Talk:Hezbollah/Archive terrorist allegations

Current section "Allegations of... terrorism"
In the current section on allegations of terrorism, the following allegations are listed in that paragraph:

1)kidnapped and tortured to death... U.S. Marine Colonel William R. Higgins and the CIA Station Chief in Beirut, William Francis Buckley

2) kidnapped around 30 other Westerners between 1982 and 1992, including the American journalist Terry Anderson, British journalist John McCarthy, the Archbishop of Canterbury's special envoy Terry Waite and Irish citizen Brian Keenan.

3) responsible for the April 1983 bombing of the U.S. Embassy in Beirut that killed 63

4) being behind the 1983 Beirut barracks bombing

5) a suicide truck bombing that killed 241 U.S. Marines

6) bombing the replacement U.S. Embassy in East Beirut

7) killing 20 Lebanese and two American soldiers

8) carrying out the 1985 hijacking of TWA Flight 847

Of these eight incidents, numbers 1, 4, 5, and 7 are categorically not terrorist acts, even if the accusations are true. They are strikes against legitimate military targets. Number 1 is a violation of various standards of treatment of military prisoners, but it isn't terrorism per se.

Numbers 3 and 6 might be terrorism, depending on whether one considers an embassy to be a legitimate military or strategic target in wartime. In any case, they aren't attacks aimed at purely civilian targets in order to solicit terror among the populace for political purposes (terrorism).

Number 2 is probably terrorism, unless there was some strategic reason why these particular figures had a military strategic value. I don't know the specifics of that situation.

Number 8 definitely appears to be terrorism.

All in all, Hezbollah seems to be more of a resistance movement aiming at militarily significant targets, than a group like Hamas or Al Queda, which seeks to attack civilians in public places for terror purposes. However, they might dabble in terrorism from time to time and this would make them terrorists. I really can't tell by reading this article. In any case, two things are clear: (1) all military operations will often involve the deaths of civilians, but only the intentional targeting of civilians makes an act terrorism, and (2) "terrorism" doesn't simply mean any small militia whose cause is unpopular. It has an objective meaning.--Daniel 01:03, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

If the intent of the article section is to describe past allegations of terrorism, then all Wikipedia needs is verifiable citations indicating that notable people or political institutions have made the allegations. There could also be descriptions of corresponding counter claims from others. --JWSchmidt 01:21, 17 July 2006 (UTC)


 * I don't care if the allegations are true or not, that's not my point. My point is that several of those listed aren't terrorist acts, so it makes no difference as to the subject of "allegations of terrorism" and doesn't belong under that section.--Daniel 12:24, 17 July 2006 (UTC)


 * Perhaps you've been away from news sources for the past few days, but just open your TV to CNN, and you'll hear that for the past 4 days Hezbollah has been firing rockets at Israeli towns - in other words, "the intentional targeting of civilians" - per your own definition of terrorism. I don;t see what problem you;d have with Hezbollah being labeled a "terrorist organization". Isarig 01:39, 17 July 2006 (UTC)


 * Why would you think I have any "problem" with Hezbollah being labeled anything? If you read all of my comment above, you'll see that 1 or 2 of the points I listed, I say they are terrorist acts. But what they are or aren't isn't even the point. The point is that this is a section called "allegations of terrorism" and most of the points within it aren't terrorism, and therefore are out of place in that section.  It would be like having a section on cooking called "making pastries" and then listing instructions for making a steak, a salad, a lasagna, and doughnuts.  Only one of those is a "pastry". The rest should be in another section. And, by the way, the recent rocket attacks SHOULD be listed in this section. --Daniel 12:24, 17 July 2006 (UTC)


 * I agree with Daniel. His claim is entirely one of precision in using words.   --66.227.111.238 14:41, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

category:Islamic terrorist organizations
After several reverts and counter-reverts regarding whether the article should be linked to the Islamic terrorist organizations category, I suggest we discuss this instead of changing the article all the time. I'm restoring the link. Clearly, Hezbollah is generally considered a terrorist organization. Though personally I don't consider them as such, I think the category link would be helpful for most users. It is a mere link, and the article discusses this controversy thoroughly, so if you wish to enlighten us with new ideas on the subject, that section in the article would be the right place to put them. Almost any category would have someone disputing their applicability, the purpose of defining categories is to help users by (crudely) generalizing. - doron

Generally considered? I dispute that strongly. This illustrates a fundamental weakness of categories: they are inappropriate in instances such as these, where the category is disputed. What is clear is that the current page offers no good reason to classify them as such. - Mustafaa 10:47, 8 Nov 2004 (UTC)

I'm not going to argue about whether Hezbollah is a terrorist organization, especially since I don't consider them as such myself, but I don't presume my personal opinions to be accepted by all. As the article states, Hezbollah is officially considered a terrorist organization by the United States, the United Kingdom, Canada and Australia, it is often associated with 'terrorism' by Western media, and it seems to be inofficially considered terrorist in nature by others. The article makes it seem that Hezbollah is considered a terrorist organization by a significant part of the world, certainly enough to include it in that category even if it is not generally accepted, so I think you should either return the category link, or change the article to make it clear that the United States, Canada, the media, etc., are wrong in this designation and that in fact, Hezbollah is nothing of the sort. Does the dispute over the recognition of Israel justify removing it from Category: Middle Eastern countries? --Doron 11:28, 8 Nov 2004 (UTC)

In other words, it is considered terrorist by the Anglophone world. As far as I know, it is not considered terrorist anywhere much else, and in much of the world such a suggestion would be found actively offensive. However, I can see your argument; were there some way of making its controversial nature clear, such as adding both that category and "Category : Non-terrorist militias" or something, I would support adding it. But surely in cases like this, when its membership is highly disputed and the very question is politicized and is discussed at length by the article itself, it's inappropriate to jump the gun. That's what we have List of terrorist groups for, after all... - Mustafaa 11:41, 8 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Well, whatever, it's really not such a big deal. Expect this issue to surface once in a while in the future, though. By the way, as you seem to be a veteran around here, what do you reckon should be done for this article to stop being in "need of cleanup"? I've cleaned some rubish myself some time ago, now it doesn't look too much out-of-shape. And can an article cease to be disputed (or is this quality inherent)?--Doron 17:34, 8 Nov 2004 (UTC)


 * Just to add something re Hezbollah being a terrorist group. It's also considered such by the EU. Just FYI. --Penta 04:24, 13 Dec 2004 (UTC)


 * It is officially recognized as a TO in many countries, but we don't include it in that category. Why don't we reflect the facts (it is in the list), simply because some don't like them? The fact they run hospitals is irrelevant: Hitler and Pol Pot also ran hospitals.  &larr;Humus sapiens&larr;Talk 08:23, 16 Mar 2005 (UTC)

terrorism
1. When did Hezbollah ever killed an Israeli civilians. 2. Israel the occupier should be called a terrorist.

Answers: 1) Hezbollah strikes northern settlements e.g. - Just in the last 2 days 4 civilians have been killed and hundred have been wounded. 2) Israel left south  Lebanon in 2000. 3) Hezbollah has started to attacking - Killed 8 and kidnaped 2  soldiers IN Israel  territory!

Idiotic. They never killed any israeli soldiers until israelis started killing civilians. Look up your current events fuckwad

Please, why starting with curses? (Fuckwad?) 6 years have passed since the withdrawal of the Israeli army from south Lebanon, in these years there had been a truce between the sides. UNTIL Hezbollah has started to attacking IN Isreal territory in last week. Since you don't live in the middle east I suggest you to shut up and start to listen to the truth instead of swallowing lies from your pro-arab, Non-objective media.

Hezbollah IS a terrorist organization and is funded and supported by the dictatorships in Syria and Iran. They have killed over 800 people since they were founded. The only thing wrong with what is happening now is that it did not happen earlier. I hope they destroy Damascus and give Lebanon back to its rigthful owners, the christians.

