Wording that descibe hezbollah fighters?

video on skynews

watch the first few seconds of the interview. i just want you to see how the sky presenter describes hezbollah fighters. see the way she seems to emphasize the word GUERILLAS.

i am not going on either side but if you describe one sides fighters as guerillas are you trying to paint a picture other than just jungle fighters. i like many others just want an unbiased view by western media.

it is sort of like in america where they did adverts where they put in the word rats with bush's opponants, until they where caught. obviously she is saying it out loud, but are they trying to emphasize that word to associate with the mammel, to make these arab fighters look subhumans.

whats your views on news wordings, and do you guys have any other times where similar things happen on the news.


[edit on 6-8-2006 by andy1033]

Guerillas are small militias that aren't necessarilly attached to any government, usually fighting a group within their own territory. Hezbollah could accurately be described as guerillas, more or less. Of course, guerillas can also be terrorists, so its really all wordplay anyway. A guerilla doesn't have to be fighting in a jungle. Hezbollah could possibly also be called 'commandos' too.

Hezbollah doesn't care if it kills civilians. THey don't appear to target them in quite the same was as, say, Hamas, so we could probably make a disctinction between them.

But it doesn't really matter either way.

Not sure what your hinting at there dude. Theres no Jungle in Lebanon, the spelling of Geurillas is different from the Ape and anyone with half an ornage between there ears knows the meaning of the word.

They're probably trying to emphasise the fact that hezbollah are not terrorists but are in fact Geurilla's..

The word has a French root I believe, which is fitting, seeing as France used to be the colonial power...

what i am hinting at is why not call them soldiers. like after qana bombings the news was saying the kids were hiding, projecting a picture that some how they were associated with hezbollah. wording in news presention in very important.

the israeli's have said that they really are not fighting in a guerilla way. i am saying she was using that wording to paint a picture in your minds, and you associate the wording guerilla with the mammel and not the type of fighting.

they should really just say hezbollah soldiers or fighters.

Er..Not me dude.. When someone talks about Geurilla's in this context, I don't think of large, hairy Apes...

guerilla: a person who engages in irregular warfare especially as a member of an independent unit carrying out harassment and sabotage

No mention of terrorism in there. In fact terrorist is such a subjective term that you wont find news outlets such as the BBC using it. During their reporting of the 7/7 event they deliberately chose the phrase "bombing" instead of "terrorist attack", due to its impartial connotations.

Even Israeli PM Olmert refers to Hezbollah as a "guerilla organisation".

Olmert tells Europe to stop preaching to Israel

Olmert said Hizbollah was being defeated but it was not possible to eradicate a grass-roots guerrilla movement.

"They are beaten but it is not possible to completely destroy they. Israel has nevertheless been more successful than any other country in the battle against a guerrilla organization."

So what are they? Terrorists or guerillas? They cannot be both, one description negates the regular use of the other. They are either a force carrying out sabotage and harassment or they are a group solely focused on creating terror in civilian populations.

[edit on 6/8/06 by subz]

Originally posted by subz
[
So what are they? Terrorists or guerillas? They cannot be both, one description negates the regular use of the other. They are either a force carrying out sabotage and harassment or they are a group solely focused on creating terror in civilian populations.

[edit on 6/8/06 by subz]

I'd call 18 dead in one day and 240 wounded (civilien) Terror in civilien population.
unless your definition of "terror on civilien population" means a cathastrophic Dirty bomb explotion causing The death for a faw thusend people?

in any case it is clear that they don't want seek a cease fire.

Originally posted by Jewish_hammer

I'd call 18 dead in one day and 240 wounded (civilien) Terror in civilien population.

That would make Israel's rampaging of southern Lebanon an act of terror as well. Or does it only apply to Hezbollah?

Originally posted by Jewish_hammer
I'd call 18 dead in one day and 240 wounded (civilien) Terror in civilien population.
unless your definition of "terror on civilien population" means a cathastrophic Dirty bomb explotion causing The death for a faw thusend people?

in any case it is clear that they don't want seek a cease fire.

Weren't those killed IDF soldiers? Sounds a legitimate target to me

so what do people here think they should call hezbollah fighters?

IMHO, guerrillas will do. It's as accurate an unbiased a word to describe them. Or you could call them Hezbollah fighters.

