I wrote:
>>Seth brought up Likud as another example of a former terrorist
>>organization
>>which morphed into primarily a political party.
Brad responded: -"Peace for Galilee" was an unjust, aggressive war. The massacres in -the Palestinian refugee camps were war crimes. Likud has a war -criminal at its head, and I would not consider it an example of a -"former terrorist organization which morphed into a political party."
Nathan added:
>I think Seth was going farther back in time, since the Likud is a lineal
>product of the pre-Israel terrorist groups the Irgun (Begin) and the Stern
>Gang (Shamir), which were terrorist groups by most definitions.
Exactly.
In my earlier post, I was merely outlining Seth's argument and stating that it isn't difficult to follow. I'm not an expert on Middle East politics and history, and I'm not making any claims of my own. I was following this thread with some interest because I was learning something, at least from Seth's posts. Besides, Seth is perfectly capable of defending his position.
If you want to argue that Hezbollah is not a legitimate organization, you should provide some sort of argument as to why that's the case, rather than simple assertion, which is all you have provided so far. At least Seth has outlined why he considers Hezbollah to be a "legitimate civilian institution." All you've done is ridicule his argumentation (which has been perfectly reasonable, even if possibly incorrect) and assert that he's wrong. Which is what annoys me to no end, coming from someone with your intelligence.
Brett