Category "Designated terrorist organization"
I have problems with the category itself and listed that category for deletion. Articles in that category van be listed if the UNSC, the US or the EU lists the org. as a terrorist organization. So, in principle that shouldn't be a problem. However, if we are going to make categories like that, then we should also make categories to indicate how much support an organization has as a militant organization. So, I tried to do that by making a category for "legitimate militant organizations".

Just like one can say that the fact that the US lists Hezbollah has a major effect that cannot be ignored, whatever your views on Hezbollah, so also you cannot ignore the fact that a large fraction of the Arab world is sympathetic to Hezbollah, and that Iran supports it directly, whether we like that or not. In fact this does have a major impact, otherwise Israel and the US wouldn't make such a fuss over Iran's support of Hezbollah. It also makes it difficult to reach consesnus at the UN how exactly to define a terror organization.

Now, I chose the name "legitmate militant organizations" for that category, which perhaps is not so well chosen. Anyway this was listed for deletion, so this makes the whole categorization of orgs. like Hezbollah no longer NPOV. Many readers, even if they agree that Hezbollah is a terrorist organization, know that it is a controversial topic. If that's not well reflected in the article, then the credibility of wikipedia itself is at stake. Count Iblis 20:16, 16 June 2006 (UTC)
 * WP is not a soapbox, and you can't create or delete articles to make a point. See WP:POINT. So putting aside your current dispute over the "legitmate militant organizations" category - it seems you have no real problem with the category "Designated terrorist organizations" (you say "in principle that shouldn't be a problem."). So kindly leave it in. Isarig 21:11, 16 June 2006 (UTC)


 * As you wrote on the cfd page, we can rename it to include something like "designated by the US&EU". That would be pretty accurate. We should perhaps also rename the category of militant organizations to include "supported by Iran", Syria or whatever. The word "legitimate" should be dropped. Count Iblis 22:09, 16 June 2006 (UTC)


 * Having separate cats "TOs des by US", "TOs des by EU", "TOs des by UNSC", "TOs des by Australia" would be unworkable. Most orgs on most lists are common to more than one list; the cat list at the bottom of Hezbollah would be lengthy. Same for MOs supported by Iraq, Syria etc etc. Going back to the guildeline WP:CG, it states "Categories ... help users find information, even if they don't know that it exists or what it's called" What info would the MO cats help users find? AndrewRT 23:58, 16 June 2006 (UTC)


 * I'm not convinced that this can't be made to work. I think it is important to distinguish between the Security council on the one hand and a group of major powers. So, perhaps, if it is too difficult, then we should make two categories. One if the SC has proscribed a group. Org. like Al Qa'ida would be in there. And another if one or more major powers have outlawed it, but not the SC. Count Iblis 00:20, 17 June 2006 (UTC)


 * If it is true that there is much overlap between the lsits maintained by the US/EU & Australia, how about renaming the cat "Organizations designated TO by US, Eu & Australia"? Isarig 03:46, 17 June 2006 (UTC)


 * I think I'm going to try this as an article instead of a category Designated terrorist organisations. Lets see how this works AndrewRT 11:40, 17 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Hezbollah is designated a terrorist organization by the US and a couple of other Anglo-Saxon countries and one or two European countries, but notably not by the EU. The United States does not equal the world. This category name is misleading, and really the category itself should go.


 * Also, I'm restoring the introduction to the more balanced version that was there previously. The current second sentence is not by any means suitable. Palmiro | Talk 12:34, 23 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Please don't. We've discussed this before when you trried to make that change a couple of minth ago, and you did no thave consensus for thta change then, and you don't have it now. Isarig 14:05, 23 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Can you point me to that discussion? As far as I can see the insertion of what I just deleted was made without any discussion. You were right to put "Islamist" back in instead of "militant" though - that was an oversight on my part. Palmiro | Talk 14:14, 23 June 2006 (UTC)
 * I was refering to the discussion above, under the heading NPOV Introduciton - but my main objection was the use of "resistance" instead of Islamist, which you seem to agree with. I have no problem with the rest of your changes.Isarig 14:22, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

Note to everyone here. There is a vote for deletion underway for the category designated terrorist organizations: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Designated_terrorist_organizations

Count Iblis 15:13, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

What do people think of the wikilink to Islamic extremist terrorism? The page in question appears pretty Americocentric, considering it includes a list of the United States Department of State's designated terrorist organizations, and most of the statisics are gleaned from American sources. Linking Hezbollah to this page is misleading - as another user mentioned during the previous discussion, the U.S. and a few other Anglo-Saxon countries are the only ones to designate Hezbollah as a terrorist organization. The use of the word "extremist" also doesn't seem especially NPOV. MeredithParmer 01:00, 15 July 2006 (UTC)

Israel is the agressor
Israel has been looking for an excuse to exercise it's military right against Lebanon. IDF soldiers have made numerous excursions into Lebanon and fought with Hezbollah soldiers, though this is not readily reported in the western media. The IDF even left some kit behind []. Also Hezbollah only started firing missiles into Israel after the bombing of bridges, the airport and civilian areas. In my opinion Hezbollah is a legitimate resistance force which now provides schooling, social functions (they run the annual music festival) and legitimate buisness. This is even reported in the Telegraph newspaper, or the "Torygraph" as it is commonly refered to. Anyone who denies this conflict was provoked ultimately by Israel, which has far superior military might, cannot see the facts which go back as far as 1982. -- Tompsci 08:49, 23 July 2006 (UTC)


 * Get real, Tompsci! Hezbollah has been firing missiles at Israel ever since the Israeli withdrawl to behind the INTERNATIONALLY RECOGNIZED border in 2000.  Just like Hamas and Islamic Jihad did after the Israelis left Gaza.  Sheeba Farms is just a flimsy pretext for Hezbollah to continue killing Israelis.  Israel simply was pushed too far after years of being pushed.  I don't call that agression.  I call that hitting back!  Hezbollah needs to be aware of consequences for its actions and I personally hope that every single stinking militant of Hezbollah's military wing is dealt with.  Expatkiwi [[Image:No-hez-flag.gif|25px]]


 * Please keep in mind Five pillars. While I understand and relate to both of your opinion, this is not the place for opinions, especially on such a controversial topic such as this! Working on this article with unbiased facts is important, especially in these times when many uninformed people go to google and type Hezbollah where WP is the #1 link. If changes or additions are needed, let's present them here with facts, references and with no original research or opinion. Much respect, Mceder 20:22, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

The Jewish state of Israel has been under fire since 1948, you remember that, Tompsci. They just want to live in co-existence with the rest of the Middle East, but is under threat after threat each day. They aren't looking for any damn excuse to fire missles at Lebannon, I'd be pissed off, as well, so don't act like this is about Lebannon, it's about Hezbollah and those cowards.

