'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.
Totally irrelevant to my post.
My post is focused on debunking a vey broad statement made by a poster on this thread, which was:
"Absent a clear definition of the enemy state, it is impossible to wage and decisively win a war"
Period.
I am not interested in the morals of Franco or the morals of the Algerian government that was also able to squash an insurgency that run against the Algerian government for over 10 years.
I am interested in proving that "Absent a clear definition of the enemy state" it HAS been possible to win decisive victories?
Can you get that into ya very thick skull?