Your question is made irrelevant by the recent fighting. You can no longer say most of Hezbollah's attacks are aimed at Israeli soldiers. The thousands of rockets Hezbollah fired were clearly deliberate attacks on civilians. In fact, organizations like Human Rights Watch are of the opinion that the inaccuracy of these weapons means they are useless for anything other than terrorizing civilians, and therefore condemn their use regardless of what the supposed target is.Deejay is somewhat correct in that Hezb'Allah is not, in the strictest sense, a terrorist group. A better description is a militia that uses certain terror tactics... although oddly they eschew certain others. Part of it is just PR. Nasrallah is very good at that. But to a degree it is that he is fundamentally opposed to certain tactics unless pressed fairly hard. Sorta the way a nation that feels threatened might resort to such indescriminate acts, but it does not make them a terrorist organization by definition.War at its root is terrorism. It's an attempt to use violence to convince the other party to take some action when other options have failed. The debate on defining it, to me, is rather silly because regardless of the tactics, Israel was attacked and had to respond. The degree to which they should have is debatable, but no nation would ever consider NOT taking action if it were provoked in a similar manner.Deejay is just trying to distract from the larger issue.Derek
Best Of |
Favorites & Replies |
Start a New Board |
My Fool |
BATS data provided in real-time. NYSE, NASDAQ and NYSEMKT data delayed 15 minutes.
Real-Time prices provided by BATS. Market data provided by Interactive Data.
Company fundamental data provided by Morningstar. Earnings Estimates, Analyst Ra