I think you've got those terms backwards. But yes, an opinion is always subjective. A fact, however, is not. Well, if Hezbollah is a terrorist organization then a claim that their existence was justified could certainly be reasonably construed as justifying terrorism, lol. You and thecabbage just kneejerk and rant. If that's what you want to do, then have at it. But don't then contend you are the champions of reasoned debate.
What? What part of my statement was dishonest? You said it 'was created out of necessity.' That is opinion not fact. You said 'blame Israel for that one.' That is a matter of opinion, not fact. I never said it wasn't a reaction to Israel's invasion in Lebanon. If you want to be precise, I am game. But its you that need to avoid untenable accusations.
I justified their existence , not their actions. I am an historian, HayesStreet, so I naturally look for 'causation' and 'evidence' and attempt to apply a little logic to it. BTW, I am merely interested in hearing your views/opinions/counter-argument on this. I respect you overall as a poster, and I enjoy debating you.
Yes, you justify their existence. Saying there existence is justified is NOT the same as saying 'there must have been a reason for them to form' as thecabbage contends. Justification goes well beyond establishing causation. That is nonsensical and pointless if all it means is 'they didn't randomly gather in the streets but had something in mind when they got together.' If you say their existence is justified it means their purpose is justified. Violence against Israel is justified. Further, you went a step beyond claiming their existence was justified and assigned 'blame' to Israel. I don't think its a stretch AT ALL to give you 'just desserts' for your statements. However, you subsequently called into doubt whether or not Hezbollah is a terrorist organization and that would have to be shown before New Yorkers statement could be reasonably applied. My problem was not so much your statement but with thecabbage's kneejerk overreaction. Claiming to be the champion of reasoned debate and then basically shouting down someone else is pretty silly. Apply a little opinion to it - you mean. I think there is a difference between attempting to establish causation and claiming 'justification.' If you had only said 'Hezbollah formed in reaction to Israel's invasion of Lebanon,' then we wouldn't be having this discussion. You didn't do that. You went far beyond that and attempted to justify Hezbollah. Hezbollah was not the only path open to the Lebanese. They could have formed a Ghandi-like party to protest the Israeli invasion, for example. You didn't say 'a reaction was justified,' you said Hezbollah was justified. If you want to try and separate their existence which necessarily includes their stated mission, and their actions in pursuit of that mission - be my guest. It should be interesting reading.
This whole debate is losing it's meaning in semantics. One could argue that the blame is should be placed on Jesus Christ or the Romans, or on Moses or Allah, the UK, or the UN. Someone in the past took some action that set in some chain of events. My point is that when you assign blame - that is making an excuse and avoiding the current problem. No - there is no excuse for terrorism. No justification. It is against everything humanistic and moral across all cultures to intentionally harm an innocent person to make a political statement. It's against every international charter and every religion. If you make an excuse - you are advocating it in certain instances. To say - hey, well, gee - these terrorist acts are a result of Israeli oppression is just advocating it as a tactic just as much as calling for the destruction of a country is delivering a message to people not to just commit terrorist acts - but to commit genocide. Iran supports Hezbollah which is a group that bombed the U.S. Embassy in a clear terrorist attack. Iran incites people to commit terrorist acts when it's leader calls for wiping Israel off the map and allows marches calling for death to America and Israel. If you can say with a straight face that all of this is justifiable - then you are justifying terrorism and in fact lending your support to it. No more "terroism is horrible but hey, it's excusable because of xyz policy" That is in effect support of terrorism.