Leopard Gecko 04:44, 29 July 2006 (UTC)Leopard Gecko

Partial List of Hezbollah Violent Activities Targetting Civilians Outside of Israel
I put a part of it between This part is qouted from a weblog and the weblog refered to a Jewish virtual library. There isn't any evidence or refrence in that article and it seems biased. So I proposed to remove this part.--Sa.vakilian 11:28, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

About malkolm kerr:There is written in his biogrophy that ''On January 18, 1984, Malcolm was shot outside his office by two gunmen. Later Islamic Jihad made a telephone call to claim the credit for his death.''. Maybe US claims that Islamic Jihad and Hezbollah are the same but is there any evidence for it.--Sa.vakilian 11:34, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

About David Dodge :Tere is written "Perhaps the first victim whose case was widely publicized was American University of Beirut president David Dodge, abducted by Shia terrorists in 1981 and freed in 1982. " Because Hezbollah at least formed at 1982 so it can't participate in an event in 1981.--Sa.vakilian 11:46, 24 July 2006 (UTC)


 * I think the first thing to do is combine this section with the "Allegations of Specific Terrorist Attacks Section. Some of the material that you've commented-out duplicates allegations in that section anyway. I agree that any allegations that cannot be substantiated beyond a blog should not be published here. JiHymas@himivest.com 14:31, 24 July 2006 (UTC)


 * I suggest that given the chaos in Lebanon in the early '80's it is quite possible that there were numerous small groups operating independently; some may have joined Hezbollah en bloc; some individual members of these groups may have joined Hezbollah later. When does the chaos end and Hezbollah begin? The 'Jewish Virtual Library' reference looks amateurish and is not adequately footnoted. I don't think it should be relied upon as a sole source even for a mere allegation. The sole source referenced for Kerr is a memoir written in 1984. If it could be substantiated with contemporary or more formal sources, I'd leave the allegation in with a note that possibly IJ and H were not the same thing (at least at that time), but otherwise I'd leave it out. As for Dodge, I'd leave it out on the grounds that there is no evidence that Hezbollah is directly responsible for all instances of terrorism committed by Shiites. JiHymas@himivest.com 14:31, 24 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Sorry, re my last above, Kerr memoir was written in 2000. JiHymas@himivest.com 14:41, 24 July 2006 (UTC)


 * I see the "Allegations of Specific Terrorist Attacks..." section is now a subsection of the terrorism section, but I fail to see any difference between Sections 10.1 and 10.5. Does anybody have any objections to me combining them? JiHymas@himivest.com 06:05, 25 July 2006 (UTC)


 * The Jewish Virtual Library is headed by Mitchell Bard Phd who is an expert in the field of Middle-Eastern history. He's a published author of 17 books on the subject and a walking encyclopedia.  Although preferable, sources do not have to be witnessed first hand, (i.e. no one is getting David Dodge to come in for an interview) particularly in the scope that the Internet was not created at the time these events happened.  It's perfectly plausable to use the JVL as a reference.

- nice bias research.How about how many civilians have died in lebanon because of israelis? That list is far longer. Stop killing innocent people.
 * Mitchell Bard may well be a fine scholar, but the introduction to the JVL, http://www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org/about/index.shtml, makes it quite clear that he did not author all 10,000+ articles himself. The list of allegations cited against Hezbollah is unsigned and contains no references whatsoever. The particular citation used in the main page would get a failing grade in grade 9. It may well be that Hezbollah (or those who eventually joined Hezbollah, especially since the Dodge murder occurred before Hezbollah's founding) had something to do with it. If there is, then fine. Start a whole new section on it! Section 357! But at this point, anyway, I haven't seen anything that would justify such a claim. JiHymas@himivest.com 05:54, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

I like the conversation. What proof do you have that Israel killed 400 civilians and not terrorists? Don't point me to random images of suffering children, those could've been taken anywhere by anyone with bias. Honestly, I'm sure lots civilians got killed, I'm just using your rediculous argument that a biased source is not necessarily telling a fact, and just because there are 40 million journalists in Lebanon reporting this conflict with the ease and use of the internet, does not erase smaller terrorist acts that got almost no coverage from the history of the conflict, which you and I both know, and whether it is justified by your sources or not, is Jihadism against Jews. Labaneh 18:41, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

"Many consider it to be a terrorist organisation"
Most of the world doesn't. I'm changing that to "Some consider it to be a terrorist organisation". --82.183.224.40 15:51, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

Ok, some troll is going rampage on this article right now. I'll wait with the edits. --82.183.224.40 15:56, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

"Most" and "Some" are still weasel words, and should be discarde either way. The article should just list the nations that do and be done with it. Tarc 16:07, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

I agree. --82.183.224.40 16:20, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

use of the word "terrorist"
--Rm uk
 * "Although Hezbollah has been linked to a number of terrorist acts..." complete bull! someone mark this statment. what terrorist acts? the Israelis have killed ten times more than Hezbollah in this conflict why don't they get a terrorist mention in their wiki page.

"Despite the fact that Hezbollah was not officially an organization until February 1985, many (notably the U.S. government) believe that the Hezbollah, a Lebanese based militant group backed by Iran and Syria, was responsible for this particular bombing as well as the bombing of the U.S. Embassy in Beirut in April. Hezbollah, Iran and Syria have denied any involvement."


 * the word terrorist derives from an opinion. governments have a history of callin their enemies terrorists. If the word terrorist is applied to hezbollah then the article is bias because terrorist is a moral judgement

The definition of Terrorism since 9/11 has changed from "spreading terror," to any military act against civilians by a non governmental organization. If this were the 20's, yes what Israel is doing would be considered a terrorist act, just as the bombing of the King David Hotel by Lechi or Irgun (I can't remember which) was a terrorist act. But in this day and age, Hezbollah is an aggressor and does not wholly repesent a sovereign government. It's attacks are stated as being against civilians, with the stated intent of killing them. Israeli attacks are stated as being against infrastructure to end the killing of civilians, as well as to kill active members of Hezbollah. The fact that Hezbollah hides among civilians, is what has caused the death of so many Lebanese civilians in this conflict. And by the way, official counts on the Lebanese side show only twice as many killed or injured, not ten times as many.

I also agree, I mean many of the things we consider as terrorist acts, such as bombing civilian infrastructure, spread fear and terror to force people into complying with them; the State of Israel does on a regular basis. Why aren't they called terrorists, when they bomb a flat killing 58 civilian? Oh but when Hezbollah fires a rocket and kills 2 Israelis, oh then the world wakes up and scorns Hezbollah for such "provocative" actions. Until we come to a conclusion about the true stance and nature of Hezbollah, you should really refrain from using the world terrorist, unless it's in relation to certain attacks they carried out and so on. I mean Israel are no big humanitarians themselves, they've killed more civilians than Hezbollah could hope to murder in several lifetimes, yet there's probably one mention of the word "terrorist" on their page.

Israel has a apologise profusely for the bombing in Qana. If they were bombing indiscriminately would they not be carpet bombing neighbourhoods like the Russians in Chechnya? Has Hezbollah apologised for the loss of one civilian on either side? It says a lot really as to intention. It is a terrorist act to target civilians and definitely if no remore or apologies are indicated. Qana looks more and more to have been an exaggeration by the day. 58 civilians can no longer be qualified. Please back this up. Kaltik

Please don't suddenly slap labels over this article unless it is really necessary.

The labels need to be there. You amongst others are showing a complete lack of balance and excusing terrorism in the extreme. Kaltik

58.178.120.62 06:04, 12 August 2006 (UTC)ap89


 * Why are we discussing the Israeli article on this page? JiHymas@himivest.com 06:15, 12 August 2006 (UTC)


 * "Although Hezbollah has been linked to a number of terrorist acts, there is disagreement in the international political community"

This is a terrible sentence which Isarig insists on it. If there isn't consensus in the social communities and just few countries have recognized it as a terrorist organisation, then how can you say "terrorist acts"? This is your POV. I propose to write "military" instead of "terrorist".--Sa.vakilian 12:55, 12 August 2006 (UTC)
 * No one in their right mind disputes that the bombing of a civilian community center is an act of terrorism. WP policy is not to label entire groups as terrorist, and so Hizbollah is not labeled as such (though it has been designated as such by many countries) - but that does not mean we can whitewash allegations that it is linked to terrorism by calling those acts "military". Just as the 9/11 events are rightly described as "a series of coordinated suicide terrorist attacks" on that WP article, the bombing of the Jewsih Community center in Argentina is rightly described as "the largest single incident of terrorism against Jews" - and Hezbollah has been linked to it. Why you would want to whitewash this heinous crime is beyond me. Isarig

Look at "Although Hezbollah has been linked to a number of terrorist acts". Is it neutral? It induces a blame as a fact. Do you agree with writing this sentence in the lead of Israel:"Althogh Israel has been linked to a number of genocide acts but ..."--Sa.vakilian 13:30, 12 August 2006 (UTC)
 * The sentence "Hezbollah has been linked to a number of terrorist acts" is both neutral and factual. I again refer you to AMIA Bombing which clearly states "In 1999 an arrest warrant was issued against Hezbollah member Imad Mugniyah, in connection with the attack." Isarig 13:46, 12 August 2006 (UTC)

So you agree with adding "Althogh Israel has been linked to a number of genocide acts but ..." in the lead of Israel because of Sabra and Shatila Massacre, 1996 shelling of Qana and many other genocides which Israel is blamed for them by some countries.--Sa.vakilian 13:53, 12 August 2006 (UTC)

No neutral person or historian has ever linked the massacres at Sabra and Shatilla to anything remotely bordering on genocide. It completely defies its meaning and detracts from Hezbollah's targeting of innocent people inside Israel or using their own people as human shields Kaltik

Please read Definition of terrorism. Over a 100 definitions have been used for this word. It makes it very difficult to use, because it means so many different things.

