Hezbollah places 15,000 rockets on border with Israel: Oren

[Apocalypse]

i amazed that you weren't struck by lightning while composing that post. of course hezbollah is a terrorist organization.

Liblady, you are in the Mideast forum.
Recognizing that some of the posters here would not see the deliberate killing of civilians from a specific nationality as terrorism is an essential part in the keeping of one's sanity while posting here.

 

[liblady]

Liblady, you are in the Mideast forum.
Recognizing that some of the posters here would not see the deliberate killing of civilians from a specific nationality as terrorism is an essential part in the keeping of one's sanity while posting here.

no thanks, i'm leaving. this is bizarro world!

 

[Gardener]

no thanks, i'm leaving. this is bizarro world!

I think of this place as a Hamas/Hizb'Allah stronghold with just a few non Hamas sprinkled in here and there. It does take a pretty well-developed ability to suppress the gag reflex to be able to post here, especially since since all the justification for murdering people based upon their ethnicity is so widespread.

 

[CJ 2.0]

Hezbollah is not a terrorist organization and the smuggling of weapons is only done because of legal attempts to eliminate their capacity for self-defense. Also, if starting wars were sufficient justification for disarming a party then Israel should have been demilitarized long ago.

They don't have a right to self defence in the manner you are talking about. The Lebanese government does. Or do you think Kach has a right to stockpile rockets and rocket launchers in the west bank to guard against the threat of invasion by Iran?

As a condition of cease fire, they were required to be disarmed and the UN was supposed to enforce that.

As much as you like the outcome (being the strengthening of a despotic bullying terror group and domestic terrorist organization (which, e.g., assassinated a former head of state)), why in the world should Israel ever again agree to such nonsense with any of its Arab counterparties, when everyone knows that the Arab side will be free to, and will, immediately violate all of its commitments?

This whole thing, including any possible defence of Hezbollah, which actually doesn't need to defend Lebanon against anything, is just absurd.

 

[ido_]

They don't have a right to self defence in the manner you are talking about. The Lebanese government does. Or do you think Kach has a right to stockpile rockets and rocket launchers in the west bank to guard against the threat of invasion by Iran?

Exactly, a state has a right to self defence, a party within the state, and it doesn't matter if its a terrorist or not a terrorist organization doesn't have that right, they have their army for that.

 

[Demon of Light]

i amazed that you weren't struck by lightning while composing that post. of course hezbollah is a terrorist organization.

Activities
Hizballah is known to have been involved in numerous anti-U.S. and anti-Israeli terrorist attacks, including the suicide truck bombings of the U.S. Embassy and U.S. Marine barracks in Beirut in 1983 and the U.S. Embassy annex in Beirut in 1984. Four members of Hizballah, ‘Imad Mughniyah, Hasan Izz-al-Din, Mohammed Hamadei, and Ali Atwa, are on the FBI's list of most wanted terrorists for the 1985 hijacking of TWA flight 847, during which a U.S. Navy diver was murdered. Elements of the group were responsible for the kidnapping, detention, and murder of Americans and other Westerners in Lebanon in the 1980s. Hizballah also has been implicated in the attacks on the Israeli Embassy in Argentina in 1992 and a Jewish cultural center in Buenos Aires in 1994. The U.S. Government has indicted a member of Lebanese Hizballah for his participation in the June 1996 truck bomb attack of the U.S. Air Force dormitory at Khobar Towers in Saudi Arabia. In 2000, Hizballah operatives captured three Israeli soldiers in the Sheba'a Farms area and kidnapped an Israeli non-combatant.



Read more at: Hizballah :: The Investigative Project on Terrorism

Almost every single attack you mentioned involves members of a foreign military and as such any means they use to attack them are legitimate. Attacks on embassies of those foreign powers are also legitimate.

Yet even if we are to operate in your world where an organization that is murdering Jewish civilians does not engage in terrorism, by definition, you would still have to recognize that the smuggling of arms is illegal, despite your justification of it.

