[Jameison]

"I am therefore not sure what you're saying. "

It's clear enough.

"Yes, Franco was a Fascist, allied with the equally wonderful and confused Mussolini and Mussolini's fave buddy, Hitler."

What does that got to do with the fact that he decisively WON won a civil war against an entity that wasn't a " clear definition of the enemy state", contrary to your statement that:

"Absent a clear definition of the enemy state, it is impossible to wage and decisively win a war"

Its totally irrelevant if Franco was fascist, allied with Hitler or whatever.
Your statement has been proved wrong. Period.
You just keep trying to change the subject to something that has nothing to do with it.
You can wiggle all you want, its not going to save ya sorry ass.

[cake_crumb]

'What does that got to do with the fact that he decisively WON won a civil war against an entity that wasn't a " clear definition of the enemy state"...'

That he exucuted between 100,000 and 200,000 non-combatants who did not fall under the definition of enemy of the state in order to do it. This is his own admission - actually, he claimed to have executed more - and defies his contention that civil wars are not won by fighting people with no clear definition as enemies of the state.

I STILL don't see how the Spanish Civil War analogizes with this long-running conflict between Hezbollah and Israel. Hezbollah fights for a non-existant Pali state and therefore does fall under the difinition of "enemy of the state" as terrorists, but not under any definition of revolutionaries because they're not fighting for a state.