Terrorists or .... partizans

[KrooK]

I wonder what are US opponents called in your country.

Iraq;
In Poland they are being called terrorists but many people called them partisans. In my opinion we can't called them terrorists. They have official commanders, structure and objectives. They are being controlled by one HQ and listen to the orders.

Lebanon
Hardly one call members of Hezbollah terrorists. They are being called "bojownicy" - not terrorist, not official army. Something very similar to partisans but a bit worse organised.

Czeczenia
Similar to Lebanon. But now their HQ is worse so they have probably problems with coordination.

I wonder how are that people described into your country.

To explain situation I would like to add that by calling someone partisan we mean "man who fights for freedom and he is absolutely right" by "bojownik" - "man who is fighting for his objectives, we accept his objective but rather don't accept his methods".

[drone]

I wonder what are US opponents called in your country.

Here in the US, they are called "Democrats"! Thank you, thank you, I'll be here all week.

If they target military and government infrastructure, they are partisans. If they target civilians, they are terrorists.

[Divinus Arma]

The enemy of Iraq who fights against the Iraqi government aided by the U.S. are collectively called Insurgents. An Insurgent fights against the established government similar to a rebellion, with the difference being that a rebellion is far more organized with clear objectives following the end of conflict.

Those who use unconventional tactics against civilians in order to inflict horror and fear to sway opinion are called terrorists.

[cegorach]

I wonder what are US opponents called in your country.

Iraq;
In Poland they are being called terrorists but many people called them partisans. In my opinion we can't called them terrorists. They have official commanders, structure and objectives. They are being controlled by one HQ and listen to the orders.

Lebanon
Hardly one call members of Hezbollah terrorists. They are being called "bojownicy" - not terrorist, not official army. Something very similar to partisans but a bit worse organised.

Czeczenia
Similar to Lebanon. But now their HQ is worse so they have probably problems with coordination.

I wonder how are that people described into your country.

To explain situation I would like to add that by calling someone partisan we mean "man who fights for freedom and he is absolutely right" by "bojownik" - "man who is fighting for his objectives, we accept his objective but rather don't accept his methods".

Insurgent in English is the right term. In Polish - partyzanci for those Iraquis - please do not joke - in Polish the term partizans is reserved for real guerillas not the guys who are blowing up mosques and people in queues.
Are they controlled by one HQ - I doubt it - the people have various origin from disgusting jihad 'no matter the cost' fanatics, Baasists to those who are close to guerillas, but the problem is how to use the term especially with high participation in the last elections.

In Chechenya - it is much easier - situation is uncomparable to Iraq and people are given little choice, survival is almost an art itself.


Cegorach

[Vladimir]

If they target the military and *snip* the government's ability to wage war, they are partisans. If they target civilians, they are terrorists.

That's why Hezabobo are terrorists. The fact that they also pick on the military is irrelevant, their primary targets are civilians. If Israel and the US used the same tactics there would be none left standing and they would be the terrorists. You can't include civilian casualties as a result of military action as terrorism; if you do, the invasion of Normandy would be a terrorist attack.

[spmetla]

I think Hezbollah could be described as "paramilitary terrorists". They are organized and trained but not really a local militia. Because they target civilians for the most part they would be terrorists.

In Iraq it's a lot of different groups. There are local militias fighting against the goverment for local control. There are foreign insurgents fighting. Some only target Americans, others only target Iraqi security forces while others target everything that isn't in their organization.

[Dâriûsh]

That's why Hezabobo are terrorists. The fact that they also pick on the military is irrelevant, their primary targets are civilians. If Israel and the US used the same tactics there would be none left standing and they would be the terrorists. You can't include civilian casualties as a result of military action as terrorism; if you do, the invasion of Normandy would be a terrorist attack.

Hizbullah’s armed wing is indeed guilty of indiscriminate bombardments in Northern Israel, just as the IDF is guilty of indiscriminate bombardments in Lebanon (as well as Gaza and the West Bank). But I disagree with the claim that their main target is civilians. The main struggle of the Hizbullah is against the continued Israeli occupation of Lebanon (the infamous Shebaa Farms). However, whether Hizbullah is directly involved in terrorism inside Israel is, in my opinion, disputable. They do however praise various acts of Palestinian terrorism. Apparently the enemy of their enemy is their friend.

But if Hizbullah disarmed the armed wing (TIR) and denounced terrorism against Israeli civilians, they might nearly get sympathy from me.

