EU: Situation Too Sensitive To Call Hezbollah Terrorists

YEESH! I know their ridiculous logic for this. Hezbollah has had years to become a political party, and now cannot be called a terrorist group. Kind of like how Sinn Fein had to have a different name than the IRA, except Hezbollah doesn't have to change it's name. My comparison would be closer to the rise of the Nazi party, because Hezbollah's main reason for being is the same: to kill all the Jews, and all other infidels.

The UN wouldn't have the cojones to face down Hitler, today. Ahmedinijad is currently proving that, on many fronts, besides the one you cite in this post.

I wonder what the total number of Palestians who have been killed or become refugees in their own homeland over the last 50 years? What makes a group of people a terrorist or a legitimate political group or government? Money, arms and American backing shouldnt be the only thing that validates a countries existence.

EU will not call Hezbollah a terrorist group is because they want to appear "balanced". Behind close doors I am sure they think Hezbollah is a terrorist group. I believe everyone would like Hezbollah disarm w/ the exception of Iran and Syria.

A cowards way of not jeopardising any financial loses within the Middle East in case someone gets mad at them.
The same reason they abstain, or vote the opposite of the US when they know we are going to "veto" anyway. Why take a risk when America will do it...?

The E.U. is WEAK!!! COME ON ITS LIKE SHEESH!!! GET A BACK BONE!!

No wonder people keep forgetting why we're fighting.

Who is fighting?

Certainly not Rob Port.

probly has flat feet.

Using the term terrorist is an easy way out. Every army has used terrorism or terrorist tactics. The IRA were not a "terrorist" organisation. If you choose to call them that then you must consider the Irish governments the descendents of terrorists as the Irish Republican Brotherhood and the Irish Volunteers engaged in exactly the same tactics with exactly the same goals. They were in fact the predecessors of the IRA and the Irish government. How do you choose to distinguish your "terrorists"?
And of course the former prime minister of Israel Menachem Begin was a "terrorist" if you wish to defend Israel.

Good God do any of you even understand why the EU can not put the Hizbollah on the terrorists list?
It is very simple if Hizbollah is declared a terrorist organization then the EU has it's hands tied as to how much talking and diplomacy they can have with Hizbollah. They ran into this problem with Hamas. Everyone wanted to at least be able to talk and negotiate with Hamas as it was elected to the govt in Palestine so they had to circumvent the law by using a third party.
Given the current crisis with Lebanon the EU was not about to limit it's options in negotiating with Hizbollah to bring about and end and to help disarm the organization..
Unlike the USA and Bush , The EU believes in not ignoring people, parties, or governments if it can help the situation to come to an end. the US used to do this as well but now with the fool in the presidency,.. we have ZERO dialogue with Syria, Iran, or Hizbollah so just how in the hell can anyone negotiate an end if one only speaks to one side??

The UN is a wonderful organization feeding more then a million people in 80 countries..but...and thats a big but because Israel has not abided by their mandates in the past, only when beneficial to them. Even the Americans and British didnt pay much attention to the UN when they invaded Iraq.

and...excellent post Kelly!

"Israel's always the one that everyone chooses to point out their every breach of international law (along with the US). "

The reason I chose Israel was because we were discussing Hezbollah and Israel. Israel refuses to a cease-fire until Hezbollah abides by the UN's mandate to disarm. If they only obey the ones they choose its riduculous to use it as a condition on any other group or country.

Why I and many others use the US as an example is because they are a world power. They have so much influence, power and control in the world and their hopes and expectations are very high for all other countries. If you say one thing and do another, without a doubt you will be called on it. In my eyes the moment United States and Britain went against the UN, was the moment the UN lost all validity.

Kelly, the US hasn't had any dialog with Iran UNTIL the current "fool" was in office. Pres. Bush's ambassador to Iraq has had the first official contact with Iran since 1979.

However, the Reagan administration had "unofficial" contact with Iran, but I don't know much about the Clinton administrations efforts to have any official "contact" with Iran, or Hamas, or Hezbollah. Cite what you're talking about, or spare us from statements like "US used to do this as well but now with the fool in the presidency...we have ZERO dialogue with Syria, Iran, or Hizbollah." We do, but it is not always "official."