Jul 14, 2006

On Hezbollah and Hamas as "Terrorists"

Left: Young Hezbollah members on parade

(Toledo, OH) I have been intrigued in an academic sense as I study the language used by the US media to describe the participants in the current Israel-Gaza-Lebanon crisis that threatens to descend into a wider regional (world?) war.

Let me first state a caveat to newcomers who might assume I am an adgerent of one particular philosophy or another: my overriding political philosophy begins with the dignity of human existence, and how human societies might best work to produce peaceful coexistence with each other in a world of scarcity.

Bill O'Reilly on FOX News last night referred to Hezbollah as "terrorists," which is in keeping with official US policy. The State Department names Hezbollah as an active terrorist group on its Report on Foreign Terrorist Organizations, thus O'Reilly at least can point to an authoritative (although biased) source for his use of the term.

But what, exactly, is a terrorist? If one defines terrorism in the manner of the Connecticut Law Review - "a strategy of using violence, or threat of violence to generate fear, cause disruption, and ultimately, to bring about compliance with specific political, religious, ideological, or personal demands" - we would then have to categorize the Israelis, Hamas, AND Hezbollah of being "terrorists," as all are engaging in "terrorist" acts at the moment. People also make the argument that, by extension, the United States is a "terrorist" state with its actions in Iraq.

If we assume that terrorists are small groups of violent zealots who use extralegal means beyond the existing political system to bring about change, then then this definition does not adequately describe Hamas and Hezbollah, both of whom also participate in the political process.

When a group such as Hamas wins a popular election, while maintaining a military component, it seems to me that it is more than a mere "terrorist" group. True, factions within the group may employ violent tactics to bring about their goals, but groups such as Hamas and Hezbollah have evolved into a different category of organization.

To use a term such as "national resistance force" is also misleading, because wings of both Hezbollah and Hamas operate hospitals, news services, and educational facilities. They provide needed social services that the existing governmental structures cannot deliver.

I think that this rhetorical issue goes beyond the "one man's terrorist is another man's freedom fighter" argument, as both Hamas and Hezbollah have evolved into something...else. Not quite states, too violent to be "legitimate" political forces (setting aside the obvious analogy with the American Revolution), but yet Hamas and Hezbollah do not neatly fit into the category of "terrorist" organizations.

What would YOU call Hezbollah and Hamas?


Anonymous said...

Uh - bloodthirsty killers. End of story, you ivory tower weenie.

historymike said...

Ah, the lovely drive-by comments of a Sean Hannity fan.

Do you ever think for yourself, or do you just parrot what you hear on talk radio?

Borg said...

Ah, Brooks, I can see you do not appreciate the distinction between "terrorism"--which implies acts along the lies of blowing up children on the playground, packing C4 with rusty nails and killing dozens of people on the city bus, hijacking a commercial airliner and driving it into a skyscraper, and firing rockets into small towns for no particular reason save for giving rise to anxiety and fear--and legitimate military manuevers and offensives.

Having grown up on military bases both here and abroad, I can assure you the Israelis are simply acting in the interests of their own self-defense, and are doing it in an admirable, and legitimate way. Now, if they had simply infiltrated various towns in Pali-land, and massacred a few hundred children (like the massacre of the 300+ Russian schoolchildren by Islamic terrorists), then I would concede that, perhaps, they were engaging in overtly criminal acts.

Nolw, the real question is: Do YOU ever think for YOURSELF? For, it seems as if you simply ape the latest "talking points" of various anti-war/anti-Semitic/anti-American/anti-Israeli totalitarian radicals, and give us the soft-soaped, Air America version on your humble blog.

I have no idea why it is important for us to be discussing this, and God knows there are a few thousand more out there like you, but here I am, and here you are, and oh well.

Imagine, if you will a, startling reversal of roles: say, what if 500 million JEWS threatened 5 million ARABS, instead of the other way around? Would you be so quick to cast aspersions on a tiny Arab oasis set in the middle of so much Jewish territory? I think not. You would stand ideologically with the tiny minority set like a few drops of salt in the midst of such an overwhelming pepper pot.

One thing I have noticed about the extreme, ideological Left, is their inability to foment cogent arguments based on a few simple principles and a few logical facts and conclusions. Or, to put it another way, "the empty can rattles the most".

