3 ms·
Obviously, my use of the word 'abhorrent' is a subjective judgement, but ask yourself honestly, if Hezbollah had carried out exactly this type of attack on Isra
by tmnvix 2y ago
Obviously, my use of the word 'abhorrent' is a subjective judgement, but ask yourself honestly, if Hezbollah had carried out exactly this type of attack on Israeli defence force personal and their associates, would this not be almost universally accepted as evidence that Hezbollah is a terrorist organisation?
- exe34 2y agoit's almost as if "terrorism" has a specific definition. a group trying to change a legitimate government's policy through violent means that inspire fear in the general population. if heznobollas had done it, yes, it would have been terrorism. they are a non-state actor that's been constantly firing rockets into a legitimate state for a year, and are using violence against a general population to attempt to change the policy of their legitimately elected government. it's precisely because it was done by a legitimate state defending its population, and in this case inflicting the damage on the very terrorists that sought the communication technology with minimal collateral damage that it's a legitimate weapon of war. words matter.
- 8note 2y agoState actor is an arbitrary definition, based on what states your own government recognizes. Hezbollah within Lebanon is the state, with more power than the recognized government. If they're using terrorist actions, those should also be considered legitimate
- exe34 2y agoHezbollah represents the will of Hezbollah and Iran, not Lebanon. we didn't accept the Nazis as legitimate government of France, we bombed them to hell.