www.leninology. blogspot.com wrote:
> Brian Atinsky wrote:
>
>> I am interested in your definition of terrorism. Do you have some sort
>> of objective definition or is it like the definition of a weed: a plant
>> you don't like?
>
> Good point, and your answer is the closest to a proper definition I've
> ever found.
Well then, that is all very nice and circular. Hezbollah has definitely not done a terrorist attack, because you support their actions and define it as such. Fine.
> But I must mean something by it, so I suppose I
> mean it in the sense that Hezbollah has not conducted attacks on
> civilians in Israel until this war,
That is patently false. Are you telling me this is the first time they have shot Katyushas at civilian targets in Israel? C'mon man, this is embarrassing. I seem to remember driving up north near Kiryat Shmona a few years ago when Katyushas started hitting the city, and had to divert my route, but I guess I dreamt it, because they have never done it before because you said so. And all the other news reports over the years, figments of my imagination? Granted they were often sent in retaliation for Israeli attacks in Lebanon, but we are talking about a long history of targeting civilians.
> and even here it has responded to
> Israel's attacks on Lebanese civilians and could be said to be engaging
> in a military rather than terrorist strategy (hence the sinking of a
> warship).
Wait, I want to get this straight...because Israel is extensively targeting civilian infrastructure and populations (aka, committing acts of terror or whatever you choose to call it or not) and Hezbollah hit a military target such as the Israeli Navy gunboat, then this means that when Hezbollah targets Israeli cities in the north, they are military targets and not civilian targets?