Although Hezbollah has been linked to a number of terrorist acts...

What terrorist acts? Could we define this instead of using a sentence that only reveals one 'fact'? Could we then perhaps remove the loaded term 'terrorist act? I think if we do, the POV, seen from either the Hezbollah-is-a-satanic-terrorist-organisation camp or the Hezbollah-loves-Israeli-babies camp, should go away, no?

Perhaps defining it all as it is, with references backing up the statements:

Hezbollah has been linked to several attacks involving suicide bombers and 17.32 attacks against Israeli civilian daycare centers.

Heck, even better:

Hezbollah has been linked to several attacks involving suicide bombers and 17.32 attacks against Israeli civilian daycare centers.

Mceder 16:59, 12 August 2006 (UTC)


 * Firstly: can we please stop discussing Israel? I don't give a #@%@! about Israel. I have presumed throughout that H is an organization run by adults. Adults take responsibility for their own actions. 'He did it first!' is an excuse only amongst 12-year-olds.
 * Secondly: The "terrorist" label has been applied by influential players and has a great deal of practical effect. Anyone who disagrees can set up a donation box outside the White House and see what happens. An article which does not mention this is a bad article.
 * Thirdly: With respect to what I think is the issue being debated, there is no harm being absolutely specific: "Hezbollah has been linked by the US to several attacks considered terrorist. Several nations have followed the US lead in deeming the organization to be terrorist, in whole or in part."
 * JiHymas@himivest.com 17:16, 12 August 2006 (UTC)
 * firstly:I speak about Israel because I want to show to every wikipedians that saying such a thing and blaming the others is too easy, so try to respect others and not to blame them.
 * Secondly if "there is disagreement in the international political community" why don't we write "Although some countries recognized Hezbollah as a legitimate organization, some others blame Hezbollah for several attacks and recognized it-completely or partly- as a terrorist organization."--Sa.vakilian 17:45, 12 August 2006 (UTC)
 * I support Sa.vakilian's phrasing (to be loaded down with references, of course) JiHymas@himivest.com 17:49, 12 August 2006 (UTC)


 * Please look at this sentence:
 * "Hezbollah is widely believed to be responsible for multiple kidnappings, murders, hijackings, and bombings (see "Operational History", below) considered by some to be terrorist attacks, but has not claimed responsibility for any of these acts. It is viewed by many Muslim countries, who do not recognize Israel's right to exist, as an organization of legitimate resistance against Israel. Russia and the EU do not consider Hezbollah a terrorist organization. Other countries, including the US, Canada, the Netherlands, Australia, and Israel consider Hezbollah to be -completely or partly- a terrorist organization."
 * Hezbollah and its supporters accept its responsibility for military attacks to Israeli armies and civilians but there is disagreement about what should we called this. Somebody called it legitimate resistance, retaliate attacks, fighting with Israel as a illegal and illegitimate state or terrorist acts.
 * So this sentence isn't suitable. The first sentence is fault and the second one too. Who do not recognize Israel's right to exist called Hezbollah attacks "Jihad" and who are opposo to occupation of Lebanon by Israel called it legitimate resistance.--Sa.vakilian 03:50, 13 August 2006 (UTC)

Hezbollah is a terrorist organization. To dispute this is to apply moral relativity to an absurd extreme. Whatever applicability you want to apply to the maxim "one man's terrorist is anothe rman's freedom fighter" does not diminish the fact that the actions of Hezbollah toward Israel (and others) subjects them to feelings of fear and TERROR ...

Terrorist allegations
A new user wishes to add his opinion, namely that Hezbollah is a terrorist organization, in the intro. May I suggest that we dont for the umpteenth time repeat the debate about whether Wikipedia should approve such accusations. Actually policies have been devoloped for such issues. Please see Neutral point of view and Words_to_avoid. I assume we all feel responsible to uphold these policies. Bertilvidet 12:59, 3 August 2006 (UTC)


 * There is written something about it.--Sa.vakilian 17:03, 3 August 2006 (UTC)


 * Exactly, what is currently written is fine: stating that some consider it as a terror organization and giving their arguments, and of course also presenting the counter arguments. Bertilvidet 08:09, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

I think the comment about Hezbollah being considered by some as a terrorist group and by others as a resistance movement is repeated too often. I think once should be sufficient. --Ghormax 10:32, 6 August 2006 (UTC)


 * I agree. There are some other issues as well. The allegations of terrorism are made in a climate of tensions. You can hardly expect conservative US think tanks to write objective reports about Hezbollah. Now, you cannot just say that what they say is nonsense, as that would be POV. But it should be mentioned more clearly in each case who says what and on the wikipage of the relevant think thank (e.g. the American Enterprise institution) one should mention clearly their political color and their track record (e.g. what did they say about Saddam's link to Al Qa'ida etc. etc.) Count Iblis 14:09, 6 August 2006 (UTC)

Look, its pretty simple. If an organization purposefully targets civilians with violence in order to achieve political goals, it is a terrorist organization. I understand that Hezbollah is also a social organization, and I certaintly respect the good it has done in that respect in Lebanon. Further, its activities fighting the IDF within Lebanese territory could be described as that of a morally questionable, but none the less legitamate resistance organization. However, Hezbollah launches missles into major Israeli population centers with the stated goal of killing as many Israeli civilians as possible. As such, Hezbollah's other activies do not change the fact that it is a terrorist organization by the definition of terrorist. Prancing around this point is useless; stating what is by definition true is not POV. -- Almo 8/6/06


 * By whose definition of terrorist? JiHymas@himivest.com 03:16, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

Hezbollah sees an illigitimate entity that was fraudulently created by Zionists and therefore terrorist. Israelis consider the deliberate targeting of civilians as terrorism. Hezbollah states that because all Israelis go to the army, they are all targets, despite killing so many Arabs in their wild missile attacks. They also consider Muslims who die due to their actions as martyr soldiers that died for Allah. Israel only considers people not enlisted in an armed group as civilians, but accepts collateral damage to civilians and destruction of infrastructure if it has a dual use in aiding terrorists. Labaneh 19:28, 7 August 2006 (UTC)


 * By I though we were using the english version of the site here? Anon 13 August 2006

You can't take a fact, then call it POV, it doesn't follow. We're trying to deal in objective facts. Saying that Hezbolla believes they arn't terrorists is irrelevant to the conversation. Their belief doesn't change the facts of the matter.

Now, if we're going by the english language, then Terrorism is defined as: "the systematic use of terror especially as a means of coercion"

Terror being: "violent or destructive acts (as bombing) committed by groups in order to intimidate a population or government into granting their demands "

Violent or Destructive acts: Firing Katyusha Rockets into crowded civilian population centres. Check. Committed by Groups: Hizbolla Check. To intimidate a population or government: Israel. Check. into granting their demands: Prisoner exchange. Check.

Whether you like it or not, whether you believe it or not, whther you want to believe it or not, that makes Hizbollah a terrorist organisation.