So, instead of simply inveighing against Israel and lending your intellectual support to her terrorist allies, you might , instead, try to offer some alternative, or possible solution to the long-standing conflict. Or, at the very least, suggest ways that the tiny nation, so besieged by beheaders and mad bombers, could "increase the peace" while, at the same time, maintaining the security and safety of it's citizenry.

There's alot more I want to say, but I don't have the time right now.


Anchorage Activist said...

What would a typical blogger's day be like without at least one drive-by "troll"? I have a regular in Alaska who performs the same function. Better than having "bridge trolls", I suppose. ;-D

In answer to your question, I suggest Hamas and Hezbollah can be best described as "hybrids". This is an example of the Marxist analysis of how thesis, confronted by antithesis, breeds synthesis. These orgs appear to have synthesized two separate tactical streams into one overall strategy.

To better define this phenomena, I suggest looking back at the Irish Republican Army. They had their political wing, Sinn Fein, represented by Gerry Adams, which was the political front. However, they also had the "provos", who did the "wet" work. However, their "provos" had higher standards. They considered only policy-makers (government officials), policy-enforcers (police and military), and informers to be combatants. Consequently, when they'd plant a bomb, they'd telephone the local constabulary and provide some advance warning to minimize "non-combatant" casualties. Their most memorable operation, the bombing of a Brighton hotel, was spawned by a conference of government officals held there. If I recall correctly, Margaret Thatcher herself just barely escaped injury.

In contrast, Hamas and Hezbollah not only give no advance warning, but are willing to deploy suicide bombers right in the midst of the civilian population itself. I'm sure they'd prefer to take out policy-makers and policy-enforcers, but, unlike the IRA, they're not really concerned if they take out non-combatants.

BTW, thanks for visiting my blog and for linking to it. I view it as a vote of confidence. Alaska Pride can indeed by "thought-provoking" at times. :-D

Anchorage Activist said...

Borg - I think you're missing the point here.

There once was a "wall of separation" between organizations using legal tactics and those using illegal tactics.

What Mike appears to be discussing is the growing phenomenom of organizations who use both tactics simultaneously. This represents a unique synthesis. The North Vietnamese used that against us in Vietnam with their "Talk, Talk, Fight. Fight", in which talking was not used to solve problems but to provide moral justification in their minds for continuing to fight. This allowed sufficient time for the antiwar movement to grow strong enough to hijack the debate over the Vietnam War. When Walter Cronkite pronounced the cause "lost", we were politically doomed from then on, until Congress plunged the knife into the back of South Vietnam in 1975.

Organizations which both "talk" and "fight" simultaneously are more difficult to deal with, because the breach of the aforementioned "wall of separation" makes the morality murky. Because Hamas, Hezbollah, and the IRA engage in political action as well as terrorism, when we take measures against them, they can cry "persecution" and score propaganda points. That's what complicates the issue.

Dariush said...

I like Anchorage Activist's post above. I'll make my post short.

Hezbollah and (now to a much lesser extent) Hamas are 4th Generation entities. 4th Generation (a term coined by either William S. Lind or Martin Van Creveld, I forget which) is a term used to describe non-state entities which function as armies, promote and provide for social services, and maintain social order and cohesion in communities where ties of blood and faith matter more than flags and imaginary lines in sands. With state power in decline the world over, such entities (and such real, organic bonds which supersede that of the nation-state) matter more and more.

We see this in a smaller scale in the U.S. with street gangs (formed based on ties of race, language, religion, ethnicity, neighborhood, etc.) who control drug trades in their neighborhoods (economy), provide social services (such as organized sporting events, dinners, even vaccination drives), engage in urban guerrilla warfare against state forces (see this report from the Army War College)

Hamas, however, has opted for the shiny brass ring of state power, and is now paying for it. William Lind puts it best:

"There is, however, another way out for Hamas. It can call and raise Washington's and Tel Aviv's bets. How? By voting to dissolve the Palestinian Authority. Ending the PA would dump the Palestinian territories and their inhabitants right back in Israel's lap. Under international law, as the occupying power, Israel would be responsible for everything in the territories: security, human services, utilities and infrastructure, the economy, the whole megillah (oy!). Israel could try to restore the PA in cooperation with Fatah, but if Fatah joined Israel in doing so, it would destroy what legitimacy it has left. Hamas could meanwhile return to a 4GW war against Israel, unencumbered with the dubious assets of a state, and with lots more targets as Israel attempted to run the Palestinian territories itself.