[PanzerJaeger]

The main struggle of the Hizbullah is against the continued Israeli occupation of Lebanon (the infamous Shebaa Farms).

The main struggle of Hezbolla is the destruction of the Jewish state. Lebanon is just a staging ground.

[Divinus Arma]

Hizbullah’s armed wing is indeed guilty of indiscriminate bombardments in Northern Israel, just as the IDF is guilty of indiscriminate bombardments in Lebanon (as well as Gaza and the West Bank). But I disagree with the claim that their main target is civilians. The main struggle of the Hizbullah is against the continued Israeli occupation of Lebanon (the infamous Shebaa Farms). However, whether Hizbullah is directly involved in terrorism inside Israel is, in my opinion, disputable. They do however praise various acts of Palestinian terrorism. Apparently the enemy of their enemy is their friend.

But if Hizbullah disarmed the armed wing (TIR) and denounced terrorism against Israeli civilians, they might nearly get sympathy from me.

Well the last part of your comment is shared by most, including me.

As for your first portion, would you define the cross border incursion into Israel by Hizzbullah guerillas as being against the "occupation"? The incursion and kidnapping started this fiasco.

How about purposeful targetting of civilian areas with their rockets, such as in Haifa?

Israel is targetting Hizzbullah leadership and their membership. While civilians casualties are despised by all remember: HIZBULLAH HIDES BEHIND CIVILIANS SO THAT ISRAEL HAS NO CHOICE BUT TO CAUSE CIVILIAN DEATHS. Alternatively, Israel is out in the open. Ready to engage and be enagaged. Your "brave warriors" use women and children as their shield and rockets against israeli children as their sword. Real heros.

Hizzbullah is a terrorist organization. Period.

[Vladimir]

Hizbullah’s armed wing is indeed guilty of indiscriminate bombardments in Northern Israel, just as the IDF is guilty of indiscriminate bombardments in Lebanon (as well as Gaza and the West Bank). But I disagree with the claim that their main target is civilians. The main struggle of the Hizbullah is against the continued Israeli occupation of Lebanon (the infamous Shebaa Farms). However, whether Hizbullah is directly involved in terrorism inside Israel is, in my opinion, disputable. They do however praise various acts of Palestinian terrorism. Apparently the enemy of their enemy is their friend.

Ok, it's nothing against you personally but you are wrong on Hizbullah's "struggle". You don't fire hundreds of rockets at major cities because you feel that someone else has control of uncle Ackbar's farm that has been "in the family for XXXX generations.”

Indiscriminate bombings? You can't back that up. Even if you site their bombing of open areas in Gaza you'll find they targeted these areas intentionally, not indiscriminately. Do you really think they're just firing randomly at targets?

It seems to me they are highly discriminatory in selecting their targets. The airfield, the port, the road from Syria, are all chosen with the intent to cut off the enemy's supplies. Israel recently withdrew from southern Lebanon and now because of Hizbullah, they may reoccupy it. It seems that if Hizbullah was fighting against occupation that it backfired.

Do you have any explanation why there haven't been hundreds of rocket attacks against Damascus because of Syria's continued meddling in Lebanon?

[Dâriûsh]

As for your first portion, would you define the cross border incursion into Israel by Hizzbullah guerillas as being against the "occupation"? The incursion and kidnapping started this fiasco.

Remember, in their opinion, as long as parts of Lebanon are occupied, Hizbullah is still at war with Israel. That this incident occurred on the border rather than, like last time, on the Golan Heights is unessential. Hizbullah has conducted numerous raids across the border since the Israeli general withdrawal. Israel has also captured many Hizbullah militiamen. In my opinion, they shouldn’t venture into Israel at all.

How about purposeful targetting of civilian areas with their rockets, such as in Haifa?

Detestable indeed. That would be the indiscriminate bombardments I mentioned.

Israel is targetting Hizzbullah leadership and their membership. While civilians casualties are despised by all remember: HIZBULLAH HIDES BEHIND CIVILIANS SO THAT ISRAEL HAS NO CHOICE BUT TO CAUSE CIVILIAN DEATHS.

No choice eh? Hizbullah is hiding behind civilians, so that is why roads, bridges, residential areas, and Beirut airport had to be bombed? Israel is terrorizing the Lebanese populace. Period.

Alternatively, Israel is out in the open. Ready to engage and be enagaged. Your "brave warriors" use women and children as their shield and rockets against israeli children as their sword. Real heros.