Also, before anyone makes themselves look stupid by trying to compare this to Israel's activities: Israel is fighting a conventional war against a terrorist organisaton. They are retaliating in a somewhat disproportionate manner. Nobody disputes the destrucion of civilian infrastructure is going too far, however it is done with the stated aim of crippling the organisation they are fighting. While they are lobbying the Lebanese government, and the UN, for a ceasefire agreement, they are not attempting to coerce either into doing so.

Recent Edits By Banzai et al Regarding Designation As Terrorist
Use of "terrorist" in quotes is not appropriate. There are legitimately different views about whether Hezbollah is, or is not, a terrorist organization. The article should attempt to represent both views fairly. Use of "terrorist" in quotes suggests that the designation is false. The article should not be passing comment itself about whether or not it is actually false, only reporting the views of others. This is the neutral point of view. Jonexsyd 06:17, 7 August 2006 (UTC)


 * Yeah, I gave it some thought, and you’re probably right. Terrorism’s a concept, not just a word, after all. I support removing the quote marks. —Banzai! (talk) @ 06:26, 7 August 2006 (UTC)


 * On another topic, I’d avoid using the word “states” in that headline—the U.N. isn’t a state, for example. I agree that “entities” is unwieldy, so how else can we title the section? —Banzai! (talk) @ 06:28, 7 August 2006 (UTC)


 * Re the table name: in the discussion further up, I suggested "Political Stances towards Hezbollah". Howzzat? JiHymas@himivest.com 05:51, 9 August 2006 (UTC)


 * I like it. Good thinking! —Banzai! (talk) @ 06:09, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

Maybe we should put "terroist"/"resistance" group together; that way both views are seen. --SkyEarth 01:02, 16 August 2006 (UTC)


 * And then claim that the US has designated H as a "terrorist"/"resistance" group? That doesn't work for me. I agree with Jonexsyd & Banzai JiHymas@himivest.com 01:46, 16 August 2006 (UTC)


 * Agree. Since it appears consensus has been reached, and there are only two references to 'terrorist' left, I have converted those to terrorist. Mceder 18:21, 19 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Rm uk 04:14, 29 August 2006 (UTC) says: Terrorist should be changed to "terrorist" because it is a very subjective term- no official definition exists. Plus everyone that is against the government these days is a "terrorist". I dont believe in sound bites. You state the facts and you let people think for themselves... you dont tell them an organisation is "terrorist" you give them the facts and let them decide. saying "terrorist" isn't like saying "war crime" because there is a clear definition of war crime. Putting "terrorist" in quotation marks does not indicate that the label is false (i have never heard such nonesense). Again, it demonstrates the label is subjective!

- -- - - - - -- -

Wiki, has as usual BOWED to Leftist (it's BASE)/Islamist Pressure and changed it's longstanding Intro and description of Hezbollah, which read as follows just a few weeks ago:
 * you are wrong, the changing of the intro as overcoming pro-zionist pressures Rm uk 04:41, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

Hezbollah

The Hezbollah (Arabic [1], meaning 'Party of Allah') is a Lebanese Islamist Shiite terrorist organization and political party with the mission statement of Destructing the state of Israel[2][3], with a military arm and a civilian arm [4]. It was founded in 1982 with the declared aim to fight the Israeli occupation of Southern Lebanon[5] that lasted until 2000[6]. Hezbollah is currently led by its Secretary General, Sayyed Hassan Nasrallah.

Background

Hezbollah, a Terrorist group, was inspired by the success of the Islamic Revolution in Iran [7]. It was formed by the Ayatollah Khomeini's followers in the early eighties to spread Shia revolution[7](8)[9], and to combat Israeli occupation following the 1982 Lebanon War [7].

Hezbollah views Israel as a Whole as "an illegal usurper entity, which is based on falsehood, massacres, and illusions" [10], and follows a distinct version of Islamic Shia ideology developed by Ayatollah Ruhollah Khomeini, leader of the Islamic Revolution in Iran.[11]

[...............]

SIGNED NOW abu afak

abuafak@Yahoo.ie if you please for any reason:

—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 69.201.149.138 (talk • contribs) 17:33, 20 August 2006.


 * Regardless of whether or not Hezbollah can be defined a terrorist organization (as it is by the UN, the US, and several other countries I can't recall off the top of my head, but not by other countries such as Iran and Syria), the grammar of this section is incorrect. "Destructing" is not defined as a word by Merriam-Webster, and even if it were, it ought not to be capitalized randomly in the middle of a sentence, as per The Blue Book of Grammar and Punctuation. - LeaHazel 20:54, 20 August 2006 (UTC)


 * Not by the UN. JiHymas@himivest.com 22:27, 20 August 2006 (UTC)


 * You're right. I stand corrected. - 85.250.24.232 12:25, 21 August 2006 (UTC) (EDIT: Sorry, that was me; I was mysteriously logged out. - LeaHazel)


 * "Destructing" does not appear anywhere in the article itself, just here on the talk page. We currently know of 4 countries who designate Hezbollah as a terrorist organisation, and 2 that partially lists them (see Hezbollah). So if the several other countries you know off do officially recognize them as a terrorist organization, please help us and add it to the list with appropriate references. Mceder 22:33, 20 August 2006 (UTC)


 * Terrorist should never be put in quotes in this section, because by definition Hezbollah is a terrorist oraganization. First, let's define terrorist:

ter·ror·ist n.


 * One that engages in acts or an act of terrorism.

Alright, now let's define terrorism.

ter·ror·ism n.


 * The unlawful use or threatened use of force or violence by a person or an organized group against people or property with the intention of intimidating or coercing societies or governments, often for ideological or political reasons.

And there we go... It is a fact that Hezbollah is a terrorist organization.


 * I think you'll find that by that definition, Israel's government is also a terrorist government. The US government itself could not find a suitable definition of terrorism, since in each case the definition could apply to actions carried out by the government. Whether or not a group is deemed "terrorist" is entirely subjective and depends on your viewpoint, it is not a fact that Hezbollah is a terrorist organisation. It would appear that the distinction you make is that Israel is a state and therefore not terrorist even though it has broken international law on many occaisions with the intention of coercing opposing groups for political reasons. -- Tompsci 02:12, 22 August 2006 (UTC)


 * Rm uk says: I agree with Tompsci. These sheep that so easily call other people "terrorist" ignore the actions of the entity which they support


 * 18 U.S.C.A. § 2331 defines terrorism, as does 8 U.S.C.A. § 1182 (and there are other statutes). Terrorism is essentially defined as a non-government entity engaging in criminal, violent activities to coerce a government or its population toward effect a political or social change (en masse). Most definitions of terrorism I've encountered exempt governments. FWIW, it was not until the past couple of years I've heard of Hezbollah ever referred to as anything but a terrorist organization. I wouldn't call myself a specialist on the topic, but I've been studying terrorism in various capacities (some professional but rarely primarily) since 1982. Pardon the coarse comparison, but you can take the pig out of the mud, but you can't take the mud out of the pig. BenWilson 07:11, 26 August 2006 (UTC)


 * Rm uk says: show me a link for this definition. Anyway, even if that stupid definition exists it is flawed. Because, according to that definition, states cannot engage in "terrorism". A criminal act should be described by the same word regardless of who perpetrates it! "Terrorism" is bad because of the results and not because of who perpetrates it! Thus "terrorism" should be viewed as a class of acts independent of the perpetrators.


 * In a recent paper I wrote on treason, I noted that terrorism, when conducted by U.S. citizens or resident aliens, is treason. I cited Blackstone's Commentaries as my source. It was striking to me that his definition for levying war was essentially that of terrorism, when commited by a citizen/resident alien. Contrastly, part of being a sovereign nation is the fact that a nation can do the same thing legally. Hezbollah's activities this Summer were not (overtly) as part of the Lebanese government, so they were acting in a non-governmental capacity (even by coming back to rebuild without an apparent nod to the Lebanese government--they seem to claim "they" are coming back to rebuild, not the government through them). This point alone is why I have a hard time accepting Hezbollah's "political party" status. I contrast that with the PLO, which seems to have adopted a more "sovereing" role. Sorry for ranting, I realize this is a rather sore topic for most involved. BenWilson 07:11, 26 August 2006 (UTC)

I notice that you edited out the part where it was demonstrated that the definition doesn't apply to Israel. Are your debating strategies always this cowardly and underhanded, or is it merely that your position is so indefensible that you feel the need to stifle open conversation? People don't come to wikipedia for your anti-israeli propaganda, it's intended to be a neutral source of information.

