QUOTE
America does not 'have the right', it assumes it does, but within the international scene the 'right' is dictated by 'law', something that the US frequently overlooks. Something cannot just be 'moral' or 'right' from your (as in a nations) own singular viewpoint
America?
We are talking about Israel!!!!!!
QUOTE
Israel states that it has no quarrel with the government or people of Lebanon, and that it is taking extreme precautions to avoid harm to them. Yet a number of its actions have hurt and killed Lebanese civilians and military personnel and caused great damage to infrastructure. While Hezbollah's actions are deplorable, and as I've said, Israel has a right to defend itself, the excessive use of force is to be condemned.--Kofi Annan
QUOTE
Israel labels them a terrorist organisation ( and i admit that they act that way) but alot of the middle east see the inverse of this, hence Israeli occupation, hence hezbollah as a political party (a large one at that). Back to my earlier point: technically the US can be viewed as a 'terrorist organisation' - based upon some of its international behaviour and internationally accepted definitions (hence why I mentioned Geneva and Nuremburg), but that should not prohibit rational discussion between it and other nations. Labelling each side is unproductive - you are instantly placing yourself on the moral high ground
Wrong....
America cannot be viewed as a Terrorist organization in the same way that Hezbollah can...
Terrorist is perhaps the wrong word....but it is commonly used in reference to violent negotiations.....
America has never
kidnapped people and held them for ransomPart of Hezbollah is non-terrorist....however, kidnapping soldiers and requesting prisoner exchange is a non-negotiable position. No country on the face of the earth is going to negotiate in that situation
QUOTE
4. Attempt to find a peaceful solution outside of direct negotiation? The UN is only impotent because, as I have said, the US blocks any Resolutions that provide the potential for peace.
Just out of curiosity...could you give me an example???
QUOTE
terrorism is a non conventional type of warfare, so 'run' or 'fight' is a completely impotent example, what about internal terror? non conventional warfare requires a non conventional response. And until both the US and Israel accept this they will perpetuate the situation.
Hezbollah is truly not "terrorist", they are guerilla
They are fighting a fairly conventional war...last time i checked firing rockets into a country and having ground assault forces attack their troops is "conventional warfare"
QUOTE
mm...I am pretty sure that there is a reason that they are not using "missile defense shields".
Maybe they arent safe in populated areas
where as the current situation could be described as 'safe' for both sides
Maybe the rockets being fired are too low-flying to be picked up on radar.
maybe. AA guns then? my point is I doubt this has even been considered
I doubt it is because "they see in black and white".
I quote both Condi and Bush "the creation of a new Middle East". Not the "creation of a new middle eastern 'peace', a new middle east.
This link might be helpfulbasically...it isnt an issue of "not willing" it is an issue of the technology being so antiquated that it makes modern defense difficult
QUOTE
Right...maybe they should have pulled out of certain areas!!! Wait...they did that
Maybe they should cease hostilities towards arabic countries!!! Wait they tried that
Maybe they should try something DIFFERENT then: my point entirely.
Hmm...THEY ARE...
BLOWING THE CRAP OUTTA THEIR COUNTRY
In all honesty...it is a new solution.
You basically agreed with my point.
They have tried appeasement...
They have tried negotiations...
They have tried carefull targeted attacks...
They have tried counter-intelligence and counter-terrorism
Now...they are going to go with...blow you up till you stop or die
QUOTE
Muslims do not equal Terrorists, Bears, or any other problem, or at least no more so than any other religion
I believe he was trying to make the point that when dealing with a terrorist enemy who is Muslim
I dont believe he was trying to characterize ALL Muslims
He also might have been referring to Muslims opposed to Israel....
QUOTE
hezbollah are labelled 'terrorists' by a small number of nations only, correctly or incorrectly
The way in which you operate 'defines' you as a terrorist.
Hezbollah frequently operates as terrorists, and so does Hamas
The fact that they are also a valid political party, and hold some popularity is a different state of affairs.
They may not be "evil" terrorists...but they are terrorists