Tanks, aircraft, smart bombs, warships, and some of the most highly trained combat troops in the world versus unskilled militiamen. A massacre. But you are quite right, Hizbullah’s armed wing should never have retaliated with terror against the Israeli terror-bombardments in Lebanon. In fact, Hizbullah’s armed wing should be disarmed and disbanded. Preferably sooner rather than later.

And I’d love to tell you into which body opening you can insert the “your brave warriors” comment.

Hizzbullah is a terrorist organization. Period.

Until they disband the armed wing, I’m inclined to agree.

[Dâriûsh]

Ok, it's nothing against you personally but you are wrong on Hizbullah's "struggle". You don't fire hundreds of rockets at major cities because you feel that someone else has control of uncle Ackbar's farm that has been "in the family for XXXX generations.”

You’ll have to discuss that with Hassan Nasrallah.

Indiscriminate bombings? You can't back that up. Even if you site their bombing of open areas in Gaza you'll find they targeted these areas intentionally, not indiscriminately. Do you really think they're just firing randomly at targets?

It seems to me they are highly discriminatory in selecting their targets. The airfield, the port, the road from Syria, are all chosen with the intent to cut off the enemy's supplies.

The point is that the areas with the bad guys are usually full of innocent people. The same goes for bridges, airfields, ports, and roads used by people who are trying to get away from the conflict as fast as they can.

Israel recently withdrew from southern Lebanon and now because of Hizbullah, they may reoccupy it. It seems that if Hizbullah was fighting against occupation that it backfired.

In a way, I guess. Hizbullah is very fond of the Golan Heights, and they are irked by the presence of the Shebaa Farms and IDF occupation troops. To them the occupation doesn’t end until the Golan Heights are returned to Lebanon.

Do you have any explanation why there haven't been hundreds of rocket attacks against Damascus because of Syria's continued meddling in Lebanon?

I could think of plenty. But perhaps because the other militias disarmed and disbanded after the civil war? The anti-Syrian factions included. Besides, keeping Hama in mind, Syrian retaliation isn’t exactly known for being humane.

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

I have to broadly agree with Dâriûsh, Isreal has always shown a lack of regard for enemy civilian casualties. This isn't WWII, they can hit one house and maybe blow out the windows of the ones in a 200m radius and thats your collateral damage. Look at Gaza, look at the number of journalists and aid-workers that have been murdered.

Every time there was an attack by Hamas or the PLO paramilitaries the Isrealies went in a destroyed some peoples homes, usually before they were sure who blew himself up.

I would never agree with what the terrorists do in Isreal but I have more sympathy for the Lebonesse and the Palastinians than the Isrealies.

Israel is targetting Hizzbullah leadership and their membership. While civilians casualties are despised by all remember: HIZBULLAH HIDES BEHIND CIVILIANS SO THAT ISRAEL HAS NO CHOICE BUT TO CAUSE CIVILIAN DEATHS. Alternatively, Israel is out in the open. Ready to engage and be enagaged. Your "brave warriors" use women and children as their shield and rockets against israeli children as their sword. Real heros.

There was a guy his behind a girl in Iraq, a friend of mine blew his head off with a fifty-cal, then ran through the fire-fight and got the girl.

Shelling of Civilian arears to get a few terrorists is sloppy and pointless. If you do that one side of your triangle of force will collapse pretty quickly.

[Divinus Arma]

Well good sir, I apologize if I have offended you. we seem to agree on post points, more often than not. It frustrates me to see rational men such as yourself view this as somehow Israel's fault. I would like to hold a dialogue with you on this matter, as you see fit, so we can understand our differences.

First, as for the "Brave Warriors" comment, it is quite true that the militarily weak will use any tactic necessary to win. By hiding behind civilians, Hezbullah places Israel in the predicament of tactical v. propoganda victory. Do you agree that this is the intentional tactics of both Hizballah and Hamas, or no? I will elaborate if you need me to in order to further clarify, sir.

Remember, in their opinion, as long as parts of Lebanon are occupied, Hizbullah is still at war with Israel.

Forgive my ignorance, but can you please tell me which part of Lebanon Israel occupied prior to the kidnapping trigger event?

That this incident occurred on the border rather than, like last time, on the Golan Heights is unessential.

I disagree. The kidnapping raid occurred in Israeli lands, not Lebanese lands. I would be inclined to yield to you otherwise.