Nah, now you're confusing things. Hezbollah at the time of their formation was dedicated to "kicking the occupiers out" (i.e. the Israelis), since the Lebanese government was clearly unable to deter the Israeli invasion. However, over time, their cause/message changed somewhat, and they evolved into a slightly different group (more so of a 'militant Shi'a' bloc that is a political party with significant weight in the Lebanese arena. IMO, they have made more of a shift to politics, but still maintain that 'militant' status). I was not assigning 'blame' to anyone, I stated that merely to illustrate -- once again -- that NOTHING takes place in a 'vaccum'; for every action there is a reaction, that's politics for you, the rules of physics do apply. That was really what I intended to show. Which statement are you referring to that New Yorker made? As for what I said about Hezbollah, understand that I am merely pointing out to New Yorker that Hezbollah is not 'clearly' a terrorist group, because more than a few entities/groups/states don't consider them as such, even the Europeans until recently (under tremendous political pressure from the US and Israel). So again, I am trying to help people see that different sides view issues differently. IMO, this is a very important part of understanding how the world functions, and would go a long way in contributing to sound policies based on knowledge instead of faulty assumptions that everyone accepts our 'authority' as far as determining who's what (one day a group might be considered 'terrorist' while the next day they are 'freedom fighters'; someone might be a 'despicable dictator' and the next day they are 'friends'). Well, granted, history is not math, but there is such a thing as a 'consensus' and circumstantial evidence -- until you provide a legitimate counter-argument to disprove this 'opinion', it still stands. Because I live in the 'real world', and in the real world Ghandis rarely, if ever, exist and aren't usually seen as providing a 'practical' solution. Generally speaking -- and this is a right that everyone has under International Law -- you can repel an attack against you with arms, i.e. engage in armed warfare. Certainly you don't believe just because someone doesn't believe non-violence is the way to go -- while their families are being slaughtered -- that they are 'terrorist' or are somehow unjustified, do you? Again, that's faulty logic on your part. Let me give you a real-life example to illustrate my point... After 9/11, the U.S. declared war on Afghanistan, with the 'stated mission' of going after the group responsible for the attacks (Al-Qaida) and those who harbor them (Taliban). For most Americans, that was a 'justified' action/aim. However, when the torture scandals came to light, the world protested, and rightfully so. Why? Because while the justification for the invasion of Afghanistan was 'acceptable' and 'lawful', some of the actions used in the duration of the 'war on terror' were unacceptable. Similarly, while I fully support the inalienable right of the Palestinian people to resist occupation, I don't condone nor do I accept 'terrorism' (defined as the intentional targeting of civilians) as a 'tool' in to achieve that end. IMO, you're reaching at best, and you're using faulty logic to make your argument. Just because you have a legitimate cause does NOT mean that you all your actions are just; the ends don't justify the means.
If you can show clearly where I have stated that terrorism is 'excusable', then do so, or otherwise refrain from casually throwing around such serious accusations, I am not sure if you're aware of the seriousness of what you are saying -- take a deep breath and think about it... And no, what you just made is a silly assertion, because the only way you can understand something is to understand the history/context behind it; that's what I do in my field. 'Understanding' how something came about (how we came to be in this position/situation) is NOT the same as justifying terrorism -- to say so is disingenous and silly, and a weak attempt to validate your argument. It's very 'Cheney-esque' or 'Rove-esque'. Try again...
You named Hezbollah as coming out of necessity, and that the blame for that was Israel. That's pretty clearly excusing the terrorist acts of Hezbollah as a "neceesity" and assign the fault to "Israel". I'm sorry, but there is no excuse for Hezbollah - their attack on the U.S. embassy is just inexcusable and there is NO justification for trying to kill a mass number of innocent people to make headlines. You justified their existence and excuse what they did. I think what's shocking is that you don't realize that you are in fact supporting terrorism with that sort of statement.
As a iranian born person, i must say this embisile deserves the reactions he is getting. and trust me, its not rheotrics. if he could, he would blow isreal into pieces. the new goverment has allrady made a deal with Alqaeda to bring down the us army in iraq. where do you think the weapons are coming from? syria is a puppet of the irannian goverment. i must apolegise to all my jewish rocket fans and anyother other peace loving humanbeing. this idiot does not represent the iranian people in anyway.
Hezbollah was created for the sole gain of the export of the islamic revolution by the head case mullahs in iran. a nutcase called mohtashamipour created hezbollah in 1981. it is responsible for the bombing of death 240 American soldiers in lebbonan. in 1996 it blowup the khobar barricks in saudi again with the help of the iranian special forces.