Again, the distinction here is not that Israel is a state and Hizbollah is not. The distinction is that Israel is only attacking legitimate targets, those persons or groups that seek the destruction of Israel, or whom act against it with suicide bombings/abductions/rocket attacks. Israel lobbies for ceasefires, for peace-deals, and they always seek an amicable solution to every situation they're in. Case in point: the current situation.

On the other hand organisations like Hizbollah willfully attack the civilian populace of Israel as a means to coerce them into political action.

The definition of terrorism does not apply to Israel, because they apply force in the pursuit of objectives related to their national security, but do not make any attempt to coerce either governments or civilian populations into any particular action.

Once again, because you edited it out: Hizbollah has abducted Israeli soldiers, and fired Katyusha rockets into crowded civilian areas. Given the sustained bombardment, and the type of weapons being used (filled with metal ball-bearings) it can be surmised that the intention was to cause maximum collateral damage. They have done this with the stated intention of securing the release of prisoners currently in Israeli custody.

This fits the definition of terrorism. If you can actually give me a real, verifiable, example of something israel has done that fits the above definition, then I'll agree with you. Since you can't, please don't bother editing out my reply like you did last time. I await your reply...

My (guest) reply to "definition of terrorism does not apply to Israel, because they apply force in the pursuit of objectives related to their national security" is that the statistics from the "war" in Lebanon are: Lebanese civilian deaths = 1,133, Israeli civilian deaths = 44.

So Israel's "objectives" must be to thin out the population to expose terrorists?

Obviously not. They themselves admit that the level of collateral damage is an operational failure. The difference is that Hizbollah deliberately attacks civilians, while the Israeli army atacks members of a paramilitary group that is so deeply entrenched within the civilian infrastructure that collateral damage is almost entirely unavoidable. This is why I disagree so strongly with Israel's current military strategy. It's not working, and it's killing inncoent people. Evidently they never read Sun Tzu's excellent book. At worst they are guilty of incompetence in the execution of their supposed duty(worse than terrorism if we're going by numbers), and some individuals among them may be guilty of war-crimes.

Don't want to turn this into a argument forum, but the point of my last message (from guest) was that the fatalities were: "The 34-day war cost the lives of nearly 1,200 people, mostly civilians, in Lebanon, as well as 157 Israelis, mainly soldiers." I don't know how to do references but this is from the Israel-Lebanon 2006 conflict in wikipedia. It is very hard to believe what you're saying "Hizbollah deliberately attacks civilians, while the Israeli army atacks members of a paramilitary group" when the results tell a completely different story. - (guest)


 * this is way more comlicated than you suggest. who counted?  how was the difference between soldiers and civillians determined?  did hezbollah deliberately provoke israel to attack civilians by placing rockets in and launching rockets from civilian sites like houses and mosques (and even the UNFIL posts)?  if so, who is really responsible for the civilian deaths?  the numbers don't tell any sort of straightforward story.  Elizmr 15:22, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

Israel has captured thousands of Palestinian CIVILIANS; not soldiers or military members; the capture of the Palestinians is not at all related to Israel's national security, they were captured for no reason; THAT is why Israel is a terrorist organization.

Keep in mind, the militant wing of Hezbollah is a militia and technically civilian. The above "statistics" are intended to be deceptive. Terrorists are usually classified as civilian.

Israel is a nation defending itself, not a terrorist organization. Why would Israel need to just round up civilians? To what purpose? Terrorism is the technique of the weak. Israel is hardly that. The vast majority of people "captured" by Israel are members of various terrorist groups who dress like civilians. But because they're not wearing any distinctive insignia (which is a war crime by the way), they're civilians? Doesnt work that way. Hezbullah is the terrorist organization. Yes it has a political wing, but it's irrelevant and powerless without it's militant wing. Angerhate8 14:55, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

The political wing of Hezbollah came into power democratically and therefore any voter could be considered by Isreal to be a member of a terrorist group. Also, Hezbollah captured the aforementioned soldiers with the intention of negotiating for the captured Palestinian civilians. This may have resulted in a peaceful resolution, but Isreal, refusing to negotiate with a "terrorist organisation" decided instead to launch airstrikes against innocents. This leads me to conclude that Isreal only finds itself dealing with the militant wing of Hezbollah due to it's refusal to deal with the political wing of Hezbollah. Even if statehood did mean the difference between terrorism and justified action, Hezbollah could not be considered a terrorist group because it has ties to a state. Even if earlier actions against Isreal by Hezbollah were acts of terrorism, which I would have to agree with, when Hezbollah is playing the role of resistance to invading IDF solders in Lebanon is neither unlawful or threatening, it's defensive. Looking in a different direction entirely, IAF planes dropping flyers telling people to leave their homes is intimidating, as per the definition of terrorism. Both sides could be considered terrorist based on their actions, but with this in mind then couldn't the Nazi night air raids of Brittain be considered terrorism? I disagree, while the Nazi's may have done many unforgivable things, they were engaged in war, not terror. To be clear, my opinion is that the definition of terrorism should be reviewed because the actions of the United States of America in Iraq practically fit the current definition, but untill such a time as it can be reviewed (hopefully by a higher authority than Wikipedia, no offence) we should simply try to refrain from defining ANY organisation as terrorist or not terrorist and simply report the facts, up to and including the opinions that other organisations have of Hezbollah, as long as it is clear that these are only opinions. What I DO NOT want to see is statements like these "It is a fact that Hezbollah is a terrorist organisation" For now, who IS and ISN'T a terrorist is ONLY a matter of opinion! - (guest)


 * Consensus building .. I would like to archive this discussion under an archive called 'Terrorist' or Terrorist, with a consensus from the community involved the statements below. If we can achieve that, we can avoid revert wars on the 'terrorist' and terrorist issue (this is happening a lot already).
 * This dabate copied in archive before. Archive_terrorist_allegations. But something has added here after making that page.--Sa.vakilian 07:09, 1 September 2006 (UTC)


 * Regardless if an entity disagrees with labeling Hezbollah a terrorist organisation, when describing and using the word itself it should not be in quotes.
 * In the article, we should use Terrorist and not 'Terrorist'. The reasoning being that is; we are not stating an opinion but rather reflect sourced information (i.e the United States and Israel did not list Hezbollah as a 'terrorist' organisation, they listed then as a terrorist organisation, thusly the section regarding allegations of terrorism and such not be in quotes).


 * Support, cause I wrote it. Mceder 13:11, 30 August 2006 (UTC)


 * Support, per Mceder Elizmr 18:08, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

Designation as terror-ist section, silly # of ref?
The EU Council designates Imad Mugniyah as a terrorist, claiming he is Hezbollah's "Senior Intelligence Officer".[182] [183] [184][185][186] This is backed by 5 references. Do we really need that? Can we pick one good un' and remove the rest? Mceder 01:32, 27 August 2006 (UTC)
 * This has now been done.   Mceder 12:42, 29 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Rather than removing references, if there are two many footnotes you can combine many citations into one footnote. This is probably a better idea, for future reference. Palmiro | Talk 00:21, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

Terrorist organization
Why can't we honest Wikipedians call Hezbollah a terrorist organization? Wasn't Hezbollah created to terrorize Israel? What do we call, shooting four thousand rockets & missiles into Israel to kill indiscriminately as many men, woman & children as possible; isn't that terrorism? Because there are people in this world who support these terrorists; does it change the fact that it is a terrorist organization? Because there are people who agree with the goals of these terrorists; does it change the fact that it is a terrorist organization? Because this terrorism is directed at Jews; does it change the fact that it is a terrorist organization? Because these terrorists murder Jewish men, woman & children; does it change the fact that it is a terrorist organization? Because these terrorists are your countrymen; does it change the fact that it is a terrorist organization? Because these terrorists are your co-religionists; does it change the fact that it is a terrorist organization? Because these terrorists are your cousins; does it change the fact that it is a terrorist organization? Because these terrorists are your brothers; does it change the fact that it is a terrorist organization? Because your country wants to live on good terms with the countries supporting these terrorists; does it change the fact that it is a terrorist organization? Because your country wants to live on good terms with the co-religionists of these terrorists; does it change the fact that it is a terrorist organization? Because your country doesn't want these terrorists do direct its terrorist activities in your country; does it give them the right to change the fact that it is a terrorist organization?