"Hamas faces what may be a defining moment, not only for itself but for Fourth Generation entities elsewhere. Does it want the trappings of a state so much that it will render itself targetable as a state, or can it see through the glitter of being 'cabinet ministers' and the like and go instead for substance by retaining non-state status? To be or not to be a state, that is the question – for Hamas and soon enough for other 4GW entities as well."

M A F said...

Technology determines those that the media label as 'terrorist.'

Nations that use technology such as F-16's to drop bombs to maim and kill civilians are never referred to as 'terrorists' or having committed acts of terrorism.

Those lacking the comparable technology of their enemy are terrorists.

Berserker said...
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
Berserker said...

Point taken, Michael.

However, information is a weapon of war. "All's fair in love and war..."

In the movie Gettysburg, Armistead makes some observation about the "Cause." Longstreet says, "I don't think on the Cause." This war is a nightmare. You just pick your nightmare side, put your head down and win."

We need more Longstreets and less observations of the obvious use of the language needed to win the conflict.

historymike said...

Anchorage Activist and Dariush understood the purpose of my meandering post - I am not "protesting" the labeling of these groups as terrorists, but rather examining the issue of large organizations that seem to be evolving into state-like entities.

The debate about who is "right" or "wrong" is a seperate issue.

Borg said...

Dee, I have a hot date tonight with three large, aggressive, tattooed women that like to boogie, so I will have to get back with you tomorrow on why you're still wrong about everything.

Until then, this guy's rant is heelarious.

Borg said...


"...And all of this talk about Israel targeting civillians really pisses me off. Let me clear it up for you once and for all: Hamas and Hezbollah don't have military bases: they plan, operate and attack from homes, where their families are. The Israelis, in order to retaliate, they have to attack those homes, which always lead to those women and children, who live in those houses, to die. If Hamas and Hezbollah don;t want civillians to die, don;t fuckin plan your attacks or launch your attacks near civillians. But you know they do this on purpose, so it would look bad on the Israeli if they attacked. Dude, they called the airport 1 hour before they hit it to have it evacuated, they warned all of southern Beirut yesterday to take cover because they don't want to kill them. Not hezbollah. Hezbollah doesn't give a shit who their missiles hit. And somehow, they remain blameless in the arab mind: after all, they are not jews. Listen, you can not talk shit about how you will beat and destory Israel, and then scream "Humanatarian crisis" when they hit you back. Either suffer the consequences of your actions or SHUT THE FUCK UP. I am sick and tired of your fuckin POSING!"


My sentiments exactly.

Borg said...

Oops, I effed that last hyperlink ALL UP. Here we go:


a psychiatrist who learned from veterans said...

"I am an adgerent of one particular philosophy or another: my overriding political philosophy begins with the dignity of human existence, and how human societies might best work to produce peaceful coexistence with each other in a world of scarcity."

Dear HistoryMike. Sometimes one sees a person who is angry at you and, though some intellctualization can be found as a reason, really their mind is set to deny the other empathy. This anger can be disturbing and one might think that anger might cease if the other (the target) ceased to exist, and you, being uncomfortable with the anger and seeing it as arising from 'scarcity,' might see, that, as a solution, the other might go away. The anger of the terrorist, who joys in the death and fright of the other, in this case the Jew, even the small child in front of his father, will not go away nor will his behavior change by that accomodation. As the note on school paper, seen on a glass front of a shop across the street from the Twin Towers said, 'We gave peace a chance.' This is not to say that we don't seek peace but it does I think refer to taking the counter position to that noted above.

Bryan said...

I'm not gonna wax expansive on this topic because I don't need to.

At least not when Hezbollah says shit like this: "We are not fighting so that you may offer us something. We are fighting to eliminate you."

Hezbollah/Hamas/Al-Qaida/Palestine/Islamic Jihad/Boola Boola/Mulla Mulla are all one in the same. They're not a political group. They're nothing but a bunch of cro-magnon savages united only under the common thread of nihilism. (Allah ahkbar!)

If any of you still can't get that, read the above quote from the Hezbollah leader - over and over with 9/11 footage in the background montaged with sound and video of decapitations, black hooded savages standing in front of cameras while holding severed heads.

Dariush said...

Avitar: "If any of you still can't get that, read the above quote from the Hezbollah leader - over and over with 9/11 footage in the background montaged with sound and video of decapitations, black hooded savages standing in front of cameras while holding severed heads."