Hizbullah has conducted numerous raids across the border since the Israeli general withdrawal. Israel has also captured many Hizbullah militiamen.

it is logical that Israel should capture Hizbullah militiamen if they conduct raids in Israel.

In my opinion, they shouldn’t venture into Israel at all.

And clearly, we are in agreement.

Detestable indeed. That would be the indiscriminate bombardments I mentioned.

I concur.

No choice eh? Hizbullah is hiding behind civilians, so that is why roads, bridges, residential areas, and Beirut airport had to be bombed?

I understand the frustration that this strategy yields sir. You question: Why should the ordinary Lebanese pay for the actions of Hizbullah? Please allow me to explain. By conducting a general encirclement of lebanon through land, air, and naval blockades, Israel has placed Hizbullah under seige. We are both TW fans. You can relate to the seige within TW. That the lebanese innocent are within the town are not the objective of Israel. Israel will not "execute" or "enslave" the populace. They seek to remove the enemy within: Hizbullah. In order to be successful Israel has denied them the ability of movement and resupply. If the Lebanese army were to now rise up against Hizbullah in unison with Israel, they could actually disarm them. I hope you understand, and if you do not, I will address any questions you may have. Alternatively, I would challenge you to show me the motive that Israel has for damaging critical lebanese infrastructure.

Tanks, aircraft, smart bombs, warships, and some of the most highly trained combat troops in the world versus unskilled militiamen.

Both groups have their strategic and tactical advantages. Do not discount Hizbullah's power. By using civilians as a shield, Hizbullah is able to use the media as a propoganda against Israel. By forcing Israel to unintentionally kill civlians, Hizbullah may paint Israel as the evil aggressor through photos and video of dead children. Do you deny this?

A massacre.

Of civilians at the hand of Hizbullah. In the absence of technological strength, Hizbullah must employ the strength of imagery. Hamas and Hizbullah have both become near experts at this.

But you are quite right, Hizbullah’s armed wing should never have retaliated with terror against the Israeli terror-bombardments in Lebanon.

I agree with you uo to your point of "Israeli terror". I explained the Israeli stragey and the Hizbullah strategy. Please condier what I have said.

In fact, Hizbullah’s armed wing should be disarmed and disbanded. Preferably sooner rather than later.

And if they did, Lebanon would be the jewel of the middle east: a shining example of prosperity and inter-ethnic/religious cooperation. It would be a stunning victory for peace and the moderation against radical Islam.

And I’d love to tell you into which body opening you can insert the “your brave warriors” comment.

Do they not engage in these tactics?

Until they disband the armed wing, I’m inclined to agree.

Agreed.

[Brenus]

“To them the occupation doesn’t end until the Golan Heights are returned to Lebanon”. Not sure of that, but I think Golan Height belonged to Syria.

[Dâriûsh]

“To them the occupation doesn’t end until the Golan Heights are returned to Lebanon”. Not sure of that, but I think Golan Height belonged to Syria.

Yes, most of it did indeed. But Mount Hermon belonged to Lebanon.


So it was poor phrasing on my part.

[Tribesman]

That's why Hezabobo are terrorists. The fact that they also pick on the military is irrelevant, their primary targets are civilians.
I am afraid the IDF does not agree with you , their figures show that prior to events following the kidnapping the primary targets are military , just as the vast majority (an exclusive majority in many years) of casualties on the northern front are military .
You can't include civilian casualties as a result of military action as terrorism
So that means none of the civilian casualties on the northern front from hezB'allah attacks are victims of terrorism ???????

[x-dANGEr]

That's why Hezabobo are terrorists. The fact that they also pick on the military is irrelevant, their primary targets are civilians. If Israel and the US used the same tactics there would be none left standing and they would be the terrorists. You can't include civilian casualties as a result of military action as terrorism; if you do, the invasion of Normandy would be a terrorist attack.

Wrong. Hezbullah in the last interview with Al-Jazeera clearly stated his intention of trying to avoid "civilian" targets as much as possible, and he even apologized to a family who's two young boys got killed by a rocket while they were playing.. Of course, with the technology he has (Which is no where neat to Israel's), it is almost vital for that 'non-intended' damage to happen..