I have long given up hope on the world; but to my fellow Wikipedians I appeal; can't we honestly call a spade "a spade" and with a NEUTRAL POINT OF VIEW call terrorists terrorists? The burden of proof should be on the terrorists to prove that they are not terrorists.

If the answer is no; then I would sadly say that there is no purpose for the brains of the world to work their heads off to create an encyclopedia by the biased; with the bias; for the biased. Itzse 20:55, 22 August 2006 (UTC)


 * 1) Hop off the soapbox.
 * 2) Put new talk sections at the bottom, not the top, please. Tarc 21:25, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

I put my question on the top to be close to its similar discussion Regarding Designation As Terrorist. Had that been in the middle; I would have put it there. My legitimate question was directed to all honest wikipedians, whose mission is honesty & decency; obviously not to you; as your bias comes through clearly; (see Tarc's other changes regarding Israel). You obviously have nothing to say of substance. Itzse 21:56, 22 August 2006 (UTC)


 * I would suggest that you clean up your uncivil attitude a bit, and put some time into rereading certain wikipedia policy pages, such as those on assuming good faith and civility. Tarc 23:34, 22 August 2006 (UTC)


 * I'll chime in on this. Personally, I feel that H. is a terrorist group.  Others do not.  I am ok with this.  I think it is more important to have the page give an accurate description of what H stands for, what it has done, what its goals are, etc than to label it as "terrorist" or not.  I think it is ok to say that certain opinions hold that H. is terrorist, and certain opinions hold that it is not terrorist (and why it is and why it is not in both cases).  I don't think that it makes the encyclopedia worse to proceed in this way.  What is important here (IMO) is that people of holding all opinions contribute here and people from all backgrounds have an opportunity to read this stuff.  Elizmr 22:17, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

Your two pence makes very much sense; but why can't we objectively define what a terrorist is and apply it equally? Why is there a double standard here on wikipedia when it concerns the Jews? Why should Jews be content that the contents of the article merely states also their POV? Shouldn't there be fairness here & call a terrorist a "terrorist"? Don't we want to create an encylopedia of facts not opinions? Itzse 22:51, 22 August 2006 (UTC)


 * Are there no disagreements on pages about definitions of this sort where Jews are not involved as targets of agression? I actually don't know.  Maybe one of the people who feel that Hezbollah is NOT a terrorist group could reply to your point here.   Elizmr 23:13, 22 August 2006 (UTC)
 * What my personal opinion on it is is largely irrelevant. As is yours.  As is Itzse's.  The point that I have tried to make, here and on similar pages, is that the Western designation of what is a "terrorist" nation and what is not is not the be all and end all of the matter.  There are plenty of peoiple in the Middle East who value Hezbollah for their social services provided in southern Lebanon, for example.  I certainly believe that there should be a sizable section of the article devoted to Hezbollah's gross human rights violations and which Western nations list them as a terrorist organization.  But including such a label in the introductory paragraph is, I feel, rather heavy-handed and a bit biased, as it is not a universally-held position in the world. Tarc 23:34, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

Tarc, do you have a problem with the way the intro reads now? Providing social services and doing terrorist acts are not mutually exclusive, are they? Terrorism refers to a technique of forcing societal change by performing violent acts. An organization can do this and feed their people at the same time. Elizmr 01:41, 23 August 2006 (UTC)


 * It is a controversial issue. So please look at previous discussions about it.
 * category:Islamic terrorist organizations
 * terrorism
 * Category "Designated terrorist organization"
 * "Many consider it to be a terrorist organisation"
 * use of the word "terrorist"
 * Terrorist allegations
 * Recent Edits By Banzai et al Regarding Designation As Terrorist


 * These are some of the debates which are directly related to this issue and there many other debates about this issue. As I remember we conclude to write which countries have called them terrorist organization and which one have called them legitimate resistance organization.--Sa.vakilian 01:59, 23 August 2006 (UTC)


 * The way the intro is at this point in time is fine, in my opinion. Although "extensive front programs" seems to imply that such programs are not sincere. Tarc 02:17, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

I propose make archive on the basis of topic like this if we don't wat to repeat previous debates everyday. So I do a little work on POV and Disputed discussions but it is certainly insufficient. So please help with this task.--Sa.vakilian 11:06, 23 August 2006 (UTC)


 * I also recommend this page about the use of the word "terrorism" and Wikipedia standards. --Filius Rosadis 21:15, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

Terrorist organization III
This is really getting ridiculous. Your arguing is pointless and won't change anything. No matter what you say one thing is for certain, and that is that there is absolutely no one who after reading your arguments will say to himself "He's right, Hezbollah really is/isn't a terrorist organization". Everyone has his made up conclusion and there is nothing you say that can change that. (I am sure that everyone arguing here gets that by now). Every argument/accusation has been argued against so far, and there is no such thing as a neutral citation on this subject on the internet (Either it's from Israel and its supporters, or from Hezbollah and its supporters).

My advice is for you to do something like this: "There are two main views on Hezbollah - One from Israel, America.... stating that Hezbollah is a terrorist organization (And this is where Itzse, GHcool and all their wiki friends can talk like they never talked before.)" "The second view comes from the Lebanon, Iran.... stating that Hezbollah is a resistance group (And this is the place Mac, Palestineremembers and the rest of their wiki alias can write till their hearth's content).

Because there are two types of points of view on this subject, you can simply divide them into the two mentioned categories and be done with it. What you are doing can never satisfy both sides and it certainly isn't neutral and can never be neutral. Overhere 18:15, 20 October 2006


 * The suggestion is extremely reasonable. I agree wholeheartedly. --GHcool 02:03, 21 October 2006 (UTC)

I honestly don't get it. Do you people think that you will accomplish anything here. To spoil you the exciting climax I will tell you how all this will end. Another war will erupt (Not between Hezbollah and Israel but between some other countries-possibly involving Iran and US) and everyone who is arguing for Hezbollah here will go to that new page to defend Iran, while everyone supporting Israel will go there to support US. And so on until who knows what (possibly a completely new war).

And if you think "People will get tired of arguing and move on and this arguing will stop" you are mistaken. Some people who argued before have realized the stupiditness of it and have moved on, only the problem is that the next day a new determined user ready to share his "neutral" point of view with the rest of the "mistaken" users would join the never-ending battle (I am pretty sure that most of these arguments have been argued and are being repeated). Overhere 20:36, 22 October 2006 (UTC)


 * Overhere: Finally some words to the point. I agree with you that the proper way to go; is to properly give both points of view and let the reader decide. But I predict that it will not last because those that are here to push their point of view will only concentrate on tearing down anything negative to their POV under the masks of NPOV/POV until we get tired and finally give up. But let’s at least try; and if we succeed in turning this into a neutral & fair article; then what's good over here should be good over there & everywhere. Itzse 16:11, 23 October 2006 (UTC)


 * I will now attempt to cut the Gordian Knot.


