Hezbollah 'proud of being US enemy' , page 1

privacy

Pages: << 1 2 3 4 >>
ATS Members have flagged this thread 4 times

Topic started on 14-1-2008 @ 11:23 AM by budski

Hezbollah 'proud of being US enemy'

www.presstv.ir

Hezbollah slams the US for accusing Iran of supporting armed groups in the region, saying he is honored to be an enemy 'of the Great Satan'.

“I won't hide it. I felt honored when [US President George W.] Bush spoke about Hezbollah and resistance movements because when the Pharaoh and the Great Satan accuse us and considers us enemies ... it is an honor for us,” said the movement's Secretary General Seyyed Hassan Nasrallah Sunday night.

(visit the link for the full news article)

reply posted on 14-1-2008 @ 11:23 AM by budski

Bush's speech in the UAE seems to have brought a rallying cry from extremists in the region, as expected.

UAE leaders apparently did not appreciate bush's rhetoric either as this article shows
www.presstv.ir...

France is to sign a nuclear accord with the UAE soon
www.feedsyndicate.com... but will also not put up with the rhetoric coming from dubya.

Leaders in the region have repeatedly said that there must be no more war, and yet bush seems determined to start one.

Unfortunately, bush is playing right into the hands of extremists by his constant want for war - or is it a need?

www.presstv.ir
(visit the link for the full news article)

reply posted on 14-1-2008 @ 11:31 AM by Desert Dawg

I wonder if some aspects of the speech were designed to elicit a response from terrorists who - while quite proud - remain hidden?

It could make it easier to find them since they would want to respond while the speech is still fresh in the mind of the pubic.

reply posted on 14-1-2008 @ 11:34 AM by budski

reply to post by Desert Dawg

I don't think it would make them easier to find, but it may validate them in the eyes of the regional population - after all, the only person talking about war is bush.

reply posted on 14-1-2008 @ 11:34 AM by Britguy

I hardly think Hesbollah rank as "extremists". They are simply a political force and defensive militia. Of course, the US and Israel label anyone who won't bow to them as terrorists.
It's all a matter of perspective and spin.

reply posted on 14-1-2008 @ 11:36 AM by budski

reply to post by Britguy

It was a bit naughty of me, I admit - but there are extremists in hezbollah, just as there are in any organisation.
And they have been labelled as such before - not by me though.

On the other side of the coin, would it not be reasonable to refer to someone as an extremist when they call another sovereign nation "The Great Satan"?

Then again, I'd probably refer to bush as an extremist if pressed on the issue.

[edit on 14/1/2008 by budski]

reply posted on 14-1-2008 @ 12:11 PM by Britguy

reply to post by budski

The big problem is that the corporate press only ever report one side of things. Those who oppose our leaders are always portrayed as the bad guys but there's always a reason behind the mistrust and hostility.
A Gazan only has to sneeze in the direction of an Israeli settlement and it's an act of terrorism yet a gang of masked settlers beating a poor elderly shepherd within an inch of his life gets no mention by our press.
It's all control of information which thankfully they are losing their grip on via the internet. Perhaps that's why we now hear the cries that extremists use the internet for recruitment and planning and how it must be controlled

reply posted on 14-1-2008 @ 12:20 PM by budski

reply to post by Britguy

Yes, I had this discussion on another thread - but western "extremists" refute the idea that the media could possibly be in the pocket of the governments and vice versa.

By extremists, I mean those who support war just because their leader says it's the answer - and there are just as many western extremists as islamic ones in that regard.

I view any unwarranted attack on civilians or another sovereign nation as extremist - and both the UK and US has been guilty of that in iraq.

Our respective governments try to portray themselves as moderate and only wanting peace in the region, but that's not the message that comes across when they speak.

I also think that extremists DO use the net to support their goals, but this is simply because it is now the easiest most annonymous medium for achieving this end.

reply posted on 14-1-2008 @ 12:21 PM by yahn goodey

reply to post by budski

dont try to make sense out of what you hear these muslim extremists say----they are not playing with a full deck---you will get an equal amount of "rational thinking"? if you go to an insane assylum and interview the inmates.

the # 1 goal of muslim extremists is TO DIE in a jihad in which they believe they please their god allah who cant wait? to reward their dedication to it with 70 she camels and a little boy in the muslim version of heaven------which is the figment of muhammad's imagination----not reality.

these guys worship a god of death and are determined to get there and take us to our "hell" at the same time----they think they need a worthy opponent to please their god more by fighting that one---pres. bush in this case.

reply posted on 14-1-2008 @ 12:23 PM by Rahl Darc

That is why the bbc , who are paid for by the public are so obnoxious in their reporting, they should have no agenda, no political bias , they have no paymasters or corporations to answer to .. but they above all reek in the stench of propoganda , of blatant lies and mis truths.