Call a spade a spade. Don't call a spade a sponge.

I'd call 18 dead in one day and 240 wounded (civilien) Terror in civilien population.

And Israels indescriminant shelling of Lebanese cities doesnt meet that description... oh right, cause when you reach the numbers they have, it's referred to as a massacre. Thats not half as bad.

[edit on 6-8-2006 by johnsky]

Originally posted by andy1033
what i am hinting at is why not call them soldiers. like after qana bombings the news was saying the kids were hiding, projecting a picture that some how they were associated with hezbollah. wording in news presention in very important.

the israeli's have said that they really are not fighting in a guerilla way. i am saying she was using that wording to paint a picture in your minds, and you associate the wording guerilla with the mammel and not the type of fighting.

they should really just say hezbollah soldiers or fighters.

They are not called soldiers because they are not backed by a country, they are indeed soldiers though that is a correct term for them as they do everything any other soldier does. They are called terroist in America because of propaganda purposes and for that reason only, in time of war they are infact a guerrillas where as in times of peace and they still kill mainly civilians, then they are terrorist. The term SKY is using is actually right since the region is at war.

And like many have said, you would honestly have to be a complete moron to think of Apes, which I appologize for calling you a moron since you obviously think that way.

One word. Terrorists...though well organized and well funded. Lots of folks like to think they are different than say an Al Queada because they are larger and political.

You want another adjective to describe them? Iran

Perhaps one of the best way to answer the question is to look at Hezbollah's military. Since your discussing military affairs, start with the military leader first. Imad Mugniyah is the current military commander of Hezbollah.


Who is Imad Fayez Mugniyah?

He is the 44 year old believed to be behind the kidnapping of the Israeli soldiers that kicked off these latest "actions" between Lebanon and Israel.

He first came to light in 1976 on Force 17 working as a sniper for PLO leader Yasir Arafat's al-Fatah in the PLO-run Sunni Lebanese camps targeting Christians across the green line.

When the PLO was kicked out of Lebanon in 1982, Mugniyah joined the ranks of Hezbollah and rose quickly. Russia contends that at some point in the 1980’s, he served as one of Yassir Arafat’s body guards. What is noteworthy is that Mugniyah first joined the Sunni PLO faction and only later joined the Islamist Shi’ite Hezbollah.

In 1983, he masterminded the bombing of the U.S. Embassy in Beirut

The first shot fired in Mugniyah's war against the West was fired on April 18, 1983, in Beirut. On that day, a van packed with 2,000 pounds of explosives slammed into the front of the U.S. embassy and exploded with such tremendous force that the front of the building collapsed. The attack killed 63 people, including most of the CIA's Middle East leadership. Within hours of the attack, Islamic Jihad claimed responsibility. A clue concerning the real perpetrators of the suicide bombing was picked up by U.S. intelligence a month later, when it was revealed that a pre-attack cable from the Iranian foreign ministry had been sent to the Iranian embassy in Syria approving funding for a terrorist attack in Beirut.
Ref

and the bombing of the U.S. Marine barracks

On the morning of October 23, most of the 300 Marines stationed in a compound near Beirut's airport were sleeping in their barracks, having been deployed to the country to serve as a stabilization force. Then, at 6:33 am, the driver of a Mercedes truck drove straight through the front gate of the compound, past Marine sentries with unloaded weapons, and smashed into the four story concrete barracks. The driver, who reportedly was smiling, then detonated the explosive, estimated to equal the force of 12,000 pounds of TNT. The effects of the massive truck bombing were horrific, killing 220 Marines and 21 other U.S. service members. Again, Islamic Jihad claimed responsibility.
Ref

as well as the bombing of the U.S. Embassy annex in Beirut in 1984.

The bomb was detonated in a delivery van driven by a suicide bomber, carrying about 400 pounds (181 kg) of explosives. The van, believed stolen from the embassy a year before, gained access to the embassy compound and parked under the portico at the very front of the building, where it exploded. The blast collapsed the front section of the embassy and killed 63 people. Seventeen of these were Americans, and eight of them worked for the Central Intelligence Agency, including the CIA's Near East director Robert Ames. Another one of the Americans was a United States Marine. More than a hundred others were wounded.Ref

For the next decade, Mugniyah took dozens of hostage and murdered others. In 1985, he was the one who planned the hijacking of TWA Flight 847, during this US Navy diver Robert Stetham was tortured, shot in the head and his body dropped from the plane to the pavement. Passengers were held hostage for the next two weeks.