Intentionally killing civilians is not terrorism because if it was most countries that have gone would be engaging in acts of terrorism. Of course, Hezbollah has killed far fewer civilians than Israel.

Exactly, a state has a right to self defence, a party within the state, and it doesn't matter if its a terrorist or not a terrorist organization doesn't have that right, they have their army for that.

The right to self-defense is not reserved to the government, but extends to all the people. Hezbollah is not like Kach.

 

[Khayembii Communique]

View Post
i amazed that you weren't struck by lightning while composing that post. of course hezbollah is a terrorist organization.

Activities
Hizballah is known to have been involved in numerous anti-U.S. and anti-Israeli terrorist attacks, including the suicide truck bombings of the U.S. Embassy and U.S. Marine barracks in Beirut in 1983 and the U.S. Embassy annex in Beirut in 1984. Four members of Hizballah, ‘Imad Mughniyah, Hasan Izz-al-Din, Mohammed Hamadei, and Ali Atwa, are on the FBI's list of most wanted terrorists for the 1985 hijacking of TWA flight 847, during wnhich a U.S. Navy diver was murdered. Elements of the group were responsible for the kidnapping, detetion, and murder of Americans and other Westerners in Lebanon in the 1980s. Hizballah also has been implicated in the attacks on the Israeli Embassy in Argentina in 1992 and a Jewish cultural center in Buenos Aires in 1994. The U.S. Government has indicted a member of Lebanese Hizballah for his participation in the June 1996 truck bomb attack of the U.S. Air Force dormitory at Khobar Towers in Saudi Arabia. In 2000, Hizballah operatives captured three Israeli soldiers in the Sheba'a Farms area and kidnapped an Israeli non-combatant.

Hizb'allah was never shown to be the perpetrators of the marine barracks in Beirut, but it's not like it matters. As DoL said, they're military targets. Of course they're on the FBI's most wanted list, they're against US interests. You won't see Luis Posada Carriles on the FBI's most wanted list; he lives in the US, FFS.

Anyways, this link goes over acts that happened a decade or two ago. A lot has changed since then. Hizb'allah has been integrated into the Lebanese political scene and is no longer simply a proxy organization for Iran. Its views and actions have changed over time, coinciding with their shift in organizational forms and methods of action that go along with being integrated into the Lebanese political landscape as not only a legitimate party, but one of the most popular as well.

To try to paint Hizb'allah as simply a "terrorist organization" is Manichean thinking taken to the most absurd level. Hizb'allah is much more complicated than that; the world isn't as simple as you want it to be, regardless of whether or not you can conceive that. I'd really appreciate if you did some homework before acting like you know what you're talking about. I would recommend Hezbollah by Augustus Richard Norton. It is one of the most comprehensive works that I have found on the subject written by someone that has lived and worked in Lebanon for decades. And before you go calling him some kind of anti-semite for writing a book on the organization, here's his bio from the back:

Augustus Richard Norton, Professor of International Relations and Anthropology at Boston University, was a military observer for the United Nations in southern Lebanon when Hezbollah and rival Shi'i parties were taking form there in the early 1980s. A former US Army officer and West Point professor, he has conducted research in Lebanon for close to three decades, and his book Amal and the Shi'a is widely considered to be a classic account of the political mobilization of Lebanon's Shi'i Muslims.

I mean come on, you make it sound like Hizb'allah is running around Lebanon suicide bombing anyone that isn't Muslim, and that they're shooting women that don't wear burqas and torturing anyone that disagrees with them on Israel. Seriously, you're soooooo off.

 

[ido_]

Hezbollah is not like Kach.

No? Like Shas?(but what does it matter anyways... all people have the right for self defence) Should Shas form a militia and deploy rockets along Israel's northern border, that sounds about right to you?
Hezbollah has no right to have an armed wing, the only armed forces in Lebanon should be the Lebanise army if Hezbollah feels the Lebanise army isn't strong enough they can surrender their arms to the Lebanise army.