[Banquo's Ghost]

Wrong. Hezbullah in the last interview with Al-Jazeera clearly stated his intention of trying to avoid "civilian" targets as much as possible, and he even apologized to a family who's two young boys got killed by a rocket while they were playing.. Of course, with the technology he has (Which is no where neat to Israel's), it is almost vital for that 'non-intended' damage to happen..

With respect, that is appalling sophistry, no better than the Israeli apologists who line up to 'regret collateral damage'.

Hezbollah fires Katyusha rockets in their dozens at cities in Israel. The Katyusha is not a precision missile, as you acknowledge. Its use against cities (as opposed to large troop formations) is an indiscriminate and deliberate attempt to kill and terrorise civilians.

Precisely what the Israelis are trying to do to the population of Lebanon. However, because Hezbollah units also hide amongst civilian homes when it suits them, they provide the IDF with an excuse for shelling ordinary people.

The sooner both your side and the Israelis stop lying to yourselves and the world about the effects of your barbarity, the sooner this bloodshed might end. Every single person dying is a real human being who had hopes and dreams just like you or I - sod what their passport looks like.

[x-dANGEr]

Ghost, at all costs, Hezbullah primary targets are military.. I see more Israeli military dead than Hezbullah ones, why? Israel has a better ability to target it's missiles and believe me, hitting the bridges, electricity stations, gas stations, etc.. isn't killing Hezbullah soldiers. I think Hezbullah now is just launching missiles for the heck of it.. Why? It all started liked this: Hezbullah captured the 2 soldiers, and asked for a trade for many other Lebanese captives (He actually said Arabs (Nasrullah), no matter what religion, be that christians, muslims, etc..), Israel attacked, but attacked what? The airport, some gas stations and mainly killed only civilians.. Now to your thought, what would the proper Hezbullah re-action be? Try to aim his Katyushas on the Israeli F16's? For your info also, he did bomb the northern air-force Israeli HQ, and a lot of Israeli Artillery sites..

[Banquo's Ghost]

Ghost, at all costs, Hezbullah primary targets are military.. I see more Israeli military dead than Hezbullah ones, why? Israel has a better ability to target it's missiles and believe me, hitting the bridges, electricity stations, gas stations, etc.. isn't killing Hezbullah soldiers. I think Hezbullah now is just launching missiles for the heck of it.. Why? It all started liked this: Hezbullah captured the 2 soldiers, and asked for a trade for many other Lebanese captives (He actually said Arabs (Nasrullah), no matter what religion, be that christians, muslims, etc..), Israel attacked, but attacked what? The airport, some gas stations and mainly killed only civilians.. Now to your thought, what would the proper Hezbullah re-action be? Try to aim his Katyushas on the Israeli F16's? For your info also, he did bomb the northern air-force Israeli HQ, and a lot of Israeli Artillery sites..

Please identify for me the military targets in Haifa and Nazareth.

Just because Hezbollah have also attacked artillery sites doesn't expiate their guilt for making things worse in killing civilians - words that apply just as much to Israel. Both sides are behaving deplorably.

I know how it started. Hezbollah was entirely in the wrong and knew very well what would happen - though perhaps not the extent of the over-reaction. They're paymasters in Syria must be very pleased.

Since you ask, the proper Hezbullah reaction would be to release the soldiers they abducted and to stop attacking Israeli cities. Then get the hell out of Lebanon, to which they have brought so much grief.

[KrooK]

Cegorach polish brother - speak for yourself :)
In my opinion some parts of Iraq resistance might be called partisans.
In Lebanon Israel behaves like terrorists. There is no difference.

I will tell my opinion. This country don't fight for it's existence. They want more and more ground because they got kind of phobia. It's holocaust fobia.
After holocaust Jews still can't understand why so many Jews died so easy.
So that they are still afraid that holocaust might be repeated.
Thats why they want destroy everyone who got other minds than Jews.
As for now it works great but....
when Israel lost his 1st war it will be end of that country. And no one will be crying over it.

[x-dANGEr]

Please identify for me the military targets in Haifa and Nazareth.

Just because Hezbollah have also attacked artillery sites doesn't expiate their guilt for making things worse in killing civilians - words that apply just as much to Israel. Both sides are behaving deplorably.

I know how it started. Hezbollah was entirely in the wrong and knew very well what would happen - though perhaps not the extent of the over-reaction. They're paymasters in Syria must be very pleased.

Since you ask, the proper Hezbullah reaction would be to release the soldiers they abducted and to stop attacking Israeli cities. Then get the hell out of Lebanon, to which they have brought so much grief.

