Israel has invaded southern Lebanon twice and twice Hezbollah has been the base of resistance. It is a credible deterrent, aparrently the only one around.
Could you remind the class what prompted that invasion?
Israel has invaded southern Lebanon twice and twice Hezbollah has been the base of resistance. It is a credible deterrent, aparrently the only one around.
I guess that makes two of us.
When I want to engage in broad argument about the Israeli/Arab conflict and who caused what, I will post in the appropriate thread.You do realize that the PLO and Hezbollah started those conflicts?
When I want to engage in broad argument about the Israeli/Arab conflict and who caused what, I will post in the appropriate thread.
The invasions were in response to activities of the PLO and Hezbollah.You don't need a thread and a broad argument. All you have to do is say yes or no.
The invasions were in response to activities of the PLO and Hezbollah.
The invasions were in response to activities of the PLO and Hezbollah.
Why do you love Hezbollah so much Gazpacho?
You're either with us or against us let me remind you!
"They" (the united Muslim horde of your imagination) did not initiate the "conflicts."If they initiated the conflicts, doesn't it seem Orwellian to call them a "deterrent"?
"They" (the united Muslim horde of your imagination) did not initiate the "conflicts."

To be "disinterested" between Hizbullah and Israel is like being "disinterested" between a rapist and their victim. It isn't a matter of two sides who are on equal moral grounds: rather, one side wants to survive, the other to genocide the first side because Allah told them so.
So while in some cases there is a middle ground, here, there isn't: just like being "disinterested" in the first case is in effect supporting rape, being "disinterested" in the second case is in effect supporting terrorism.
Same goes with the "war is terrorism" idea. This is just a rehash of the pacifist view that all war is evil -- that there is no difference between wars of self-defense and freedom and wars of agression and annihilation. This is de facto support of the terrorists, much like in the past it was de facto support of the fascists, as Orwell correctly noted in the 1930s.
Why? Do you support them Praktik?
Well, apart from those of Americans and/or Jews and/or non-communist cambodians or anybody else he dislikes, in which case it is "resistance to imperialism" or something.
Beat me to it.
Anyone who acts as an apoligist for the Khmer Rouge needs to be discounted as credible.