A declaration of war? Nuclear incineration of the West Bank would be more appropriate.

These savages have received about a billion dollars from American taxpayers this past couple of decades, courtesy of Jimmy Carter and the custardheads who've followed in his tracks. If they were to harm one hair on an American head, they'd automatically reduce themselves to below the moral status of Osama bin Laden. I'd want to see the Earth cleansed of them entirely. They've already earned that fate many times over, by their atrocities against Israel.

There was a time when, had they acted as civilized men and presented their claims the way civilized men would do it, I'd have been willing to listen to them. Skeptically, perhaps, given the events of 1947-48, but I'd listen. But they've behaved like rabid dogs, in the name of a "religion" that decrees anyone not a Muslim to be without rights, and which commands them to impose themselves on the world by whatever means are expedient.

Beware, subhumans: Americans are fed up with you. Europe will not protect you. And Israel has its own reasons for wanting to give you all lead enemas. Good and sufficient ones.

Well i'll say one thing, nuclear incineration of the West Bank would solve the problems there because there would be no-one left.

I can't beleive the stuff that those gutless bastards do. Whilst Israel isn't totally innoceant either, I'd rather not communicate with people who target innoceants on purpose such as terrorists. We should take them outside and give them a attitude adjustment via a lead pole!

PS: And as an Aussie, it takes a lot to piss me off!

Theoretically, we've already declared war on them, assuming Hezbollah has "global reach."

And, of course, these are the guys who blew up 258 Americans in Beirut in 1982. They were also behind the spate of kidnappings in the mid 1980s that ultimately resulted in the Iran-Contra mess.

James is right. The question is why aren't we acting on it already? Some, like Bob Graham argued Hizbollah was a bigger threat than Saddam... he may have been right but the point is moot.

We shouldnt' wait any longer, we should aggressively prosecute the war that's already been declared.

Dean:

Why are you asking the question? The Bush Doctrine makes it clear that we should already be fighting them. If we're not, then it means that the Bush Doctrine is either a load of crap or George W. Bush has gone wobbly once again. Which is it?

Blade:

Whilst Israel isn't totally innoceant either...

You crack me up! So a bulldozer and a homicide bomber are, um, morally equivalent, right?

I think an all-out war, ought to be declared against Hezbollah, and other such Islamofascist terrorists. I think the Bush Administration is just being too tentative. Instead of invading Iraq, they ought to have taken a good look at Hezbollah, and other such groups in the mid east and hit them hard, very hard!!!!
And then there is the problem with out so-called "friends" the Saudis. we ought to go afterthem and institute a regime change there too, because the House of Saud has allowed the Wahaabis, and other Islamofascists to flourish, and they are actually providing aid and support, financial and otherwise to bin-Ladin and all his fellow travellers.

To be blunt, while I see Israel as an ally (and honestly, have I been anything but an Israel supporter since 9/11?), I have a hard time thinking of Hezbollah as an "international terrorist organization" so much as Israel's problem.

We can quote Bush until the sun goes down about terrorism--most of us understood him to mean terrorist groups who pose an international threat. Else the "War on Terror" would, quite literally, not end until every street gang on the globe was wiped out. Which would mean, effectively, never-ending conflict, forever and ever amen.

Of course, if Hezbollah kidnaps an American, they cease to be mostly-Israel's problem, don't they?

Dean:
According to Gal Luft (Commentary, July-August), they did the Khobar Towers bombing in Arabia. He claims they trained the Qaeda people who blew up the embassies in Kenya and Tanzania. They are implanted around the Brazil-Paraguay-Argentina border, where they run guns and smuggle drugs to raise funds. One of the FBI's 22 most wanted, Ayub Fawzi, was last known as operating in Canada. Muhammad Hammoud, one of theirs, was recently busted in North Carolina for running bootleg cigarettes to Michigan and shipping stuff to the Hez in Lebanon. Their worldwide leader, Sheikh Hassan Nasrallah, announced just before the invasion of Iraq that "'Death to America' was, is, and will remain our slogan." With a solid base in the southern quarter of Lebanon and state support from Syria and Iran, he is a vastly more dangerous figure than UBL. Is all of that enough global reach for you?
The obvious problem is that to attack him effectively would require an invasion of Lebanon coupled with stark deterrent ultimata to Syria & Iraq. A heap of spaghetti on Bushie's plate.

Ara,

The Bush Doctrine makes it clear that we should already be fighting them. If we're not, then it means that the Bush Doctrine is either a load of crap or George W. Bush has gone wobbly once again. Which is it?

Ahhhhh, you're letting your virulent hatred for George Bush cloud your judgement again. We can't fight ALL the terrorist groups at once. Each in its own time.

I'm looking forward to the time when all the raghead terrorists have been disposed of, and the IRA eviscerated, and the government turns it's attention to the Earth Liberation Front.

Each in its own time.

Ronin,

The Sauds are on the list. Count on it.

a bulldozer and a homocide bomber are not equivalent. but there is a reason that the idf is considered an army and not a construction crew. that is because the bulldozer is not their primary weapon.

be that as it may, i'm as much against terrorism and for global efforts against it as the next guy, however somebody i trust and looks closely at this stew suggests very strongly that it is highly improper, no matter what israelis might say, to consider hezbolla an organization similiar to the al-aksa brigades, hamas or fatah. essentially if you look at the history of the militant activities as well as the span of all activities of the four organizations, you will find that hezbolla engages in the least amount of attacks on civilians.

the proper thing to do in any war is to measure ones offensive against the offensiveness of the enemy. i doubt that even israel consideres hezbollah the exact same kind of threat as the others.

no talk about nuking DOES MUCH MORE THAN PUTS EXCLAMATION POINTS and capital letters around poor judgement.

The point that we can't go after everyone all at once is an important one to remember.

We're obviously targeting all of them--the question is, who to focus on the most at any one time?

The war in Iraq dealt a major blow to our enemies. The question is: who's next as target #1?

Dean,

Thats right - can't go after all of them, all at once. But, a gibbet is the place for any terrorist; it'd be nice to hang that sheik by his nuts and let him swing over a pig stye.

Patience....its a virtue.