Kelvyquayo the Irrelevant wrote:
Quote:
Both of those organizations were terrorist organizations *before* they involved themselves in conflict with Israel. Are you saying that we should support terrorist groups when they attack other countries?
I can totally see the Bush scowl when I read this. Targeting civilians is wrong and the lowest of the low, but these people are obviously AT their lowest of low if this in the kind of world that they live in where they see no other alternative than to commit their lives to violence. So just keep throwing that word terrorist around and see where it gets us... same place words like
witch and
communist got us.
Huh?! I'm sorry. Were you trying to argue that these groups are *not* terrorist groups?
Look. "Terrorist" may be a word. It may even be an overused word. However, when it's applied correctly, it's applied correctly. Both Hamas *and* Hezbollah are terrorist groups. They conduct terrorist attacks. While I've participated in many debates about what exactly the definition of a terrorist is, and the specific uses and definitions do change from time to time, you are the first person I've ever run into who's tried to argue that Hamas and Hezbollah aren't terrorist organizations.
Condoning what they do because they're in a crappy situation does not work. Doubly so since the state of their world is largely their own doing. Every single bad thing occuring in Lebanon is the result of Hezbollah's presense. Period. Similar thing for Gaza and Hamas.
Quote:
Quote:
Ever consider that "the extremists" would have even more power and position if we hadn't opposed them?
I know you're not talking about Nazrallah. He got even more popular after the hail of bombs that they got from Israel.
No. He gained popularity among the western press and western non-conformists. Mostly because they (typically) didn't know who he was prior to the conflict.
He lost significant power and support as a result of the conflict. Massive amounts in fact. Don't mistake a degree of violence for a degree of power. Groups are typically most violent/active when they have the least power. Not the other way around...
Hezbollah was slowly and quietly building their own army in Lebanon, insinuating themselves into the government, and taking control of region after region of the country. Until the conflict. Now they are struggling to retain any position in the government after being seen as a militia that got the country into an unecessary conflict. Their position and agenda has been laid bare. As a result, you may be more aware of them, but they are far less of a threat now then they were previously. In another 3-5 years, Hezbollah would have completely controlled Lebanon if the hadn't gotten stupid and attacked Isreal and drawn international attention to themselves. Now, they're having to fight just to retain the degree of control they had before the conflict.
He personally may be percived as more powerful, but Hezbollah itself was weakened.
I know you're not talking about Nazrallah. He got even more popular after the hail of bombs that they got from Israel. Or are you talking about any violent extremist groups who have decided to take up the call to arms against the "Zionist Crusaders!"