 

[Demon of Light]

No? Like Shas?(but what does it matter anyways... all people have the right for self defence) Should Shas form a militia and deploy rockets along Israel's northern border, that sounds about right to you?
Hezbollah has no right to have an armed wing, the only armed forces in Lebanon should be the Lebanise army if Hezbollah feels the Lebanise army isn't strong enough they can surrender their arms to the Lebanise army.

Well, I'm an American and I happen to think everyone has the right to bear arms and so any party has the right to an armed wing. Also, giving up their arms is not enough to make the Lebanese army stronger. Hezbollah has superior training, tactics, and strategy, that cannot simply be handed over to another party. No, as it stands Hezbollah is critical in strengthening Lebanon's defenses as a whole and since Hezbollah has been targeted by a major military power like Israel they have every right to defend themselves from that power.

 

[Apocalypse]

Well, I'm an American and I happen to think everyone has the right to bear arms and so any party has the right to an armed wing. Also, giving up their arms is not enough to make the Lebanese army stronger. Hezbollah has superior training, tactics, and strategy, that cannot simply be handed over to another party. No, as it stands Hezbollah is critical in strengthening Lebanon's defenses as a whole and since Hezbollah has been targeted by a major military power like Israel they have every right to defend themselves from that power.

Well since they gain those arms through smuggling those arms are illegal.
In America, if you gain your arms by illegal ways they will be taken from you.
That is to ignore that in America when you murder scores of innocent people you get sentenced for life and in some states executed, even if the victims are Jews.

 

[CJ 2.0]

Well, I'm an American and I happen to think everyone has the right to bear arms and so any party has the right to an armed wing.

sorry, what?!?

can we take that a bit farther. We can deal with US groups (some real, some not), but let us know whether you think the following should have the right to stockpile as many weapons as they can get their hands on, including little guns, automatic weapons, RPGs, and short and long range missles (you can add tanks and fighter jets too). Please also let me know that the US constitution permits any groups to form into these parties and amass missles and RPGs, e.g., to point over the border into Mexico:

- Branch Davidian
- Black panthers
- Felons Cooperative (made up)
- neo-Nazis of America (made up but lots of groups like this)
- KKK
- "American border patrol" (not affiliated in any way or sanctioned by the government)
- NAMBLA

I know you were just making a point for rhetiorical purposes, but you can't actually believe what you said. Which is part of what makes this so frustrating. You are ok with Hezbollah having these weapons becauyse they are using them in their (and their masters') war against Israel's existence, because you don't think Israel has any right to continue to exist there.

At least be honest about it, instead of trying to tie it to some principle like the US Constitution, which doesn't even remotely allow what you are pretending it does.

 

[CJ 2.0]

Well, I'm an American and I happen to think everyone has the right to bear arms and so any party has the right to an armed wing. Also, giving up their arms is not enough to make the Lebanese army stronger. Hezbollah has superior training, tactics, and strategy, that cannot simply be handed over to another party. No, as it stands Hezbollah is critical in strengthening Lebanon's defenses as a whole and since Hezbollah has been targeted by a major military power like Israel they have every right to defend themselves from that power.

And yes. Hezbollah was targeted. After they used those weapons to cross the border and ambush, kill, and capture Isareli soldiers.

But good to know you sanction serial killers amassing stickpiles of rockets to fire indiscriminately at civilians whose governments are "targeting them" in response to said serial killer murdering and eating people in that govenrment's territory. That's mighty high principle.

Honestly, it's logic like that you use to construct "arguments" that contributes to so much of the dynsfunction in the world today. You surely recognize this, no?

 

[Demon of Light]

Well since they gain those arms through smuggling those arms are illegal.
In America, if you gain your arms by illegal ways they will be taken from you.

I think there are already too many legal restrictions on gun possession.

That is to ignore that in America when you murder scores of innocent people you get sentenced for life and in some states executed, even if the victims are Jews.

That's not true at all. If someone does it in the performance of their duties like a police officer or soldier the only real question is if they did what was reasonable to avoid casualties, though even failing that it can be sanctioned. Since Hezbollah doesn't have the resources for smart bombs they have to use weapons that are less accurate and therefore more threatening to civilians.

sorry, what?!?

can we take that a bit farther. We can deal with US groups (some real, some not), but let us know whether you think the following should have the right to stockpile as many weapons as they can get their hands on, including little guns, automatic weapons, RPGs, and short and long range missles (you can add tanks and fighter jets too).