Yup. Nothing spells out the virtues of civilization over the backwardness of "cro-magnon savages" like bombing families with twelve children while they sleep, "body parts hung from olive trees", and dead babies "sliced into three."

Dobson, Falwell and Robertson have certainly broken out the champagne by now. All that's needed is for someone to trot out the red calf...

Great discussion over on Steve Clemons' blog.

Also the Vatican has condemned Israel's attacks on Lebanon.
I guess that means the authors of the Left Behind series were right after all; the Catholic Church really is the whore of the New World Order. :)

And this commentary by former CIA analyst Ray Close is one of the best that I've found. Cogent and right to the point:

In the present situation, I have another grievance to express. The interests of my country, the United States, do not coincide with those of Israel in many important respects today. Let me mention just two of those ways. It is very important to the United States that the independence and national sovereignty of a democratic Lebanon be preserved. That means absolutely nothing to the Government of Israel, despite what they may say to the contrary. Israeli actions going back many years, demonstrated most graphically in the 1980's, clearly prove that point. Current Israeli actions in Lebanon are belligerently challenging the continued viability of the fragile coalition government that is struggling to achieve credibility and legitimacy at a critical period in Lebanon's history. Israeli actions are, even more importantly, threatening to revive the deep sectarian divisions and inter-communal tensions that led to fifteen years of tragic civil war from 1975-1980. American national interests will suffer much more than Israel's if chaos results. Secondly, we Americans have other critical interests to worry about. If we take a position supporting Israel's demand that Hizballah must be totally defeated and disarmed (a futile objective in any case), and especially if Sheikh Hassan Nasrallah, the revered spiritual leader of Hizballah, is physically harmed, the Shiite populations of Iraq and elsewhere in the Middle East will be inflamed --- greatly undermining American prospects of working cooperatively and constructively with the Shiite religious parties in Iraq that control the overwhelmingly majority of political power in that country.

Open confrontation of Hizballah by the United States, allied with Israel, will have a powerful impact on the Iranian people, as well. Argue, if you will, that Iran is a known supporter of Hizballah and Hamas, and thus of international terrorism. That is a reality that none can deny. But let's prioritize our national interests here. It is the people of Iraq and Iran on whom we depend not just for "regime change" in the short term, but for peace and stability (and resistance to terrorism) throughout the region in the decades ahead. It is the people of those countries whose trust and respect we must win. It is the trust and respect of those people that we have lost --- to a significant extent because we are identified in their minds with the narrow interests of Israel. Why is that so difficult for Americans to understand?

Encouraging and supporting Israel in a bloody confrontation with Hizballah in Lebanon may seem to be a justified and reasonable action in the shortest of terms and from the narrowest of perspectives, but the United States of America is not Israel, and we have regional and global interests and responsibilities that far surpass those of this one small ally. Just for once, let's think first of what's best for America.

What's best for America is not being pushed into the "World War Four" that the Podhoretzim are so determined to start.

Lots of intelligent posts from "treasonous" Americans in the comments section there as well.

historymike said...

A Psychiatrist:

I absolutely LOVE your attempt to suggest I am an anti-Semite! Just wait until I share your comments with my Jewish friends - what a hoot!

Dear Sir: It is, indeed, possible to speak out against Israeli military excesses without being anti-Semitic, but it was a nice, sneaky try on your part anyways.

Besides, you obviously read about nine words of my post. I am concerned here with a question of how to describe groups like Hamas and Hezbollah that have evolved beyond the inadequate (and polemic) word of "terrorist."

If you wish to continue a civil conversation about political rhetoric, please READ the post before continuing. I you wish to merely post pro-Israeli comments about "bad" Arabs and "good" Israelis, seek another forum.

Bryan said...

Let's call them Persian Nihilists then. They're all one in the same.

Kate said...

Yikes. All this aside, and yes there are hundreds of years of fighting and who was where first.

Jut looking at the most recent events. I do not understand. The Israeli's pulled out of contested area last year. Gave it back to Palestine. Then Sharon has a stroke. Hezbollah is obviously active in Lebanon - but I don't think anyone thinks that the Lebanese have them under control - more like Syria and Iran...

So Hezbollah started border runs into Isreal and took soldiers. Why?

They have the land that they wanted - why would they do this? I'm not getting it. Anybody who has studied any history, just the last fifty years would have to say that the Isreali army is not to be screwed with. If somebody was coming into Toledo and snagging soldiers I'd be pissed and see it as an antagonistic thing to do.