So, why do Israel has the right to attack Lebanon (Yes Lebanon, they're destroying Lebanon, not Hezbullah)? Because Hezbullah captured two soldiers.. Then, doesn't Lebanon (Or in this case Hezbullah) have the right to attack Israel because it has thousands of civilians captured? And doesn't every other country that also has captives in Israel have the right to do so? (There are 56 Jordanian captives, hundreds of Egyptians, and let's not talk about how many thousands of Palestinians.. )

[Reenk Roink]

This is dated but it makes my point regardless (July 18th or so)...

Most news organizations gave the death toll breakdowns...

Israel attacks on Lebanon: "230 dead, most of them civilians"
Hezbollah attacks on Israel: "25 dead, 13 civilians"
Israel attacks on Gaza: "103 dead, 70% militants"

Now, earlier I had stated that there was nothing wrong in the invasion itself (there also is nothing wrong with Arabs invading Israel; I could care less if Israel existed or not), but that the civilians killed by both sides would show the evil that they harbor...

[Dâriûsh]

Well good sir, I apologize if I have offended you. we seem to agree on post points, more often than not. It frustrates me to see rational men such as yourself view this as somehow Israel's fault. I would like to hold a dialogue with you on this matter, as you see fit, so we can understand our differences.

Do you really think that I am offended because you rip on Hizbullah’s questionable tactics? I’m angry because you associate me with them.


You talk of removing Hizbullah from south Lebanon. How is that even possible? They originated there and they live there, as do their supporters. And I bet the very thought of having the Lebanese army fight the Hizbullah is enough to give General Al Masri nightmares. There is more to Hizbullah than the armed wing, to many poor Shia, they are a good alternative to the corrupt Amal. And with IDF bombs raining down on their neighbourhoods, oh I mean “Hizbullah strongholds”, Hizbullah is guarantied to gain more popular support.

As to what part of Lebanon is still occupied? Hizbullah propagandists claim the Shebaa Farms territory as a part of Lebanon, to them the Israeli occupation wont end until the IDF withdraws. Is that sensible? That is another question better asked Hassan Nasrallah.

And how can they force the IDF to unintentionally kill civilians? The IDF decided to bomb the political wing of the Hizbullah as well as the military wing, and much of the infrastructure. To me it seems that they are trying to create a buffer zone of ruins.

[Vladimir]

Cegorach polish brother - speak for yourself :)
In my opinion some parts of Iraq resistance might be called partisans.
In Lebanon Israel behaves like terrorists. There is no difference.

I will tell my opinion. This country don't fight for it's existence. They want more and more ground because they got kind of phobia. It's holocaust fobia.
After holocaust Jews still can't understand why so many Jews died so easy.
So that they are still afraid that holocaust might be repeated.
Thats why they want destroy everyone who got other minds than Jews.
As for now it works great but....
when Israel lost his 1st war it will be end of that country. And no one will be crying over it.

You seem to have missed the withdrawal from Gaza and parts of the West Bank. You also probably don't remember that they gave Sinai back to Egypt and could have easily taken Damascus and Cairo. If you're trying to equate this to some European land grab, nibbling certain pieces of land from your neighbors, the facts are not in your favor.

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

You cannot beat terrorists with guns anf bombs, you defeat them idiologically.

Example: The IRA, they pretty much ran out of support after the British agreed to a regional assembly that would allow them to make their own decisions.

Hezbollah will continue to exist as long as Isreal occupies and antagonises Lebenon. Until Isreal withdraws, helps rebuild Lebenon and actively supports the Lebonese governement in routing out terrorists they will get nowhere.

So long as the Lebonese people support Hezbollah they will continue to exist. Failure to recognise this simple fact is failure to recognise the strategic reality.

Isreal has to convince the Lebonese Hezbollah is the bad guy. At the moment Isreal is the bad guy.

I'm sorry but they've spent the last sixty years sticking their fingers up at the Arabs. Why should the Arabs put up with it? The only thing that protects Isreal is America, during they 80's they were propping up the Isreali economy.

I've said it before and I'll say it again. Until Isreal withdraws behind the Green Line it is still in breach of UN resolutions going back forty years.

Eclectic, can you seriously justify the destruction of power supplies and ports? Isreal could have enforced a blockade without firing a shot.

[Banquo's Ghost]

You cannot beat terrorists with guns anf bombs, you defeat them idiologically.

