Talk:Hezbollah/Archive terrorist allegations

message: In the current section on allegations of terrorism, the following allegations are listed in that paragraph:
1)kidnapped and tortured to death... U.S. Marine Colonel William R. Higgins and the CIA Station Chief in Beirut, William Francis Buckley
2) kidnapped around 30 other Westerners between 1982 and 1992, including the American journalist Terry Anderson, British journalist John McCarthy, the Archbishop of Canterbury's special envoy Terry Waite and Irish citizen Brian Keenan.
3) responsible for the April 1983 bombing of the U.S. Embassy in Beirut that killed 63
4) being behind the 1983 Beirut barracks bombing
5) a suicide truck bombing that killed 241 U.S. Marines
6) bombing the replacement U.S. Embassy in East Beirut
7) killing 20 Lebanese and two American soldiers
8) carrying out the 1985 hijacking of TWA Flight 847
Of these eight incidents, numbers 1, 4, 5, and 7 are categorically not terrorist acts, even if the accusations are true.  They are strikes against legitimate military targets. Number 1 is a violation of various standards of treatment of military prisoners, but it isn't terrorism per se.
Numbers 3 and 6 might be terrorism, depending on whether one considers an embassy to be a legitimate military or strategic target in wartime. In any case, they aren't attacks aimed at purely civilian targets in order to solicit terror among the populace for political purposes (terrorism).
Number 2 is probably terrorism, unless there was some strategic reason why these particular figures had a military strategic value. I don't know the specifics of that situation.
Number 8 definitely appears to be terrorism.
All in all, Hezbollah seems to be more of a resistance movement aiming at militarily significant targets, than a group like Hamas or Al Queda, which seeks to attack civilians in public places for terror purposes.  However, they might dabble in terrorism from time to time and this would make them terrorists. I really can't tell by reading this article.  In any case, two things are clear: (1) all military operations will often involve the deaths of civilians, but only the intentional targeting of civilians makes an act terrorism, and (2) "terrorism" doesn't simply mean any small militia whose cause is unpopular.  It has an objective meaning.--Daniel 01:03, 17 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't care if the allegations are true or not, that's not my point. My point is that several of those listed aren't terrorist acts, so it makes no difference as to the subject of "allegations of terrorism" and doesn't belong under that section.--Daniel 12:24, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

text: Perhaps you've been away from news sources for the past few days, but just open your TV to CNN , and you'll hear that for the past 4 days Hezbollah has been firing rockets at Israeli towns - in other words, "the intentional targeting of civilians" - per your own definition  of terrorism. I don;t see what problem you;d have with Hezbollah being labeled a "terrorist organization". Isarig 01:39, 17 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  Why would you think I have any "problem" with Hezbollah being labeled anything? If you read all of my comment above, you'll see that 1 or 2 of the points I listed, I say they are terrorist acts. But what they are or aren't isn't even the point.  The point is that this is a section called "allegations of terrorism" and most of the points within it aren't terrorism, and therefore are out of place in that section.  It would be like having a section on cooking called "making pastries" and then listing instructions for making a steak, a salad, a lasagna, and doughnuts.  Only one of those is a "pastry". The rest should be in another section. And, by the way, the recent rocket attacks SHOULD be listed in this section. --Daniel 12:24, 17 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree with Daniel.  His claim is entirely one of precision in using words.   --66.227.111.238 14:41, 18 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Current section "Allegations of... terrorism"

message: After several reverts and counter-reverts regarding whether the article should be linked to the Islamic terrorist organizations category, I suggest we discuss this instead of changing the article all the time. I'm restoring the link. Clearly, Hezbollah is generally considered a terrorist organization. Though personally I don't consider them as such, I think the category link would be helpful for most users. It is a mere link, and the article discusses this controversy thoroughly, so if you wish to enlighten us with new ideas on the subject, that section in the article would be the right place to put them. Almost any category would have someone disputing their applicability, the purpose of defining categories is to help users by (crudely) generalizing. - doron
Generally considered?  I dispute that strongly.  This illustrates a fundamental weakness of categories: they are inappropriate in instances such as these, where the category is disputed.  What is clear is that the current page offers no good reason to classify them as such. - Mustafaa 10:47, 8 Nov 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: Just to add something re Hezbollah being a terrorist group. It's also considered such by the EU. Just FYI. --Penta 04:24, 13 Dec 2004 (UTC)
replies: text:  It is officially recognized as a TO in many countries, but we don't include it in that category. Why don't we reflect the facts (it is in the list), simply because some don't like them? The fact they run hospitals is irrelevant: Hitler and Pol Pot also ran hospitals. ←Humus sapiens←Talk 08:23, 16 Mar 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  category:Islamic terrorist organizations 

message: Most of the world doesn't. I'm changing that to "Some consider it to be a terrorist organisation". --82.183.224.40 15:51, 25 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  "Many consider it to be a terrorist organisation" 

message: The EU Council designates Imad Mugniyah as a terrorist, claiming he is Hezbollah's "Senior Intelligence Officer".[182] [183] [184][185][186]
This is backed by 5 references. Do we really need that? Can we pick one good un' and remove the rest? Mceder 01:32, 27 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Rather than removing references, if there are two many footnotes you can combine many citations into one footnote. This is probably a better idea, for future reference. Palmiro | Talk 00:21, 30 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Designation as terror-ist section, silly # of ref?