Does anybody know why they baited with the border runs? I just don't get that. It'd be like a very small human walking up to the biggest lion on the planet and kicking it in the nuts. And then stand there and watch what happens?

Dariush said...

Kate: "It'd be like a very small human walking up to the biggest lion on the planet and kicking it in the nuts. And then stand there and watch what happens?"

Not to make too big a deal of this, but I wanted to congratulate you on this statement, Kate.

For most Israeli cheerleaders and sycophants admitting that Israel is, in fact, the biggest baddest gang in the neighbourhood, and not the meek little defenseless lamb who's always in mortal danger is just not done. Even though it's a very basic, simple and obvious fact, it also tends to negate a large part of the central, dominant narrative of Israeli victimology.

It's nice to see someone who doesn't necessarily have a dog in the fight just casually state the obvious.

Kate: "So Hezbollah started border runs into Isreal and took soldiers. Why?"

Here's the lead paragraphs from an editorial in Lebanon's Daily Star, July 13 edition:

Whatever can be said about Hizbullah, one cannot deny that the party's leaders are true to their word. During a prisoner exchange between Hizbullah and Israel in 2004, Sayyed Hassan Nasrallah vowed that if all Lebanese detainees were not freed from Israeli jails, Hizbullah would eventually abduct more Israeli soldiers. Fulfilling this pledge, Hizbullah on Wednesday captured two Israeli soldiers in an operation dubbed "Truthful Promise."

During a news conference on Wednesday, Nasrallah made another vow: that "no military operation will return" the two soldiers, and that only another prisoner swap will secure their freedom. Only a fool would doubt that Nasrallah now means what he says. The Israelis must therefore carefully weigh two difficult questions. Is it really worth it for them to continue keeping three Lebanese prisoners in jail? And is the mere chance of saving two soldiers really worth spilling more Israeli blood in another deadly military adventure in Lebanon?

Nasrallah initially tried to secure the release of Lebanese prisoners through a second phase of prisoner-exchange negotiations, but these high-profile talks abruptly fell apart. This begs the question of whether the current crisis could have been avoided, had these negotiations been carried out to the very end.

As far as why now? I suspect that it has to do with the great anger and rage that the vast majority of people in the Arab world feel at the death and destruction being heaped on Gaza.

Another reason, that hadn't occurred to me, is provided by the indispensable Laura Rozen (who always seems to have the inside score on matters of foreign policy):

A source who runs a Beirut-based dialogue with groups including Hezbollah says that the timing of the abduction yesterday was not planned in advance, but was more a target of opportunity. "It is not as if they chose today to do it," emailed Mark Perry, of Conflicts Forum. "Hezballah continually monitors the Israeli border to determine Israeli vulnerabilities. This morning, Israel's guard was down, and Hezballah moved. Why this morning? It would be better to ask Israel. The internal Israeli debate on this is not about Hezballah, but why was it that this morning, of all mornings, they screwed up. It is just the way it turned out... If it had been the case four weeks ago, they would have done it four weeks ago."

Borg said...

Excuse me Dee, but there was a Jewish Kingdom in Palestine before Muhammed was even a twinkle in Allah's eye.

As for the vast death and destruction being heaped on Gaza, could it not be stated, baldly, that a vast portion of that was a result of the incessant rocket attacks being fired into Sderot and other Israeli towns?

Also, your highly deceptive and slanted posts are, as I am finding, often simple regurgitations of articles that were not meant to be taken as anything more than farcical in the first case. In example, that whole Bobby Singleton thing that you posted originally appeared as a satire on Rense.com, where it must have been sandwiched between several articles of Holocaust Denial, and some conspiracy flapdoodle about reptillian shape-shifting Freemasons out to subjugate the planet via the World Bank, International Monetary Fund, and the UFO bases hidden beaneath the Denver Airport.

Also, your revisionist history of the 1967 "Six Day War" is highly suspect, as I cannot verify that the quotes from the individuals in question actually originated from them, and not the nefarious poision pen of a pernicious propagandist, such as yourself.

At any rate, after checking out the reviews of Mr. Green's book I was astounded that , not only was the book cover not clearly visible on the page, but that this august work only sported THREE legitimate reviews.

Odd, considering the book was published in 1984, is it not?

Basically anyone can write and publish anything they damn well want. Doesn't make it legitimate.