Example: The IRA, they pretty much ran out of support after the British agreed to a regional assembly that would allow them to make their own decisions.

I agree with much of your post, but it is pertinent to examine this case in more detail.

The IRA were not defeated (in their own terms, which is important). They were converted to peaceable means for achieving their ends. Their support is still quite high (witness the success of Sinn Fein in elections), but their core supporters no longer want an armed struggle.

Why? First, the British government (under Thatcher, whilst swearing blind publically that they would never talk to terrorists) negotiated with the terrorists. They discovered that there were people in the organisation who despite their rhetoric, might be intelligent enough to work with (most terrorist organisations are full of ignorant demagogues). Alongside this, better intelligence work led to targeted assassination (low key, back street stuff usually using proxies such as the Unionist terrorists - which incidentally served the purpose of convincing the Unionists nutters that the Brits were entirely on their side, so they wouldn't go off on one if they found out about the secret negotiations). The assassination success convinced the moderates that they were vulnerable to security infiltration, and got rid of some of the more obdurate hardliners, smoothing the path to power.

As noted in another post, the British also took a softly, softly approach to policing the territory. This reduced the polarisation of the communities against military brutality. It was hard (as the kill ratio in that other post shows) but was part of a wider strategy to build capability and support, all with the long term aim of building up the moderates in the IRA. Constant army killings would have undermined Gerry Adams and his supporters.

Eventually, the moderates were in a position of strength, and the Good Friday talks were possible.

Alongside this military/political strategy, the economic prosperity of both the Republic and Northern Ireland increased dramatically. Terrorism stopped being an excuse for poverty and isolation, and the border, long so emotive, actually passed into practical non-existence. Both countries part of the EU, goods cheaper or more plentiful one or other side of the border. Prosperous people don't want nutters blowing up their shops and trains.

And as you say, finally the injustices seen in the early days were easily righted in independent courts, trusted by most.

The armed wing of the IRA didn't get defeated, it got bought and retired through lack of interest.

(Note: there are still some residual nutters, which are slowly being cleared up. When they get in the way of peace, Britain does not invade, bomb and destroy all that has been built up, but patiently tries to bring them to justice through law. The worst that happens is the assembly is suspended and the politicians get a long holiday on full pay).

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

Thankyou for elaborating, that was essentially what I meant, the para-military wing lost support for the armed struggle.

I suspect there are quite a few people in Hezbollah that feel the same way. They formed to get Isreal out of Lebanon and Isreal is still in Lebanon. If Isreal pulled out fully and offered support for reconstruction they might find a lot of wind would go out of Hezbollah's sail. Also the kidnapping does look like it was intended to facilitate a prisoner exchange. These aren't really the "Kill all who worship the great Satan!" people, IMO.

Al Queda is full of radicals that hate the West but they're not the only type of terrorist in the region.

On a side note a way to really take the wind out the militants in Iraq and Al Queda would be for Bush to loudly proclaim that he was going to move troops out to impose a ceasefire on Isreal, and then do it.

He might just undo most of the last three years of damage the US forces have done.

Terrorism requires at least tacit support for the population, thats what you need to neutralise, after that the movement can't opperate and sustain itself.

[Pannonian]

As noted in another post, the British also took a softly, softly approach to policing the territory. This reduced the polarisation of the communities against military brutality. It was hard (as the kill ratio in that other post shows) but was part of a wider strategy to build capability and support, all with the long term aim of building up the moderates in the IRA. Constant army killings would have undermined Gerry Adams and his supporters.

Eventually, the moderates were in a position of strength, and the Good Friday talks were possible.

Funnily enough, much the same things were happening in Palestine, where Fatah and Hamas prisoners tiring of the armed struggle had drafted a declaration in support of the recognition of the states of Israel and Palestine, and hence an abandonment of Hamas' goal of wiping out Israel. This movement gained the support of President Abbas, and eventually the Hamas government itself (PM Haniyeh in a WaPo editorial talks of Israel and Palestine as having equal rights of existence). Then came the current brouhaha.

At various points in the 1990s, talks between the British government and Sinn Fein broke down in the face of yet another IRA bombing. Despite that, and public repudiations of these terrorists, links were kept, talks were soon resumed with the overall objective of making them work, and eventually the bombings stopped altogether.

Looking at Israel through British eyes, it seems the Israelis don't want peace, but want a pretext for reconquering Herod's kingdom.