 * Having just read through this extremely long debate, let me propose a solution. On the one hand, in the interests of fairness we should not unequivocally state that Hezbollah is a terrorist organization.  On the other hand, a great many people feel very, very passionately that Hezbollah is a terrorist organization.  I propose bumping the word 'terrorist' up into the very first sentence, rather than the third, although leaving its reference (in slightly modified form) in the third sentence, since that's really about what, for political reasons, various national governments have formally labeled it.  The very first thing that many people think when they hear 'Hezbollah' is 'terrorist', and the entry should reflect that, not halfheartedly bury it mid-paragraph.  But again, this should only indicate how wide and fervent the perception of Hezbollah as terrorist is, not explicitly label the organization as such.  That equivocation plus the first paragraph assertion that the label is highly controversial in Arab states, is, I believe, satisfactorily fair.  (Let's see how long this lasts.)


 * For my own POV, I do acknowledge other arguments but do also consider Hezbollah terroristic. I would recommend subtracting the highly volatile Israel debate as a basis for argument, and substitute Hezbollah's involvement in the AMIA bombing, which occurred on Argentinian soil, killed 84 people and injured almost 300, which is much more unequivocally a terrorist act than anything committed against Israel, beneficial social programs or no.Ford MF 19:59, 25 October 2006 (UTC)


 * I strongly disagree. Most of the Arab world does not recognize Hezbollah as a terrorist organization, so you would have to add that in the first sentence too. Also, there isn't a shred of evidence that Hezbollah was involved in the AMIA bombings. A man arrested in Britain on Argentina's request had to be released due to lack of evidence a year ago. Count Iblis 20:09, 25 October 2006 (UTC)


 * I think Ford MF's compromise is quite acceptable. If you want to add that most of the Arab world does not recognize Hezbollah as a terrorist organization, and have the citatations to back that up, you can add that,too, but it's easily verifiable that it is considered a terrorist organization in the Western world. Your statement that  there isn't a shred of evidence that Hezbollah was involved in the AMIA bombings is simply ludicrous. For there to be an international warrant for the arrest of Imad Mugniyah impleis, ipso facto, that there is evidence for Hezbollah involvement. Isarig 20:16, 25 October 2006 (UTC)
 * I've modified that sentence a bit. I'm not sure that the involvement of a Hezbollah member in a terror attack would imply that the organization itself is terrorist. Even if this figure is a high ranking Hezbollah member, you would need a bit more than the actions of a person. If, say, a high ranking US general was involved in Abu Graib abuses, that would still not be sufficient evidence for the claim that the US, military as an institution is guilty of such abuses. Count Iblis 20:33, 25 October 2006 (UTC)
 * I'm ok with your modification. Regarding the second part of your post - if the US military authorities subsequently aided and abetted that General in escaping justice or even  failed to prosecute him, that would be sufficient evidence for a claim that the US military as an institution is guilty of such abuses. Isarig 20:46, 25 October 2006 (UTC)
 * The first paragraph as currently modified by Isarig and Count Iblis is a better, fairer and more succint compromise than what I originally wrote, and hope that it stays that way. Thanks!  Ford MF 21:02, 25 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Reply to Isarig: I agree that then to some extent the military would be responsible. But then, you can find examples in history where similar things did happen. Take e.g. the US involvement in the coup that led to the overthrow of Allende, or take the attempts on Castro's life, or perhaps the French who blew up the GreenPeace ship Rainbow Warrior in a harbor in New Zealand killing a Dutch photographer.


 * So, are the French guilty of terrorism? Accepting for arguments sake that the attack was illegal, I would still say no. The French state doesn't have the intention of killing civilians. The French government doesn't spend its time planning terror attacks. But they may be criminally responsible for the actions of their secret agents. I take a similar view on Hezbollah. I'm not saying that their members are not guilty of terror attacks. Perhaps the organization itself can be held criminally responsible for some illegal attacks.


 * But my POV is that, barring evidence to the contrary, they are not a terror organization, in the sense of being an organization that is devoted to planning and organizing terror attacks like e.g. Al Qa'ida is. If we were to say that an organization can be a terror organization even if they are very indirectly involved in terror attacks, then we should be prepared to apply that standard to ourselves or our governments as well. If we don't do that then you get into all sorts of nasty POV debates about Israel the US etc. about whether some actions by these states constitutes state terrorism etc. Count Iblis 21:26, 25 October 2006 (UTC)


 * Sorry, Count Iblis, I don't agree. Punitive force is a prerogative of national governments.  That's why countries can declare war whereas individuals and organizations, by definition, cannot.  If the United States declares war on Germany and kills Germans, then it is an act of war.  If I, or, say, the New York Yankees, declares war on Germany and we kill some Germans, than we are merely crazy people and murderers.  Ford MF 09:34, 26 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Ford MF, I do agree that governments can declare war legally. But they can also act in illegal ways, take e.g. the Iran Contra affair, Watergate, the assassination attempts on Castro. All these things were investigated by the Senate. My opinion is that even if, say, Kissinger was directly involved in some political assassination abroad in a way that violates the US constitution (I don't think he was), then that in itself would not make the US a terrorist country. Count Iblis 16:18, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

....if only the majority of you werent lied to and knew the truth of what israel is up to and has been doing for the past 30 years, then you would understand. its a shame your knowledge is wasted on this. 71.251.113.3 23:17, 25 October 2006 (UTC)
 * And it's a shame that with your superior expertise you don't make an account, login, and actually improve Wikipedia, instead of anonymously trolling without making something even vaguely reminiscent of a helpful suggestion. Please review some helpful Wiki contributor guidelines.  In fact, I think I better go and read that again myself.  Ford MF 09:27, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

Israel existence is a crime against humanity, and against all laws and legeslations, therefore, any person claiming to be an 'israeli' shouldn't excpect welcome from palestinians and surrounding arabic countries. In my opinion, any military attack against "israeli" citizen is a legit resistance against occupation. you can't take others land then act like if you were 'innocent'.


 * Why, if it isn't another unsigned bit of nonsense condemning Israel's existance. Way to go, Whatever-Your-Name-Is.  Feel free to contribute something of value next time.  --GHcool 01:40, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

Please tell me, who began terrorising? Hezbollah entered Israel, captured two israels and caused no fear, in order to get back the prisoners Israle had captured, even just regural farmers. "Terrorist" is defined as using violence to fear a certain people. I guess that did not happen in this case. No evacuation occoured and Hezbollah caused no damage to Civilians, untill Israel responded to raid Lebanon, destroying most of its infrastructure. Who are the terrorists actually?


 * Wow. At least the last unsigned bit of nonsense was written by someone who displayed a mastery of basic grammar and spelling most people learned in elementary school.  The anti-Israel folks are really scraping the bottom of the barrel here.  --GHcool 06:01, 14 November 2006 (UTC)


 * In response to "Itsze", shooting rockets is nothing considering what the Zionist regime did in the early 1900s when it landed on the shores of Palestine and massacred Palestinians by the thousand. Haramzadi 00:37, 19 November 2006 (UTC)


 * The Accusation: "[W]hat the Zionist regime did in the early 1900s when it landed on the shores of Palestine [was massacre] Palestinians by the thousand [sic]." - Haramzadi 00:37, 19 November 2006 (UTC). The Realtiy: There is no reference to any such massacre in any history book or encyclopedia I have encountered. Such a massacre could not have taken place anyway because before 1948, there was nothing in existence that could be accurately labeled "the Zionist regime" no matter how liberally one defines either term.  I challenge anyone to find a reliable source stating that any Zionist, Zionist institution, or even any Jewish institution was responsible for anything that could be described as a "massacre by the thousands" that took place "in the early 1900s" (i.e. the first twenty or so years of the twentieth century).  --GHcool 01:57, 19 November 2006 (UTC)

This debate is funny. Hezbullah committed acts of terrorism but so has every other political entity in the world(colonization killing of civillians and what not). I think this summarises the whole debate.