Also in 1985, he was behind both the abduction of four Soviet diplomats and the kidnapping/murder of former CIA Beirut chief William Buckley.

Early on the morning of March 16, 1984, Mr. Buckley left for work at the American embassy in Beirut, Lebanon. Officially, Buckley, a decorated veteran of the Special Forces, served as the political officer at the embassy. In reality, however, Mr. Buckley was the embassy's CIA station chief. On his way to the compound, Buckley's car was stopped by a group of masked men, who forced him from his car at gunpoint. His assailants would later be identified as terrorists from the group Islamic Jihad, which served as an alias for the real perpetrators, Hezbollah. The circumstances surrounding the next 15 months of William Buckley's life remain mysterious to this day. Hints of his plight were provided in disturbing video tapes, in which he appeared worn down and brutalized. It was later revealed that additional tapes were shot showing the CIA station chief being viciously tortured and beaten by Islamic Jihad members. Finally, sometime in October of 1985, Buckley died of pneumonia, no doubt stemming from the lengthy torture sessions. His main interrogator and tormentor was a then-21-year-old Imad Mugniyah.
Ref

I could go on for quite a while about his "military experience". For example, The bombing of the Israeli Embassy in Buenos Aires on March 17, 1992, followed by the bombing of a Jewish community center, in Buenos Aires on July 18, 1994.

Or I could talk about his association with Bin Laden. Or discuss his connections with Iran.< br />
But my point is to provoke another question. If this is the current military commander of Hezbollah, will he command and train the lower Hezbollah ranks to perfom as soldiers, or will he teach them to act as he has been taught?

Soldier or terrorist? Seems clear to me.


[edit on 8/7/06 by makeitso]

Originally posted by stumason
Not sure what your hinting at there dude. Theres no Jungle in Lebanon

I think that that OP was confused because most guerillas of the recent era have been in jungles like vietnam, south america, etc.

The word has a French root I believe,

THe french word for war is 'guerre', a guerre-illa' is a 'little warrior fighting a little war' as in not a full scale war with armies.

subz
So what are they? Terrorists or guerillas? They cannot be both,

Thats absurd. There is nothing in teh definition that precludes acts of terror, and sabotague and harrasment are often associated with terrorism. If we have to choose, then hezbollah can only be called 'terrorists'. I'd rather not have to choose, since its irrelevant. To their victims they are terrorists, to themselves they are gods soldiers. Whats it matter?

so what do people here think they should call hezbollah fighters?

Guerilla seems a nicely neutral word. Some consider them "Freedom fighters", otheres consider them derranged criminal gangs. We could call them a militia, a terrorist organization, even commandos. But terrorist group or Guerillas seems appropriate. At least hezbollah sometimes attacks yehudi military targets, that would make them more of a guerilla group than, say, hamas.

rockpuck
they are indeed soldiers though that is a correct term for them as they do everything any other soldier does

Except, of course, wearing uniforms, having military codes to follow, targeting and fighting agianst other soldiers, etc. But besides that sure, they've got guns and kill people with them.

I think anything but soldiers, of the options discussed, is appropriate.

Wording that descibe hezbollah fighters?

I'm sorry, I'm not allowed to use those words on this forum.

Maybe militants?

en.wikipedia.org...

LOL that could work. Timothy McVeigh was a militant. So in essence Hezbo is just a whole bunch of Timoth McVeighs just with towels and camels. Hmmm. Good description.

Originally posted by princeofpeace
LOL that could work. Timothy McVeigh was a militant. So in essence Hezbo is just a whole bunch of Timoth McVeighs just with towels and camels. Hmmm. Good description.

Towels and camels? Not a bigot at all, are you PoP.

Tell you what, go down to Lebanon and go and see Hezbollah in action. You will be surprised. Or, if you can't get to Lebanon, go tag along with the IDF and see what they are putting up with. The poor sods in the rank and file of the IDF are taking quite a beating from a bunch of guys with "towels and camels".