Am I to believe the revisions of Zundel and Irving, simply because those revisions are printed between the pages of a paperback?

Secondly, Brooks, I take issue with you taking issue with "Psychiatric guy" taking issue with your essay. I do not find anything in his post that suggests he was suggesting you were suggesting that you were, in fact , an anti-Semite.

But, Mr. Brooks, what are people to think when you link to blogs like Alaska Pride, a blatant, racist WN blog, and then turn around and deny being a racist? I find this to be an interesting, puzzling contradiction of your so-called "progressive" values.

Well, maybe not...

Also, lay off of Avitar. I like that boy. Doggone it, that Avitar is good people. Avitar, you got my vote, bubba.

Anyhoo, gotta run now. Be sure to lay into me thick and heavy.

I like the abuse...(SMOOCH!)

historymike said...


It initially seemed to me that "psychiatrist" was directing his comments at me; perhaps he was speaking hypothetically.

As far as Alaska Pride: while he espouses some WN views on his blog, he also is well-read and a thoughtful writer. When he visits my site he conducts himself with civility.

I try to link to sites that offer reasoned discourse.

As far as being perceived "racist" because I link to his site, I do not live my life trying to behave and think in easily-defined ways, like "liberal," or "progressive." I am as likely to put forth a view that could be labeled "conservative" as I am to discuss "socialist" philosophies.

Readers should also note that I link to a dozen times as many "anti-racist" sites as I do to "racist" sites, so my bias should be evident.

Finally, I learn from people even with whom I may strongly disagree. As long as visitors engage in civil discourse, I welcome people of all political persuasions.

Dariush said...

Hey EB, lay off of Anchorage Activist. I like that boy. Doggone it, that AA is good people. AA, you got my vote, bubba.

a psychiatrist who learned from veterans said...

I really wasn't thinking of you as antsemitic. It would be interesting if you would share my post with your Jewish friends.

Hooda Thunkit said...

”What would YOU call Hezbollah and Hamas?”

I’d call them State condoned (if not outright sponsored) terrorist organizations.

My reasoning:
They operate with no active resistance/dissent from the State.

They use the tactics of terrorists.

Anything else, IMO, is a denial of reality.

historymike said...

I am curious, though, about groups like this (or FARC in Colombia) that grow so powerful as to become state-like.

It is easy for an Ehud Olmert to criticize Lebanon for "permitting" Hezbollah to operate, but the fact remains that the Lebanese civil government does not have the ability to take on Hezbollah.

The analogy that keeps coming to mind is the Mafia in the United States during Prohibition, but even La Cosa Nostra pales in comparison with the power and support that a Hezbollah, Hamas, or FARC can claim.

Don said...

"Uh - bloodthirsty killers. End of story, you ivory tower weenie."

"I have no idea why it is important for us to be discussing this".

"Let's call them Persian Nihilists then. They're all one in the same."

"They're nothing but a bunch of cro-magnon savages united only under the common thread of nihilism."

Unfortunately, comments like these are all too common in our political discourse. It's a pernicious new form of political correctness, where the only acceptable way to discuss extremist groups is superficial name-calling. Any efforts to scratch beneath the surface are immediately disparaged as treason on terrorist apologetics.

While referring to violent extremists as "cro-magnons" or "bloodthirsty killers" may feel good, it really adds nothing to the policy-formation process. In this post, Mike is clearly NOT engaged in terrorist apologetics, but rather the dual disciplines of history and political science. If Hamas and Hezbollah are a new breed of political creature, perhaps some analysis that goes beyond mere name-calling may be helpful in crafting better policies to deal with them effectively.

As Condi Rice has said so many times, different extremist threats call for different types of responses. I think we can engage in an analysis of what makes terrorist groups tick without sympathizing with their means and ends.

Kate said...

at least there is a tantalizing promise of some info in here.

The Israeli soldiers were taken in retaliation. That seems accurate on research.

However - now the question is who do the Isreali's have locked up that Hezbollah wants back?

Will do more research. And yes - these are obviously state sponsored organizations, the Iranian missile was a testament to that.

Also the French missiles found in Iraq's arsenal when the US troops went in. Date stamped in 2004.

The arms market is a huge industry. Maybe some remember the French response to the idea of invading Iraq. So - we have alot of strange bedfellows when arms are being dealt.

Kate said...

oops, my apology. Date stamped 2000. :-)

That would have been some trick, no?