I follow the politics of that country very closely. i do visit there every 1 to 3 year. i know the Situation first hand. anyone with a little understanding of the Mideast politics can tell you, the Syrian goverment or generals who are the real powerbrokers get cheap oil and political support by iran. lets not forget a large chunk of the syrians have Shia roots. iran keeps them quiet for assads goverment.
Oh God, must you always turn everything into a war of semantics? I was responding to the claim that Tiger was "making excuses for terrorism." How is justifying their existance the same thing as justifying their actions? That's completely ridiculous and I think you know it. Everything comes into existance for a reason - that doesn't necessarily tie them down to their actions. Perhaps you don't agree with their cause and how they go about it, but that doesn't mean there wasn't a cause for the existance. I don't agree at all with the torture tactics employed at Abu Ghraib. I think it's detestable. I don't agree with their actions at all. However, I realize there is a reason for the existance of the facility. and re: the "hating us for our freedoms" : you're joking, right? Why have Canada and other free western nations not been attacked?
I think what's shocking is your incredibly limited knowledge of the topic and arrogant labeling of others, but I will refrain from discussing that point any further. I clearly indicated that Hezbollah came into existence as a response to the ISraeli invasion, so their very 'existence' was justified, yes. However, if they have commited/carried out terror attacks as a tool to achieve their objectives, then that's entirely beside the point, because using terrorism as a tool of war cannot be justified. As for the 'bombing the US embassy reference', what specific event are you talking about?
The Iranian connection to the Khobar tower bombing is unsubstantiated at best, and anti-Iran propoganda at worst. Believe me, if the Saudis had any evidence of Iranian complicity in the attacks, they would have used that readily to lambast Iranian terrorism and paint them into a corner. The Saudis would not pass up a chance like that, they have always been concerned about/hostile to Iran, and have never had cordial relations with them due what they fear is Iran's 'negative influence' on Saudi Shi'as living inside Saudi Arabia (the Sunni Saudis dislike the Shi'a Saudis and persecute them to a certain extent).
Iran and Syria's alliance is nothing more than an 'alliance of convenience'. I think the US strategy is to crack down on Syria and get it to cooperate/change internal politics in it, thereby cutting off a supply chain of arms to Hezbollah and a 'destabilizing force' (interesting, I thought Syria was responsible for stabilizing Lebanon after its civil war, but I guess facts are irrelevant) in Lebanon, and most importantly isolating Iran and making sure that it stops 'interfereing' in the region, so we and the Israelis can interfere unopposed. It's actually a smart strategy we are pursuing currently, and it might even work.
LOL... ok. the new Irannian defense minster rescently basicly admited he had a role in the khobar bombings. trust me there aqre a few number of ex generals who served in the special forces right after khobar all had supposed accidental death. also, the iranian goverment and the Sadi royal family have kissed and madeup. actually there pretty close. despite the Saudi Foreign minsters little outburst rescently. the khobar bombing was the work of hezbollah. also the Argentinian blasts at those jewish centers was funded by hezbollah. i love my country of biirth. but i know when the writing is on the wall.
Iran ans syria rescently signed a strategical alliance pact. if one gets attacked, the other will help. really it's the blind helping the deafe. non of those countries will stand a chance against an american onslaught.
There is no evidence of that, I will believe differently when I see some evidence, but as of now there is nothing conclusive about Iranian/Hezbollah involvement in the Khobar tower bombings. I strongly doubt the Iranian leadership or anyone connected to it would outright admit involvement in the bombings, because those bombings were targeted at and killed nearly 27 or so American military personnel, which would mean it was a direct attack against the US military, meaning that a retaliation would have been in order. All I have heard about their connection to the Khobar bombing are mere speculations and finger-pointing to achieve political ends. And no, the Saudi leadership and the Iranian leadership are not close, they are 'peaceful' towards one another, and have some sort of an unspoken rule to stay out of each other's affairs, but no there is still lots of distrust between the two countries that is rooted deeply in something that doesn't change: the Saudi leaders are Sunnis and the Iranians are Shi'as, both theocrats to be sure.
