Hi Brad,
Welcome back to the list. It's good to see you again. You always stir up lively threads. However, your mode of argumentation annoys me to no end. Why can't you directly address a question? Or follow a straightforward line of argument?
You took issue with Seth's characterization of Hezbollah as a "legitimate civilian institution." Seth responded, saying it represents a lot of Lebanese citizens, runs candidates for election, etc. In the past Hezbollah had links to terrorism, but it no longer engages in those activities the way it used to. Although it isn't completely out of that messy business, it is now only a minor part of its activities, and even then only because Israel is still occupying Lebanese territory.
Seth brought up Likud as another example of a former terrorist organization which morphed into primarily a political party (although it is still involved in violence against Palestinians). He brought it up because you brand Hezbollah as a terrorist organization, but you will not paint Likud with the same brush. Arial Sharon is a Likud member. That's the link. It's not hard to follow or understand, which leads me to think you are the one being either stupid (which I know you're not) or obtuse.
Brett
>Brad DeLong wrote:
>
>>> I wouldn't call either Hezbollah or the people who launched "Peace
>>> for Galilee" a "legitimate civilian institution"
>>.
>>Are you expecting Bush to order Ariel Sharon's assets frozen any time
soon?
>>
>>Seth
>
>Do you have a point? To the extent that you have any argument at all,
>it appears to be that Hezbollah is a legitimate, civilian,
>non-terrorist operation because Ariel Sharon is a war criminal. That
>just doesn't follow: it's either pure stupidity or something else.