RPGs and missiles could be regarded as an exception to the right to bear arms, though I think that should really only apply so long as there is no active war and the government is not oppressive. If the Ruskies decide they want Alaska back then I am all for Inuits having access to rocket launchers at their local market.

Please also let me know that the US constitution permits any groups to form into these parties and amass missles and RPGs, e.g., to point over the border into Mexico:

- Branch Davidian
- Black panthers
- Felons Cooperative (made up)
- neo-Nazis of America (made up but lots of groups like this)
- KKK
- "American border patrol" (not affiliated in any way or sanctioned by the government)
- NAMBLA

I know you were just making a point for rhetiorical purposes, but you can't actually believe what you said. Which is part of what makes this so frustrating.

The Branch Davidians were amassing legal firearms. I see no problem with that at all. As far as the rest so long as they aren't using them in a manner inconsistent with self-defense I see no problem with that.

You are ok with Hezbollah having these weapons becauyse they are using them in their (and their masters') war against Israel's existence, because you don't think Israel has any right to continue to exist there.

I just see Hezbollah as being an effective second military of Lebanon and as they are generally more capable than the regular military any attempt at dismantling them should be resisted.

At least be honest about it, instead of trying to tie it to some principle like the US Constitution, which doesn't even remotely allow what you are pretending it does.

I assure you there are people who would argue much to the contrary.

And yes. Hezbollah was targeted. After they used those weapons to cross the border and ambush, kill, and capture Isareli soldiers.

Israel had every right to defend itself and retaliate against Hezbollah in that instance. Had their method of retaliation not been so brutal and broad so as to amount to collective punishment I would actually not say they did anything wrong. However, it seems Israel can't help but go overboard.

But good to know you sanction serial killers amassing stickpiles of rockets to fire indiscriminately at civilians whose governments are "targeting them" in response to said serial killer murdering and eating people in that govenrment's territory. That's mighty high principle.

"Eating people"? What the hell are you talking about?

 

[Apocalypse]

I think there are already too many legal restrictions on gun possession.

Doesn't matter, you would recognize then that by the rule of the law the organization is to be disarmed.

That's not true at all. If someone does it in the performance of their duties like a police officer or soldier the only real question is if they did what was reasonable to avoid casualties, though even failing that it can be sanctioned. Since Hezbollah doesn't have the resources for smart bombs they have to use weapons that are less accurate and therefore more threatening to civilians.

Only if your definition of true is the dictionary's definition of false, which seems to be the case here.
Besides the fact that a police officer or a soldier on duty who would murder an innocent person would indeed be put on trial for it (notice the terms; murder, innocent.), the terrorist organization of Hezbollah, like al-Qaeda, Hamas and many others, does not merely engage in indiscriminate fire which is illegal for its own, but rather in deliberate attacks on civilians and attempts at murder, that sometimes unfortunately end successfully.
Such organizations take great pride in their murders and usually honor those who manage to murder civilians of Jewish blood, e.g. Samir Kuntar.

 

[CJ 2.0]

"Eating people"? What the hell are you talking about?

It's called argument by analogy. You are saying that someone engaged in an illegal act has aright to collect and use any sorts of weapons to fend off efforts to punish them for those acts.

You are ok with Hezbollah amassing weapons to be used in "defence" in fending off Israeli efforts to punish them for the completely unprovoked act of aggresion that initiated the conflict.

Add that to the extremeyl broad principles you set out re rights to collect weapons and your support for Hezbollah using them, you must by extension supoport any other group that seeks to protect itself from violernce, regardless of whethet they initiated the violence through their use of those weapons in the first place.

Therefore serial killers being sought because they've been killing and eating people have, by your logic, every right to amass heavy weapons and use those weapons against authorities trying to prevent them from eating even more people.

I know it makes no sense, but it's your position, not mine.