There was a day you could trust the british broadcasting company, but that day has passed, they are no more than the front line of spin of government, a shallow anaemic shadow of their former selves, and a waste of british license payers money.

[edit on 14-1-2008 by Rahl Darc]

reply posted on 14-1-2008 @ 12:30 PM by budski

yahn goodey,
erm
they pray to the same god we do, said god being one of vengeance and violence if you believe the old testament.

And if these guys are not playing with a full deck, then what about bush? he's hardly a model of restraint where military action is concerned.

The difference between choosing death for a cause and being sent to your death for political purposes by corrupt and inept leaders is a very fine line.

Rahl Darc,
agreed - although they ARE getting better. The problem is the left wing luvvies that infest the corporation and in whose eyes a labour government can do no wrong, despite the fact that this is hardly a true labour government.

reply posted on 14-1-2008 @ 12:42 PM by Rahl Darc

I do not think it is a left wing influence, perhaps instead one emanating from a nation slightly south of Lebanon.

And you can tell their methods work, look at yahn goody post above, he is convinced of the evils of muslim terrorists , there will always be a sizeable proportion of any population, especially in the dumbed down US and lately UK that will believe all the spin they are told .

[edit on 14-1-2008 by Rahl Darc]

reply posted on 14-1-2008 @ 12:45 PM by BlueRaja

reply to post by Britguy

Anyone that attacks civilian targets to affect political change, is a terrorist.
A pizza parlor, bus stop, open air market, is not a valid military target. Certainly not for indescriminate killing with suicide bombers/car bombs/mortar/rocket attacks.

reply posted on 14-1-2008 @ 01:02 PM by budski

reply to post by BlueRaja

So in effect, you are saying that the US and UK are terrorists - at least regarding iraq and perhaps afghanistan, where cluster munitions are routinely used in civilian areas.

www.abovetopsecret.com...

www.abovetopsecret.com...

Can't say I disagree - but perhaps it's more pertinent to the political leaders than to the soldiers on the ground.

"I was only following orders" was not considered a defense at nuremberg was it?

[edit on 14/1/2008 by budski]

reply posted on 14-1-2008 @ 01:05 PM by Rahl Darc

Except thats not the way it works for the US/UK imperial forces, anyone not in army uniform attacking their soldiers are terrorists, you see how far you get if your nation is under sanctions for years and your army disbanded and you didn't like the occupiers scheming to take your oil, you fight back in your civilian garb and be called a terrorist . You be tortured and abused for fighting for your country, see what you think about the definition then .

reply posted on 14-1-2008 @ 01:10 PM by budski

reply to post by Rahl Darc

I'm not so quick to blame the guys on the ground over there - I am however pretty quick to blame bush/blair for their warmongering.

I'm hoping that brown has more sense and doesn't get embroiled in the "attack iran at all costs" campaign that bush has been forming.

Where exactly is his royal tonyness anyway?
Thought his new job was envoy to the mid east - oh that's right, he's letting bush get his licks in first.

reply posted on 14-1-2008 @ 01:17 PM by _Phoenix_

As I've said many times before attacking Iran will be one of the greatest mistakes in history.
Think about all those crazy extrimist people out there, who are just waiting for the excuse to go make some chaos, attacking Iran will be like bombing the gates of hell, all hell will break loose!!

If once the attack begins, guess who will be the winners? Not Iran, not the USA, but the terrorists, extrimists etc. because to them they WANT violence and war, and attacking Iran would be giving it to them.

[edit on 14-1-2008 by _Phoenix_]

reply posted on 14-1-2008 @ 01:26 PM by Becker44

reply to post by budski

Budski,

I've read all your posts on this thread.

Here's my take for what it's worth. You post about Hezbollah yet quickly derail your own thread in order to continue your personal crusade of Bush/Blair bashing while sympathizing with known terrorist groups.

We all get your point. We've seen all of your posts. We get it! The West sucks and are the creators of all things evil. Right?

I doubt you'll read the link but what the heck here it is.

www.brookings.edu...

Becker

reply posted on 14-1-2008 @ 01:29 PM by Becker44

reply to post by _Phoenix_