how many countries has iran attacked

Israel certainly engages in terror, but it is not a terrorist state. Terrorism is inherently a transnational phrase, meaning it exists outside the confines of statehood. A group such as Hezbollah aptly fits the term 'terrorist organization' because it engages in the use of violence against governments and societies for the specific of promoting fear, often for ideological ends.

 

Only to Israel and Zionist occupied US.

To eveyone else, they are a legit resistance force.

 

We can consider any group or organization, informal or formal, in the international system agents of terrorism if they fit the definition I outline, in accordance with a thorough analysis of the moral and theoretical nature of the act.

Furthermore, there are eight countries that deem Hezbollah a terrorist group, including Bahrain and Egypt.

 

where did you outline a definition ? also 8 countries out of what about 240 thats not very many is it ?

 

The definition of terrorism is outlined in Post #51. Of course that is a simplified definition. International relations scholars are still coming to terms with a working definition of terrorism.

 

thats a very loose definition, and it could easily be argued hezbollah do not engage in violence to inspire fear, they are trying to achieve political goals, so that is not a terrorist then is it ? nelson mandela was called a terrorist too, he was striving for political goals he wasnt a terrorist either, some might call him a freedom fighter.

 

I have a degree in international relations btw so am aware of the issue, but hezbollah are primarily a political organisation, they havent really mounted any attacks in 10 years, they coordinated the defence of lebanon when israel attacked in 2006 but in terms of attacking within israels borders its not really possible now, hamas havent done that for years either, the security is far too tight, now you get random gun attacks when the opportunity arises but very few acts of terrorism within israel since about 2004.

 

obviously someone will post some attacks there have been but the point stands, its vastly reduced, there was a spate of bus bombings during the second intifada ending around about 03-04, there has been relatively little since, this is the calmest period in israels history for its citizens, cause they have won the security war, hamas and hezbollah cant really touch israeli citizens within israel now, or not nearly as often as used to happen anyway. and hezbollah do an awful lot of fantastic work with poor people and children and stuff, they are not all bad.

 

The promotion of fear in terrorism is primarily due to the reaction of those who directly or indirectly witness it. The motives and objectives of terrorist organizations can be political, economic, or social in nature. I broadly define these as ideological ends. As I said in previous posts, there is more to defining terrorism and terrorist organizations, and there is still contentious debate over a singular working definition for both.

Furthermore, I am currently majoring in international relations. It is true that Hezbollah's attacks are decreasing, as are those of Hamas, particularly due to isolation of the latter from the rest of Palestinian society. Nevertheless, both organization still coordinate attacks every now and then.

 

you did, but you also said that was the motivation for their acts of violence when its clearly not. that may be the effect of some of them but not the intent. and as you say its a matter of opinion whether that makes them terrorists or not, to america and israel it does, to the muslim world it doesnt. legal definitions are subjective with something like that anyway.


also terrorists groups very rarely, ie never, have economic goals, or really social ones, its always political, otherwise its just crime, the political element is what elevates it above the status of normal crimes.

 

like the mafia have economic goals, the kkk have social ones, neither are terrorists, terrorists have to have political aims to be called terrorists in the first place. though in america they have been trying to loosen that definition to give them greater powers to fight crime but it still doesnt change what a terrorist actually is.

 

Terrorist need not always have political aims. Broadly speaking, they only need to pursue ideological ones, whether they be political, economic, or social. I admit political objectives are far more prevalent than economic or social aims, but the latter two, especially social aims, still exist, mainly because they are often linked to political aims.

 

I think the OP is trying to say that Israel is more of a threat to peace than Iran is. I also don't understand how that's so hard to understand, he laid the case out pretty clearly whether you agree with it or not...