settlements, moreover, occurred during the heyday of the peace process. Under Labour governments in 1992-96, led by Yitzhak Rabin and Shimon Peres, the number of settlers in the West Bank grew by 50 per cent, four times the rate of population increase inside Israel proper. East Jerusalem has been encircled and enclosed by four big blocs of settlements, with every government since Oslo able to claim a rampart in the wall. Housing and zoning restrictions inside the city helped ensure a Jewish majority. As Ariel Sharon, Israel's now stricken leader and settlers' champion, boasted: "In Jerusalem we built and created facts that can no longer be changed." The other villain of Oslo, of course, is Yassir Arafat. So anxious was the PLO leader to assume the trappings of statehood and so incompetent at statecraft that Israel's main tactic during the Oslo negotiations, an Israeli participant once told me, was to get him alone. Subsequently, Arafat felt swindled, one reason why he kept the "armed struggle" option dangerously in play. Arab leaders, whether formally at peace with Israel like Egypt and Jordan, or not, like Saudi Arabia and Syria, usually rather favoured that situation of "no war, no peace". It justifies the emergency powers through which they exercise their despotism and monopolise resources. The US, meanwhile, the only power with the influence to end this stalemate, has regressively declined to do so. A decade ago, warning that expanding settlements would kill peace, former secretary of state James Baker lamented that: "We have gone from calling the settlements illegal in the Carter administration, to calling them an obstacle to peace in the Reagan and [George H.W.] Bush administrations, and now [under President Clinton] we are saying they are complicating and troubling." The present President Bush has gone much further, licensing Mr Sharon's 2002 recapture of Palestinian territory, backing a so-called security barrier well inside the West Bank and, in 2004, endorsing Israel's aim of annexing the wall of settlements separating east Jerusalem from its hinterland. Everything is now in place for Ehud Olmert, the current prime minister, to set Israel's borders where Mr Sharon decided they should be on a map he drew in 1982. The idea is to keep the geography without the demography, leaving the Palestinians about a tenth of what was Palestine, in three discontiguous Bantustans. It was never going to work. Now it may not even be tried. No Arab or Muslim would accept it. But many Israelis who supported it no longer do. Being attacked from land Israel left, they reason, means this conflict is no longer about land but is existential: Hamas and Hizbollah want to destroy us. Possibly. But certainly what has given these organisations power and prestige well beyond their natural constituency is a catalogue of failure in the Middle East that has, at its heart, the failure honestly to seek a comprehensive settlement based on land-for-peace. .
Armed resistance against occupiers/invaders have been refered to as terrorists by the supporters of the invaders and as guerillas by the supporters of the resistance movement. I wonder why Hezbollah was formed in the first place. If Lebanon was not occupied by Israel in the 70s-80s would Hezbollah be there now? The chickens will always come back to root... That reminds me of an anecdote. Quite a few years ago during a visit to India I met a very elderly gentleman. He was an Indian Government honored Freedom Fighter against the british occupation of India. He was tortured and jailed by the brits when they were the occupiers, branding him as a terrorist. However, once independent, the Government bestowed honors on him. This goes to show, how the words guerillas and terrorists are dependent on your outlook.